W. Travers. — Supposed Pleistocene Glaciation of Few Zealand. 427 



signs of imbedded shells. Indeed 



situations, 

 will sink i 



own weight 



It is remarkable, moreover, that in the Timaru beds, at the height of 650 

 feet above sea level, Dr. Haast observed a lower dolerite sheet underlying the 

 above mentioned younger pliocene beds, and covering fossiliferous beds of 

 lower mioeene age ; and equally remarkable that a prolongation of the gradient 

 at which these lower fossil beds rise from sea level at Timaru would, at the 

 same distance from the sea shore as certain fossils beds which are exposed at 

 the Rakaia, carry them to about the same altitude above that level. These 

 llakaia beds are also of lower mioeene age, and it may, therefore, be assumed 

 that the beds covered by the lower dolerite sheet must have been above sea 

 level during a greater part of the interval between that epoch and the 

 occurrence of some depression during which the newer pliocene beds which 

 overlie this lower dolerite sheet were deposited. I have reason, however, for 

 believing that the beds which Dr. HaastHhas called "newer pliocene" are in 

 reality of mioeene age, and if this be the case, then my own views are further 

 strengthened, as this fact would indicate clearly the absence of any pliocene 

 beds in the district in question. I might quote, from many other papers of 

 Dr. Haast's, statements irreconcilable with the views contained in his report 



din 



bearing 



The accuracy of Dr. Haast's statement, "that the greatest height to which 



Canterbury 



pugned 



eastern 

 terbury 



extending to upwards of 300 feet above the present sea level ; whilst he also 

 gives reasons for believing that deposits which occur upwards of 1000 feet 

 above it are also of recent marine origin. The former fact alone, however, 

 would be sufficient to dispose of Dr. Haast's assertions, and the mere negative 

 evidence afforded by the non-discovery of littoral shells amongst the materials 



plains cannot outweigh them for a moment Nor can 

 I conceive that even Dr. Haast himself would venture to assert that his 

 examination of the Canterbury plains — the materials of which below the 

 surface are only exposed in the courses of the great rivers — has been sufficiently 

 exhaustive to preclude the possibility of the existence of shell deposits in any 

 part of them. I may urge, moreover, that the 



bury 



:, that the discovery of beds of sea shells 

 )h compose the major part of the plains — 



distributed by marine agency, during the 



