" CURIOSITY-SHOP BED " IN CANTEEBURT, NEW ZEALAND. 563 



the limestones are conformable to the beds which underlie, and 

 these, proving to he the equivalents of each other ^ prove also the syn- 

 chronism of the Ototara and Maerewhenua limestones " {I. c. p. 69). 

 But he has just before said (on the same page) that, as the identity 

 of the Ototara stone with the Maerewhenua limestone cannot be 

 proved by fossils, because these are too few in the Ototara stone, 

 " it thus became necessary to prove the relationship of the beds 

 underlying the limestones in the two localities. Here again the 

 tufas of the Waireka Valley differed considerably from the grey 

 sands and marly greensands underlying the Maerewhenua lime- 

 stone ; and while in the latter locality the beds proved highly 

 fossiliferous, fossils were wholly absent in the beds underlying the 

 Ototara stone, so that in this case also identify could not he proved 

 hy means of the fossil contents of the heds.'^ I do not wish to dispute 

 this point, as I believe all to belong to the same series. I merely 

 wish to show that he has not proved his case. Indeed, in a further 

 Beport, printed in the same volume, Mr. M^Kay says that " the 

 middle part of the Maerewhenua limestone belongs, I consider, 

 to this horizon [Otakaika limestone], leaving only the lower portion 

 of that rock as the equivalent of the Ototara limestone " (I. c. 

 p. 103), thus abandoning his supposed proof altogether. This 

 alteration was made because remains of KeJcenodon (a Zeuglodont) 

 were discovered in the limestone ; and this change alone must throw 

 considerable doubt on the asserted unconformity between the U2)per 

 Eocene and Cretaceo-Tertiary rocks in this district. 



But, as a matter of fact, I can only find in the Eeport one place in 

 which an unconformity is said by Mr. M^'Kay to occur between the 

 Upper Eocene and Cretaceo-Tertiary series. In his " Section showing 

 position of coal-seam, Wharekauri " (l. c. p. 64), the Otakaika 

 limestone (No. 2) is shown unconformable to the marly greensands 

 (No. 6). The section is described as a sketch of the rocks seen in 

 following up the Wharekauri Creek from the Waitaki ; but at p. 73 

 he says that this section is, he believes, " exactly as the section 

 would appear, provided the obscuring gravels could be cleared away," 

 so that evidently its accuracy may be doubted. Also no evidence is 

 given that these "marly greensands" are not the Kekenodon beds, 

 which are found in the close neighbourhood, it being merely stated 

 that the unconformity is demonstrated " by the absence of the higher 

 part of the marly greensands and the Maerewhenua limestone" 

 (l. c. p. 68). Mr. M^Kay remarks that here " the section of the 

 younger beds is somewhat complicated ; and from the fact that the 

 Kekenodon beds are themselves a marly greensand, and their un- 

 conformity to the Cretaceo-Tertiary marly greensands not being well 

 marked, the two sets of beds may in places be taken to represent 

 the higher and lower parts of the same series" (l. c. p. 73). Evi- 

 dently there is here no "clear proof" of unconformity, especially as 

 in his Second Report Mr. M'^Kay describes the underlying marly 

 greensands in this locality as " nearly horizontal " (l. c. p. 101), and 

 therefore conformable in position to the overlying limestone. He 

 certainly says that " the fossils belonging to the two horizons [of 



