ORTMANN I TERTIARY INVERTEBRATES. 
265 
mation, but to much younger deposits. I mention here the following, in 
which this fact has been demonstrated : 
1. Area bonplandiana d’Orb. Parana formation, see v. Ih., 1897, p. 329. 
2. Ostrea patagonica d’Orb. (and Phil.). Tehuelche formation, see v. Ih., p. 329, and our 
collections, p. 1 12. 
3. Ostrea ferrarisi d’Orb. Synonym of 0 . patagonica. 
4. Pecten darwinianus d’Orb. (and Sow.). Parana formation, see v. I he ring, p. 329. 
5. Pecten paranensis d’Orb. (and Sow.). Tehuelche and Parana formations, see v. Ihering, 
pp. 226 and 328. 
6. Pecten actinodes Sow. Tehuelche formation, v. Ih., and our collection, p. 1 19. 
7. Cardium platense d’Orb. Parana formation, see v. Ihering, p. 330. 
8. Venus muensteri d’Orb. (and Phil.). Tehuelche and Parana formation, see v. Ihering, pp. 
328 and 330. 
THE IDENTITY OF PATAGONIAN AND SUPRA- 
PATAGONIAN BEDS. 1 
1. The Type-locality at Santa Cruz. 
Ameghino (1898 and 1899), and, following him, v. Ihering distinguish 
two marine deposits underlying the non-marine Santacruzian beds (con- 
taining Mammalian remains) : the lower division is called by the term 
1 The general results to which the following detailed investigations lead have been published 
by Mr. Hatcher and the present writer in preliminary notes (J. B. Hatcher, 1900 a, Ortmann, 
1900). Although it was distinctly stated that the observed facts which furnish the base for our 
conclusions would be given in the present final report, F. Ameghino did not deem it necessary 
to wait for its publication, but, from the start, rejected them altogether as having no value at all 
(see, for instance, F. Ameghino, Notices preliminaires sur des Ongules nouveaux des terrains 
Cretaces de Patagonie, in: Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Cordoba, vol. 16, 
1901, p. 349). 
This is the more astonishing and throws a very peculiar light upon the character of Ameg- 
hino’s work, since he must have been aware of the fact that Mr. Hatcher, as well as the present 
writer, tried faithfully, at the beginning, to verify his views on the geology of Patagonia, and 
that it was during the progress of their studies that they ventured to express opinions contrary 
to those of Ameghino (compare Hatcher, 1897, pp. 334-338, and 1900a, p. 99 ff. ; Ortmann, 
1898, p. 482, and 1899, p. 432). Of course, then it was impossible to give the bulk of the evi- 
dence supporting our views, but the mere fact that we arrived at our conclusions by slow steps 
ought to have been sufficient proof to Ameghino that they were not hastily formed, and in this 
connection it is well to remember that Ameghino himself has never published any geological or 
stratigraphical facts in the form of sections or the like. 
