ORTMANN : TERTIARY INVERTEBRATES. 
269 
else, it is beyond doubt that we must take the mouth of the Santa Cruz 
River as the type-locality for the Leonense beds. 1 
As regards the Suprapatagonian beds , Ameghino does not take the 
trouble to give the slightest hint as to a type-locality. Species coming 
from this subdivision are given by v. Ihering chiefly from two places 
called “La Cueva ” and “Jegua quemada.” The geographical position 
of these places is not given, and Mr. Hatcher — although trying to do 
so — was not able to locate them, when he was at Santa Cruz. Thus the 
only way left is to try to identify the Suprapatagonian beds according to 
the characteristic fossils given, but — as we shall see below — this has 
proved to be a complete failure. 
V. Ihering recognized the importance of the establishment of a type- 
locality, and the careful registering of the fossils found there. He sent 
his collector, Mr. Bicego, to Santa Cruz, and tried to get as many fossils 
as possible from this old type-locality of Patagonian beds. The result of 
these investigations was published in the paper of 1899. V. Ihering here 
gives a list of the fossils found at Santa Cruz, and by comparing them 
with those recorded by him — on the authority of Ameghino — from the 
Suprapatagonian beds, gives ( 1 . c., p. 38) a list of the characteristic fossils 
from both the Patagonian and Suprapatagonian beds. 
According to him, the following species found at Santa Cruz must be 
taken as characteristic of the Patagonian formation , since they never have 
been found in what Ameghino calls Suprapatagonian beds) : 2 
Cucullcea alta. Venus patagonica. 
Pecten fissicostalis (= P. geminates'). Dosinia Iceviuscula. 
CarcLita patagonica (= C. incequalis). Struthiolaria ornata. 
Lucina ortmanni. Siphonalia dilatata (= S. donieykoana). 
Cardium puelchuin. 
For the Suprapatagonian beds he gives the following characteristic fos- 
sils, which — according to him — have never been found at Santa Cruz : 
1 The manner in which Ameghino distorts facts in order to suit his preconceived theories is 
simply astonishing. In 1899 (p. 12) he says — in discussing the section of Punta Arenas discov- 
ered by Hatcher and described by the present writer — that the fauna of his Piso Leonense is 
known only in small part, while, as has been demonstrated above, this fauna must be identical 
with that of the type-locality of the whole of the Patagonian beds at Santa Cruz, and this fauna, 
indeed, is the best known part of the Patagonian fauna. 
2 1 omit Siphonalia noacliina , since this has never been found at Santa Cruz, and also Voluta 
alta , since this species is altogether doubtful (see p. 231). 
