7 
Professor McCoy’s conclusions for the Mount Potts fossil shells, at least Carboniferous. 
Moreover, there is no doubt that they are of the same age as the formations which 
in New South Wales contain the fine coalfields.” 
Thus Haast clearly regarded the whole series as of Palseozoic age. This con¬ 
clusion, published in 1877, began a controversy which lasted for several years, in 
which Hector was Haast’s chief opponent. Hector(l), speaking of Haast’s report, 
said, “ I have to state that the Pecopteris, Tceniopteris, and Camptopteris [of the 
Clent Hills] mentioned by Dr. Haast are all quite different in appearance from the 
Australian species, but the same species have been obtained in the Waikara beds 
in Otago, which are certainly not Palseozoic, but of the same age as the Mataura 
Series. The negative evidence adduced cannot be considered of much value, and it 
is advisable to reserve opinions on the question of the relations which exist between 
these plant-beds of the Clent Hills and the Mount Potts Spirifer beds until more 
direct evidence can be obtained than we are at present in the possession of.” 
McKay’s visit(2) to Mount Potts in 1878 resulted not only in the discovery 
of a fossil flora in the beds exposed in Tank Gully, but also in a new interpretation 
of the succession, which has in the main been confirmed by Park(3) more recently. 
McKay obtained the fossil plants from shales occurring 2,000 ft. below those con¬ 
taining the marine fauna(4). Hector(5) described the plants collected by % McKay 
as “ Glossopteris augustifolia and Schizoneura sp.,” and stated that the beds at Mount 
Potts are “ full of the leaves of the Glossopteris ”(6). Hector’s assertion that Glos¬ 
sopteris occurs at Mount Potts was repeated from time to time. In 1886 he gave a 
general review of the position of the controversy(7). In the same year he also 
stated that “ at the base of the Kaihiku Series are the Glossopteris beds of Mount « 
Potts ; but these were not found in the Hokanui section, although from the thickness 
of the strata the relative beds must be included in it; while in the Kaihiku district 
Glossopteris occurs in the lower beds as developed in Popotunoa Gorge ”(8). 
It is unnecessary to follow the controversy(7) further here. The position may 
be summed up as follows : Haast regarded the marine fauna and plant-beds of Mount 
Potts as of the same age as the plant - bearing series in the Clent Hills, and that 
age as Carboniferous. Hector(9) asserted that the Mount Potts flora was either 
Carboniferous or Permian, but that the Clent Hill beds were Jurassic. 
At one time in Europe it appeared probable that in Mount Potts we might 
have a similar succession to the lower part of the Permo-Carboniferous sequence 
of New South Wales, where marine horizons, containing Upper Carboniferous mollusca, 
alternate with estuarine beds containing Glossopteris. This would accord with McCoy’s 
conclusions as to the faima and Hector’s view of the flora of Mount Potts. The 
obvious difficulty to this belief was the association of vertebrate bones, believed to 
be those of saurians, with this fauna, and this association naturally played a con¬ 
siderable part in the discussion in New Zealand. 
I may perhaps anticipate the results of the present examination here to complete 
the story. There is little doubt that Haast, McCoy, and Hector were all three mis¬ 
taken in their conclusions as to the age of these beds. The flora of Mount Potts proves 
(1) Hector (1877), p. vi. Eor “Waikara” 
read “ Waikawa.” (See Table of 
Errata in publication cited.) 
(2) McKay (1878 1 ). See also Hector (1878 1 ), 
p. iv ; Hector (1878 2 ), p. 533. 
(3) Park (1904), p. 388. 
(4) McKay (1878 1 ), P- 106. 
(5) Hector (1878 1 ), p. iv. 
(6) Hector (1878 2 3 4 5 ), p. 533. The earliest re¬ 
ference to Glossopteris in New Zealand 
is by Hector in 1869, from the Hokanui 
Mountains—Hector (1869), p. iii. 
(7) Hector (1886 2 ). 
(8) Hector (1886 1 ), p. 77. 
(9) Hector Q886 1 ). 
