Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T18:18:40.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—The Age of the Maitai Series of New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

C. T. Trechmann M.Sc., F.G.S.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of the age of the Maitai Series is one of the most important which concern New Zealand geology, and one which has aroused the greatest controversy and uncertainty. F. von Hochstetter, before any distinctive fossils had been found in these rocks, considered that the “Maitai Series”, which form the hills bounding on the east and south-east the strip of fossiliferous Trias of the Nelson area, were of Triassic age, and underlay the sandstones with Monotis salinaria. In 1873 F. W. Hutton referred the Maitai to the Jurassic on the supposed occurrence of Inoceramus. A. McKay in 1878, during the survey of the Nelson district, found several fossils, obviously of late Palæozoic age, in the Maitai Limestone of the upper part of the lower Wairoa Gorge opposite a place called Martin's Saw-mill. Sir J. Hector identified these as Spirifera bisulcata, Productus brachythærus, Cyathophyllum, and Cyathocrinus. McKay also surveyed and collected from the Maitai slates and argillites at Wooded Peak, on the Dun Mountain Tramway, some five miles east of Nelson. A large bivalve shell having the prismatic structure and general outline and concentric plication of Inoceramus occurs here. McKay, however, in his report adds that “there are material differences between this shell and the ordinary forms of Inoceramus which may warrant its being considered the type of a new genus”.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , February 1917 , pp. 53 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1917

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 von Hochstetter, F., New Zealand, 1867, p. 57.Google Scholar

2 Now known as Pseudomonotis Richmondiana.

3 Reports of Geol. Explorations, 1873–4, p. 34.Google Scholar

4 Reports of Geol. Explorations, 1877–8, issued 1878, pp. 124, 132.Google Scholar

5 Reports of Geol. Explorations, 1877–8, Introduction, p. xii.Google Scholar

6 “On the Jurassic Age of the Maitai Series”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xxxvi, p. 431.Google Scholar

1 Geology of New Zealand, 1910, p. 50.Google Scholar

2 The Geology of the Dun Mountain Subdivision, Nelson, Bulletin No. 12 (New Series), 1911, p. 21.Google Scholar

3 Handbuch der regionalen Geologie (Heidelberg): New Zealand and adjacent islands. English reprint, Heft v. Bd. vii, Abt. i, p. 16.Google Scholar

1 McKay, , “Ashley and Amuri Counties”: Rep. Geol. Expl. for 1879–80, issued 1881, p. 88.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., pp. 89–90.

3 Ibid., “Lake County,” p. 142.

1 McKay, , “Report on the Wairoa and Dun Mt. Districts”: Rep. Geol. Expl. for 1877–8, issued 1878, p. 135.Google Scholar

1 Descriptions of the Palœozoic Fossils of New South Wales, Eng. trans. (Mem. Geol. Surv. N.S.W.), Palæontology, No. 6, 1898, p. 238, pl. xxi, figs. 5, 6.Google Scholar

2 This structure is, of course, quite different from that of Inoceramus, which has a row of vertical ligament pits on the area.

1 I may here remark that in consequence of the occurrence of annelid-like tubes in the Maitai Limestone similar to those in the Mt. Torlesse beds and in the Yakutat slates of Alaska I suspected that the genus Inoceramya, Ulrich, from the latter beds might be similar to the New Zealand shell. But on looking up the description of this shell in the report of the Harriman Alaska Expedition, I found that it is quite different and possesses a series of vertical ligamentary pits and is undoubtedly closely related to Inoceramus. The Yakutat slates seem to be of Liassic age.

2 Etheridge, Jack, Geology and Palœontology of Queensland, 1892, p. 286, pl. xv, fig. 6.Google Scholar

1 Etheridge, Jack, Geology and Palœontology of Queensland, 1892, p. 260.Google Scholar

2 Palœozoic Fossils of New South Wales, p. 170, pl. ix, fig. 4.Google Scholar

1 “Salt Range Fossils”: 1, Productus Limestone Fossils: Pal. Ind., ser. XIII, vol. iv, fasc. 2, p. 525, 1883.Google Scholar

2 Palœontology and Geology of Queensland, 1892, p. 237.Google Scholar

3 Palœozoic Fossils of New South Wales, pl. xiv, fig. 5c.Google Scholar

1 Palœozoic Fossils of New South Wales, pl. v, fig. 7.

1 “The Mount Torlesse Annelid”: Geol. Mag., Dec. V, Vol. II, pp. 532–541, 1905.Google Scholar

2 “Salt Range Fossils”: Geological results: Pal. Ind., ser. XIII, vol. iv, pt. ii, p. 135, pl. iii, figs. 5, 6a, b, 1891.Google Scholar

3 “Preliminary Note on the Fossil Plants of the Mount Potts Beds, New Zealand”: Proc. Roy. Soc., B, vol. lxxxvi, pp. 344–347, 1913Google Scholar. Mr. Arber remarked to me in a letter that even if Glossopteris should be found at Mt. Potts, which is extremely improbable, it would not mean that the beds are Permo-Carboniferous, since Glossopteris occurs in Rhætic beds in Tonkin and China. The Mt. Potts flora is a Mesozoic one “beyond redemption”

1 The reported occurrence of an unconformity between the Kaihiku and Takitimu Series in the Takitimu Ranges seems to require further investigation. Cox, Rep. Geol. Explorations, 1877–8, “Geology of the Te Anau District,” p. 113.Google Scholar