Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:51:20.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

II.—The Structure and Later Geological History of New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

C. A. Cotton
Affiliation:
Victoria University College, Wellington, N.Z.

Extract

As is well known, the skeleton or oldermass of New Zealand is largely composed of a mass of deformed sedimentary rocks, the precise ages of the members of which are in doubt but do not affect the problem under consideration. The most profound deformation of this vast sedimentary group took place in late Jurassic or early Cretaceous times during what may be termed the “Mesozoic orogenic period”, when probably a great mountain range came into existence.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1916

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

page 243 note 2 The writer employs the convenient terms ‘oldermass’ and ‘covering strata’ or simply ‘cover’ in the sense in which similar terms were introduced by W. M. Davis (“Relation of Geography to Geology,” Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., vol. xxiii, pp. 93–124, 1912). ‘Oldermass’ means a mass of rocks, generally of complex structure and of various ages, which have been planed down by erosion and which have been covered, during a later period of submergence, by a series of ‘covering strata’.

page 243 note 3 Hutton, F. W., The Geology of Otago, Dunedin, 1875, p. 10;Google Scholar see also “On the Geology of the New Zealand Alps”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., 1886.Google Scholar

page 243 note 4 Suess, E., The Face of the Earth, vol. ii, p. 148, Oxford, 1906.Google Scholar

page 243 note 5 But see Morgan, P. G., “The Geology of the Mikonui Subdivision, North Westland,” N.Z. Geol. Surv., Bull. 6, 1908, p. 43;Google Scholar and also Speight, R., “The Mount Arrowsmith District: Physiography,” Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 319–20, 1911;Google Scholar “The Intermontane Basins of Canterbury,” ibid., vol. xlvii, pp. 336–53 (p. 353), 1915.

page 244 note 1 See, for example, Marshall, P., “New Zealand and Adjacent Islands,” Handbuch der regionalen Geologie, Bd. vii, Abt. i, p. 58, Heidelberg, 1911; Geology of New Zealand, Wellington, 1912, p. 127.Google Scholar

page 245 note 1 Gregory, J. W., “The Structural and Petrographic Classification of Coast Types”: Scientia, vol. xi, pp. 3663, 1912.Google Scholar

page 245 note 2 “Fault Coasts in New Zealand”: Geog. Rev., vol. i, pp. 2047, 1916.Google Scholar

page 245 note 3 McKay, A., “On the Geology of the East Part of Marlborough,” Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1885, pp. 27136, 1886;Google Scholar “On the Geology of Marlborough and South-East Nelson,” ibid., 1888–9, pp. 85–185, 1890.

page 245 note 4 Hutton, F. W., “Report on the Geology of the North-East Portion of the South Island”: Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1873–4, pp. 2758, 1877 (p. 32).Google Scholar

page 245 note 5 McKay, A., “On the Older Sedimentary Rocks of Ashley and Amuri Counties”: Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1879–80, pp. 83107, 1881 (p. 85).Google Scholar

page 245 note 6 von Haast, J., Geology of the Provinces of Canterbury and Westland, Christchurch, 1879.Google Scholar

page 245 note 7 Morgan, P. G., “The Geology of the Mikonui Subdivision, North Westland,” N.Z. Geol. Surv., Bull. 6, 1908; “A Note on the Structure of the Southern Alps,” Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 275–8 (p. 277), 1911.Google Scholar

page 245 note 8 Speight, R., “The Mount Arrowsmith District: Physiography”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 317–42 (p. 319), 1911.Google Scholar

page 246 note 1 Speight, R., “The Intermontane Basins of Canterbury”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xlvii, p. 350, 1915.Google Scholar

page 246 note 2 McKay, A., “On the Geology of the East Part of Marlborough,” Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1885, pp. 27136, 1886;Google Scholar “On the Geology of Marlborough and the Amuri District of Nelson,” ibid., 1888–9, pp. 85–185, 1890; “On the Geology of Marlborough and South-East Nelson,” pt. ii, ibid., 1890–1, pp. 1–28, 1892 (see pp. 5–7).

page 246 note 3 Hector, J., Col. Mus. and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Progress Report for 1885, 1886; Progress Report for 1888–9, 1890.Google Scholar

page 246 note 4 Progress Report for 1885, p. xviii.Google Scholar

page 246 note 5 Cotton, C. A., “On the Relations of the Great Marlborough Conglomerate …”: Journ. Geol., vol. xxii, pp. 34663, 1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 247 note 1 McKay, A., Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1890, pp. 153–4.Google Scholar

page 247 note 2 McKay, A., “Report on Tertiary Rocks at Makara”: Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1874–6, p. 54, 1877.Google Scholar

page 247 note 3 Thomson, J. A., “Mineral Prospects of the Maharahara District, Hawke's Bay”: 8th Ann. Rep. Geol. Surv., Mines Statement, 1915, p. 165.Google Scholar

page 247 note 4 Speight, R., “Geological History” in L. Cockayne's Report of a Botanical Survey of the Tongariro National Park, Department of Land, C. 11, Wellington, 1908, p. 7.Google Scholar

page 247 note 5 The hypothetical block movement which has been assumed in order to account for the Great Marlborough Conglomerate has been referred to on an earlier page. In a paper on the “Structure of the Paparoa Range”, read before the Geological Section of the Wellington Philosophical Society.Google Scholar

page 248 note 1 Geology of Otago, Dunedin, 1875, p. 76.Google Scholar

page 248 note 2 Progress Report, Rep. Geol. Expl., 1888–9, p. liv, 1890.Google Scholar

page 248 note 3 “On the Geology of Marlborough and South-East Nelson,” pt. ii: Rep. Geol. Expl., 1890–1, p. 7, 1892.Google Scholar

page 248 note 4 Henderson, J., “On the Genesis of the Surface Forms and Present Drainage-systems of West Nelson”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 306–15, 1911.Google Scholar

page 249 note 1 N.Z. Rep. Geol. Expl., 1892, p. 1.Google Scholar

page 249 note 2 Park, J., Geology of New Zealand, Christchurch, 1910, pp. 263, 265.Google Scholar

page 249 note 3 Geology of Otago, Dunedin, 1875, pp. 7785 and pl. ii.Google Scholar

page 249 note 4 Loc. cit., p. 76.Google Scholar

page 249 note 5 Loc. cit., p. 77; cf. also “Sketch of the Geology of New Zealand”, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xli, p. 196, 1885.Google Scholar

page 249 note 6 “The Geological History of New Zealand”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xxxii, p. 180, 1900.Google Scholar