[Read before the Otago Institute, 8th August, 1922; received by Editor, 31st December, 1923; issued separately, 30th July, 1924.]
|Additional species recorded since the appearance of the list in N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 8||495|
|Necessary changes in the nomenclature introduced by previous workers||497|
|Discussion of some problems regarding errors in the list||499|
|General variation of species at Target Gully and notes on the localities||507|
|New records of existing species||508|
|Résumé of new points mentioned in the paper||512|
Since Target Gully is the richest fossil deposit in New Zealand, and in many ways is regarded as a type locality for the Awamoan horizon, it is necessary that its fauna should be thoroughly examined. Five visits have been paid to Oamaru localities, and some forty to fifty thousand specimens have been obtained. Examination of these has shown that the existing list of fossil shells from this locality (13a) * is far from complete, and needs much revision in its nomenclature. The present paper is a preliminary attempt to deal with this: it consists of lists of new records from four Oamaru localities, and a series of notes on the necessary nomenclatural changes. A complete list of the Mollusca from Target Gully will be presented on a future occasion.
The following species, not previously obtained from this locality, may now be added to the list. Where a name has been corrected, the old name is placed in square brackets after it. To facilitate reference the lists are in alphabetical order. An asterisk denotes a Recent species. Probably it will prove, when actual specimens have been compared, that the “Recent” species in these and other lists are not in all cases con-specific with now-living forms, but for the present these names are in usage and can be adopted as tentative.
Aethocola spinifera Finlay and McDowall.
Alectrion latecostata Sut.
Bela tenuilirata (Sut.). [Ptychatractus.]
*Cadulus delicatulus Sut. (Recorded as fossil previously only from Pakaurangi Point.)
Callanaitis speighti Sut. [Chione.]
Chlamys chathamensis (Hutt.). [Pecten.]
Cominella pulchra Sut.
Crossea cf. cancellata (T.-Woods). (New as a fossil.)
Cucullaea alta var. B Hutt.
Cucullaea attenuata Hutt.
Galeodea senex (Hutt.).
*Hexaplex octogonus var. umbilicatus (T.-Woods). [Murex.]
*Hexaplex octogonus var. espinosus (Hutt.). [Murex.]
[Footnote] * Numbers in brackets refer to the bibliography at the end of the paper.
*Lepidopleurus iredalei Ashby. [L. inquinatus.] (New to the Miocene, and the first Chiton recorded from the Awamoan.)
*Murex zelandicus Q. & G.
*Nuculana belluta (A. Ad.). [Leda.]
Ostrea wuellerstorfi Zitt. (A juvenile shell, but apparently referable to this species.)
Pecten beethami Hutt.
Pecten hutchinsoni Hutt.
*Pleurodon maorianus Hedley. (Previously recorded fossil only from Pukeuri.)
*Saxicava arctica (L.). (New for the Miocene.)
Sinum miocaenicum (Sut.).
Struthiolaria subspinosa Marwick.
Struthiolaria tuberculata Hutt.
Typhis maccoyi T.-Woods.
Vexillum fenestratum Sut. (Also at the Rifle Butts.)
Vexillum linctum (Hutt.).
In addition, various authors have recorded the following species from Target Gully:—
Admete suteri Marsh. & Murd (8b, p. 132).
Admete maorium Marsh. & Murd. (8c, p. 82).
Aethocola spinifera Finlay and McDowall (3, p. 113).
Austrotriton neozelanica Marsh. & Murd. (8d, p. 122).
Calliostoma suteri Finlay (2a, p. 101).
Calliostoma suteri var. fragile Finlay (2a, p. 102).
Couthouyia concinna Marsh. & Murd. (8c, p. 80).
Drillia laevis Hutt. (8a, p. 249).
Eulima aoteaensis Marsh. & Murd. (8c, p. 84).
Euthria subcallimorpha Marsh. & Murd. (8c, p. 83).
Ficus subtransennus Marsh. & Murd. (8a, p. 249).
Ficus imperfectus Marsh. & Murd. (8a, p. 255).
Melina zelandica Suter (8c, p. 77).
Odostomia pseudorugata Marsh. & Murd. (8c, p. 83).
Venericardia bollonsi Suter (8a, p. 249).
Vermicularia ophiodes Marsh. & Murd. (8c, p. 80).
Notes on Admete, Austrotriton, Euthria, and Odostomia will be found later on in this paper. The record of Melina zelandica Sut. is here confirmed (though the name should be Isognomon zelandicum (Sut.), Isognomon Solander, 1786, having two years' priority over Melina Retzius, 1788—see 6b, p. 303); but the identification of Drillia laevis Hutt. is probably erroneous. The name Ficus subtransennus is possibly a lapsus calami for F. transennus Sut.; if not, it is a nomen nudum, as no such shell has been described or figured.
Of the remaining species, Admete suteri and A. maorium are two of the shells termed “Merica n. spp.” by Suter in the list of 1916; Calliostoma suteri is his “Calliostoma n. sp.,” and its variety fragile is his “Basilissa n. sp.”; Eulima aoteaensis is his “Eulima n. sp.”; Odostomia pseudorygata is one of his “Odostomia, 2 n. sp.”; and Vermicularia ophiodes is his “Vermicularia sp.”
Suter's “Merica (Aphera) n. sp.” is a juvenile shell of Latirus brevirostris (Hutt.). This species is undoubtedly a Cancellarid, and, though not quite typical, agrees fairly well with Bivetia as defined by Cossmann. A true (undescribed) species of Aphera does, however, occur at Target Gully. Suter's “Sveltia n. sp.” is probably a Vexillum (Fusimitra) n. sp.
As regards the “Barnea n. sp.” of the list, there is considerable doubt. I have a small indeterminable fragment of a shell that may belong to this species, and perhaps this was the species Suter referred to; but in the collection of the Otago School of Mines is another shell which is so labelled in Suter's writing, and which is only a much-twisted left valve of Anomia trigonopsis Hutt., with the scars and ornamentation quite distinct.
An examination of specimens from Target Gully of Modiolus australis (Gray) and Monodonta coracina (Troschel) is desirable, as these records are very doubtful. I have already shown (2a) that the record of Trochus tiaratus Q. & G. is almost certainly erroneous.
As regards the nomenclature of the recorded species, many changes are necessary, for the work of Iredale, Hedley, and others has shown that the old common names are often wrongly used. Most of the corrections to be made in the present list are contained in the “Commentary” published by Iredale in 1915 (6a). Others are contained in papers contributed by the same author to the Proc. Mal. Soc. (6 b, c, d); several changes have been made by Hedley in various publications (4 a, b); some corrections were suggested in these Transactions by Cossmann (1); and I have advocated various nomenclatural changes (2b). The following are the necessary changes as regards names of Target Gully shells:—
Calyptraea maculata (Q. & G.) should be C. novae-zelandiae (Lesson) (6a).
Chamostraea and Cytherea should respectively be Cleidothaerus (1) and Antigona (6a).
Circulus helicoides (Hutt.) and C. politus Sut. are congeneric with the Recent C. subtatei Sut. of New Zealand and C. tatei (Angas) of Australia, which is the type of Iredale's genus Elachorbis (6a), so that here Circulus must give place to his genus-name. Circulus cingulatus Bartrum (7), from Kaawa Creek, is another member of this genus.
Leda should be Nuculana (6a), and Lissospira exigua Sut., which is congeneric with L. micra (T.-Woods), should be classed with it as a Lissotesta (6a).
Of the three Pectens listed, two belong to the genus Chlamys (6a)—namely, burnetti Zitt. and radiatus Hutt.
The name Cyclostrema must disappear from the list. There are many minute species from Target Gully that fall very well into the genera of Iredale's family Liotiidae (6a), but Cyclostrema, as Iredale has shown, is indeterminable, being too indefinitely characterized.
Cossmann, after examining specimens of Cylichnella soror Sut. and C. enysi Hutt., pronounced them both to belong to Bullinella (1). The same author states that Leptothyra fluctuata (Hutt.) is a Tiburnus (1), but Iredale has named this species as the type of his genus Argalista (6a), and, unless it is shown that the two are identical, this is the genus-name it will bear. Iredale mentions (6a) that Leptothyra laeta Montrouzor, L. picta Pease, and Pseudoliotia imperforata Sut. are congeneric, and adopts the name Leptothyra (6a) for all; but later (6d) he has shown that Leptothyra was proposed for a different kind of shell, and has introduced the name Collonista for these species, with C. picta (Pease) as type. Collonista imperforata (Sut.) has not yet been found fossil.
Loripes, Psammobia, and Tellina glabrella Desh. should respectively be Lucinida (6a), Gari (6a), and Macoma edgari Iredale (6a).
Murex angasi Crosse falls into the genus Pteronotus (6a), while M. octogonus Q. & G. is placed by Iredale in Perry's genus Hexaplex (6a). Trochus chathamensis (Hutt.) is the type of Thoristella Iredale (6a), but the shell so called from Target Gully is distinguishable by its umbilical characters from Recent specimens, and will be described later. All the Target Gully
Trophons are members of Iredale's genus Xymene (6a), being congeneric with X. plebejus (Hutt.), the type of this genus.
Odostomia has been divided generically by Iredale (6a): O. pudica Sut. remains in Odostomia, but O. rugata Hutt. should be Pyrgulina rugata (Hutt.), and O. pseudorygata M. & M. should accompany it here.
Surcula, Tornatina, Tritonidea, and Volvulella should respectively be Turricula (6c), Retusa (6b), Pollia (6a), and Rhizorus (6b).
Suter's usage of the name Hemiconus ornatus (Hutt.) being illegal (2b), its place must be taken by H. trailli (Hutt.).*
Venericardia pseutes Sut. should be V. awamoaensis Harris (2b), and the record of V. difficilis (Desh.) should be expunged, being based on juveniles of the shell listed as V. subintermedia Sut. n. var.
The shell identified as Cantharidus tenebrosus A. Ad. is not that species, but a new one, closer to C. sanguineus Gray.
The type of Crepidula striata (Hutt.) is lost, and the species indeterminable; the shells classed under that name should be C. radiata (Hutt.) (2b)—Hutton's Pilaeopsis radiatus. The forms recorded as C. costata (Sow.) belong in some cases to C. radiata (Hutt.), in others to a species easily separable from the Recent C. costata (Sow.), and this name should be omitted. C. incurva Zitt. (which is not identical with C. gregaria Sow.) is preoccupied, and has been renamed C. wilckensi Finlay (2b).
The record of Xymene quirindus Iredale (Suter's Trophon hanleyi Ang.) refers to a variant of X. lepidus (Sut.), which is plentiful at Target Gully, and varies considerably in size, shape, and ornament, though it is fairly constant at Ardgowan. I have found no specimen of X. quirindus in the Miocene, so that the record of this Recent species had better be omitted from Target Gully lists until authentic specimens are found. It may be mentioned here that Cymatium suteri M. & M. (8c, p. 80) is evidently a Xymene, quite close to X. lepidus (Sut.) and other new Awamoan species.
Limopsis catenata Sut., described as a new species from Target Gully, is the juvenile form of L. zitteli Iher., common at that locality.
Mitra armorica Sut. does not occur at Target Gully, the form found there differing markedly from Otiake and Blue Cliffs specimens.
Rissoina emarginata (Hutt.) is included in the list, being given as new for the Miocene. This record is based on a shell not very common at Target Gully, but plentiful at Pukeuri. Good specimens from the latter locality are easily obtained, and show that the species, though closely related to Nozeba emarginata (Hutt.) (6a), is certainly distinct, presenting characters intermediate between N. emarginata (Hutt.) and N. coulthardi (Webster), being probably the ancestral form from which these Recent species diverged.
Similarly, the Recent Fusinus spiralis (A. Ad.) is not a member of the Target Gully fauna, the species occurring there being referable to F. dentatus (Hutt.), which should not be treated merely as a subspecies of F. spiralis. The occurrence of F. climacotus Sut. is doubtful.
Mr. Marwick is of the opinion that Cardium patulum Hutt. and Protocardia alata Sut. should be united under the name Protocardia patula (Hutt.). It seems probable that Protocardia sera Hutt. is also a synonym; topotypes in my collection seem indistinguishable from P. patula. At all events, only the latter species should be admitted to the lists from the Awamoan localities here discussed.
[Footnote] * Since treating of this species (2b) I have discovered that the name Conus trailli is also preoccupied, by A. Adams (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1855, p. 121). I now propose for the New Zealand Tertiary species the name Cenospira bimutata nom. nov. The shell disagrees radically with Hemiconus, and is best left where Suter originally placed it.
The record of Cymatium minimum (Hutt.) should be erased from all Awamoan lists, and probably from most others, the type of that species (which has been found by Mr. Marwick, and which, through his courtesy, I have examined) having a tall, slender spire, and in sculpture and appearance differing altogether from the form which is common at most Awamoan horizons, and which really represents a new species of Austrotriton, very closely related to the Recent A. parkinsonianum (Perry). The shell described from Target Gully by Marshall and Murdoch as A. neozelanica seems to have little in common with that genus, and is more fittingly placed in Charonia; a new species I have from Clifden, Southland, is closely related and is undoubtedly a Charonia.
Turris regius Sut. and Borsonia rudis (Hutt.) are characteristic Waiarekan species, and really occur, as far as is yet known, only in the Waihao greensands. Nothing like them occurs at Target Gully, and both these records should be expunged. The existing records of Borsonia from the Awamoan (and often other horizons) are mostly based on fractured examples of Suter's Ptychatractus pukeuriensis or allied species (which are discussed later). I have not yet seen any example of a true Borsonia from the Awamoan.
Corbula canaliculata Hutt. and C. humerosa Hutt. are listed as separate species, but are really opposite valves of the same species. All the specimens of C. canaliculata that I have, from many Oamaru localities, are right valves, and all of C. humerosa are left valves; all my double-valved shells are humerosa on one side and canaliculata on the other. The two forms always occur together. Suter, when examining the type of C. humerosa, mistook the ligament process for a cardinal tooth, and the dental socket for a resiliary pit; he accordingly described it as a right valve, but from the sculpture and his figure it is undoubtedly a left valve. The type of C. canaliculata is from Mount Harris, and that of C. humerosa from White Rock River; these horizons are both Awamoan and approximately coeval, so that when the above remarks are borne in view any doubt as to their representing the same species disappears. The specific name humerosa has two years' priority, and should be used to cover all these forms.
The shells classed in Bela, Ptychatractus, and Borsonia by Suter are unsatisfactorily placed in several cases, but their true position is very difficult to determine. Ptychatractus tenuiliratus Sut., Bela infelix Sut., and B. canaliculata, Sut., whatever their true location may be, are undoubtedly congeneric, agreeing in details of general shape and ornament, conoidal, many-whorled protoconch, columellar plications, and distinct rounded sinus close to the suture. Cossmann has referred B. canaliculata Sut. to Ptychatractus (1) in the family Fusidae, but the sinus shows that these shells are Turrids: possibly the shell Cossmann studied was wrongly labelled. Suter's location in Bela auct.—for which, by the way, Iredale has advocated the substitute Oenopota (6a)—is also unhappy, as this genus has a different protoconch, and no columellar folds. Tate (14) has referred what seems to be an essentially similar shell to Cordieria, and compared the Australian C. conospira Tate with the Paris Basin C. marginata Desh. and C. turbinelloides Desh., but these have quite different columellar plaits, and are much more like some New Zealand species of Borsonia from the Waihao greensands. Tate's species agrees very well with P. tenuiliratus Sut. in sculpture, apex, and plaits, but is more slender. More recently, May (10) has figured Daphnella columbelloides T.-Woods, which he places in Buchozia, and this shell seems still closer to the Neozelanic P. tenuiliratus Sut. Evidently a homogeneous group of species is represented by these shells, and their peculiar nature will probably
demand the creation of a new genus. This will be attended to in a revision of the New Zealand Turridae; in the meantime they may be left temporarily in Bela. In connection with this note it may be mentioned that Daphnella varicostata M. & M., recently described from the beds at Awamoa, is a synonym of B. canliculata Sut. The figure does not show the important columellar plaits, and the sutures are more sloping than usual, but both these differences (as also those mentioned regarding sculpture, protoconch, and suture) can be matched by specimens in my collection from Pukeuri and Target Gully. It is very unusual for the plaits to be obsolete, but two of my senile specimens have an almost smooth pillar. Probably if the specimens used by Marshall and Murdoch were examined they would show this generic feature; it is to be noted that the diagnosis contains the words “columella … with small oblique threadlets corresponding with the adjacent spirals,” so that these are probably not restricted to the parietal wall as in the figure. In all other respects their shell is a typical senile B. canaliculata.
On the other hand, Suter's remaining species of Ptychatractus—namely, P. nodosoliratus and P. pukeuriensis—are certainly not congeneric. Cossmann places the former in Bela (Buchozia) (1), but it is very doubtful if the shells he examined were really P. nodosoliratus Sut. The parcels sent to this eminent authority seem to have been somewhat carelessly packed, as there are several cases where confusion of species seems to be the only explanation that will account for the remarks made on them—e.g., Limopsis aurita, Bela canaliculata, and the species at present under consideration. It seems very probable that the last two species were interchanged, for Cossmann's generic reference in each case seems to apply better to the other species, though even then still apparently incorrect. P. nodosoliratus is really a Turrid, and it and other congeneric species (including Borsonia brachyspira Sut. and Antimitra vexilliformis M. & M. will be dealt with in an account of this family; at present it may be left in Ptychatractus.
P. pukeuriensis Sut., however, has little in common with either Fusidae or Turridae, and shows far more analogy with some sections of the Cancellaridae. So far as can be judged from figures and descriptions, it is congeneric with the Australian shells placed by Harris in Narona, which, however, has a much longer aperture and a canal. The characteristically curved columella of Bonellitia is completely absent, and the shells bear no resemblance to true New Zealand members of this genus, such as B. hampdenensis M. & M. Cossmann mentions a deep sinus at the extremity of the anterior canal as an attribute of Narona; this is not present in P. pukueriensis Sut., but some of the Australian species show no sinus; in general aspect, detail of ornamentation, columellar plaits, shape of aperture and canal, lirate outer lip, and bluntly conical protoconch, slightly askew posteriorly, and with longitudinal plications anteriorly, P. pukeuriensis agrees exactly with the Australian Narona group, more especially N. etheridgei (Johnston), and to a less extent N. caperata (Tate). Cossmann, in the Essais, vol. 3, has referred the former of these doubtfully to Brocchina, and, apart from this genus, the only other to which these shells bear much resemblance is Sveltella. As regards the Australian species of this family, both the classification given by Tate in the “Census” (loc. cit.) and that of Cossmann above referred to seem unsatisfactory and inconsistent, but it would be a difficult task to draw up a correct one; the New Zealand species, too, are not easy to place, and the correct generic position of P. pukeuriensis Sut. and other species must be left in doubt till the family can be revised. In the meantime, however, since Ptychatractus
is quite inadmissible, Cossmann's choice of Brocchina seems to be the least discordant, and the name Brocchina pukeuriensis (Sut.) may be used till some more suitable alternative is found. Admete anomala M. & M. from Hampden is possibly another congeneric species, while “Borsonia” cincta (Hutt.) certainly is, and is doubtfully separable specifically. It has already been mentioned that members of this group are responsible for most of Suter's records of Borsonia spp. It may also be mentioned that Admete suteri M. & M. is evidently the Neozelanic representative of such Australian Tertiary forms as Cancellaria ptychotropis Tate and C. gradata Tate, which have been variously placed in Bivetia and Aneurystoma, but both these locations seem unhappy; Plesiocerithium seems nearer, but the Neozelanic shell had better remain in Admete until the family is revised. Bivetia (?) brevirostris (Hutt.) is the New Zealand representative of C. modestina Tate, but the relation is not very close. Admete maorium M. & M. is possibly a Sveltella, but may be left in Admete at present. Of the other New Zealand members of this family, Admete ambigua Hutt. is probably an Actaeon, and A. lacunosa Hutt. is a Bonellitia. A summary, therefore, of the Target Gully members of this family reads,—
Admete (?) maorium M. & M.
Admete (?) suteri (M. & M.).
Bivetia (?) brevirostris (Hutt.).
Brocchina pukeuriensis (Sut.).
The name Siphonalia cannot be retained. Iredale has proposed the name Verconella (6a) for the forms with large embryos, strong spiral sculpture, and generally rounded whorls, while he puts S. nodosa (Martyn) in the subgenus Aethocola. There are many fossil species in our Tertiary that must be placed with S. nodosa (Martyn), and in Mr. Marwick's opinion Aethocola, which has a deep sinus at the extremity of the anterior canal, must be treated as a full genus and removed to the family Buccinidae, while Siphonalia (which is a Japanese genus and has no representative in New Zealand) and Verconella belong to the family Chrysodomidae. Of the list species, S. costata (Hutt.), S. conoidea (Zitt.), and S. nodosa zitteli Sut. belong to Aethocola, while S. caudata (Q. & G.), S. dilata (Q. & G.), S. excelsa Sut., and S. subreflexa (Sow.) fall under Verconella.
Extensive alterations are necessary in the specific names, as follows: Hedley (4a) has shown that the shell called Megalatractus maximus (Tyron) is almost certainly the true Verconella dilatata of Quoy and Gaimard, while the species usually called Siphonalia dilatata must bear the name Verconella adusta (Phil.). The matter does not end here; for neither of the Recent species V. dilatata (Q. & G.) and V. adusta (Phil.) really occur in Awamoan horizons, the records referring to new species of Verconella, so that these two names must be expunged from Oamaru lists.
Again, V. caudata (Q. & G.) does not occur at Target Gully, nor in the Awamoan at all, the record in this case apparently referring to extremes of the variable species Suter has named Tritonidea compacta. Similarly, V. subreflexa (Sow.) is wrongly recorded, Suter having probably mistaken examples of one of the Verconella n. spp. mentioned above for the South American shell.
The species of Aethocola are in no better state. Suter's S. nodosa zitteli is well worthy of specific rank, but the Target Gully shells so named are very different from both the type from White Cliffs and the described specimen from Nelson, which itself is not conspecific with the type. The Target Gully shell is a new species, and it was also on a variant of this that Suter's record of S. conoidea (Zitt.) was based, so that S. zitteli Sut and S. conoidea (Zitt.) should disappear from these lists.
To summarize, the actual species of these shells that occur at Target Gully are—
Verconella n. sp. (formerly termed adusta Phil.).
Verconella n. sp. (formerly termed dilatata Q. & G.).
Verconella excelsa (Sut.).
Aethocola costata (Hutt.).
Aethocola n. sp. (formerly termed zitteli Sut. and conoidea Zitt.).
Of the five species of Turritella listed, not one is correct; they should be replaced by T. cavershamensis Harris, T. abscisa Sut., and two or three new species. Similarly, nearly all the Turritellas given in the lists from Ardgowan, Pukeuri, and Awamoa are wrongly named and must be omitted. All the species of Fulgoraria are likewise incorrect, there being six new species of Volutes, together with Miomelon parki (Sut.), which is not synonymous with M. corrugata (Hutt.). The name Alcithoe (the genotype of which is F. arabica Mart.), which Suter uses as a subgenus of Fulgoraria, should replace this, and be used as the generic name for these shells, true Fulgoraria having a different apex.
Mr. Marwick in his paper on Glycymeris (9b) has shown that G. subglobosa Sut. does not occur at Target Gully, being restricted to the lower Waiarekan; that G. globosa (Hutt.) is preoccupied by Sowerby and is renamed G. huttoni Marwick; and that the Target Gully shell differs again and is named G. robusta Marwick. Again, in a revision of our species of Struthiolaria he has separated the Oamaru forms from S. cincta Hutt. and S. tuberculata Hutt., with which they have previously been confused, and named them S. subspinosa Marwick. This is the common Struthiolaria occurring at Oamaru localities, the only other species being S. cf. obesa Hutt. (Awamoa beach boulders), S. calcar Hutt. (Ardgowan—neotype), S. spinosa Hect. (Ardgowan), and S. tuberculata Hutt., one perfect and typical specimen of which I have found at Target Gully.
Of the four species of Ancilla, only one, A. hebera (Hutt.), should be retained. Mr. Marwick has shown (9a) that A. papillata Tate has been wrongly recorded, and he has renamed the large Awamoan species to which that name had been applied by Suter A. (Baryspira) robusta Marwick.
Although not mentioned in the Target Gully lists, Surcula oamarutica Sut. is given by Suter as occurring here, and is noted in the list of shells from Ardgowan. This species was described from a stray specimen in Suter's collection and several specimens which had been collected at Target Gully by Professor J. Park, and has not been recorded from any but these two localities. It might thus be regarded as a typical fossil of this deposit were it not for the fact that it is probably identical with Turricula (= Surcula) fusiformis (Hutt.), a common fossil at Oamaru localities. If the two diagnoses are carefully compared, it will be seen that they run practically parallel except for the number of nodules (12 in oamarutica, shell of 11 whorls; 10 in fusiformis, shell of 8–10 whorls) and the greater height of the spire in oamarutica. Both these characters are, of course, specifically unreliable in such a genus as Turricula, and T. fusiformis (Hutt.) is especially variable in these respects. The only plentiful large Turricula at Target Gully is fusiformis (Hutt.): I have collected exhaustively at this locality and found no other, much less “a number of specimens.” After examining over a hundred specimens from Target Gully, many from Ardgowan and from Pukeuri, and several from Awamoa, Devil's Bridge, Rifle Butts, and Mount Harris, and after comparison with the holotype of T. fusiformis (Hutt.) in the Otago Museum, I cannot find any constant differences between the species, and think it probable that T. oamarutica (Sut.) is merely a gerontic form of
T. fusiformis (Hutt.). Since, however, I have shown (2b) that this name is preoccupied, the alternative term T. oamarutica (Sut.) should be used to cover all these shells. I have a strong suspicion that S. huttoni Sut. will also prove inseparable from T. oamarutica (Sut.), but, not having seen the holotype, I cannot yet express a definite opinion. In the present list all these forms are included under T. oamarutica (Sut.).
Similar confusion prevails in regard to the shells named by Suter Leucosyrinx alta subsp. transenna (N.Z. Geol. Surv. Pal. Bull. No. 5, p. 44) and Bathytoma antecostata (loc. cit., p. 53). Marshall and Murdoch (8d, p. 126) have referred the subsp. transenna also to Bathytoma, and it may be left there for the present, though not really related to that genus. It seems to grade easily into B. antecostata Sut. at Target Gully, and it is doubtful whether the latter species should be retained. Sute's records of B. albula (Hutt.) from Oamaru localities are based on these forms; the Recent species does not occur in the Awamoan. Of the two remaining species of Bathytoma admitted by Suter, B. perlata Sut., though not typical, may stand for the present, but B. sulcata (Hutt.) is a Pseudotoma, and on account of the preoccupation of Hutton's name has been renamed P. huttoni Finlay (2b). *
Suter has described as distinct species Tritonidea compacta Sut. and Tritonidea elatior Sut., and these two are quite different from the only other New Zealand species, T. acuticingulata Sut. (also plentiful at Target Gully), but very similar to each other. Two years ago I found difficulty in allotting the dozen specimens I then had to these two species. Now, with over a hundred specimens, the difficulty has increased so much that the only conclusion possible is that the two forms must be united, T. elatior Sut. being only a slender juvenile form of T. compacta Sut. On comparison of the diagnoses the points of separation seem at first to be fairly numerous—viz., solidity of shell, number of axials per whorl, height and angle of spire, protoconch, and tubercles on the inner lip. Taking these points in turn, one finds from a study of a large suite in conjunction with the types of the two species that—(1.) Shells otherwise the same are quite indifferently thin or solid. (2.) The spire varies from a little less than the height of aperture and canal to considerably more than this height, its angle consequently varying greatly. (3.) The axial ribs vary from 9 to 16 per whorl, but are generally 11 or 12; they may be very sharp and prominent on the body-whorl, or low and flat, and they usually become obsolete on approcaching the aperture; sometimes they are restricted to the upper whorls, the body and penultimate whorls being smooth except for spiral sculpture. (4.) The spirals may be sharp and distant or flattish and close together, the interstices varying from two-thirds to four times their width. (5.) The tubercles on the inner lip vary in number between 8 and none at all: they are quite irregularly spaced, and may be strong or weak. (6.) The protoconch is also variable, mostly 1 ¾ whorls, sometimes set obliqely to the shell-axis, the nucleus prominent or inconspicuous. These facts show how extremely inconstant this species is. Another variant seems to be the form described by Marshall and Murdoch (8c, p. 83) as Euthria subcallimorpha. This species is widely different from Euthria callimorpha Sut., which belongs to a totally unrelated genus; but if the figure is compared with that of Tritonidea elatior Sut. it will at once be seen that the shells are congeneric,
[Footnote] * In this change I have been anticipated. I notice that in the Revue Critique de Paléozoologie (received since the reading of the paper), vol. 20, No. 1, January, 1916, p. 9, Cossmann has noted the preoccupation of this name, and has supplied a substitute; the correct name is therefore Pseudotoma suteri (Cossmann).
and, in my opinion, also conspecific. E subcallimorpha has only 8 ribs on the body-whorl; this seems to be due to the wide spacing and obsolescence near the aperture, for the figure shows more ribs on the spire-whorls; in any case, this feature is very variable. The only important difference seems to be the spiral sculpture, which in E. subcallimorpha is said to consist of “fine, close, incised lines, forming lightly raised threadlets on the upper spire-whorls.” But it is also mentioned that the only example is rubbed; wearing of the spiral ridges in this shell produces a groove down the centre, so that a shell in which the ribs are originally close seems to have a sculpture of still closer linear grooves when worn. Although no specimen in my collection exactly matches E. subcallimorpha M. & M., every point mentioned can be matched on different shells. As in the case of Bathytoma transenna (Sut.), the conditions prevailing at Target Gully seem to have induced excessive variation, but for all these forms only one species can be admitted. So many different forms occur that it is impossible to find valid distinctions, no one difference being constant. Tritonidea compacta Sut. has priority of place, and, as it was mentioned earlier in this paper that the generic name Pollia must displace Tritonidea, the species T. compacta Sut., T. elatior Sut., and Euthria subcallimorpha M. & M. should be united under the name Pollia compacta (Sut.). Even this, however, is only provisional, for these shells are congeneric with the Pliocene Euthria striata (Hutt.) (which again differs from the Recent shell so called). Iredale (2d) has separated our Recent Euthrias from the true European forms under the genus-name Euthrena, and E. striata (Hutt.) does not seem congeneric with E. vittata Q. & G., the type of this genus; it may, however, be possible to place it in Evarne, the type of which is E. linea Mart., but I have not enough Recent material to judge at present. The correct placing of this group will demand much labour. While this subject is being dealt with, it may be iterated that the records of Verconella caudata (Q. & G.) from Target Gully are based on examples of P. compacta (Sut.) which have lost the outer lip and have no denticles on the columella.
The case of Natica zelandica Q. & G. needs consideration. Doubt has been thrown by other writers (7) on Suter's accuracy in identifying the small fossil Naticas, so plentiful in Awamoan horizons, with the Pliocene and Recent form; and here, again, study of a large number of specimens shows that Suter erred. Castlecliff forms, allowing for individual variation, are identical with the Recent shell, but I have so far failed to find N. zelandica Q. & G. in any Awamoan horizon, the nearest approach to it being specimens of a new species from White Rock River, which, though decidedly distinct, is in some ways intermediate between N. zelandica Q. & G. and the common Natica of Awamoan localities. This latter form, which has been generally taken for N. zelandica Q. & G., differs from it in many respects, notably its consistently smaller size and totally different spire. It is very plentiful at Target Gully and Pukeuri, and occurs at most Miocene localities. A third species, occurring at Pukeuri, Target Gully, and Ardgowan, though much less frequently than its companion, is more nearly allied to the White Rock species, and, like it, bears a superficial resemblance to N. zelandica Q. & G. Natica maoria Finlay (= australis Hutt. (5)) and Polinices vitreus (Hutt.) are also represented in Awamoan beds by distinct species. These new species, together with many others, will be described and figured later, but in the meantime Natica zelandica Q. & G., N. maoria Finlay, and P. vitreus
(Hutt.) must be omitted from the Target Gully, Pukeuri, Ardgowan, and Awamoa lists, and from all other Awamoan lists.
In the Veneridae more confusion seems to exist than anywhere else. By far the commonest Venerid at Target Gully is the shell Hutton described (5) as Chione vellicata, of which species the later Cytherea chariessa Sut., from Otiake, is undoubtedly a synonym. In the collection of the Otago School of Mines, specimens of this shell are indiscriminately labelled Chione meridionalis (Sow.), Cytherea oblonga (Hanley), and C. subsulcata (Sut.). Since the list-names are apparently based on such records as there, it is unquestionable that several of the names must be dropped, as the species to which they refer do not really occur at Target Gully. Instances of this are Cytherea sulcata (Hutt.) and C. subsulcata (Sut.). As a result of weathering, the sculpture of Target Gully shells is not normal—the ribs appear too far apart; it is only on Pukeuri and Otiake specimens that the true sculpture of fine, close, erect lamellae is seen. Cossmann has stated that the C. oblonga (Hanley) of Target Gully differs from Pliocene forms, and has proposed the name C. suboblonga (1). As there is no published figure or description of this shell, Cossmann's name is a nomen nudum; but there is at Target Gully a species heavier than C. vellicata Hutt., and with different hinge, and this is probably the species referred to by Cossmann. * C. yatei Gray (which, by the way, is the type of Iredale's genus Callanaitis (6c), and should bear this genus-name) does apparently occur at Target Gully, one shell having been found which is inseparable from Recent examples. Callanaitis speighti (Sut.) is listed from Awamoa; I have found one fragment of this species at Target Gully. Not so rare, but still rather uncommon, is the shell Suter identified as Chione mesodesma (Q. & G.), but which Cossmann considers distinct from this Recent species and names C. marshalli (1)—another nomen nudum. Study of a dozen or so specimens shows quite clearly that the shell is easily separable from C. mesodesma (Q. & G.) by its thinner, smaller, and more elongate shell, and its much finer sculpture, the ribs being narrower and almost twice as dense as in the Recent shell.
There is room for doubt as to the correctness of the identification in the following cases: Crassatellites obesus (A. Ad.), Placunanomia zelandica (Gray), Steptochetus n. sp., Turbonilla prisca Sut., Sinum carinatum (Hutt.), and Heliacus imperfectus Sut. Notes on these are given as follows:—
Crassatellites obesus (A. Ad.) has been stated by Murdoch (in 7) to differ from the Recent form. Study of the very plentiful Target Gully material shows the shell to be very variable in shape and dimensions; also, Target Gully forms are generally almost smooth except for a small concentrically-sculptured area below the beaks, while forms from other localities are generally strongly ribbed all over. Much material from other localities must be studied before it can be decided whether these and other differences are specific, varietal, or merely local. It may be noted that young shells of the nearly allied Wharekuri species C. subobesus M. & M. are practically indistinguishable from C. obesus (A. Ad.): elongation occurs in a disproportionately rapid manner with age.
Placunanomia zelandica (Gray): There is considerable difficulty in correctly identifying fossil specimens of this genus and the related genus
[Footnote] * Mr. Marwick has completed a thorough revision of the New Zealand members of this family, and in his manuscript, which I have been privileged to see, has placed C. suboblonga in the section Ventricola of Antigona, and C. vellicata in the section Ventricoloidea of the same genus. He also rejects the records of Dosinia greyi Zitt and Macrocallista multistriata (Sow.) from Awamoan localities.
Anomia. Oliver has recently (11) limited the New Zealand Recent species to two, A. walteri Hect. and A. trigonopsis Hutt., making A. huttoni Sut. a synonym of the latter, and removing A. furcata Sut. to the genus Monia, where P. zelandica (Gray) should accompany it. Suter (13b) recorded M. furcata (Sut.) from the Hutchinsonian of Mount Brown, and gave his opinion that the correct name for the common fossil Anomia was A. trigonopsis Hutt., of which A. walteri Hect. should be regarded as a synonym. Thus at present the Tertiary species are in a very unsatisfactory state; as regards Monia, only one Miocene species—viz., M. incisura (Hutt.)—should be recognized in the meantime.
Streptochetus n. sp. is probably a Voluta species or its cast. There is no such label in the Otago School of Mines collection, and Mr. Marwick informs me that there are no Target Gully specimens so named in the Geological Survey collection, while shells from Black Point and Kakahu so named by Suter are only Volutoid casts. The name should be dismissed from the lists until better-authenicated specimens are found.
Turbonilla prisca Sut.: The identity of the specimens so named by Suter from Target Gully with the type from Blue Cliffs has yet to be confirmed. Cossmann has referred T. oamarutica Sut. to Acirsella (1) (misspelt Acissella in the reference), a genus of the Epitoniidae, and this is a much better location than Turbonilla. The apex is not heterostrophic, no fold whatever is visible on the columella, and the periphery is much more rounded than is usual in Turbonilla. There is another undescribed species of Acirsella at Target Gully and Pukeuri, and at least four true species of Turbonilla, one of which certainly seems to be a Mormula; but until specimens of T. prisca Sut. are examined it cannot be stated whether that species is a Mormula or an Acirsella. It may be noted, in passing, that the discontinuous varices which Suter emphasizes in the case of T. prisca Sut. are also present on most specimens of A. oamarutica (Sut.).
Sinum carinatum (Hutt.): No authentic records of this peculiar shell from any other than the type locality, White Rock River, are known. Suter's identifications from Target Gully and elsewhere are based on fragments of Calyptraea. For the present it had better be omitted from the Target Gully list.
Heliacus imperfectus Sut.: The holotype of this species should be in the Otago Museum, but cannot be found, and I know of no other specimen. The diagnosis that Suter was able to draw up is so poor as to render trustworthy identification almost impossible, and the worn state of the lost holotype makes its generic position so doubtful that the best thing to do under the circumstances is to drop this species altogether.
Phalium pyrum (Lamk.) is recorded from the Rifle Butts and Ardgowan, but no full-grown, or even half-grown, complete specimen of that species has been collected from Awamoan horizons so far as I am aware: the record from the two localities mentioned is based on juvenile shells alone. Some specimens in the Otago School of Mines collection from Awamoa are also labelled with this name. A comparison of these specimens and shells from Ardgowan, where the form is not uncommon (though no perfect shells have been found), with Recent specimens of the species shows that there are constant differences in the apices (e.g., the spiral striation is much stronger and coarser, the keel of the spire-whorls is much more prominent, due to the greater strength of its nodules, &c.), and especially there are radical differences in the body-whorl, which in the fossil shells bears four nodulous keels, gradually decreasing in strength, but in the true Cassidea pyra (Lamk.) is practically smooth apart from
the one row of low nodules on the keel. The fossil shells, though at a casual glance deceptively like the Recent shell, are in reality only juvenile and imperfect forms of a shell long known from the Oamaru Tertiaries—namely, Galeodea senex (Hutt.). The occurrence of these “pyrum” forms together with perfect adult shells at Pukeuri and Ardgowan enables a direct comparison to be made, and the identity of the two is certain, so that the record of C. pyra (Lamk.) from Awamoan horizons should be replaced by that of Galeodea senex (Hutt.). The shell of Galeodea senex (Hutt.) being fragile, and its distribution in Oamaru localities wide, it is not surprising that, though the occurrence of perfect specimens is rare, the finding of apical fragments is not uncommon, and, as these fragments, as noted, have given generic trouble in one case, it is quite possible that they may have done so in other cases. Thus specimens in collections have quite possibly been included under Struthiolaria (whose apex they much resemble, especially when worn), Siphonalia, and Ficus.
This completes the rather lengthy tale of necessary alterations in the list as it stands at present. At the same time, however, it must be borne in mind that no European palaeontologist has yet examined any considerable number of our Tertiary species; when this is done we may expect extensive alteration in the generic names at present adopted, and in many cases the location of shells of which there are no New Zealand Recent representatives must be regarded as tentative.
Some remarks on the general variation noticeable at Target Gully may not be out of place here. As mentioned by Park (12, p. 93), the deposit is of no great depth, though deep- and shallow-water shells are intermingled, and many rolled fragments are present, showing that the shell-bed was subject to strong disturbances while being laid down. This unsettled nature of the habitat induced great variation in certain species which under normal conditions were fairly constant. It must have been a period of stress and struggle and rapid change of environment. For this reason Target Gully is not always a satisfactory collecting-ground: though species and specimens are very numerous, they are often ill-preserved, and, worse still, atypical. If a species occurs there and also at another locality, it is generally safer to take the second form as the more typical one. The application of this really matters, however, in only a few special cases, practically all noted previously in this paper; the majority of the Target Gully shells form very satisfactory and fairly constant specimens. The Ardgowan shell-bed, which of all the Awamoan horizons is the nearest approach to the actual Target Gully bed, is very similar to it stratigraphically and palaeontologically; the sandy matrix is lighter in colour, though glauconite is more abundant, and the fossils are often much more poorly preserved and fragile than at Target Gully, with a characteristic whitish and often chalky appearance. There is a considerable difference in the common species, and the Ardgowan fauna is not so rich as the Target Gully fauna, though the species are much more constant, this bed being deposited probably during quieter conditions. Among the species which are fairly constant at Ardgowan but variable at Target Gully are Xymene lepidus (Sut.), Pollia compacta (Sut.), Turricula oamarutica (Sut.), Venericardia lutea (Hutt.). The Pukeuri beds consist of very fine sandy material, well consolidated, and, when damp, almost of the consistency of clay. Very poor results are obtained if fossils are sought in the dry bank, either by scanning or by digging; the specimens are quite hidden by the matrix unless well weathered out, and are also exceedingly fragile. Fortunately the clay crumbles readily on sieving in water, a
surprising amount of rich and clean material remaining. Target Gully and Ardgowan shell-sand is more satisfactorily sieved in the dry state. Awamoan clay is much more difficult to work with, and crumbles only very slightly in water. Otiake sandy matrix crumbles easily in the dry state, but not any more easily when damp.
The state of the beds at Pukeuri indicates peaceful deposition. Perfect shells are more often found, and there is little variation: it is consequently a good locality for typical specimens. Interesting minutiae also abound here. Variable Target Gully shells which are fairly constant at Pukeuri are Acirsella oamarutica (Sut.), Bathytoma transenna (Sut.), Cerithiella fidicula Sut., Corbula pumila Hutt., Mesalia striolata (Hutt.), and Vexillum fenestratum Sut. Other very variable Target Gully species are the forms of Turritella, Ancilla, and Terebra orycta Sut.
The lists of shells from Pukeuri, Ardgowan, and Awamoa may be brought up to date by making the same corrections as indicated here for the Target Gully list, and adding the following new records.