
(c) Waitakian.
With the Waitakian may be treated the Duntroonian, which on account of micro-faunal similarities, Finlay (1939A p. 530) has considered merely a basal zone. There are sufficient differences in the Mollusca from certain localities to suggest separate treatment as perhaps substages, but there is also palaeontological, stratigraphic, and faunal evidence from several areas supporting the idea of their very close relationship. We have presented the faunal evidence in this paper under the separate names, but considering the Tertiary of the Dominion as a whole we do not feel that more than one stage can usefully be recognised between Whaingaroan and Hutchinsonian, and for this we have here adopted Waitakian as the best name. This is pre-eminently the horizon for fossil Cetacea in New Zealand; Benham has lately described several important forms and discussed their age implications. Microcetus is noted by him (1935, p. 242) from the Marewhenua limestone and the Upper Oligocene of Germany; while the presence of both Squalodonts (elsewhere Miocene) and Zeuglodonts (elsewhere Eocene) (1937, pp. 7 and 15) in these beds at Waihao and Wharekuri suggested a Lower Miocene age.* of the important
[Footnote] * Oligocene s.l. would seem a better compromise.

Brachiopods here, the Pachymagas huttoni Th. series has been compared (Thomson, 1927, p. 287) with the Patagonian Oligocene-Miocene venter Iher., while Murravia catinuliformis (Tate) is restricted here to the Duntroonian and in Australia to the Janjukian-Balcombian, regarded as Upper Oligocene-Lower Miocene. All these factors point to a horizon somewhere about Aquitanian, whose Upper Oligocene-Lower Miocene age has been similarly debated (Schenck, 1935, p. 521). Note especially in this connection the remarks made later regarding the occurrence and range of Miogypsinoides Y. and H.
