The Foraminiferal Evidence for Tertiary Trans-Tasman Correlation.
[Read before the Wellington Branch, September 12, 1946; received by the Editor, September 13, 1946.]
The aim of this paper is to present as completely and compactly as possible all that is known in New Zealand regarding correlation of our long Tertiary sequence with Australian beds by means of foraminifera. Attempts have been made in the past, notably by Tate, Marwick, and Finlay, to indicate correlations by means of mollusca; but they have not been very promising, largely on account of the different ecologies involved—this has also upset some of the earlier foraminiferal correlations. Apart from the recognition that any resemblances the Australian Miocene molluscan faunas have to ours are concentrated only in a broad sense in the Hutchinsonian and Awamoan, and the fact that Heligmope has been used to correlate the Kalimnan with our Lower Pliocene, little has been definitely accomplished. Part of this, of course, is due to the fact that the Mid-Tertiary Australian faunas are known almost solely from the Janjukian and Balcombian, with great gaps in the Eocene, Oligocene, and Upper Miocene. Part is again due to the comparatively recent straightening out of the New Zealand record from information yielded by the foraminifera. And, finally, part is due to our own large gaps in knowledge of the New Zealand macrofaunas, which have been considerably filled in only within the last few years.
Intensive work has been done in Australia on the larger foraminifera (which unfortunately occur in only one zone—the Batesford), but the smaller forms have been less rigorously examined. The completeness of the New Zealand Tertiary record, and the scarcity of the larger forms here, has, on the other hand, forced intensive work on the smaller forms, with the result that the whole of our Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous can now be zoned on foraminifera alone, and in many parts of the column they offer the best—if not the only—means of correlation.
An attempt is therefore made in this paper to combine the unpublished knowledge of the New Zealand large and small forms with the facts recorded by Parr, Crespin, and others for the Australian microfaunas. It is suggested that the evidence presented indicates that a much closer correlation can be made with some of the Australian stages than was realised, and that the best hope for still more extended correlation lies in the microfaunas.
The Fallibility of Calcarina.
Since the last meeting of the Association in 1939, several papers on Foraminifera have contained statements about correlations between New Zealand and Australian Tertiary beds. In that year's
report of the committee concerned (Rep. A.N.Z.A.A.S., Vol. 24, p. 387; 1939) was a note on the occurrence of Calcarina mackayi (Karrer), with the conclusion that its common occurrence in the Janjukian of Torquay and in three localities in New Zealand regarded as basal Ihungia, of Hutchinsonian age, indicated the probable age equivalence of these horizons Unfortunately, since that time, this species has been found at many more New Zealand localities in the South Island, and there is now abundant evidence that it is a warm, shallow-water indicator, and has very little age significance. Specimens doubtfully separable from mackayi occur in New Zealand as low as the Duntroonian (Southland, Westland, Canterbury, Taranaki, etc.) in abundance in suitable facies. It is rare in the Waitakian, absent in Hutchinsonian and Awamoan becuase of inferred cooler temperatures and unsuitable lithology, but returns again in the Lower Ihungia with the recurrence of a Duntroonian ecology; it is not yet known above this. The correlation of Ihungia with Hutchinsonian is now known to be erroneous, but this is too large and complicated a subject to be gone into here, and will be discussed elsewhere. Actually, a Calcarina occurs very rarely in one curious facies of the New Zealand Lower Eocene, so that this particular form does not help in correlating with Australia; its occurrence throughout the Janjukian, Batesford, and Balcombian is to be expected on account of the warm, fairly shallow-water conditions existing throughout those periods. It is to be noted that Calcarina like forms have been described from many places in the Lower Tertiary and even Cretaceous, and these should be examined to see whether they are really Rotalia or have the characteristic Calcarina aperture. Note, for example, Rotalia viennoti Greig (Journ. Pal., Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 523–526; 1935), recorded from the Maestrichtian and Lutetian of Iraq, from the Lutetian and Oligocene of Palestine and (by Ostrowsky, Bull. Soc. Geol. de France, Ser. 5, Vol. 8, p. 347; 1938) from the Oligocene of Morocco; Discorbis calcariformis Schwager (Palaeontogr., Vol. 30, Pt. 1, p. 120; 1883) from the Libyan Paleocene; and such related forms to these as Rotalia mexicana Nuttall, R. armata d'Orb., R. pontica Glaessner, etc.
Recent Statements on Trans-Tasman Correlation.
In a paper on “The Divisions of the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary in New Zealand” (Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z., Vol. 70, Pt. 1, p. 95; 1940), Finlay and Marwick stated that “the correlation of the Hutchinsonian as a whole with the Janjukian-Balcombian is confirmed by many other species,” and details were given. Because of the misconception of Hutchinsonian mentioned above, which was not suspected till some years after this paper was written, all the cases mentioned need revision, but in this particular instance, if “Ihungia-Tutamoe” is read instead of “Hutchinsonian,” the statement is fairly accurate. It is evident that the Janjukian and Balcombian are closely related as compared with the New Zealand stage scale, and cover a relatively short space of time, but the time interval concerned could still extend over several stages.
Other papers by Singleton (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., Vol. 53, Pt. 1, pp. 66–68; 1941) and Glaessner (ibid., Vol. 55, Pt. 1, p. 70; 1943)
have touched on Trans-Tasman correlations, and several other writers have described species which will possibly be useful in this respect (without so using them), but not much advance has been made since the statements of Finlay and Marwick (1940) and Singleton (1941). Indeed the ecological difference between the Australian faunas seen and the approximately corresponding New Zealand ones is so considerable that it is hard to see that much advance can be made, except possibly in connection with the Janjukian and Balcombian. It is still the best probability, on the facts presented below, that the comprehensive term Barwonian for these two horizons represents the occurrence of time occupied by our North Island Ihungia and Lower Tutamoe beds.
The Gippsland Bores.
Since the publication of the papers above referred to, there has appeared a very important monograph by Miss Crespin (The Stratigraphy of the Tertiary Marine Rocks in Gippsland, Vic.; Pal Bull., No. 4). No new information on the larger foraminifera is presented, but otherwise it is a comprehensive review of the Gippsland Tertiaries from Anglesean to Kalimnan, as shown in both surface and subsurface sections; all classes of fossils are discussed, and the ranges charted. Doubtless there is much unpublished molluscan evidence regarding the Victorian Tertiaries, and different opinions may arise about the conclusions reached by Miss Crespin, but an overseas author can form opinions only on the published evidence, and at the present time the Victorian Tertiary column is more adequately and more equably known from the microfauna than from the macrofauna. Since it is necessary to have a picture of the known Australian horizons before correlation can be attempted, a brief account of Miss Crespin's stratigraphic conclusions is here presented.
Core evidence is given by her for all stages from Anglesean to Kalimnan, and the practice instituted by Finlay and Marwick of nominating Standard Sections for the various New Zealand stages is continued in the Australian Tertiary. She believes (p. 5) that the fauna of Singleton's Cheltenhamian stage “has been incompletely described … suggesting a close relationship with the Kalimnan.” No other evidence is adduced for discarding the Cheltenhamian, and it may be premature to neglect it entirely. The actual passage beds met with in the bores between top Balcombian and basal Kalimnan are named by her the Mitchellian stage (p. 25), and faunas are listed. As regards the much-debated Balcombian, she notes (p. 16) that “It is impossible to support Singleton's recent view (1941) that the Batesford (Lepidocyclina) horizon is a stage directly underlying the Balcombian. Evidence from borings in Gippsland is in favour of his earlier statement (1937) that it is a facies of the Balcombian.” She therefore suggests that Balcombian be used as the stage name and proposes a threefold division into substages, with no striking lithological break between them. Her classification is as follows:–
|Maximum||thickness||240 ft.||Kalimnan||(2 zones)|
|"||"||771 "||(Bairnsdale||(2 zones)|
|"||"||857 "||Balcombian||(Batesford||(2 zones)|
|"||"||774 "||Janjukian||(2 lithologic units)|
The longest single section covering all these beds is the 3,524 ft. of the Holland's Landing Bore, and the total maximum thickness of all these stages in Australia is only some 5,200 ft.; in New Zealand, approximately all these are covered in one section south of Gisborne 20,000 ft. thick, and the total maximum amount would be far over that figure. This great disparity in formation thickness must of necessity involve different methods of attack in New Zealand, with consequent variation in viewpoint.
The name Bairnsdale is applied to the beds in all surface and subsurface sections overlying the Orbitoid horizon but underlying Mitchellian (includes the typical Balcombian of Balcombe Bay, Corio Bay, bryozoan limestone of Muddy Creek, Hamilton, etc.). Batesford is applied to the Orbitoid zone (includes the limestone of Clifton Bank. Hamilton, etc.). Longford is applied to the beds overlying the Janjukian but underlying the Orbitoid zone and is Crespin's earlier “B.1 stage” of the Holland's Landing Bore (mostly in bores, but a type surface section at Dowd's Quarry; includes little outside of Gippsland except Rocky Point, Torquay, above type Janjukian). The Kalimnan, Janjukian, and Anglesean are unaltered, but much faunal information is given on all of them. The Anglesean is shown (p. 9) to have good calcareous faunas in places, and its faunal relationship to the Janjukian is even closer than formerly believed, though no junctions are exposed in Gippsland (p. 8); it is stated to be undoubtedly still Miocene. The microfaunas quoted make it fairly evident that the Anglesean corresponds quite closely with certain facies of our basal Lower Ihungia, e.g., the Cycloclypeus Orbitoid bed at Tarakohe, discussed later in this paper. The Mitchellian stage is persistent in all bores, and shows a distinctive lithological break below the Kalimnan, but appears to grade down into Balcombian.
Examination of the evidence available to me from this and other published papers and from my own slides of Australian and New Zealand faunas indicates that the present position for correlation is as follows:—
The Evidence of the Orbitoids.
Extra-limital correlation is perhaps most often attempted these days by means of the larger foraminifera—though the theoretical basis for this action is open to question. The only Orbitoid so far described from New Zealand is Orbitoides orakeiensis Karrer (Novara Exp., Geol. Theil., Vol. 1, p. 86; 1864), which has been referred to Miogypsina, by Chapman (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 11, p. 94; 1926). Both authors' figures show the species to be symmetrical, and a section made from the actual specimen identified by Chapman from G.S. loc. 733 (Hokianga S. Head) indicates plainly that the form is Lepidoeyclinid, with sculpture like batesfordensis Crespin. The actual subgenus is still in doubt, since Waitematan specimens are rare, and their centres usually imperfect.
The differences between Amphilepidina, Trybliolepidina, and Nephrolepidina are not pronounced; Vaughan (in Cushman) does not recognise the two former, and Tan Sin Hok united them. Only perfectly preserved and well-sectioned specimens can be successfully identified, but apparently certain distinctions can be made and used stratigraphically, in the Indo-Pacific at all events. In a more recent
paper, Tan Sin Hok (Ingen. Ned.-Ind., IV, Mijnb. Geol., 6de Jaar, No. 5; 1939) makes some significant statements on the difficulties involved: (p. 78) “there is no reliable criterion for the discrimination of the Orbitocyclines and Lepitorbitoids on the one hand, from the later Lepidocyclines on the other” apart from “differences in stratigraphical age.” “In the Lepidocyclinids we have another example of a recapitulation, viz., Eulepidina and Trybliolepidina.” (p. 69) “From an evolutional point of view there are no arguments to demonstrate the necessity of Polylepidina, Lepidocyclina s.str., Nephrolepidina, and Trybliolepidina, etc., as well as the extent usually assigned to them.” (p. 67) “The subgenera Lepidocyclina s.str., Nephrolepidina, and Trybliolepidina appear to be largely defined on stages of the bioseries in the shape of the initial apparati. As is known, these groups as such have a chronological value.” Remarks such as these, made by a specialist, unfortunately do not increase the confidence of the non-specialist in the reliability of Orbitoid work in general to produce stratigraphical correlations superior to other groups. If it be accepted that no adauxiliary chambers are present in Eulepidina or Lepidocyclina s.str. (Isolepidina auct.), only two or three in Nephrolepidina, and some four to eleven in Trybliolepidina, and that the median chambers are mostly hexagonal in Nephrolepidina, ogival to spatulate in Trybliolepidina, then it would seem that most of the New Zealand specimens are Trybliolepidina. But it is difficult to see whether the Waitemata specimens have more than about three adauxiliaries, and most of the chambers appear hexagonal. Provisionally, then, orakeiensis may be classed as a Nephrolepidina, as also may certain Upper Ihungia specimens whose embryonic apparatus seems considerably removed from typical Trybliolepidina. However, many of the Lower Ihungia Whakau Creek specimens have the knobby sculpture of howchini, and a definitely Trybliolepidine nucleus. The Upper Tutamoe specimens are, without exception, Trybliolepidine, and many are very advanced, not only in the large number of adauxiliaries (nine) but also in the extreme projection inwards of the protoconch, which in several sections touches the opposite wall of the deuteroconch, giving an appearance of three large chambers in line.
Miocene Orbitoids are known in New Zealand from several localities of Lower Ihungia age in the North Island and in Nelson and Southland in the South Island, a few from Upper Ihungia beds (Westland), no localities as yet in the Lower Tutamoe, and one Upper Tutamoe locality in Hawke's Bay [see complete list at end of this paper]. In the Lower Ihungia of both North Auckland (G.S.733, Hokianga S. Head) and Poverty Bay (F.3303, Whakau Stream, Tutamoe S.D.) the characteristic association of the genera Eulepidina–independently noted by Glaessner (l.e.)–Nephrolepidina, Trybliolepidina, and Miogypsina fixes the age as Aquitanian, on the basis of the ranges given by Senn (Eclog. geol. Helv., Vol. 28, No. 1, chart on Pl. 9; 1935) for both Europe and the East Indies. Tan Sin Hok (Weten. Meded. No. 19, Dienst. Mijn. Ned.–Indie, p. 57; 1932) has noted that in the Indo-Pacific Eulepidina becomes extinct in the lower part of the Mioceno, and that Miogypsina, is rarely found with it, but is frequent in higher Miocene strata.
In the Upper Ihungia, Orbitoids are not plentiful or well preserved, but do not all seem to be Trybliolepidina, which Gerth, Tan Sin Hok, and Crespin believe to indicate Vindobonian when it is the sole Lepidocycline group occurring. This is the case in the Upper Tutamoe, where only Trybliolepidina is present, and where the sectioned specimens have more nepionic chambers than those of the Victorian Batesford, i.e., are closer to rutteni, the genotype, and thus indicate a younger horizon than the Batesford. No comparable Orbitoid assemblage to that of the Lower Ihungia is known in Australia. It is obviously older than the Batesford, which thus appears to be either Upper Ihungia or Lower Tutamoe–these in New Zealand are also regarded as of about Middle Miocene age. In Indo-Pacific terms, it is likely that the Upper Ihungia is Rembangian, the Tutamoe Preangerian, and the Taranakian the unnamed stage “g” below the basal Pliocene Cheribonian. If it be assumed, from the considerable similarity of the microfaunas, that the Janjukian is close to the Batesford, it could be suggested (as the evidence of the small forms strongly indicates) that the Janjukian is Lower Ihungia— though why it contains no Orbitoids is rather puzzling. Probably the reasons once again have an ecological basis, since in but few of the known Lower Ihungia localities in New Zealand is the facies favourable for Orbitoids. Almost certainly the same argument applies to the Balcombian, and to the Lower Tutamoe.
Because Orbitoids are so sporadically met with in New Zealand in comparison with their abundance in the Indo-Pacific Tertiary and the Australian Batesford, it is of interest to recall that California, which is on the Pacific margin and in a warmer climatic zone than New Zealand, is even worse off. Schenk (Stan. Univ. Pub. Geol. Sci., Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 13; 1942) remarks that “the only known occurrence of Lepidocyclina in California is the one here described”, from the Upper Vaqueros, assigned to the Lower Saucesian stage. He also (l.e., p. 14), on the Lepidocycline evidence, divides the Saucesian (ascribed to Aquitanian by Kleinpell) into an Upper (Aquitanian) and Lower (Chattian) part, noting that Lepidocyclina s.str. appears to be unrecorded anywhere above the Oligocene.
Discrepant Age Interpretations of Certain Faunas.
In the Piedmont and Aquitane basins, the occurrence of Eulepidina and Miogypsina together is accepted as indicating Aquitanian age; in Morocco it has been taken as an index of Chattian age by some authors, e.g. Senn, but not by Cosijn, who described certain Cycloclypeus populations as Aquitanian on the strength of the presence also of Eulepidina and Miogypsina, In South America, however, this joint occurrence is believed to indicate Rupelian or Lattorfian. As in the case of certain microfaunal associations discussed later, many Orbitoid lineages seem, from the literature, to have appeared earlier in America than they are thought to do in the Indo-Pacific and New Zealand area. This is far too large a problem to receive more than passing mention here, but it is possible that certain differences in assumptions and points of view are involved, and that a re-orientation of criteria might produce more harmony.
Consider, for example, two Cuban faunas, both referred to the
Oligocene by Palmer. The Finca Adelina (Mem. Soc. Cub. Hist. Nat., Vol. 10, Nos. 4 and 5; 1936) is placed by her as Lower Oligocene, and the Cojimar (l.e., Vol. 14, Nos. 1, 2, 3; 1940) as Uppermost Oligocene, but the microfaunas from our Waitakian-Hutchinsonian sediments, believed in New Zealand to be Middle to Upper Oligocene, actually bear a closer resemblance to the Finca Adelina (which Senn extends up to the Rupelian) than to the Cojimar. The latter lies above a Miogypsina zone and below a limestone referred to the Aquitanian; from it Palmer records Orbulina universa, O. bilobata, Globorotalia menardii, Uvigerina rustica (hispida type), Sigmoilina schlumbergeri, Robulus calcar, R. dicampylus (clericii), “Dentalina” quadrulata, and other forms suggesting a topmost Cipero Marl horizon and an age that may be younger than Oligocene. As will appear from discussion of the smaller forms later in this paper, such a fauna would certainly be regarded in New Zealand as Upper Ihungia (Burdigalian) at least, if not Tutamoe, and the underlying Miogypsina zone as not older than Lower Ihungia, so that the overlying limestone would be placed much higher than Aquitanian.
Again, in many South American faunas occurs the well-known guide fossil Siphogenerina transversa Cush. Hedberg (Journ. Pal., Vol. 11, No. 8, p. 678; 1937) states that “this species is valuable for long-distance correlation due to its narrow stratigraphic and wide geographic range. It appears to be largely limited to sediments of Upper Oligocene and Lower or Lower Middle Miocene age.” Kleinpell, however, records it in California as from Lower Zemorrian (Rupelian) to Upper Saucesian (Aquitanian). Hedberg compares the Venezuelan Carapita fauna with numerous other American transversa assemblages, such as the topmost Alley Creek of Trinidad (i.e., the Upper Cipero Section, later referred to by me in the paragraphs on Orbulina as perhaps Miocene), and comes to the conclusion that the middle Carapita zone, which “is only a relatively small part of a very thick formation” is Upper Oligocene. Yet from it he recorded Miogypsina and Robulus calcar, unknown in New Zealand below the Lower Ihungia. The latest writer on the Carapita (Franklin, Journ. Pal., Vol. 18, No. 4, p. 301; 1944) places it as still older–in the Lower Oligocene, and equivalent to the Finca Adelina.
These anomalies of American-Neozelanic correlation seem to be largely bound up with just what is called Oligocene by various authors, and where they locate the Aquitanian. Schenck (Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 521–536; 1935) has fully discussed this, and prefers an Oligocene age for the Aquitanian, as do Hedberg, Senn, Palmer, Renz, and many other workers on the South American Tertiary; Tan Sin Hok, Glaessner, and most Indo-Pacific workers prefer a Lower Miocene age. Some decision is necessary in New Zealand when one considers such sections as the Mahoenui-Mokau, or the full extent of the Clifden or Middle Waipara beds, where the Oligocene-Miocene boundary is certainly crossed somewhere. My own preference is to regard the Lower Ihungia (on the evidence presented in this paper) as Aquitanian, and to take its base as the beginning of the Miocene; but it must be admitted that a very strong case has been made out by Schenck. Whether Oligocene or Miocene be preferred, actual correlation with the Aquitanian stage is here based
on the occurrence together of Eulepidina and Miogypsina, for there appears to be no good reason to believe that New Zealand departs from the Dutch Indies and Tethyan record.
The Evidence Of Cycloclypeus.
The genus Cycloclypeus merits some attention, since Tan Sin Hok has found it so useful as an age indicator in the Netherlands Indies. Cycloclypei are rare in New Zealand, and the species have not been described, but—just as with the Orbitoids—there are occurrences of the genus in the Lower Ihungia, Upper Ihungia, and Upper Tutamoe. In the Hawke's Bay Upper Tutamoe Trybliolepidina bed is a species superficially closely resembling C. victoriensis Crespin, which its author (P.R.S. Vict., Vol. 53, pt. 2, p. 309; 1940) regards as characteristic of the Batesford. But the Australian species reaches 8 mm. in size (microspheric form 10.mm.), with the var.gippslandica also up to 8 mm. (microspheric up to 16 mm.), while the nepionic septa range from 7 to 9, occasionally up to 13. For the latter reason Tan Sin Hok suggested that the Australian form might be more primitive and older than the very similar Dutch Indies species C. indopacificus Tan. Now the New Zealand specimens (none complete, none microspheric) do not seem to reach much over 4 mm. in size and have in all sections seen only 6 nepionic septa. This indicates that they are younger than the Batesford species, and puts them very close to C. indopacificus var. terhaari Tan—indeed, they seem practically identical with “form b” of that species (Tan Sin Hok, Dienst. Mijn. Ned. Wetens. Meded., No. 19, p. 72; 1932). This is an Upper Vindobonian (i.e., Tortonian) species; thus the Cycloclypeus population reinforces the age correlation for the Upper Tutamoe already suggested by the Orbitoids.
In the Upper Ihungia of Alexander St., Greymouth, there occurs rarely a species of this lineage with similar but weaker sculpture, and with 11–12 nepionic chambers. This is plainly a representative of the eidae Tan lineage, and because of the relatively large size of the proloculum for this number of chambers, and the diameter of the shell (5 mm.), it is probably nearer posteidae Tan, But, in either case, according to Tan, the age would be Burdigalian. Finally, from the Lower Ihungia of Titirangi, Chapman (N.Z.G.S. Pal. Bull. No. 11, p. 92; 1926) has recorded a species (wrongly) as C. pustulosus Chap. His figure shows a representative of the eidae line, perhaps still more primitive in sculpture than the Alexander St. form, and probably the same as the form described by Karrer (Novara Exp., Geol. Theil., Vol. 1, p. 79; 1864) as Orbitulites incertus from nearby beds of equivalent age and lithology. Tan notes that the whole eidae sculptural lineage in the Indo-Pacific is confined to Aquitanian—Lower Burdigalian (though Cosijn has described an eidae form from the Chattian of Spain, occurring with reticulate Nummulites); since the Alexander St. beds are basal Upper Ihungia, this fits in exactly with the ages suggested from the Orbitoids. Because the Batesford C. victoriensis (of the indopacificus lineage) has 7–9 nepionic septa, it should be older than the Tortonian indopacificus s.str. But it should be younger than the Upper Ihungia Alexander St. species (11–12 septa), and if that formation is referred to Burdigalian, Batesford might, well be Helvetian. In New Zealand no microspheric specimens have yet been found; in the Australian Batesford they are from 2–2-½
times the size of the megalospheric forms—this fact alone, according to Tan, indicates that the age is not older than Upper Burdigalian, for in the Lower Burdigalian and older beds relatively small microspheric forms occur.
These are all the occurrences so far known of eidae-indopacificus forms in New Zealand, but a practically unsculptured species is abundant in the basal Lower Ihungia of Tarakohe (Nelson) and of Clifden. (Southland). It appears to be related to C. inornatus var. tenuis Tan, from the top of the Vindobonian, but since Tan's species has an average of 6 nepionic septa, and the New Zealand ones have 9, an age difference is indicated. In this connection an interesting point develops. Since the Upper Ihungia eidae form has 11–12 nepionic chambers, it may reasonably be expected that the Lower Ihungia eidae form (incertus Karrer) averages at least this number, probably more, since the tendency is to increase in number with age. Yet the Lower Ihungia inornatus form has only about 9, which is in conflict with Tan Sin Hok's dietum that this number in any one Cycloclypeus population is an age characteristic. But if these two Lower Ihungia forms are approximately contemporaneous, it bears out the criticism of Tan's results made by Cosijn (Statist. Stud. Phyl. Foram., Leiden, p. 23; 1938), who noted that both smooth (inornatus) and pillared (eidae) forms of Cycloclypeus occurred together at Villajoyosa (Spain), and that the smooth ones had 12–24 nepionic chambers, while the pillared ones had 11–16. He referred to the smooth ones as “ef. guembelianus Brady” and the pillared ones as “ef. carpenteri Brady,” and concluded that “there appears to exist a considerable difference between individuals of the two groups … as regards the external as well as the internal characteristics,” and that “the pillared Cycloclypei reached a more advanced stage of development” than contemporaneous smooth ones. The reverse appears to be the case in New Zealand on the basis of the little information we have at present. Cosijn investigated principally the smooth forms, and had them in abundance from three Oligocene horizons (marked by reticulate Camerines, Eulepidina, and Nephrolepidina, as in lower “e” of Dutch Indies) and an Aquitanian horizon (marked by Miogypsina, Eulepidina, and Nephrolepidina, as in upper “e” of Dutch Indies, and as in New Zealand. From a time-stratigraphic point of view it is significant as regards New Zealand that forms from the Oligocene horizons had 20–40, 16–33, and 12–28, nepionic chambers respectively, while only in the Aquitanian did the chambers come down as low as 10–18 (Cosijn, l.e., Pl.1). On that basis, our Tarakohe Lower Ihungia forms can hardly be any older than Aquitanian (a younger age seems ruled out by other evidence presented here).
Opercnlina, Heterostegina, and Miogypsmoides.
Operculina is also a rare genus in New Zealand, the only record so far being that of O. kawakawaensis Chap, and Parr (Pro. Roy. Soc. Vict., Vol. 50, Pt. 1, p. 288; 1938) from the “Lower Miocene” (almost certainly Kaiatan or Whaingaroan, i.e., Upper Eocene or Lower Oligocene) of the Bay of Islands. A similar form occurs in a sandstone in Southland 500 ft. above Whaiugaroan marls, but with no other elue as to age; elsewhere in the area, grits above the Whainga-
roan carry a low Duntroonian microfauna. Only two other occurrences of the genus are as yet known in New Zealand. In the Hawke's Bay Upper Tutamoe Orbitoid bed, where there are three species, one is very close to the Batesford O. victoriensis Chap. and Parr (l.c., p. 284), and is probably the same; it has only 14 chambers in the last whorl as against the Australian average 16–17, but no specimens are full grown. Another form has a thick shell and heavy sculpture somewhat like Chapman and Parr's Fig 7. The third species is anomalous in having prominent septal processes as in the Parisian Aquitanian complanata (Defr.), but far stronger and fewer; it represents a still more advanced Late Miocene development of that type. It is perhaps significant that Macfadyen (Geol. Surv. Egypt, 1930, p. 107; 1931) recorded from the Vindobonian of Egypt a form he called “Operculina complanata var. heterostegina Silvestri” because “the chambers are seen to possess rudimentary subdivisions.” The possession of these sub-Heterostegine chambers by the Aquitanian complanata and the Recent Heterostegina operculinoides Hofker is referred to by Tan Sin Hok (De Ingen. Ned. Ind. IV, Mijn. Geol., 6de Jaar, No. 5, p. 78; 1939) as a case of iterative evolution, but in view of the occurrence of the Egyptian and New Zealand Vindobonian forms, and the similar Tongan Eocene O. pacifica “Whipple, is it really so?
In the Mokau Limestone (see Marshall, Trans. N.Z. Inst., Vol. 48, p. 93; 1916) there are impressions of an Operculina which seems close to victoriensis; the age of this limestone is not certain, but it overlies a shell bed with topmost Lower Ihungia microfauna, so is Upper Ihungia or younger.
Heterostegina occurs at nearly all the localities where other large foraminifera occur. More than one species is obviously present, but no specific identifications have been made. The genus does not appear to be very reliable for correlation elsewhere, and must be neglected in the meantime.
Miogypsinoides has been recorded by Chapman (Rec. Cant. Mus., Vol. 3, No. 7, p. 492; 1932) from three localities in the Mt. Somers district, North Canterbury. It was noted in sections only, and the figures are unconvincing. Since the entry of this genus is characteristic of Aquitanian time, the record would be vital if correct. But the associated molluscs and brachipods (see Marwick and Allan, in Speight, N.Z.G.S. Memoir, No. 3, pp. 61, 62, 91; 1938) indicate that the local age is “Lower” Hutchinsonian (in the sense of Finlay and Marwick, l.c., p. 116; 1940); to believe that this horizon, separated by at least two stages from Lower Ihungia, is Aquitanian simply on Chapman's account, and in the face of so much contrary evidence, is impossible. So many of his identifications have been erroneous that the record of this genus from New Zealand has to be disregarded at present.
The location of the Lower Ihungia as Aquitanian, the Upper Ihungia as Burdigalian, and the Upper Tutamoe as Tortonian has physical and climatic support also, if one assumes that large trans-gressions in Europe may have been reflected as far away as New Zealand. After the warm water faunas of the Duntroonian, the macroand
micro-faunas show that there was a gradual cooling throughout the Waitakian and Hutchinsonian and up to Awamoan time, i.e., for the rest of the Oligocene; the last two stages, here referred to the Chattian, are represented by only discontinuous localised beds. The succeeding Lower Ihungia is a fairly widespread transgression, with a sudden rise in temperature—probably greater than in Duntroonian time, since no Orbitoids have yet been found in our Oligocene, while they reach their maximum in abundance and variety in our Lower Ihungia. The Upper Ihungia is a more widespread transgression, perhaps slightly cooler, but with many new faunal entries. This corresponds in general to the tropical conditions seen in the Californian Zemorrian and the European Rupelian, followed by the cooler Saucesian and Chattian. In Europe, luxuriant Aquitanian faunas came in after the Chattian, and the succeeding very wide transgression and faunal additions of the Burdigalian form the First Mediterranean Stage of Suess. The Upper Tutamoe exists in many places as isolated outcrops overlapping older beds, with Lower Tutamoe absent, and would correspond in the same way to the Second Mediterranean Stage, i.e., Tortonian. There seems, then, to be considerable justification for taking the Chattian-Aquitanian boundary in New Zealand as the separation between Awamoan and Lower Ihungia.
The Evidence of Orbulina.
A few of the smaller foraminifera have a bearing also on the problem, and reinforce the probabilities arrived at from study of the Orbitoids and Cycloclypeids. Other things being equal, the most satisfactory forms in this respect should be the pelagic species. In the case of such an ideal pelagic form as Orbulina, at least, it seems likely that its first occurrence is a reliable horizon marker, not only locally, but everywhere, and that this point of entry is worth study. Cushman (Contr. Cush. Lab., Vol. 16, Pt. 2, pp. 42–44; 1940) has discussed the “genus” Candorbulina Jedlitschka, which apparently directly preceded but graded into Orbulina. He noted that “Candorbulina has occurred only in the Miocene. Being a pelagic form, it would naturally have had a wide distribution … not found in the Upper Oligocene, nor in the Pliocene or Recent … originated from Globigerinoides in the Miocene, and gave rise to Orbulina, but itself becoming extinct … should make a good index fossil for the Miocene.” In California, Kleinpell (Miocene Stratig. of Cal., pp. 70, 146, 346; 1948) records Orbulina as first appearing in the Upper Relizian (Burdigalian), except for a single and possibly erroneous record from the Astoria shale of Oregon (Aquitanian). In French Morocco, Lacoste and Rey (Bull. Soc. Geol. de France, Ser. 5, Vol. 8, chart opp. p. 320; 1938) record that Orbulina enters rarely in the Aquitanian, but is not common until the Vindobonian; however, the evidence presented for Chattian, Aquitanian, and Burdigalian age is not altogether convincing (relying largely on Miogypsina irregularis Mich., which occurs there in all three horizons), so that the various Moroccan beds may not be as old as stated. In Japan, Ishizaki (Taiwan Tig. Kizi, Vol. 11, Appendix, p. 146; 1940) records only one pre-Pliocene occurrence of Orbulina—from the Miocene of Kakegawa. In Haiti, Coryell and Rivero (Journ. Pal., Vol. 14, No. 4, p.
340; 1940) have recorded Orbulina from the Upper Middle Miocene Port-an-Prince beds, now believed by Gardner (Bull. Am. Pal., Vol. 29, No. 115, p. 9; 1945) to be slightly older than the Bowden fauna of Jamaica, from which (l.c., p. 69) she also records Orbulina, and which she states (l.c., p. 10) “has been well established as Vindobonian.” In Panama, Cushman (U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull., 103, pp. 50, 67; 1918) records Orbulina only from the Gatun formation (Vindobonian). In Cuba, Palmer, as already mentioned, records Orbulina from the supposedly Uppermost Oligocene Cojimar formation. Reliable records of Orbulina are not easy to find, and the actual first appearance in these various countries needs further investigation; it cannot be satisfactorily located from the literature. But it always seems to be somewhere in the early Miocene.
In Trinidad, since the record appears to be earlier than elsewhere, and there is some discrepancy between published information and the very full slides I have, from original material, the matter needs more discussion. Renz (Proc. Eighth Amer. Sci. Cong., p. 548; 1940) has recorded Candorbulina universa (Jed.) from the Cipero beds (regarded as Oligocene), the upper Agua Salada beds of Venezuela (regarded as Lower Miocene, p. 553), the upper part of the Brasso formation (regarded as Lower-Middle Miocene, p. 556), and the Naparima Lengua beds (regarded as Middle Miocene, p. 560), but not from the lower part of the Brasso formation (regarded as Upper Oligocene, p. 546), nor any lower Trinidad fauna. In his correlation chart he does not extend the Cipero beds beyond the Oligocene, and this is also the interpretation of Senn (Bull. Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Vol. 24, No. 9, correlation chart; 1940), who places the top Cipero in the Chattian, but puts the Brasso as Aquitanian-Burdigalian. Many of the species quoted by Renz as distinctive would appear to be only facies indicators, and in New Zealand have such long ranges and are so uncertain in occurrence that they are doubtfully any more reliable in Trinidad. Also, the fauna he quotes for the Lengua Middle Miocene contains only three species (themselves with long world-wide ranges) not already recorded in earlier faunas. From the slides I have mounted from topotypic material sent by P. W. Jarvis, it is plain that the “Lower Marl”—Cipero Section No. 10 (Lattorfian)—has some resemblance to our Whaingaroan; the “Bamboo Clay”—Cipero Section No. 11 (Rupelian)—has affinities with our Duntroonian-Waitakian; the “Globigerina Marl”—Cipero Section No. 12 (Chattian)—somewhat suggests a number of deep-water faunas from Waitakian to Lower Ihungia, and may be about Awamoan age; the “Lower Green Clay"—Cipero Section No. 13 (? age)—has affinities with our Upper Ihungia or Tutamoe. Now only in No. 13 is there genuine Orbulina; it is abundant, and of the Candorbulina type. In this fauna also are Globorotalia menardii (d'Orb.), Sigmoilina schlumbergeri Silv., Robulus dicampylus (Franz.), Sphaeroidinella aff. seminulina (Schwag.). and other forms not recorded from any Oligocene South American fauna; the relationship seems to be more with the Venezuelan “A.3” fauna of Senn (Burdigalian). In No. 12, which is definitely younger than the Rupelian No. 11, and hence Chattian or perhaps even Aquitanian, there is no Orbulina, but there is Globorotalia of the canariensis (d'Orb.) type, which also in New
Zealand appears (in the Awamoan) before Orbulina; there are besides a rare Ellipsoidina and an abundant new genus allied to Cribrogloborotalia,* either of which may have been mistaken for Candorbulina. Until confirmation is given, one may doubt Renz's record from the Oligocene part of the Cipero, and assume at present that its entry in Trinidad, as elsewhere, is in the Lower Miocene, perhaps post-Aquitanian. Kugler (Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Vol. 20, No. 11, p. 1444; 1936) calls the foraminiferal marly clays overlying the “Bamboo Clay” (i.e., the “Lower Green Clay,” etc.) the Alley Creek formation, and notes that several of the beds may actually belong to the Miocene.
In connection with the “A.3” Aguide fauna of Venezuela, believed to be Burdigalian, there is a puzzling feature; Cushman (Contr. Cush. Lab., Vol. 5, Pt. 4, pp. 77–101; 1929) noted that it was identical with one from Manta, Ecuador, yet a sample of the latter, given me as authentic by Dr. A. A. Olsson, contains, together with nearly all the forms described by Cushman, abundant examples not only of Orbulina s.str., Globorotalia menardii (d'Orb.), and G. tumida (Brady), but also of Bolivinita quadrilatera (Schwag.)—the fauna, in fact, is very like those Indo-Pacific ones from Suva and Kar Nicobar which are discussed later, and which it is suggested represent our Taranakian (Sarmatian-Pontian). The discrepancy may perhaps be explained by a statement of Hedberg's (in Schenck: Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 529, footnote; 1935) that Cush-man's collection “represents a single sample and a single horizon in a foraminiferal marl many thousands of feet thick” constituting “a lithologic facies unit into which merge a group of formations with almost the collective time value of a Tertiary epoch.” It would thus seem that Olsson's sample must have come from very high in the Aguasalada clays, the top part of which (“A.1” zone) is, in fact, placed by Senn in the Pontian, i.e., our Taranakian.
The observations of all these authors on the range of Orbulina are borne out by the occurrences in New Zealand; nothing like the genus is known throughout Eocene and Oligocene time, though large spherical radiolaria are common in the Eocene, and may have been mistaken for it. Chapman (N.Z. Pal. Bull. No. 11. p. 74; 1926) has recorded the genus from the Weka Creek Grey Marls (Upper Waitakian) and from Pukeuri (Awamoan), one example in each case; these are not on the slides returned to the Survey, and the records are unquestionably erroneous. It is by now definite that Orbulina does not appear in New Zealand until some time after the Awamoan. When it does appear, quite suddenly, in Upper Ihungia time, it is of the Candorbulina type, and is preceded in the Lower Ihungia by abundant Globigerina (Globigerinoides?) cf. triloba Reuss, with compacted chambers and subspherical tests. It is also preceded by Globorotalia of the canariensis type (miozea Fin.), which is unknown in New Zealand until the Awamoan, and not typical till Lower Ihungia.
[Footnote] * Since this was written, I have seen the notice of a publication by Cushman and Stainforth (Special Pub. No. 14, Cush. Lab. Foram, Res.; 1945) on the Foraminifera of the Ciperc Marl, which is not available here, but in which the new genus Globigerinatella is erected—perhaps for the form here.
The sudden and widespread occurrence of Orbulina in New Zealand is so marked that it was observed and used (though the full implications were not realised, and the beds were wrongly classified) as early as 1933, when I was beginning to use foraminifera for oil-work correlation in Poverty Bay. If the Orbitoid association is taken to fix the Lower Ihungia as Aquitanian, then Candorbulina first appears here in the upper part of the Lower Miocene—probably Burdigalian. True Orbulina soon follows during the same period, and even early examples are not always referable with certainty to either genus.
In my own slides of Muddy Creek (Hamilton) foraminifera, there are good examples of Orbulina, some of which appear to be Candorbulina, even to the bilobed examples (“bilobata d'Orb.”) as figured by Cushman. Chapman, Parr, and Collins (Linn. Soc. Journ., Zool., Vol. 38, p. 569; 1934) record and figure a typical and a bilobed Orbulina from four Balcombian localities, and mention that it is often met with in the Tertiary of Victoria. But it is not recorded from the Janjukian, nor do my own slides from Spring Creek and Table Cape show it. In her study of the Gippsland bores, Crespin (p. 11) records it from as low as the Anglesean, but only from one bore sample, and though it is also quoted from the Janjukian in the check-list (p. 82) it is not mentioned from this stage in the text, nor recorded at all from the Longford. These early records need re-checking in view of the importance of the entry elsewhere. Parr has confirmed (private communication to J. Marwick) that he has not met with it in the Janjukian, and one seems to be justified in inferring from this evidence that the Anglesean and Janjukian at least are not as young as Upper Ihungia, i.e., not younger than Aquitanian.
The Evidence of other Small Forms.
In New Zealand, another very important key species which comes in at the same time as Orbulina (or very slightly earlier—evidence from several sections) is Rectobolivina maoria Fin.; although benthonic instead of pelagic, it is almost as ubiquitous as Orbulina, and the presence of the two together is even stronger evidence of age not earlier than Upper Ihungia. In Cushman's Monograph of the Virgulinidae (Cush. Lab. Special Pub. No. 9, p. 82; 1937), the only related form appears to be Bolivina hebes Macfadyen, from the Vindobonian of Egypt (recorded also by Cushman from beds of the same age in Austria and Hungary), and its varietal form—really a full species—victoriensis Cush. from the “Janjukian” of Curlewis. The horizon of the Australian form is, in fact, Balcombian, so that this characteristic lineage does not appear to be known elsewhere below Upper Burdigalian or possibly Helvetian. The New Zealand entry in the Upper Ihungia (Burdigalian) is so far the earliest recorded, and the form may have originated out here. As in the case of Orbulina, this species is absent from my Spring Creek and Table Cape Janjukian slides, but is present, as the victoriensis Cush. form, in my Muddy Creek microfauna, which (from the presence also of Orbitoids) must be from the Clifton Bank Batesford horizon. The species is not recorded by Crespin from the Gippsland area, but its known presence in the Balcombian taken together with the absence in the Janjukian is surely significant in the light of its importance in New Zealand.
Two other forms of considerable interest are species of Uvigerina. The first, U. notohispida Fin., belongs to the very distinctive and widespread group of species containing hispida Schwag. (described from the Upper Miocene of Kar Nicobar) and rustica Cush. and Ed. (Contr. Cush. Lab., Vol. 14, Pt. 4, p. 83; 1938). The latter species was described from the “Oligocene (?) of … Aguide, … Venezuela,” but really belongs to Senn's “A.3” zone (Burdigalian), and is referred to the Miocene by Senn (Eclog. geol. Helv., Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 77, footnote; 1935), who points out that the Pteropod Clio pulcherrima (Mayer), characteristic of the Italian Burdigalian and Helvetian, also occurs in these beds and in Trinidad. (Pteropod beds are not uncommon in our Ihungia, but no comparative work has yet been done on the species; Spiratella and Vaginella have been recorded from the Pakaurangi Point Lower Ihungia). In Trinidad, U. rustica occurs in the Cipero Section Nos. 12 and 13, which takes it back at least to Aquitanian. Perhaps the lineage originated in America, for Kleinpell records hispida even down to the Zemorrian (Rupelian) and the first occurrences to the eastward seem to be in younger beds. In French Morocco, Lacoste and Rey (l.c.) record it only from the Burdigalian onwards, but their Burdigalian may possibly be younger. In New Zealand the lowest occurrence is in the Lower Tutamoe, here placed in the Helvetian, and in suitably muddy sediments the species remains common throughout the Tutamoe and Taranakian, with a rare final appearance in the Lower Pliocene. No occurrence has yet been reported from Australia, probably because the sediments are not muddy and acid enough. The second species, usually called “tenuistriata Reuss” in Australia and New Zealand, is common here from the Lower Tutamoe onwards in the Miocene (absent in the Pliocene), possibly occurs rarely in the top of the Upper Ihungia, but is unknown in Lower Ihungia. It is absent in the Janjukian, but present in my Muddy Creek slides; in the Gippsland area, Crespin records it from the Longford onwards. This again fits in with the suggestion that Batesford is Lower Tutamoe, Longford is Upper Ihungia, and Janjukian is Lower Ihungia. Apart from this species, the index forms of the Lower and Upper Tutamoe are not present in any Australian fauna I have seen, but they are of such a type that it would be unreasonable to expect them at that distance. The species of Loxostomum characteristic of our Lower Ihungia and Upper Tutamoe are not recorded by Crespin from Gippsland, but some of her “Bolivina spp.” may resemble them.
The species of Globorotalia have considerable stratigraphie importance in New Zealand, G. crater Fin. characterising part of our Lower Eocene, G. dehiscens C., P., and C. entering in the Waitakian, and G. inflata d'Orb. dominating the Pliocene. Near the Aquitanian boundary in New Zealand, G. miozea Fin., a form of the canariensis type, is important, entering in the Awamoan (Chattian) as a rather rare small variety, fully established and large and common in the Lower Ihungia. In all sections examined it invariably precedes the entry of Orbulina by a stage or two, and this appears to be the case overseas as well. It is therefore significant that G. canariensis d'Orb. is recorded by Crespin from the Gippsland Janjukian, and the related G. scitula d'Orb. from the Anglesean onwards, confirming
the view that even the Anglesean is little or no older than the Lower Ihungia.
Planorbulinella plana H.-A. and E. and P. inaequilateralis H.-A. and E. are not recorded by Crespin before the Longford in Gippsland, but inaequilateralis is certainly present on my slides of the Table Cape Janjukian. A very closely related form occurs in New Zealand, but not before the Lower Ihungia—from there on it is common throughout the Miocene if the ecology is suitable. P. plana also occurs in New Zealand at least as far back as the Lower Ihungia, but not before it. Cibicides victoriensis C. P. and C. and C. refulgens Mont., recorded in Australia from Anglesean to Mitchellian, enter in New Zealand in the Lower Ihungia and continue into Taranakian; Robulus calcar (L.) is in much the same category, but continues to the present day. Gypsina howehini Chap. is restricted in Australia to the Batesford and beds just below it; in New Zealand the same or very similar form occurs at two localities only, Alexander St. (Greymouth) and Marsden, both in the Upper Ihungia. Two rather rare forms in New Zealand, Pavonina triformis Parr and Tubulogenerina mooraboolensis Cush., are known here as yet only from the Lower Ihungia; they are recorded from the Janjukian onwards in the Miocene of Australia. Lamarckina glencoensis Chap. and Cresp. is recorded from Janjukian and Longford only (i.e., a Burdigalian upper limit) in Australia; a lineage of this genus like glencoensis is known earlier in New Zealand, having been seen as far back as the Upper Kaiatan (Upper Eocene), but it also has a Burdigalian limit here, being last seen in the basal Upper Ihungia. These microfaunal ranges once again support the view that Batesford is most likely to be Lower Tutamoe, the Longford Upper Ihungia, and the Anglesean and Janjukian Lower Ihungia.
The Cephalopods, and some Conclusions.
The Balcombian Aturia has been discussed by Teichert (Journ. Pal., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 73–82; 1944), who concludes that “the range of Aturia australis is undoubtedly the same as that of Aturia aturi in Europe, that is, Miocene.” The only Aturia in New Zealand that resembles australis comes from the Pakaurangi Point Lower Ihungia; the Upper Ihungia and Lower Tutamoe have yielded no specimens; the Upper Tutamoe carries a quite different type; while the well-collected pre-Ihungia beds seem devoid of the genus except for the Lower Oligocene Duntroonian and Middle Eocene Bortonian (see Fleming, Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z., Vol. 74, Pt. 4, pp. 411–418; 1945). In the base of the Janjukian occurs the Miocene Cephalopod Spirulirostra curta Tate, while the base of the Cape Otway section has been referred to the Lower Eocene by Teichert (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., Vol. 55, Pt. 2, pp. 257–264; 1943) on the evidence of Nautilus victorianus Teichert and especially Aturoidea distans Teichert.
If one considers all the faunal evidence noted above, it does seem reasonable to believe that the Janjukian (on Cephalopod evidence) can hardly be pre-Miocene, and does not (from Orbulina, R. maoria, U. tenuistriata, and Gypsina absence) seem to be as high as Upper Ihungia, nor (from Planorbulinella, Cibicides, Tubulogenerina, etc., presence) any older than Lower Ihungia. It is also fairly evident that
the Batesford can be no older than Upper Ihungia, and on the evidence of the larger foraminifera is much more probably Lower Tutamoe, i.e., Lower Preangerian rather than Upper Rembangian. This is practically the conclusion arrived at by Crespin, who in 1940 (on Cycloclypeus evidence) placed the Batesford as Upper Burdigalian, in 1943 (on Orbitoid evidence) as near the border of Burdigalian and Vindobonian. Since the Orbitoids and Cycloclypeus point to Tutamoe age, but not as high as Upper Tutamoe, it is suggested here that the Batesford is Helvetian.
The only factor against this appears to be that Austrotrillina howchini (Schlumb.) has not been recorded above the “f.2” stage in the Indo-Pacific (it is unknown in New Zealand), but Crespin herself suggested that the Batesford might possibly be referable to basal “f.3.” The Janjukian appears to be Lower Ihungia (Aquitanian) on the New Zealand time scale; contacts between this stage and the Batesford are rare (Singleton, Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., Vol. 53, Pt. I, p. 75; 1941) so that just what corresponds to the Upper Ihungia is uncertain. However, in the Gippsland area, the 434 ft. of strata in the Holland's Landing Bore lying between typical Janjukian (with Victoriella plecte Chap), and typical Lower Batesford (with abundant Try Trybliolepidima), originally described by Grespin (Mining and Geol. Journ., Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 254; 1941), as the “B.1 stage,” and later named by her the Longford substage of the Balcombian, may possibly be Burdigalian and correspond to our Upper Ihungia. It would be of considerable interest if further investigation shows that Orbulina and Rectobolivina of the maoria line enter at this horizon in Australia.
Microfaunal correlations with Australian beds above the Batesford and below Janjukian are beset with difficulties, and must be regarded as quite tentative. There is no good evidence that Balcombian differs sufficiently in age from Batesford to be regarded as Upper Tutamoe, although that correlation is provisionally made here. Indeed, Parr (Mining and Geol. Journ., Vol. 2, No. 6, p. 361; 1942) has pointed out an occurrence of marine clays at Parwan, interbedded with lignite, and overlain by limestone with Trybliolepidina hamiltonensis Cresp.; the clays have a typical Batesford-Balcombian micro-fauna, and prove that either the Batesford can be found without Orbitoids, or that the Balcombian can be overlain by Orbitoid beds. To rely on the separation in age of these two simply on the presence or absence of Orbitoids is a dictum that seems questionable, and certainly could not be applied in New Zealand.
Beds Older than Janjukian
Below the Janjukian, the Anglesean stage is usually unsatisfactory microfaunally, conditions being mostly estuarine or fluviolacttstrine. It carries the lowest Australian record of Amphistegina, but this genus occurs in New Zealand down to at least the Kaiatan (Upper Eocene). Vaginulinopsis gippslandica (Chap. and Cresp.) was described as having a strong resemblance to the New Zealand V. asprocostulata (Stache), and is recorded from both Anglesean and Janjukian strata in Gippsland by Crespin; this species and its relatives do not occur in New Zealand after the Duntroonian (Lower Oligocene), but there is a species in the basal Lower Ihungia of
Tarakohe which is not unlike a small gippslandica. Crespin noted that the thickness of Tertiary beds in the Holland's Landing Bore was the greatest proved in the Gippsland borings, and it did not go below some unfossiliferous sands at the base of the Anglesean (3,885–3,927 ft.). Consequently, Chapman's statement (Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z., Vol. 64, p. 120; 1934) that a microfauna from the nearby Goon Nure Bore below 2,020 ft. exactly agrees with that of the Upper Eocene Burnside Marl of New Zealand is hardly likely to be correct. All the published evidence points to the conclusion that Anglesean is merely a basal less marine part of the Janjukian as Hall believed, and that no definite Oligocene has yet been found in Australia. The occurrence of the genus Cyclammina has, of course, no age significance, as it is purely and simply a facies form; in New Zealand incisa-like specimens are found from Cretaceous to certainly the topmost Miocene, and probably later. A convincing example of this is provided by the Cyclammina reef bed in the middle of the Kaiti section, Gisborne. Above and below it are richly foraminiferal deep-water mudstones with perfectly normal open sea faunas (arenaceous forms rare, pelagic forms abundant) for several hundred feet each way, Bolivinita absent below, common above. The reef itself is a sudden sandy phase with few calcareous species, but enormous abundance of primitive arenaceous forms; it possibly indicates uplift, erosion of Upper Tutamoe, transgression, and sudden deepening again. Along with Globorotalia miozea Fin. and Orbulina occurs the following curious association: Psammosphaera fusca Sch., Bathysiphon? sp., Rhabdammina cf. irregularis Carp., Hyperammina ef. elongata Brady, Hormosina globulifera Brady, Reophax sp., Ammodiscus incertus d'Orb., A. ellipticus (Stache), Glomospira sp., Lituotuba, sp., Ammolagena clavata (J. and P.), Trochamminoides proteus Karr., T. cf. irregularis White, Haplophragmoides sp., Cyclammina incisa Stache, and Eggerella aff. scabra (Will.). This includes all the forms (except Tolypammina vagans, which may have been Ammolagena) mentioned by Crespin (Mining and Geol. Journ., Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 254; 1941) as “indicative of deep cold water conditions” in a unique facies of the Janjukian cored in Gippsland (2,938–2,898 ft.). Yet the Poverty Bay occurrence is the base of the Taranakian, and at least two European stages higher than the Janjukian—it is simply that similar conditions recurred.
If the microfaunas obtained by Crespin in the lowest parts of the Gippsland bores are really Anglesean-Yallournian, as seems probable, there is no sign down to that horizon in Australia of the assemblages that characterise Oligocene in New Zealand, still less anything like our Kaiatan Upper Eocene. It is possible that these may exist in the long Cape Otway section below the well-known Miocene horizons, and such guide forms as Hantkenina, Globigerinoides index, Coleites, Rotaliatina, Cibicides verrucosus, Vaginulinopsis hochstetteri, Plectofrondicularia spp. may yet be found or may even be already known, but they have not been microfaunally described.
The King's Park beds of Perth, Western Australia, have a microfauna described by Parr (Journ. Roy. Soc. W.A., Vol. 24, pp. 69–101; 1938) as Upper Eocene, but there is not the slightest resemblance to any New Zealand Eocene fauna, and the controls exerted by facies
and temperature were apparently quite different from any existing in our early Tertiary. Neither is there any resemblance to the various Californian Eocene faunas indicated by Laiming (Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Vol. 24, No. 11, pp. 1923–1939; 1940), though several of these have suggestive affinities with the New Zealand microfaunas.
No microfauna is available from the Lahillia beds of Singleton (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., Vol. 55, Pt. 2, pp. 267–278; 1943), i.e., the Aturoidea beds of Teichert (l.c., pp. 257–264), referred to Lower Eocene. Only large foraminifera are known from Singleton's Giralian stage, proposed for limestones in North-West Australian containing the Upper Eocene assemblage of nummulites, Discocyclina, Asterocyclina, and Pellatispira. It is not related in age to our Eyre River (North Canterbury) Asterocyclina bed, which is Lower Eocene and has no Australian counterpart as yet. Nor is there any counterpart to our Wemmelian Upper Kaiatan, which at one locality is known to carry a fauna including Asterocyclina, Asterigerina, Amphistegina, Carpenteria, etc. These are the only occurrences of Orbitoids known as yet in New Zealand below the Miocene.
Beds Younger than Balcombian.
The Cheltenhamian is—from published accounts at least—an obscure stage, poorly fossiliferous, and no evidence is given by Singleton or any later worker that the characteristic key form of the New Zealand Taranakian, Bolivinita of the quadrilatera lineage, occurs in it. This species is, however, recorded for the first time in Australia, by Crespin from the Mitchellian, supporting the idea that that stage is not older than our Taranakian. But its stratigraphic position between Balcombian and Kalimnan is not of itself proof of identity with Cheltenhamian; in New Zealand there are several zones between Upper Tutamoe and Waitotaran, more than one being of stage value. The exact position of the Cheltenhamian will depend on its microfauna. Actually, quadrilatera is not listed from the basal Mitchellian fauna (just above a bed “typical of the type locality for the Bairnsdale substage, exposed … not far to the north,” and below a fine shell band), the only new entry given by Crespin being Rectobolivina striatula (Cush.). This is a form with very few fossil records (Japan, Indo-Pacific, New Zealand; none in America), and these are nearly all limited to the Pliocene. In New Zealand, however, the first authentic specimens occur in certain Poverty Bay beds at the top of great thicknesses of Taranakian mudstones, and below Lower Pliocene. There is at least a suspicion that this “Upper Taranakian” is but little developed in New Zealand, and is mostly missing between normal Taranakian sediments and what we call basal Pliocene. But it may be widespread in the Indo-Pacific, and it is suggested that the Mitchellian may belong to this horizon rather than to our usual Taranakian. In that case the gap between Bairnsdale and Mitchellian is considerably greater than would appear from Crespin's account, for there is practically no chance that the Bairnsdale is Taranakian—its Virgulinidae, Buliminidae, Rotaliidae, etc., are much more like Ihungia-Tutamoe types. Concealed breaks of this nature are so common in New Zealand that the suggestion is at least worth investigation. In New Guinea, three successively younger faunas that
I possess show that the Upper Mena contains Bolivinita, etc., corresponding to our Taranakian; the basal Ouba contains also Rectobolivina columellaris (Brady) [same range as striatula in New Zealand, compare hangaroana Fin.] and Bulimina echinata d'Orb. (which occurs in Australia for the first time in the Mitchellian); while the upper Ouba contains Bulimina aculeata d'Orb., Siphogenerina tropica Cush., Pulleniatina obliquiloculata (P. and J.),* etc., and is obviously Pliocene. This succession of faunas is to be looked for elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific.
In connection with Bolivinita quadrilatera, it is of interest to note that the earliest occurrence of this lineage in California is in the Repetto formation, usually considered Lowest Pliocene. But Kleinpell (Mioc. Strat. Cal., p. 181; 1938) also regards it as Pontian, so that if this European stage is placed below definite Pliocene, as is done by Glaessner and many others, the Repetto would be top Miocene—and, indeed, its fauna has several points of resemblance to that of our Urenui, the upper part of the Taranakian. Kleinpell (l.c., p. 180) has put forward good arguments for believing the Delmontian to be Sarmatian (which would correspond to our Taranakian), but Bolivinita has not been recorded from that formation. It should be emphasised that only this particular lineage of Bolivinita is suggested as an Upper Miocene marker; other species, which theoretically must be referred to that genus, occur in our Paleocene, Eocene, etc., and there are, of course, such lines as the Cretaceous eleyi Cush., the Recent and Upper Tertiary subangularis Brady and rhomboidalis Millett. The Californian Miocene microfaunas as a whole have practically no resemblance to any in Australia or New Zealand, and from those I have seen the best chance of correlation may well be through the Repetto and the Taranakian. Kleinpell, too, points out (l.c., p. 174) that the best tie-point between the Californian and European Tertiary also seems to be through the Pontian Repetto.
Glaessner (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., Vol. 55, Pt. 1, pp. 62–67; 1943) has discussed the position of the unnamed “g” stage of the East Indies (suggested for Uppermost Miocene beds without Orbitoids), and especially the connection therewith of such well-known Indo-Pacific microfaunas as those of Kar Nicobar (Schwager) and Fiji (Suva formation—Ladd and others). He indicates that these microfaunas contain many species not known beyond the Miocene, and places them both as Rembangian-Preangerian in age, because of the proximity of Orbitoid-bearing limestones. But it does not seem certain that these beds are definitely coeval with or overlain by Orbitoid faunas, and there is at least a possibility that they may be younger. If the microfauna of the Batesford is basal Preangerian (“f.3”), as Crespin thinks, it is hard to believe that these Andaman and Fiji faunas are much older than the “g” stage. My own slides of the Suva soapstone (Station 371, original from H. Ladd) show a microfauna with abundant Orbulina s.str., Bolivinita quadrilatera (Schwag.), Rectobolivina columellaris (Brady), R. dimorpha (P. and J.), Uvigerina hispida Schwag., Cassidulina murrhyna Schwag., C. bicornis
[Footnote] * Crespin's sole record of this species, from the Anglesean, should be re-checked. Cole and Gillespie have figured it from the Mexican Meson (Rupelian), but it is doubtful if typical forms occur below Upper Miocene.
(Brady), Sphaeroidinella seminulum (Schwag.), S. kochi (Caudri), etc.—an assemblage evidently very closely related to the New Zealand Taranakian, especially the Upper Taranakian. My slides of upper Mena (regarded as top of stage “f”) and basal Ouba (stage “g”) faunas from New Guinea have much the same assemblage (especially the Ouba), and appear to be younger than our Tutamoe. Schwager records B. quadrilatera and Orbulina from Kar Nicobar, and the former is noted by Ishizaki from the Kakegawa, Tamari, and Sagara beds of the Japanese Miocene. Makiyama (Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imp. Univ., Ser. B, Vol., 7, No. 1, pp. 4, 7; 1931) gives the earliest Japanese records of B. quadrilatera as from the Sagari and Tamari beds, in microfaunas that seem to resemble closely some phases of our Taranakian; both these formations underlie the Infra-Dainitian stage, considered by him to be Uppermost Miocene. It is suggested that all these faunas, and the Repetto, belong to the Upper Miocene, and represent the New Zealand Taranakian (probably its upper part), and that Bolivinita of the quadrilatera line may be an Indo-Pacific lineage that enters after the extinction of the Preangerian Orbitoids. It will be necessary to check whether Bolivinita and Orbulina enter elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific at the same time as in New Zealand, or earlier, and in this respect it will be of interest to compare the microfaunas of Bulongan and Sankoelirang in Borneo; the former is accompanied by Orbitoids and was placed by Koch in the “e-f” stage, while the latter was believed by Le Roy to be younger than Preangerian but older than Cheribonian (Lower Pliocene).
In the Kalimnan microfauna described by Parr (Mining and Geol. Journ., Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 65–71; 1939) the only species that are common to New Zealand and seem to have any age significance here are Rectobolivina striatula (Cush.) and Uvigerina pigmea d'Orb.; these in association are not known before our Lowest Pliocene (Opoitian). Since the pelagic mollusc Heligmope (Janthinidae), also in the Kalimnan, is not known after our Waitotaran, it is justifiable to assume that the Kalimnan represents one or both of these stages. Perhaps the nearest approach to the Kalimnan microfauna in New Zealand is the association found in the Waitotaran (or perhaps Nukumaruan) Bourne sandstone of North Canterbury. Bulimina echinata d'Orb. (described from the Italian Plaisancian) occurs in Australia in the Kalimnan, in New Zealand only in the Bourne sandstone, which also has a Glandulina close to kalimnensis Parr. The important species Bulimina aculeata d'Orb. is not recorded by Parr from the type Kalimnan, being apparently replaced there by echinata; curiously enough, exactly the same thing happens in the Bourne sandstone. Elsewhere in New Zealand aculeata is common in and an absolute marker for the Pliocene.* In other facies of the Kalimnan in Gippsland, Crespin, as one would expect, does record
[Footnote] * Whether the “Sectipecten zone,” lying between top Taranakian and Opoitian, should be referred to topmost Miocene or basal Pliocene is at present uncertain. Some molluscan end-points suggest Miocene, and although B. aculeata does occur—for the first time—there is no sign of Globorotalia inflata d'Orb., a form of miozea being still dominant. The microfauna on the whole is more like that of the Lower Pliocene.
aculeata. This Bulimine lineage includes the Pliocene etnea Seg., described from the Italian Sicilian stage, but none of the forms differentiated by Adams (Amer. Mid. Nat., Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 137–146; 1943) from the Californian Repetto and Pico seem to belong to this line. I have found no Miocene records except that of Macfadyen's from Egypt (Geol. Surv. Egypt, 1930. p. 55; 1931), in company with the Vindobonian-Pontian genus Virgulinella, but the record is possibly erroneous. The absence of this lineage from the Mitchellian and the whole Taranakian is one of the arguments for referring them to the Miocene. The dominance of Globorotalia inflata d'Orb. from the Opoitian onwards in New Zealand sharply marks off this upper division of the Tertiary from the Middle Tertiary Ihungia to Taranakian, domniated by G. miozea; inflata is not recorded by Parr or Crespin, but is to be looked for in the Australian Upper Tertiary.
The subtropical Adelaidean microfauna has no point of resemblance to our cold-water Nukumaruan, and correlation may have to be by interpolation. No microfauna from the Werrikooian has been reported, but there is some interesting evidence from the molluscan genera Notovola and Anadara on the limits of the Werrikooian as compared with the Castlecliffian. This will be gone into elsewhere. Quite recently, Schenck (Journ. Pal., Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 504–521; 1945) has put forward an ingenious temperature analysis of Californian Plio-Pleistocene molluscan faunas, suggesting that the Palos Verdes, Timms Point, and Lomita beds can be referred to Upper and Lower Pleistocene and Upper Pliocene respectively. A similar analysis of the Werrikooian in Australia, the Nukumaruan and Castlecliffian in New Zealand, and the various raised beach and “subfossil” faunas of both countries, might give interesting results, though there are greater difficulties in providing temperature standards of reference here than in California. In New Zealand there is no sign of the very wide spread Indo-Pacific species Loxostomum karrerianum (Brady) until after the close of the Castlecliffian; but it occurs in glacial deposits, sub-fossil beds, and raised beaches thereafter, and is common from Stewart Island to North Cape at the present time. On the basis of the glacial beds, this species is the most reliable indicator of post-Pliocene time in New Zealand at present. It has, however, numerous records from the so-called “Pliocene” of Japan, so that its Indo-Pacific Tertiary range is still a matter for investigation.
The probabilities of correlation at present, from the evidence discussed here, may be expressed in the accompanying chart. The Japanese column is incomplete, since no reliable information has been available to me on correlation of their Middle and Lower Tertiary with European stages. The approximate correspondence in number of the New Zealand stages now distinguished with those recognised in California and Europe, altogether apart from individual tie-points, indicates that the New Zealand Tertiary column is now fairly adequately filled, and has achieved a much better balance than was shown in previous stage papers by Thomson, Allan, or Finlay and Marwick. A paper is now in preparation in which new stage names are proposed not only for all the Ihungia-Tutamoe divisions but also for all the horizons marked on the present chart as “(known).”
The placing of the Australian horizons relatively to those now known in New Zealand is the main object of this paper, but comparison with those further afield serves as a useful check. In the Australian correlations, an alternative suggestion, which must await the re-checking of evidence between New Zealand and Australia, is that:
In Australia, the whole of the strata from Anglesean to Bairnsdale may be Burdigalian, perhaps reaching Helvetian. But it should be pointed out that the concentration of most of the best-known and most fossiliferous horizons into the Barwonian and Balcombian, and the essential general similarity of their faunas because of ecology, may have led to a mistaken idea as to the narrow vertical extent of all these beds in time, and that they may well cover a longer period than just the Middle Miocene.
In New Zealand, both Lower and Upper Ihungia may be Aquitanian; the Lower and Upper Tutamoe Burdigalian and Helvetian; and the Taranakian and “Upper Taranakian” Tortonian and Sarmatian.
Because of evidence presented in the body of this paper, it is believed that the above alternative scheme is somewhat less probable than the one here put forward. Whatever wide scheme is favoured, it at least seems fairly well established now that:
The Batesford is not older than Upper Burdigalian, and not younger than Helvetian (Orbitoids, Cycloclypeus, Austrotrillina).
The Lower Ihungia is Aquitanian (Orbitoids, Cycloclypeus).
The Upper Tutamoe is not younger than Tortonian (Orbitoids, Cycloclypeus).
The Batesford is certainly younger than Lower Ihungia (Orbitoids, Cycloclypeus, Orbulina, etc.) and probably younger than Upper Ihungia (Cycloclypeus, U. tenuistriata, Lamarckina), but it is older than Upper Tutamoe (Orbitoids, Cycloclypeus). Thus it corresponds closely to Lower Tutamoe.
If the larger foraminifera of the Upper Tutamoe indicate an age as high as Tortonian (Trybliolepidina cf. rutteni, Cycloclypeus indopacificus terhaari), then the most likely age for the Lower Tutamoe and Batesford is Helvetian.
The Janjukian and Anglesean are equivalent to some part of the Ihungia (Globorotalia, Planorbulinella, Cibicides etc.) and hence not older than Aquitanian; the smaller foraminifera so strongly indicate the Lower Ihungia that post-Aquitanian age is unlikely.
The Mitchellian corresponds to some part of the New Zealand Taranakian (Bolivinita), probably the upper part (Rectobolivina striatula).
The Kalimnan corresponds to Opoitian or Waitotaran or both (Heligmope, Bulimina aculeata, etc.).
The Werrikooian corresponds roughly to the Castlecliffian; significant is the appearance in the top part of each of the vagile mollusc Notovola Finlay.
The crux of much of the foregoing discussion lies in the acceptance or otherwise of the hypothesis that in the Indo-Pacific (and therefore New Zealand) the occurrence of Eulepidina and Miogypsina together indicates Aquitanian age.
List of Orbitoid Localities in New Zealand.
For a better understanding of localities and faunas mentioned in this paper, I append a list of all known Miocene outcrops in New Zealand where larger foraminifera have so far been found, and their respective faunas. All localities mentioned below also carry Amphistegina lessoni d'Orb. and Planorbulinella n.sp. aff. inaequilateralis H.-A. and E.
(A) Upper Tutamoe (Tortonian) localities.
1. F.5938. Pourerere Orbitoid bed. Pourerere S.D. (N.E.); 190 ch. at 23° from Trig. Ch. Fine sandstone conglomerate and green sandstone.
Marginopora vertebralis (Q. and G.).
Operculina cf. victoriensis Chap. and Parr.
Operculina n.sp. aff. complanata (Defr.) (septal processes).
Heterostegina 2 spp.
Cycloclypeus indopacificus var. terhaari Tan.
Trybliolepidina n.sp. aff. rutteni (Van der Vlerk).
(B) Lower Tutamoe (Helvetian) localities.
None as yet.
(C) Upper Ihungia (Burdigalian) localities.
2. F.6287 Alexander St., Greymouth. Mawheranui S.D.; 10 ch. at 160° from Trig. Ff. In road-cutting, coarse “Blue Bottom” with pebbles, mollusca, etc. Sometimes called Eason's Hill, but this is really a section including fine-grained “Blue Bottom” without Orbitoids.
Gypsina cf. howchini Chap.
Heterostegina 2 spp.
Cycloclypeus cf. posteidae dodekaseptus Tan.
Nephrolepidina sp. (rare).
Trybliolepidina aff. batesfordensis Cresp. (common).
3. F.5274. Marsden. Six miles south of Greymouth, four miles due East from coast. Basal “Blue Bottom” and polyzoal limestone, resting on Cobden limestone.
Trybliolepidina aff. batesfordensis Cresp.
4. Mokau Limestone. Public Works Quarry, 5 miles up from mouth of Mokau River, just above a shellbed (G.S.2934), with Rectobolivina maoria but no Orbulina.
Operculina cf. victoriensis Chap. and Parr.
Cycloclypeus (? lineage) with 6 nepionic septa; no external sculpture visible.
Trybliolepidina sp. (section).
(D) Lower Ihungia (Aquitanian) localities.
5. F.3003. Whakau Stream. Tutamoe S.D. (Blk. 3); sandstone at base of massive mudstones (Ihungia), about horizon of “Igneous Conglomerate.”
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karrer).
Trybliolepidina aff. howchini (Chap. and Cresp.)
Miogypsina cf. irregularis Mich.
6. F.3299. Island Creek Miogypsina bed. Tutamoe S.D. (Blk. 9); Island Creek, conglomerate at base of Ihungia; probably same as Iron Mt. igneous conglomerate of Muddy Creek.
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karr.) (rare).
Miogypsina cf. irregularis Mich. (common).
7. G.S.733. Hokianga South Head, North Auckland. “Orbitolite” limestone of McKay.
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karr.).
Miogypsina cf. irregularis Mich.
8. Titirangi, North shore of Manukau Harbour, Auckland. Collected by Aldridge, 1908, possibly from more than one locality.
Cycloclypeus incertus (Karr.).
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karr.).
9. F.5735. Pakaurangi Point Miogypsina bed. Kaipara Harbour, sandier beds at very top of Pakaurangi section (which has occasional Miogypsina throughout).
Miogypsina cf. irregularis Mich. (common). Generic identification confirmed by Wayland Vaughan (in litt. to Marwick).
10. F.3312. Hobson's Bay, Auckland Harbour; probably the modern name for Karrer's Orakei Bay (F.5042 is part of original material collected by Bartrum and sent to Chapman, and obviously like Karrer's). Waitemata beds, not base.
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karr.).
11. F.5055. Tarakohe Marl Quarry. Takaka district, Nelson; calcareous bryozoan marl, upper horizon, with large foraminifera.
Heterostegina 2 spp.
Cycloclypeus n.sp. aff. inornatus Tan.
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karr.).
12. F.5130. Clifden limestone, upper part, above pebble band. Lillburn S.D., Southland. With numerous brachiopods (Pachymagas, Rhizothyris).
Cycloclypeus n.sp. aff. inornatus Tan.
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karr.).
13. F.6165. Clifden Orbitoid bed. 4 ft. band immediately above unfossiliferous loose sand overlying limestone, South bank of Waiau R. Lillburn S.D., 13 chs. at 354° from Trig. Gs. No Orbitoids above this in section.
Heterostegina 2 spp.
Nephrolepidina orakeiensis (Karr.).
|European Equivalents.||Fannal Notes.||East Indies Stages.||Australian Stages.||New Zealand Stages.||Californian Stages.||Japanese Stages.||European Equivalents.|
|17.||?Sicilian||Pleistocene||First Lorostomum kar rerianum (in N.Z.)||Bantamian||17.||(Known)||Palos Verdes Timms Point||Ogasa egl.||? Sicilian|
|16.||Calabrian||Upp. Pliocene||16.||Werrikooian||Castleclffian||Lomita||Soga Series||Calabrian|
|15.||Astian||Mid. Pliocene||Sondian (“h”)||15.||Adelaidean||Nukumaruan||Upper Pico||Ketienzian||Astian|
|14.||Plaisancian||Lr. Pliocene||First Bulimina aculeata and Glob. inflata (in N.Z.)||Cheribonian||14||Kalimnan||Waitotaran Opoitian||Pico||Dainitian||Plaisancian|
|13.||Pontian||Upper Miocene||First Retobolivina striatula and cf. columellaris (in N.Z.)||(Unnamed Stage “g”)||13.||Mitchellian||(Known)||Repetto||Infra-Dainitian||Pontian|
|12.||Sarmatian||Upper Miocene||First Bolitinita quadnlatena (in N.Z.)||(Unnamed Stage “g”)||12.||Tongaporutuan||Delmontian||Tamari and Sagara beds||Sarmatian|
|11.||Tortonian||Mid. Miocene (Vindobonian)||Last Orbitoids (only Trybliolepidina). First Rodiocycloclypens.||Preangerian (“f.3”)||11||Balcombian Bairnsdale (?)||Upp. Tutamoe||Mohnian||?Oogawa Series||Tortonian|
|10.||Helvetian||Mid. Miocene (Vindobonian)||First Uvigerina cf. hispida and cf. tenuistriata (in N.Z.)||Preangerian (“f.3”)||10||Balcombian Bairnsdale (?) Batesford||Lr. Tutamoe||Luisian||Helvetian|
|9.||Burdigalian||Lower Miocene||First Katacyloclypeus, first Orbulina and Rect. moaria (in N.Z.)||Pembangian (“f.1-2”)||9.||Balcombian Longford||Upp. Ihungia||Relizan||Burdigalian|
|8.||Aquitanian||Lower Miocene||Spiroclypeus. Last Eulepidina. First Miogypsina and Miogypsinodes||(“e”)||8.||(Janjukian Anglesean||Lr. Ihungia||Upp. Saucesian||Aquitanian|
|7.||Chattian||Upp. Oligocene||Last reticulate Nummulites. First Glob. cf. canariensis (in N.Z.)||7.||Awamoan Illutchinsonian||Lr. Saucesian||Chattian|
|6.||Rupelian (Stampian)||Mid. Oligocene||First Eulepidina. First Ehrenbergina (in N.Z.)||(“d”)||6.||(Known) Waitakian||Zemorian||Rupelian (Stampian)|
|5.||Lattorfian (Tongrian)||Lr. Oligocene||Pliolepidina. First Cycloclypens. Last Rotaliatina (in N.Z.)||(“c”)||5.||Duntroonian Whaingaroan||Refugian (Vicksburg)||Lattorfian (Tongrian)|
|4.||Bartonian||Upp. Eocene||Last Discocy, Asterocyclina, Hantkenina, and Coleites||(“b”)||4.||Giralian||Kaiatan||Tejon (Jackson) A. of Laiming||Bartonian|
|3.||Lutetian||Mid. Eocene||Last Assilina||(“a”)||3.||Bortonian||(Claiborne) B. of Laiming (Wilcox) C. of Laiming||Lutetian|
|2.||Ypresian||Lr. Eocene||Globorotolis of aragonensis type||(“a”)||2.||?Aturoidea beds||(Known)||(Wilcox) C. of Laiming||Ypresian|
|1.||Imontian||Paleocene||1.||(Known)||Meganos (Midway) D. of Laiming||Montian|
|0.||Danian||Top of Cretaceous||Hercoglossa danica; no Ammonites or Belemnites||0.||Wangaloan||Martinez (Tamesi, Taronba) E. of Laiming||Danian|