Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
As is well known, the skeleton or oldermass of New Zealand is largely composed of a mass of deformed sedimentary rocks, the precise ages of the members of which are in doubt but do not affect the problem under consideration. The most profound deformation of this vast sedimentary group took place in late Jurassic or early Cretaceous times during what may be termed the “Mesozoic orogenic period”, when probably a great mountain range came into existence.
page 243 note 2 The writer employs the convenient terms ‘oldermass’ and ‘covering strata’ or simply ‘cover’ in the sense in which similar terms were introduced by W. M. Davis (“Relation of Geography to Geology,” Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., vol. xxiii, pp. 93–124, 1912). ‘Oldermass’ means a mass of rocks, generally of complex structure and of various ages, which have been planed down by erosion and which have been covered, during a later period of submergence, by a series of ‘covering strata’.
page 243 note 3 Hutton, F. W., The Geology of Otago, Dunedin, 1875, p. 10;Google Scholar see also “On the Geology of the New Zealand Alps”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., 1886.Google Scholar
page 243 note 4 Suess, E., The Face of the Earth, vol. ii, p. 148, Oxford, 1906.Google Scholar
page 243 note 5 But see Morgan, P. G., “The Geology of the Mikonui Subdivision, North Westland,” N.Z. Geol. Surv., Bull. 6, 1908, p. 43;Google Scholar and also Speight, R., “The Mount Arrowsmith District: Physiography,” Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 319–20, 1911;Google Scholar “The Intermontane Basins of Canterbury,” ibid., vol. xlvii, pp. 336–53 (p. 353), 1915.
page 244 note 1 See, for example, Marshall, P., “New Zealand and Adjacent Islands,” Handbuch der regionalen Geologie, Bd. vii, Abt. i, p. 58, Heidelberg, 1911; Geology of New Zealand, Wellington, 1912, p. 127.Google Scholar
page 245 note 1 Gregory, J. W., “The Structural and Petrographic Classification of Coast Types”: Scientia, vol. xi, pp. 36–63, 1912.Google Scholar
page 245 note 2 “Fault Coasts in New Zealand”: Geog. Rev., vol. i, pp. 20–47, 1916.Google Scholar
page 245 note 3 McKay, A., “On the Geology of the East Part of Marlborough,” Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1885, pp. 27–136, 1886;Google Scholar “On the Geology of Marlborough and South-East Nelson,” ibid., 1888–9, pp. 85–185, 1890.
page 245 note 4 Hutton, F. W., “Report on the Geology of the North-East Portion of the South Island”: Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1873–4, pp. 27–58, 1877 (p. 32).Google Scholar
page 245 note 5 McKay, A., “On the Older Sedimentary Rocks of Ashley and Amuri Counties”: Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1879–80, pp. 83–107, 1881 (p. 85).Google Scholar
page 245 note 6 von Haast, J., Geology of the Provinces of Canterbury and Westland, Christchurch, 1879.Google Scholar
page 245 note 7 Morgan, P. G., “The Geology of the Mikonui Subdivision, North Westland,” N.Z. Geol. Surv., Bull. 6, 1908; “A Note on the Structure of the Southern Alps,” Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 275–8 (p. 277), 1911.Google Scholar
page 245 note 8 Speight, R., “The Mount Arrowsmith District: Physiography”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 317–42 (p. 319), 1911.Google Scholar
page 246 note 1 Speight, R., “The Intermontane Basins of Canterbury”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xlvii, p. 350, 1915.Google Scholar
page 246 note 2 McKay, A., “On the Geology of the East Part of Marlborough,” Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1885, pp. 27–136, 1886;Google Scholar “On the Geology of Marlborough and the Amuri District of Nelson,” ibid., 1888–9, pp. 85–185, 1890; “On the Geology of Marlborough and South-East Nelson,” pt. ii, ibid., 1890–1, pp. 1–28, 1892 (see pp. 5–7).
page 246 note 3 Hector, J., Col. Mus. and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Progress Report for 1885, 1886; Progress Report for 1888–9, 1890.Google Scholar
page 246 note 4 Progress Report for 1885, p. xviii.Google Scholar
page 246 note 5 Cotton, C. A., “On the Relations of the Great Marlborough Conglomerate …”: Journ. Geol., vol. xxii, pp. 346–63, 1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 247 note 1 McKay, A., Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1890, pp. 153–4.Google Scholar
page 247 note 2 McKay, A., “Report on Tertiary Rocks at Makara”: Col. Mus and Geol. Surv. N.Z., Rep. Geol. Expl., 1874–6, p. 54, 1877.Google Scholar
page 247 note 3 Thomson, J. A., “Mineral Prospects of the Maharahara District, Hawke's Bay”: 8th Ann. Rep. Geol. Surv., Mines Statement, 1915, p. 165.Google Scholar
page 247 note 4 Speight, R., “Geological History” in L. Cockayne's Report of a Botanical Survey of the Tongariro National Park, Department of Land, C. 11, Wellington, 1908, p. 7.Google Scholar
page 247 note 5 The hypothetical block movement which has been assumed in order to account for the Great Marlborough Conglomerate has been referred to on an earlier page. In a paper on the “Structure of the Paparoa Range”, read before the Geological Section of the Wellington Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
page 248 note 1 Geology of Otago, Dunedin, 1875, p. 76.Google Scholar
page 248 note 2 Progress Report, Rep. Geol. Expl., 1888–9, p. liv, 1890.Google Scholar
page 248 note 3 “On the Geology of Marlborough and South-East Nelson,” pt. ii: Rep. Geol. Expl., 1890–1, p. 7, 1892.Google Scholar
page 248 note 4 Henderson, J., “On the Genesis of the Surface Forms and Present Drainage-systems of West Nelson”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xliii, pp. 306–15, 1911.Google Scholar
page 249 note 1 N.Z. Rep. Geol. Expl., 1892, p. 1.Google Scholar
page 249 note 2 Park, J., Geology of New Zealand, Christchurch, 1910, pp. 263, 265.Google Scholar
page 249 note 3 Geology of Otago, Dunedin, 1875, pp. 77–85 and pl. ii.Google Scholar
page 249 note 4 Loc. cit., p. 76.Google Scholar
page 249 note 5 Loc. cit., p. 77; cf. also “Sketch of the Geology of New Zealand”, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xli, p. 196, 1885.Google Scholar
page 249 note 6 “The Geological History of New Zealand”: Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. xxxii, p. 180, 1900.Google Scholar