Pennsylvanian framework of sedimentation in Arizona

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); maps

Authors Havenor, Kay Charles, 1931-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 04/10/2021 05:11:06

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553918 PENNSYLVANIAN FRAMEWORK OF SEDIMENTATION H ARIZONA

by

Kay Charles Havener

r,nosh A lo .v-rxU

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

In the Graduate College

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

19 5 8 ;<

■ G

Univ. of Arizona Library

'e i aiid- od" 10^; rtc a d T A

fLOJOLD iO iC-

10 #aas6i

x*-e M n l

& n ^ 6 L- 0—

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to bor­ rowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

WILLARD 0. RYE Professor of Geology CONTENTS

Abstract iv

Introduction...... 1 Statement of Problem...... 1 Scope of investigation...... 1 Method of approach...... 1 General discussion...... 2 Acknowledgements...... 2

Historical review...... 4 Andrada formation.... Aubrey group...... Bird Spring formation. f f f

Black Prince limestone vi

Bluepoint limestone... to

Callville limestone... on Colina limestone...... Concha limestone..... Cutler formation..... Earp formation...... Epitaph dolomite......

Escabrosa limestone... —)-) to—) to co

Hermosa formation.... <0 Horquilla limestone...... 10 Magdalena group...... 10 Molas formation...... 12 Naco group...... 13 Naco formation (east-central Arizona)...... 14 Pakoon formation...... 15 Paradise formation...... 15 Paradox formation...... 16 Pinkerton Trail limestone...... 16 Redwall limestone...... 16 Rico formation...... 17 Scherrer formation...... 18 Snyder Hill group...... l8 Supai formation...... *...... 18

The pre-Pennsylvanian framework 19

Distribution of Pennsylvanian rocks in Arizona and adjacent areas... 21 General statement...... 21 Northwestern Arizona and adjacent areas.... 21 General discussion...... 21.

i Distribution of Pennsylvanian rocks in Arizona and adjacent areas - continued Northwestern Arizona and adjacent areas - continued Jerome...... 23 Chino Valley...... 23 Peach Springs...... 24 Virgin Mountains...... 24 Muddy Mountains, Nevada...... 24 Goodsprings, Nevada...... 25 Mojave region, Arizona, Nevada, and California...25 Stratigraphic and tectonic relations in northwestern Arizona...... 26 Northeastern Arizona and adjacent areas.... 27 General discussion...... 27 Defiance Uplift...... 28 Fossil Creek...... 3° Black Mountain...... 31 Gypsum Creek...... 32 Paradox basin...... 32 Molas formation...... 33 Pinkerton Trail limestone...... 33 Paradox formation...... 3^ Hermosa formation...... 34 Rico formation...... 35 Cutler formation ...... 35 Stratigraphic and tectonic relations in northeastern Arizona...... »/36 Southern Arizona and adjacent areas...... 4l General discussion...... 41 Southeastern Arizona...... • .41 Southwestern Arizona...... 44 Stratigraphic and tectonic relations in southern Arizona...... 45

Distribution of Pennsylvanian seas in Arizona...... 48 General statement...... 48 Distribution of Morrowan seas...... 48 Distribution of Desmoinesian seas...... 51 Distribution of Virgilian seas...... 53

Location of Pennsylvanian control points 56

Bibliography...... 66

•: -■

ii ILLUSTRATIONS

Plate I. Location of Pennsylvanian control points. (in pocket)

II. The Pennsylvanian system of Arizona. Fence diagram. (in pocket)

Chart 1. Correlation chart of Pennsylvanian formations, northwestern Arizona and southern Nevada. p. 22

2. Correlation chart of Pennsylvanian formations, northeastern Arizona and Four Corners region. p. 29

3. Correlation chart of Pennsylvanian formation, southeastern Arizona and New Mexico. p. 42

Figure 1. Diagrammatic section across the southwestern edge of the Paradox basin. p. 11

2. Total sandstone in Pennsylvanian system. p. 39

3. Pennsylvanian sedimentary trends in Arizona. p. 49

4. Distribution of Morrowan seas. p. 50

5. Distribution of Desmoinesian seas. p. 52

6. Distribution of Virgilian seas. p. 54

iii ABSTRACT

A historical review is presented to evaluate and correlate the past and present nomenclature of the Pennsylvanian system of Arizona and adjacent areas. The lithology and age relationships of the formations present at the various localities within each of the four quarters of

Arizona are summarized with respect to the stratigraphic and tectonic relationships of each division and its adjacent areas.

The present distribution and lithology of the Pennsylvanian and

subjacent rocks indicates that during latest Mississippian and earliest

Pennsylvanian time nearly all of Arizona was a positive area which had been epeirogenetically uplifted during Late Mississippian time. Through­

out wide areas of Arizona a regolith and karst topography developed on

the broadly exposed Mississippian limestones.

No rocks of Morrowan age are known in Arizona. By Desmoinesian

time a major portion of eastern and southern Arizona was completely in­

undated by seas from the Cordilleran and Sonoran geosynclines. During

Virgilian time the seas reached their maximum extent, covering all of

Arizona except the Defiance Uplift which was a positive feature through­

out Pennsylvanian time.

The Paradox basin was a strongly subsiding structural feature

during Desmoinesian time. This basin shelved towards the Defiance Up­

lift on the south, and the positive northwestern portion of Arizona to

the southwest of the basin.

iv The oldest marine Pennsylvanian rocks known in Arizona are in the southeastern part of the state. Southern Arizona was a mildly nega­ tive area which accumulated thick marine sediments continuously from at least Atokan time into Permian time. The major basin of Pennsylvanian and Permian sedimentation within southeastern Arizona follows a major structural trend which crosses southern Arizona. From the age, lithology, and distribution of the Pennsylvanian rocks in this area of deposition it is concluded that the original extent of Pennsylvanian rocks in southern and western Arizona was considerably greater than at present.

v INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem

The "basic problem consists of determining the areas of sedimenta­ tion, thickness, general lithology, and the distribution of land masses during the Pennsylvanian period in Arizona.

Scope of Investigation

Although the principal area of interest is within Arizona, and particularly those areas within southern Arizona where the writer could examine the outcrops, it was desirable and necessary to extend this study into the areas adjacent to Arizona where this extension was possible and practical.

Method of Approach

The principle source of information for this report has been the published literature. This has been greatly supplemented by unpublished theses from the University of Arizona and elsewhere, many oral communica­ tions with those who have been, or are currently involved with stratigra­ phic problems in Arizona, examination of measured sections of Pennsylvanian

outcrops, and the examination of much oil, gas, and water well data.

The method of approach has been essentially threefold. First, an investigation of the published literature was made, starting with the most recent publications and working back into the older literature. Secondly,

a historical review of each formation involved was made to understand the

nomenclature and evaluate the correlation of the Pennsylvanian system of

Arizona, and the underlying and overlying systems where necessary. Thirdly,

1 2 a re-examination of all the information was made in an attempt to synthe­ size all available data.

General Discussion

The Pennsylvanian system of Arizona, and the immediately adjacent areas, is one of complex terminology and varying lithology. In addition to these problems, the time boundary separating the Pennsylvanian and the

Permian periods generally is found within a continuous, conformable se­ quence of beds which themselves transgress time lines.

The present record of Paleozoic sediments in Arizona does not readily lend itself to unique conclusions. A case in point is the vast southwestern portion of Arizona. This involves several thousand square miles of structurally complex areas of which only small portions have been mapped in detail. Generally they appear to be completely barren of Paleo­ zoic and Mesozoic sediments save a few scattered, metamorphosed limestones of questionable Paleozoic age.

The post-Paleozoic tectonic history of Arizona has had a pronounced effect on the present distribution of the Pennsylvanian and Permian systems within the state. Igneous activity, metamorphism, structural deformation, and erosion have in many places completely removed, or so complicated the rocks that suitable correlations are impossible.

With these general considerations in mind, it is somewhat easier to understand the complexity of stratigraphic nomenclature, and to appre­ ciate why more work of regional nature has not been accomplished.

Acknowledgements

As previously mentioned, much of the data accumulated in this study has been obtained from the literature and from unpublished theses. Accurate 3 acknowledgement has "been the writer's constant goal and correction of

errors or omissions will be appreciated.

Oral communications with members of the University of Arizona faculty, staff, and graduate students have been of extreme value and guidance. Members of the Arizona Bureau of Mines and the United States

Geological Survey have also given valuable assistance to the writer. Mr

H. W. Peirce of the Arizona Bureau of Mines has spent many hours dis­

cussing the problems encountered in this study, and the writer is indebt

ed to him for his help. I also wish to thank my wife, Sally, for her

assistance and cooperation.

Particular mention must be made of the work of Huddle and

Dobrovolny (1945), McKee (1951), Gilluly, Cooper, and Williams (1954),

Wengerd and Strickland (1954), Bryant (1955); and Sabins (1955; 1957)* HISTORICAL REVIEW

The following discussion is included in this report in order to familiarize the reader with the names of the formations used in this re­ port, and the elements of their historical development. This discussion is only a summary of the principal Mississippian, Pennsylvanian and Per­ mian formations recognized in Arizona and immediately adjacent areas.

The usage in the older literature is mentioned, as well as the usage in this paper. For a complete discussion of each formation the reader is referred to the references cited.

Andrad a formation.— Permo-Pennsylvanian. Although the term

"Andrada formation" has been used for a number of years in southern Ari­ zona, no type section or locality was assigned until 1955 (Bryant). The name is applied to the formations of the Naco group above the Horquilla limestone which, in the western portion of southeastern Arizona, cannot be differentiated into the Earp formation, Colina limestone, and the

Epitaph dolomite (see Naco group).

Aubrey group.— Permo-Carboniferous. See Supai formation.

Bird Spring formation.— Permo-Pennsylvanian. The Bird Spring formation was described in the Goodsprings region, southeastern Nevada, by Hewett (1931). The formation consists of gray limestones and dolo­ mites which range from thin laminae to beds 60 feet thick, separated by shales and sandstones. Northward from the Goodsprings area a conglom­ eratic sandstone occurs at the base.

H 9 '

Hewett indicated the presence of large Pennsylvanian fauna and concluded a Pennsylvanian age. Later, Hewett (19$4) assigned a Permo-

Pennsylvanian age to the formation on the basis of fusulinid age deter­ minations. The upper 1,500 feet is now correlated with the Leonard and

Wolfeamp series, and the lower 1,000 feet with the Pennsylvanian.

The Bird Spring formation unconformably overlies the Mississippian

Monte Cristo limestone, and is overlain by the Permian Supai formation.

The Bird Spring is correlated by Hewett (1931> 195*0, in part, with the

Callville limestone of the Muddy Mountains, Nevada. The formation is

considered in this paper as defined by Hewett (195*0 to be Permo-Pennsyl- vanian in age.

Black Prince limestone.— Upper Mississippian. The Black Prince

limestone was named by Gilluly, Cooper, and Williams (195*0 from exposures

near the Black Prince mine, in the Little Dragoon Mountains of southeastern

Arizona. Although it is not recognized outside of the Little Dragoon

Mountains, the Gunnison Hills, and the Johnny Lyon Hills of southeastern

Arizona, it was mapped as a separate formation because its contained fos­

sils show an intermediate age between the underlying Escabrosa (Early and

Middle Mississippian) and the overlying Horquilla limestone (Pennsylvanian).

It is lithologically very similar to the Escabrosa limestone.

At the type locality the Black Prince is, according to Gilluly,

Cooper, and Williams (195*0, composed of two units:

1. Limestone, light pinkish-gray becoming increasingly pink in upper part; beds 2 to 4 feet thick; scarce chert nodules; lenses of shale in lower 15 feet...102 feet. 2. Shale, deep maroon with light green mottling; contains scattered nodules of chert and one 6 in. bed of sedimentary breccia with chert fragments as much as 1 in. in diameter... 17 feet. 6

Williams (195*0 assigned a probably age of late Osage or early

Meramac for the Black Prince, and suggested it is probably equivalent to the lower beds of the Paradise formation and possibly some of the upper beds of the Escabrosa limestone.

Bluepoint limestone.— Mississippian. This limestone was described by Longwell (1928) as underlying the Permo-Pennsylvanian Callville lime­ stone and overlying the Rogers Spring limestone (Early and Middle Missis­ sippian). A correlative unit to the Bluepoint is not recognized in north­ ern Arizona.

Callville limestone.— Permo-Pennsylvanian. Longwell (1928) de­ scribed a light gray, to dark, to black, dense limestone with regular, massive beds overlying the Mississippian Bluepoint limestone in the Muddy

Mountains, southeastern Nevada. Longwell reported that within the lime­ stone shaly layers were rare, and the limestone commonly contained less chert than the underlying Bluepoint.

Fossil identified by Girty (in Longwell, 1928) were of Pennsylvanian

(Magdalena) age. The age and lithology of the top, however, has been ob­ scured due to both erosion and cover. The name Callville was applied to all Pennsylvanian limestones in the Callville Mountains, Clark County,

Nevada, but all the sections of this area were incomplete (Longwell, 1928).

In the Muddy Mountains, Nevada, the Callville limestone is uncon- formably overlain by the Supai formation and its total thickness is unknown, but approximately 2,000 feet can be ascertained.

McNair (1951) restricted the Callville to the limestones of Penn­ sylvanian age by eliminating the overlying dolomitic limestones to which the name Pakoon formation was applied. McNair divided the restricted 7

Callville into an upper member which consists of gray to pink-gray, sandy to oolitic, cross-bedded, thick-bedded to thinly laminated, fine-grained limestones, and a lower member which consists of red-gray to white, sandy, fine- to coarse-grained, thick-bedded limestone interbedded with silt- stones and sandstones in the lower portion. The entire sequence was ob­ served by McNair to become more clastic to the east and southeast of the

Virgin Mountains, Arizona.

McNair (1951) correlates the upper member with the "C" member of

Noble*s (1922) Supai formation at Bass Trail, and with Hughes’ (19^9) basal member of the Supai formation at Black Mesa, to the south of Ash- fork, Arizona.

The upper member of the Callville limestone (restricted) was shown by McNair (1951) to be entirely Late Pennsylvanian in age, whereas the

overlying Pakoon formation belonged to the Wolfcamp series. The basis for

subdivision of the Callville of Longwell (1928) has been questioned on

the grounds that the proposed Pakoon formation is not lithologically se­

parable from the typical Callville limestones a few miles to the west

(Moore, 1958). For this reason the Callville limestone will be used in

this report as Permo-Pennsylvanian in age and will be considered to in­

clude all the sediments between the Mis sis sippian limestones and the

Supai formation.

Collna limestone.— Permian. See Naco group.

Concha limestone.— Permian. See Naco group.

Cutler formation.— Permian. The Cutler formation was named by

Cross and Howe (1905) for exposures on Cutler Creek, about 4 miles north

of Ouray, Colorado. The formation consists of bright red sandstones. 8

fine-conglomerates, sandy shales, and sandy limestones, all of varying

shades of red.

The Cutler formation is Permian in age and rests conformably on

the Rico formation. It is widely distributed throughout the northern

portion of the Four Corners region.

Baker and Reeside (Wilmarth, 1938) subdivided the Cutler into

(descending order) the Hoskinini tongue, DeChelly sandstone member. Organ

Rock tongue, Cedar Mesa sandstone member, and the Halgaito tongue.

The name Cutler formation and its subdivisions are currently in

common use in the Four Corners region. However, recent work has suggest­

ed the Hoskinini tongue may be equivalent to the Moenkopi formation, which

is generally considered to be Triassic and overlie the Cutler formation

unconformably.

Earp formation.— Fermo-Pennsylvanian. The Earp formation was

named by Gilluly, Cooper, and Williams (195*0 in southeastern Arizona,

for exposures of gray limestones with interbedded varicolored shales, and

some dolomitic limestones and dolomites which overlie the Horquilla lime­

stone. The Earp formation is herein considered to contain the Pennsyl-

vanian-Permian time boundary. (See Naco group.)

Epitaph dolomite.— Permian. See Naco group.

Escabrosa limestone.— Mississippian. The Escabrosa limestone was

named by Ransome (1904) for exposures on Escabrosa Ridge near Bisbee,

Arizona. At the type locality the Escabrosa is about TOO feet thick.

Ransome described the Escabrosa as:

...rather thick-bedded, nearly white to dark-gray granular limestones...made up largely of crinoid stems. Near the base the beds are commonly 10 or 15 feet in thickness, but above the 9

first hundred feet thicknesses from one to five feet are the rule, with occasional occurrences of more massive strata. The formation as a whole may be characterized as a pure non- magnesian limestone containing practically no arenaceous sediments...

C. H. Girty (in Ransome, 190U) stated that the faunal assemblage from the type locality indicated an age including the Kinderhook and

Osage epochs. Williams (in Sabins, 1955) concluded the Escabrosa was

lower Mississippian, and in part probably Meramacian. Zeller (1957) was

able to show evidence for the upper part being as young as upper Merama­

cian. These generally confirm the correlation of the upper-most Escabrosa

beds with the Meramacian St. Louis limestone by Hernon (1935)* The Esca­

brosa is then largely correlative with the Redwall limestone of northern

Arizona, and the Caballero formation and Lake Valley limestone of south­

ern New Mexico.

The Escabrosa is conformably (Sabins, 1955) overlain by the Mis­

sissippian Paradise formation, or the Black Prince of Mississippian age,

or disconformably by the Horquilla limestone of Pennsylvanian age. The

Escabrosa conformably overlies the Devonian.

Hermosa formation.— Pennsylvanian. The Hermosa formation was named

by Spencer (1899) for exposures in the Animas Valley, Colorado. Cross and

Spencer (1900) described the upper Hermosa as a complex of shales with

some occasional limestone beds. The middle Hermosa is highly fossilifer-

ous, massive, dark gray limestones interbedded with sandstones and con­

glomerates. The lower Hermosa is composed of sandstones, shales, and lime­

stones ranging from greenish-gray to black. Approximately 1,800 feet of the

Hermosa formation underlies the Rico formation at Hermosa Creek, Colorado.

Generally speaking, the Hermosa is underlain by the Molas formation. 10 also of Pennsylvanian age. The "beds of the Molas were absent where des­ cribed by Spencer (1899). The Hermosa formation is conformably overlain by the Rico formation, or in some areas to the west of the Four Corners region by the Cutler formation (Dane, 1935).

The Hermosa formation within the Paradox basin was elevated to group status by Wengerd and Strickland (195^) and subdivided into the

Pinkerton Trail limestone, Paradox formation, and the restricted Hermosa formation at the top. The subdivisions of the Hermosa are easily recog­ nized within the Paradox basin; however, toward the margin and beyond the edge of the basin the absence of the evaporitic Paradox formation does not permit the differentiation of the Pinkerton Trail and the restricted Her­ mosa. These relations are shown in figure 1 (p. 11).

The Hermosa formation (group) in this report is considered to be entirely Pennsylvanian in age. The Rico formation is considered to over- lie the Hermosa, and in this paper is not incorporated in the restricted

Hermosa formation of Wengerd and Strickland (195*+).

Horquilla limestone .— Pennsylvanian. Named for exposures on

Horquilla Ridge, Cochise County, Arizona, by Gilluly, Cooper and Williams

(195*0. The Horquilla limestone consists of thick gray limestones with

thin shaly layers, and comprises a large portion of the former Naco lime­

stone. (See Naco group).

Magdalena group.— Pennsylvanian. The Magdalena group is wide­

spread over large areas of New Mexico and Texas. The group may generally be divided into the Madera limestone and the underlying Sandia formation

(Read, 194?).

The Madera.limestone is essentially a dark-blue limestone which ARIZ. UTAH

paradox formation PARADOX

FORELAND FACIES PINKERTON TRAIL LIMESTONE MOLAS FORMATION

DIAGRAMATIC SECTION ACROSS SOUTHWESTERN EDGE OF THE PARADOX BASIN

HAVENOR FIGURE MODIFIED FROM 1938 BROWN (1955) 12 ranges from 300 to J00 feet in thickness. The Sandia formation is largely composed of shaly limestones, shales, and sandstones, and frequently is

500 to 700 feet chick.

The group has continuously been recognized as Pennsylvanian in age, and is considered in this paper to be correlative to the Horquilla limestone, Hermosa group, and in part to the Naco formation and lower member of the Supai formation in east-central Arizona.

Molas formation.— Pennsylvanian. The Molas formation of the Four

Corners region was named by Cross and Howe (1905) for the red calcareous shales and sandstones containing chert, limestone, quartzite pebbles, and thin limestone lenses with Pennsylvanian fosSils. These beds were observed to unconformably overlie the Mississippian limestones at the type locality.

The exposures described at Molas Lake, Needle Mountains quadrangle, Color­ ado, were not present beneath the Hermosa formation where described by

Spencer (1899), and therefore were not included in the Hermosa formation.

The Molas formation is considered as Pennsylvanian in age and is a valuable marker horizon as it rests unconformably on the pre-Pennsylvanian strata. The formation was originally described as 75 feet thick, but con­ sidering its development upon an irregular Mississippian karst topography it may vary considerably in thickness over short distances. The Molas generally ranges from 0 to 200 feet, but thicknesses to 275 feet have been reported from deep wells.

Wengerd and Strickland (195*0 suggest that the Molas formation is devisible into three members. The lower member, composed of red claystone with Mississippian limestone fragments, the middle member of shale, silt- stone, and some intraformational conglomerate, and the upper member of red 13 marine shales and sandstones.

On the basis of fusulinid age determinations, the Molas formation is herein considered to range from Morrowan to Desmoinesian (Wengerd and

Strickland, 195*0.

Naco group.— Permo-Pennsylvanian. The Naco limestone was original­

ly named "by Ransome (1904) for exposures of an estimated 3,(XX) feet of lime­

stones which form the Naco Hills, south of Bishee, Arizona. Ransome did

not give a type locality or describe a type section. Girty (in Ransome,

1904) recognized fauna of Early Pennsylvanian and Late Carboniferous age, which he considered similar "to that of the limestones of the Hueco Moun­

tains in western Texas." Girty later correlated the upper Naco limestone with the Magdalena limestone of New Mexico (in Schrader, 1915)• This led"

Barton (1925) to assign the upper part of the Naco to the Permian.

Stoyanow (1936) employed the term "Naco formation sensu stricto"

as a means of restricting the Naco limestone to those units of Pennsyl­

vanian age. Stoyanow (1936) attempted to subdivide the "Upper Carbon­

iferous" of southeastern Arizona into five stratigraphic units on the

basis of their contained fossils. The details of this subdivision are

complicated and are adequately covered by Bryant (1955)* The following is

a summary of the results of Stoyanow*s subdivision as given by Bryant

(1955).

The Naco was thus restricted to 1,600 feet by Stoyanow, overlain by about fOO feet of unnamed beds, containing the Wewoka fauna at the top. These two units were assigned to the "Lower Pennsylvanian.". Sandstones and shales, 750 feet thick, also unnamed, overlie the "beds with the Wewoka fauna" and Stoyanow considered that...

the Pennsylvanian-Permian boundary lay within this 750 feet.

The general usage of the term "Naco formation" in the period Ik following Stoyanow's 1936 paper, and until the redefinition of the Naco in 1954 (Gilluly, £t al.), generally follows that of Stoyanow's "Naco formation sensu strieto."

Gilluly, Cooper, and Williams (1954), in an attempt to clarify the Naco nomenclature, elevated the formation to group status. The new

Naco group, with its addition of overlying Permian beds, was then sub­ divided into the Concha limestone, Scherrer formation. Epitaph dolomite,

Colina limestone, Earp formation, and Horquilla limestone at the base.

Bryant (1955) proposed the Naco group be restricted to those beds which were present in the original Naco limestone of Ransome. Those beds included within the Naco group and not included in Ransome*s original definition were assigned by Bryant to the Snyder Hill group and included the Concha limestone and the Scherrer formation at the base. Bryant fur­ ther proposed that the name Andrada formation be employed in the region to the west of the Naco group type locality where the Earp formation, Colina limestone, and Epitaph dolomite cannot be differentiated;

Bryant (1955) discusses the chronological development of the rather confusing nomenclature in an excellent manner, and to do so here would con­ stitute unnecessary repetition.

The nomenclature used in this report follows the recommendations of Bryant (1955)•

Naco formation (east-central Arizona).— Pennsylvanian. The Naco formation of east-central Arizona is accepted for use in this paper as a correlative of the Horquilla limestone, in part, and the lower member of the Supai formation, in part.

The name of this sequence undoubtedly was derived from the corrals- 15- tion of the unit with the former Naco limestone of southeastern Arizona.

Since the redefinition of the Haco formation (see Naco group), the name

is now available for use elsewhere. However, to the writer’s knowledge,

the Haco formation of east-central Arizona has not been assigned a type

section or locality. Further work will be necessary to determine if the

sequence that is presently called Naco formation will be able to stand as

an acceptable formation.

According to Huddle and Dobrovolny (19^5)> the Naco formation is

composed of limestones, shales, and sandstones that gives rise to ledge

and slope topography. The limestones are commonly light gray and brown,

locally red, purple, or green, and are usually dense. Red and reddish- brown chert is common. The shales are frequently white, gray, green, and

red to purple. Beds may be observed to vary considerably in thickness and

lithology as they are traced laterally.

Huddle and Dobrovolny (1945) consider the Naco formation to be

entirely Pennsylvanian in age. This usage will be followed in this paper.

Pakoon formation.— Permian. See Callville limestone.

Paradise formation.— Mississippian. The Paradise formation was

named by Stoyanow (1926) for exposures in the Chiricahua Mountains of

southeastern Arizona. The formation is known to occur only in the Chiri­

cahua Mountains and in southwestern New Mexico (Sabins, 1957b).

Hernon (1935), in his monograph on the fauna of the Paradise for­

mation, described nearly 150 different species from these beds and con­

cluded an upper Meramacian to middle Chesterian age.

Stoyanow (1926) described the Paradise formation as

...composed of black and gray moderately thick and t, f.:- thin-bedded crystalline limestone, olive and yellow when 16

weathered, alternating with sandstone, shale, colite, cross- bedded calcareous sandstone and arenaceous limestone. The preponderant color of this formation is distinctly yellow...

The lower portion of the Paradise formation is probably correla­

tive with the Black Prince limestone of the Dragoon quadrangle (Williams,

195*0 where the latter was named. These two formations are lithological­

ly dissimilar, but they do constitute the youngest Mississippian known in

Arizona.

The Paradise formation conformably overlies the Escabrosa lime­

stone (Sabins, 1955), and is disconformably overlain by the Horquilla

limestone of Pennsylvanian age.

Paradox formation♦— Pennsylvanian. See Hermosa formation.

Pinkerton Trail limestone.— Pennsylvanian. See Hermosa formation.

Redwall limestone.— Mississippian. The Redwall limestone was

named for the excellent exposures of alternating sandstones and limestones

in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. At the mouth of the Grand Canyon the Red­ wall limestone was originally indicated as 2,165 feet thick; however.

Barton (1910) suggested that $10 feet of this section probably belonged

to the newly defined Supai formation.

Noble (1922) restricted the Redwall limestone to the bluish-gray

crystalline limestones of Mississippian age which typically formed the red

cliffs at the Grand Canyon. The beds which Barton had previously suggest­

ed as belonging to the Supai formation were incorporated into that forma­

tion by Noble.

Zeller (1957) concluded that the Redwall was at least as young as

lower Meramacian. Generally, the Redwall is considered as Early Missis­

sippian, however, more work is necessary in order to determine the upper IT age limit.

The Redwall limestone of northern Arizona is here considered as largely correlative with the Rogers Spring limestone of the Muddy Moun­ tains, Nevada, the Escahrosa limestone of southeastern Arizona, and the

Mississippian limestones of the Four Corners region (Leadvilie of most reports).

Rico formation.— Pennsylvanian. The Rico formation was named by

Spencer (1900) for exposures in the Rico Mountains, Colorado. The forma­ tion is composed of chocolate brown to maroon sandstones and conglomer­ ates within interbedded shales and fossiliferous sandy limestones. Spencer indicated an approximate thickness of 300 feet.

Cross (1905) indicated that the base of the Rico formation is located in the field by its lowest fossil-bearing stratum, and the top is selected where the red-beds become predominant. The overlying Cutler formation then contains the apparently unfossiliferous redbeds overlying fossiliferous marine beds.

Bailey (1955) has shown that the Rico formation is essentially an interfingering of Hermosa limestones and Cutler redbeds, and ranges in age from Desmoines through Virgil. On the basis of the work by Bailey (1955) and Henbest (19^8), the Rico formation as used in this paper is retained as a separate formation, and is considered as the uppermost recognizable unit of the Pennsylvanian system in the Four Corners region.

It is recognized that the Rico formation probably does not consti­ tute a valid formation as recognized by modern stratigraphic terminology.

However, the consistent usage of the name which persists in the Four Corners region requires its recognition. 18

Scherrer formation.— -Permian. See Naco group.

Snyder Hill group.— Permian. See Naco group.

Supai formation.— Permo-Pennsylvanian. The Supai formation of northern Arizona, southern Utah, and southeastern Nevada was named by

Barton (1910) for exposures of red sandstones and shales at Supai Village, on Cataract Creek, northern Arizona. These beds have been described in earlier reports as the lower portion of the Aubrey group, and in certain areas as part of the Redwall limestone.

Noble (1922) subdivided the Supai formation, into the currently re­ cognized Supai formation and the Hermit shale at the Grand Canyon. In addition. Noble removed the red chert, and the buff to red calcareous sandstones of Pennsylvanian age from the underlying Redwall limestone and added them to the base of the Supai.

Huddle and Dobrovolny (1945) separated the Supai formation into an upper, middle, and lower member on the basis of lithology and topogra­ phic expression. They considered that the lower member which interfingers with the Naco formation was Pennsylvanian in age, and the middle and upper members were Permian.

The lower member of the Supai formation in this report is consid­ ered correlative to the "c" member of the Supai at the Grand Canyon (Noble,

1922), the basal member of the Supai at Chino Valley (Hughes, 1949), and the Callville limestone at Peach Springs (McNair, 1951). THE. PRE-PENNSYLVANIAN FRAMEWORK

The Mississippian system of Arizona appears to he somewhat more uniform in lithology and distribution than are the overlying Pennsylvanian and Permian systems. The stable tectonic framework of the Early Mississip­ pian was the controlling factor, and its changing nature during the Late

Mississippian and Early Pennsylvanian were the dominating factors govern­ ing the distribution of the Pennsylvanian system.

The Mississippian rocks of Arizona are all of Early and Middle

Mississippian age, except where localized outcrops of the Black Prince limestone and Paradise formation of Upper.Mississippian age occur.

From the present distribution of the Redwall and Escabrosa lime­ stones within Arizona, and correlative units in adjacent states, it appears that Arizona was a stable platform over which the Mississippian seas from the Cordilleran geosyncline extended. Mississippian limestones are known to occur in New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, southern Nevada, southern Califor­ nia, and the State of Sonora, Mexico.

The Defiance-Zuni positive area in the east-central part of the state is believed to have been a site of nondeposition during the Mississip' plan period. A northeast-southwest positive tending area, generally term­ ed Mazatzal land, may have caused thinning and locally the absence of Mis­ sissippian rocks, but generally it appears that a major portion of the state received deposits of relatively silt and sand-free limestones.

The Late Mississippian and Early Pennsylvanian in the western

United States was a time of considerable crustal unrest. The Cordilleran

19 20 geanticline was uplifted; the western trough of the Cordilleran geosyncline received abundant volcanic material; the Oquirrh basin of central Utah, and the Paradox basin of the Pour Corners region began to subside; the Zuni

Mountains of New Mexico, the San Luis, Uncompahgre, and Pedernal positive

areas were uplifted; the Ancestral Rocky Mountains were uplifted; and,

later in the Pennsylvanian, the Marmaton folding occurred in Texas.

The broad uplift of Arizona which began at the end of Middle (?)

Mississippian time was probably genetically related to the beginnings of

the uplifts in the areas adjacent to Arizona. The result in Arizona was

an almost complete retreat of the seas which covered the state. The re­

treat of the seas permitted the development of a karst topograph, and

probably a fairly deep soil cover on top of the extensively exposed Mis­

sissippian limestones. The fact that this uplift was not sufficient to

cause extensive erosion is testified to by the general uniformity of

thickness of the Mississippian system, and the lack of channeling of a

significant nature.

A broad doming of Mississippian and older rocks may have occurred

in the Grand Canyon region toward the close of Mississippian time (Eardley,

1951)• This is suggested by the nature of the Pennsylvanian rocks in this

area; however, no noticeable thinning of the Redwall limestone is reported

in the area (Thomas, 1958, personal communication).

At the beginning of Pennsylvanian time Arizona may be considered

as a stable platform area above sea level. DISTRIBUTION OF PENNSYLVANIAN ROCKS IN ARIZONA AND ADJACENT AREAS

General Statement

A discussion of the distribution of the Pennsylvanian rocks in

Arizona can most logically be approached from the separate analysis of each part of a four-fold division of the state. These major divisons, although somewhat arbitrary, are based upon the present distribution of the Pennsylvanian system, and correspond to the four quarters of the state.

This subdivision of the state permits a simplified approach to the stratigraphic nomenclature, which was one of the basic problems con­ fronting this study, and allows the discussion of each division with relation to its controlling tectonic elements.

The following discussion is intended to present l) the location

of outcrops or subsurface control points, 2) the general stratigraphic

information available from each locality, 3) the correlation of the Penn­

sylvanian rocks of each locality with those of adjacent locations, and

h) a summary of the stratigraphic and tectonic relations of each division

of the state.

Northwestern Arizona and Adjacent Areas

General discussion.--This general area constitutes the region west of Grand Canyon Station, and north of Jerome, Arizona. The rocks

of Pennsylvanian age (chart 1, p. 22) are not extensively exposed in this

area, except within the rather inaccessible Grand Canyon of the Colorado

21 Correlation Chart of Pennsylvanian Formations

northwestern Arizona end Southern Nevada

Chart 1

Goodsprings Muddy Peach Springs Grand J erome Nevada Mountains Nevada Arizona Canyon Arizona

Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino sandstone sandstone Supai sandstone sandstone formation Hermit shale

Supai Supai formation formation Supai Supai Callville(Supai formation formation limestone Z fm.

Bird: Spring Callville limestone limestone

absent

Monte Crlsto Bluepoint limestone limestone

Monte Crlsto Roger Springs Redwall Redwall Redwall limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone 23

River. Good outcrops are available in the Jerome, Chino Valley, Peach

Spring Canyon, and Virgin Mountains areas of Arizona. In addition to these, several significant exposures occur further west in the Muddy Moun­ tains and Goodsprings areas of southern Nevada.

The Pennsylvanian rocks of northwestern Arizona constitute two lithologically distinct formations, the Callville limestone and the red- beds of the Supai formation, both of which are Permo-Pennsylvanian in

Arizona.

Jerome.— Lindgren (1926) reported that approximately 1,000 feet of the redbeds comprising the undifferentiated Supai formation rest un- conformably on the Mississippian Redwall limestone. Peirce (1958, person­ al communication) observed that the limestones which are commonly found in the lower portion of the Supai to the east and northwest are generally lacking in the Jerome section.

Chino Valley.— Redbeds of the Supai formation in the Chino Valley unconformably overlie the Mississippian Redwall limestone, and are report­ ed by McNair (1951) to interfinger with the Callville limestones in the lower part. The portion of the Supai formation which interfingers with the limestones of Callville lithology has been referred to as the basal member (Hughes, 19^9), and the lower member (McNair, 1951) of the Supai formation. On the basis of lithologic correlation and stratigraphic posi­ tion of the lower member of the Supai with the same unit in the Peach

Springs area, McNair (1951) determined a Virgilian age. The designation

of this portion of the Supai formation which interfingers with marine

limestones conforms to the usage by Huddle and Dobrovolny (1945) of the

lower member of the Supai formation in eastern Arizona. 24

Peach Springs.— The Callvllle limestone and the Supai formation unconformably overlie the Mississippian Redwall limestone, and underlie the Permian Coconino sandstone. The lower member of the Supai formation and the Callvllle limestones are observed to interfinger in a manner very- similar to the interfingering at Chino Valley, except that the Callvllle limestones become more predominate than in the latter area.

The lower member of the Supai formation of this area has been correlated with the lower Supai ("C" member of Noble, 1922) at the Grand

Canyon. Lithologic comparison of measured sections available to the west and southwest of the Grand Canyon suggest this is a reasonable correlation despite the lithologic difference of the two end members.

Virgin Mountains.— The Callvllle limestone at North Virgin Moun­ tain is Permo-Pennsylvanian in age (Virgil and Wolfcamp), and is conform­ ably overlain by the redbeds of the Supai formation. The limestones of the Pennsylvanian portion (restricted Callvllle of McNair, 1951) uncon­ formably overlie the Mississippian Redwall limestone. The top of the

Pennsylvanian part of the Callvllle is continuous and gradational into the overlying Permian Callvllle (Pakoon formation of McNair, 1951)•

Although the two portions can be readily separated with a fair degree of accuracy on the basis of fusulinide, the basis for the litho­ logic division has been questioned. The proposed Pakoon formation is not recognizable a few miles to the west where typical Callvllle limestone is

overlain by the Supai formation (Moore, R. T., 1958,'personal communica­

tion).

Muddy Mountains, Nevada.— The Callvllle limestone was named for exposures of the thick limestones of the Muddy Mountains (Longwell, 1928).

The Callvllle limestone, which Longwell (1928) believed to be older than 25 the units in the Virgin Mountains, is unconfonnably overlain by the Per­ mian Supai formation. The base of the Callville was thought by Longwell

(1928) to rest unconformably on the Late Mississippian Bluepoint lime­ stone . Later work by Longwell (1949a) disclosed a Permo-Pennsylvanian age for the Callville of the Muddy Mountains.

Goodsprings, Nevada.— The Bird Spring limestone was reported by

Bewett (1931) to be 2,500 feet thick in the Goodsprings quadrangle.

Hewett correlated these, in part, with the Callville limestone of the

Muddy Mountains. This correlation was both on the basis of fossils and

on lithology, as the sections are lithologically similar.

The Bird Spring limestone unconformably overlies the Early and li’.v

Middle Mississippian Monte Cristo limestone. The Bird Spring limestone

is conformably overlain by the Permian Supai formation, which is not

traceable south or west of the Goodsprings area (Hewett, 1954).

On the basis of fusulinid age determinations (Hewett, 1954) the

upper 1,500 feet of the Bird Spring limestone has been assigned a Wolf-

camp and Leonard age. The lower 1,000 feet has been assigned to the

Pennsylvanian.

Mojave Region, Arizona, Nevada, and California.— To the south­

west of the Peach Springs region, Arizona, and along the western edge of

Arizona, virtually no Paleozoic outcrops are known. Hie Pennsylvanian

history of this area should, for the large part, be left open to ques­

tion. However, it is interesting to note seme of the Carboniferous-

Permian sections that are found in outcrop in the adjoining states of

Nevada and California.

According to Merriam (1954),

Z 26

Carboniferous and Permian strata of the eastern Mojave region are Veil developed in the Providence Mountains and are reported above Cambrian rocks in the Cadiz area to the south. The Provi­ dence Mississippian agrees in considerable part with the Monte Cristo limestone at Goodsprings, Nevada... The Pennsylvanian system is predominately limestone, but it includes sandy lime­ stone, sandstone and shale...Locally basal Pennsylvanian con­ tains small black chert pebbles which recalls the golf-ball chert and Fusulinella zone of the Inyo Mountains... Permian limestones of the Providence Mountains are about 2,000 feet thick and apparently unconformable on subjacent Carbonifer­ ous rocks. A few thin sandstone interbeds are present. Abundant fusulinids in the lower few hundred feet indicate a Wolfcamp age... East of Victorville a thick limestone conglomerate has yielded de­ terminable fossils of Pennsylvanian or Permian age.

In the Nopah Mountains, about 40 miles west of Goodsprings, Ne­ vada, the Bird Spring limestone is only j80 feet thick; however no in­ formation was given as to the completeness of the section. The Missis­ sippian Furnace limestone of the San Bernardino Mountains is about 4,500 feet thick and appears to be overlain by a thick Pennsylvanian (?) clastic section. In the Santa Rosa Mountains of the Imperial Valley of Califor­ nia the Paleozoic section is in excess of 20,000 feet (Dibble, 1954), but no indication of the present thickness of the Pennsylvanian was given.

Stratigraphic and Tectonic Relations in Northwestern Arizona

In northwestern Arizona and southern Nevada the Pennsylvanian portion of the Callville limestone, the Bird Spring limestone, and the

Supai formation disconformably overlie Early to Late Mississippian lime­ stones.

Marine limestones were deposited in the northwest portion of

Arizona during a transgression of Late Pennsylvanian seas from the Cor- dilleran geosyncline which lay to the west and northwest of Arizona.

By late Virgil time the seas had transgressed southeastward to at least the Chino Valley where limestones of Callville lithology, ranging in thickness from 1 foot to 32 feet (McNair, 1951), may be seen to inter­ 27 finger with the Supai formation.

A similar interfingering of limestones and redbeds has been re­ ported from several wells further to the east of the Peach Springs and

Chino Valley areas, and may suggest that the northern portion of Arizona was repeatedly covered by very shallow Virgilian seas from the Cordil- leran geosyncline.

The Supai formation in the Chino Valley area is recognized as

Permo-Pennsylvanian in age. In the Goodsprings area the base of the

Supai formation may be determined as considerably younger than to the east, on the basis on the age of the underlying Bird Spring limestone

(Pennsylvanian to Leonardian). This age relationship clearly indicates the westward migration of the Supai depositions! environment. The li­ thology of the Supai formation, as compared to the Callville limestone, is suggestive of the westward and northwestward retreat of the seas. A similar age relationship is observable in the top of the Callville.

The interfingering of the Callville limestones and the beds of the Supai formation, the absence of marine limestones to the east and southeast, and the thick accumulations of marine limestones to the west suggest that the northwestern part of Arizona was a relatively stable platform in close proximity to the Cordilleran miogeosyncline.

The repeated interbedding of the Callville and the Supai are sug­ gestive of a delicate state of balance having existed between the shelf and the Virgilian seas which repeatedly covered the area.

Northeastern Arizona and Adjacent Areas

General discussion.— Northeastern Arizona may be arbitrarily divided into two paleogeological areas for the Pennsylvanian period. 28

These may be considered as l) the Defiance positive area, and 2) the marginal zone around the positive which received sediments during at least part of the Pennsylvanian period. The sedimentary deposits of

Pennsylvanian age within Arizona are very closely related to those occur­ ring in Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. This relationship is illustrated by a comparison of the Defiance Uplift, Fossil Creek, Black Mountain, and

Gypsum Creek areas with the Pennsylvanian system in the Paradox basin.

Northeastern Arizona and the adjacent areas to the north reflect four environmental patterns or zones of sedimentation during the Pennsylvan­ ian. Only two of these lie within the state boundaries of Arizona. The areas shown on the correlation chart of northeastern Arizona and adjacent areas (chart 2, p. 29) were selected to include those different environ­ ments.

The discussion of northeastern Arizona is limited by the lack of exposures due to the extensive cover provided by post-Pennsylvanian sediments. In the northern portion of this region the only information that is available in Arizona has been obtained from deep petroleum ex­ ploration wells which have penetrated into the pre-Pennsylvanian beds.

Defiance Uplift.— Sediments of Pennsylvanian age are not known to occur on the Defiance Uplift. Permian redbeds comprising the middle and aupper members of the Supai formation have been recognized by Huddle and Dobrovolny (19^5). Several water wells and wildcat petroleum tests have penetrated the Supai formation and have bottomed in either granite or gneiss of probably Older PreCambrian age (Darton, 1925; Huddle and

Dobrovolny, 19^5)♦

The lithology of the middle and upper members of the Supai for- Correlation Chart of Pennsylvanian Formations

northeastern Arizona and Four Corners Region

Chart 2

Grand Black Gypsum Paradox Defiance Canyon Mountain Creek Basin Uplift

Coconino Coconino DeChelly DeChelly Coconino sandstone sandstone member ♦ member sandstone Organ Rock Organ Rock a 5 tonrrue tongue b Cedar Mesa Cedar Mesa Supai Hermit shale Supai e 1 formation H member H member formation 4J *P Supai Halgaito Halgaito formation g tongue g tongue Rico formation Rico formation Upper Hermosa Hermosa fm. 3 Paradox Paradox Hermosa Hermosa member fm. formation formation Lower Pinker­ I Hermosa ton & member Trail Is. i Kolas Kolas Kolas formation formation formation

Redwall Redwall Leadville Leadville 3 limestone limestone limestone of limestone of 5 most reports most reports am •H ca o

ro to 30 nation is quite similar to the lower member in its clastic content; how­ ever, two noticeable differences are apparent. The limestone content of the middle and upper members is significantly less than in the lower mem­ ber. The middle and upper members contain an abundance of white crystal­ line gypsum and anhydrite, and clear rock salt that is not found in the underlying lower member.

Lithologic comparison of sample and core dogs of several closely spaced wells that were drilled on the Defiance Uplift suggest that beds in the lower portion of the middle member thicken slightly going from

the higher portion of the uplift towards the flank on the west. This

may give additional support to the evidence cited by McKee (1951) for

the existence of a positive area of non-deposition in east-central Ari­

zona.

Insufficient subsurface data prohibits the location of the Penn­

sylvanian crestal zone, or the correlation of lithologic units to the

north and east.

Fossil Creek.— The Mississippian Redwall limestone is unconform-

ably overlain by beds that are lithologic ally similar to the Molas forma­

tion of the Four Corners region. Wanless (19*1-9) reports this basal por­

tion of the Pennsylvanian section to be of an approximate Molas age. The

Molas (?) formation is conformably overlain by the Naco formation and

consists of interbedded red sandstones, shales, and limestones.

Hughes (1950), working in the Chino Valley area, concluded that

the lower Supai was probably Early Pennsylvanian in age. This was large­

ly based upon the report of Fusullnella from Fossil Creek. Wanless (1958,

written communication), the source of Hughes' information, indicated that 31 the report of Fuaulinella was in error, and that the futulinid vas an early form of Fusulina. Wanless did not indicate the horizon from which

this species was identified.

Redbeds of the lower member of the Supai formation conformably

overlie the Naco formation. Huddle and Dobrovolny (19^5) report that the lower member of the Supai may be observed to interfinger with the

Naco and the middle member of the Supai. The top of the lower member is

selected at the top of the highest bed of gray limestone, or at the base

of the first massive bed of strongly cross-bedded sandstone. The age of

the lower member, which locally contains fossils, varies at different

localities, but generally is Desmoines to Wolfcamp.

c The lithologic nature of the lower and middle members does not .

permit the exact location of the time boundary, and it is therefore arbi­

trarily placed between the two members. It is felt that this will not

introduce serious error into the discussion of the distribution of Penn­

sylvanian rocks as long as this fact is kept in mind.

Black Mountain.— Information from this area has been obtained

from the Amerada-Stanolind No. 1 Navajo-Black Mountain well. The detailed

sample and core log from this well indicates a close lithologic resem­

blance to the interbedded sandstones, siltstone*, shales, and limestones

of the Fossil Creek section.

At Black Mountain the Molas formation overlies Mississippian

limestones (Leadville of most reports), and is considered by Clair (1952)

to be unconformable in its relation to the Mississippian system. The

lithology of the Molas at Black Mountain is very similar to the lithology

where the Molas is known to unconformably overlie the Mississippian. 32 The Molas formation is overlain by the Hermosa formation. The apparent absence of the typical Rico formation suggests a closer relation­ ship of this section to the Fossil Creek section and may warrant the appli­ cation of the Naco-Supai terminology. Due to the proximity of the Black

Mountain section to the Four Corners, the Hermosa-Cutler terminology is re­ tained following Clair (1952).

Gypsum Creek.— Wells drilled in the Gypsum Creek area indicate the presence of the Molas formation, the Hermosa formation, and the Rico formation. Very little detail is available; however, the thickness of the section has noticeably increased from the Black Mountain area, and the limestones of the Hermosa formation predominate over the elastics.

The Rico formation shows its typical relationship of interbedded sandstones, shales, and limestones. The Rico is overlain by the thick red, sandy, limy shales of the Halgaito tongue of the Cutler formation.

Paradox basin.— The Pennsylvanian stratigraphy of the Paradox basin is discussed at length by Bailey (1955)> Wengerd and Strickland

(195*0> Clair (1952), Baker, Dane, and Reeside (1933), and others. The

terminology used in this report essentially follows that proposed by

Wengerd and Strickland (195*0, as was mentioned under the discussion of

the Hermosa formation.

The Paradox basin occupies an area approximately 200 miles long

and 75 miles wide trending northwest through southwestern Colorado and

southeastern Utah. The size of this basin and its complex stratigraphy

limit the discussion given here to what the writer feels is significant

towards an understanding of the Pennsylvanian framework of sedimentation

in Arizona, and particularly in northeastern Arizona. The general fea­

tures of each formation will be discussed. The stratigraphic and 33 tectonic relations will be summarized with northeastern Arizona.

Molas formation.— Within the Four Corners region and throughout the Paradox basin, the oldest Pennsylvanian is represented by the Molas formation. This formation may be generally divided into three members

(Wengerd and Strickland, 195*0j of which any one or all may be locally absent. The lower member is frequently a red silty shale or claystone containing numerous limestone and chert pebbles derived from the under­ lying Mississippian limestones. The lower member was probably developed on the irregular karst topography of the Mississippian limestones. The middle member commonly consists of siltstones or shales which frequently contain conglomeratic or intraformational conglomerate zones. The upper member, which is generally more local in distribution, is a fossilifer- ous section of interbedded red and green shales and sandstones.

The oldest fossils found in the Molas formation are early forms of Millerella sp. from the Continental Oil Company et al., No. 1 Bich- labito of western San Juan County, New Mexico, and are considered to be

Mcrrowan forms (Wengerd and Strickland, 195*0» At the type locality in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado, the Molas can be well dated as early

Desmoinesian.

Approaching the Monument Upwarp to the west and southwest of the Paradox basin, the Molas formation has been reported by Wengerd and

Strickland (195*0 to become abnormally clastic, and to thicken away from the basin. The Molas formation is generally not recognized in areas further to the west.

Pinkerton Trail limestone.— Overlying the Molas formation in the Paradox basin is the Pinkerton Trail limestone. The Pinkerton Trail is largely a gray, crystalline limestone containing abundant crinoid stems and fusulinids. The formation is observed to thicken and become more

clastic towards the Monument Upwarp in a manner similar to the Molas for­ mation (Wengerd and Strickland, 195^)•

Fusulinids of Atokan and early Desmoinesian age have been report­

ed by Wengerd and Strickland (195*0 both in surface exposures and sub­

surface well cuttings.

Paradox formation.— Overlying the Pinkerton Trail limestone with­

in the Paradox basin is the thick evaporitic sequence referable to the

Paradox formation. Wengerd and Strickland (195*0 divide the Paradox for­

mation into three members. The lower member is largely composed of anhy­

drite, gypsum, black shale, and some dolomite. The middle member con­

tains the majority of the salt found in the basin. In addition to sodium

chloride, small amounts of the bitter salts are present, as are thin

interbeds of gypsum, anhydrite, dark limestones, dolomites, siltstones,

and black shales. The middle member is absent beyond the edge of the

basin and the lower and upper members cannot be readily differentiated

(figure 1, p. ll). The upper member contains abundant amounts of silty

black shale, shaly dolomites and limestones, anhydrite, and gypsum.

Wengerd and Strickland (195*0 report that the Paradox formation

is entirely of Cherokee (middle Desmoines) age.

Hermosa formation.— In•the Paradox basin the Paradox formation

is overlain by the somewhat variable gray limestones and elastics of the

Hermosa formation (restricted). The Hermosa formation thins and becomes

more clastic to the south and southwest of the Paradox basin. To the

least and northeast of the Paradox basin the Hermosa formation rapidly 35

"becomes dominated "by the elastics derived from the Uncompahgre Uplift.

The age of the Hermosa formation varies at different localities and is considered by Wengerd and Strickland (1951)-) to range from Des- moinesian to Wolfcampian.

Rico formation.— Bailey (1955)# in a detailed stratigraphic study of the Rico formation in the Four Corners region, concluded that the in- terbedded gray limestones of Hermosa lithology and the redbeds of Cutler lithology were actually a zone of interfingering of the two formations.

Despite the irregularities in thickness that might be expected from this interfingering relationship, the thickness of the sequence appears to be generally uniform in the Four Corners region. On an isopach and isoli-

thofacies map prepared by Bailey (1955)# it appears that the thickness

trends of the Rico strata in the Four Corners region approximates the

thickness trends of the underlying Hermosa formation.

The age of the Rico formation varies from Desmoines through

Virgil (Bailey, 1955)-

Cutler formation.— Throughout the Four Corners region and the

Paradox basin, the Cutler formation conformably overlies the Rico.

Where the limestones of Hermosa lithology do not interfinger with the

redbeds of the Cutler, as is commonly found to the west and south of

the Paradox basin, the redbeds are generally considered with the Cutler

formation (Dane, 1935)•

The age of the Cutler formation is considered as Permian in this

report. Bailey (1955) points out that the lowermost portion of the Cut­

ler may be upper Virgil in age; however, the general lack of fossils and

the lithologic nature of the formation prohibits the exact delineation 36 of the Pennsylvanian portion. For this reason the time boundary between the Pennsylvanian and the Permian is arbitrarily drawn at the top of the

Rico formation.

Stratigraphic and Tectonic Relations in Northeastern Arizona

In northeastern Arizona, and northward through the Paradox basin, the oldest Pennsylvanian rocks are represented by the Molas formation.

The Molas may generally be considered as the result of reworking of a limestone regolith by Morrowan and Atokan seas. The regolith was devel­ oped on top of the extensively exposed Mississippian limestones during the later portion of the Mississippian and early part of the Pennsylvan­ ian periods. The oldest fossils found in the Molas formation are from northwestern New Mexico and indicate a Morrowan age. The general thick­ ening trend and increase in clastic content toward the present location of the Monument Upwarp is suggestive of the approach toward a positive tending feature to the southwest of the Paradox basin.

The Pinkerton Trail formation is also observed to thicken and become more clastic to the southwest of the Paradox basin. The fact that the eastern portion of the Pinkerton Trail limestone contains no coarse clastic material is indicative that the Uncompaghre area had not yet been subjected to the tectonic disturbances which are well recorded in the later Desmoinesian and throughout the remaining Paleozoic (Wengerd and Strickland, 195**-)•

Following Pinkerton Trail time, the existence of a major re­ stricted basin of deposition to the northeast of Arizona is evidenced by the thick accumulations of limestone, dolomite, black shale, salt, gypsum, and anhydrite. These marine and evaporite beds grade eastward 37 into coarse elastics derived from the actively rising Uncompahgre-San

Luis Uplift of Colorado and New Mexico.

Baker, et al. (1933) concluded that the open seas which supplied new water to the restricted Paradox basin probably lay to the south in

New Mexico. This is somewhat supported by Brill (1952) in his suggestion that an arm of the Magdalena sea extended northward through New Mexico, between the Defiance-Zuni positive and the San Luis positive, and con­ nected with the Paradox basin. The distribution studies of McKee (1951),

Wengerd and Strickland (19510, Bailey (1955), and this paper, based principally upon subsurface information also Indicate the feasibility

of Baker's suggestion. Wengerd and Strickland (195^)> however, consider

that the principal connection was with the Cordilleran miogeosyncline to

the west and northwest of the Paradox basin. It seems probable that

more than one connection with the open sea existed, but it is not

possible at the present time to demonstrate which connection was the prin­

cipal one.

The depositions! environment of the Paradox formation is dis­

cussed in detail by Wengerd and Strickland (195%)* Their interpretation

is largely controlled by the data which they have considered relative to

the black shale problem of the Paradox basin, and is a logical approach

to understanding the complex depositions! pattern of the Paradox basin

sediments.

Within the evaporite member of the Paradox formation and ex­

tending beyond the wedge-out edge of the salt facies, there are inter-

bedded, black, euxinic shales. Wengerd and Strickland (195%) consider

that the shallow waters of the Paradox basin were cyclically cut off 38 from the open sea by depositional barriers such as reefing limestones, similar to those found in the San Juan Canyon, Utah, and giant sand bars and deltas correlative with the Morgan and lower Weber sandstones to the northwest of the Paradox basin. In addition to these depositional bar­ riers the Uncompahgre Uplift to the northeast, the gently shelving San

Juan basin and the Nacimiento Uplift, and the Defiance-Zuni Uplift to the South acted as tectonic barriers.

Wengerd and Strickland (195^) state that

...the black shales with thick salt deposits are the results of rapidly changing conditions in a barred basin as well as fluctuating, cyclic sources of clay supply. The low barriers on the west, southwest and south were periodically lowered epeirogenically to just below sea-level, allowing influx of sea water of normal salinity. The new cycle of deposition began thus with an initial stagnation stage under restricted condi­ tions, during which jet-black claystones and dark argillaceous limestone were deposited; as evaporation proceeded with a pos­ sible decrease in areal extent of a water cover still connected to the normal sea water on the west, dolomite and anhydrite were precipitated.

The available information in Arizona suggests that the seas from the Cordilleran miogeosyncline did not supply the Paradox basin across northern Arizona. This is evidenced by the age of the oldest Pennsyl­ vanian rocks in northwestern Arizona, and by the presence of a positive tending area in north-central Arizona in the vicinity of the Grand

Canyon. The presence of this positive tending area is suggested by the general thinning of the Pennsylvanian system toward the area, and the general increase in the sandstone content of the system (see figure 2,

P. 39).

From a consideration of the present subsurface information in northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah, it appears that the salt. UTAH COLO. N. MEX.ARIZ.

NAVAJO APACHE

TOTAL SANDSTONE IN PENNSYLVANIAN SYSTEM AFTER WENGERD & STRICKLAND (1954)

SCALE IN MILES ------50-----EQUAL SAND CONTENT 01___ ».... 15 30*

FIGURE 2 o# <0 40 anhydrite, and "black shale facies of the Desmoinesian Paradox formation should extend further southwest into Arizona if the Defiance-Zuni Uplift had actually formed a tectonic harrier to the seas which were transgress­ ing northward through eastern and central Arizona. The fact that the limestones of the Hermosa formation wedge out "by overlap onto a positive tending area to the east of the Grand Canyon and against the Defiance

Uplift along the New Mexico-Arizona border does not preclude the possibiH ty of a shallow extension of the Naco sea having existed between the above mentioned mildly positive areas.

The marine Hermosa limestones which overlie the Paradox forma­ tion may have resulted from the flooding of the basin during Late Penn­ sylvania time by seas extending eastward and southeastward across central and northern Utah from the Cordilleran miogeosyncline, and by seas ex­ tending northward from the Mexican or Sonoran geosyncline.

The final regression of Pennsylvanian and earliest Permian seas is recorded in the complex interfingering of marine limestones and red- beds of very shallow marine, tidal, and deltaic origin which become pro­ gressively younger at the top, toward the west and northwest (Wengerd and Strickland, 1954; Bailey, 1955).

Within Arizona the regression of the Pennsylvanian seas from the northeastern part of the state was related to the general withdrawal

of the epeiric seas caused by renewed uplift of the already high Uncom- pahgre-San Luis positive area. This established the largely continental

framework of sedimentation which followed in the Permian period of the

Four Corners region.

The details of the Pennsylvanian geologic and tectonic history kl of the northeastern and north-central portions of Arizona must await further development of subsurface information obtained from deep wells.

The extensive cover which is provided by the post-Pennsylvanian sediments throughout this area make all suggestions on the Pennsylvanian strati­ graphy and geological history subject to question and varying interpre­ tation.

Southern Arizona and Adjacent Areas

General discussion.— The thickest strata of Pennsylvanian age in Arizona are found in the southern half of Arizona (chart 3* P* 42).

Detailed stratigraphic work by Gilluly, Cooper, and Williams (1954),

Bryant (1955), and Sabins (1955) have greatly contributed to an under­ standing of the Pennsylvanian and Permian systems of Arizona.

Southern Arizona can be conveniently divided into two parts for a discussion of the present distribution of the Pennsylvanian system.

The eastern part will be considered as the region east of the Vekol

Mountains, which are located approximately 75 miles west and north of

Tucson. The western part extends from the Vekol Mountains westward to the Colorado River. Outcrops west of the Vekol Mountains are largely questioned as to age and stratigraphic relation to the Pennsylvanian system of Arizona.

Several new investigations which are currently beginning should

contribute significantly to the regional geology of southern Arizona.

Southeastern Arizona.— The Mississippian system is disconform-

ably overlain by the Horquilla limestone throughout southeastern Arizona.

The Horquilla limestone is readily recognized by its stratigraphic posi­

tion, lithology, and faunal assemblage. The Horquilla limestone is Correlation Chart of Penney Iranian Formations

Southeastern Arizona and Southwestern New Mexico

Chart 3

Vekol Waterman Gunnison Hills Portal Santa Rita Mountains Mountains Arizona Hew Mexico

1 ^ s Ssabsent Andrade Earp Earp Aho A formation formation formation formation 1 1 KoD hLO o 0

a 1 Naco group

1 Horquilla Horquilla Horquilla Magdalena Horquilla group 6 limestone limestone limestone limestone 0 1 XXaVsent xX > Paradise ^X^sen^X^X^ a h s e n ^ X ^ X 9 S \ ‘b“ n^ X Black PrlzKse formation

S Esoahrosa Esoahrosa Esoahrosa Esoahrosa Lake Valley ,3 limestone limestone limestone limestone limestone a conformably overlain by the Earp formation or the Andrada formation.

Abundant fusulinids occur in both the Horquilla limestone and in the Earp formation. Determination of the age of various fusulinid horizons by Williams (1951), Zirkle (1952), J. S. Williams (195*0, Bryant (1955), and Sabins (1955) have clearly established the age of the Horquilla lime­ stone to be entirely Pennsylvanian, and the Earp formation to be Permo-

Pennsylvan!an. Although fusulinids occur in both the eastern and western portions of southeastern Arizona, identifications have not been reported from a large portion of the western area.

The Horquilla limestone is a generally uniform pinkish-gray to dark gray, cherty, occasionally sandy, fossiliferous limestone contain­ ing a few gray to black, red, or green shale horizons. The shale becomes more abundant in the upper part of the formation. The division between the Earp formation or the Andrada formation and the Horquilla limestone is arbitrarily drawn at the horizon where the elastics become predominant

over the typical carbonates of the Horquilla.

Sabins (1955) indicates that the lower 835 feet of the Horquilla

limestone at Blue Mountain (Portal area) contains much interbedded shale

and limestone. In this interval Sabins reported five zones, each about

13 feet thick, that appear to be cyclic deposits of limestone, lime­

stone with thin chert beds, shaly limestone, limestone conglomerate, and

shale.

Although the lower boundry of the Earp formation is not dis­

tinct, the over-all lithology and topographic expression of the forma­

tion is characteristic. The Earp formation consists of interbedded lime­

stones, dolomitic limestones, shales, and sandstones that give rise to kh alternating ledge and slope topography above the massive ridge-forming limestones of the Horquilla. The upper part of the Earp formation is generally lacking in fusulinids, but the lower part may contain beds up to several feet thick composed primarily of fusulinid tests.

The thickness of the Earp formation ranges to more than 2,700 feet in the Portal area, more than 2,400 feet in the vicinity of Cochise

Head, central Cochise County, but is only about 1,100 feet thick in the

Gunnison Hills, 45 miles to the west of Cochise Head (Sabins, 1955)•

The Andrada formation which ranges to more than 2,000 feet in thickness, is composed of alternating thin cherty limestones, thin green­ ish-gray siliceous shales, and abundant gypsum and marl. The whole se­ quence weathers to a brownish-orange. The lower 150 feet of the Andrada consists of a varicolored sandstone and siltstone which readily distin­ guishes the Andrada formation from the underlying Hermosa limestone.

Areas adjacent to southeastern Arizona are known to contain

Pennsylvanian strata correlative to the Horquilla and the Earp. The

Madera limestone, as previously described, is lithologically similar to

the Horquilla limestone. In the State of Sonora, Mexico, thick Pennsyl­

vanian limestones have been reported by Iralay (1939), Mulchay and Velasco

(1954), and Ordonez (1956). The limestones at Sierra de Teras, Sonora,

are reported to be 5,510 feet (1,680 meters) thick, and are considered

correlative with the Escabrosa limestone and the Naco group (Ordonez,

1956). Detailed stratigraphic work will be required before the thick

sections in Mexico can be intergrated with the data that has been accumu­

lated from Arizona and New Mexico.

Southwestern Arizona.— Rocks of known Pennsylvanian age are 45 scarce west of the Vekol Mountains. Wanless (1949) reports a very clastic section, which may he of Pennsylvanian age, in the Harquahala mine area, south of Salome, Arizona. No fossils have been found in these beds.

Further investigation in this area might produce information which would have a strong bearing on the interpretation of the Paleozoic history of

southwestern Arizona.

. McClymonds (1958, personal communication) reported undifferent­

iated Paleozoic rocks crop out in the Harquahala Plains between Palo

Verde and Salome, Arizona.

Gilluly (1946) reported Pennsylvanian fauna occur in large

angular boulders in a fanglomerate of probable Tertiary age near Ajo,

Arizona. McKee (1947) reported Pennsylvanian fauna from boulders in a

conglomerate of Cretaceous (?) age exposed in the New Water Mountains of

western Arizona.

Stratigraphic and Tectonic Relations in Southern Arizona

In regard to the tectonic framework of southeastern Arizona,

Sabins (1957a) stated:

The pre-Pennsylvanian strata were deposited on a slowly subsiding shelf that underwent epeirogenic uplift from Middle Ordovician through Middle Devonian time. The rate of subsi­ dence accelerated during the Pennsylvanian and Permian, for the strata deposited during these periods are much thicker than the older ones. The total thickness of the Paleozoic section exceeds 7#600 feet.

The lithology and the fossil evidence from the Horquilla lime­

stone and the Earp formation clearly indicate that during the Pennsyl­

vanian and the Permian periods all of southeastern Arizona was a nega­

tive area receiving marine deposits for almost alT of Pennsylvanian and

Permian time. Bryant (1955) indicated that the Horquilla and the Earp 46 contain "normal marine limestones that certainly are not near-shore de­ posits."

In southeastern Arizona both Bryant (1955) and Sabins (1955) recognized a thickening of the Earp formation northward from the Bisbee area. In this same area a thickening of the total Pennsylvanian system can be observed. It is also in this area that the Paradise formation and the Black Prince limestone, the only Late Mississippian beds in Ari­ zona, are exposed.

Thomas (1958, personal communication), in a study of the Mis­ sissippian system, was able to demonstrate the possible existence of two deeper basins of accumulation along the trend of the area of maximum subsidence. These two deeper areas correspond to the location of the

Paradise and Black Prince exposures respectively. This also coincides with the areas of thickening in the Horquilla and the Earp. It is not possible with the present information to demonstrate two deeper areas of accumulation during the Pennsylvanian; however, one corresponding to the area suggested by Thomas as having been the site of accumulation of the

Paradise formation can be shown to have existed into Permian time.

The area along which maximum subsidence and accumulation occurred in southeastern Arizona during the Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and at least early Permian appear to be coincident. The location and orienta­ tion of this zone of thicker sedimentary accumulation may be related to a major structural trend across southern Arizona.

The conditions of deposition during the Pennsylvanian and Early

Permian in southern Arizona indicates, according to Bryant (1955), "a well-marked pattern of regression and transgression of the seas." This is further emphasized by the cyclic deposits reported by Sabins (1955) in the Portal area. The fusulinid data from the Portal area (Zirkle,

1952) shew that the interval in which the cyclic deposits occur would include all of the Fusulinella zone and extend approximately halfway through the Fusulina zone, thus indicating cyclic type marine deposition during all of Atokan and well into Desmoinesian time.

The present distribution of Pennsylvanian rocks in southern

Arizona implies that their original extent was much greater than is now observed. Bryant (1955) concluded that this is also true for the Permian system of southern Arizona. Detailed mapping will be necessary in the southwestern portion of the state before any conclusions may be drawn as to the western limit of Pennsylvanian and Permian sedimentation. DISTRIBUTION OF PENNSYLVANIAN SEAS IN ARIZONA

General Statement

In summary of the preceding discussion of the Pennsylvanian system of Arizona and adjacent areas, three maps are herein presented to show the distribution of Pennsylvanian seas in Arizona. These maps are for Morrow, Desmoines, and Virgil time. Each of these maps are of necessity interpretative, and for some areas are entirely speculative.

Several pronounced sedimentary trends are noticeable in the

Pennsylvanian system of Arizona, and these are summarized in figure 3

(p. 49). The distribution of Pennsylvanian strata in Arizona is illu­ strated in the form of a fence diagram (plate II, in pocket).

Distribution of Morrowan Seas

Within the state boundaries of Arizona there are no fossils reported that are of unquestioned Morrow age. Sabins (1957b) assigns a Morrow age to the lower-most beds of the Horquilla limestone in south' eastern Arizona. Wengerd and Strickland (1954) report, as previously mentioned, Millerella sp. from very near the Arizona boundary in north­ western New Mexico. From these two references it is readily observable that an extension of the Morrowan seas (figure 4, p. 50) into Arizona is somewhat speculative. The complete lack of Morrowan guide fossils from the base of the system is believed to be due to non-deposition rather than erosion. For this reason, the state of Arizona is shown as a land area except for the northeastern-most corner, the southeastern- most edge, and the southwestern portion of which nothing is known.

48 49

PENNSYLVANIAN SEDIMENTARY TRENDS IN ARIZONA HAVENOR FIGURE 3 1958 UTAH COLO ARIZONA .N.MEX.

POSITIVE

SEAWAY

DISTRIBUTION OF MORROWAN SEAS

FIGURE 4

HAVENOR 1958 51

Distribution of Desmoinesian Seas

Rocks of definite Desmoines age are found over extensive areas of southeastern and northeastern Arizona. Southeastern Arizona appears to have been completely flooded by seas which may have spread eastward from the Cordilleran geosyncline (figure 5, p. 52).

In northeastern Arizona, Desmoinesian strata are recognized

(Clair, 1952) on the northern flank of the Defiance Uplift, and are be­ lieved to wedge out by overlap on the positive area to the west. However, the present subsurface data available is only sufficient to indicate a general approach of marine strata of an uncertain Desmoines age toward a mildly positive area.

The supposition that the Hermosa and Naco seas were joined dur­

ing the Late Pennsylvanian is highly speculative; however, the thickness

trends suggest a shallow connection may have existed. This problem would be greatly clarified by subsurface information in this area.

As has been previously discussed, the meager information avail­

able in southwestern Arizona leaves the area open to speculation. Des­ moinesian fauna are known to occur in marine limestones as far west as

the Vekol Mountains.

Northwestern Arizona appears to have been a shoal throughout

this epoch. This is suggested by the relative uniformity of thickness

in the underlying Mississippian limestones (Thomas, 1958, personal com­

munication), and by the fact that Virgil limestones transgress south­

eastward and interfinger with redbeds in a manner similar to that observ­

ed in east-central Arizona 52

UTAH ARIZONA N.MEX

POSITIVE SEAWAY

E 2 2 EVAP0R1TES

DISTRIBUTION OF DESMOINESIAN SEAS

FIGURE 5

HAVENOR 1958 53

Distribution of Virgilian Seas

As has been previously indicated, rocks of Virgil age are known to occur in northwestern, northeastern, and southern Arizona. The wide

distribution of rocks of this age within the state suggests that the

Pennsylvanian seas reached their maximum extent during this time.

The maximum extent of Virgilian seas (figure 6, p. 5*0 can of

necessity be only a generality due to several significant factors:

l) insufficient control in southwestern Arizona, and in the area imme­

diately south and west of the present Black Mesa basin; 2) the general

uncertainty of the source and depositional environment of the Supai

formation; and 3) the obvious transgressive nature of the formations

with regard to time lines.

The position of a Virgilian land area might be located on the

assumption that the Supai formation was continental in its depositional

environment. Any such positive area in Arizona, with the possible ex­

ception of the Defiance Uplift, above sea-level would be ephemeral in

nature since the very shallow seas of the Late Pennsylvanian and of the

Early Permian were characterized by repeated extensive invasions and

retreats over stable platform areas. Arizona was probably almost com­

pletely covered at numerous times by these shallow seas flooding the

exceedingly low positive tending areas.

From the present pale ontologic control it appears that the Late

Pennsylvanian and Early Permian formations of Arizona become progres­

sively younger at their tops toward the west, and toward the south

(Sabins, 1957b) of the Defiance Uplift.

No positive areas are known within southeastern Arizona, and it 54

UTAH' COLO. N.MEX.

POSITIVE SEAWAY TRANSITIONAL

DISTRIBUTION OF VIRGIL1AN SEAS

FIGURE 6

HAVENOR 1958 55 may be assumed that this portion of the state was continuously flooded well into the Permian.

The paieogeology of southwestern Arizona, as was the case in

the earlier epochs, remains highly conjectural. The extension of seas

from the Cordilleran geosyncline over this area is a possibility. Con­

versely, a western extension from the Mexican or Sonoran geosyncline may

have existed. LOCATION OF PENNSYLVANIAN CONTROL POINTS

The following data is presented to indicate the location and source of measured sections, reported thicknesses, and wells utilized in this study. The reference numbers correspond to those points shown on plate I (in pocket). The source of the information is given, and the area concerned. The thickness of the Pennsylvanian strata at each lo­ cality is not necessarily that reported in the original source. All thicknesses given are for Pennsylvanian rocks unless otherwise indicated.

All workers listed below are also listed in the bibliography.

Information on wells listed may be obtained from Petroleum Information, or American Stratigraphic Service in Denver, Colorado. In addition, in­ formation on some of the wells may be obtained from the United States

Geological Survey, Ground Water Branch, Tucson, Arizona, and the Univer­ sity of Arizona.

1. Noble, 1922, Bass Trail (Grand Canyon), 208 ft.

2. Hewett, 1931; Goodsprings, Nev., 1,000 ft.

3. Ransome, 1923, Ray, Ariz., Miss, and Penn. 1,000 ft.

4. Baker, 1936, Halgaito anticline 36-41S-17E, Utah, 1,707 ft.

5. Baker, 1936, Gypsum Creek, 7-4lS-23E, Utah, 1,240 ft.

6. Baker, 1936, 25-41S-17E, Utah. 1,020 ft. incomplete.

7. Baker, 1936, Halgaito anticline, 23-42S-17E, Utah. 1,603 ft.

8. Baker, 1936, Organ Rock anticline,-35-42S-14E, Utah. 1,511 ft.

9. Spencer, 1935, Santa Rita, 17S-12W, N. Mex. 795 ft.

10. Miser, 1925, San Juan River, Utah. 1,300 ft.

56 11. Barton, 1928, N. Hex. Pecos, 1,237 ft. Los Pinos Mts., 1,200 ft. Sandia Mts., 900 ft. Manzona Mts., 950 ft. Magdalena Mts., 1,100 ft. Sacramento Mts., 1,500 ft. Nacieento Mts., 500 ft.

12. Wengerd, 195^, Paradox basin, thicknesses variable.

13. Hughes, 1950, Chino Valley, Ariz. Total Supai 1,072 ft.

14. McNair, 1951, Peach Springs, 344 ft. North Virgin.Mt., 673 ft. Hurricane Cliffs, 277 ft. North Grand Wash Cliffs, 518 ft.

15. Sabins, 1955, Chiricahua Mts., Ariz. 1,900 ft.

16. Sabins, 1957b, Portal, Ariz., 1,845 ft.

17* Gilluly, 1954, Gunnison Hills, Ariz. 1,950 ft.

18. King, 1929, Hueco Canyon, Tex. Cisco, Canyon, Strawn, 2,050 ft.

19. Gregory, 1931, Kaiparovitz area, Utah. 1,600 ft.

20. Lasky, 1947, Little Hatchet Mts., N. Mex. 1,400 ft.

21. Ransome, 1904, Bisbee, Ariz. Permo-Penn. 3,000 ft.

22. Peterson, 1951, Castle Dome, Ariz. 500 ft. eroded.

23. Brill, 1952, Pecos, N. Mex. 2,139 ft.

24. Longvrell, 1928, Muddy Mts., Nev. 2,000 ft.

25. Lindgren, 1926, Jerome, Arizona. Total Supai 1,000 ft.

26. Ross, 1925, Banner, Ariz. Horquilla (?) 1,100 ft.

27. Schrader, 1915, Santa Rita-Patagonia Mts., Ariz. Penn. (?) 800 ft

28. Peterson, 1956, Christmas, Ariz. 1,000 ft.

29. Heaton, 1950, N . Mex. Jemez Springs, 500 ft. Sangre de Cristo Mts., 1,350 ft.

30. Stark, 1946, N. Mex. Los Pinos Mts., 1,680 ft. Sandia Mts., 900 ft. Magdalena Mts., 1,100 ft. Sacramento Mts., 1,500 ft. San Andres Mts., 2,000 ft. Nacimento Mts., 500 ft.

31. Read, 1947, N. Mex. Estancia Valley, 2,040 ft. Lucero Uplift, 1,400 ft. (faulted). Zuni Uplift, 0-200 ft.

32. Wilson, 1927, Courtland, Ariz. Penn, present.

33* Wilson, 1933, southern Yuma Co., Ariz. Penn, unknown. 34. Bryan, 1925# Vekol Mts., Ariz. 200 ft.

35* Butler, 1938# Tombstone, Ariz. Naco group 3#263 ft.

36. Short, 1943# Queen Creek (Superior), Ariz. 200-1,200 ft.

37« Ross, 1923# SW Ariz. - No Paleozoic outcrops reported.

38. Not used.

39. Maidonado-Koerdell (manuscript), Cananea, Cahullona, El Tigre, Mexico. Penn, recognized.

40. Huddle, 1945, Fossil Creek, Ariz. 572 ft.

41. Huddle, 1945, 19-15N-18E, Ariz. 1,082 ft.

42. Huddle, 1945, 34-15N-9E, Ariz. 1,030 ft.

43. Huddle, 1945, 14-14N-26E, Ariz. 149 ft.

44. Huddle, 1945, 22-15N-29E, Ariz. Zero ft.

45. Huddle, 1945, Hayden, Ariz. 38O ft.

46. Huddle, 1945# Superior, Ariz. 1,100 ft.

47. Huddle, 1945# Roosevelt Reservoir, Ariz. Zero ft. eroded.

48. Huddle, 1945# Salt River area, Ariz. 1,115 ft.

49. Huddle, 1945# CarrlzoCreek, Ariz. 865 ft.

50. Huddle, 1945# Spring Canyon, Ariz. 889 ft.

51. Huddle, 1945, 34--15N-192, Ariz. 1,028 ft.

52. Huddle, 1945, 21-17N-20E, Ariz. 880 ft.

53* Huddle, 1945# San Juan River, Utah. 983 ft. plus Rico.

54. Huddle, 1945# Cedar Mesa, Utah. 2,010 ft.

55* Huddle, 1945, Black River, Ariz. 620 ft.

56. Huddle, 1945# Cliff House Canyon, Ariz. Naco 620 ft.

57* Huddle, 1945# i'East Verde River, Ariz. Naco 390 ft.

58. Huddle, 1945# Tonto Creek, Ariz. Naco present.

59. Britt, 1955# Hilltop, Ariz. 896 ft. 60. Brittian, 195b, Hilltop, Ariz. Permian (?)-Fenn. 2,240 ft.

61. Anthony, 1951, Montona-Cottonwood Canyon, Ariz. Penn. (?) 1,199 ft.

62. Hillebrand, 1953^ Dripping Springs, Ariz. 1,000 ft. eroded.

63. Papke, 1952, Hilltop, Ariz. Permo-Penn. 2,232 ft.

64. Le Mone, David, 1958, personal communication, Whetstone Mts., 1,250 ft.

65. Houser, 1949, Twin Buttes, Ariz. Permo-Penn. 1,300 ft. Section faulted and eroded.

66. Bromfield, 1950, Santa Catalina Mts., Ariz. Zero ft. eroded.

67. Kiersch, 1947*. Christmas,area, Ariz. 1,000 ft.

68. Ordonez, 1954, Sierra de Teras, Sonora. Miss., Penn., and Permian 5,510 ft. (1,680 meters).

69. Carpenter, 1947, Vekol Mts., Ariz. 415 ft. eroded.

70. Wanless, 1949, Tombstone Hills, Ariz. 1,200 ft. (see 75)*

71. Wanless, 1949, Swisshelm Mts., Ariz. 533 ft. incomplete.

72. Wanless, 1949, Portal, Ariz. 2,100 ft. Zoned on fusulinids by Zirkle, 1952.

73* Wanless, 1949, Bisbee, Ariz. 1,970 ft. Zoned on fusulinids by Williams, 1951*

74. Wanless, 1949, Gunnison Hills, Ariz. 1,480 ft. (?).

75. Wanless, 1949, Tombstone Hills, Ariz. Earp faulted.

76. Wanless, 1949, Whetstone Mts., Ariz. See 64.

77* Wanless, 1949, Empire Mts., Ariz. Top uncertain.

78. Wanless, 1949, Picacho de Calero, Ariz. 720 ft.

79. Wanless, 1949, Santa Rita Mts., Ariz. 622 ft.

80. Wanless, 1949, Vekol Mts., Ariz. 795 ft. incomplete.

81. Wanless, 1949, WinKleman, Aria. 323 ft. eroded.

82. Wanless, 1949, Granville, Ariz. 220 ft. eroded. 6o

83. Wanless, 19^9» Superior, Ariz. 1,089 ft.

84. Wanless, 1949, Coolidge Dam, Ariz. I,6l8 (?) ft.

85. Wanless, 1949, Harquahala Mts., Ariz. Miss, to Permian 1,728 ft. . Faulted section.

86. Wanless, 1949, East Verde River, Ariz. Naco 385 ft. Incom­ plete section.

87. Wanless, 1949, Fossil Springs (creek), Ariz. Naco 405 ft.

88. Wanless, 1949, Salt River and U. S. Highway 60, Ariz. See 48.

89. Wanless, 1949, Spring Canyon, Ariz. See 50*

90. Wanless, 1949, Black River, Ariz. See 55*

91. Wanless, 1949, White River, Ariz. 1,100 ft.

92. Wanless, 1949, Carrizo Creek, Ariz. 391 ft. Lower Naco covered.

93* Wanless, 1949, Kaibab Trail, Grand Canyon. 309 ft.

94. Wanless, 1949, Bass Trail, Grand Canyon. 24l ft.

95• Wanless, 1949, Grandview Trail, Grand Canyon. 322 ft.

96. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 42S-l8w, Utah. 1,660 ft.

97• Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 42S-14W, Utah, 1,650 ft.

98. McClymonds, N., 1958, personal communication. Slate Mts., Ariz. Penn, present. Harquahala Plains, Ariz. Paleozoic reported.

99« McClymonds, 1957, Waterman Mts., Ariz. 468 ft.

100. Texas Co. No. 1 Navajo "K" 19-40S-26E, Utah. 2,636 ft.

101. Shell Oil No. 1 Cahome Mesa, 14-40S-25E, Utah. 2,485 ft.

102. Texas Co. No. 3 Navajo "G" 17-40S-24E, Utah. 1,182 ft. Not total thickness.

103. Shell Oil No. 3 Unit, 4-40S-23E, Utah. 2,232 ft.

104. Pan-American Petrol. Corp. No. 1 Martha Featherstone "B" 23-40S-22E, Utah. 1,393 ft. Not total thickness.

105. Carter Oil No. 2 Navajo-Gothic, 36-40S-20E, Utah. 2,253 ft. 6l

106. Argo Oil, Petroleum Inc., Clayton Oil No. 1 Gov't. Oak, 9-40S-20E, Utah. 2,282 ft.

107. Don Danvers No. 1-A Harris, 15-403-12E, Utah. 1,381 ft.

108. Skelly .Oil No. 1-A Unit, 27-40S-12E, Utah. 1,381 ft.

109. Byrd Oil No. 1 Rees Canyon, 4-40S-5E, Utah. 634 ft.

110. S h e n Oil No. 2 Desert Creek, 35-41S-23E, Utah. 2,138 ft. in. Carter Oil No. 1 Navajo-Tribal, 33-41S-22E, Utah. 2,379 ft*

112. Shell Oil No. 1 Tohonadla, 35-41S-21E, Utah. Molas 224 ft. n 3 . Carter Oil No. 1 Unit, 1-42S-24E, Utah. 2,517 ft. n4. S h e n Oil No. 1 Desert Creek, 2-42S-23E, Utah. 1,685 ft. Not total thickness. n 5 . Gulf Oil No. 1 White Mesa, 27-42S-23E, Utah. 2,010 ft. n6. Gulf Oil No. 1 Boundary Butte, 33-42S-22E, Utah. 1,905 ft. n 7 . Carter Oil No. 1 Anido Creek, 33-43S-25E, Utah.' 1,874 ft. n8. Shell Oil No. 1 White Mesa, 6-43S-24E, Utah. 2,706 ft. n 9 . Western Natural Gas No. 7 English-Tribal, 16-43S-22E, Utah. 1,883 ft.

120. Don Danvers No. 1 Federal, 1-37S-18E, Utah. 2,822 ft.

121. Forest Oil No. 1 Govt., 31-39S-15E, Utah. 1,803 ft.

122. California Co., No. 1 Unit, I8-36S-IOE, Utah. 1.094 ft.

123. Stanolind Oil and Gas No. 1 Federal, 2-34S-19E, Utah. 2,474 ft.

124. N. B. Hunt No. 1 Circle Cliffs, 24-34S-7E, Utah. 805 ft.

125. Stanolind Oil and Gas No. 1 Cainvnie Unit, 29-28S-8E, Utah. 1,855 ft.

126. Texas Co. No. 1 Unit, 28-32S-19E, Utah. 2,128 ft.

127. Carter Oil No. 1 Unit, 15-39S-18B, Utah. 2,294ft.

128. Three States Natural Gas No. 1 Utah State, 32-39S-23E, Utah. 2,975 ft. 62

129. Ralph E. Fair Wo. 1 Butler Wash, 16-38S-2U2, Utah. 2,823 ft.

130. Carter Oil No. 1 Unit, 5-27S-1UE, Utah. 1,770 ft.

131. Delhi Oil No. 1 Russell, 34-25S-12E, Utah. 2,240 ft.

132. Standard of California No. 1 Unit, 32-25S-15E, Utah. 2,399 ft.

133. King Oil No. 2 Ruby, 11-265-192, Utah. 5,60$ ft.

134. Glen Ruby No. 1-A Govt., 11-26S-19E, Utah. 5,727 ft.

135. Carter Oil No. 2 Nequoia Arch Unit, 35-273-152, Utah. 1,901 ft.

136. Reynolds Mining Corp. No. 1 Govt., 35“29iS“20E, Utah. 5,054 ft;

137. Gulf Oil Corp. No. 2 Unit, 20-35S-26E, Utah. 2,978.ft.

138. Continental Oil No. 1 Ute Mountain, 7-32N-19W, Colo. 1,976 ft.

139. Honolulu Oil No. 1 Govt., 17-32N-20W, Colo. 1,955 ft.

140. Stanolind Oil and Gas No. 6 Ute Indian B, 17^33N-7W, Colo. 2,04l ft.

141. Shelly Oil No. 1 Lloyd Benton, 15-33N-13W, Colo. 2,877 ft.

142. California Company No. 1 Ute Tribal, 22-33N-19W, Colo. 2,378 ft.

143. Great Western Drilling No. 1 Fort Lewis School land, 3-3^N-llW, Colo. 3,179 ft.

144. General Petroleum Corp. No. F-ll-32 Cater, 32-34N-12W, Colo. 2,973 ft.

145. Reynolds Mining Corp. No. 1 Ft. Lookout, 18-36N-14W, Colo. 3,241 ft.

146. Three States Natural Gas No. 1 Didley, I3-36N-I8W, Colo. Par ad ox-Molas 2,l60 ft-.

147. Gulf Oil Corp. No. 1 Fulks, 27-37N-17W, Colo. 3,192 ft.

148. Continental Oil No. 1 Lone Dome, 26-40N-l6w, Colo. 5,364 ft.

149. Continental Oil No. 1 Baumgartner-Sane, 12-40N-20W, Colo. 3,576 ft.

150. Reynolds Mining Corp. No. 1 Govt. Egnav, 24-43N-19W, Colo. 6,612 ft. 63

151. Escalente Exploration No. 2, 19-43S-15W, Utah. 70? ft.

152. Franco Western Oil No. 1 Navajo, 22-41N-28E, Ariz. 1,675 ft.

153. Sinclair Oil and Gas No. 1 Santa Fe, 35-2%-lW, Ariz. 322 ft.

154. El Paso Natural Gas, Stanolind Oil and Gas No. 1 Bita Peak, 19-41N-31E, Ariz. 1,682 ft.

155. Hancock Oil No. 1 Dinne-Federal, 29-41N-27E, Ariz. 1,770 ft.

156. Falcon-Seaboard Drilling No. 1 Govt., 28-4QN-8W, Ariz. 765 ft.

157. Texas Co. No. 1-A Navajo, 34-42N-18E, Ariz. 1,060 ft.

158. Phillips Petroleum No. 1 Navajo, 5-30N-17W, N. Mex. 1,996 ft.

159. Humble Oil and Refining No. 1-C Navajo, 8-31N-18W, N. Mex. 2,009 ft.

160. M. M. Garrett No. 1 Navajo, 25-29N-17W, N. Mex. l,66l ft.

161. Pan-American Petroleum Corp. No. 1 Gulf-Navajo, 4-25N-16W, N. Mex. 1,130 ft.

162. Southern Union No. 1 Navajo, 1-21N-14W, N. Mex. 634 ft.

163. El Paso Natural Gas No. 1 Elliot-State, 36-19N-2W, N. Mex. 1,188 ft.

164. Magnolia Petroleum No. 1 Hutchinson-Federal, 14-19N-3W, N. Mex. 1,206 ft.

165. Superior Oil No. 25-14 Govt., 14-14N-8W, N. Mex. 637 ft.

166. Great Western Drilling No. 1 Hospha-Santa Fe, 1-17N-9W, N. Mex. 776 ft.

167. Continental Oil No. 1 Unit, 13-30N-21W, N. Mex. 1,590 ft.

168. Continental Oil No. 1 Navajo, 13-2$N-19W, N. Mex. 1,450 ft.

169. Plymouth No. 1 Santa Fe, 13-15N-10W, N. Mex. 4l0 ft.

170. Richfield No. 1 Drought-Booth, 4-15N-6W, N- Mex. 990 ft.

171. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication," 16N to 18N-2E, N. Mex. 480 ft.

172. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 19-13N-5E, N. Mex. 1,040 ft. 64

173. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 6-24N-1W, N. Hex. 775 ft.

174. Sinclair Oil and Gas Ho. 1 Havajo-Tribal, 28-37N-14E, Aria. 869 ft.

175. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 29N-19W, N. Mex. 1,220 ft.

176. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 16- 32N-14W, Colo. 2,430 ft.

177- Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 17- 26n -18w , N. Mex. 1,030 ft.

178. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication. 11-19N-21W, N. Mex. Zero ft. Permian 2,150 ft.

179. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 4-15N-6W, N. Mex. 990 ft.

180. El Paso Natural No. 5 Ute, 2-32N-14W, Colo.

l8l. Joe W. Brown No. 1 Govt., 4-21S-61E, Nev. 2,353 ft.

l8g. Williams and Gore No. 1 New Mexico Land and Cattle, 27-7N-4W, N. Mex. 760 ft.

183. Utah Southern Oil No. 1 Noble, 28-40S-18E, Utah. 2,010 ft.

184. Great Basin Oil Co. No. 1 Taylor-Fuller, 21-17N-20E, Aria. 880 ft.

185. Amerada-Stanolind No. 1 Navajo-Black Mountain, 26-32N-23E, Aria. 520 ft.

186. ) Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 28N-30E, Aria. Zero ft. Permian present.

187. Pye, W. D., 1958, personal communication, 17N-29E, Aria. Zero ft. Permian present.

188. General Petroleum Corp. No. 14-6 Creager-State 6-19N-23E, Aria. Zero ft. Permian Supai 1,763 ft.

189. San Juan Oil and Development No. 1 Gypsum Creek, 7-41N-23E, Aria. .1,240 ft.

190. Smith, 1956, southern Santa Crua Co., Aria. 800 ft. (?). 65

191. Gilluly, 1946, Ajo, Ariz. Penn, pebbles and boulders in Tertiary fanglomerate.

192. McKee, 194%, Penn, boulders in Cretaceous (?) conglomerate in the Hew Water Mts., Ariz.

193. Hemenway, G. A., 1958, written communication, Collins Gap well, 4-34N-3E, Ariz. Penn, present.

194. Superior Oil Ho. 28-31 Blackwell, 6N-11E, H. Mex. 1,180 ft. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anthony, John W., 1951, Geology of the Montona-Cottonwood Canyons area, Santa Cruz County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS).

Bailey, James S., 1955, A stratigraphic analysis of Rico strata in the Four Corners region: Univ. Arizona thesis (PhD).

Baker, A. A., Dane, C. H., and Reeside, J. B., Jr., 1933; Paradox forma-, tlon of eastern Utah and western .Colorado: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 17, p. 963”980.

______, 1936, Geology of the Monument Valley - Navajo Mountain region, San Juan County, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 865, 106 p.

Bass, N. W., 19U5, Correlation of basal Permian and older rocks in southwestern Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, and southeastern Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Prelim. Chart 7.

Brill, K. G. Jr., 1952, Stratigraphy in the Permo-Pennsylvanian zeu- geosyncline of Colorado and northern New Mexico: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 63, p. 809-880.

Britt, T. L., 1955; The geology of the Twin Peaks area, Pima County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS).

Brittian, Richard L., 195^; Geology and ore deposits of the western portion of the Hilltop Mine area, Cochise County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS).

Bromfield, Calvin S., 1950, Geology of the Maudina mine area, northern Santa Catalina Mountains, Pinal County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS).

Brown, S. C., 1955; see Kiersch, George A., 1955*

Bryan, Kirk, 1922, Erosion and sedimentation in the Papago Country, Arizona, with a sketch of the geology: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 730(b), p. 19-90.

______, 1925; The Papago Country, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper U99; ^36 p.

Bryant, Donald L., 1955; Stratigraphy of the Permian system in southern Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (PhD).

66 67

Butler, B. S., Wilson, E. D., and Baser, C. A., 1938, Geology and ore deposits of the Tombstone district, Arizona: Arlz. Bur. Mines Bull. 151, 159 P-

______, 1949, Setting of Arizona in Cordilleran structure: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 60, p. 1877 (abst).

Carpenter, Robert H., 194?, The geology and ore deposits of the Vekol Mountains, Pinal County, Arizona: Stanford Univ. thesis (PhD).

Clair, Joseph R., 1952, Paleozoic Rocks of the southern Paradox basin: Geol. Symposium Four Corners region. Four Corners Geol. Soc., Durango, Colo., p. 36-39*

Cooley, Maurice E., 1957, Geology of the Chinle formation in the upper Little Colorado drainage area, Arizona and Hew Mexico: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS).

Cross, W., Spencer, A. C., and Burlington, C. W., 1899, La Plata, Colo­ rado: U. S. Geol. Survey Folio No. 60, l4 p.

______, and Spencer, A. C., 1900, Geology of the Rico Mountains, Colorado: U. S. Geol. Survey 21st Annual Report, p. 7-165.

______, Howe, E., and Ranseme, F. L., 19°5> Silverton, Colorado: U. S. Geol. Survey Folio No. 120, 34 p.

t and Ransome, F. L., 1905, Rico, Colorado: U. S. Geol. Survey Folio No. 130, 20 p.

Dane, C. H., 1935, Geology of-the Salt Valley anticline and adjacent areas. Grand County, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 863, 184 p.

Darton, N. H., 1910, A reconnaissance of parts of northwestern New Mexico and northern Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 435, 88 p.

______, 1925, Resume of Arizona geology: Afl-z. Bur. Mines Bull. 119, 298 p.

, 1928, "Redbeds" and associated formations in New Mexico: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 794, 356. p.

Dibble, T. W., Jr., 1954, Geology of the Imperial Valley region, Cali­ fornia: Calif. Div. Mines Bull. 170, Chap. II, p. 21-28.

Eardley, A. J., 1949, Paleotectonic and paleogeog raphic maps of central and western North America: Bull. Amer.. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 33, P» 655-682.

______, 1951, Structural Geology of North America: Harper and Bros., New York. 68

Ferguson, H. E., and Muller, S. W., 1949, Structural geology of the Hawthorne and Tonopah quadrangles, Nevada: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 216, 55 P»

Gilluly, James, 1946, The Ajo mining district, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 209, 112 p.

______, 1949, Distribution of mountain building in geologic ti time: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 60, p. 561-590*

______, Cooper, J. R., and Williams, J. S., 1954, Late Paleozoic stratigraphy of central Cochise County, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 266, 49 p.

Gregory;, H. E., 1917» Geology of the Navajo country - a reconnaissance of parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 93; l6l p.

______, and Moore, R. C., 1931, The Kaiparowits region: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper l64, l6l p.

______, 1938, The San Juan country: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 188, 123 p.

Heaton, Ross L., 1950; Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic history of Colorado and adjacent areas: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 34, p. 1659-1698.

Henbest, L., 1948, New evidence of the age of the Rico formation in Colorado and Utah: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 59; P* 1329- 1330 (abst).

Hernon, R. M., 1935; The Paradise formation and its fauna: Jour, of Paleont., vol. 9; P* 653-696.

Hewett, D. F., 1931; Geology and ore deposits of the Goodsprings quad­ rangle, Nevada: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 162, 172 p.

______, 1954, General geology of the Mojave Desert region, Cali­ fornia: Calif. Div. Mines Bull. 170, Chap. I, p. 5-19*

Hillebrand, James R., 1953; Geology and ore deposits in the vicinity of Putnam Wash, Pinal County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS). .

Houser, Frederick N., 1949; The geology of the Contention mine area, Twin Buttes, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS). Huddle, J. W., and Dobrovolny, E., 1945, Late Paleozoic stratigraphy of central and northeastern Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Oil and Gas Investigation Prelim. Chart 10.

Hughes, Paul W., 1949, History of the Supai formation in Black Mesa, Yavapai County,. Arizona: Plateau, vol. 22, p. 32-36*

______, 1950, Stratigraphy of the Supai formation, Chino Valley area, Yavapai County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS).

______, 1952, Stratigraphy of the Supai formation, Chino Valley area, Yavapai County, Arizona: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol., 36, p. 635-657*

Imlay, Ralph, 1939, Paleogeographic studies in northeastern Sonora: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 50, P* 1723-1744.

Jackson, Robert L., 1951, The stratigraphy of the Supai formation along the Mogollon Rim, central Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS). '

Kiersch, George A., 1947, The geology and ore deposits of the Seventy Nine mine area, Gila County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis , (PhD).

______, 1955, Mineral resources, Navajo-Eopi Indian Reserva­ tions, Afizona-Utah: Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson (1956), vol. 1, 75 p.

King, P. B., and King, R. E., 1929, Stratigraphy of outcroping Car­ boniferous and Permian rock of Trans-Pecos, Texas: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 13, p. 907-926.

Knopf, A., 1918, Inyo Range and the eastern slope of the southern Sierra Nevada, California: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 110, 130 p.

Krumbein, W. C., and Sloss, L. L., 1953, Stratigraphy and Sedimenta­ tion: W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

Lasky, Samuel, 1947, Geology and ore deposits of the Little Hatchet Mountains, Hidalgo and Grant Counties, New Mexico: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 208, 101 p.

Levorsen, A. I., 1933, Studies in paleogeology: Bun. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. .17, p. n 0 7 ~ n 3 2 .

Lindgren, Waldemar, 1905, The copper deposits of the Clifton-Morenci district, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 43, 375 p.

Univ. of Arizona Library TO

______, 1926, Ore deposits of the Jerome and Bradshaw Mountains quadrangles, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 782, 192 p.

Longwell, Chester, 1928, Geology of the Muddy Mountains, Nevada: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 798, 152 p.

______, and Dunbar, C. 0., 1936, Problems of Pennsylvanian-Permian boundary in southern Nevada: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 20, p. 1198-1207.

______1949% Structure of the northern Muddy Mountain area, Ne­ vada: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 60, p. 923-968.

______, 19^91% Structure in the Arizona-Nevada boundary area: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 60, p. 190$.

Maldonado-Koerdell, Manuel, (manuscript) Nomenclature, bibliografia y correlacion de las formaciones Arqueozoicas y Paleozoicas de Mexico: Paleontologo, Gerencia de Exploracion, Petroleos Mexicanos.

McClymonds, Neal E., 1957* The stratigraphy and structure of the Water­ man Mountains, Pima County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MS).

McKee, E. D., 1940, Three types of cross-laminations in Paleozoic rocks of northern Arizona: Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. 238, p. 811-824.

______, 1947, Paleozoic seaways in western Arizona: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 31* P* 282-292.

______, 1951* Sedimentary basins of Arizona and adjoining areas: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 62, p. 481-506.

McNair, Andrew H., 1951* Paleozoic stratigraphy of part of northwestern Arizona: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 35* P» 503-541.

Merriam, Charles W., 1954* Rocks of Paleozoic age in southern Califor­ nia: Calif. Div. Mines Bull. 170, Chap. Ill, p. 9-14.

Miser, H. D., 1925* Geological structure of the San Juan Canyon and . adjacent country, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 751(d), p. 115- 155.

Moore, Raymond C., 1933* Historical Geology: McGraw-Hill, New York.

______* 1949* Introduction to Historical Geology: McGraw-Hill, New York.

Moore, Richard T., 1958, personal communication, Arizona Bur. Mines, Tucson, Arizona 71

Mulchay, Roland B., and Velasco, J. Ruben, 1954, Sedimentary rocks at Cananea: Min. Eng., vol. 6 (Amer, Inst. 1-lin. & Met. Eng. Tr., vol. 199), p. 628-632.

Noble, L. F., 1922, A section of the Paleozoic formations of the Grand Canyon at Bass Trail: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 131(b), P- 23-73.

______, and Wright, L. A., 1954, Geology of the central and south­ ern Death Valley region: Calif. Div. Mines Bull. 170, Chap. II, p. 143-160.

Ordonez, G., and Ulloa, S., 1956, Notas sobre la geologia del Sonora y la peninsula de Baja California: Congreso Geologico Interna- cional, Mexico, 1956, Liberto - Guia de las excursiones, 1-A y C-4, p. 11—20

Papke, Keith G., 1952, Geology and ore deposits of the eastern portion of the Hilltop mine area, Cochise County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona, thesis (MS).

Peterson, N. P., Gilbert, C. M., and Quick, G. L., 1951, Geology and ore deposits of the Castle Dome area, Gila County, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 971, 134 p.

______, and Swanson, R. W., 1956, Geology of the Christmas Copper Mine, Gila County, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1027(h), P- 351-373.

Ransome, F. L., 1904, Geology and ore deposits of the Bisbee quadrangle, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 21, 168 p.

______, 1916, Some Paleozoic sections in Arizona and their corre­ lation: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 98 (k), p. 133-166.

______, 1923, Ray, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Folio No. 217, 24 p.

Read, C. B., and Wood, G. H., 1947, Distribution and correlation of Pennsylvanian rocks in Late Paleozoic sedimentary basins of northern New Mexico: Jour. Geol., vol. 55, P- 220-236.

______, 1951, Stratigraphy of the outcropping Permian rocks around the San Juan basin: New Mexico Geol. Soc. Guidebook of south and west sides of San Juan basin. New Mexico and Arizona, 2nd Field Conf., New Mexico Bur. Mines and Min. Res., Socorro, New' Mexico.

Ross, Clyde P., 1923, The lower Gila region, Arizona: U. S. Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper 498, 237 p. 72

______t 1925> Ore deposits of the Saddle Mountain and Banner min­ ing district, Arizona: U. S. Oeol. Survey Bull. 771, 72 p.

Sabins, Floyd F., Jr., 1955, Geology of the Cochise Head and western part of the Vanar quadrangle, Arizona: Yale Univ. thesis (PhD).

______, 1957&# Geology of the Cochise Head and western part of the Vanar quadrangle, Arizona: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 68, p. 1315-1342.

______, 1957b, Stratigraphic relations in Chiricahua and Dos Cabezas Mountains, Arizona: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 41, p. 466-510.

Schrader, Frank C ., 1915# Mineral deposits of the Santa Rita and Pata­ gonia Mountains: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 582, 373 P«

Schuchert, C*, 1910, Paleogeography of North America; Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 20, p. 127-606.

•______, and Dunbar, Carl 0., 1941, Outlines of Historical Geology: John Wiley and Sons, Hew York, 4th ed.

Short, M. N., Galbraith, F. W., Harsbman, E. N., Kuhn, T. H., and Wilson, E D., 1943, Geology and ore deposits of the Superior mining area, Arizona: Arizona Bur. Mines Bull. 151# 159 p.

Smith, George E., 1956, The geology and ore deposits of the Mowry mine area, Santa Cruz County, Arizona: Univ. Arizona thesis (MB).

Spencer, A. C., 1900, see Cross, W., et al., 1900.

______, and Paige, S., 1935# Geology of the Santa Rita mining area. New Mexico: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 859# 78 p.

Stark, J. T., and Dapples, E. C., 1946, Geology of the Los Pinos Mountains, New Mexico: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 57# P» 1121-1172.

Stoyanow, A. A., 1926, Notes on recent stratigraphic work in Arizona: Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. 12, p. 311-324.

______. 1936, Correlation of Arizona Paleozoic formations: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 47, p. 459-540.

______# 1942, Arizona Paleozoic paleogeography: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 53, p. 1255-1282.

Thompson, M. L.,. 1942, Pennsylvanian system of New Mexico: New Mexico School Mines, Bull. 17, 85 p. 73

Turnbow, Dlx R., 1955> Permian and Pennsylvanian rocks of the Four Corners area: Four Corners Geol. Soc. Guidebook, p. 66-69.

Wanless, Harold, and Weller, James, 1932, Correlation and extent of Pennsylvanian cyclothems: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 43, p. 1003-1010.

______, 1949# letter and measured sections to Dr. E. D. Wilson, Arizona Bureau of Mines, August 25, 1949.

Wengerd, S. A., and Strickland, J. W., 1954, Pennsylvanian stratigraphy of the Paradox salt basin. Four Corners region, Colorado and Utah: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., vol. 38, p. 3157-2199.

Westgate, L. G., and Knopf, A., 1932, Geology and ore deposits of the Pioche district, Nevada: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 171, 79 ?.

White, David, 1929, Flora of the Hermit shale. Grand Canyon, Arizona: Carnegie Inst. Washington Publication 405, P* H «

Williams, Frederick E., 1951, Fusulinid fauna of the Naco limestone, near Bisbee, Arizona: Univ. Illinois thesis (MS), on micro­ film Univ. Arizona library.

Williams, J. S., 195^, see Gilluly, J., et al., 1954.

Wilmarth, M. Grace, 1938, Lexicon of geologic names of the United States: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 896, 2,396 p.

Wilson, Eldred D., 1927, Geology and ore deposits of the Courtland-Glea- son region, Arizona: Arizona Bur. Mines Bull. 123, 79 P»

______, 1933, Geology and mineral deposits of southern Yuma County, Arizona: Arizona Bur. Mines Bull. 134, 236 p. ■ . ‘ Winters, S. S., 1951, Permian strata in eastern Arizona: Plateau, vol. 24, p. 10—l6.

Woodruff, E. G., 1912, Geology of the San Juan oil field: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 471(a), p. 76-104.

Zeller, E. J., 1957, Mississippian endothyroid Foraminifera from the CordiUeran geosyncline: Jour. Paleont., vol. 31, p. 679-704.

Zirkle, Robert G., 1952, Fusulinid fauna from the Naco group in the Chiricahua Mountains, near Portal, Cochise County, Arizona: Univ. Illinois thesis (MS), on microfilm Univ. Arizona library.

131 132 O 0 'B4 130 0 'I5 125 0 1 136 \

'1° 'i6

124 '§3 0 ,3o7o'49 'Se 1220 '8°

1290 'I7 145 T 146 0 '89 T 106 101 100 l 0 '0l'Va 0 0 I Ig4 6 143 =64 0 19 144 8 0 140 V'o0'# '£ © 96 7 'V 0 8 ns ['i 142 0 „© 0 180 151 0 0 COLORADO 0 UTAH 'I9 'S8 r - 1890 155 *0 NEW MEXICO ARIZONA 157 0 '|9 0 lI 156 0

168 0 '1°

174 0

161 24 '.4 14 '§3 I 14 # '|5

162 < 0 >

\r* l '|6 ! \ 153 1 0 14#

169 0 1650

13 e

\

187 C 184 0 99 0 194 \ 0 4 4 - o ‘ ’ \ 0 51 152 0 O <

L. V. V 40

86 0 0 58 67

50 0 r" I X 56 \1

V 49 47 85 e t I 5 192 98 / -e- c 22 % /

V 36 46 # V ( 6 74* $ ' V 45 81 26

J 9 #'

// / 1 98 i 81 -e- 20 #

r i 78 191 99 -e- # 59

74 # 17 60 i 72 I 15 63 • V 77

76 35 9 64 71 61 # 123 REFERENCE NUMBER 79 0 WELL LOCATION e MEASURED SECTION 190 X ESTIMATED SECTION X 73 REPORTED OCCURRENCE

SCALE IN 1MILES 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

HAVENOR 1958 LOCATION OF PENNSYLVANIAN CONTROL POINTS PLATE I

ftBjqn euozuv 1© -wun SS6[ 16663 1958 HAVENOR HAVENOR HERMOSA/ NACO LOWER SUPAI LOWER supai LOWER LOWER NACO LOWER SUP, LOWER MAGDALENA HORQUILLA CALLVILLE- LOWER SUPAI q u il l a

h o r FENCE FENCE DIAGRAM CALLVILLE PLATE E VERTICAL VERTICAL IOOO' SCALE = l" PENNSYLVANIAN SYSTEM OF ARIZONA ND Ov NJ op >0 op UNCONFORMITY

l/niv. of Arizona Library