Gastropods from the Coffee Sand (Upper Cretaceous) of Mississippi

Gastropods from the Coffee Sand (Upper Cretaceous) of Mississippi GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 331-C Gastropods from the Coffee Sand (Upper Cretaceous) of Mississippi By NORMAN F. SOHL LATE CRETACEOUS GASTROPODS IN TENNESSEE AND MISSISSIPPI GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 331-C Descriptions of Upper Cretaceous gastropods from the Mississippi embayment of the Gulf Coastal Plain UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 CONTENTS Page Systematic descriptions Continued Abstract-_ _________________________________________ 345 Order Mesogastropoda Continued Page Introduction._-__________-_______--____--__----____ 345 Family Potamididae____________-__----__-__ 363 Outline of Coffee Sand stratigraphy_------____________ 345 Family Cerithiopsidae_______________---_____ 364 Tennessee. _____________________________________ 345 Family Epitoniidae. ________________________ 365 Mississippi_ _ __ _ ______________________________ 346 Family Capulidae___-_______________________ 366 Description of collection localities.____________________ 346 Family Aporrhaidae________________-------__ 366 Correlation of the Coffee Sand_ ________________ _______ 349 Family Strombidae.________________________ 368' Analysis of the Coffee Sand fauna__________________ ___ 350 Family Naticidae______________-_-_-----_--_ 369 Gastropod fauna____________________________________ 354 Order Neogastropoda__---_-_-_------_----------- 370 Faunal affinities- _------_-_-_-_-_-___________-__ 354 Family Muricidae._________________________ 370 Streptoneura_ __________________________________ 355 Family Magilidae______________._--------_ 371 Euthyneura_ ___________________________________ 356 Family Buccinidae.________________--------_ 372 Preservation of shells.---_-----_____-_-__--__________ 356 Family Melongenidae. ______________________ 374 Proposed new species and subspecies __________________ 356 Family Fasciolariidae_ _______________________ 375 Changes in generic or specific assignments.--__________ 356 Family Vasidae__________-_-___-_-__----_-_- 377 Systematic descriptions-_____________________________ 357 Family Olividae__---_-_--_-___-__-_-------- 378 Order Archaeogastropoda._______________________ 357 Family Volutidae.________._____-_.._----__-- 379 Family Acmaeidae._________________________ 357 Family Cancellariidae_______________________ 382 Family Angariidae__________________________ 357 Family Paladrnetidae____________-__-_-_-_- 382 Family Turbinidae_________________________ 359 Family Mitridae__-__-_----------_---------- 382 Order Mesogastropoda__________________________ 359 Family Turridae___---_----------_---------- 383 Family Vitrinellidae______________________..__ 359 Order Cephalaspidea__-_-_--_---_-_-__--------_- 384 Family Architectonicidae_ ___________________ 359 Family Acteonidae__--_--_____-__-__--,---_- 385 Family Vermiculariidae____________________ 360 Family Scaphandridae____ ___________________ 386 Family Turritellidae__ ______________________ 361 References _________________________________________ 386 Family Mathildidae______________________..__ 362 Index.______-___________---------_--_-----_--_--.. 391 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates follow index] PLATE 53. Urceolabrum, Teinostoma, Seila, Cerithiella, Potamides, Acmaea, Architectonica, Calliomphalus, and Laxispira. 54. Acirsa, Anchura, Pterocerella, Epitonid types, Haustator, Thylacus, Arrhoges, Graciliala, Tundora, and Gyrodes. 55. Euspira, Pseudamaura, Stantonella, Gegania, Morea, Cantharus, Sargana, Lowenstamia, and Lomirosa. 56. Lupira, Mataxa, Paladmete, Mitrid type, Pyropsis, Fusinusl, Fulgerca, Remera, Drilluta, Bellifusus, Napulus, Buccinopsis!, Hercorhyncus (Haplovoluta), Pyrifusus, and Aliofususl. 57. Amuletum, Cylichna, Liopeplum, Nonacteonina, Eoacteon, Volutomorpha, Beretra, and Longoconcha. Page FIGURE 19. Correlation of the Upper Cretaceous rocks of the Exogyra ponderosa zone of the Gulf Coastal Plain and North Carolina_--__________________________________________________________--_--____-__-_-_----_----- 346 20. Map of northeastern Mississippi showing distribution of the Coffee Sand and collection localities.------------ 347 TABLE Page TABLE 1. Geographic and stratigraphic distribution of the molluscan species of the Coffee Sand of Mississippi. 351 in LATE CRETACEOUS GASTROPODS IN TENNESSEE AND MISSISSIPPI GASTROPODS FROM THE COFFEE SAND (UPPER CRETACEOUS) OF MISSISSIPPI By NORMAN F. SOHL ABSTRACT preserved and diversified fauna that shows considerable The Coffee Sand in Mississippi consists of a body of mas affinities to the younger and much better known faunas sive to crossbedded calcareous glauconitic sand about 200 of the Kipley Formation of Tennessee and Mississippi. feet thick. To the south in Lee County, Miss., it interfingers The collections that were made during this visit and with the more calcareous Demopolis and Mooreville Chalks. later (1956) form the principal basis for the taxonomic The Coffee Sand occupies the lower and middle parts of the Exogyra ponderoxa zone up to and including beds equiva part of the present paper. lent to the DiploscJiiza crctacca zone (=lower and middle Cam- Only the gastropod part of the Coffee Sand fauna is panian of Europe). The lower part of the Coffee Sand cor described herein, but tentative identifications of the re relates with the Mooreville Chalk and Blufftown Formation of Alabama and Georgia, the Black Creek Formation (in mainder of the mollusks are included as aids in corre part) of North Carolina, and the Merchantville Formation of lation and determination of the affinities of the fauna. New Jersey. The upper part of the Coffee Sand, including Grateful acknowledgment is made to Dr. L. W. the Tupelo Tongue, correlates with the Wolfe City Sand and Stephenson, who guided me to the Coffee Sand ex Pecan Gap Chalk Members of the Taylor Marl of Texas and posures in Lee County, Miss. My colleagues of the with the lower part of the Demopolis Chalk and basal part of the Cusseta Sand of Alabama and Georgia. U.S. Geological Survey, D. W. Taylor and K. W. The invertebrate fauna of the Coffee Sand is dominated by Imlay, are due special thanks for reviewing the manu mollusks. Of these, the pelecypods are commonly more script. The photographs were made by K. H. abundant and diverse than either the gastropods, cepalopods, McKinney. or scaphopods. The fauna of the lower part of the Coffee Sand is a normal marine Upper Cretaceous sand-facies assem OUTLINE OF COFFEE SAND STRATIGRAPHY blage typical of the level-bottom shelf area. It is character ized by its variety of gastropods and numerous burrowing Safford (1869, p. 361) first applied the name Coffee pelecypods. In contrast the fauna of the upper part of the Sand to what he considered the lowest Cretaceous de Coffee Sand is dominated by surface-dwelling and attached posits in Tennessee. The name is derived from pelecypods that resemble the fossil assemblages of the chalk facies. typical exposures at Coffee Landing on the Tennessee The gastropod fauna of the Coffee Sand consists of 63 spe Kiver, Hardin County, Tenn. Stephenson (1914, p. cies that are assigned to 53 genera. Twenty-one of the spe 14) proved the Coffee Sand to be the lateral equiva cies are described as new. Unlike the pelecypods, which are lent of the lower parts of the Selma Chalk of Missis geographically widespread, the gastropods of the Coffee Sand sippi and not, as Safford supposed, the equivalent of have an endemic aspect, with most species restricted to the that part of the Eutaw Formation below the Tombig- Mississippi embayment area. Interestingly, these gastro pods, although geographically restricted, are ancestral to bee Sand Member. widespread species found in the younger beds of the Exogyra costata zone. TENNESSEE INTRODUCTION In Tennessee both the Eutaw Formation and the Aside from the faunal lists provided by Stephenson overlying Coffee Sand consist of massive to cross- and Monroe (1940), only scattered references indicate bedded micaceous glauconitic sands and clays. Be the nature of the invertebrate fauna of the Coffee Sand cause the two formations are so similar, most authors of Mississippi. In 1955, L. W. Stephenson of the U.S. (Jewell, 1931; Whitlach, 1940) have found it impossi Geological Survey guided me to an exposure of the ble to map them separately. Wade (1920, 1926) also Coffee Sand about 2 miles west of Katliff in Lee County, considered the Coffee Sand as an upper member of the Miss. This exposure had yielded an especially well Eutaw Formation. More recently, however, Pryor 345 346 LATE CRETACEOUS GASTROPODS IN TENNESSEE AND MISSISSIPPI (1960) considered the Coffee Sand as a distinct has been designated by Stephenson and Monroe as the formation. Tupelo Tongue (see below). The Coffee Sand in the type area of Hardin County Stephenson and Monroe stated (1940, p. 144) is somewhat more than 200 feet thick, but it thins The deposits in Mississippi are, in general, like the typical rapidly northward (Glenn, 1904; Wade, 1920). In materials except that from the Tennessee line southward the Tennessee the Coffee Sand has yielded fossil plants bedding in parts of the formation becomes more massive until (Berry, 1919). Also, lignitized logs and lenses of in the valley of Old Town Creek in Lee County the Tupelo carbonaceous clay are common. Except for wood- tongue

Load more