MICHAEL W. HIGGINS U.S. Geological Survey, Beltsville, 20705 GEORGE W. FISHER Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

A Further Revision of the Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Wissahickon Formation in Maryland

ABSTRACT flexible and objective system for subdividing these rocks, Southwick and Fisher (1967) The Wissahickon Formation, the thickest divided nearly all the rocks above the Cockeys- and most extensive unit of the Glenarm ville into five lithofacies (Table 1) and included Series, was divided into lithofacies several these lithofacies in a single formation, the years ago. We suggest revision of two of Wissahickon. these lithofacies and addition of another. We Recent mapping by members of the U.S. also suggest that the term lithofacies be Geological Survey, the Maryland Geological shortened to facies. The added facies, the Survey, and The Johns Hopkins University quartzite facies, is distinguished by metamor- has indicated the need for revision of two of phosed orthoquartzites and protoquartzites. the lithofacies and for the addition of another; It corresponds in part to the former Peters these are discussed in this note. The term Creek quartzite. lithofacies is changed to fades, in the interests of brevity (Table 1). INTRODUCTION In the Maryland , a 1100 m.y.-old PELITIC FACIES basement complex, the Baltimore , is Pelitic make up most of the Wissa- unconformably overlain by the Glenarm hickon Formation; they have been described Series, a thick, variably metamorphosed se- in detail by Hopson (1964) and Fisher (1970). quence of sedimentary and volcanic rocks. For many years, the pelitic schists surround- From the base upward, this sequence includes ing the gneiss domes at Baltimore were dis- three formations: (l) the Setters Formation, tinguished on the basis of metamorphic grade composed of muscovite quartzite and sub- from those west of the belt of diamictite ordinate mica gneiss and mica schist; (2) the facies, in which Sykesville, Maryland, is , composed of siliceous located (Fig. l). The schists east of the marble and a variety of calc-silicate rocks; Sykesville belt, near the gneiss domes, were and (3) Wissahickon Formation, a thick se- called the oligoclase-mica schist facies of the quence of mica schist and phyllite, meta- Wissahickon. Those west of the Sykesville gray wacke, massive conglomeratic paragneiss, belt were called the albite-chlorite schist facies. and subordinate micaceous quartzite (Fig. l). Hopson (1964, p. 70) renamed these the Metamorphosed volcanic, volcaniclastic, and "eastern and western sequences of the volcanic-epiclastic rocks are also part of the Wissahickon" because metamorphic grade series, but are not discussed in this note. does not always distinguish the two. Fisher The Setters Formation and the Cockeysville (1963), and Hopson (1964) interpreted the Marble are distinctive, easily mapped units, eastern sequence as older than the western. and their nomenclature has varied only slightly Southwick and Fisher (1967) accepted this since they were originally defined by Williams interpretation and renamed the schist in the (1892). The rocks above the Cockeysville two belts the lower and upper pelitic schist Marble, however, have proved difficult to sub- lithofacies of the Wissahickon Formation. divide, and their nomenclature has changed There are several objections to the use of many times to conform to different structural the designation upper and lower: (l) Most of interpretations (see Southwick and Fisher, the rocks of the two geographic belts are 1967). In an attempt to provide a more lithologically indistinguishable in outcrop.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p. 769-774, 2 figs., March 1971 769

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/82/3/769/3432956/i0016-7606-82-3-769.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 770 HIGGINS AND FISHER-WISSAHICKON FM., MARYLAND

------

Figure 1. Generalized geologic map of the ------eastern Maryland Piedmont (modified from 1960).

(2) The terms upper and lower imply a better northeast of Baltimore, which do not connect knowledge of Piedmont stratigraphy than is with either the lower or upper pelitic schist currently justified. The schists around some facies and so cannot be assigned to either. of the Baltimore Gneiss domes must be Therefore, we recommend that: (l) the older than schists just west of the Sykesville terms upper and lower be discontinued and all belt of diamictite facies rocks on the west the pelitic schists in the Wissahickon be flank of the Baltimore-Washington anticli- lumped into a single pelitic schist facies; and norium (Fig. l); however, it does not neces- (2) the several belts of pelitic schist be dis- sarily hold that all the western schists are tinguished by informal geographic names younger than all the eastern schists. (3) Pelitic where needed for clarity. For example; the schists crop out in Harford and Cecil Counties, schists near the gneiss domes may be called

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/82/3/769/3432956/i0016-7606-82-3-769.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 DIAMICTITE FACIES 771

TABLE 1. NOMENCLATURE OF THE GLENARM SERIES

Southwick and Fisher (1967) This paper

Wissahickon Formation Wissahickon Formation - • Upper pelitic schist lithofacies Quartzite facies '_) Q Metagraywacke lithofacies Metagraywacke facies Metaconglomerate lithofacies Metaconglomerate facies ui --H Q Boulder gneiss lithofacies Diamictite facies Lower pelitic schist lithofacies Pelitic schist facies S.S-J Cockeysville Marble Cockeysville Marble Setters Formation Setters Formation

the Silver Spring belt of pelitic schists, those clinotium. Similar rocks not connected with west of the Sykesville belt of diamictite facies, those of the Sykesville belt occur: (l) inter- the Rockville belt, and those in Cecil County, stratified with Wissahickon pelitic schist west the Blueball belt. of the Sykesville belt; (2) in Harford County, Maryland (Southwick and Owens, 1968; Southwick, 1969); (3) in Cecil County, DIAMICTITE FACIES Maryland (Higgins, unpub. data); and (4) in Lenses of massive strikingly uniform para- nottnern Virginia (J. C. Reed, Jr., D. L. gneiss and granofels containing scattered Southwick, R. B. Mixon, and V. M. Seiders, pebble- to boulder-sized detrital rock frag- unpub. data). ments are a prominent part of the Wissahickon Gross similarities in lithology, internal Formation in Maryland and northern Virginia. structure, three-dimensional form, and occur- The fragments include: (l) rounded cobbles rence, led Southwick and Fishet (1967) to and pebbles of quartz and feldspar; (2) flat- lump all these paragneisses into a single tened chips of mica schist, chiefly pebbles lithofacies, which they named the boulder and cobbles, but including some boulders as gneiss. Further work has shown that this term long as 15 ft; (3) angular cobbles and some was inappropriate, because many of the rocks boulders of biotite-quartz gneiss, amphibo- to which it was applied to not contain boul- lite, and calc-silicate schist; (4) contorted ders. In the rocks that have boulder-bearing slabs of metagraywacke and schist mixture lenses, granule gneiss and granofels predomi- (Fisher, 1963, p. 42; Hopson, 1964, p. 103- nate when the mass is considered as a whole. 108) or metagraywacke alone (Higgins, un- For example, the predominant rock type at pub. data). In Howard and Montgomery Sykesville is granule gneiss with scattered Counties, the matrix is virtually devoid of pebbles and rare cobbles, and in Harford and potassium feldspar, but the matrix of similar Cecil Counties, Maryland, and in northern rocks in Cecil County and locally in northern Virginia, fine-grained granule gneiss and Virginia contains as much as 5 percent potas- granofels greatly predominate over boulder- sium feldspar. bearing gneiss. Locally, metavolcanic clasts These rocks were originally interpreted as and a matrix derived partly from volcanic magmatic granite, but Cloos (Cloos and sources give the tock an appearance reminis- Cooke, 1953) recognized that the rocks ex- cent of some volcanic breccias. tending south from Sykesville, Maryland, Flint, Sanders, and Rodgers (I960a, 1960b) are metasedimentary and changed their name have proposed the name diamictite (from the from the Sykesville Granite to the Sykesville Greek Diamignymi, to mingle thoroughly) Formation. Hopson (1964, p. 108-112) con- for precisely the range of rock types presently cluded that the mass was a huge submarine being mapped under the tetm boulder gneiss. slide deposit, similar to the argille scagliosi of We propose substituting the term diamictite the Appennines (Maxwell, 1959). Fisher facies for the term boulder gneiss lithofacies (1963, 1970) agreed with this intetpretation (Southwick and Fisher, 1967, p. 12-13). and showed that the rocks in the Sykesville Where necessary for clarity, individual bodies belt nearly connect with similar rocks in a of the diamictite facies may be referred to by belt extending southwest from Laurel, Mary- informal geographic names, such as the land, so that the two belts together outline Sykesville belt, or the Laurel belt. Similarly, the limbs of the Baltimore-Washington anti- the terms boulder gneiss, cobble gneiss, and pebble

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/82/3/769/3432956/i0016-7606-82-3-769.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 772 HIGGINS AND FISHER-WISSAHICKON FM., MARYLAND

gneiss may be used for local rock types within the diamictite facies. QUARTZITE FACIES Southwick and Fisher (1967) placed the rocks of the former Peters Creek Quartzite in their metagraywacke lithofacies of the Wissahickon Formation. Recent work has demonstrated that rocks in part of this belt do belong to the metagraywacke facies, but rocks in another part have a distinctive lith- ology (Peters Creek quartzite of Knopf and Jonas, 1929; Stose and Jonas, 1939) and should be set apart in some manner. The rocks cropping out along the Susque- hanna River from near Wildcat Point in Cecil County, Maryland, to the vicinity of the Penn Central railroad tunnel about 0.8 mi south of Peach Bottom, (see Conowingo Dam quadrangle, U.S. Geologi- cal Survey 7.5 min topographic series, 1953), belong in the metagraywacke facies (Fig. 2); they consist of graded metagraywacke beds about 1 to 8 ft thick, interbedded with pelitic schist. North of the railroad tunnel, however, micaceous quartzites become a prominent part of the section and become "cleaner" and more abundant to the north. Metamorphosed graywackes and subgraywackes are also present, but they are coarser grained and more quartzose than those of the metagraywacke facies and are much less commonly graded. From near the railroad tunnel to Peters Creek (see Wakefield quadrangle, Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 min topographic series, Figure 2. Geologic sketch map showing 1955), the section is about 30 percent ortho- Wissahickon Formation facies along Susque- quartzite, 30 percent protoquartzite, 25 per- hanna River south of the Peach Bottom fold; pb, Peach Bottom Slate; c, Cardiff Metacon- cent graywacke or subgraywacke, and 15 glomerate; wq, Wissahickon quartzite facies; percent pelitic schist. From Peters Creek to win, Wissahickon metagraywacke facies; wd, the contact with the Cardiff Metaconglomer- Wissahickon diamictite facies. All Wissahickon ate (Fig. 2; see Gray and others, I960), ortho- facies contacts are gradational. Base map from quartzite and protoquartzite make up most Conowingo Dam and Wakefield quadrangles of the section. (U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 min. topographic The micaceous quartzites contain well- series). rounded grains of detrital quartz as much as The graywackes and subgraywackes con- 2mm in diameter, in a matrix of fine-grained tain detrital grains, from 1 to 5 mm in size, quartz, subordinate muscovite, and minor of quartz and plagioclase and porphyroblasts chlorite (Table 2). They are in beds from 2 to of albite in a matrix of muscovite, chlorite, 8 in. thick that form sections 10 to 100 ft and minor biotite (Table 2). They occur in thick virtually devoid of other rock types. 3-in. to 3-ft beds which make up sections Because of the uniformity of the rock and 10 ft to several tens of feet thick; unlike the the presence of several cleavages (S-planes), rocks of the metagraywacke facies, they are primary structures are difficult to discern, but not rhythmically interbedded with pelitic structures very reminiscent of crossbedding schists. Graded bedding is less common than are common in many places. in the metagraywacke facies; in fact graded

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/82/3/769/3432956/i0016-7606-82-3-769.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 REFERENCES CITED 773

TABLE 2. MODAL ANALYSES OF ROCKS OF THE WISSAHICKON MICACEOUS QUARTZITE FACIES

No. 1191-Al* PB-3af PB-4af Pb-laf PB-5af 1191F* quartz 50.0 58.0 68.4 88.0 92.9 76.6 muscovite 36.4 18.3 22.7 0.2 5.2 18.5 plagioclase 8.4 18.4 4.7 2.2 chlorite 0.6 3.1 1.6 8.4 1.3 tr magnetite 3.1 1.8 2.2 0.3 0.3 2.3 calcite 0.1 2.1 0.1 epidote 0.5 biotite 0.9 0.3 other 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * 1,000 points counted t 2,000 points counted 1191-Al: Metagraywacke, from along Penn PB-la: Protoquartzite, from along Penn Cen- Central railroad cut, about 0.5 mi south tral railroad cut about 0.4 mi south of of Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania. Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania. Rock is PB-3a: Grit, from along Penn Central rail- massive grayish-white crudely foliated road cut about 0.6 mi south of Peach quartzite. Bottom, Pennsylvania. Rock is charac- PB-5a: Orthoquartzite, from north bank of terized by blue quartz granules in a Peters Creek at Susquehanna River. Rock sandy matrix. is white quartzite with rare crossbedding. PB-4a: Micaceous quartzite, from along Penn 1191-F: Micaceous quartzite, from along Penn Central railroad cut, about 0.5 mi south Central railroad cut, j ust north of j unction of Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania. Rock is of Peters Creek with Susquehanna River. massive foliated gray quartzite.

beds appear to become progressively less Cloos, Ernst; and Cooke, C. W. Geologic common north of the railroad tunnel south map of Montgomery County and the Dis- of Peach Bottom. trict of Columbia: Maryland Dept. Geol., Quartzites have been reported elsewhere in Mines and Water Resources, scale 1:62,500, Baltimore, 1953. the Wissahickon Formation, but chiefly as Fisher, G. W. The petrology and structure of isolated beds, possibly metamorphosed cherts, the crystalline rocks along the Potomac thinly interstratified with pelitic schist River near Washington, D.C.: Ph.D. thesis, (Hopson, 1964, p. 86; Southwick, 1969, p. Johns Hopkins Univ., 241 p., Baltimore, 31, 36). The presence of thick quartzite sec- 1963. tions sets these rocks apart from the meta- Fisher, G.W. The metamorphosed sedimentary graywacke facies and suggests that they rocks along the Potomac River near Wash- represent a markedly different environment, ington, D.C.: in Fisher, G. W., and others possibly one of shallower water. We propose, (eds.), Studies of Appalachian geology: central and southern, Interscience Pubs., therefore, that this assemblage of rocks be p. 299-315, New York, 1970. called the quartzite facies of the Wissahickon Flint, R. F.; Sanders, J. E.; and Rodgers, Formation. John. Symmictite—A name for nonsorted The essential characteristic of this facies terrigenous sedimentary rocks that contain is the predominance of orthoquartzite or a wide range of particle sizes: Geol. Soc. protoquartzite, or both. Contacts with the Amer., Bull, Vol. 71, No. 4, p. 507-509, Cardiff Metaconglomerate and with the meta- 1960a. graywacke facies are gradational, but may be Flint, R. F.; Sanders, J. E.; and Rodgers, arbitrarily placed at the first conglomerate John. Diarnictite, a substitute term for symmictite: Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. bed and at the first mappable sequence of 71, No. 12, Part 1, p. 1809, l$>60b. quartzites, respectively. Gray, Carlyle; and others (compilers). Geo- logic map of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania REFERENCES CITED Geol. Survey, 4th ser., scale 1:250,000, Cleaves, E. T.; Edwards, Jonathan, Jr.; and Harrisburg, Pa., I960. Glaser, J. D. (compilers). Geologic Map Hopson, C. A. The crystalline rocks of Howard of Maryland: Maryland Geol. Survey, scale and Montgomery Counties: in The geology 1:250,000, Baltimore, 1968. of Howard and Montgomery Counties,

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/82/3/769/3432956/i0016-7606-82-3-769.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 774 HIGGINS AND FISHER-WISSAHICKON FM., MARYLAND

Maryland Geol. Survey, p. 27-215, Bald- map of Harford County: Maryland Geol. more, 1964. Survey, scale 1:62,500, Baltimore, 1968. Knopf, E. B.; and Jonas, A. I. Geology of the Stose, G. W.; and Jonas, A. I. Geology and McCalls-Ferry-Quarryville district, Pennsyl- resources of York County, Penn- vania: U.S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 799, 156 p., sylvania: Pennsylvania Geol. Surv., 4th ser., 1929. Bull. C-67, 199 p., 1939. Maxwell, J. C. Turbidite, tectonic and gravity Williams, G. H. Geology of Baltimore and its transport, northern Appennine Mountains, vicinity: in Guide to Baltimore, [ Baltimore ] Italy: Amer. Ass. Petrol. Geol., Bull., Vol. Amer. Inst. Mining Engineers, Baltimore 43, No. 11, p. 2701-2719, 1959. Mfg., p. 77-139, 1892. Southwick, D. L. Crystalline rocks of Harford County: in Maryland Geological Survey, MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY Geology of Harford County, Maryland: AUGUST 25, 1970 Maryland Geol. Survey, p. 1-76, 1969. PUBLICATION AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR, Southwick, D. L.; and Fisher, G. W. Re- U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WASHINGTON, vision of stratigraphic nomenclature of the D.C. Glenarm Series in Maryland: Maryland PRESENT ADDRESS (HIGGINS): DEPARTMENT Geol. Surv., Rept. Inv. 6, 19 P., 1967. orGEOLOGY,UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIA, Southwick, D. L.; and Owens, J. P. Geologic SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93106

PRINTED [N U.S.A.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/82/3/769/3432956/i0016-7606-82-3-769.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021