Organic Remains from Dharwar Sediments*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ORGANIC REMAINS FROM DHARWAR SEDIMENTS* B. S. VENKATACHALA, L. L. BHANDARI, A. N. CHAUBE & III. S. RAWAT Palynology Laboratory, Institute of Petroleum Exploration, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehra Dun ABSTRACT igneous division and the mainly sedimentary Microfossils are recovered from Dharwar-Shimoga Middle and Upper divisions. ,Nautiyal Schist belt of the Archaean complex of Mysore (1967), On the other hand, has proposed a State. The fossils are assigned to 13 genera and different classification in which there is 21 species of microfossils grouped under Cyano• a lower Dharwar meta~edimentary and phyceae, Chlorophyceae and Sphaeromorphitae. Unidentifiable organic plates perhaps of animal metavolcanic division and the mainly meta• origin are also recorded. A detailed comparison sedimentary Middle and Upper Dharwar with the available Precambrian records in the divisions all of which, he contends, have literature is made. It is concluded that the been thrust over the Archaeans. Dharwar microbiota is more advanced than the Early Pre-cambrian and more primitive than the The authors have not tried to go into the Late Precambrian microbiota. Thus a Middle Pre• relative merits of these and earlier strati• cambrian to Early Late Precambrian age is assigned. graphic classifications but rest content with stating that their samples come from the INTRODUCTION Dharwar without indicating the localities. They would, however, like to point out that the samples analysed are from two THEembracesArchaeangeologiccomplex formationsof South Indiaof different localities (near Dharwar city and diverse types and is one of the most near Chikmagalur) but that these are important complex stratigraphic entities. from the same Schist belt (hitherto generally Being economically important, it has formed regarded as stratigraphic equivalents). The the subject of study by numerous workers samples belong to widely differing lithologic for well over a hundred years, yet the types (viz., clays/shales of Dharwar area stratigraphic sequence, the inter-se relation• and Schists of Chikmagalur area). This ship, in space and time, of the various could perhaps be due to the fact that constituent units and their structural frame• in a regional sense the metamorphism of the work have been a subject of much specula• Dharwar rocks increases south and southeast tion and protracted controversy. within Mysore State, starting from the The finding of an interesting assemblage type area around Dharwar City (Rama Rao, of microfossils from the Dharwar-Shimoga 1936; Pichamuthu, 1962). It seems to the schist belt by Venkatachala & Rawat was authors that the samples from the vicinity reported in the O.N.G.C. Reporter (Anon. of Dharwar city are younger than those 1971). The present paper summarizes the from the Chikmagalur area especially in view results of these studies. of the fact that the Schist belt is the remnant of a great anticlinorium plunging SAMPLE LOCALITIES NNW (Pichamuthu, 1962). A long standing controversy centred round A number of samples were collected from whether the Dharwar Schists and some Dharwar outcrops marked in Fig. 1 and of the associated rocks were crystalline processed for their fossil contents; all of or sedimentary. Early workers like Bruce them come from what is known as the Foote (1888)made the important observation Dharwar-Shimoga band of Bruce Foote that the Dharwars were the remains of a (1888) or the West Central Group of Rama 'great sedimentary series' and that these Rao (1936). were different from the surrounding and possibly older gnessic formation. Later GEOLOGY systematic work by the Mysore Geological Department during the first two decades The Dharwar sequence has been sub• of the present century led its head, W. F. divided by Rama Rao (1936) into a Lower Smeeth, and his coworkers (with few ex- ·Paper published with kind permission of the Additional Director, I.P.E., Oil & Natural Gas Commission. Views expressed are of the authors and not necessarily of the organization. 27 28 THE PALAEOBOTANlST II \ 16 INDEX 1:--:.1 Recent 140 § Deccan Trap UIIIIIJ Kaladgi. Series ~~JBellarylCiosepet GneissGranite 1\l'~~I [NilgiriLChamockiteGneiss o Peninsulor Gneiss ~ Champion Gneiss §~~~Dharwor schists SCALE t:=t-"",=,====", kn 2u fO" 20 40"0:, A Sample Locality TEXT-FIG. 1 - Geologi<..al map of Dharwar s~hist belt and adjoining areas ceptions) to the view that Dharwar Schists Deptt. veered (albeit haltingly) towards a were the oldest formations in Mvsore and truly sedimentary origin for the conglo• that some of the apparently sedimentary merates, quartzites, shales and limestones rock types were of non-sedimentary origin. which form such a large part of the Dharwar Still later, however, hv the middle 1930's sequence. The sedimentary origin of the the official view of tIle .!.\fysore Geological greater part of the Dharwars came to be VENKATACHALA et al.- ORGANIC REMAINS FROM DHARWAR SEDIMENTS 29 well established after the writings of Rama species. The vesicles referred to here to Rao (1936) and Pichamuthu (1947). Protoleiosphaeridium distinguish from Leio• It, therefore, follows that earlier an sphaeridia in possessing a firm wall, smaller obsession with the igneous/metamorphic size (up to 30 iLl and ornamentation. nature of the Dharwars and later perhaps The views expressed by Staplin et al. with their great antiquity did not constitute (I.e.) to retain this genus is considered an incentive to fossil hunters. This was practicable in the study of very ancient unfortunate, especially in view of some very leiospheres where additional characters are significant comments of Pichamuthu (1947) not developed which can form a basis for concerning the occurrence in the Dharwars differentiation into different groups or of graphite schists, true limestones (asso• genera. Size is, thus the only criterion ciated with current bedded quartzites), which can help classify these fossils. The banded ferruginous quartzites - all pointing authors are of the opinion that vesicle towards possibility of life during the Dhar• ornamentation also should be used in generic war times - and lastly those concerning the distinction. It will be worth the while to occurrence of algal structures (? Haplosiphon) re-examine the other genera proposed by in some cherts of the Chitaldrug schist belt. Timofeev (1959). Vavosphaeridium, Oryc• Gowda and Sreenivasa (1969) reported fossil matosphaeridium, Lophosphaeridium and Tra• Acritarchs from the Guddadaranganahalli chysphaeridium may be useful groupings in Formation of the Chitaldrug Schist belt. the study of Precambrian-Cambrian fossils. Crawford (1969) gives the radiometric ages A re-examination of types of all these genera of some of the lavas in the Chitaldrug is necessary. As suggested by Downie & Schist belt as 2345 ± 60 m.y. This is very Sarjeant (1963), the "other genera Zonos• close to the age reported by Holmes (1955) phaeridium (thick walls), Trematosphaeridium for a galena from the same area (2450 (Perforate test) and Symplassosphaeridium ± 120 m.y.). No radiometric age from the (Clusters of vesicles) seem either to be Dharwar-Shimoga schist belt has so far been products of accidents of preservation or reported. to be quite different kinds of structure from the typical leiospheres ..... ". In the SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTION OF FOSSILS Dharwar sediments various types of pre• servations are present and all the above In the present study, 12 genera and 20 genera can be recognized in one group of species of microfossils are recognized and fossil vesicles. The following groupings are described. 2 genera and 14 species are recognized in this study: newly proposed. Detailed descriptive ana• 1. Vesicle smooth walled, faint or no lysis and differential diagnosis are given to ornamentation, wall thickness 1-2 iL, exemplify the new taxa. not firm, often folded, 18-60 iL: Leio• sphaeridia (Timofeev, 1959, 1960; Group - Acritarcha Evitt, 1963 Eisenack, 1958); Downie & Sarjeant, Sub-group - Leiosphaeritae Eisenack, 1954 1963. 2. Vesicle smooth walled, ornamentation (Leiosphaeridae Eisenack, 1954) (Sphaeromorphitae Downie, Evitt & scanty, wall up to 2 !L thick, firm, Sarjeant, 1963) not folded, less than 25 iL: Protoleio• sphaeridium (Timofeev, 1959, 1960). General Remarks - Downie & Sarjeant 3. Vesicle granulose, grana closely spaced, (1963) in a critical review of the smooth wall up to 2 !L thick, firm, folds rare, walled and ornate vesicles classed under 25-30 [L: Granomarginata (Naumova, leiospheres, have expressed an opinion" that 1961). Protoleiosphaeridi14m should be treated as a 4. Vesicle conate, coni distinct, wall firm synonym of Leiosphaeridia and rejected, up to 2 iL thick, 25 [L: Lophosphaeridium and that its species should be reattributed (Timofeev, 1959). to the later genus". Staplin et al. (1965) Hizhnyakov and Shepeleva (1964) have in a subsequent study discuss this point described comparable sphaeromorphs under at length and retain Protoleiosphaeridium Asperatopsophaera, Leiopsophosphaera, Acan• sensu Timofeev (1959 & 1960). The genus thopsophosphaera and Brochopsophosphaera. was validated by Timofeev (1960) by These genera have to be reexamined from designation of P. coglutinatum as the type nomenclatural point of view and compared. 30 THE PALAEOBOTANIST with generic names already in use and mineral particles are also found in several valid according to the International Code of vesicles attributed to this species as well as Botanical Nomenclature. in the filaments (PI. 2, figs. 42, 43 & 44) described elsewhere in this report.