Lower Devonic Aspect of the Lower Helderberg and Oriskany Formations*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BULLETIN OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA V ol. 1 1 , pp. 241-332 May 10, 1900 LOWER DEVONIC ASPECT OF THE LOWER HELDERBERG AND ORISKANY FORMATIONS* BY CHARLES SCHÜCHERT ( Read before the Society December 28, 1899) CONTENTS Page Introduction.................................................................................................................... 242 Silurian of Murchison.................................................................................................. 245 Application of the term by geologists............................................................... 245 Downtonian............................................................................................................ 247 American eQuivalents........................................................................................... 248 Table of English and American Siluric eQuivalents...................................... 251 Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 252 Lower Devonic................................................................................................................ 252 Devonian of Sedgwick and Murchison............................................................... 252 Lower Devonic of Germany and the American eQuivalents.........................257 Views of writers as to its extent, character, and divisions...................257 1. Gedinnian, fauna of the lowest Lower Devonic, or zone of Spirifer mercuri.............................. ..................................................................... - 258 2. Siegen, fauna of the Siegen grauwacke, or zone of Spirifer primæms. 258 3. Lower Coblenzian, zone of Spirifer herq/niæ........................................ 267 4. Upper Coblenzian, zone of Spirifer paradoxus...................................... 267 Conclusions.............................. ............................................................................... 268 American Lower Devonic............................................................................................. 269 Helderbergian subdivisions................................................................................. 269 Helderbergian faun a........ ................................................................................ 274 Relation to the Siluric.................................................................................... 274 Relation to the Devonic................................................................................ 275 Table of the Helderbergian fauna................................................... ...........278 Oriskanian subdivisions....................................................................................... 289' Stratigraphie names applied to the Oriskanian........................................ 289 General character and distribution of the Oriskanian........................... 289 Oriskanian fauna........................................................................................... 291 Table of the Oriskanian fauna — ............................................................... 292 Table of European and American Lower and Middle Devonic forma tions .............................................................................................................. 297 Summary........................................................................................................................ 298 * Published by permission of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. This paper was first read by title at the meeting of the Society.held in Columbus, Ohio, in August, 1S99. X X X V I—B ull. G eol. Soc. Am., V ol. IX, 1899 (241) 2 4 2 C. SCHTJCHERT----LOWER HELDERBERG—ORISKANY FORMATIONS Page Local development and faunas of the Oriskanian................................................. 300 Upper Oriskany of New York............................................................................300 Fauna of the Upper Oriskany, or Hipparionyx zone.................................... 303 Lower Oriskany of New York............................................................................304 Faunal list of the New York Lower Oriskany.............................................. .. 307 Pennsylvania and New Jersey Oriskany...........................................................309 Faunal lists of New Jersey and Pennsylvania................................................. 311 Maryland and West Virginia Oriskany and its fauna .................................. 312 Virginia Oriskany and its fauna..........................................................................315 Clear Creek limestone and Upper Oriskany of Illinois.................................. 317 Camden chert of Tennessee............................ ......¡.... ............................... 319 Camden Lower Oriskany fauna.................................................................. • • • 320 Georgia and Alabama Oriskany..........................................................................322 Oriskany of Canada............................................................................................... 323 Cayuga, Ontario............................................................................................. 323 Upper Oriskany fauna of Ontario ............................................................. 324 Gasp6, Quebec................................................................................................. 327 New Brunswick, Canada............................................................................. 328 Oriskany fauna of Gasp6, Canada............................................................... 328 Nova Scotia, Canada......................................................................................330 Saint Helens island near Montreal, Canada............................................. 331 I ntroduction Why is it that nearly all leading American stratigraphers as weil as the authors of the principal American geological textbooks—Dana,* Le Conte,f Williams, J and Scott §—refer the Lower Helderberg to the Siluric system ? This question gains peculiar force when another fact is pointed out, namely, that nearly all European stratigraphers who have investigated the systemic position of the Lower Helderberg, and Geikie, || Kayser,and Freeh,** in their respective text-books, unhes itatingly place the same formation in the Devonic, as lowest Lower Devonic. This is not merely a question of drawing the line between two geological eras, a little higher or a little lower in the time scale, but it involves taxonomic principles and stages in faunal or evolutional progression. ♦ James D. Dana : Manual of'Geology, 4th ed., New York, 1896, pp. 535, 569, 576. f Joseph Le Conte : Elements of Geology, New York, 1878, p. 282. The Oriskany is here also> included in the Siluric. In the edition of 1895 the Siluric terminates with the Lower Helder berg (see p. 296). X Henry Shater Williams : Geological Biology, New York, 1895, pp. 33, 52. § William S cott: An Introduction to Geology, New York, 1897, pp. 385, 394. j[ Sir Archibald Geikie : Text-book of Geology, London, 1893, p. 790. flE. Kayser: Text-book of Comparative Geology, translated by Philip Lake, London, 1893,. p-lll- ** Fritz Frech : Letheea geognostica, 1 Theil, 2 Band, Stuttgart, 1897, p. 207. VIEWS OP OTHER WRITERS 2 4 3 One of the chief reasons for these varying views lies in the fact that the lower limit of the Devonic of England has never been defined, and its lowest well marked fauna is apparently not older than the Oriskany. Again, Barrande included his étages P, G, and H, together, with the Lower and Upper Helderberg, in the Siluric. These are now regarded by most continental paleontologists, however, as of Lower and Middle Devonic age. Americans have not apparently paid much attention to the recent developments in the Lower Devonic of the Rhineland. Geikie writes that— “ It is rather from the sections and fossil collections of central Europe than from those of England that the stratigraphy and paleontology of the Devonian system are to be determined.” Murchison, in reviewing his work of 1842 in the Rhenish area, twelve years later, says : “ I have been convinced, through the paleontological labors of Ferdinand Roemer and the brothers Sandberger, that the types of that lower Rhenish subdivision are distinct from the Upper Silurian, and in harmony with the lowest Devonian group of other countries.” The geographically restricted condition of the Lower Helderberg and the completeness with which its fauna was described by Hall, in 1859, have left Americans little opportunity to examine its systemic position. The influence of that great nestor of American geologists has so estab lished the position of the Lower Helderberg, that writers of text-books seem unwilling to set aside his conclusions. When Clarke published his paper on “ The Hercynian question ” the present writer was assist ant to Professor Hall. At that time, Clarke proved the unmistakable Devonian aspect of the Lower Helderberg fauna, and Hall is not known to have objected to this presentation. Walcott,* in reviewing Clarke’s paper, states in conclusion that— “ This suggestion [Lower Helderberg = Lower Devonian], comes to me with peculiar force at the present time, and, if the Silurian system was to be reclassified today, I should favor the following scheme : Lower division, Canadian, Calciferous, and Chazy; middle division, Trenton and Hudson, and upper division, Niagara and Salina.