Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School
1968 Heavy Minerals of the Citronelle Formation of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Norman Charles Rosen Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
Recommended Citation Rosen, Norman Charles, "Heavy Minerals of the Citronelle Formation of the Gulf Coastal Plain." (1968). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 1416. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1416
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received. 68—10,758
ROSEN, Norman Charles, 1941- HEAVY MINERALS OF THE CITRONELLE FORMATION OF THE GULF COASTAL PLAIN.
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, PluD., 1968 Geology
University Microfilms, Inc.. Ann Arbor, Michigan
(c) NORMAN CHARLES ROSEN 1968
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HEAVY MINERALS OF THE CIÎRCNELLS
FOBIATION OF THE GULF COASTAL PLAIN
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of uhe Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in
The Department of Geology
by Norman C. Rosen B.S., The Ohio State University, 1963 M.S., The Ohio State University, 19o4 January, 1968
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOmEDŒŒTS
The vnriter -wishes to thank Dr. C. 0. Durham, Jr.,
director of the School of Geology, Louisiana State Uni
versity, who suggested the problem, served as chairman
of the writer’s graduate committee, and provided construc
tive criticisms of the manuscript. The writer also is
indebted to the members of his graduate committee for their
criticisms of the manuscript; to Mr. Victor Gaveroc,
graduate colleague, for his help and suggestions in the
statistical treatment of the data; to Mrs. Ada Ke-wton
who drafted the maps and some of the other figures; and
most of all, to my wife and colleague, Rashel, who assisted
the writer in the field, in the laboratory, in typing the
Appendix data tables, and for providing much encouragement
during the course of the study.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNO^TLEDŒ^ENT...... ii
LIST OF TABLES...... v
LIST OF FIGURES...... vi
ABSTRACT...... vii
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION...... 1 General Statement...... 1 Description of Citronelle Formation...... 6 Previous Work...... 10 Summary of the Term Citronelle...... 10 Age and Origin...... 11 Correlation Problems of Younger Terraces...16 Heavy Mineral Studies in Gulf Coast Province...... iS Application of Heavy Mineral Analysis...... 23
II FIELD PROCEDURE...... 2?
III TECHNIQUES OF LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS...... 28 Mechanical Analysis of Citronelle Samples 28 Heavy Mineral Analysis Procedures...... 30
IV PRESENTATION OF DATA...... 32 Textural Data Analysis...... 32 Description of Heavy Minerals Present...’..... 37 Citronelle Formation and Older Terraces....37 Younger Louisiana Terrace Deposits...... 40 Heavy Mineral Data Analysis...... 44 Introduction...... 44 Numerical Ratio Tests...... 46
V INTERPRETATION...... 55
VI CONCLUSIONS...... 58
REFERENCES CITED...... 60
APPENDIX 1- Location of Localities...... 66 11- Sieve Analysis Summary Sheets...... 86 111- Cummulative Curve Summary Sheets...... 147 IV- Textural Parameter Summary!- Sheets...... l60 V- Heavy Minerals Present Summary Sheets...... 16? iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PAGE
APPENDIX (CONT.). VI- K/K+3 Summary Sheets...... 174 VII- Summary of Analysis of Variance Procedures.....1S5
VITA...... ISS
IV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 Revised correlation chart of Doering (after Doering. 195^)...... 17
Table 2 Formulas for statistical parameters used in this study...... 33
Table 3 ANOV summary table for k/k+s for all localities with 2 or more units (2.0- 2.50)- 300 counts per slide except where noted...... 47
Table 4 ANOV summary table for k/k+s for all localities with 2 or more units (2.3- 3.00). 300 counts per slide...... 4&
Table 5 Summary ANOV table for k/k+s for local ities within states within size splits 50
Table 6 Summary AÎIOV table for fluviatile vs coastwise terrace (area) deposits (2.0-2.50)...... 52
Table 7 Summary ANOV table for Louisiana vs Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (2.0-2.50)...... 53
Table S Mean, confidence limits, and standard deviation of ratio k/k+s...... 54
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1 Index map of area studied...... '3
Figure 2 Geology of Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain...... 4
Figure 3 Distribution of Pleistocene terrace deposits and sample locations in Louisiana.. 5
Figure 4a Distribution of Citronelle and sample locations in Mississippi...... 7
Figure 4b Distribution of Citronelle and sample locations in Ala. and Fla...... S
Figure 5 Contrasting concepts of terrace relation ships demonstrated by cross-sections from near Natchez southward to south Louisiana (after Durham, Moore, and Parsons, 1967, Figure 3)...... 13
Figure 6 Contrasting source area heavy mineral suites...... I...... 19 Figure 7 Scatterplot of SKj versus j ...... 34
Figure 8 Scatterplot of versus SOg...... 35
Figure 9 Nonopaque heavy minerals in 3 size classes in the Citronelle Formation...... 3#
Figure 10 Citronelle and Louisiana terrace heavy mineral suites...... 41
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT
The heavy minerals of the Citronelle Formation and
fluviatile terraces of Louisiana were examined' to determine
the source area of these sediments. Examination of samples
indicates that an East Gulf Province heavy mineral suite
(kyanite, staurolite, zircon, tourmaline), typical of the
Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments of the Gulf Coastal Prov
ince, is present throughout the Citronelle and older Louisi
ana terrace deposits. A Mississippi River Province suite
(epidote, amphibole-pyroxene, garnet), presumably derived
from the glacial sediments of the northern United States,
is present in the Recent Mississippi River sediments (Rus
sell, 1937), and in the younger terraces: the Holloway
Prairie, Port Hickey, and Irene.
Based on data determined in this study and previous
work, the Citronelle Formation appears to represent an allu
vial apron formed by coalescing, braiding streams, in res
ponse to epeirogenic uplift of the continental interior
during Late Pliocene to preglacial Pleistocene time.
Encisement of the Mississippi River and other streams into
Citronelle sediments has resulted in entrenched valleys
containing fluviatile terraces which are mineralogically
and lithologically similar to the Citronelle but are at a
lower elevation. Younger terrace deposits bearing a Mis
sissippi River Province heavy mineral suite are believed to
have formed in response to fluctuating sea level during
Pleistocene glacial times. vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1
- INTRODUCTION
General Statement
Along the southern margin of the Gulf Coastal Plain,
coarse sands and gravels cap stream interfluves, forming
much of the highlands. These deposits were described by
many early workers and were the subject of comprehensive
mapping and discussion by Matson (1916), who named them
the Citronelle Formation.
The age and origin of these deposits have been the
center of much debate. At the present time, there are
two main divergent hypotheses. The one elaborated by
Fisk (1939b) states that Coastal Plain stream valleys were
entrenched during Pleistocene glacial stages and that
sands and gravels were deposited during Pleistocene inter
glacial stages as fluviatile deposits in the entrenched
valleys and as deltaic plains along the coast; the source
of the sediments was thought to be the glacial outwash
deposits in the northern United States. The hypothesis of
Clendenin (lS96) and Doering (1956) suggested that the Cit
ronelle represents a Late Pliocene to preglacial Pleisto
cene blanket fluviatile deposit, derived from the Creta
ceous and Tertiary clastic deposits of the Gulf Coastal
Plain and ultimately derived from the Appalachian Province.
Enough work has already been done by other workers to
indicate that the two suggested source areas posess com
pletely different heavy mineral suites. The Gulf Coastal
sediments are characterized by a nonopaque heavy mineral
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. suite dominated by.kyanite, staurolite, zircon, and tour
maline. The glacial and Recent Mississippi River deposits
are characterized by amphibole-pyroxene, epidote, and
garnet.'
This information can be used to test the hypotheses
in the following manner: if the sands and gravels were
derived from glacial outwash, they should contain a heavy
mineral suite dominated by amphibole-pyroxene, epidote, and
garnet; if, on the other hand, the sands and gravels were
derived from the Gulf Coastal clastic sediments, then they
should contain a heavy mineral suite dominated by kyanite,
staurolite, zircon, and tourmaline.
This report presents the results of a comprehensive
heavy mineral study of the Citronelle Formation from south
western Mississippi to the Florida Panhandle (see Figs. 1
and 2) and a brief examination of the heavy minerals of the
fluviatile terraces of Louisiana (see Fig. 3)* The pur
poses of the investigation have been: (1) to describe the
major suites of heavy minerals present in the Citronelle
and terrace deposits, and to determine whether significant
subsuites are present; (2) using the above information
locate the source of the sediment now comprising these
deposits; (3) consequently, to suggest vrhich of the above
hypotheses can account for these deposits; (4) additionally,
to study the textural parameters of the Citronelle sedi
ments in order to establish better the nature of their depo-
sitional agents
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in •
in 0) •H XJ 0 -p m cC CD U cC o a. cO s g ■d a H
uCD W) •H
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IWÎ □ i k 3
#
.1: A
Figure 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 4 92
DISTRIBUTION OF PLEISTOCENE
TERRACE DEPOSITS AND
SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN — f LOUISIANA
SCALE - WILES
94 93 92 90 Figure 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Descrption of the Citronelle Formation
The Citronelle Formation extends from Alabama and
Florida to Texas, generally near the .seaward margin .of the
Gulf Coastal Plain (see Figs. 2, 3, 4a, and 4b); Doering
(i960) has suggested that it also is present along the
southern margin of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Citro
nelle Fomation is ^onderlain by Tertiary silts and clays;
this contact is marked by a regional unconformity which
gains magnitude inland. In the northern and central por
tion of the. outcrop belt, thick sands and gravels cap
interfluves and form the topographically high areas. The
Citronelle has a surface thickness of about 150 feet
(Doering, 1956, p. 1&52), and dips southward beneath Pleis
tocene coastwise formations which overlap it unconformably.
Fluviatile equivalents of the Pleistocene deposits extend
northward as terrace deposits in major stream valleys,
entirely across the Citronelle outcrop belt. Near the Mis
sissippi River, deposits of loess unconformably mantle the
Citronelle and older Tertiary deposits (Snowden, 1966).
The Citronelle Formation consists of coarse- to fine
grained quartz sands, commonly with pebbles and granules.
These deposits are generally massive, but occaisionally
exhibit cross-bedding and other sedimentary structures.
The boundaries between depositional units are either gra
dational within a.short distance or erosional. These depo
sitional units vary greatly in size so that some extend
horizontally across the outcrop while others terminate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o eu
X
Figure
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a
/il VE R /03/V3, CHfiTT/'
^t: y zn n_
» !? o
u m
Figure 4b
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. within the outcrop. Layers of sandy, clayey silt several
inches thick are present but not common. These finer-
grained units display sharp upper and lower boundariesi and
in some areas appear to be traceable for several miles from
one exposure to another. Clay balls are commonly present
in the sands which overlie these clayey silt zones.
In frsh outcrops, the sands and gravels of the Citro
nelle are grey-white in color, but older weathered outcrops
are colored orange by secondary ferruginous stain and
cement. Zones of hard pan several inches thick also are
present in many of the older exposures. Generally, the
hard pan is concentrated along the boundary between two
depositional units of contrasting grain size distribution.
No detailed studies of the pebbles of the Citronelle
Formation have been made. Field observations, however, by
Matson (1916), Brown (196?), and the writer have indicated
that the Citronelle pebbles in western Mississippi are dom
inantly chert with some quartz; many of the chert pebbles
contain mid-Paleozoic crinoid and bryozoan remains. In •
western Louisiana, the pebbles also are dominantly chert
but not fossiliferous. East of central Mississippi, the
pebbles are dominantly quartz with some unfossiliferous
chert. In the granule size range, quartz and chert domin
ate; some pieces of very fine-grained sandstone or coarse
silt, and, rarely, igneous and metamorphic rock fragments
also are present. While Fisk (1939a) related these crys
talline granules to source areas in the upper Mississippi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
Valley, the same types also are found in the southern Appa
lachian region. The granules do not seem to show an appar
ent east-west compositional change. It is probable that •
useful information about source material could be found by
a more, detailed study of this size fraction.
Gravel-sized material is common but not present everyr
where in the Citronelle outcrop belt. Small boulders with
a maximum longest dimension of 10-12 inches are present in
a few localities but are not common. Brown (1967) suggested
the presence of gravel trains in the Citronelle. More
detailed mapping, however, is necessary before this hypo
thesis can be determined valid.
Previous Work
Summary of the Term Citronelle
Upon weathering, many of the sands of the Gulf Coastal
Plain become bright reddish orange in color. Thus Safford
(IS56) included the sediments now considered Citronelle in
his "Orange Sand Group" based on work in Tennessee and
extended into neighboring states by Hilgard (1Ô66, 1Ô69,
IS73). The term was inadequate, however, as it included
sands of the same color which ranged in age from Cretaceous
to Pleistocene.
The Citronelle sediments were then included in Hil
gard’ s (IS91) Lafayette Formation, named for its type local
ity in Lafayette County in northern Mississippi. Although
the Lafayette was considered by most workers to be Pliocene
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
in age, Berry (1911) subsequently found Eocene leaves in
the deposits of the type locality. Since 1915, the Lafay
ette has not. been considered a valid formational terra.
Matson (1916) mapped nonmarine sands and gravels as
the Citronelle Formation in the Gulf Coastal Plain, and he
considered them to be Pliocene in age. Matson selected the
town of Citronelle, Alabama, as the type locality based on
excellent exposures along the Gulf, Mobile, and Ohio Rail
road north of the town.
Age and Origin
Fisk developed a complete hypothesis concerning the
age and origin of Late Cenozoic sands and gravels. In a
report describing Grant and LaSalle parishes, Louisiana,
he (193Sa) named and described four fluviatile terraces in
the Red and Mississippi River valleys. From oldest to
youngest he named them ¥illiana, Bentley, Montgomery, and
Prairie. While noting the difficulty of correlating ter
race deposits with sediments in other regions, Fisk (1939b)
made correlations between his fluviatile terraces and their
coastal equivalents (i.e., deltaic plains). Although Fisk
(1940, 1944) assigned Citronelle deposits to the Williana
Formation, a comparison of FiskLs (1944) and Matson’s
(1916) maps shows that he also included some Citronelle
sediment in the Bentley and Montgomery Formations.
Fisk postulated that glacial stages were periods of
erosion along the Gulf Coast as rivers entrenched in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in response to falling sea level. As sea level rose during
the interglacial stages, rivers aggraded, filled their new
ly cut valleys, and formed deltaic plains as they entered
the transgressing Gulf of Mexico. Downwarping of the Gulf
Coast geosyncline was associated with structural uplift and
tilting along its northern flank, where these deposits were
transformed into fluviatile and coastal terraces. Fisk
maintained that the oldest surface, the Williana, was
tilted and uplifted the most, while the youngest surface,
the Prairie, was affected the least (see Fig. ,5).
Since these studies, the fluviatile terraces and their
coastal equivalents have been mapped in many other Louisi
ana parishes by various workers (e.g., Huner, 1939; Welch,
1942; Holland, Hough, and Murray, 1952; Martin et al.,
1954; Varvaro, 1957; Andersen, I960).
An opposing viewpoint has been developed by Doering.
In southwestern Louisiana and Texas, he (1935) mapped as
the Willis Formation sands and gravels which he considered
Pliocene in age. In 1956, Doering correlated the Willis
and the Citronelle and obected to Fisk's correlation of the
Williana and Citronelle. Doering's Figure 4 (p. 1834) indi
cated that if Fisk were correct, a large structural depres
sion would exist in central Louisiana which would be elim
inated if the Williana were equivalent to the Lissie For
mation which he considered younger than the Citronelle.
Further, maps of the underlying Miocene deposits show no
structural depression.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
FISK 1944
Y E . 2 5 0 >Vy.,vk‘.N..
DOERING 1958
COAST SATewftoce/ UNE
WELL d a t a fRO U ELECTHie « L L -L O S
CROSS SECT.ONS, A-8, & C .O -E . AKERS 0 HOLCK, ECSJA.Y60.N0 a.
M9 (PSAJRIE) —correlations O f AXERS & MCLCK ».
DURHAM ot al. 1967
V . E 8 8 500
Figure 5* Contrasting concepts of terrace relationships demonstrated by cross-sections from near Natchez south ward to south Louisiana (after Durham, Moore, and Parsons, 1967, Figure 3).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
Doering (1958) felt that the Citronelle represented an
alluvial apron which formed as a result of preglacial epei
rogenic uplift of the continental interior, A similarhypo-
thesis was first suggested by Clendenin (I896), who felt
these deposits ranged from Late Pliocene to Early Quater
nary in age and suggested that uplift in the continental
interior resulted in stream rejuvenation, increased ero
sion, deposition of the sands and gravels, and perhaps con
tributed to the onset of glaciation.
A detailed confirmation of Doering's hypothesis was
supplied by Parsons (1967) who traced the Citronelle For-'
mation from southwestern Mississippi southward into Louisi
ana, an area which had been considered by Fisk (1939b) as
Williana, Bentley, and Montgomery, and by Doering (1956)
as Citronelle and Lissie (see Fig. $). Because of the
continuity of the deposits as shown from the shallow sub
surface information, obtained from closely spaced auger
holes, Parsons felt that only one formation, the Citronelle,
was present. He also suggested that the Citronelle repre
sented an alluvial plain built by braiding, coalescing
streams crossings gently sloped coastal plain.
The older workers were also in disagreement as to the
significance of the gravels and sands. Hilgard (1866) sug
gested that they were a ^'southern drift", correlative with
the northern glacial drift. McGee (1891) considered these
deposits to be Pliocene in age and marine in origin, a view
also suggested by Harris and Veatch (1899). Matson (I916)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
considered the Citronelle deposits in part estuarine, in
part shallow water deposits at or near the strand line
where there was some wave action (beach?), but dominantly
fluviatile. Matson felt that the strand line had fluctu
ated several times and that upward movement of the land was
the most probable cause.
Matson believed the -Citronelle to be Pliocene in age
primarily on the basis of plant fossils, identified by
Berry, 1916, thought to be in the basal portion of the for
mation. Doering (1935), Fisk (I93#a), and Roy (1939), how
ever, disagreed. They felt the fossils belonged to an
underlying formation separated from the Citronelle by an
unconformity. Matson's viewpoint was subsequently upheld
by Stringfield and LaMoreaux (1957) because Citronelle-
like sands are found below the fossil-bearing beds, and
because fossil leaves present in another locality in the
basal portion of the Citronelle. Doering (195#), however,
noted that the fossils only indicated a preglacial age
which at the time of Berry was believed to be Pliocene, but
that the definition of the Pleistocene by the 1#"^^ Inter
national Geologic Congress, summarized in Moors (1949),
included a preglacial section in its European type locality.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
Correlation Problems of Younger Terraces
Similar problems of correlation have been encountered
in studies of the younger terraces in the Gulf Coast region.
A complete discussion of these problems is beyond the scope
of this report. However, because it must be determined
when Mississippi River heavy minerals first entered the
Gulf region, a brief description of these controversies in
the Mississippi River area is presented.
In southwest Louisiana, Doering (1956) concluded that
because Fisk’s coastwise Prairie terrace is higher in ele
vation and has a steeper slope than Fisk’s fluviatile
Prairie terrace, the coastwise terrace is older and should
be correlated with Fisk’s Montgomery fluviatile terrace.
Consequently, he renamed the fluviatile type Prairie the
Holloway Prairie, and the coastwise Prairie the Eunice
(which he correlated with the fluviatile Montgomery; see
Table 1). Progressively older coastwise terraces the
Oberlin and Lissie were correlated with the fluviatile
Bentley and Williana, respectively.
In southwest Louisiana, Doering also mapped Lissie,
Oberlin, and Eunice coastwise terraces south of the Citro
nelle terrain. The Eunice-Oberlin contact, however, is
actually the Baton Rouge fault escarpment of Durham and
Peebles (1956). Parsons (196?) recognized only two post-
Citronelle coastwise terraces in this area (see Fig. 5).
Realizing the uncertainty that was still present in regional
terrace correlations, Durham, Moore, and Parsons (196?)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■DCD O Q. C g Q.
■D CD
C/) 3o' O 3 Red River Area Lao Coastal Area CD 8 (Fisk, 1940) Doering, (1956) (Fisk, 1940) ■D
(O' Prairie Holloway Prairie o Montgomery Eunice Prairie
Bentley Oberlin Montgomery
3. Lissie Bentley 3" Williana CD Oitronel^e Williana ■DCD O Q. C a O 3 Table 1: Revised correlation chart of Doering (after ■D O Doering, 195#).
CD O.
"O CD
(/) lê
suggested using local terminology for these two terraces.
They informally named the older terrace "Irene" for an
excellent exposure in northern East Baton Rouge Parish.,
Louisiana. They called the widespread younger surface the
Port Hickey, a name used first hy Matson (1916) for these
deposits, although earlier both Durham (1964) and Parsons
(1967) had applied the name Beaumont on the basis of sup
posed correlation with the Beaumont of southwest Louisiana
(Fisk’s coastwise Prairie and Doering’s Eunice).
Heavy Mineral Studies in Gulf Coast Province
Studies of the heavy minerals of various deposits in
the Gulf Coastal Plain and Mississippi Embayment have been
done in the past. Figure 2 summarizes the distribution of
heavy minerals in units in or near the area of the present
study. A more detailed discussion of such work is neces
sary to understand better how heavy minerals can be useful
in determining the source of the sediments now in the Citro-
nelle and terrace deposits.
Russell (1937) described the heavy minerals of the Mis
sissippi River deposits. The most abundant are magnetite,
ilmenite, pyroxene, amphibole, epidote, and garnet. Kya-
nite reaches a maximum of one per cent in one sample but it
is rare (under one per cent) or absent in others. Stauro-
lite is also rare or absent (see Fig. 6).
Analyzing Recent sediments in the northern Gulf of
Mexico, Goldstein (1942) distinguished four major hravy
mineral provinces, two of which are of importance to this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
study. The Mississippi River province assemblage was
found from the Chandeleur Islands (about Long. 80° 45’)
westward to Vermilion Bay (about Long. 92° 30’). This area
encompasses the Recent Mississippi River deltaic deposits.
The Chandeleur Islands comprise reworked sands of the Mis
sissippi River St. Bernard subdelta whose outer boundary
represents the most eastern extent of Recent Mississippi
River deltaic deposition; the western boundary is marked
by the Sale-Cypremort subdelta. This assemblage is char
acterized by, in order of abundance, amphiboles, dolomite,
pyroxene, epidote, ilmenite, biotite, tourmaline (see Fig.
6; dolomite is not included because all samples were
treated, with acid). The eastern Gulf Province includes
the area east of the Chandeleur Islands to at least Long.
86°. This province is characterized by ilmenite, stauro-
lite, zircon, kyanite, tourmaline, and sillimanite (see
Fig. 6). The percentages of magnetite, amphiboles, garnet,
and pyroxene are low; Goldstein (p. Si) felt that these
differences were due to the nature of the source rock than
to chemical instability since grains of both provinces show
little signs of alteration.
Wilman, Glass, and Frye (1963) reported the heavy min
erals of the glacial deposits in Illinois as amphibole-
pyroxene, epidote, and garnet (see Fig. 6). As Potter and
Pryor (1961) showed that the Paleozoic rocks which the Mis
sissippi River drains contain a limited suite of zircon,
tourmaline, and some garnet, the glacial deposits may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
assumed to be the main source of heavy minerals for the Mis
sissippi River. Some contribution, however, may be made by
the Tennessee River as its upper tributaries drain a zone
of epidote and hornblende-bearing rock (compare map of upper
Tennessee drainage with Fig. 1 of Overstreet and Grif-
fitts, 1955). Bornhauser (1940) wrote the first comprehensive
report of the heavy mineral zones of the Tertiary sediments
of western Louisiana and eastern Texas based on samples
from well cores. Cogen (1940) had access to Bornhauser*s
data and additional samples. Because of the latter.
Cogen^s classification of heavy mineral zones is more nearly
complete than Bornhauser's. Cogen recognized four heavy
mineral zones which transect formational boundaries; three
zones are present in the subsurface and only one, the Kya
nite zone, is present in the surface Tertiary deposits of
western Louisiana. This zone is characterized by kyanite,
staurolite, zircon, tourmaline, and rutile. Work by Levert
(1959) and Dixon (1963) indicated that the Kyanite zone is
present in all of the surface Tertiary deposits of Louisi
ana. Grim (1936) made a comprehensive heavy mineral study
of the Eocene formations of Mississippi. Sun (1954) reex
amined the Jackson (Upper Eocene) sediments of Mississippi
and also of western Alabama. Blankenship (1956) described
the heavy minerals in the 2.0-3-00 size range of Midway
(Paleocene) outcrops, Wilcox (Lower Eocene) outcrops and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
well cuttings, and Claiborne (Middle Eocene) well cuttings
in Tennessee. The major heavy minerals reported in all of
these studies are kyanite, staurolite, ilmenite, zircon,
and tourmaline, with lesser quantities of sillimanite and
rutile. Garnet is present in some samples (reaching a max
imum of é.O per cent in one sample) but is generally absent
or less than one per cent.
Pryor (I960) described the heavy minerals of the Gul-
fian (Cretaceous) basal deposits of the Mississippi Embay-
ment, and reported a typical southern Appalachian kyanite-
staurolite-zircon-tourmaline heavy mineral suite. Farther
southeast the only Cretaceous heavy mineral study was on
the Tombigbee Sand (Upper Eutaw Formation) by Needham
(1934)5 who reported epidote, garnet, and tourmaline as the
dominant heavy minerals. Pryor believed these minerals
■ were typical of all Cretaceous deposits of that region,
apparently because no study reported- othenvise. The writer
collected sand samples along a traverse from Centreville
southward to Marion, Alabama, of the Tuscaloosa Formation,
the MeShan Formation, the Eutaw Formation, and the Tombig
bee Sand. The heavy minerals present in all of the samples
were quite similar and belonged to Goldstein^s East Gulf
Province (kyanite, staurolite, zircon, tourmaline). The
writer knows of no explanation for Needham’s results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
Application of Heax’r Mineral Analysis
The intention of this study to utilize heavy mineral
distribution in determining source area for the Citronelle
and terraces has already been discussed. However, the
variation of heavy minerals in a sediment is a function of
several factors, and it is necessary for this study to
eliminate all of these factors except one: variation assoc
iated with source area (or provenance). Besides proven
ance, some of the factors which must be considered are: (1)
differential physical stability during transport, (2) dif
ferential chemical stability to weathering and intrastratal
solution, and (3) physical sorting of mineral species.with
differing specific gravity and size distributions. Fisk
(I951j p. 3 4 2 ) suggested that these factors make the heavy
minerals in these deposits useless for reflecting their
source. The following discussion, however, indicates that
this statement was unnecessarily pessimistic.
Possible effects of differential physical stability
can be estimated by comparing mineral hardness with mineral
abundance. The data which are presented in detail later
indicate that this factor has not significantly affected
the heavy mineral species. Differential chemical stability can be examined by com
paring the estimated chemical stability of heavy minerals
present with their abundance, by examining the heavy min
erals from unweathered localities with the heavy minerals
from weathered exposures, and by examining the heavy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
minerals present for chemical attack. In the Citronelle,
the most abmdant heavy minerals are not the most stable
chemically. Of the approximately 130,000 nonopaque grains
examined, tourmaline showed the greatest amount of attack
in one or two grains per slide, but these grains are at
least third cycle. Too, as the following data show, there
is essentially no change in heavy mineral populations
between localities with no secondary iron present and
between localities which are semi-indurated by secondary
iron.
Supporting evidence of the unimportance of this factor
on these deposits is found in the studies of the other
units in the Gulf Coast region. The presence of garnet and
epidote in the Tertiary sediments of this region makes it
unlikely that weathering or intrastratal solution would
have removed this minerals completely from the younger
deposits. The inability of intrastratal solution to remove
hornblende in a friable Claiborne sand has been reported
by Callender (1957). Finally, other workers in this region
(e.g., Goldstein, 1942; Todd and Folk, 1957, Potter, 1955a,
1955b; and Pryor, I960) agree that the heavy minerals of
the units that they have studied have been relatively unaf
fected by secondary changes. Therefore, the assumption
seems justified that the heavy minerals in the Citronelle■
Formation and the terrace deposits reasonably reflect their
parentage.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
The third factor is more complex and difficult to
eliminate. Ruhey (1933) was able to show that sedimentary
particles of a small volume but high specific gravity
behave hydraulically the same as grains of lower specific
gravity and larger volume, assuming the minerals have simi
lar shapes. For this relationship, Rubey used the term
hydraulic equivalence. Hydraulic equivalent size would be
the diameter of a quartz grain qhich would settle with a
heavy mineral. Rittenhouse (1943) was the first to attempt
calculation of hydraulic equivalent size from field data.
He found that for any one heavy mineral the hydraulic equi
valent size varies nonuniformly with the size of the min
eral grain, and that for any given size class there is a
difference in the hydraulic equivalent size between heavy
minerals of different specific gravity. While sieving of
a sample helps reduce the effect of the former, it does not
reduce the effect of the latter.
One means of eliminating the hydraulic problem is to
consider only heavy minerals which have similar specific
gravity and shape. This requires the minerals to have a
similar size distribution in the sediment and similar
hydraulic equivalent size values. In addition, if the min
erals have similar chemical and physical stability, these
additional sources of variation can be reduced or eliminat
ed. If all of the above conditions are met, the only vari
ation left is source area. If ’x’ equals the number of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26
grains of one mineral present and ^y’ equals the number of
grains of another mineral of the same size with similar
hydraulic equivalent size, the numerical ratio x/x+y
expresses their relationship as a ratio. Significant dif
ferences in the ratio value can be detected by analysis of
variance (ANOV), provided replicate counts are made to esti
mate internal variation. If one mineral (or one group of
minerals) is from one source area and the other mineral
(or group) is from another source area, an estimate can be
made of the contribution of each source area. In addition,
subsuites based on contributions of different ratios of two
minerals which are found in one major suite can be defined.
The best example of the above technique is varietal
counts of a single mineral within the same size fraction
because the varieties have the same equivalent size. It
must be proven, however, that the varieties chosen are
diagnostic of different source material and they must be
present in enough quantity to be usable. In this study,
varietal counting was not a usable technique. For example,
several varieties of staurolite based on color and inclu
sions are present; but these varieties were duplicated in
the laboratory simply by crushing a single megascopic crys
tal of staurolite. Erynine (1946) showed that tourmaline
varieties can be useful for provenance study; but in the
Citronelle, tourmaline is not sufficient quantity to be
subspeciated. Similar problems arose with the other heavy
minerals present, and it was therefore necessary to base
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the numerical ratio on two different minerals.
FIELD PROCEDURE
In the Citronelle terrain east of the Mississippi Riv
er, a series of east-west and north-south lines of locali
ties were established with an approximate distance of 5-10
miles between localities (see Fig. 4a and 4b, based on
state geologic maps and MacNeil, 1945). In Louisiana,
an attempt was made to collect from pertinent terrace
localities of various ages so that this procedure was not,
always followed (see Fig. 3, based on the state geologic
map). Because of the large area involved, only road cuts
and gravel pits were examined. Localities where samples
were collected are indicated by black circles in Figures
3, 4a, and 4b, and localities whose samples were examined
in the laboratory are indicated by locality number. Appen
dix I lists all localities from which samples were
collected.
At all exposures, the surface of the outcrop was first
scraped clean, and an attempt was made to distinguish sedi
mentation units which were essentially homogeneous with
respect to grain size and primary structures. Channel sam
ples of each different unit were taken, in an effort to
obtain a representative sample for that unit. To insure
that all particle sizes were represented, the quantity of
sample taken varied with the size of the largest particles
present (large for gravel, smaller for sand). No material
was-taken from zones of hard pan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26
The younger fluviatile deposits, in part derived from
the Citronelle Formation, look much like fresh Citronelle
material. Most of the natural Citronelle exposures, how
ever, are stained red and can be easily distinguished from
the younger material. When confusion could exist between
fresh Citronelle and younger deposits, no samples were
taken.
TECHNIQUES OF LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Mechanical Analysis of Citronelle Samples
For unconsolidated samples, the most commonly used
methods for determining grain size distribution are sieve
analysis of the sand fraction and pipette analysis of the
silt and clay fraction. Because secondary iron causes some
induration, however, it was necessary to treat the samples
with acid before analysis could be made. Since the
acid affected some of the clay minerals, the true grain-
size distribution of the fine fraction could not be deter
mined with any degree of reliability.
To estimate the importance of the silt and clay frac
tions (material less than 4*00), three iron-free samples of
obviously different grain size distribution were dry-sieved.
The reults from all three tests indicated that the silt and
clay fractions comprise less than 4.0 per cent by weight of
any fresh sample. In addition, it was noted that the amount
of material present less than 4.00 in size was related more
to the degree of weathering of the outcrop, than to the grain
size of the deposit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29
With the above factors in mind, the following proced
ure was used:
Samples from each unit were passed through a No. 5
(4 mm, -2.00) sieve; this was necessary as a sample split
ter capable of passing the very coarse material was not
available. The material remaining on the sieve was washed,
dried, and then sieved through a nested sequence of -5.00,
-4.00, -3.00, -2.50, and -2.00 sieves, using a CENGO-Meinzer
sieve shaker for 15-20 minutes at an intensity setting of
6-8. Each sieve fraction was then weighed i0.05 gm. Any
material passing through the -2.00 sieve was added to the
sand fraction.
The sand fraction was then split with an Otto-type
sample splitter. Each split was resplit and quarters from
the right and left side were recombined to reduce bias. In
this manner, the sample was reduced in size until two
replicate samples of each unit, weighing 300-700 gms., were
obtained. Each replicate was placed in HCl (diluted 1:3)
and heated to boiling. After cooling, the acid was neu
tralized, and the finer than 4-00 material was removed by
wet-sieing.
After drying, the replicate samples were sieved through
a series of nested screens at 0.50 intervals, using a
CENGO-Meinzer sieve shaker as described above. Each sieve
residue was weighed to -0.05 gms. The 80 mesh (2.0-2.50)
and 120 mesh (2.5-3*00) splits were retained for heavy
mineral analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 0
Cumulative curves were constructed for each replicate
sample from the recorded data. Because the weight of the
material on the sieves greater than 4 mm. represented the
total weight collected in each sample, the weight of the
residue on each of the -2,00 and larger sieves were succes
sively divided hy two for every split of the finer material.
The weight thus calculated was then used as part of the
data for constructing cumulative curves. The various per
centiles needed for textural plots were taken from the cum
ulative curves. The data obtained from all replicate
splits are given in Appendix II and III.
Heavv Mineral Analysis Procedures
An initial survey of 16 samples on an east-west line
from western Mississippi to Florida was made to determine
what heavy minerals are present in the Citronelle. These
samples were treated as described under mechanical analysis
except (1) replicate samples were not analyzed, (2) the
samples were sieved into three whole phi (3.0-4.00, 2.0-
3.00, 1.0-2.00) size classes. Eighteen samples of the
terrace deposits were then examined to determine the heavy
mineral assemblage present. These samples were treated as
described under mechanical analysis except that replicate
samples were not analyzed. The size classes 2.0-2.50 and
2.5-3.00 were examined.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
The heavy minerals were separated from the 'light'
fraction using bromoform (sp. gr.=2.ê5), following the
procedures outlined in Krumbein and Pettijohn (193#). The
heavy minerals were mounted on glass slides with Lakeside
70-C. If more residue was present than could be mounted
on a single slide, a micro-sample splitter was used in the
same manner described under mechanical analysis. The slides
were point-counted using a point-counting mechanical stage
and the first 200 non-opaque grains (not including mica)
were identified with the aid of a pétrographie microscope.
The ratio of nonopaque to opaque grains in the Citronelle
was determined on the basis of the first two hundred grains
encountered. To insure that no grain was counted twice,
the distance between points on a traverse across the slide
was slightly greater than the longest dimension of the
largest nonopaque grain on the slide. The determination
of the numerical ratio between minerals with similar
hydraulic equivalent size is discussed in the Heavy Miner
al Data Analysis section of this report.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 2
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Textural Data Analysis
Depositional environments previously suggested for the
Citronelle range from near the strand line to fluviatile.
The use of textural parameters to distinguish sedimentary
depositional environments is a common technique (see Folk,
1966, and Friedman, 1967/ for summaries). The parameters
used are generally based on mean grain size, standard devi
ation (sorting), and the asymmetry of the curve about the
mean (skewness) because these parameters are believed to
reflect the nature of the depositional agent.
Because different sedimentary environments yield over
lapping values for any single parameter, Friedman (196?)
tried scatterplots of two parameters. While overlap was
not eliminated, it was reduced and Friedman found twelve
combinations useful for distinguishing beach and river
deposits. None of the twelve appeared to be more effective
than another, and for this study two plots were selected as
representative of the method for use in plotting data
derived from mechanical analysis. These are (1) inclusive
graphic skewness (SK-^; Folk and Ward, 1957) versus graphic
standard deviation (ô^j; ibid), and (2) simple skewness
measure (oCg; Friedman, 1967) versus simple sorting measure
(SO3 ; ibid).
The formulas for calculating the various parameters
are givin in Table 2. Figures 7 and S are scatterplots of
SKj vs ffj, and8 ^ vs SO3 , respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■DCD O Q. C g Q.
■D CD
C/) MEASURE SYMBOL FORMULA o' 3 (SKj) O Inclusive graphic 016+084"205O ^5"^95""^50 skewness 8 "O Inclusive graphic ( O'j) standard deviation 4 6.6
Simple skewness («g) (095+0^) ■" 20^q measure 3. 3 " CD
CD Simple sorting ( sop )^(0g^-0^) ■D O measure CQ. Oa Table 2: Formulas for statistical parameters used in this 3 study. ■D O
CD Q.
■D CD
C/) C/) 34
Figure 7: Scatterplot of SKj versus PJ 0 ------
*
# #
• # #
s;.J # % i . i . # • • # t •' # • 9 • _ » - # e # # * • • #
# e * 1t *
s 1 Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sopling dagsHicat'Oo after Fo)Hn961) Sorted p 1 !i ÏI ' ------! - - 0.4 0 6 0.8 1.0 U 1.4 1.6 1.8 2,0 2.2 Z4 OjOn phi units)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
Figure 8;Scatterplot of ( X versus SOg
# e
• +3.0 ••
# +3.0
• • • » •
• • • % ' • # • # # » # • # # 1 • e # # -20 # •
# e #
e Oi 10 1.3 2 .0 2 0 3 .0 3 0 SOs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited wi without permission. 36
Figure 7 shows two clusters of points. In one, the
sediments range from moderately well sorted to moderately
sorted and SKj= io.25. The second cluster is character
ized by a wide range of skewness values and are very poorly
sorted; the two clusters appear to be connected by a scat
tering of points in the poorly sorted region of the graph.
Folk (1 9 6 1 , p. 4 5) notes that most Texas river deposits
range in sorting from 0.40 to' 2.50, a range matched by the
Citronelle data. Friedman (1967, p. 340) Figure 15 plots
SKj vs CTj for known beach and river deposits. While there
is a small overlap, a .river-beach boundary is indicated;
most of the Citronelle data plot on the river side of the
boundary. The very poorly sorted cluster does not show on
Friedman’s diagram as he plotted values of only to I.4 0 .
Figure B yields much the same information and may be com
pared to Friedman’s (p. 342) Figure 1Ô. The above data
plots indicate that the Citronelle probably represents
fluviatile deposits.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Description.of Heavy Minerals Present
Citronelle Formation and Older Terraces
An initial examination of 16 Citronelle samples indi
cated that the heavy minerals present belong entirely to
the East Gulf Coastal Province assemblage of Goldstein
(1 9 4 2 ). No one mineral is missing from any of the size
classes (see Fig. 9) so that any size class can be used to
describe the assemblage present. An examination of IS
Louisiana samples indicated a similar assemblage in
samples from the Citronelle and three older terraces as
defined by Fisk. The common heavy minerals of this assem
blage in approximzte order of abundance are: ilmenite,
mica, kyanite, staurolite, zircon, tourmaline, rutile, and
sillimanite; magnetite fluctuates highly but is never real
ly abundant. Other minerals which are present but not com
mon include andalusite, garnet (spinel?), amphibole, pyrox
ene, epidote, sphene, and monazite. The percentages found
are listed in Appendix IV. A description of the important
heavy minerals follows: ■
Ilmenite: Ilmenite is the dominant heavy mineral in all Citronelle samples. Ilmenite occurs as opaque greyish black subrounded to subangular equidimen- sional grains. Most grains are coated with a white alteration product, leucoxene, which consists of fine-grained rutile. A reddish orange color can be seen in the thin edges of some grains.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■DCD O Q. C g Q.
■D CD
C/) 3o' O
■D8 2.0-3.00 0-4.00 ..rtnrrfinniiilnnsi
3. 3 " CD ■DCD O Q. C a O V 7 3 ■D O r > A
CD Q.
Figure 9: Nonopaque heavy minerals in 3 size classes in the Citronelle Formation. ■D CD
C/) C/)
Vj J OX 39
Rutile: Deep reddish brown, generally rounded grains, and deep yellow subrounded to angular prisms and crystals of rutile are present. Deer, Howie, and Zussman (1962, p. 3S) report rutile as a common alteration product of ilmenite and other titaniferous minerals. In the Citronelle and terrace samples, the alteration of ilmenite to the reddish brown variety of rutile can be seen in some grains. It is not clear, however, whether all of the reddish brown variety of rutile has .formed by this process or whether the alteration which is present occurred before or after deposition. The deep yellow variety is always free of inclusions and is certainly detrital.
Kyanite: Most kyanite grains are typically bladed and range from angular to subrounded in habit; however, some are short, stumpy, and rounded. Some grains show anomalous extinction, prob ably due to air trapped along cleavage planes.
Staurolite: Staurolite grains may be equidimen sional but more commonly are crudely prismatic to, sometimes, almost bladed. These grains range from subrounded to angular. The color var ies from reddish brown to yellowish brown to straw yellow. The degree of pleochroism varies from moderate in the more colored varieties to almots none in the straw yellow grains. Most grains have no inclusions, but those with car bonaceous inclusions or quartz and other min erals (i.e., ’Swiss cheese’ texture) are com mon too.
Zircon : Zircon grains range from well rounded equidimensional grains to angular prisms; the former are the only type present in the larger size grades while the latter are very common in the smaller size grades. As xenotime is indis tinguishable from colored zircon under the mic roscope (Milner, 1962, p. 202-203), some xeno time also may be present.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
Tourmaline : Tourmaline is present as subangu lar to rounded prisms to nearly equidimension- al grains. The most common varieties are pleo- chroic yellowish brown to black and pleochroic reddish brown to black; other types are present but not common.
Sillimanite: Sillimanite most commonly occurs as fibrous grains but slender arcuate prisms and short stubby prisms are not uncommon. The latter type look much like kyanite but are distinguished ■by their lower relief and parallel extinction.
Mica: Almost all of the mica present is musco vite; grains of phlogoplte are rare. The quan tity of muscovite varies considerably in the samples examined, being abundant in some and almost absent in others.
Younger Louisiana Terrace Deposits
As the older terrace deposits contained the east Gulf
Province heavy mineral suite and the Recent Mississippi
deposits contained a completely different heavy mineral
suite and the Recent Mississippi River deposits ,contained
a completely different heavy mineral suite is present.
Again, nomenclatural and correlation problems created dif
ficulties. Although this was to be only a survey of these
deposits, an attempt was made to collect samples from per
tinent localities. Thus localities 246-247 were taken
from the Avoyelles Prairie where Pleistocene Mississippi
River meander scars indicate the source. This area is
Fisk's Prairie type locality. These samples contained a
Mississippi River Province heavy mineral suite and are
summarized in pie diagram form in Figure 10. A sample of
the Port Hickey fluviatile terrace,'taken in St. Francis-
ville, Louisiana, on the east side of the Mississippi Riv
er Valley, and a sample of the Irene terrace from Irene,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
V,
EAST CÜLF PROVINCE g l a c i a l d e p o s i t s (GOLDSTEIN, 1942) (WILLMAN. GLASS, & FRYE, 1963)
«
OLDER TERRACES MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROVENCE f2.0-2.5k’ - (GOLDSTEIN, 1942)
CITRONELLE FORMATION YOUNGER TERRACES (2 .0 - 3 .0 0 ) (2.ü-2.5K^i
SILLIMAA’ITE
AMPHIBOLE-PYROXENE
f'Al RUTILE
Figure 10: Citronelle and Louisiana terrace heavy mineral suites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . 4 2
Louisiana, posessed little or no material in the 2.0-3.00
range; the suite.present, however, in the 3.0-4.00 range
is the same as is shown in the Prairie pie diagrams. The
small amount of east Gulf Province heavy minerals present
suggests reworking from nearby older deposits. Again, the
lack of dolomite in these results is due to acidizing the
samples. The other heavy minerals, however, are so diag
nostic and different from the east Gulf Province suite and
present in such large amounts, that there can be little
doubt that the younger terrace deposits sampled contain the
Mississippi River Province heavy mineral suite whereas the
older terrace deposits do not.
Some questions, however, remain to be answered.
Doering's Oberlin terrace in southwest Louisiana was not
sampled as the terrace deposits in that region are very
fine-grained so that no satisfactory samples for testing
could be readily obtained. Doering's Eunice terrace depos
its in southwest Louisiana also presented sampling problems
as these sediments are generally silt or clay. A sample
of the Eunice with some sand present was obtained at Bayou
Grand Louis (see Fig. 3, Locality 222). The heavy minerals
present in this sample indicate an east Gulf Province suite.
From the sample's location, a possible eplanation would be
that the material in this area is derived from the Red Riv
er as suggested by Fisk (1944). This sample, however,
should not be judged as definitive for the entire Eunice.
Detailed work in this area in connection with auger
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
drilling is a necessity before satisfactory answers will
be found. A brief description of the important heavy minerals
of this assemblage follows:
Augite: Augite occurs as green, rounded to angular prismatic grains, and, rarely, as irregular cleavage fragments. Most grains appear fresh.
Hornblende: Hornblende occurs as dark green, slightly pleochroic rounded to subangular prismatic grains. Most grains appear fresh.
Epidote: Epidote occurs as rounded to subrounded equidimensional grains. Epidote is character ized by its pistachio green color and a bril liant green-purple-red (ringed] interference tints observed in many grains (see Milner, 1962, p. 102).
Garnet : Garnet occurs as red to reddish orange, irregular, sometimes fractured, generally well- rounded grains which show no crystal faces. A colorless variety of garnet is present but not common.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
Heavy Mineral Data Analysis
Introduction
The first purpose of this inyestigation was to deter
mine whether the Mississippi River Province or the East
Gulf Province heavy mineral suites are present in the Cit
ron elle Formation and older terrace deposits of Louisiana,
and if both suites are present, the relationship between
the two suites by means of the ratio test discussed pre
viously. As samples from these deposits were examined, it
was soon evident that only one suite of heavy minerals, the
East Gulf Province, was present in the Citronelle and older
terraces. For this reason, the writer used the ratio test
to determine whether important subsuites were present in
these sediments.
The criteria for the minerals which are to be used in
the numerical ratio test are: (1) they must have similar
specific gravities, (2) they should be of similar shape,
and (3) their physical and chemical stabilities should be
somewhat similar. The minerals selected for this test were
kyanite and staurolite. Kyanite has a specific gravity of
3.6-3.68, a hardness of 4 to 7, and occurs as prismatic-
(bladed) grains. Staurolite has a specific gravity of
3.65-3.75, a hardness of 7 to 7.5, and occurs as crudely
prismatic grains. Both minerals are generally considered
to be of similar chemical stability (e.g., Milner, 1962,
p. 434).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
The differential hardness of kyanite theoretically
might cause a difference in grain-szie distributions. Todd
and Folk (1957) described the heavy minerals of two Middle
Eocene units in east Texas, the Newby sandstone and the
Carrizo sandstone from which the Newby was derived. They
noted that there was no apparent difference in the heavy
mineral suite of the two formations ; the kyanite percentage
in both formations averaged 21-1. The only difference in
the kyanite grains of the two formations is that the Newby
kyanite grains have rounded corners while the Carrizo kya
nite grains have angular corners. It appears, therefore,
that the differential hardness of kyanite is not a critical
factor. As kyanite and staurolite are most abundant in the
2.0-3.00 size range, the ratios were calculated for the
2.0-2.50 and the 2.5-3-00 size fractions. In the Citro
nelle samples, the heavy minerals of the two size fractions
were separated from the replicate samples of each unit used
in mechanical analysis; for the Louisiana terraces, the old
er terrace samples described in the previous section were
used. Separatory procedures and slide preparation were
done in the same manner as in the initial survey. The
slides were point-counted and the first 300 nonopaque
grains (not including mica) were classified as kyanite,
staurolite, and others. The ratio kyanite/kyanite +
staurolite (k/k+s) was then calculated. In all of the
following ANOV tests, the inverse sine transformation was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
used on all data before ANOV calculations were preformed,
in order to effect a more normal distribution (Steel and
Torrie, I960, p. 15&). The procedures for calculating ANOV
can be found in most statistical textbooks; however, a sum
mary of the steps in calculating ANOV is given in Appendix
VII.
Numerical "Ratio Tests
Whether or not the two minerals can be considered
hydraulically similar can be tested at outcrops with two
or more units of different grain size distribution. If no
■significant difference can be found in the value of k/k+s
between units of differing grain size distribution, then
the two minerals can be considered hydraulically similar.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of these calculations
based on 10 localities with two or more units in three
states. The F-values are nonsignificant, indicating that
the variation within units is greater than the variation
between units. The ratio is assumed independent of unit
grain size distribution and is assumed constant in each
size split at any one locality.
The following questions need to be answered by ANOV
calculations: (1) In Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi, the spacing of
samples is sufficiently broad so that subsuites may be pre
sent in each state.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■DCD a.O c g Q.
■D CD
C/) 3o' O P LOO. UNITS 88t 88b 88* M8* *F0.05 115 5 227.38 185.69 46.42 48*63 9.72 5.00 5.19 8 "O 75 5 10*22 00*46 00*23 9.76 3.25 0*07 9.55 38^ 3 60*70 50*43 25.21 10.27 3.42 7.37 9.55 81 2 48.79 35.82 35.82 12.97 6.48 5.52 18.51 CD 64 2 15.21 7.08 7.08 8*13 4*06 1.74 18*51 91 2 81*63 10*95 10.95 70*68 35.34 0*31 18.51 3. 3 " 152^ 2 32*16 0*25 0.25 31.91 15.95 0.02 . 18*51 CD 151 2 12*23 00*00° 00*00° 12*23 6*12 1.00 18*51 ■DCD O 68 2 15.60 00*00° 00*00° 15.60 7.80 1*00 18.51 Q. C 78 2 27.90 5.43 5.43 22.47 11*23 0*48 18*51 Oa 3 ■D a; replicate splits from one unit b: replicate splits from one O yielded 250 total grains each. unit yielded 77 and 71 grains each; CD numerical value in third decimal* Q. c : Table 3 : ANOV summary table for k/k+s for all localities with 2 or more units (2.0-2,50). 300 counts per slide except where noted. ■D CD
C/) C/)
■ff- "OCD O Q. C g Q.
■D CD
WC/) F 3o' LOO, UNITS 88t S8b 88* M8* % , 0 5 O 2,41 5 115 5 201,00 152,45 55.11 68,55 15.71 5.19 CD 12.82 6.41 25.09 8.56 1.55 9.55 8 75 5 57.91 "O 58 5 50,49 22.48 11.24 8.01 2.67 4.20 9.55 (O' 81 2 16,48 7.98 7.98 8.50 4.25 1,27 18.51 64 2 15,15 1.07 1.07 15.15 8.07 0,15 18.51 91 2 8.85 00,00® 00,00* 8,85 4.42 1.00 18.51 6.11 c 152 2 46.90 55.54 55.54 11,56 5.78 18.51 3. 151 2 19.12 0,15 0,15 18.97 9.48 0,02 18.51 68 2 46,58 2.76 2.76 45.62 21.81 0,15 18.51 "OCD O 78 2 10.04 0,01 0.01 10,05 5.01 1,00 18,51 O.
O 3 a; numerical value in third decimal. "O O Table LtANOV summary table for k/k+s for all localities with 2 or more units (2.5-3*00). 300 counts per slide. CD Q.
"O CD
(/)
4^ 49
(2) A very close spacing of sample localities was used
along the coastwise terrace belt of southwest Louisiana
and along the fluviatile terraces of central Louisiana.
Since the east Gulf Province assemblage indicates that
these sediments were locally derived, it is apparent that
the only difference in the ratio k/k+s that might be detec
ted would be fluviatile deposition versus deltaic deposi
tion.
(3) If there are no subsuite differences within states, is
there a difference between states.
The data from Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi can be
grouped into an hierarchical arrangement of localities with
in states. In addition, another question of academic inter
est, is there any difference between the two size splits,
can be answered in the same calculation. The final
arrangement of data would be localities within states with
in size splits. Table 5 is a summary of the results of
these calculations. In the 2.0-2.50 size class, 11Ô obser
vations are from 59 units in 44 localities in three states.
In the 2.5-3.00 class, 120 observations are from 60 units
in 45 localities in three states. The data indicate that
in this tri-state area, there is no variation in the heavy
mineral suite in the Citronelle Formation except for dif
ferences accountable to grain size variation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
C •H -P
IT\ CQ O ir\ ■P • r i I—I cC Ü o u o tH 03 + IT\
U O tH 0) rH • X) 03 CO P rH > A O 03 Z < N CD ^•rt U 03 0 E C E *tH jsx: CO P •H ir\ 03 <33 03 rH P •H P 03 03 P E-i 03
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
Table 6 is an.ANOV summary table of a test for sig
nificant differences in the ratio k/k+s in the 2.0-2.50
size class between the fluviatile terraces and coastwise
terraces of western Louisiana, using 7 samples from the
fluviatile deposits and 6 samples from the deltaic plain
deposits. The results indicate no significant difference
in the ratio k/k+s between these two areas. This could
mean either the ratio is independent of the nature of the
depositional environment or that the coastwise terraces
are in fact fluviatile in origin. As Doering (1956) has
mapped the coastwise formations as Citronelle and Lissie,
both statements may be correct.
If these samples are uniform, are they different from
the Citronelle samples east of the Mississippi River? The
results of this ANOV calculation for the 2.0-2.50 size class
are summarized in Table 7. This calculation was based on .
15 observations from 15 localities in Louisiana (from the
Williana, Bentley, and Montgomery of Fisk and the Citro
nelle and Lissie of Doering) and llâ observations from 5-9
units in 44 localities in Mississippi, Alabama, and Flori
da. The results of this calculation indicate that a sub
suite difference is present between the deposits on either
side of the Mississippi River Valley.
Table B is a summary of the mean (x), the confidence
interval about the mean (iL), and the standard deviation
(s) for the calculated ratios.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a> ■D o Q. c g Q.
■D CD
C/) 3o' O
■D8 SOURCE df 88 MS CQ' ^ % . 0 5 Total 14- 497.95 Between Areas 1 71.08 71.08 2.16 4.67
3. Localities 13 426.87 32.84 3 " CD (error) ■DCD Table 6: Summary ANOV table for fluviatile vs coastwise O terrace (area) deposits (2.0-2.50). Q. C Oa 3 ■D O
CD Q.
■D CD
(/)
70 "OCD O Q. C g Q.
■D CD
C/) 3o" O
8 "O
CQ' SOURCE df 88 MSF *^0.05 Total 132 586.04 ———
Between states 1 68.09 68,09 17.24 5.84
C 3. Localities 151 517.95 5.95 (error)
CD "O Table ?: Swnmary ANOV table for Louisiana ,vs Mississippi,■ O Q. Alabama, and Florida (2,0-2.50). C a 3O "O O
CD Q.
■D CD
(/)< /i
wvn 54
Tf o \ OCO OJ l A r A u I— 1 LA o CN H O CO o o » 0 e X} © l A tN LAIN LD H a s H CO - p CQ T( CA CACA N CA Ï—!IN Ü H CN ru H LD I— 1 CO cO o o e o 0 H CA f— i H CM H CA CQ , p •H a •rl LA 1—i CM CNCA p P t—I CO LD CA 1— 1 LA CO o 9 0 e » O . l A LA CA H CM I—! Ü CQ LA CA CALA U\ l A CA d + •C!\ g.S o p
CQ H © §4-, Q) ft © © O r 4 ft H CIS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
INTERPRETATION
Interpretation of the data presented by this report
and from previous work indicates that three types of depos
its have been examined: (1) the Citronelle Formation, con
taining an East Gulf Province heavy mineral assemblage; (2)
an older terrace deposit also containing an East Gulf
Coast Province heavy mineral assemblage; and (3) Mississip
pi River terrace deposits which possess a Mississippi River
Province heavy mineral assemblage.
It is evident that the hypothesis advanced by Doering
(1956, 195&) and Clendenin (1096), that the Citronelle
represents deposits of preglacial, coalescing, braiding
streams in response to epeirogenic uplift of the contin
ental interior, best explains the known facts about the
Citronelle.
If Fisk’s theory of the origin of these deposits were
correct, (1) the material eroded during the glacial stage
entrenchment would not have been deposited in the valleys
but would have been flushed out to sea, and (2) the mater
ial which forms the terrace deposits along the Mississip
pi River would have to have been derived from glacial out-
wash. Fisk (1951, p. 341) implied this fact in stating,
’’All the terraces can be traced directly up the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys, thus proving that the sediments of all the terrace formations came from the same general source area.” From the data presented, this is clearly not true.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
If Doering's Eunice and Oberlin terraces in southwest
Louisiana are Mississippi and Red river deposits, the ques
tion remains as to what the Lissie fluviatile deposits in
Grant and LaSalle parishes (the type area for Fisk’s Wil
liana, Bentley, and Montgomery) represent as these sedi
ments possess an eastern Gulf Province heavy mineral suite,
and the sediments are over one hundred feet lower than the
Citronelle (see Figure 2 of Doering, 1956, p. 1&26-1S27).
Although Fisk (1939b) rejected lateral planation as an
hypothesis for the origin of the fluviatile terraces, Dur
ham (1961) suggested that scour and fill associated with
lateral planation during glacial stages can account for the
formation of the entrenched valley and thick alluvial val
ley fill simultaeously. The box-shaped cross section,
truncation of spurs, and indentation of the valley walls by
arcuate meander scars support this theory.
If Durham is correct, then deposits which resemble the
Citronelle Formation could be formed by the Mississippi and
Red rivers at lower than expected elevations whenever the
river encised against the Citronelle sediments; thus, this
could account for the Lissie fluviatile deposits. The lack
of glacial heavy minerals in these deposits might be
explained in one of three ways : (1) these deposits repre
senting a Pliocene period of entrenchment; (2) the deposits
which have been preserved are Kansan in age so that no gla
cial deposits had yet been eroded, or (3) terraces of at
least two glacial cycles are present but glacially derived
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
heavy minerals did not arrive until, perhaps, as late as
Irene time. The younger terrace deposits appear to be related to
fluctuating sea level during Pleistocene glaciation. Their
relationship to the modern Mississippi River deposits is
well illustrated by (1) their common heavy mineral assem
blage, and (2) the presence of Mississippi River meander
scars on the surface of the terrace deposits. More thor
ough work is needed to determine the relationship between
Doering's Eunice, Oberlin, and Holloway Prairie in western
Louisiana and the Port Hickey and Irene terraces of Dur
ham, Moore, and Parsons in eastern Louisiana.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
. CONCLUSIONS
The most probable explanation for the Citronelle For
mation is that these deposits represent an alluvial apron
formed by braiding, coalescing streams as postulated by
Clendenin (IS90), Doering (1956), and Parsons (1967).
Eperiogenic uplift of the continental interior as envi
sioned by Clendenin (IS96), Doering (1958), and perhaps
Matson (1916), caused a time of increased stream activity
and erosion and deposition in the entire Gulf Coast region.
The uplift resulted in the erosion of Cretaceous deposits
which, as evidenced by outliers of Cretaceous deposits in
the southern Appalachians, once extended farther north than
at present ; very likely, the Tertiary sands also extended
farther north and served as a source for some of the mater
ial in the Citronelle east of the Mississippi Valley and
probably all of the Citronelle west of the Mississippi
Valley.
After deposition of the Citronelle, progressive '
encisement by the Mississippi River and other streams,
associated with uplift and tilting along the northern
flank of the Gulf Coast geosyncline, formed entrenched val
leys containing fluviatile terraces. Deltaic plains, equi
valent to these fluviatile deposits, were similarly uplifted
and tilted to form coastwise terraces. In some areas.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
associated faults have been misinterpreted as terrace
scarps. The oldest of the fluviatile terraces are identical
lithologically and mineralogically with the Citronelle For
mation. The Mississippi River Province heavy minerals
suite has been recognized in younger terrace deposits:
the Holloway Prairie, the Port Hickey, and the Irene.
These deposits are believed to be related to fluctuating
sea level associated with Pleistocene glaciation. Addi
tional field work is needed, however, before this can be
proven positively true.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
REFERENCES CITED
Andersen, H. V.,.1960, Geology of Sabine Parish: Louisiana Dept. Cpnserv. Geol. Bull. 34> 16? p.
Belt, ¥. E., et si., 1945j Geologic map of Mississippi: Mississippi Geol. Soc., Jackson, Mississippi.
Berry, E. W., 1911, The age of the type locality of the type exposures of the Lafayette Formation: Jour. Geol., V. 19, p. 249-256. j 1916, The flora of the Citronelle Formation: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 9G, p. 193-20Ô.
Blankenship, R. A., 1956, Heavy mineral suites in uncon solidated Paleocene and younger sands: Jour. Bed. Petrology, v. 26, p. 356-362.
Bomhauser, Max, 1940, Heavy mineral associations in Qua ternary and Late Tertiary sediments of the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Texas: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 10, no. 3, p. 125-135. Bro-wn, B. ¥., 1967, A Pliocene Tennessee River hypothesis for Mississippi: Southeastern Geol., v. Ô, no. 2, p. SI-S4 . Callender, D. L., 1957, Petrology of the Queen City sand, Bastrop County, Texas: unpublished M. S. thesis, Univ. Texas.
Clendenin, ¥. ¥., lS96, A preliminary report upon the Flor ida Parishes of east Louisiana and the Bluff, Prairie and Hill lands of southwest Louisiana;^, Geology and Agriculture of Louisiana, pt. 3 : Geol. Survey Louisi ana, Louisiana State Univ. Expt. Sta. rept., p. 159- 256.
Cogen, ¥. M., 1940, Heavy mineral zones of Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast sediments: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., V . 24, no. 12, p. 2069-2101.
Cooke, C. ¥., 1945, Geologic map of Florida : Florida Geol. Survey.
Deer, ¥. A., Howie, R. A., and Zussman, J., 1962, Rock- forming minerals; Vol. 5, non-silicates : John ¥iley & Sons, New York, 371 p.
Dixon, Mark, 1963, Tertiary sands of Louisiana: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Survey Open File rept., 137 p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61
Doeglas, D. J., 1949, Loess, an eolian product: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 19, no. 3, p. 112-117-
Doering, John, 1935, Post-Fleming surface formations of coastal southeast Texas and south Louisiana: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., v. 19, no. 5, p. 6$1- 638, , 1956, Review of Quaternary surface formations of Gulf Coast region: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., V. 40, no. 8, p. 1816-1862.
, 1958, Citronelle age problem: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., V . 42 , no. 4 , p- 764-786.
,1960, Puaternary surface formations of southern part of Atlantic Coastal Plain: Jour. Geol., v. 68, no. 2, p. 182-202.
Durham, C. 0., Jr., 1961, Mississippi alluvial valley, a result of lateral planation (abs.): Geo. Soc. Am. program, 1961 ann. meeting, p. 43A.
, 1964, Floodplain and terrace geomorphology, Baton Rouge fault zone: SE section. Geo. Soc. Am. 1964 ann. meeting, guidebook for field trips, p. 38-52.
Durham, C. 0., Jr., Moore, C. H., Jr., and Parsons, B. E., 1967, An agnostic view of the Terraces; in Field Trip Guidebook: Mississippi Alluvial Valley and Terraces, Geo. Soc. Am. 1967 ann. meeting, 22 p.
Durham, C. 0., Jr., and Peebles, E. M . , III, 1956, Pleis tocene fault zone in southeastern Louisiana (abs.): Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., Trans., v. 6, p. 65-66.
Fisk, H. N., 1938, Geology of Grant and LaSalle Parishes: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Bull. 10, 246 p.
, 1939a, Igneous and metamorphic rock from Pleistocene gravels of central Louisiana : Jour. Sed. Petrology, V. 9, no. 1, p. 2O-27.
, 1939b, Depositional terrace slopes in Louisiana : Jour. Geomorphology, v. 2, no. 2, p. 181-200.
, 1940, Geology of Avoyelles and Rapides Parishes: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Bull. 18, 240 p.
-, 1944, Geological investigation of the alluvial val ley of the lower Mississippi River: Mississippi River Comm., Corps of Engrs., 78 p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
Fisk, H. N., I95I 3 Loess and Quaternary geology of the Low er Mississippi Valley: Jour. Geol., v. 59, no. 4 , p. 333-356. Folk, R. L., 1961, Petrology of sedimentary rocks: Hemp hill's, Austin, Texas, 154 p.
, 1966, A review of grain-size parameters: Sedimen- tology, V . 6, no. 2, p. 73-93*
Folk, R. L., and Ward, W. C., 1957, Brazos River bar: a 'study in the significance of grain size parameters: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 27, no. 1, p. 3-26.
Friedman, G. M . , 1967, Dynamic processes and statistical parameters compared for size frequency distribution of beach and river sands: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 37, no. 2, p. 327-354*
Goldstein, A., Jr., 1942, Sedimentary petrologic provinces of the northern Gulf of Mexico: Jour. Sed. Petrology, V . 12, no. 2, p. 77-&4*
Grim, R. E., 1936, The Eocene sediments of Mississippi: Mississippi Geol. Survey. Bull. 30, 240 p.
Harris, G. D., and Veatch, A. C., 1&99, A preliminary report on the geology of Louisiana, Louisiana State Univ. Expt. Sta. rept., 5 pts., 13S p.
Hilgard, E. ¥., IS66, On the Quaternary formations of the state of Mississippi: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 91, p* 311- 325. , 1869, Summary results of late geological reconnais- ance of Louisiana: Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., v. 47, p. 73-88. J 1873, Supplementary and final report of a geological reconnaisance of Louisiana, New Orleans, 44 p.
Holland, W. C., Hough, L. W., and Murray, G. E., 1952, Geology of Beauregard and Allen Parishes: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Bull. 27, 224 P*
Hough, L. W. , 1959, Generalized geological map of Louisiana : Louisiana Dept. Gonser., Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Huner, J., 1939, Geology of Caldwell and Winn Parishes: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Bull. 15*
Krumbein, W. C., and Pettijohn, F. J., 1938, Manual of sedimentary petrology: Appleton-Century-Croft, New York, 549 p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
Krynine, P. D., 1946, The tourmaline group in sediments: Jour. Geology, v. 54, no. 2, p. 65-&7.
Leighton, M. M . , and Willman, H. B., 1949, Itinerary of field conference- late Cenozoic geology of Mississippi Valley, southeastern Iowa to central Louisiana; aus pices of State Geologists, Urbana: Illinois Geol. Survey. J 1950, Loess formations of the Mississippi Valley: Jour. Geol., v. 5&, no. 6, p. 599-623.
Levert, C. P., Jr., 1959, Lower Catahoula equivalents of Louisiana: unpublished M. S. thesis, Louisiana State Univ.
MacMeil, F. S., 1946, Geologic map of the Tertiary forma tions of Alabama: U. S. Geol. Survey Oil and Gas Inv. (Prelim.) Map 45.
McGee, ¥. J., 1&91, The LafayetteFormation: U. S. Geol. Survey 12th ann. rept., p. 347-521.
Martin, J. L., 1954, Geology of Webster Parish: Louisiana Dept. Consrv. Geol. Bull. 29, 252 p.
Matson, G. C., 1916, The Pliocene Citronelle Formation of the Gulf Coastal Plain: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Pap er 98, p. 167-192.
Milner, H. B., 1962, Sedimentary petrography, Vol. II, Principles and Applications: 4th ed., George Allen & Unwin. Ltd., London, 715 p.
Moore, R. C., 1949, Stratigraphie Commission Note 9- The Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., V . 33, no. 7, p. 1276-1280.
Needham, C. E., 1934, The petrology of the Tombigbee sands of eastern Mississippi: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 4, no. 2, p. 55-59.
Overstreet, W. C., and Griffitts, W. R., 1955, Inner Pied mont belt; 2^ Russell, R. J., ed., Guides to south eastern geology: Geo. Soc. Am. 1955 guidebook, p. 549- 577. Parsons, B. E., 1967, Geological factors influencing recharge to the Baton Rouge ground-water system, with emphasis on the Citronelle Formation: unpublished M. S. thesis, Louisiana State Univ. 75 p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
Potter, P. E., 1955a, The petrology and origin of the Lafay ette gravel; 'Pt. 1, mineralogy and petrology: Jour. Geol., V . 63, no. 1, p. 1-3Ô.
,1955L, The petrology and origin of the Lafayette gravel; Pt. 2, geomorphic history: Jour. Geol., v. 63, no. 3, p. 115-132. Potter, P. E., and Pryor, ¥. A., 1961, Dispersal centers of Paleozoic and later elastics of the Upper Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas: Geo. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 72, p. 1195-1250.
Pryor, ¥. A., I960, Cretaceous sedimentation in Upper Mis sissippi Embayment: Am. Asooc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., V. 44, no. 9, p. 1473-1504. Rittenhouse, Gordon, 1943, Transportation and deposition of heavy minerals: Geo. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 54, p. 1725-1780.
Roy, C. J., 1939, Type locality of the Citronelle Forma tions, Citronelle, Alabama : Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., V . 23, no. 10, p. 1553-1559.
Rubey, ¥. ¥., 1933, Settling velocities of gravel, sand, and silt particles: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 25, p. 325- 338. Russell, R. D., 1937, Mineral composition of Mississippi River sands: Geo. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 48; p. 1307-1348.
Safford, J. M . , IS56, A geological reconnaisance of the state of Tennessee; being the authorIs first biennial report : (I64 p. ; legislative ed., 120 p.), Nashville, Tennessee.
Schlee, John, 1957, Upland gravels of southern Maryland : Geo. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 6S, no. 10, p. 1371-1410.
Snowden, J. 0., Jr., 1966, Petrology of Mississippi loess: unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Univ. Missouri, 200 p.
Steel, R. G. D., and Torrie, J. H., I960, Principles and procedures of statistics: McGraw-Hill, New York, 48I p.
Stose, G. ¥., and Ljungstedt, 0. A., 1932, Geologic map of the United States: U. S. Geol. Survey.
Stringfield, V. T., and LaMoreaux, P. E., 1957, Age of the Citronelle Formation in Gulf Coastal Plain: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., v. 41, no. 4, p. 742-746.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65
Sun, Ming-Shan, 1954, Heavy minerals of the Jackson sedi ments of Mississippi and adjacent areas: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 24, p. 200-206.
Todd, T. ¥., and Folk, R. L., 1957, Basal Claiborne of Texas, record of Appalachian tectonism during Eocene: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. Bull., v. 41, no. 11, p. 2545-2566.
Varvaro, 0. G., 1957, Geology of Evangeline and St. Landry Parishes: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Bull. 31, 295 p. Welch, R. N., 1942, Geology of Vernon Parish: Louisiana . Dept. Conserv. Geol. Bull. 22, 90 p.
Willman, H. B., Glass, H. D., and Frye, J. C., 1963, Mineralogy of glacial tills and their weathering profile; Part 1. glacial tills: Illinois State Geol. Survey Circ. 347, 55 p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
APPENDIX I
Location of Localities
Localities from which samples were collected are
listed. Each locality was assigned a number; some closely
spaced localities, however, were given the same number and
a different letter (A, B, C). Samples studied in the labo
ratory are indicated. When more than one sample was taken
from the same locality, a letter was given to each sample,
with A being the lowest unit exposed. Localities which
were visited and assigned a number but from which no sam
ples were collected are not listed.
The following data are given: (1) nature of exposure,
(2) distance to a point of reference, (3) township and
range, (4) and map name (U. S. Geologic Survey, 1:250,000
series).
Locality 5: Gravel pit, east side, and road cuts, west
side, along Laneheart Road, 1.4 mi. north of jet. with Miss.
Hwy. 24, T2N, R2¥, Natchez; sample studied: 5-F.
Locality ?: Road cut, south side, along Miss. Hwy. 24,
9.3 mi. west of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 33, TIN, RIE, Natchez.
Locality 9: Road cut, north side, and gravel pit,
south side, along Miss. Hwy. 24, 6.1 mi. east of jet. with
Miss. Hwy. 33, T3N, R3E, Natchez.
Locality 12: Road cut, north side, along Miss. Hwy.
24, 9.3 mi. east of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 33, T2N, R4E,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67
Natchez. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 13; Road cut, north side, along Miss. Hwy.
2 4 , about 0.1 mi. east of the Amite River, T2N, R4E, Nat
chez. Fairly good exposure.
Locality 14: Road cut, north side, along Miss. Hwy.
2 4 , about 0.75 mi. east of Locality 13, O.S5 mi. east of
the Amite River, T2N, R4E, Natchez.
Locality I6 : Road cut, south side, along Miss. Hwy.
2 4 , 11 mi. west of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 4^, T3N, R5E,
Natchez.
Locality 1Ô: Gravel pit, south side, along Miss. Hwy.
2 4 , 0.5 mi. west of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 40, T3N, R7E,
Natchez; samples studied: lâ-B, 1Ô-D. Good exposure.
Locality 20: Road cut, east side, along Percy Quinn
State Park Road at south entrance to park, T3N, R7E, Nat
chez. Good exposure.
Locality 22: Second gravel pit on south side of U. S.
Hwy. 9&, about 2.5 mi. east of MeComb, Miss., T3N, R9E,
Natchez. Good exposure.
Locality 23 : Gravel pit, south side, along U. S. Hwy.
9S, 2.0 mi. east of Pike-Walthall counties border, T3N,
R9E, Natchez.
Locality 2S: Road cut, west side, along Miss. Hwy. 13,
14.2 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. S4, T6N, R13E,
Hattiesburg.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Locality 280: Road cut, west side, along Miss. Hwy.
13, 9.2 mi. south of jet. with U, S. Hwy. 8 4 , T6N, R19W,
Hattiesburg.
Locality 28D: Road cut, west side, along Miss. Hwy.
1 3 , 2.6 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 8 4 , T7N, R19W,
Hattiesburg. Good exposure.
Locality 30: Road cut, east side, along Miss. Hwy.
1 3 , 3.8 mi. north of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 8 4 , T8N, R19W,
Hattiesburg.
Locality 31 : Road cut, east side, along Miss. Hwy.
1 3 , 7.4 mi. north of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 84, T8N, R19W,
Hattiesburg.
Locality 32: Road cut, west side, along Miss. Hwy.
1 3 , 3.8 mi. south of Jefferson Davis-Simpson counties
border, T8N, R19W, Hattiesburg.
Locality 34: Road cut, west side, along Miss. H%vy.
1 3 , 4.3 mi. north of Jefferson Davis-Simpson counties
border, TION, R19W, Hattiesburg. One sample collected
and studied.
Locality 3 6 : Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwy.
49, 5.9 mi. south of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 13, TIN, R5E
(Choctaw Base Line and Meridian), Hattiesburg. One sam
ple collected and studied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69
Locality 3 8 : Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy.
11, 2.1 mi. north of railroad overpass north of Lumberton,
Miss., TIN, RI4W, Hattiesburg; samples studied: 3&-A,
3B-B, 3B-C. Good exposure. Locality 39: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy. 11,
6.2 mi. north of Lamar-Pearl River counties border, TIS,
R15¥, Mobile. Similar to Locality 3B; good exposure.
Locality 4O: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy. 11,
12.6 mi. south of Lamar-Pearl River counties border, T2S,
RI6W, Mobile.
Locality 41* Road cut, south side, along unnamed dirt
road directly north of Lee Lake, T6S, R15W, Mobile.
Locality 4IA: Road cut, south side, along Miss. Hwy.
53, 1.3 mi. south of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 603, T6S, RI4W,
Mobile.
Locality 4IB: Road cut, south side, along Miss. Hwy.
53, 6.7 mi. south of jot. with Miss. Hwy. 603, T6S, R19S,
Mobile. Locality 42: Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwy. 49,
5.5 mi. north of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 90, T7S, Rll¥, Mobile.
Locality 43 : Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwy. 49,
0.9 mi. north of southern boundary of De Soto National
Forest, T6S, RllW, Mobile.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
Locality 45: Road cut, east side, along Ü. S. Hwy. 49,
6.6 mi. north of. southern boundary of De Soto National
Forest, T5S, Rll¥, Mobile.
Locality 47: Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwy. 49,
l.S mi. north of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 67, T4S, RllW, Mobile.
One sample collected and studied.
Locality 50: Road cut, west side, along Mobile County
Road 5, 1.4 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 9^, T^S,
R4W, Mobile. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 54- Road cut, west side, along Mobile County
Road 5, about 3.0 mi. north of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 90,
T6N, R4W, Mobile. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 55: Railroad embankment, south side, along
U. S. Hwy. 90, about 3.0 mi. east of Grand Bay, Ala.,
T6S, R3W, Mobile. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 60: Road cut, east side along U. S. Hwy. 45
at jet. with Ala. Hwy. 24, in Citronelle, Ala. One sam
ple collected and studied; good exposure.
Locality 6l: Road cut, east side, along Center Road,
4.9 mi. south of Citronelle railroad station, TIN, R2W,
Hattiesburg. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 62: Gravel pit, south side, along Mobile
County Road 43/96 (Mt. Vernon Road), 6.2 mi. north (east)
of Citronelle railroad station. Good exposure.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
Locality 63: Gravel pit, north side, along Mt. Vernon
Road, 10.4 mi. north (east) of Citronelle railroad station,
T2N, R2W, Hattiesburg. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 64: Road cut, south side, along Mt. Vernon
Road, l6.6 mi. north (east) of Citronelle railroad station,
T2N, Rl¥, Hattiesburg. One sample collected and studied.
See also road cut (south side) 0.9 mi. to the east; one
sample collected and studied (64A).
Locality 6S: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwys.
43-S4 , 36.3 mi. north of jet. with Mt. Vernon Road, T6N,
R2E, Andalusia. One sample collected and studied. See
also road cut 0.3 mi. to the north ; one sample collected
and studied (6SA).
Locality 73 : Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwys.
43-S4 , at northern city limits of Jackson, Ala., T7N, R2E,
Andalusia. One sample collected and studied; good exposure.
Locality 74: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hvjys.
43-S4, 3.6 mi. north of Jackson, Ala. northern city limits,
T7N, R2E, Andalusia. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 75' Road cut, north side, along U. S. Hwy.
S4, east of Grove Hill, Ala., 1.5 mi. west of Whatley, Ala.,
TSN, R2E, Andalusia. Samples studied: 75-A, 75-B, 75-D.
Locality 77: Road cut, north side, along Ü. S. Hwy.
S4 , 3*1 mi. east of Whatley, Ala., TSN, R4E, Andalusia.
One sample collected and studied. ,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72
Locality 7è: road cut, south side, along U. S. Hwy.
Ûk, 8.1 mi. east' of Whatley, Ala., T?N, R5E, Andalusia.
Sample studied: 78-B. Also see road cut 0.2 mi. to the
east; one sample collected and studied (78A).
Locality 79: Road cut, north side, along U. S. Hwy.
84, at jet. with Monroe County Road 23, T6W, R6E, Anda
lusia. One sample collected and studied.
Locality SO: Gravel pit,- west side, along Ala. Hwy.
21, 0.6 mi. south of Monroe-Escambia counties border,
T6N, R6E, Andalusia. One sample collected and studied.
Locality Si: Gravel pit, east side, along Ala. Hwy.
21, 9.4 mi. south of Monroe-Escambia counties border,
T2N, R6E, Andalusia. Samples studied: Sl-A, Sl-B.
Locality S2A: Road cut, north side, along U. S. Hwy.
31 , by Bushy Creek bridge, west of Atmore, Ala., TIN,
R5W, Andalusia. One sample collected and studied.
Locality S3 : Road cut, south side, along U. S. H-wy.
3 1 , at power substation (south side), about 5 mi. west of
Locality S2A, TIS, R34W, Pensacola.
Locality S4 : Road cut, south side, along U. S. Hwy.
3 1 , 7.1 mi. south of Locality S3, TIS, R3W, Pensacola.
One sample collected and studied. Fairly good exposure.
Locality S6: Road cut, south side, along U. S. Hwy.
90, 2.0 mi. east of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 98, T7S, R4E,
Pensacola. One sample collected and studied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
Locality Ô?: Exposure along east side of road on
Alabama side of Perdido Bay,1.85 mi. south of Lillian,
Ala., T8S, R6W, Pensacola. One sample collected and
studied.
Locality 88: Gravel pit 0. 8 mi. south on dirt road,
from intersection with U. S. Hwy. 90, 0.9 mi. east of Per
dido Beach Road, 2.6 mi. west of Lillian, Alabama, T8S,
R6¥. , Pensacola. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 89: Exposure along beach cliff, south side
of U. S. Hwy. 90, along Escambia Bay, 4.4 mi. east of jet.
with U. S. Hwy. 9^, TIS, R29W, Pensacola. One sample col
lected and studied. Good exposure.
Locality 90A: Railroad embankment, east side, at U. S.
Hwy. 90 overpass, west of Crestview, Fla., T3N, R24W, Pen
sacola. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 91: Gravel pit, south side, along Fla. Hwy.
4, in Black Water River State Forest, 20.3 mi. west of jet.'
with U. S. Hwy. 90. Samples studied: gravelly unit= 91-A,
gritty unit= 91-B. Best exposure in Florida Panhandle.
Locality 92B: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy.
29, 1.7 mi. south of jet. with Fla. Hwy. 4, T4H, R31W, Pen
sacola. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 93A: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy.
29, 6.2 mi. south of jet. with Fla. Hwy. 4, T4N, R31W,
Pensacola. One sample studied and collected.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74
Locality 94: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy. 29,
11.6 mi. south of jet. with Fla. Hwy. 4, T3N, R31W, Pensa
cola. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 95A: Gravel pit, east side, along U. S. Hwy.
51, 12.2 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 84, T5N, R7E,
Natchez. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 95B: Road cut, east side, along IT. S. Hwy.
51, 11.Ô mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. Ô4, T5N, R7E,
Natchez.
Locality 950: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy.
51, 12.0 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 84, T5N, R7E,
Natchez.
Locality 9oA: Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwy.
51, 3.9 mi. south of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 28, TION, R8E,
Natchez.
Locality 96B: Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwy.
51, 2.1 mi. south of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 28, TION, R8E,
Natchez.
Locality 960: Road cut, west side, along U. S. Hwy.
51, 8.75 mi. south of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 28, T9N, R8E,
Natchez.
Locality 97B: Road cut, east side, along Ü. S. Hv;y.
51, 8.4 mi. north of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 28-West, T2N,
R2W (Choctaw Base Line and Meridian), Natchez.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
Locality 100: Road cut and gravel pit, south side,
along U. S. Hwy. 9&, about 5 mi. west of jot. with U. S.
Hwy. 49, T4N, R14W, Hattiesburg. One sample collected
and studied.
Locality 101: Road cut, north side of U. S. Hwy. 9&,
O.S mi. east of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 5#9, T4N, R14W, Hat
tiesburg. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 102: Road cut, south side, along U. S. Hwy.
9Ô, O.ê mi. west of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 5&9, T4N, R14W,
Hattiesburg.
Locality 103: Road cut, north side of Ü. S. Hwy. 90,
7.5 mi. west of jot. with Miss. Hwy. 5&9, T4N, R15W, Hat
tiesburg.
Locality 104: Road cut on U. S. Hv/y. 9& and intersec
tion with dirt road 16. 3 mi. west of jot. with Miss. Hwy.
589, SW corner of intersection; T4N, R17W, Hattiesburg.
Locality 105: Road cut, north side of U. S. Hivy. 98,
20.1 mi. west of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 589, T4H, R17W, Hat
tiesburg. Good exposure.
Locality 107: Road cut, north side, along U. S. Hwy.
98, 7.0 mi. east of jot. with Miss. Hv;y. 48 at Tylertown,
Miss., T2N, RUE, Natchez.
Locality IO8 : Road cut, north side of U. S. Hwy. 98,
14 mi. east of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 48 east of Tylertown,
T3N, R12E, Hattiesburg.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
Locality 109* Road cut, north side of U. S. Hwy. 90,
21 mi. east of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 4^, east of Tylertown,
T3N, R13E, Hattiesburg. Sample studied: 109-B.
Locality 110: Road cut, east side of Miss. Hwy. 4&,
about 0.5 mi. south of Liberty, Miss., T2N, R4E, Natchez.
Locality 111: Road cut, east side of Miss. Hwy. 4&,
about 2.6 mi. south of Liberty, Miss., T2N, R4E, Natchez.
Locality 113: Road cut, west side of Miss. Hwy. 569,
about 1.9 mi. south of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 4^, T2N, R3E,
Natchez.
Locality 114: Road cut, south side of Miss. Hwy. 4Ô,
6.9 mi. west of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 4Ô, T2N, R2E, Natchez.
Locality 115: Road cut, west side of Miss. Hwy. 33,
3.5 mi. north of Gloster, Miss., T3N, R2E, Natchez. Sam
ples studied: 115-A, 115-B, 115-C, 115-F, ,H5-G.
Locality ll6: Road cut at jet. of Miss. Hwy. 33 and
U. S. Hwys. S4-9&, NE corner of intersection; T6N, RIE,
Natchez.
Locality 11?: Gravel pit, east side of U. S. Hwy. 51,
about 4.6 mi. north of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 5Ô4, TIN, R?E,
Natchez. One sample collected and studied.
Locality llS: Road cut, north side of Miss. Hwy. 5Ô4,
about 1.0 mi. west of jet. with Ü. S. Hwy. 51, TIN, R?E, .
Natchez.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77
Locality 119: Road cut, north side of Miss. H-wy.
about 3.0 mi. west of jet. with U. S. H-wy.51, TIN, R7E,
Natchez.
Locality 121: Road cut, south side of Miss. Hwy. 5&4,
5.2 mi. west of Amite-Pike counties border, TIN, R6E,
Natchez.
Locality 125: Road cut, west side of U. S. H-wy. 6l,
about 1.5-2.0 mi. south of Port Gibson, Miss. (Citronelle
under loess), TIN, R2E (Choctaw Base line and Meridian),
Natchez. Only exposure on west side of road in this area.
Locality 126: Road cut, south side of Miss. Hwy. 20,
about B.3 mi. east of Fayette, Miss., TÔN, R3E, Natchez.
One sample collected and studied.
Locality 127: Road cut, south side of Union Church-
Caseyville Road, 17.5 mi. east of Fayette, Miss., T8N,
R4E, Natchez.
Locality 12#: Road cut, north side of Union Church-
Caseyville Road, about 4*# mi. east of Jefferson-Lincoln
counties border, T#N, R5E, Natchez.
Locality 129: Road cut, east side of U. S. Hwy. 49,
,7.4 mi. north of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 67, T3S, RllW, Mobile.
Locality 130: Road cut, east side of U. S. Hwy. 49,
5 mi. north of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 67, T3S, RllW, Mobile.
Locality 131: Road cut, west side of U. S. H-wy. 49,
3.5 mi. north of Covington-Forrest counties border, T6n,
R15W, Hattiesburg.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Locality 135: Gravel pit, west side of Miss. Hwy. 13,
20.4 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 84, T4N, R14E, Hat
tiesburg.
Locality 136: Road cut, west side of U. S. Hwy. 11,
5.1 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 49, T3N, R14W,
Hattiesburg.
Locality 137: Gravel pit, west side of U. S. Hwy. 11,
12.5 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 49, T2N, R14W,
Hattiesburg. Locality 138: Gravel pit, dirt road on south side of
Miss. Hwy. 26, between Poplarville, Miss., and Wolf Creek,
T2S, R15W, Mobile. Good exposure; one sample collected
and studied. Locality 139: Road cut, north side of Miss. Hwj’-. 26,
about 4.0 mi. east of Pearl River-Stone counties border,
T2S, R19E, Mobile. Locality 140: Road cut, north side of Miss. Hwy. 26,
2.0 mi. west of Pearl River-Stone counties border, T2S,
R18E, Mobile. One sample colllected and studied.
Locality 141: Road cut, north side of Miss. Hwy. 26,
7.0 mi. west of Pearl River-Stone counties border, T2S,
R18E, Mobile.
Locality 142: Road cut, south side of Miss. Hwy. 67,
3.1 mi. south of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 49, T4S, R14W,
Mobile.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
Locality 143: Road cut, east side of Miss. Hwy. 57,
14 mi. south of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 26, T4S, RÔW,
Mobile. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 146: Road cut, east side of Miss. Hwy. 63,
6.1 mi. north of George-Jackson counties border, T3S, R6¥,
Mobile. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 149: Road cut, north side of U. S. Hwy. 9^,
6.0 mi. east of jet. with Miss. Hwy. 63, TIS, R5W, Mobile.
Locality 150: Gravel pit, west side of U. S. Hwy. 45,
6.8 mi. north of Lott Road intersection, T2S, R2¥, Mobile.
One sample collected and studied.
Locality 151: Road cut, west side of U. S. Hwy. 45,
11.3 mi. north of Lott Road intersection, T2S, R2¥,
Mobile. Samples studied: 151-A, I5I-B (basal sand).
Locality 152: Road cut, west side of U. S. Hwy. 45,
19.9 mi. north of Lott Road intersection, TIN, R3¥, Hat
tiesburg. Samples studied: 152-B, 152-D.
Locality 153: Road cut, east side, along U. S. Hwy.
43, 24.9 mi. north of jet. with Mt. Vernon Road (see Local
ity 64), T5N, Rl¥, Hattiesburg. One sample collected and
studied.
Locality 154: Gravel pit, west side of U. S. Hwy. 43,
29.4 mi. north of jet. with Mt. Vernon Road, T6N, RIE,
Andalusia. One sample collected and studied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
Locality 155^ Road cut, south side of U. S. Hwy. 313
at west end of Mobile, Ala., Causeway (at jet. with U. S.
Hwys. 90-98), T4S, R2E, Pensacola.
Locality 156: Road cut, south side of U. S. Hwy. 90,
2.0 mi. east of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 98, T4S, R2E, Pensa
cola. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 157: Road cut, west side of U. S. Hwy. 90,
0.6 mi. south of eastern jet. with U. S. Hwy. 90-A, T2S,
R29W, Pensacola. One sample collected and studied.
Louisiana Localities: The following localities are
described as: (l) nature of exposure, (2) section, town
ship, and range number, (3 ) name of 15 minute quadrangle,
(4 ) and if location is uncertain, distance to point of
reference.
Locality 200: Gravel pit, SE%, SE^, Sec. 14s TION,
R7E, Sicily Island Quadrangle; mapped as Bentley. One sam
ple collected and studied.
Locality 201: Gravel pit, N¥^, SWç, Sec. k, TION,
R?E, Harrisonburg Quadrangle; mapped as Bentley. One sam
ple collected and studied.
Locality 202: Road cut, east side, SEi, Sec. 2, TION,
R5E, Harrisonburg Quadrangle. About 0.2-0.3 mi. south of
Catahoula Church; mapped as Plio-Pleistocene by Levert
(1959). One sample collected and studied.
Locality 203: Gravel pit by Manifest, La., SEi, Sec.
33, T9N, R5E,' Jonesville Quadrangle; mapped as Bentley.
One sample collected and studied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ai
Locality 204: Road cut, east side, Sec. 39» TSN,
R4E, Jena Quadrangle, 0.5 mi. west of Rhineheart, La.,
along dirt road; mapped as Montgomery. One sample col
lected and studied.
Locality 205: Road cut, west side of La. Hwy. 127,
SEç, KEç, Sec. 3, T?N, R3E, Jena Quadrangle, 1.7 mi. north
of Nebo, La. ; mapped as Williana. One sample collected
and studied.
Locality 209: Auger hole by R. Dobbins, north side of
La. Hwy. 963, Sec. 74, T3S, R2W, New Roads Quadrangle (Port
Hudson 7i minute quadrangle is a better map of area): 0.5
mi. east of jet. with U. S. Hwy. 6l; samples of the Citro
nelle from depths of 137 feet, 115 feet, and 92 feet were
studied.
Locality 210: Samples of the Bentley Formation col
lected by B. E. Parsons across from Oak Grove Church on
La. Hwy. 19 in Grant Parish, La.; one sample studied.
Locality 222: Road cut, north side of La. Hwy. l67.
Sec. 64, T4S, R3E, Opelousus Quadrangle, at Bayou Grand
Louis; mapped as Prairie (Oberlin); one sample studied.
Locality 224: Road cut, N¥ corner of intersection on
La. Hwy. 112, Sec. 16, TIN, RIW, Lecompte Quadrangle, west
of Midway, La.; mapped as Bentley, one sample studied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ô2
Locality 22$: Road cut, west side of Ü. S. Hwy. I65,
NWi, N¥^, Sec. 6, TIN, RIW, Forest Hill Quadrangle, 3*7 mi-
south of Woodworth, La.; mapped as Bentley, one sample
collected and studied.
Locality 226: Road cut, NE corner of road intersection
on La. Hv;y. 113, NE^, NWi, Sec. 12, TIS, R4W, Oakdale Quad
rangle, l.S mi. east of jet. with La. Hwy. 113; mapped as
Montgomery, one sample collected and studied.
Locality 22?: Road cut, north side of La. Hwy. 113,
NE?, NE?, Sec. 11, TIS, R4W, Oakdale Quadrangle, 5.0 mi.
east of Vernon-Rapides parishes border, one sample studied.
Locality 22S: Road cut, south side of La. Hwy. 113,
3.2 mi.'east of jet. with La. Hwy. 10, NW?, SW$, Sec. 26,
TIS, R5W, Elizabeth Quadrangle; by Montgomery-Bentley
border, could be either. One sample studied.
Locality 229: Road cut, east side of La. Hwy. 463,
SE?, SE?, Sec. 3 2 , TIN, R6W, Leander Quadrangle, 0.2 mi.
north of Big Brushy Creek bridge; mapped as Williana, one
sample collected and studied.
Locality 230: Road cut, south side of La. Hwy. 10,
SW4, NW?, Sec. 24, TIS, R?W, Sugartown Quadrangle, west of
Cravens, La.; Montgomery, near the Williana-Montgomery
boundary. One sample collected and studied.
Locality 231: Abandoned gravel pit now a garbage dump,
SW4, SW?, Sec. 15, TIS, R9W, De Ridder Quadrangle, mapped
as Williana; one sample collected and studied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. &3
Locality 232:. Road cut, north side of dirt road, SWç
SEç, REi, Sec. 25, TIS, RlOW, De Ridder Quadrangle, 1.0 mi.
east of Bayou Anacoco gauging station; mapped as Bentley, •
one sample collected and studied.
Locality 233: Road cut, east side of La. Hwy. 464,
SWi, SWi, SWi, Sec. 2S, TIN, RlOW, Leesville Quadrangle,
1.1 mi. north of road intersection in Sec. 32, TIN, RlOW;
mapped as Williana, one sample collected and studied.
Locality 234: Road cut, east side of La. Hwy. 464,
SE^, SE^, SEi, Sec. 9, TIN, RlOW, Leesville Quadrangle,
3.3 mi. south of jet. with La. Hwy. S; one sample studied.
Locality 235: Road cut, south side of La. Hwy. Ô, SEç,
NE^, Sec. 31} T2N, RlOW, Leesville Quadrangle, 2.3 mi. west
of jet. with La. Hwy. 4&4) mapped as Bentley; one sample
collected and studied.
Locality 236: Road cut, east side of Hornbeck Road,
center of NW?, Sec. 10, T4N, R9W, Florien Quadrangle,
mapped as Williana; one sample studied.
Locality 237: Road cut, northeast side of Toro-
Plainview Road; NE?, NE?, Sec. 21, T5N, RlOW, Florien
Quadrangle, about 1.0 mi. north of Plainview School; Plio-
Pliestocene of Levert (1959).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84
Locality 238: - Road, cut, northeast side of Toro-
Plainview Road, SWç, NW^, Sec. 22, T5N, RlOW, Florien Quad
rangle, 0.6 mi. north of Plainview school; Plio-Pleistocene
of Levert (1959), one sample collected and studied.
Locality 239: Road cut, northeast side, Toro-
Plainview Road, SWç, NW^, Sec. 22, T5N, RlOW, Florien Quad
rangle, 0.5 mi. north of"Plainview school; Plio-Pleistocene
of Levert (1959), one sample collected and studied.
Locality 240: Road cut, east side of Hornbeck Road,
Sec. 15, T4N, RlOW, Florien Quadrangle, 2.9 mi. south of
Plainview school; mapped as Williana, one sample studied.
Locality 241: Road cut, westside of La. Hwy. Ill;
SW?, Sec. 20, T2N, RllW, Wiergate Quadrangle; mapped as
Montgomery, one sample taken and studied.
Locality 243: Road cut, east side of La. Hwy. Ill,
about 2.0 mi. north of Bivens, La., SW?, ME?, Sec. 4, T5S,
R12W, Bon Wier Quadrangle; mapped as Bentley, one sample
collected and studied.
Locality 244: Road cut, east side of La. Hwy. 110,
4.7 mi. east of Singer, La., along boundary of Secs. 22-23,
T5S, RlOW, Singer Quadrangle; mapped as Bentley, one sam
ple collected and studied.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85
Locality 245: Base of bluffs by oil storage tanks on
north side of La. Hwy. 10, east boundary of Sec. 43, T33S,
R3W, St. Francisville Quadrangle; 0.1 mi. east of rail
road tracks; mapped as Port Hickey, one sample studied.
Localities 246-247: Gravel pit along edge of Prairie
Terrace, north side of Lake Pearl, Sec. 21, TIN, R4S,
Marksville Quadrangle. Sample 246 taken from east side of
pit, sample 247 from north side of pit.
Locality 250: Auger hole at Irene, La., Sec. 79, T5S,
RIW, Zachary Quadrangle, northeast corner of intersection.
Auger samples checked: 40 foot sample, 65 foot sample.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86
• APPENDIX II
Sieve Analysis Summary Sheets
Key: Each page contains the results of sieve analysis
of .two replicate splits for each sample.
Size Class= in phi units.
¥t.= weight in grams collected on each sieve after sieving.
Perc.= percentage of total weight on each sieve after
sieving.
Cum: Per.= cummulative percentage of individual sieve
percentages.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 7
O Y \ KN
o us o XS es UO us XS US 8 8 o iH es evi 8 8 8 •eo H CO p p o o o H XS es ô d O XS rH fH H UO H M c i T \ I X s o o « S W co «1 w «J u cn o «1 u ci CÎ < p < Ci w K j-j « p « O c< i CU o a Ü f t o O 8 H .8 s a « Si % H • Pi % I:-: r-T N ÊH W p N C-t a p N w p •w 3 ü H 3 A u li: Cr u f t Ü <3__ M -P.. 5 Î ®
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88
n
ro V) ir\ ON en NOH r4 en en en ^ e 1-4 0\ e \ j e \j If) 03-3- 03 a 5 CO
in CM
CM
CM
CM O o 0 3 0 3 in vn S » R ^ I—i
en in vO O H NO lA H H O O O O
rH O AJ r4 O d d . o
in o s s d d ir> j- o < o o
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .89
p o \ O O \ o H ON lA VO CO lO ON Cv J " • • • • VO O C3N 0 J- o H o\ r - f 0 -d- o H cv ejN 1 d 1 • H en en & -tn - iTV +
0 o ^ 1T\ ^ CO 1 un 00 K5 tn in ^ 0\ K\ lf\ • \ • • • rW H O O en o ON u j- I—i H o o T CO VO CO I i s % g: • \ x n <3N ON /—j (5N ON I + I + \ o V ) \ O -Jt- m H f\J “ ■ m ON H o j en cn e\| tc\ M c o d O O O + o VO u n < H D- O s . x n CO rH in Kn ON H x n ON ON (V CTn in CM + VD + f-4 o Y R ^ O I J- O O O un \ o o o CM * ON • CM un t u n CO r j • o -d - r 4 •F VO CM -3 - VO xn U. • • CM N u n CM O u n 1 CM rH ON o Pu \ un i-i ON o + \ CM ^ 8 8 o in 8 8 8 CM O o o CM CM o o o CM 1 o CV CO I u n - f 8 s s \ VO \ U5 un un x n -3- un un eo xn ^ CO x n CO • CN. xn «5 CM r4 CM iH H I U O Q + I + \ o \ 8 8 (V) o o o en o o o 1 U5 I un a CN u n , o x n VO 1—1 x n VO CO *v, (5N • c o• u n • , 7 o en CN H en o ON x n u n I 8 8 8 \ c o x n u n I o I—i H o o o H r 4 > o II + I I iH + u n ON CO ÿ \ cv rH H M,” ^ * * » un I 8 8 IN CV VO 8 8 8 OO c v VO < 8 VO rH \ • VO H H tn o d d o un O O O O I + I
VO lO un o • S 8 8 8 . o c v H o 8 8 o K 8 O O O o VO u n o ,in d o cv un ^ xn cv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 o O \ Ü VO ON \ K\ Ü in m ? p o tn < o tn o o o \ n . VO \ CN VO o tn 0 m • • C*^ rA o 1 « Cn rV O co -SI ------+ S ter ? s -s- tf\ 0 o J - CM o tn tn t cv O tn tn d d o tn o \ d d > o tn ON -3 - r-l 8 8 I î 1 \ oo tn OO \ tn m co co cv ON fH C I ON J - ON O -3- \ tn 8 co • o o o co .L f-4 + o ON Cn r-i < O ^ M I \ r - i CO .3• - I tn« o -i tn CM -3 " CM • J- tn “tn VO ON tn CN cv VO (A CV! tn + tn I—i I •8 o o tn \ io- CN tn I O co I , o in VO ¥ ON r - i t n OJV CJN • oo • o • \ CO CN. CN J " cv oo VO I cv S CM \ -3 - CM \ ^ -r \ CV lO tn O o M ^ cv CN I ? o cv r- i t o VO r~i N tn r-i -3 - \ Ü IN CM tn tn tn in CO CM IN. CN r -i CN tn r-i f~i tn r - i r- i N o r - i cv o f—1 8 8 J- I o 8 8 + \ o o co o o I tn I m o tn CN M o cv tn m c o (\j co o ON J- CO \ tn \ C7N tn m I 8 8 8 \ 8 8 8 ■5 H Vf > o o o I d d 1 \ -3- \ o tn tn 1 8 8 tn 8 -3- 8 8 m o co tn \ • • * • tn o o m o d d O rH I CO tn o CM 8 8 8 o VO «H gl 8 8 in d d d d d tn o d d o o CÎ I H a S CQ 02 or w 02 02 02 CÎ < CÎ < 8 S i H w H 0 i Ci 8 • Ci d Ci H a g i 8 D 1 M a N e-i s H i H I H Ci o U H 5 Ci ü Ci o 02 02 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 \ > o IN CO m ^\ \o c\ o\ • m \ o CO I—! CO CO iH \ VO CO H ^ ^ (V OV in r4 M O CM tn (X. Otn VOm 00 <\j m CM tn I—i ^ o ir \ VO • -3- H r - f i-f • • » m iH iH r4 ^“i VO O VO in , OVOV ON \ * tn in , (vj tn tn, rH in o in in . tn, nj (Vj t n . tn H- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 0\ 0\ o \ O H X O ON OJ 1 * O m lA in ON H lA o t A C) \ H X CO tA o ° d d m S 0 O O u t O I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 O vo \ O KN cr\ o m co un o- \ C3V 0 • ÎO in o J- CA m o\ CA o CA P\ 1 • o o CJv en O o CA ON -b CA ■T?5 ? o o 1 1—I ri O A. OO - f CO CM -d - i- A- CM CM CA CA CA \ r i VO Cn. A- Î m n VO CNJ to O CA H OO r i lA VO . oo CM O O O o 8 8 8 o O CO UN A - oo in NO CM in o* d d lA ci O o < § s a • w en a CO q en en < a < a < g < a a a a W >A a u a A u • A O eu C) a a 2 2 H • 2 N E-i a a> g 3 N Ei 3 H II H S H 3 a u M ü Ck o O cn JQ- JÜ- Jù__ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 o 0 Mt* T \ ^ R R & o s a 8 \ v o g % 0 8 8 in 8 8 8 c n c n o o o MO O CM CM r~i \ S 5^ % I O LA VO I s I— I "tri— CO I— Ï in CA - f M + r4 s M o o I 8 8 o 8 o m \ o o o O VO CM in # CO H 1 • o CA m CM c n CO CA CM Ov Ov CM l>- iH < KM CA O o > CO H oO % \ CM & 8 8 o in 8 8 8 « ° CM o o o CM j " o v o I ? S £i CA I m o o \ \ in in d in in CM M v o m ; n v o CMO I—Ï CM M <-< 8 8 I 8 8 8 + \ o o o cn in I m o |C\ CA CM in CM 8 VO CA in IN CA cn o !> - OO fO \ IN M CM I 8 o 8 H CM 8 8 8 I—1 f—! > o o o + > o I I O CM v o + O in in v o o \ m I 8 8 8 m uM • • 8 o tn 00 \ • m CO H in o tn in o d d o H I in j - in o -3- o CA VO o 8 8 o 8 8 8 o vo CM CA CM m in c o o CA CM CM T Ô I < o CO CO w a W Ü CO y a y a y < a < a c a < a a « a a a a a a Ei o (U o a y a y a H y Ü y y Z H • a s a • a z a • a z a • a z N E-i a D N Ei a p a Ei a D N Ei a D a H 2 a U H 2 a o H IS a y H g: a y CO CO , a a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 o \o tf\ in in tN n m in o o -d- r-t O IT \ CVJ Cn. c o l f \ H ON K \ ON iH ON O n m CO ON co lO m in r-{ tn (X tn CNl CNl CVJ co tn CM CM CM _ T O QN CM V . O CM tn » • • vo ^• iH tn oo co tr\ CM CM r-i CM tn co co o CM - r o tc \ CM \ o o o CN. tn o CM ^ tn o CM tn Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 6 • o o lA C\ -3- VO 0 \ (TV H Ov Ov uT 0(VJ 1—1 CO 8 lf\ in m • O O m c o tn tn 00 vo o CÔ H (A tA IS Cv tA 00 tn (A -d- A - m ^ % CM vot A MH CV (TV H co t A OO (A CVJ m R -3- CM lA tn vo tn cv (A vo tn iH lA cv A - ov tA ov in o tn N et H g Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 o o \ \ IT i o \ VO 1 o o q in KV AJ O -iF r-i i n d r CM rA \ t s tA o o vo CO o r 4 d d in o r~ i O O . i n t A A - Ov I KO O d 1 t A O OV s ov + in -F 0 O o - 1 o q i n 1 tA s i n \ d d d O -4 - \ d d d • O r-i c u r - î CO q CO < F r - l CO t A CO AJ J 4 - 1 •F d AJ OV \ CM Ov \ 2 CV 4—I CO OV #—1 CO 1 I + q M AJ + \ O o \ o r4 AJ I f l in H o o CO d d d CO o rA -F O A. H rA tA d F r-i -F CO AI vo f—i d d d O I \ i r \ OO vo I i n t A vo vo in AJ r4 a\ r-i r-i (F< ■“ f f i rH in CM r-i CM ■F o r-i g g + r—1 d d I 1 \ o d d m \ d d d CM m t A CO O t A d F I IN (TV CO 2 VO r~ i .id- * CM J. CVÎ lA IN 0 0 CM lA VO d 1 Q o o CM AJ -d " A- 1 ■ \ AJ d T \ Ô q q -F lA \ rA m in 8 8 8 2 o o o CM CM O r-i AJ CM (X 1 •F Ov O AJ 1 -r q tA CVJ \ vo 0 0 OV AJ m in tA AJ  in in tA rA d iH o o o VO AJ rA CM o 1—I CM o o o iH 1 8 8 o -F 1 2 s . \ o o o CO d d d CO I tn O 4—I r-i 1 m VO lA OV r - i rH AJ O OO t OV ■F CO 4 - tc \ o CA 1 o ov CO 8 o 8 \ 8 o 8 \ 1 r 4 \ iH \ o d d + d d d "h ■M-1 1 -F o r4 o ■h A- VO CA q vo o o o X \ v? o o q . AJ rÀ 1 8 8 8 IN AJ r A I iTi r - i \in d d d d rH \tn d d d o I ■ + 1 +■ o tn vo in AJ o o o 8 CO 8 8 8 8 q o o o o o tA o -F tA d r-i tn o o o 4 " « T d d d \ 1 X lA o 4—1 (3 O o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 1 â w8 1 HÛ KÉ 3 K8 o » A o • 0< o • Oh o • & . H o Ü o y s a « a s H « a 2 w • a s H • Ci 2 n N Eh « 5 K! Eh W P N ■ H D N g a 3 H 2 U H 2 Pi O H 2 Oh O H 2 cu O . CO CO U) CO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 o \ tn o tA NO \ r4 O o tn % \ o oo d \ 0 m 0 tn 1 o O o oo CM 1 d d m ^ lA + lA co t A O § o \ o in d s tn o ïH CVJ d d co ° O d 7 Ô r4 CVJ JL ? I t A -d - ON \ tA ^ rH CN m r-i % rH + I ? \ \ d d in 8 d d m CO d d 1—Îo o o ? o lA rH O -d- t A \ lA- ON NO I m t A 0 \ ON m uO o -3- CVJ rH J - % CvJ ON tn CM CO CVJ CJN CM f rH O o rH I—i I Ü o O I 8 8 d \ o o o m \ CN CN d d t n I tA K\ CO O O - CTv M CN. I— i vo 1 J - t A CJN + CN N \ NO ON CN -î- N iH IN I \ S R i s 8 g \ 8 8 d CN • o d d tn d d (M CN CN I I ° fd o ON CVJ \ NO -3 - lO in CA o .d- tn IT) '. r-J lA tA O ON tA d d I—! r-J CN •rH CVJ tA d d + I o d d \ d d co co I in 1 tn O NO tA t A N O J- H CJN ON r-î C O H tA H CVJ tA r i t  co rH n o f—i I 8 8 8 \ 8 8 rH > d d - r d d I I I— î O oo ON \ CO rH \ CVJ o o m 4 ^ I tn 8 8 t r4 \ 8 8 8 in o o o o tn d d [ + I m tn CN. o NO CVJ 8 8 o S S H 8 8 8 vo H CVJ d d tn CÜ d d I d d o o o « < ca w M CÏ3 en M W CO en g <• < ►a W â H a « a a ü O P< 0 Ph h H O C s H S es es D i N Sh a 3 1 H â £h a i M i i i H 5 a ü H A U a u CO co CO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .99 o 0 <\j cv \ i n i n o v C\ fU in rH 00 H O «-) CJV O H -5- \ o tn OV H -3- t n CO O in 0 5 tn rH J - cv H OV 1 cn OV cn CV rH ------+ ■ ~UT + rH O 0 C\ o in 1 o -3- tn vo rf\ O rH CO \ R tn OO vo 0 CV. A cn r4 cn cv. O CV CO m CO I t n d cv OV t n \ cv ov \ 0 i n CO cn rH cn NV CJV j . I + H \ t n -3 - m vo tn i n v o cn r-i ^ lf\ CO n - rH O rH I \ m o CO 1 m cv ov j - nrr <3V in cv rH 0 0 rH o I CV -3 - Ü t n p 8 tn 0 rH in \ t n d rH CN rH CV in CO • I rH g: I rH O - CN CM o CN -h -3- tn tn o o. cv I \ c v rH CO -3- VO \ O o v v o CN . X\ O O in (V t n v o _ ± _ CV CN tn d d I -3 " CO O c v (TV ? s VO \0 I CV t n t n < in CO CO m in cv tv é K\ Cv- cv CN tn c^ a ” H CV r-f < ? « J. I H cv 6 Ô \ o o cn I in I in o 0 0 Cs O vo in A rA • C7V rH H * cn tn in rH A lA 0 0 I H A ri r4 > - d d > o o I o _ tn CV CO 8 CO CO • ov o \ <* rH d 8 8 in m I 8 8 8 in o v H cv < 1 3 3 cv \ tn o 6 d m d d o I I H~ in O (N tn o tn j- co 00 o . CO CO o 8 8 8 o o 8 8 a * * * j . CO ov $ ov ^ cv in d d m tn d d a \ I w o a s (Ji CO "05- CO « CO U CO 0 to 0 < A < A < A t-H H > 4 H I « a u A UA Ü u A 0 0 Ü K * A S H • A?: A T, N W D N § £ -1 a p i N d «P H I : s A 0 H S A 0 H g A O A 0 CO CO J£L Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 0 H (\J A. ov VO N- o A- CA CA OJ o cv — OV H r-i OV o v o tA I1 d rA \ s m lA tA OV d -3- H .fA in tA K\ OV 1 rl m m + in + -s- O A - J" 0 S tA tA 1 tn A l d C\J in o Ov AJ \CJ O AI o IN CO \ CO lA IN tA r4 m cv rH m I 4 - -3- t A VO I + CO tA VO AJ OV \ OVJ CA \ m r-i 00 O A - A - I ; -3- LA O + tA \ \ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 o \ o CO \lO oeu v (\J o lO• v o • (M• ov O *"• OV CO vir\ û HKN in _ _ oo IT \ CVJ IN coj. M • CC\ • co • fO « î r-l OV CO \ olA cu K\ 5 LA IN CO ^ O • f IfN vO lA S OV tA lA lA t A CA Ô f A r l eu CA in o lA o v CM CU CO , CO O fA H 00 v l CO CO CA J oo vo vo \ CO c o H tn fu O eu lO • • • . eu o f A CM \ f A cu LO . -a- co fA "n M CM CA VO H CO CA O I—i o c o V û v o vo lA -3- I n j \ o LO co VO tn N X t n lA V û t n H Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 2 O \ si* m o o vo r 4 O t A o m -3 " f s vo AJ O \ fV -3 - o v \ O c o d tn o AJAJ tn v o lA I AJ O o O Ov 1 t A CO r-i lA OO m CA CO o o o + iTT 0 O A - lA O 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 o o CJ (N- \ in r-i vo -d- CO in o IN rA o J- ri \ R OV LV- U\ IN (H Ov 8 0 ^ in o in 1 CO vo Ov 1 v o r - i IN CM CV cn ? ~ 'T + i 0 % ^ m 1 m \ g 8 ^ r-i y\ O LA on O VOVO CO o o -T r - ï rA O vo m s a 8 I I -F \ cv. o r A \ ov H lA I—i cn -3 - r-i Ov r-l cn -3 - r i OV IN Ov I -F tA lA O \ in « • m o O VO cn nj O lA cn o A- hV -F I—Î r-i < O riv. VO I o 1 r A O lA -3 - CO lA < v o in in ^ ? d CO t A m rA oo i n CM CO r i OO (VC CO H -F -3 - fVJ i—i NA lA O lA VO 1 l A r A VO d -=P in \ CVJ iH O -3- in I O o - I o lA tA ? CVJ VO CM CVJ A- a ; \ r CM ov VO < F 1 A- lA CO OJ v o I \ VO r i VO \ H Ov H + \ O ' CO H CM in in rM CV rA 4- J- d ^ d CM CVJ CM CM 1 7 lA O VO I -F o CO CO X VO r - l AJ \ CJV. 3 - -3 - in m in in o v CO CV. eo eo co IN r - i -3 ‘ A- r i KV 1—1 CM lA CJ r A j - I r A rA r A -r O lA \ H O t A m cn I i n I m • o OV o rA Q I—Î A- AJ r d CO -3 - O o AJAJ ■ f c n O g v r j d- cn OJ t A CV \ r - i ov I r j tA O CO r l o g r - l OJ r - i r - i. JL O OV o rA A- r - i CVJ v n v n lA •Vi* lA AJ o \ V? lA CVJ AJ \ I VO v o v o m A I A > 1 v o v o v o in AJ IN CO » l A NV r i \ \ i n o o o in CJ O O o + I •F eo in O iH CO in O rl -3 - v o 8 8 8 A. r - i lA 8 8 8 A - A I OV d o o r Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 4 O I r - t o A CJ A CVJ \ •c A A O I 8 8 8 8 8 A CO CVJ —4 \ d d o o A 1 I CO to O A A A O A A 8 8 8 A H • • A -3 " o ♦ • -3* 8 8 8 O J- o LO O o o O A H A r-l A ? d d d g Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 5 ■ o l A t A fV • o g ^ g; ' « « * M lA A! (A T r - i O N O O A l 0 \ lA Rm J. o vo ts A l CO -3- 0\ m D-.p Os O' co lA r S O O A l A I CV A i A l m lA OJ OO ô o ov 0 0 ON -3 - m H M co ^ A l l A co iA lA 10 l A CN o o M lA CN- -3 - O OO m ON l A t A t i—1 ON <" o \ lA VO l d tn in lO N 64 H g: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 6 o \ o 0\ lA t n o 0\ I—I % A A 4 - \ A \ A A - d - A 0 o\ oj tA A 0\ O A tA A. ^ '8 A A AAAA 1 I A U\ m ^ O CO A Ô - t n - 'ur 4 - è 0 vo 8 «A M o o A - d - 1 A I A A O A f\l OJ \ A t—1 A A A I ? v o I A IX + O CO A A A A - d - \ \ A CTv H A A A O A A 4 - A vo c\ \ vo t>- A A A 8 VO Fi A 0\ A -i- O • A OJ iH  \ A -d - A I )R A A A "in CO A A A JL r - i CO 2 A VO A r-i o I— I A i~ i I o 8 VO A ^ A i !A - d “ I • OO % 8 A A O AO C'J A 4 - OJ OJ (S A I I \ OJ A % A \ 8 O A Ï \ o A CO A tn A o O v o (X A A A -d " A I J. I ■Jt A A \ o \ A - d - A J - A in A A A A A vo • * ■ CVI A VOA A K\ lf\ vo - d - r H A I 8 H A 4 - I VO X -d - CO \ O CO M S A A - d - ! A I A OAA O A A AAA OCO r H -Î- CO A r - ï OV -S ' 4 - A CO A rz i CO m X OJ rH CO rH r H C O r-i r-i o o -d - > rH M A + I O O . O 8 C O A if\ ir\ 8 v o A A Y ^ ^ -4- \ A - d - J- ^ vo A A . OJ A o A O O - d - o o A .d “ 8 o o 8 8 O v o H in rH VO r—i v o o o VO v> A a < I O ca œ 03 CO Oj CG Ui C) CO O CO o I < cd fid a fid Od I H a a a Ei .Ü o Oi u Ot o a H o C) 3 H ?: H • cd s a • cd N a 3 h P W D ÎS3 5 iS: In a p ta £ a D H A t O H O t-H is A o H g a O m A ; cn „ w. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .107 o 0 C\- o •d- o K\ -i- \ 8 S A lA CM ON Oco- tA O 00 1 R LA CM ON lA H a I c o cn <■> en H O ON . - t n ------r H O r-i -i- CA j o r 4 lA 0 J t A fA CM in 1 lA VO LA \ • 8 A I CVJ r l CM O t A m r - i 1 N\ tA -J- AI O lA -5- C'. tA l f A ? K S \ a m a Î o o\ r-i m nj o ON : i \ H tA fA ON VO vO AI O O VO r-t < 8 S iH t—i \ tA CM « # lA (—1AI VO 1 LA c o H OO C O VO fA A- s VO CO . tA fA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 8 O o co \ K\ R in H OO t • • \ o tn m o \ C v Oi t n m m 8 0 tn CM 1 CM o co tn o oo m O g tn T ri o in CM CM 0 o- cv. 1 Cv CV tn lO 1 VO n- \ v 8 r i tn o r- “J Sî § R r - l CM c v r o tn oc fO • • • Y K) - r o o o . tn o \ H C7V ri r-î co ? t IN o \ Cv o O vo in 8 0 0 H co + CM V O \ tn tn tn CVJ R P Cv \ o cn CO m in ..o o CV. • -d" o en "trr tn es H C3V es C v ri CO lf\ KN I—I cn ri vo OO tn 00 tn I CM vo CM CVJ LO \ R CV| o CM tn g 1 i f I o tn cn m CO O in r i VO cv: cv en H CV! I CVI CN2 rv r i CV I \ if o oo r i cn fv j H CV oof~i 4 - \ q tn a o' in • O irs co es v o o C\ ov vo Cv in tn vo t Cv cn in < tn H fVJ to in tn tn CM V O r4 • H cn in tn CM vo r i 00 CM cs tn -if tn iH J- cn CVJ tn vo < * R -• K v. tn in CM tn .d- vo c n « o vo tn in ! A t f \ r4 I—i CVJ 5 N VO oo tn VO m oo H -d- Il 8 8 tn CO O tr\ m O 0 0 ■g • • • • CM co \ oo tn if J in CM VO m 0 0 ri cv ov \ i f CM tn CM t n <• tn 1 r-î in CM v o ^ x\ x\ + CM tn CO tn 0 0 m tn tn H <" vo CM •Vf v o CM CO Cv 0 0 tn tn r i vo cv I tn o CO \ cn r i tn Cv m ov r i v o tn tn 0 0 oo m ° #v 1 o J- o o tn tn vo m tn tn 0 0 vo x\ -4" J- tn tn o vo tn r i o ^ LOCO i f + in OO tn co -d^ 4- o tn tn 1 ^ \ I vo \ tn co o o « CO to CO w COO CO O CO u ei < Ci < C5 < ci >-3 w « f3 H >4 K O A U Ci Ü &O 04 H O Ü o S 2 H • CÎ 2 « « Ci 2 a • ei 2 D g 5 N Ei H P N Ei H D N Ei W P H O K & Pi O M S O H s e* U œ to Of CO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 v? in lA tA CN 4- N 1a ? ON r-i O \ O AJ iH \ O o CN IN A- in 0\ Cs m O ON r 4 1 VO AJ • A J lA VO O O n -- L, ON ? lA O ON r - i o r - i ON -a- VO t A i A J l A ON in \ t A O -a- t A ON lA lA O n AI m t A r - i VO t s r - i 1 -r + \ V O r - i ON \ lA ON r - l m ON r - i n r -i ON t -F lA AJ O 0 0 lA A - VO ro -a- ON lA & « A I VO -f rH COA VO W -s \ O lA I A r i O ON -a - I in o CO AJ VO -3 - lA N in l A t A IN m AJ ON f A ON + O A- r - i o t A 1 A- Ü l A I AJ A - CO \ CO t A t A \ -3 - AJ A A r - i A) AJ i n I AJ • O A - CO CO a ; H CO JL » * A A) ! VO O n VO I < ^ \ lA CO t A VO 1—i -a- AJ tn u \ r i r i CN. A O A r - i A- t A r i A M AJ A r l 1 I a1 \ % in in tn m ^ CO CN 0 0 VO V O H • J" A- A- IN H CO AJ -d- O t A H . ON VO -a- ON CO O r-i I 'n lA 1—i c ^ \ iO rH CO m 1—i n r -i 1 I m in o o ON O CO v o IN r - i tA -a- ? ON lA CO O n tA IN VO CO VO t A o \ -a- H VO VO fA iH fH 1 ACO I—i r -i lA AJ r d fH \ o l A -a- vo 4* -a- I I—Î ON O tA t A CN lA A - A - t A lA I ON lA l A tn VO VO m \ AJ VO VO r i H lA tn -a- r i r i l A ^ 1 r - i i S in in o 8 8 % 8 8 • 8 • 8 • t p d d in o o o o cl \ (H tA o cn , cn > cn « cn • CJ3 O cn U cn q cn q < < a < ■ cs ■ < a w A a A H à H O p< U o . o AÜ a Ü o O q a • « s H • a S w • a s H • a s X E-i WD N Ft K D IS! CJ a D iSJ a p H S AO H 5 P^ O H & A O H S a o rn cn CP_ M . _ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 0