Appendix a the Stratigrapic Nomenclature of Burnsville Cove, Bath and Highland Counties, Virginia

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Appendix a the Stratigrapic Nomenclature of Burnsville Cove, Bath and Highland Counties, Virginia Appendix A The Stratigrapic Nomenclature of Burnsville Cove, Bath and Highland Counties, Virginia Christopher S. Swezey and John T. Haynes The Paleozoic rocks of the Appalachian region have Chatfieldian-Turinian Stages, and Taylor et al. (2013) been the target of geologists’ attention since the indicate that these two stages are within the Upper earliest days of geology in the United States. Not Ordovician Series. The Ordovician-Silurian boundary surprisingly, two centuries of attention have resulted in is customarily placed at the contact between the Ju- a long and complicated discourse concerning niata Formation and the overlying Tuscarora Forma- descriptions of rock units, what names to give to them, tion (Diecchio 1985), although in some publications and how to define the boundaries between them. this boundary is placed at a prominent unconformity Chapter 16 presents geologic maps, sections, and within the Tuscarora Formation (Dorsch et al. 1994; descriptions of the rocks in Burnsville Cove. The Dorsch and Driese 1995). objective of this appendix is to provide additional The Silurian Period is divided into the following information following the rules of stratigraphic four series (from oldest to youngest): Llandovery, nomenclature as described in North American Com- Wenlock, Ludlow, and Pridoli. The older two series mission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (1983) and in are designated informally as lower Silurian, whereas Salvador (1994). Specifically, this appendix describes the younger two series are designated informally as the history of stratigraphic nomenclature use in Bath upper Silurian (Gradstein et al. 2004). Le Van and and Highland Counties, the type sections of the Rader (1983) and Diecchio and Dennison (1996) stratigraphic units, and the contacts between units. placed the lower Silurian-upper Silurian boundary at For easy reference, the lithostratigraphic and the contact between the Rose Hill Formation and the chronostratigraphic columns from Chap. 16 are overlying Keefer Formation, whereas Harris et al. duplicated (Fig. A.1). In this figure, the Middle (1994) placed the boundary at the contact between the Ordovician-Upper Ordovician boundary is placed at Clinton Group (e.g., Keefer Formation) and the over- the base of the Nealmont Formation, although this lying McKenzie Formation. The Silurian-Devonian location is somewhat controversial. Le Van and Rader boundary is located within the upper part of the (1983) placed the Middle Ordovician-Upper Ordovi- Keyser Limestone of the Helderberg Group (Denkler cian boundary at the contact between the Lincolnshire and Harris 1988a, b; Harris et al. 1994; Rodríguez Limestone and the overlying Ward Cove Limestone 2005), and the Lower Devonian-Middle Devonian (both of these limestone units are located well below boundary is located within the Needmore Shale the Nealmont Limestone of this paper), whereas (Rossbach and Dennison 1994; Harris et al. 1994). Harris et al. (1994) and Ryder et al. (1996) placed the Using uranium-lead dating techniques, Roden et al. Middle Ordovician-Upper Ordovician boundary (1990) obtained an absolute age of 390 ± 0.5 Ma from within the basal part of the Reedsville Shale. A more the Tioga Ash Bed. Finally, the Middle Devonian- recent publication by Young et al. (2005), however, Upper Devonian boundary is placed at the top of the reported conodont and isotope data that assign the Millboro Shale, but the uppermost few feet of the Dolly Ridge Formation to the Chatfieldian Stage Millboro Shale may be Upper Devonian (Rossbach and the underlying Nealmont Formation to the and Dennison 1994; Harris et al. 1994). W.B. White (ed.), The Caves of Burnsville Cove, Virginia, 459 Cave and Karst Systems of the World, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-14391-0, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 460 Appendix A: The Stratigrapic Nomenclature of Burnsville Cove, Bath and Highland Counties, Virginia LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY Hampshire Formation AGE PERIOD STRATIGRAPHY (Ma) and LITHOLOGY 359.2 Hampshire Formation Foreknobs Formation Upper Foreknobs Formation (1,280 to 2,230’) 2000 Devonian Brallier Formation 385.3 Millboro Shale 1000 Middle Devonian Tioga Ash Bed Brallier Formation 397.5 Needmore Shale (1,550 to 3,000’) Oriskany Sandstone Lower 0 feet Devonian Helderberg Group 416.0 upper Tonoloway Limestone Silurian MF, WS, WCF 422.9 Millboro Shale Keefer Formation lower (230 to 1,370’) Rose Hill Formation Silurian Tuscarora Formation Needmore Sh. (20 to 150’) 433.7 Oriskany Ss. (20 to 130’) Helderberg Group Juniata Formation Tonoloway Ls. (300 to 400’) Upper (420 to 500’) Wills Creek Fm. (0 to 50’) Ordovician Oswego Sandstone Williamsport Ss. (20 to 35’) McKenzie Fm. (15 to 250’) Rose Hill Fm. Keefer Formation (5 to 50’) Reedsville Shale (300 to 800’) 460.9 Tuscarora Fm. (40 to 120’) Middle Dolly Ridge Formation Juniata Formation Nealmont Limestone Ordovician pre-Nealmont limestone (340 to 740’) 471.8 Oswego Ss. (25 to 85’) Lower Ordovician Reedsville Shale (1,000 to 1,400’) = sandstone = sandstone & siliciclastic mudstone Dolly Ridge Formation = siliciclastic mudstone (ca. 450’) Nealmont Ls. (ca. 150’) = limestone pre-Nealmont limestone Fig. A.1 Lithostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic charts for Fm. Formation; Ls. Limestone; Ss. Sandstone; MF McKenzie strata in the vicinity of Burnsville Cove, Bath and Highland Formation; WCF Wills Creek Formation; WS Williamsport Counties, Virginia. Time scale is from Gradstein et al. (2004). Sandstone Appendix A: The Stratigrapic Nomenclature of Burnsville Cove, Bath and Highland Counties, Virginia 461 Ordovician Nealmont Limestone suggested that these strata in Virginia may be younger than the strata of Lowville age, and that they might be In the vicinity of Burnsville Cove, the Nealmont mapped as the Eggleston Limestone or the Cham- Limestone is a 150 ft thick unit of gray limestone. In bersburg Limestone. Woodward (1951) later mapped Bath and Highland Counties, these strata were mapped these strata in Highland County as the Salona For- by Darton (1899) as part of the Shenandoah Lime- mation, which he stated is the northeastern extension stone. Butts (1933) later mapped these strata in Bath of the Eggleston facies of the Trenton Limestone in and Highland Counties as part of the Lowville Lime- southwestern Virginia, and is comparable with the stone of the Black River Group, whereas Butts (1940) Oranda Formation and the basal Martinsburg Shale in mapped them as the “Lowville-Moccasin Limestone” the Shenandoah Valley. Kay (1956) mapped these of the Black River Group. Furthermore, Butts (1940) strata in Highland County and northern Bath County stated that in Highland County and Bath County these as the Onego (“Oranda”) Formation (or Onego strata are a true limestone named the Lowville Lime- Member of the Salona Formation), and he indicated stone, but further south these strata grade into a red that these strata grade into a bed of quartz sandstone argillaceous limestone named the Moccasin Forma- overlain by limestone (mapped collectively as the tion. Woodward (1951) mapped these strata in High- Eggleston Formation) in southern Bath County. Bick land County as the Nealmont Formation, and he stated (1962) later mapped these strata in Bath and Highland that the strata can be traced south into the Eggleston- Counties as the Edinburg Formation. Perry (1972) Moccasin Formation. Kay (1956) mapped these strata noted that the equivalent strata in Pendleton County as the Nealmont Formation in Highland County, (West Virginia) do not resemble the Onego Member, although he used the names “Moccasin-Nealmont Salona Formation, or Edinburg Formation at their Formation” and “Nealmont-Moccasin Formation” in respective type sections, and therefore he proposed the Bath County. At an outcrop near Bolar (near western name Dolly Ridge Formation for these strata in edge of Burnsville Cove geologic map; Fig. 16.3), he Pendleton County. Subsequent publications have fol- described these strata as limestone with a few red lowed Perry (1972) and used the name Dolly Ridge argillaceous beds in the upper part of the unit. Bick Formation for these strata in Bath and Highland (1962) later mapped these strata in Bath and Highland Counties (Le Van and Rader 1983; Diecchio 1991; Counties as the Moccasin Formation, but subsequent Rader and Wilkes 2001). At present, these strata in the publications have used the name Nealmont Limestone vicinity of Burnsville Cove are mapped as the Dolly or Nealmont Formation (Read 1980; Le Van and Ridge Formation. The type section of the Dolly Ridge Rader 1983; Diecchio 1991). At present, these strata in Formation is on the southeastern side of Dolly Ridge, the vicinity of Burnsville Cove are mapped as the 1.3 km south of Riverton in Pendleton County, West Nealmont Limestone. The Nealmont Limestone is Virginia (Perry 1972). named for the village of Nealmont in Blair County, Pennsylvania, but the type section is at Union Furnace Ordovician Reedsville Shale in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania (Kay 1941, 1944a, b). In the vicinity of Burnsville Cove, the Reedsville Shale is a 1,000–1,400 ft thick unit of gray shale. In Ordovician Dolly Ridge Formation Bath and Highland Counties, these strata were mapped by Darton (1899) as part of the Martinsburg Shale. In the vicinity of Burnsville Cove, the Dolly Ridge Butts (1933, 1940), Woodward (1951), Kay (1956), Formation is a 450 ft thick unit of black to gray and Bick (1962) mapped these strata in Bath and limestone. In Bath and Highland Counties, these strata Highland Counties
Recommended publications
  • (Medina, Clinton, and Lockport Groups) in the Type Area of Western New York
    Revised Stratigraphy and Correlations of the Niagaran Provincial Series (Medina, Clinton, and Lockport Groups) in the Type Area of Western New York By Carlton E. Brett, Dorothy H. Tepper, William M. Goodman, Steven T. LoDuca, and Bea-Yeh Eckert U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2086 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences of the University of Rochester UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1995 10 REVISED STRATIGRAPHY AND CORRELATIONS OF THE NIAGARAN PROVINCIAL SERIES been made in accordance with the NASC. Because the The history of nomenclature of what is now termed the NASC does not allow use of the "submember" category, Medina Group, beginning with Conrad ( 1837) and ending units that would be of this rank are treated as informal units with Bolton (1953), is presented in Fisher (1954); Bolton and have been given alphanumeric designations. Informal (1957, table 2) presents a detailed summary of this nomen- units are discussed under the appropriate "member" clature for 1910-53. A historical summary of nomenclature categories. of the Medina Group in the Niagara region is shown in fig- The use of quotes for stratigraphic nomenclature in this ure 7. Early investigators of the Medina include Conrad report is restricted to units that have been misidentified or (1837); Vanuxem (1840, first usage of Medina; 1842); Hall abandoned. If stratigraphic nomenclature for a unit has (1840, 1843); Gilbert (1899); Luther (1899); Fairchild changed over time, the term for the unit is shown, with cap- (1901); Grabau (1901, 1905, 1908, 1909, 1913); Kindle and italization, as given in whatever reference is cited rather Taylor (1913); Kindle (1914); Schuchert (1914); Chadwick than according to the most recent nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province
    Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 Open-File Report 2012–1194 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 By Catherine B. Enomoto1, James L. Coleman, Jr.1, John T. Haynes2, Steven J. Whitmeyer2, Ronald R. McDowell3, J. Eric Lewis3, Tyler P. Spear3, and Christopher S. Swezey1 1U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192 2 James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807 3 West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV 26508 Open-File Report 2012–1194 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin
    DOE/NETL-2011/1478 A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors greatly thank Daniel J. Soeder (U.S. Department of Energy) who kindly reviewed the manuscript. His criticisms, suggestions, and support significantly improved the content, and we are deeply grateful. Cover. Top left: The Barnett Shale exposed on the Llano uplift near San Saba, Texas. Top right: The Marcellus Shale exposed in the Valley and Ridge Province near Keyser, West Virginia. Photographs by Kathy R. Bruner, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Bottom: Horizontal Marcellus Shale well in Greene County, Pennsylvania producing gas at 10 million cubic feet per day at about 3,000 pounds per square inch.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGY of the ROANOKE and STEWARTSVILLE QUADRANGLES, VIRGINIA by Mervin J
    VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 34 GEOLOGY OF THE ROANOKE AND STEWARTSVI LLE OUADRANG LES, VI RG I N IA Mervin J. Bartholomew COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VIRGI NIA 1 981 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 34 GEOLOGY OF THE ROANOKE AND STEWARTSVI LLE OUADRANG LES, VI RG I N IA Mervin J. Bartholomew COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 1 981 FRONT COVER: Fold showing slightly fanned, axial plane, slaty cleav- age in a loose block of Liberty Hall mudstone at Reference Locality 20, Deer Creek, Roanoke quadrangle. REFERENCE: Portions of this publication may be quoted if credit is given to the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. It is recommended that referenee to this report be made in the following form: Bartholomew, M. J., 1981, Geology of the Roanoke and Stewaitsville quadrangles, Vir- ginia, Vlrginia Division of Mineral Resources Publicatio4 34,23 p. VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 34 GEOLOGY OF THE ROANOKE AND STEWARTSVI LLE OUADRANG LES, VIRG I N IA Mervin J. Bartholomew COM MONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRG INIA 1 981 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Richmond, Virginia FRED W. WALKER, Director JERALD F. MOORE, Deputy Director BOARD ARTHUR P. FLIPPO, Doswell, Chairman HENRY T.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Paleomagnetic Evidence for Oroclinal Rotation in the Central Folded Appalachians from the Bloomsburg and the Mauch Chunk Formations
    TECTONICS, VOL. 7, NO. 4, PAGES 749-759, AUGUST 1988 FURTHER PALEOMAGNETIC EVIDENCE FOR OROCLINAL ROTATION IN THE CENTRAL FOLDED APPALACHIANS FROM THE BLOOMSBURG AND THE MAUCH CHUNK FORMATIONS Dennis V. Kent Lamont-DohertyGeological Observatory and Departmentof GeologicalSciences ColumbiaUniversity, Palisades, New York Abstract.Renewed paleomagnetic investigations of red fromthe Bloomsburg, Mauch Chunk, and revised results bedsof theUpper Silurian Bloomsburg and the Lower recentlyreported for theUpper Devonian Catskill Formation Carboniferous Mauch Chunk Formations were undertaken togetherindicate 22.8•>+_11.9 oof relativerotation, accounting with theobjective of obtainingevidence regarding the for approximatelyhalf thepresent change in structuraltrend possibilityof oroclinalbending as contributing to thearcuate aroundthe Pennsylvania salient. The oroclinalrotation can be structuraltrend of thePennsylvania salient. These formations regardedas a tightenS.*'.3 o/'a lessarcuate depositional package cropout on both limbs of thesalient and earlier, but less thatdeveloped across a basementreentrant, to achievea definitivepaleomagnetic studies on these units indicate that curvaturecloser to that of the earlierzigzag continental margin earlyacquired magnetizations can be recovered. Oriented outline. sampleswere obtained from nine sites on the southern limb of thesalient and eight sites from the northern limb in the INTRODUCTION Bloomsburg.The naturalremanent magnetizations are multivectorial,dominated by a component(B) with a A testof the oroclinehypothesis
    [Show full text]
  • Lexington Quadrangle Virginia
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 Couuowwoer,rn op Vtncrwre DopenrupNr op Puncnesrs exo Supptv Rrculroxn 1960 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Richmond. Virginia MenvrN M. SurHnnr,eNn, Director BOARD Vrcron W. Stnwenr, Petersburg, Chairtnan G. Ar,vrn MessnNnunc, Hampton, Viee'Chairman A. Pr,urvrnr BmnNn, Orange C. S. Cenrnn, Bristol ANpnpw A. Fenr,pv, Danville WonrnrrvcroN FauLKNEn, Glasgow SvoNpv F. Slter,r,, Roanoke EnwrN H. Wrr,r,, Richmond Wrr,r,renr P. Wooor,nv. Norfolk CONTENTS Pece Abstract. '"*i"#:;;;;: . : ::: , : ::.:::::::::..::::::. :.::.::::::: ::,r Z Geography 8 Purpose. 4 Previous Work. Present Work and Acknowledgements. 5 Geologic Formations. 6 Introduction. 6 Precambrian System. 6 Pedlar formation 6 Precambrian and Cambrian Systems. 6 Discussion. 6 Swift Run formation 8 Catoctin greenstone. I Unieoiformation...... ......... I Hampton(Harpers)formation. .......... I Erwin (Antietam) quartzite. Cambrian System . I0 Shady (Tomstown) dolomite 10 Rome (Waynesboro) formation.... ll Elbrook formation. 12 Conococheague limestone. l3 Ordovician System. ......., 14 Chepultepeclimestone. .......... 14 Beekmantown formatron. 14 New Market limestone. 15 Lincolnshire limestone. 16 Edinburg formation. 16 Martinsburg shale... 17 SilurianSystem. ......... 18 Clinchsandstone..... .......... 18 Clinton formation.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 5 Town of Barton Geology and Seismicity Report Sections
    GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY REPORT SNYDER E1-A WELL TOWN OF BARTON TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared for: Couch White, LLP 540 Broadway P.O. Box 22222 Albany, New York 12201 Prepared by: Continental Placer Inc. II Winners Circle Albany, New York 12205 July 25, 2017 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Depositional Sequences and General Stratigraphic Sequence ................................................ 2 2.1.1 Upper Devonian Lithologies ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Marcellus-Hamilton ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Tristates-Onondaga ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.4 Helderberg .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.5 Oneida-Clinton-Salina ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.6 Black River-Trenton-Utica-Frankfort .......................................................................................... 5 2.1.7 Potsdam-Beekmantown ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Cross Section C–C' Through the Appalachian Basin from Erie
    Geologic Cross Section C–C’ Through the Appalachian Basin From Erie County, North-Central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge Province, Bedford County, South-Central Pennsylvania By Robert T. Ryder, Michael H. Trippi, Christopher S. Swezey, Robert D. Crangle, Jr., Rebecca S. Hope, Elisabeth L. Rowan, and Erika E. Lentz Scientific Investigations Map 3172 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Ryder, R.T., Trippi, M.H., Swezey, C.S. Crangle, R.D., Jr., Hope, R.S., Rowan, E.L., and Lentz, E.E., 2012, Geologic cross section C–C’ through the Appalachian basin from Erie County, north-central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge province, Bedford County, south-central Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3172, 2 sheets, 70-p.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in The
    Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839-K Chapter K Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia By ROBERT T. RYDER, ANITA G. HARRIS, and JOHN E. REPETSKI Stratigraphic framework of the Cambrian and Ordovician sequence in part of the central Appalachian basin and the structure of underlying block-faulted basement rocks U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS-APPALACHIAN BASIN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, Jr., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 For sale by Book and Open-File Report Sales U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ryder, Robert T. Stratigraphic framework of Cambrian and Ordovician rocks in the central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through southwestern and south-central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia / by Robert T. Ryder, Anita C. Harris, and John E. Repetski. p. cm. (Evolution of sedimentary basins Appalachian Basin ; ch. K) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1839-K) Includes bibliographical references. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1839-K 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Cambrian.
    [Show full text]
  • Cave Development in Strata of Ordovician-And Silurian-Devonian- Age in Highland County, Virginia
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons OES Theses and Dissertations Ocean & Earth Sciences Summer 2007 Cave Development in Strata of Ordovician-and Silurian-Devonian- Age in Highland County, Virginia Carol Ann Peterson Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/oeas_etds Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Peterson, Carol A.. "Cave Development in Strata of Ordovician-and Silurian-Devonian-Age in Highland County, Virginia" (2007). Master of Science (MS), Thesis, Ocean & Earth Sciences, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/t7pt-2404 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/oeas_etds/20 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Ocean & Earth Sciences at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in OES Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAVE DEVELOPMENT IN STRATA OF ORDOVICIAN- AND SILURIAN-DEVONIAN-AGE IN HIGHLAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA by Carol Ann Peterson B.S. August 2002, Old Dominion University A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of tine Requirement for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE GEOLOGY OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2007 Approved by: ;ar (Director) Dennis A. Darby (Membes Donald J. P. Swift (Member) limes F. Coble (Member) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT CAVE DEVELOPMENT IN STRATA OF ORDOVICIAN- AND SILURIAN-DEVONIAN-AGE IN HIGHLAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA Carol Ann Peterson Old Dominion University, 2007 Director: Dr. G. Richard Whittecar Picturesque Highland County, Virginia, also known as "Virginia's Little Switzerland", is characterized by high mountains, tranquil rivers, and hundreds of caves.
    [Show full text]
  • 2Nd International Trilobite Conference (Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, August 22-24, 1997) ABSTRACTS
    2nd International Trilobite Conference (Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, August 22-24, 1997) ABSTRACTS. Characters and Parsimony. Jonathan M. Adrain, Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United King- dom; Gregory D. Edgecombe, Centre for Evolutionary Research, Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney South, New South Wales 2000, Australia Character analysis is the single most important element of any phylogenetic study. Characters are simply criteria for comparing homologous organismic parts between taxa. Homology of organismic parts in any phylogenetic study is an a priori assumption, founded upon topological similarity through some or all stages of ontogeny. Once homolo- gies have been suggested, characters are invented by specifying bases of comparison of organismic parts from taxon to taxon within the study group. Ideally, all variation in a single homology occurring within the study group should be accounted for. Comparisons are between attributes of homologous parts, (e.g., simple presence, size of some- thing, number of something), and these attributes are referred to as character states. Study taxa are assigned member- ship in one (or more, in the case of polymorphisms) character-state for each character in the analysis. A single char- acter now implies discrete groupings of taxa, but this in itself does not constitute a phylogeny. In order to suggest or convey phylogenetic information, the historical status of each character-state, and of the the group of taxa it sug- gests, must be evaluated. That is, in the case of any two states belonging to the same character, we need to discover whether one state is primitive (broadly speaking, ancestral) or derived (representative of an evolutionary innovation) relative to the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 3A. Major Geologic Formations in West Virginia. Allegheney And
    82° 81° 80° 79° 78° EXPLANATION West Virginia county boundaries A West Virginia Geology by map unit Quaternary Modern Reservoirs Qal Alluvium Permian or Pennsylvanian Period LTP d Dunkard Group LTP c Conemaugh Group LTP m Monongahela Group 0 25 50 MILES LTP a Allegheny Formation PENNSYLVANIA LTP pv Pottsville Group 0 25 50 KILOMETERS LTP k Kanawha Formation 40° LTP nr New River Formation LTP p Pocahontas Formation Mississippian Period Mmc Mauch Chunk Group Mbp Bluestone and Princeton Formations Ce Obrr Omc Mh Hinton Formation Obps Dmn Bluefield Formation Dbh Otbr Mbf MARYLAND LTP pv Osp Mg Greenbrier Group Smc Axis of Obs Mmp Maccrady and Pocono, undivided Burning Springs LTP a Mmc St Ce Mmcc Maccrady Formation anticline LTP d Om Dh Cwy Mp Pocono Group Qal Dhs Ch Devonian Period Mp Dohl LTP c Dmu Middle and Upper Devonian, undivided Obps Cw Dhs Hampshire Formation LTP m Dmn OHIO Ct Dch Chemung Group Omc Obs Dch Dbh Dbh Brailler and Harrell, undivided Stw Cwy LTP pv Ca Db Brallier Formation Obrr Cc 39° CPCc Dh Harrell Shale St Dmb Millboro Shale Mmc Dhs Dmt Mahantango Formation Do LTP d Ojo Dm Marcellus Formation Dmn Onondaga Group Om Lower Devonian, undivided LTP k Dhl Dohl Do Oriskany Sandstone Dmt Ot Dhl Helderberg Group LTP m VIRGINIA Qal Obr Silurian Period Dch Smc Om Stw Tonoloway, Wills Creek, and Williamsport Formations LTP c Dmb Sct Lower Silurian, undivided LTP a Smc McKenzie Formation and Clinton Group Dhl Stw Ojo Mbf Db St Tuscarora Sandstone Ordovician Period Ojo Juniata and Oswego Formations Dohl Mg Om Martinsburg Formation LTP nr Otbr Ordovician--Trenton and Black River, undivided 38° Mmcc Ot Trenton Group LTP k WEST VIRGINIA Obr Black River Group Omc Ordovician, middle calcareous units Mp Db Osp St.
    [Show full text]