DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology and Fuel Resources of the Southern Part of the Oklahoma Coal Field

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology and Fuel Resources of the Southern Part of the Oklahoma Coal Field UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Bulletin 874 B GEOLOGY AND FUEL RESOURCES OF THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE OKLAHOMA COAL FIELD PART 2. THE LEHIGH DISTRICT COAL, ATOKA, AND PITTSBURG COUNTIES BY M. M. KNECHTEL UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1937 Forsaleby the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. -------- Price 20 cents NOTE The Geological Survey, in 1930, 1931, 1933, and 1934, conducted an investiga­ tion of the geology and coal resources of the portion of the southeastern Okla­ homa coal field extending northeastward from Coalga,te to McAlester and thence eastward through Wilburton and Howe to the Oklahoma-Arkansas State line. The geologists have prepared separate reports on the areas for which they were responsible. However, as these areas are adjacent and form a real unit both geographically and geologically, the four reports are issued as parts of a single bulletin covering this portion of the southeastern Oklahoma coal field. No edition of the consolidated volume will be published, but the four parts can be bound together if desired, ii CONTENTS Paw Abstract-----.. _-_-_____-_---_-__-___--_---_--___----_--..- 91 Introduction_________________________-______--_.----__--_-_--_-_ 92 Location_________-_-_____--___-- --_-------_----_--_-------- . 92 Routes of travel-___-_---_________--_------__---_-_----------- 92 Industry .-._..__.____________.__-------- ._-._ 93 Land forms and drainage.-.------------------------------------ 93 Vegetation._______________________-_____---___---_-_-______-- 94 Climate__________.____._______.-__-___-_-___-_--____---_-_- 94 Present investigation.________.._.___-____---___-__---_-__----- 94 Previous publications._____.__________-_______-_-___---_____-_- 95 Stratigraphy....____.._____.___._____._-_---__-_--_-_--_-_-.-_-_-. 96 Exposed rocks_____________--_____--_-_-___-_____-_-__-__--__- 96 Character. ___________________-__---_---_----____-----__-- 96 Carboniferous system..--__-___-__-------_-_-_--__--_-----_ 98 Pennsylvanian series...-------------------------------- 98 Formations of Pottsville age--___-_____-_-_-_-__-.__ 98 Springer formation_____-_-__----_-_-_____-_--. 98 Wapanucka limestone.________________________ 99 Atoka formation.____--___--___-_-_-__________ 100 Formations of Allegheny age.______--_______._-_-__ 101 Hartshorne sandstone.-----------.------------- 102 McAlester shale._-_.-__-_-__--_--_-_-.___--_ 103 Savanna sandstone.-___-_---------_---__--_--- 105 Boggy shale-.-----------------------------.-- 106 Thurman sandstone---_---_-_---_-_---------__ 107 Quaternary (?) system____._____-_-_----__-_-___-_-_---____ 108 Gerty sand (Pleistocene?)..---.------..-.-.----_----- 108 Quaternary system.-_-___-_-_-_-_-_-_--__---_-_---_---_-__ 108 Recent alluvium_______._.___________-________-_-----_ 108 Unexposed rocks._____________________________________________ 108 Cambrian to Carboniferous systems-_____-__-._____--__--.__ 108 Pre-Pennsylvanian rocks.__-_-__-_-_--_---__-__------_- 108 Pennsylvanian rocks._______--__-___-___-_____-_-______ 124 Origin of the Pennsylvanian rocks--__-----------_---_-_---_--___ 124 Structure-_______________________________________________________ 126 General features.____-_______-_____-_____-___-_-___________--. 126 Centrahoma dome..___________________----_----_______-__-_-__ 128 Ashland anticline.___________-____---_-_----_-_-_-_-___.__-_-- 128 Savanna anticline_-__-_-_-____-____-_-------_-__-----_____-___ 129 Coalgate anticline.._____-__________-_-_--____-_-___-__-_______ 129 Hunton anticline.._________________-_-_-_-_-_-____-___-__.____ 129 Wardville syncline_______---_-_____-_-___-_-_-________-_-_____ 129 Lehigh syncline.--_-_____-__--__.__---_-_-_____-___-_-_____-_- 130 PhiUips fault.___.._._....__...___.-_._____-.____._._. _._._. 130 Olney and Clarita faults. ______________________________________ 130 Minor faults__-_____________.___.-_--__-___-__-______.__.__. 131 Origin of the faults and folds__.._._______-____-_.___-__________ 131 ill IV CONTENTS Page Economic geology.________________________________________________ 134 Coal. __-__-____-__-__-__________________-.-_.-_._____ 134 Occurrence _______________________________________________ 134 Quality...._______.____. ___...____.._______.__._.__.____ 136 Mining.__.___._.._______________________________________ 139 Oil possibilities_______________________________________________ 140 Natural gas__________________________________________________ 144 Index._________________________________________________________ 147 ILLUSTRATIONS Page PLATE 11. Geologic map of the Lehigh district, Coal, Atoka, and Pitts- burg Counties, Okla____-___--__--__---_--_----__-_-_Inpocket FIGURE 6. Diagram showing relation of Lehigh district to six 30-minute quadrangles in southern Oklahoma ______________________ 95 7. Map showing areal distribution of rock exposures in portions of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas.-----_-------__-_--_. 123 GEOLOGY AND FUEL RESOURCES OF THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE OKLAHOMA COAL FIELD PART 2. THE LEHIGH DISTRICT, COAL, ATOKA, AND PITTSBURG COUNTIES By M. M. KNECHTEL ABSTRACT The rocks exposed in the Lehigh district, in the Arkansas-Oklahoma coal basin, aggregate at least 5,000 feet in thickness. All are of Pennsylvanian age, except scattered thin Pleistocene (?) and Recent deposits. Rocks of Pottsville age crop out extensively in the southwestern part of the district and include the Springer formation, Wapanucka limestone, and Atoka forma­ tion. The Pottsville rocks are overlain in the northeastern part by formations of Allegheny age, including the Hartshorne sandstone, McAlester shale, Savanna sandstone, Boggy shale, and Thin-man sandstone. All the Pennsylvania!! for­ mations younger than the Wapanucka limestone are composed chiefly of shale containing rather widely spaced beds of sandstone that is generally fine grained in the western part of the area but contains varying quantities of chert pebbles in the eastern part. The pebbles were apparently derived from a land mass that lay to the east or southeast in late Pottsville and Allegheny time, and this land mass is believed to have been the source of much of the sediment that was deposited in this part of the coal basin in post-Pottsville Pennsylvanian time. Two wells within the area mapped have penetrated rocks of Mississip- pian, Devonian, Silurian, and Ordoviciau age. It is inferred from the records of these wells and from the geology of neighboring areas that the Arbuckle Mountain sequence of pre-Pennsylvanian rocks underlies the Pennsylvania!! formations in all parts of the Lehigh district, though exposures of the dissimi­ lar pre-Pennsylvauian rock sequence of the Ouachita Mountains occur in Black Knob Ridge of the Ouachita Mountains, a few nn'les to the east. The Lehigh district lies in a belt of folded Paleozoic rocks extending from the Arbuckle Mountains northeastward adjacent to the northwestern frontal margin of the Ouachita Mountains. The structural axes within this belt trend northeastward, and the folding is therefore believed to be due to the same forces, directed northwestward, that caused extensive overthrustiiig in the Ouachita region in late Pennsylvanian time. The effects of forces acting from the direction of the Arbuckle Mountains, however, are apparent in the southwestern part of the district, where the oldest exposed rocks crop out, having been tilted northeastward in Pennsylvania)! time. Folds related to the northwestward thrusting are the Ashland, Savanna, and Coalgate anticlines. The origin of the Centrahorna dome is less clear. The structure of the Hunton anticline, which is faulted on both flanks, is similar in many respects to that of the other anticlines of the area, which are flat-topped and steep-sided. It may be essentially an anticline of their general type that has been more deeply eroded than the others. 91 92 SOUTHERN PART OF OKLAHOMA COAL FIELD An unconformity probably exists at the base of the Hartshorne sandstone, and one of less extent has been observed at the base of the Savanna sandstone. An unconformity within the Boggy shale has been reported immediately to the west but has not been recognized in the Lehigh district. Two valuable coal beds, the Lower Hartshorne and Lehigh beds, occur in the Lehigh district in the Hartshorne sandstone and McAlester shale, respec­ tively. Both beds have been mined, but the Lehigh bed has yielded much more coal than the Lower Hartshorne bed. These coal beds are separated by about 1,200 feet of beds and range in thickness from about 3 feet 4 inches to about 5 feet. The coal of the Lehigh bed is classified as high-volatile bituminous. Wells have been drilled for oil and gas in several parts of the district, and gas has been struck, but not marketed, in the Ashland, Coalgate, and Centra- homa anticlines. Nearly all the wells penetrate only the Atoka and younger formations, reaching depths ranging from 3,300 to 3,380 feet. One dry hole on the Coalgate anticline, however, finished in the Atoka beds at a depth of 7,890 feet, and two dry holes in the western part of the district were completed in the Simpson formation (Ordovician) at depths of 5,146 and 7,126 feet. Most of the gas that has been found issues from the Hartshorne sandstone, but some was found in sandy layers in the McAlester shale and a little in the Savanna sandstone. No oil has been discovered to date, but the pre-Pennsyl- vanian rocks underlying the area have not been adequately tested by the drill. INTRODUCTION Location. The area covered by this report (pi. 11, in pocket) com­ prises about 400 square miles in Atoka, Coal, and Pittsburg Coun­ ties, in southeastern Oklahoma. For convenience it is referred to as the Lehigh district, from the town of Lehigh, in the southern part of the district, which has a population of about 500. The largest town in the district is Coalgate, which has a population of about 2,000. The district was formerly a part of the Government reservation set aside for the Choctaw Nation, one of the Five Civilized Tribes, which in 1907 became part of the newly established State of Okla­ homa.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PUBLICATIONS by JAMES SPRINKLE 1965 -- Sprinkle, James
    PUBLICATIONS BY JAMES SPRINKLE 1965 -- Sprinkle, James. 1965. Stratigraphy and sedimentary petrology of the lower Lodgepole Formation of southwestern Montana. M.I.T. Department of Geology and Geophysics, unpublished Senior Thesis, 29 p. (see #56 and 66 below) 1966 1. Sprinkle, James and Gutschick, R. C. 1966. Blastoids from the Sappington Formation of southwest Montana (Abst.). Geological Society of America Special Paper 87:163-164. 1967 2. Sprinkle, James and Gutschick, R. C. 1967. Costatoblastus, a channel fill blastoid from the Sappington Formation of Montana. Journal of Paleon- tology, 41(2):385-402. 1968 3. Sprinkle, James. 1968. The "arms" of Caryocrinites, a Silurian rhombiferan cystoid (Abst.). Geological Society of America Special Paper 115:210. 1969 4. Sprinkle, James. 1969. The early evolution of crinozoan and blastozoan echinoderms (Abst.). Geological Society of America Special Paper 121:287-288. 5. Robison, R. A. and Sprinkle, James. 1969. A new echinoderm from the Middle Cambrian of Utah (Abst.). Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 1(5):69. 6. Robison, R. A. and Sprinkle, James. 1969. Ctenocystoidea: new class of primitive echinoderms. Science, 166(3912):1512-1514. 1970 -- Sprinkle, James. 1970. Morphology and Evolution of Blastozoan Echino- derms. Harvard University Department of Geological Sciences, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 433 p. (see #8 below) 1971 7. Sprinkle, James. 1971. Stratigraphic distribution of echinoderm plates in the Antelope Valley Limestone of Nevada and California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 750-D (Geological Survey Research 1971):D89-D98. 1973 8. Sprinkle, James. 1973. Morphology and Evolution of Blastozoan Echino- derms. Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology Special Publication, 283 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of the Middle Ordovician Copenhagen Formation and Its Trilobites in Nevada
    Distribution of the Middle Ordovician Copenhagen Formation and its Trilobites in Nevada GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 749 Distribution of the Middle Ordovician Copenhagen Formation and its Trilobites in Nevada By REUBEN JAMES ROSS, JR., and FREDERICK C. SHAW GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 749 Descriptions of Middle Ordovician trilobites belonging to 21 genera contribute to correlations between similar strata in Nevada) California) and 0 klahoma UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. lVIOR TON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 78-190301 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 70 cents (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-2109 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract ______________________________ -------------------------------------------------- 1 Descriptions of trilobites __________________________________________________ _ 14 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ _ 1 Genus T1·iarth1·us Green, 1832 .... ------------------------------ 14 Previous investigations _____________________________________________ _ 1 Genus Carrickia Tripp, 1965 ____________________________________ _ 14 Acknowledgments-------------------------------------------------------· 1 Genus Hypodicranotus Whittington, 1952 _____________ _ 15 Geographic occurrences of the Copenhagen Genus Robergia Wiman, 1905·----------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Paleozoic 3: Alabama in the Paleozoic
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA GY 112: Earth History Paleozoic 3: Alabama in the Paleozoic Instructor: Dr. Douglas W. Haywick Last Time The Paleozoic Part 2 1) Back to Newfoundland 2) Eastern Laurentian Orogenies (Appalachians) 3) Other Laurentian Orogenies (Antler, Ouachita) (web notes 25) Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Even though this coastline of Laurentia was a passive continental margin, a plate tectonic boundary was rapidly approaching… A B A B Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The resulting Taconic Orogeny first depressed the seafloor Laurentia (localized transgression) and A Island arc then pushed previously deposited passive continental B margin sediments up into thrust fault mountains. Baltica There was only minimal metamorphism and igneous A intrusions. B Middle Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Laurentia Baltica Middle Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Laurentia Baltica Middle Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The next tectonic event (the Acadian Orogeny) was caused Laurentia by the approach of Baltica A B Baltica A B Baltica Baltica Late Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The Acadian Orogeny was more extensive and more intense (metamorphism and A lots of igneous intrusions) B A B Early Devonian Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The Acadian Orogeny was more extensive and more intense (metamorphism and lots of igneous intrusions) Early Devonian Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Lastly, along comes Gondwanna and…. …well you get the idea. A B B A B Mississippian Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Lastly, along comes Gondwanna and…. …well you get the idea. A B B A B Pennsylvannian Suture zone Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Lastly, along comes Gondwanna and…. …well you get the idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • University of Texas at Arlington Dissertation Template
    CHEMOSTRATIGRAPHY AND PALEOCEANOGRAPHY OF THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION, SOUTHERN FORT WORTH BASIN, TEXAS, USA by JAMES DANIEL HOELKE Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON AUGUST 2011 Copyright © by James Hoelke 2011 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Harry Rowe, for his patience, time and energy during these past few years. I have learned much from him. This thesis would not have been possible without him. Second, I would like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Andrew Hunt and Dr. Robert Loucks, for the knowledge and insight you have provided in class and in conversations. I would also like to thank Dr. Christopher Scotese for assistance and advice with paleogeographic maps. I would also like to thank several members of the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology. I would like to thank especially Dr. Stephen Ruppel for providing core access and material support for this project as well as advice. I would also like to thank James Donnelly, Nathan Ivicic, Kenneth Edwards, and Josh Lambert for core handling assistance. I want to thank Henry Francis and Andrea Conner at the Kentucky Geological Survey for providing geochemical analyses. I would also like to thank some members of our geochemistry research group. Niki Hughes provided substantial assistance especially with calibrations and great encouragement. I would also like to thank Jak Kearns, Pukar Mainali, Krystin Robinson, and Robert Nikirk for their help.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedrock Geology of Sonora Quadrangle, Washington and Benton Counties, Arkansas Camille M
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 59 Article 15 2005 Bedrock Geology of Sonora Quadrangle, Washington and Benton Counties, Arkansas Camille M. Hutchinson University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Jon C. Dowell University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Stephen K. Boss University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons, and the Stratigraphy Commons Recommended Citation Hutchinson, Camille M.; Dowell, Jon C.; and Boss, Stephen K. (2005) "Bedrock Geology of Sonora Quadrangle, Washington and Benton Counties, Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 59 , Article 15. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol59/iss1/15 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 59 [2005], Art. 15 Bedrock Geology of Sonora Quadrangle, Washington and Benton Counties, Arkansas CAMILLEM.HUTCHINSONJON C. DOWELL, AND STEPHEN K.BOSS* Department ofGeosciences, 113 Ozark Hall, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701 Correspondent: [email protected] Abstract A digital geologic map of Sonora quadrangle was produced at 1:24,000 scale using the geographic information system GIS) software Maplnfo.
    [Show full text]
  • South Texas Project Units 3 & 4 COLA
    Rev. 08 STP 3 & 4 Final Safety Analysis Report 2.5S.1 Basic Geologic and Seismic Information The geological and seismological information presented in this section was developed from a review of previous reports prepared for the existing units, published geologic literature, interpretation of aerial photography, a subsurface investigation, and an aerial reconnaissance conducted for preparation of this STP 3 & 4 application. Previous site-specific reports reviewed include the STP 1 & 2 FSAR, Revision 13 (Reference 2.5S.1-7). A review of published geologic literature and seismologic data supplements and updates the existing geological and seismological information. A list of references used to compile the geological and seismological information presented in the following pages is provided at the end of Subsection 2.5S.1. It is intended in this section of the STP 3 & 4 FSAR to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 100.23 (c). Presented in this section is information of the geological and seismological characteristics of the STP 3 & 4 site region, site vicinity, site area, and site. Subsection 2.5S.1.1 describes the geologic and tectonic characteristics of the site region and site vicinity. Subsection 2.5S.1.2 describes the geologic and tectonic characteristics of the STP 3 & 4 site area and site. The geological and seismological information was developed in accordance with NRC guidance documents RG-1.206 and RG-1.208. 2.5S.1.1 Regional Geology (200 mile radius) Using Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Terminology, this subsection discusses the physiography, geologic history, stratigraphy, and tectonic setting within a 200 mi radius of the STP 3 & 4 site.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Resources Inventory Report, Hot Springs National Park
    National Park Service US Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Hot Springs National Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2013/741 ON THE COVER View from the top of the display spring down to the Arlington Lawn within Hot Springs National Park. THIS PAGE Gulpha Creek flows over Stanley Shale downstream from the Gulpha Gorge Campground. Photographs by Trista L. Thornberry-Ehrlich (Colorado State University) Hot Springs National Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2013/741 National Park Service Geologic Resources Division PO Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 December 2013 US Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis-2002-F832d.Pdf
    THE DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF THE SYCAMOREL~STONE By KAREN ELIZABETH FRANKLIN Bachelor ofScience Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1997 Submitted to the faculty ofthe Graduate College of Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August, 2002 THE DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF THE SYCAMORE LIMESTONE Thesis Approved: Thesis Adviser 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I sincerely thank my advisers for all their help and patience with this thesis. Dr. Al Shaieb provided me with confidence and an unending supply of information. Dr. Boardman and Dr. Cemen provided helpful information from their disciplines. I thank my parents for all their help as well. They supported my family and I both mentally and financially. I especially thank Mom and Dad for watching my sons when I just had to get to school to work. I cannot express how thankful I am to my husband for all his support while I was working on my thesis. Without him, this wouldn't be possible. He and my sons provided support and love when things didn't seem to be going right. Finally I would like to thank the professors in the Geology Department and my fellow students for suffering through my constant questions. Many of them provided ideas and answers that helped me continue on those days where it seemed impossible to do so. III TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose ofStudy 1 Location 1 Method ofStudy 3 Formation History 3 Previous Investigations 6 II. GEOLOGICAL SETTING 13 Regional Structure 13 Regional Stratigraphy 16 Sequence Stratigraphy 20 III.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Family of Trepostome Bryozoans from the Ordovician Simpson Group of Oklahoma
    700 JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, V. 64, NO. 5, 1990 --, B. D. PRATI, AND A. J. ROWELL. 1989. Early Cambrian reefs, Holyoake Range, Antarctica. New Zealand Journal of Geology and reef complexes, and associated lithofacies of the Shackleton Lime­ Geophysics, 31:397-404. stone, Transantarctic Mountains. Sedimentology, 36:341-362. Sowv'Ev, I. A., AND G. E. GRIKUROV. 1979. Novie dannie o ras­ --, AND A. J. ROWELL. In press. The pre-Devonian Palaeozoic elas­ prostranenii Kembriyskikh trilobitov v khrebtakh Ardzhentina i She­ tics of the central Transantarctic Mountains: stratigraphy and depo­ klton [New data on the spread of Cambrian trilobites in the Argentina sitional setting. In M. R. A. Thomson, J. W. Crame, and J. W. Thom­ and Shackleton Mountains]. Antarktika, 18:54-73. son (eds.), Geologic Evolution of Antarctica. Cambridge University TATE, R. 1892. The Cambrian fossils ofSouth Australia. Transactions Press, Cambridge. and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia, 15:183- ROWELL, A. J., K. R. EvANs, AND M. N. REES. 1989. Fauna of the 189. Shackleton Limestone. Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1988 WRONA, R. 1987. Cambrian microfossil Hadimopanel/a Gedik from Review, 23(5):13-14. glacial erratics in West Antarctica. Palaeontological Polonica, 49:37- --, AND M. N. REES. 1989. Early Palaeozoic history of the upper 48. Beardmore Glacier area: implications for a major Antarctic structural Y OCHELSON, E. L. AND E. STUMP. 1977. Discovery of Early Cambrian boundary within the Transantarctic Mountains. Antarctic Science, l: fossils at Taylor Nunatak, Antarctica. Journal of Paleontology, 81: 249-260. 872-875. --, --, R. A. COOPER, AND B. R.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cambrian Meraspid Cluster: Evidence of Trilobite Egg Deposition in a Nest Site
    PALAIOS, 2019, v. 34, 254–260 Research Article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/palo.2018.102 A CAMBRIAN MERASPID CLUSTER: EVIDENCE OF TRILOBITE EGG DEPOSITION IN A NEST SITE 1 2 DAVID R. SCHWIMMER AND WILLIAM M. MONTANTE 1Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia 31907-5645, USA 2Tellus Science Museum, 100 Tellus Drive, Cartersville, Georgia, 30120 USA email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Recent evidence confirms that trilobites were oviparous; however, their subsequent embryonic development has not been determined. A ~ 6cm2 claystone specimen from the upper Cambrian (Paibian) Conasauga Formation in western Georgia contains a cluster of .100 meraspid trilobites, many complete with librigenae. The juvenile trilobites, identified as Aphelaspis sp., are mostly 1.5 to 2.0 mm total length and co-occur in multiple axial orientations on a single bedding plane. This observation, together with the attached free cheeks, indicates that the association is not a result of current sorting. The majority of juveniles with determinable thoracic segment counts are of meraspid degree 5, suggesting that they hatched penecontemporaneously following a single egg deposition event. Additionally, they are tightly assembled, with a few strays, suggesting that the larvae either remained on the egg deposition site or selectively reassembled as affiliative, feeding, or protective behavior. Gregarious behavior by trilobites (‘‘trilobite clusters’’) has been reported frequently, but previously encompassed only holaspid adults or mixed-age assemblages. This is the first report of juvenile trilobite clustering and one of the few reported clusters involving Cambrian trilobites. Numerous explanations for trilobite clustering behavior have been posited; here it is proposed that larval clustering follows egg deposition at a nest site, and that larval aggregation may be a homing response to their nest.
    [Show full text]
  • Athenacrinus N. Gen. and Other Early Echinoderm Taxa Inform Crinoid
    Athenacrinus n. gen. and other early echinoderm taxa inform crinoid origin and arm evolution Thomas Guensburg, James Sprinkle, Rich Mooi, Bertrand Lefebvre, Bruno David, Michel Roux, Kraig Derstler To cite this version: Thomas Guensburg, James Sprinkle, Rich Mooi, Bertrand Lefebvre, Bruno David, et al.. Athenacri- nus n. gen. and other early echinoderm taxa inform crinoid origin and arm evolution. Journal of Paleontology, Paleontological Society, 2020, 94 (2), pp.311-333. 10.1017/jpa.2019.87. hal-02405959 HAL Id: hal-02405959 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02405959 Submitted on 13 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Journal of Paleontology, 94(2), 2020, p. 311–333 Copyright © 2019, The Paleontological Society. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 0022-3360/20/1937-2337 doi: 10.1017/jpa.2019.87 Athenacrinus n. gen. and other early echinoderm taxa inform crinoid origin and arm evolution Thomas E.
    [Show full text]