Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:05:45.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trace fossils and regional significance of a Middle Devonian (Givetian) disconformity in southwestern Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Ed Landing  and
Carlton E. Brett
Ed Landing
Affiliation:
New York State Geological Survey, The State Education Department, Albany 12230
Carlton E. Brett
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Hungry Hollow Formation on the southeastern margin of the Michigan Basin is interpreted as a composite stratigraphic unit representing the lateral equivalents of two depositional cycles in the northern Appalachian Basin. The basal beds (? = Pompey and upper Levanna transgressive hemicycle of the upper Skaneateles Formation in New York) are separated by disconformity surfaces both from the underlying Arkona Shale and from the upper part of the Hungry Hollow (= upper part of Centerfield Limestone Member). These basal beds were deposited on eroded, overcompacted claystones of the Arkona Shale, contain a diverse suite of remanie sediments, and fill deep, delicately sculpted furrows of Cruziana transversa n. ichnosp., C. reticulata n. ichnosp., and Rusophycus bilobatum (Vanuxem, 1842). This lower disconformity may be recognizable regionally over the Northern Midcontinent. Overlying beds feature the lowest local occurrence of an offshore-aspect conodont fauna of the lower Polygnathus varcus Subzone. The underlying Arkona Shale yields Icriodus-dominated (nearer-shore aspect) faunas apparently representing Polygnathus xylus ensensis Zone assemblages. The upper part of the Hungry Hollow Formation and overlying lower part of the Widder Formation represent an offlap-onlap cycle within the lower Polygnathus varcus Subzone that is comparable to that of the upper part of the Centerfield Limestone.

Cruziana and Rusophycus from the Hungry Hollow were not originally produced as “under-tracks” but were formed at the sediment–water interface on erosion-resistant, overconsolidated muds. The producer of Cruziana reticulata n. ichnosp. appeared in the benthic community of the field area before the excavator of C. transversa n. ichnosp. and of Rusophycus bilobatum (possibly the trilobite Dipleura). The degree of limb swing required to produce the reticulate scratch patterns in C. reticulata n. ichnosp. suggests the evolution of specialized coxa-sternite and inter-podomere hinges that were not previously considered to be present in trilobites. Comparable reticulate scratch patterns occur as early as the earliest Cambrian and are apparently related to excavation on disconformity-related mud firmgrounds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , March 1987 , pp. 205 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almagor, G. 1967. Interpretation of strength and consolidation data from some bottom cores off Tel-Aviv-Palmakhim coast, Israel, p. 131–147. In Richards, A. R. (ed.), Marine Geotechnique. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Baird, G. C. 1978. Pebbly phosphorites in shale: a key to recognition of a widespread submarine disconformity in the Middle Devonian of New York. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 48:545–555.Google Scholar
Baird, G. C. 1981. Submarine erosion on a gentle paleoslope: a study of two disconformities in the New York Devonian. Lethaia, 14:105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, G. C. and Brett, C. E. 1981. Submarine disconformities and sedimentary condensation in the upper Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian): examination of marine shelf and paleoslope deposits in the Cayuga Valley, p. 115–145. In Enos, P. (ed.), Guidebook for Field Trips, New York State Geological Association, 53rd Annual Meeting, Binghamton.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1975. Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls. Elsevier, New York, 427 p.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C. 1982. Upper Moscow-Genesee stratigraphic relationships in western New York: evidence for regional erosive beveling in the late Middle Devonian. New York State Geological Association, 54th Annual Meeting, Guidebook, p. 19–63.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E, Dick, V. B. and Baird, G. C. In press. Taphonomy and paleoecology of Middle Devonian (Hamilton Group) dark grey and black shales from western New York. In Kauffman, E. G. (ed.), Paleontology of Organic-rich Strata. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1970. Borings as trace fossils and Entobia cretacea Portlock as an example, p. 49–90. In Crimes, T. P. and Harper, J. C. (eds.), Trace Fossils. Geological Journal Special Issue 3, Seel House Press, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E. 1976. Distribution and paleoecology of Eifelian and early Givetian conodonts from western and northwestern Canada, p. 143–157. In Barnes, C. R. (ed.), Conodont Paleoecology. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 15.Google Scholar
Cisne, J. L. 1981. Triarthrus eatoni (Trilobita): anatomy of its exoskeletal, skeletomuscular, and digestive systems. Palaeontographica Americana, 9(53):99–142.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A. 1930. Stratigraphy of the Hamilton Group of New York. American Journal of Science, 5th series, 19:116–134, 214–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, G. A. and Warthin, A. S. 1941. New Middle Devonian stratigraphic names. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 31:259–260.Google Scholar
Crimes, T. P. 1975. The production and preservation of trilobite resting and furrowing traces. Lethaia, 8:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. E. Jr. 1975. Significance of conodont distribution in the Tully Limestone (Devonian). New York State Journal of Paleontology, 49(6):1097–1104.Google Scholar
Druce, E. C. 1973. Upper Paleozoic faunal provinces, p. 191–237. In Rhodes, F. H. T. (ed.), Conodont Paleozoology. Geological Society of America Special Paper 141.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. W. 1980. Bedrock geology of the central Mohawk Valley. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series Number 33, 26 p.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. 1978. The influence of faunal condensation and mixing on the preservation of fossil benthic communities. Lethaia, 11:243–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhard, G. 1982. Glauconitic condensation through high-energy events in Albian near Clars (Escragnolles, Var, SE-France), p. 286–298. In Einsele, G. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Cyclic and Event Stratification. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldring, R. and Kazmierczak, J. 1974. Ecological succession of intraformational hard-ground formation. Palaeontology, 17:949–962.Google Scholar
Grasso, T. X. 1986. Stratigraphy, depositional environments, and redefinition of the Mottville Member (Hamilton Group) in central and eastern New York, p. 5–31. In Brett, C. E. (ed.), Dynamic Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of the Hamilton Gorup (Middle Devonian) in New York State, Part 1. New York State Museum Bulletin 457.Google Scholar
Gray, L. M. 1983. Biofacies and depositional environments of the Centerfield “Member” in the northern Appalachian Basin. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 15:170.Google Scholar
Gray, L. M. 1984. Lithofacies, biofacies and depositional history of the Centerfield Member (Middle Devonian) of western and central New York State. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 158 p.Google Scholar
Heckel, P. H. 1977. Origin of phosphatic black shale facies in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of Mid-Continent North America. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 61:1045–1068.Google Scholar
House, M. R. 1983. Devonian eustatic events. Proceedings of the Usher Society, 5:396–405.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. W. 1979. Trace fossils and stratigraphy of the Devonian black shale in east-central Kentucky. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, University of Cincinnati, 227 p.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W. J. and Garrison, R. E. 1975. Morphology and genesis of nodular chalks and hardgrounds in the Upper Cretaceous of southern England. Sedimentology, 22:311–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesling, R. V. and Chilman, R. B. 1975. Strata and megafossils of the Middle Silica Formation. University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology Papers on Paleontology, 8:1–172.Google Scholar
Klapper, G. and Johnson, J. G. 1980. Endemism and dispersal of Devonian conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 54:400–455.Google Scholar
Klapper, G, Philip, G. M. and Jackson, J. H. 1970. Revision of the Polygnathus varcus Group (Conodonta, Middle Devonian). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, 11:650–667.Google Scholar
Landing, E. and Brett, C. E. 1985. Anatomy of a disconformity: sedimentology and trace fossils of the basal Hungry Hollow Formation (Middle Devonian, Hamilton Group, southwestern Ontario). Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 17:30.Google Scholar
Manton, S. M. 1977. The Arthropoda, Habits, Functional Morphology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 527 p.Google Scholar
Martinsson, A. 1970. Toponomy of trace fossils, p. 323–330. In Crimes, T. P. and Harper, J. C. (eds.), Trace Fossils. Geological Journal Special Issue 3, Seel House Press, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Miller, M. F. and Rehmer, J. 1982. Using biogenic structures to interpret sharp lithologic boundaries: an example from the Lower Devonian of New York. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 52:887–895.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. W. 1967. Stratigraphy of the Silica Formation of Ohio and the Hungry Hollow Formation of Ontario, with paleogeographic interpretations. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, 52:175–196.Google Scholar
Nowlan, G. S., Narbonne, G. M. and Fritz, W. H. 1985. Small shelly fossils and trace fossils near the Precambrian–Cambrian boundary in the Yukon Territory, Canada. Lethaia, 18:233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussman, D. G. 1975. Paleoecology and pyritization. University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology Papers on Paleontology, 8:173–227.Google Scholar
Orr, R. W. 1971. Conodonts from Middle Devonian strata of the Michigan Basin. State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bulletin 45, 110 p.Google Scholar
Osgood, R. G. Jr. and Drennen, W. T. 1975. Trilobite trace fossils from the Clinton Group (Silurian) of east-central New York State. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 67:299–348.Google Scholar
Pemberton, S. G. and Frey, R. W. 1982. Trace fossils nomenclature and the Planolites-Paleophycus dilemma. Journal of Paleontology, 56:843–881.Google Scholar
Reif, W. E. 1982. Muschelkalk/Keuper bonebeds (Middle Triassic, SW-Germany)—storm condensation in a regressive cycle, p. 299–325. In Einsele, G. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Cyclic and Event Stratification. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reineck, H. E. and Wunderlich, F. 1968. Classification and origin of flaser and lenticular bedding. Sedimentology, 11:99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoads, D. C. 1970. Mass properties, stability and ecology of marine muds related to burrowing activity, p. 391–406. In Crimes, T. P. and Harper, J. C. (eds.), Trace Fossils. Geological Journal Special Issue 3, Seel House Press, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Richards, A. F. (ed.). 1967. Marine Geotechnique. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 276 p.Google Scholar
Rickard, L. V. 1975. Correlation of the Silurian and Devonian rocks in New York State. New York State Museum and Science Service Map and Chart Series Number 24, 16 p.Google Scholar
Rickard, L. V. 1984. Correlation of the subsurface Lower and Middle Devonian of the Lake Erie region. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 95:814–828.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. Journal of Geology, 89:569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savarese, M., Gray, L. M. and Brett, C. E. 1986. Faunal and lithologic cyclicity in the Centerfield Member (Middle Devonian: Hamilton Group) of western New York: a reinterpretation of depositional history, p. 32–56. In Brett, C. E. (ed.), Dynamic Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) in New York State, Part 1. New York State Museum Bulletin 457.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1982. Resolution analysis: a new approach to the gaps in the fossil record. Paleobiology, 8:340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, D. 1976. Conodont biofacies and paleoenvironments in Middle Devonian-Upper Devonian boundary beds, central Missouri, p. 159–169. In Barnes, C. R. (ed.), Conodont Paleoecology. Geological Society of Canada Special Paper 15.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1967. Bathymetry of trace fossils. Marine Geology, 5:413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1970. Cruziana stratigraphy of non-fossiliferous Palaeozoic sandstones, p. 447–476. In Crimes, T. P. and Harper, J. C. (eds.), Trace Fossils. Geological Journal Special Issue 3, Seel House Press, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1982. Distinctive features of sandy tempestites, p. 333–349. In Einsele, G. and Seilacher, A. (eds.), Cyclic and Event Stratification. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaver, R. H. et al. 1971. Silurian and Middle Devonian stratigraphy of the Michigan Basin: a view from the southwest flank. Michigan Basin Geological Society Guidebook for 1971, p. 37–59.Google Scholar
Smith, B. 1935. Geology and mineral resources of the Skaneateles Quadrangle. New York State Museum Bulletin 300, 120 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stumm, E. C. 1953. Trilobites of the Devonian Traverse Group of Michigan. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, 10:101–157. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Stumm, E. C. and Wright, J. D. 1958. Check list of fossil invertebrates described from the Middle Devonian rocks of the Thedford-Arkona region of southwestern Ontario. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, 14:81–132. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1983. Sediment-mediated biological disturbance and the evolution of marine benthos, p. 479–625. In Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L. (eds.), Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Topics in Geobiology 3, Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uyeno, T. T., Telford, P. G. and Sanford, B. V. 1982. Devonian conodonts and stratigraphy of southwestern Ontario. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 332, 32 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warthin, A. S. and Cooper, G. A. 1943. Traverse rocks of Thunder Bay region, Michigan. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 27:571–595.Google Scholar
Weddige, K. and Ziegler, W. 1976. The significance of Icriodus: Polygnathus ratios in limestones from the type Eifelian, Germany, p. 187–199. In Barnes, C. R. (ed.), Conodont Paleoecology. Geological Society of Canada Special Paper 15.Google Scholar
Wiedman, L. A. 1985. Community paleoecological study of the Silica Shale equivalent of northeastern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 59:160–182.Google Scholar
Winder, C. G. and Sanford, B. V. 1972. Stratigraphy and paleontology of the Paleozoic rocks of southern Ontario. 24th International Geological Congress, Montreal, Excursion A45-C45, 74 p.Google Scholar