Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T08:48:44.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mississippian (late Osagean) ammonoids from the New Providence Shale Member of the Borden Formation, north-central Kentucky

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

David M. Work  and
Charles E. Mason
David M. Work
Affiliation:
Maine State Museum, 83 State House Station, Augusta 04333-0083,
Charles E. Mason
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Sciences, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Mississippian ammonoids Polaricyclus conkini new species, P. ballardensis (Gordon, 1965), Winchelloceras knappi new species, and Cantabricanites? greenei (S. A. Miller, 1892) occur with Gnathodus texanus Zone conodonts near the base of the New Providence Shale Member of the Borden Formation in north-central Kentucky. Both ammonoids and conodonts indicate an early late Osagean (lower Keokuk equivalent) age corresponding to the middle or, more probably, the late Chadian (latest Tournaisian or early Viséan) portion of the Fascipericyclus–Ammonellipsites Zone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 6 , November 2004 , pp. 1128 - 1137
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

Branson, E. B., and Mehl, M. G. 1941. Conodonts from the Keokuk Formation. Journal of Scientific Laboratories of Denison University, 35:179–188.Google Scholar
Collinson, C. W. 1955. Mississippian prolecanitid goniatites from Illinois and adjacent states. Journal of Paleontology, 29:433–438.Google Scholar
Conkin, J. E. 1957. Stratigraphy of the New Providence Formation (Mississippian) in Jefferson and Bullitt Counties, Kentucky, and fauna of the Coral Ridge Member. Bulletin of American Paleontology, 38(168):109–157.Google Scholar
Foord, A. H. 1897–1903. Monograph of the Carboniferous Cephalopoda of Ireland. Palaeontographical Society, 51, 234 p.Google Scholar
Goebel, E. D., Thompson, T. L., Waugh, T. C., and Mueller, L. C. 1968. Mississippian conodonts from the Tri-State District, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, p. 21–25. In Zeller, D. (ed.), Short Papers on Research in 1967. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin, 191.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 1957. Mississippian cephalopods of northern and eastern Alaska. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 283, 61 p.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 1965. Carboniferous cephalopods of Arkansas. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 460, 322 p. (Imprinted 1964)Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 1986. Late Kinderhookian (Early Mississippian) ammonoids of the western United States. Paleontological Society Memoir 19, Journal of Paleontology, 60(3) supplement, 36 p.Google Scholar
Gordon, M., and Mason, C. E. 1985. Progradation of the Borden Formation in Kentucky, U.S.A., demonstrated by successive Early Mississippian (Osagean) ammonoid faunas. Dixième Congrès International de Stratigraphie et de Géologie du Carbonifère, Compte Rendu, 1:191–198.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1860. Notes and observations upon the fossils of the goniatite limestone in the Marcellus shale of the Hamilton group, in the eastern and central parts of the State of New York, and those of the goniatite beds of Rockford, Indiana, with some analogous forms from the Hamilton group proper. New York State Cabinet of Natural History Annual Report, 13:95–112, 125.Google Scholar
House, M. R. 1996. An Eocanites fauna from the Early Carboniferous of Chile and its palaeogeograpic implications. Annales de la Société Géologique de Belgique, 117:95–105.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1884. Genera of fossil cephalopods. Boston Society of Natural History Proceedings, 22:253–338.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1900. Cephalopods, p. 502–604. In Zittel-Eastman Textbook of Paleontology. I. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1984. Crinoids from the New Providence Shale Member of the Borden Formation (Mississippian) in Kentucky and Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 58:115–130.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Basinal and prodeltaic communities of the Early Carboniferous Borden Formation in northern Kentucky and southern Indiana (U.S.A.). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 49:79–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Brett, C. E., Boardman, D. R., and Mapes, R. H. 1986. Ecologic stability of the dysaerobic biofacies during the Late Paleozoic. Lethaia, 19:109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, W. D. 1965. Mississippian cephalopods of the Eastern Interior United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 217 p.Google Scholar
Kullmann, J. 1963. Die Goniatiten des Unterkarbons im Kantabrischen Gebirge (Nordspanien). II. Paläontologie der U.O. Prolecanitina Miller & Furnish. Die Altersstellung der Faunen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 116:269–324.Google Scholar
Kusina, L. F. 1971. New and little-known Viséan (Saourian) ammonoids. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 1971:37–48. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Kusina, L. F. 1980. Saourian ammonoids. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 181, 108 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Kusina, L. F. 1987. The Viséan ammonoid assemblage. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 1987:52–61. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Kusina, L. F. 2000. Ammonoids from the Tournaisian-Viséan boundary beds of Pai-Khoy and the South Urals. Paleontological Journal, 34(5):486–494.Google Scholar
Lane, H. R. 1974. Mississippian of southeastern New Mexico and West Texas—a wedge-on-wedge relation. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 58:269–282.Google Scholar
Lane, H. R., and Brenckle, P. L. 2001. Type Mississippian subdivisions and biostratigraphic succession, p. 83–107. In Heckel, P. H. (ed.), Stratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of the Mississippian Subsystem (Carboniferous System) in its Type Region, the Mississippi River Valley of Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa. I.U.G.S. Subcommission on Carboniferous Stratigraphy Guidebook for Field Conference, 8–13 September 2001, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Lane, H. R., and Ormiston, A. 1982. Waulsortian Facies, Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico, p. 115–182. In Bolton, K., Lane, H. R., and LeMone, D. V. (eds.), Symposium on the Paleoenvironmental Setting and Distribution of the Waulsortian Facies. El Paso Geological Society and University of Texas at El Paso, International Field Seminar Guide, 2–6 March 1982.Google Scholar
Lane, H. R., Sandberg, C. A., and Ziegler, W. 1980. Taxonomy and phylogeny of some Lower Carboniferous conodonts and preliminary standard post-Siphonodella zonation. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 14:117–164.Google Scholar
Librovitch, L. S. 1940. Carboniferous ammonoids of north Kazakhstan. Akademiya Nauk S.S.S.R., Paleontologicheskii Institut, Paleontologiya S.S.S.R., Volume 4, 392 p. (In Russian with English summary)Google Scholar
Lineback, J. A. 1963. Age of the Rockford cephalopod fauna (Mississippian) of southern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology, 37:939–942.Google Scholar
Manger, W. L. 1979. Lower Carboniferous ammonoid assemblages from North America. Huitième Congrès International de Stratigraphie et de Géologie du Carbonifère (Moscow, 1975), Compte Rendu, 3:211–221.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Worthen, A. H. 1860. Descriptions of new Carboniferous fossils from Illinois and other western states. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia, 1860:447–472.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K. 1938. Devonian ammonoids of America. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 14, 262 p.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Collinson, C. W. 1951. Lower Mississippian ammonoids of Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 25:454–487.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Furnish, W. M. 1954. The classification of the Paleozoic ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology, 28:685–692.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1892. Paleontology. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, 18th Annual Report Advance sheets, 102 p. (1894, p. 257–356)Google Scholar
Mojsisovics, E. 1882. Die Cephalopoden der mediterranen Triasprovinz. Abhandlungen der geologischen Reichsanstalt Wien, 10, 322 p.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. 1822. Introduction to the Study of Fossil Organic Remains. London, 346 p.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. 1836. Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire, or a Description of the Strata and Organic Remains. Part 2. The Mountain Limestone District. Murray, London, 253 p.Google Scholar
Rexroad, C. B., and Scott, A. J. 1964. Conodont zones in the Rockford Limestone and the lower part of the New Providence Shale (Mississippian) in Indiana. Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin, 30, 54 p.Google Scholar
Riley, N. J. 1991. A global review of mid-Dinantian ammonoid biostratigraphy, p. 133–143. In Brenckle, P. L. and Manger, W. L. (eds.), Intercontinental Correlation and Division of the Carboniferous System. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 130. (Imprinted 1990)Google Scholar
Riley, N. J. 1996. Mid-Dinantian ammonoids from the Craven Basin, northwest England. Palaeontological Association Special Paper, 53, 87 p.Google Scholar
Roberts, J., Jones, P. J., and Jenkins, T. B. H. 1993. Revised correlations for Carboniferous marine invertebrate zones of eastern Australia. Alcheringa, 17:353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roundy, P. V. 1926. Part 2, The micro-fauna, p. 5–23. In Roundy, P. V., Girty, G. H., and Goldman, M. I. (eds.), Mississippian formations of San Saba County, Texas. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 146.Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1960. Principles of systematics, classification, and phylogeny of the Paleozoic Ammonoidea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 83, 331 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1962. Superorder Ammonoidea, p. 243–409. In Orlov, Yu. A. (ed.), Fundamentals of Paleontology, Volume 5, 438 p. (English translation, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1974)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1965. Principal ammonoid assemblages of the Carboniferous. International Geology Review, 8:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1966. Viséan ammonoids from the South Urals. International Geology Review, 8:1067–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberger, G., and Sandberger, F. 1850–1856. Die Versteinerungen des rheinischen Schichtensystems in Nassau. Mit einer kurzgefassten Geognosie dieses Gebietes und mit steter Berücksichtigung analoger Schichten anderer Länder. I–XIV. Kreidel and Niedner, Wiesbaden, 564 p.Google Scholar
Schindewolf, O. H. 1926. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Cephalopodenfauna des oberfránkisch-osterhuringischen Unterkarbons. Senckenbergiana, Band 8:63–96.Google Scholar
Schindewolf, O. H. 1951. Über ein neues Vorkomen unterkarbonischer Pericyclus-Schichten im Oberharz. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, Band 93:23–126.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. 1925. Die carbonischen Goniatiten Deutschlands. Jahrbuch der Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt für 1924, 45:489–609.Google Scholar
Smith, J. P. 1903. Carboniferous ammonoids of America. United States Geological Survey Monograph, 42, 211 p.Google Scholar
Smith, J. P., and Weller, S. 1901. Prodromites, a new ammonite genus from the Lower Carboniferous. Journal of Geology, 9:255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowerby, J. 1813. Mineral Conchology of Great Britain. Vol. 1. Meredith, London, 234 p. (Imprinted 1812)Google Scholar
Vöhringer, E. 1960. Die Goniatiten der unterkarbonischen Gattendorfia-Stufe im Hönnetal (Sauerland). Fortschritte in der Geologie des Rheinlandes und Westfalens, 3(1):107–196.Google Scholar
Wedekind, R. 1918. Die Genera der Palaeoammonoidea (Goniatiten). Mit Ausschluss der Mimoceratidae, Glyphioceratidae und Prolecanitidae. Palaeontographica, 62:85–184.Google Scholar
Weyer, D. 1965. Zur Ammonoideen-Fauna der Gattendorfia-Stufe von Dzikowiec (Ebersdorf) in Dolny Slask (Niederschlesien), Polen. Berichte der Geologischen Gesellschaft in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 10:443–464.Google Scholar
Weyer, D. 1972. Trilobiten und Ammonoideen aus der Entogonites nasutus–Zone (Unterkarbon) des Büchenberg-Sattels (Elbingeröder Komplex, Harz), Teil 2; Zur Phylogenie und Systematik der älteren Prolecanitina. Geologie, 21:318–349.Google Scholar
Winchell, A. 1862. Notice of the rocks lying between the Carboniferous Limestone of the lower peninsula of Michigan and the limestones of the Hamilton Group, with descriptions of some cephalopods supposed to be new to science. American Journal of Science and Arts, series 2, 33:352–366.Google Scholar
Work, D. M., and Mason, C. E. 2003. Mississippian (middle Osagean) ammonoids from the Nada Member of the Borden Formation, Kentucky. Journal of Paleontology, 77(3):593–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Work, D. M., Nassichuk, W. W., and Richards, B. C. 2000. Lower Viséan ammonoids from the lower Mount Head Formation, east-central British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin, 541, 71 p.Google Scholar