Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T17:15:57.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conodonts from the Prout Dolomite of north-central Ohio and Givetian (upper Middle Devonian) correlation problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Dale R. Sparling
Dale R. Sparling*
Affiliation:
Earth Science Program, Southwest State University, Marshall, MN 56258
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Prout Dolomite of north-central Ohio lies disconformably above the lowest Givetian (upper Middle Devonian) Plum Brook Shale and below the lowest Famennian (upper Upper Devonian) Ohio Shale. A sample from its base yielded over 4,000 diverse conodont specimens. Included is Polygnathus ansatus Ziegler and Klapper, 1976, the index species for the Middle varcus Subzone, which is not reported from strata of this age in Ontario and Indiana, a fact that long caused their miscorrelation with the Lower varcus Subzone. Also present is P. rhenanus Klapper, Philip, and Jackson, 1970, considered to be also indicative of the Middle varcus Subzone in North America, and P. ovatinodosus Ziegler and Klapper, 1976. Lowest occurrences of the latter are in the middle part of this subzone; its presence indicates correlation with the lower Tully Limestone of New York, the basal unit of the Taghanic Series. The Prout and equivalent strata in the region therefore represent a long unrecognized continuous time-rock unit created by Johnson's (1970) Taghanic onlap. The collection includes a new species of Ancyrolepis, A. huntleyi; a new species of Polygnathus is left in open nomenclature, as are nine specimens assigned to Tortodus but of otherwise uncertain taxonomic status.

Givetian conodont correlation between North America and the Global Stratotype Section and Point established by the Subcommission on Devonian Stratigraphy (SDS) in Morocco is extremely problematical because of relatively erratic distribution (probably owing to limited ecologic adaptability) of P. ansatus and P. hemiansatus Bultynck, considered herein to be an early morphotype of P. ansatus. The base of the Givetian Stage has been defined by the SDS as coinciding with the lowest occurrence of P. hemiansatus. The only possible evidence for the SDS's hemiansatus Zone in North America involves reported occurrence of that morphotype in the uppermost Arkona Shale of Ontario, a position above the top of the Plum Brook Shale, which has been considered to be of Givetian age for decades. Also it appears that the interval between the Eifelian (lower Middle Devonian) kockelianus Zone and the hemiansatus Zone at the SDS's global-stratotype section in Morocco is of questionable age and probably too thin to represent continuous sedimentation. Adoption of a widely recognized faunal break at the base of strata deposited during the If T-R cycle of North America and Europe as the base of the Givetian could provide a sound alternative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 73 , Issue 5 , September 1999 , pp. 892 - 907
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

Bassler, R. S. 1925. Classification and stratigraphic use of the conodonts. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 36:218–220.Google Scholar
Belka, Z., Kaufmann, B., and Bultynck, P. 1997. Conodont-based quantitative biostratigraphy for the Eifelian of the eastern Anti-Atlas, Morocco. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109:643–651.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischoff, G., and Ziegler, W. 1957. Die Conodontenchronologie des Mitteldevons und des tiefsten Oberdevons. Abhandlungen des Hessischen Landesamtes für Bodenforschung, 22, 136 p.Google Scholar
Branson, E. B., and Mehl, M. G. 1938. The conodont genus Icriodus and its stratigraphic distribution. Journal of Paleontology, 12:156–166.Google Scholar
Bultynck, P. 1985. Lower Devonian (Emsian)—Middle Devonian (Eifelian and lowermost Givetian) conodont successions from the Ma'der and the Tafilalt, southern Morocco. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 75:261–286.Google Scholar
Bultynck, P. 1987. Pelagic and neritic conodont successions from the Givetian of pre-Sahara Morocco and the Ardennes. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre, 57:149–181.Google Scholar
Bultynck, P. 1989. Conodonts from a potential Eifelian/Givetian Global Boundary Stratotype at Jbel Ou Driss, southern Ma'der, Morocco. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre, 59:95–103.Google Scholar
Bultynck, P., and Hollard, H. 1980. Distribution comparée de Conodontes et Goniatites dévoniens des plaines du Dra, du Ma'der et du Tafilalt (Moroc). Aardkundige Mededelingen 1, Leuven University Press, 73 p.Google Scholar
Chlupáč, I. 1995. Evaluation of some Devonian standard boundaries. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 71, Nr. 291, p. 41–52.Google Scholar
Clausen, C.-D., Leuteritz, K., and Ziegler, W. 1979. Biostratigraphie und Lithofazies am Südrand der Elsper Mulde (hohes Mittel- und tiefes Oberdevon; Sauerland, Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Geologische Jahrbuch, 51:3–37.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A. 1941. New Devonian stratigraphic units. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 31:179–181.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A., Butts, C., Caster, K. E., Chadwick, G. H., Goldring, W., Kindle, E. M., Kirk, E., Merriam, C. W., Swartz, F. M., Warren, P. S., Warthin, A. S., and Willard, B. 1942. Correlation of the Devonian sedimentary formations of North America. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 53:1729–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-López, S. 1987. Los conodontos y su aplicación al estudio de las divisiones cronostratigráficas mayores del Devónico Asturleonés (España). Publicaciones especiales del boletín geológico y minero, 112 p.Google Scholar
Grabau, W. A. 1917. Age and stratigraphic relations of the Olentangy Shale of central Ohio, with remarks on the Prout limestone and socalled Olentangy shales of northern Ohio. Journal of Geology, 25:337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hass, W. H. 1947. Conodont zones in Upper Devonian and Lower Mississippian formations of Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 21:131–141.Google Scholar
Hass, W. H. 1959. Conodonts from the Chappel Limestone of Texas. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 294J, p. 365–400.Google Scholar
Hinde, G. J. 1879. On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati group of the Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton and Genesee-Shale divisions of the Devonian in Canada and the United States. Quarterly Journal, Geological Society of London, 35:351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. G. 1970. Taghanic onlap and the end of North American Devonian provinciality. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 81:2077–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. G., and Klapper, G. 1992. North American Midcontinent Devonian T-R Cycles. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin, 145:127–135.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G., Klapper, G., and Sandberg, C. A. 1985. Devonian eustatic fluctuations in Euramerica. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 96:567–587.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. G., Klapper, G., and Trojan, W. 1980. Brachiopod and conodont successions in the Devonian of the northern Antelope Range, central Nevada. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 14:77–115.Google Scholar
Klapper, G. 1989. The Montagne Noire Frasnian (Upper Devonian) conodont succession. In McMillan, N. J., Embry, A. F., and Glass, D. J. (eds.), Devonian of the world: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 14, v. 3, p. 449–468.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., and Ziegler, W. 1967. Evolutionary development of the Icriodus latericrescens group (Conodonta) in the Devonian of Europe and North America. Palaeontographica, Abteilung A, 127:68–83.Google Scholar
Klapper, G., and Ziegler, W. 1979. Devonian conodont biostratigraphy. Palaeontological Association of London Special Papers, no. 23, p. 199–224.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 Monatshefte, 1970, 11:650–667.Google Scholar
Klug, C. R. 1983. Conodonts and biostratigraphy of the Muscatatuck Group (Middle Devonian), south-central Indiana and north-central Kentucky. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 71, part 1:79–112.Google Scholar
Krywany, J. M. 1982. A biostratigraphic study of the Prout Limestone of north-central Ohio. Unpublished , University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, 150 p.Google Scholar
Landing, E., and Brett, C. E. 1987. Trace fossils and regional significance of a Middle Devonian (Givetian) disconformity in southwestern Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 61:205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawson, R., and Talent, J. A. 1990. Late Emsian-Givetian stratigraphy and conodont biofacies—carbonate slope and offshore shoal to sheltered lagoon and nearshore carbonate ramp—Broken River, north Queensland, Australia. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 117:205–259[imprint 1989].Google Scholar
Müller, K. J. 1962. Zur systematischen Einteilung der Conodontophorida. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 36:109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, K. J., and Müller, E. M. 1957. Early Upper Devonian (Independence) conodonts from Iowa, Part 1. Journal of Paleontology, 31:1069–1108.Google Scholar
Nicoll, R. S. 1985. Multielement composition of the conodont species Polygnathus xylus xylus Stauffer, 1940 and Ozarkodina brevis (Bischoff and Ziegler, 1957) from the Upper Devonian of the Canning Basin, Western Australia. BMR Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, 9:133–147.Google Scholar
Norris, A. W., Uyeno, T. T., and McCabe, H. R. 1982. Devonian rocks of the Lake Winnipegosis-Lake Manitoba outcrop belt, Manitoba. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir 392, 280 p.Google Scholar
North, W. G. 1969. The Middle Devonian strata of southern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 441, 45 p.Google Scholar
Olivieri, R. 1985. Middle and Late Devonian conodonts from Southwestern Sardinia. Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 23:269–310.Google Scholar
Orchard, M. J. 1978. The conodont biostratigraphy of the Devonian Plymouth Limestone, south Devon. Palaeontology, 21:907–955.Google Scholar
Orr, R. W. 1971. Conodonts from Middle Devonian strata of the Michigan Basin. Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin, 45, 110 p.Google Scholar
Racki, G. 1985. Conodont biostratigraphy of the Givetian/Frasnian boundary beds at Kostomloty in the Holy Cross Mts. Acta Geologica Polonica, 35:265–275.Google Scholar
Ramsey, N. J. 1969. Upper Emsian-Upper Givetian conodonts from the Columbus and Delaware Limestones and Lower Olentangy Shale of central Ohio. Unpublished , The Ohio State University, Columbus, 79 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
Rogers, F. S. 1998. Conodont biostratigraphy of the Little Cedar and lower Coralville formations of the Cedar Valley Group (Middle Devonian) of Iowa and significance of a new species of Polygnathus. Journal of Paleontology, 72:726–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwietering, J. F. 1979. Devonian shales of Ohio and their eastern and southern equivalents. U.S. Department of Energy, METC/CR-79/2, 68 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seddon, G. 1970. Pre-Chappel conodonts of the Llano region, Texas. Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigations, 68, 130 p.Google Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1981. Middle Devonian conodont apparatuses with seven types of elements. Journal of Paleontology, 55:295–316.Google Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1984. Paleoecologic and paleogeographic factors in the distribution of lower Middle Devonian conodonts from north-central Ohio. In Clark, D. L. (ed.), Conodont biofacies and provincialism. Geological Society of America Special Paper 196, p. 113–125.Google Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1985. Correlation of the subsurface Lower and Middle Devonian of the Lake Erie region: alternative interpretation. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 96:1213–1218.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1988. Middle Devonian stratigraphy and conodont biostratigraphy, north-central Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science, 88:2–18.Google Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1992. On the age of the Hungry Hollow Formation. Journal of Paleontology, 66:339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1995. Conodonts from the Middle Devonian Plum Brook Shale of north-central Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 69:1123–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauffer, C. R. 1916. Relationships of the Olentangy shale and associated Devonian deposits of northern Ohio. Journal of Geology, 24:476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauffer, C. R. 1938. Conodonts of the Olentangy Shale. Journal of Paleontology, 12:411–443.Google Scholar
Stauffer, C. R. 1940. Conodonts from the Devonian and associated clays of Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 14:417–435, 441.Google Scholar
Stumm, E. C. 1942. Fauna and stratigraphic relations of the Prout Limestone and Plum Brook Shale of northern Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 16:549–563.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1988. The Conodonta. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No. 10, 212 p.Google Scholar
Uyeno, T. T. 1991. Pre-Famennian Devonian conodont biostratigraphy of selected intervals in the eastern Canadian Cordillera. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 417, p. 129–161.Google Scholar
Uyeno, T. T. 1998. Conodont faunas. In Middle Devonian brachiopods, conodonts, stratigraphy, and transgressive-regressive cycles, Pine Point area, south of Great Slave Lake, District of Mackenzie, Northwest Territories. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 522, Part II:146–191.Google 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, 55 p.Google Scholar
Walliser, O. H. 1991. Section Jebel Mech Irdane. In Walliser, O. H. (ed.), Morocco Field Meeting of the Subcommission on Devonian Stratigraphy, IUGS, 28 Nov.–4 Dec., 1991 Guidebook, p. 25–47.Google Scholar
Walliser, O. H., Bultynck, P., Weddige, K., Becker, R. T., and House, M. R. 1995. Definition of the Eifelian-Givetian Stage boundary. Episodes, 18:107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weddige, K. 1977. Die Conodonten der Eifel-Stufe im Typusgebiet und in benachbarten Faziesgebieten. Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 58:271–419.Google Scholar
Weddige, K. 1984. Zur Stratigraphie und Paläogeographie des Devons und Karbons von NE-Iran. Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 65:179–223.Google Scholar
Wittekindt, H. 1966. Zur Conodontenchronologie des Mitteldevons. Fortschritte in der Geologie von Rheinland und Westfalen, 9:621–651[imprint 1965].Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., Bunker, B. J., and Rogers, F. S. 1989. Eifelian through Lower Frasnian stratigraphy and deposition in the Iowa area, central Midcontinent, U.S.A. In McMillan, N. J., Embry, A. F., and Glass, D. J. (eds.), Devonian of the world: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 14, v. 1, p. 221–250.Google Scholar
Ziegler, W. 1959. Ancyrolepis n. gen. (Conodonta) aus dem höchsten Teil der Manticoceras-Stufe. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 108:75–80.Google Scholar
Ziegler, W. (ed.). 1973. Catalogue of Conodonts, I. E. Schweitzerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, 504 p.Google Scholar
Ziegler, W. (ed.). 1977. Catalogue of Conodonts, III. E. Schweitzerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, 574 p.Google Scholar
Ziegler, W., Klapper, G., and Johnson, J. G. 1976. Redefinition and subdivision of the varcus-Zone (Conodonts, Middle-?Upper Devonian) in Europe and North America. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 10:109–140.Google Scholar