Advertisement

Palaeogeographic distribution of Cretaceous Tethyan non-rudist bivalves

  • Annie V. Dhondt
Part of the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Schriftenreihe der Erdwissenschaftlichen Kommissionen book series (ERDWISSENSCHAFT, volume 9)

Abstract

In the non-rudist bivalve faunas of Valanginian-Hauterivian age two distinct realms can be distinguished: Boreal and warm-Temperate Tethyan. From the Barremian stage onwards with the spreading of the carbonate platform Tethyan faunas become more marked, with a rudist and a non-rudist facies. In the Albian a strong northern influence is visible in the northern Tethys. The successive Cenomanian transgressions result in a diversification of faunas; in the Tethys this is best seen in the oyster-facies. The Turonian-Santonian interval was relatively brief, and the faunas appear as being more or less homogeneous during that period, but with a differentiation between northern and southern sides of the Tethys. Campanian Tethys faunas are varied, but only occur on the southern side of the Tethys, and are mainly seen in the oyster-facies. In the Upper Campanian-Maastrichtian specific widespread Tethys faunas no longer exist: the Atlantic influence is more important than the Tethys influence.

Keywords

Lower Cretaceous Carbonate Platform Southern Side Paris Basin Invertebrate Paleontology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Parmi les faunes de bivalves d’âge Valanginien-Hauterivien on distingue deux unités paléobiogéographiques: le domaine boréal et le domaine témpéré (chaud) / téthysien. A partir du Barrémien la plateforme carbonatée s’étend et les faunes téthysiennes diffèrent d’après qu’elles sont oui ou non associées au faciès à rudistes. Pendant l’Albien une forte influence nordique est présente dans les faunes de la bordure nord de la Téthys. Les transgressions cénomanien-nes successives sont à 1’origine d’une diversification des faunes. Dans le domaine de la Téthys ceci se remarque surtout dans les faciès à ostracées. L’intervalle Turonien-Santonien, relativement court, est caractérisé par des faunes assez homogènes, mais différentes sur les bordures nord et sud de la Téthys. Au Campanien de vraies faunes de bivalves téthysiens ne se retrouvent qu’en Afrique et en Asie (Proche Orient, et son extension vers l’Asie Centrale), et encore une fois surtout en faciès à ostracées. Au Campanien supérieur-Maastrichtien les faunes à large répartition téthysienne ont disparu: l’influence atlantique est devenue plus importante que celle de la Téthys.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Babinot, J.-F. (1988): Premières données sur les Ostracodes du Cénomanien de Yougoslavie (Istrie du Sud). — Géobios, 21: 5–15. Lyon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron, E. J., Harrison, C. G. A., Sloan, J. L. II, & Hay, W. W. (1981): Paleogeography, 180 million years ago to the present. — Eclog. geol. Helv., 74: 443–470. Basel.Google Scholar
  3. Bobkova, N. N. (1961): Late Cretaceous Oysters from the Tadjik Depression. — Trudy VSEGEI NS, 50: 139 pp. Leningrad (in Russian).Google Scholar
  4. Boese, E. (1910–1911): Monografia geologica y paleontologica del Cerro de Muleros cerca de Ciudad Juàrez, Estado de Chihuahua y descripcion de la Fauna cretàcea de la Encantada, Placer de Guadalupe, Estado de Chihuahua. — Boletin Instituto geologico de Mexico, 25: 193 pp. Mexico.Google Scholar
  5. Casey, R., & Rawson, P. (Eds.) (1973): The Boreal Lower Cretaceous. — Geological Journal Special Issue, 5: 448 pp. Liverpool.Google Scholar
  6. Cossmann, M. (1916): Le Barrémien supérieur à faciès urgonien de Brouzet-les-Alais (Gard). — Mém. Soc. géol. France, Paléontologie, 31: 10–43. Paris.Google Scholar
  7. Dhondt, A. V. (1981): Répartition des Bivalves (sans Inocérames ou Rudistes) dans le Crétacé Moyen. — Cretaceous Research, 2: 307–318. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhondt, A. V. (1983): Campanian and Maastrichtian Inoceramids: A Review. — Zitteliana. 10: 689–701. München.Google Scholar
  9. Dhondt, A. V. (1985): Late Cretaceous Bivalves from the A 10 Exposures in Northern Aquitaine. — Cretaceous Research, 6: 33–74. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhondt, A. V. (1987): Bivalves from the Hochmoos Formation (Gosau-Group, Oberösterreich. Austria). — Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien. 88 A: 41–101. Vienna.Google Scholar
  11. Dhondt, A. V., & Dieni, I. (1988): Early Cretaceous Bivalves of Eastern Sardinia. — Memorie die Scienze geologiche. 40: 1–97. Padova.Google Scholar
  12. Dhondt, A. V., & Dieni, I. (1989): The Sardinian Early Cretaceous Bivalves and their Paleobiogeographic Affinities, in Wiedmann, J. (Ed.) Cretaceous of the Western Tethys. — pp. 281-297. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  13. Etayo-Serna, F. (1985): Trochoceramus del Campaniano — Maastrichtiano en la Formacion de la Cordillera Occidental de Colombia. — Geologia Norandina, 9: 27–30. Bogota.Google Scholar
  14. Hancock, J. M., & Kauffman, E. G. (1979): The great transgressions of the Late Cretaceous. — Jl geol. Soc. Lond. 136: 175–196. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kakabadze, M. V. (1981): Ancyloceratids from the South of the USSR and their stratigraphic importance. — Geol. Inst. Akad. Xauk Gruzh. SSR. Trudy NS. 71: 197 pp. Tbilisi (in Russian).Google Scholar
  16. Kakabadze, M. V. (1983): On the Hauterivian-Barremian correlation between the South of the USSR and certain Southern and Northern regions of Europe. — Zitteliana. 10: 501–508. München.Google Scholar
  17. Kauffman, E. G. (1973): Cretaceous Bivalvia. in Hallam, A.: Atlas of Palaegeography: 353-383. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Kauffman, E. G. (1975): Dispersal and Biostratigraphic Potential of Cretaceous Benthonic Bivalvia in the Western Interior. — in Caldwell, W. G. E., Ed.: The Cretaceous System in the Western Interior of North America. Geol. Ass. Canada Special Paper. 13: 163-194. Waterloo. Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Kelly, S. R. A., Dhondt, A. V., Zakharov, V. A. (1984): Boreionectes ZAKHAROV 1965 (Bivalvia: Pectinidae) — a synonym of Maclearnia (CRICKMAY 1930). — J. Paleontology, 58: 109–114. Kansas.Google Scholar
  20. Kniker, H. T. (1919): Comanchean and Cretaceous Pectinidae of Texas. — Univ. Texas Bull. 1817: 5–57. Texas.Google Scholar
  21. Kollmann, H. A. (1978): Les Gastropodes cénomaniens de France et des régions voisines. — Géologie Méditerranéenne. 5: 101–108. Marseille.Google Scholar
  22. Kotetishvili, E. V. (1970): Stratigraphy and fauna of the Colchidites and adjoining horizons of western Georgia. — Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk Gruzh. SSR, Trudy NS, 25: 118 pp. Tbilisi (in Russian).Google Scholar
  23. Kotetishvili, E. V. (1983): Sur la paléozoogéographie des bassins éocrétacées du Caucase. — Zitteliana. 10: 375–386. München.Google Scholar
  24. Lange, E. (1914): Die Brachiopoden, Lamellibranchiaten und Anneliden der Trigonia Schwarzi-Schicht. nebst vergleichender Übersicht der Trigonien der gesamten Tendaguruschichten. — Archiv Biontol., 3(4): 187–289. Berlin.Google Scholar
  25. Lefranc, J.-Ph. (1983): Etude de l’Huître du Cénomanien mésogéen Exogyra (Costagyra) olisiponensis Sharpe. — C. R., 108 Cong. nat. Soc. Sav. Grenoble 1983 Section Sciences I. Sciences Terre II: 59-70. Paris.Google Scholar
  26. Malchus, N. (1990): Revision der Kreide-Austern (Bivalvia: Pteriomorphia) Ägyptens (Biostratigraphie. Systematik). — Berliner Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen. Reihe A. 125: 1–231. Berlin.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, R. C. (Ed.) (1969): Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N1 and 2, Mollusca 6 Bivalvia. 952 pp. — Boulder, Colorado (Geological Society of America).Google Scholar
  28. Moroni, M. A., Ricco, S. (1968): Nuovi Studi sulla Fauna Cenomanian di Brancaleone (Calabria). — Lavori Ist. Geol. Univ. Palermo, 6: 65 pp. Palermo.Google Scholar
  29. Morter, A. A., & Wood, C. J. (1983): The Biostratigraphy of Upper Albian-Lower Cenomanian Aucellina in Europe. — Zitteliana, 10: 515–529. München.Google Scholar
  30. Naidin, D. P. (1986): Tethys, term and understanding. — Vestnik Mosk. Univ. Ser. 4 Geologija, 1986,6: 3–18. Moscow (in Russian).Google Scholar
  31. Pellat, E., & Cossmann, M. (1907): Le Barrémien supérieur à faciès urgonien de Brouzet-les-Alais (Gard). — Mém. Soc. géol. France, Paléontologie, 37: 5–42. Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Pervinquiere, L. (1912): Etudes de Paléontologie tunisienne. II. Gastropodes et Lamellibranches des Terrains crétacés. — Carte géologique de la Tunisie. 352 pp. Paris.Google Scholar
  33. Reeside, J. B. (1929): Exogyra olisiponensis Sharpe and Exogyra costata Say in the Cretaceous of the Western Interior. — US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 154 I: 267–278. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  34. Scott, R. W. (1970): Paleoecology and paleontology of the Lower Cretaceous Kiowa Formation, Kansas. — Univ. Kansas, Paleont. Publ., 52: 94 pp. Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  35. Sohl, N. F. (1987): Cretaceous gastropods: contrasts between Tethys and the Temperate provinces. — J. Paleontology, 61: 1085–1111. Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  36. Stanton, T. W. (1947): Studies of some Comanche Pelecypods and Gastropods. — U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 211: 256 pp. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  37. Stenzel, H. B., in Moore, R. C. (Ed.) (1971): Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N3, Mollusca 6 Bivalvia. 953-1224. — Boulder, Colorado (Geological Society of America).Google Scholar
  38. Summesberger, H. (1985): Ammonite Zonation of the Gosau Group (Upper Cretaceous, Austria). — Ann. Naturh. Mus. Wien, 87 A: 145–166. Vienna.Google Scholar
  39. Thieuloy, J. P. (1973): The occurrence and distribution of boreal ammonites from the Neocomian of southeast France (Tethyan Province). — in Casey, R. & Rawson, P. F. (Eds.): The Boreal Lower Cretaceous: 289-302. Liverpool.Google Scholar
  40. Thieuloy, J. P. (1977): La zone à callidiscus du Valanginien supérieur vocontien (SudEst de la France). Lithostratigraphie, ammonitofaune, limite Valanginien-Hauterivien, corrélations. — Géologie Alpine, 53: 83–143. Grenoble.Google Scholar
  41. Wiedmann, J. (1973): Ancyloceratina (Ammonoidea) at the Jurassic/Cretaceous Boundary. — in Hallam, A.: Atlas of Palaeogeography: 309-316. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Young, K. (1972): Cretaceous Paleogeography: Implications of Endemic Ammonite Faunas. — Bur. Econ. Geol. Geol. Circ, 72, 2: 13 pp. Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  43. Zakharov, V. A. (1981): Buchiidae and the biostratigraphy of the boreal Upper Jurassic and Neocomian. — Akad. Sci. SSSP, Sibirskoe Otd. Inst. Geol. Geophysics. 269 pp. Moscow (in Russian).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annie V. Dhondt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PalaeontologyKoninklijk Belgisch Institut voor NatuurwetenschappenBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations