Fusulinid Biostratigraphy and Correlations Between the Appalachian and Eastern Interir Basins

144 Pages·2010·16.64 MB·English

Fusulinid Biostratigraphy and
Correlations Between the
Appalachian and Eastern
Interir Basins
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1451
Prepared in cooperation ,with the
Kentucky Geological Survey
Fusulinid Biostratigraphy and
Correlations Between the
Appalachian and Eastern
Interior Basins
By RAYMOND C. DOUGLASS
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1451
Prepared in cooperation with the
Kentucky Geological Survey
Fusulinids from western Kentucky and
adjacent parts of Illinois and Indiana
are compared and correlated with those
from eastern Kentucky, Ohio, and
western Pennsylvania
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1987
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Dallas L. Peck, Director
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Douglass, Raymond C.
Fusulinid biostratigraphy and correlations between the Appalachian and
eastern interior basins.
(U.S. Geological Survey professional paper; 1451)
Bibliography: p.
Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1451
1. Fusulinidae. 2. Paleontolougy Appalachian Region. 3.
Paleontology Middle West. 4. Stratigraphic correlation Appalachian
Region. 5. Stratigraphic correlation Middle West. I. Kentucky
Geological Society. II. Title. III. Series: Geological Survey professional
paper; 1451.
QE75.P9 no. 1451 557.3 s [560M'728'0973] 86-600148 [QE772]
For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey,
Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225
CONTENTS
Page Page
Abstract ____________________. 1 Faunal succession-Continued
Introduction __________________. I Zone of Triticites-Continued
Acknowledgments ___________. 1 Subzone of Triticites skinneri __________________ 11
Previous studies ____________. 2 Subzone of Triticites callosus __________________ 12
Current study ______________. 2 Subzone of Triticites beardi __________________ 12
Geologic setting ____________. 2 Correlations between the Eastern Interior and Appalachian
Appalachian Basin ___________. 2 Basins _____________________________________ 12
Eastern Interior (Illinois) Basin ____. 3 Middle Pennsylvanian ___________________________ 12
Faunal succession ______________. 3 Beds of early Atokan age ______________________ 12
Zone of Millerella __________________ 3 Beds of late Atokan age _______________________ 12
Zone of Profusulinella ______________. 9 Beds of early Desmoinesian age _______________ 12
Zone of Fusulinella ________________ 9 Beds of middle Desmoinesian age _______________ 14
Zone ofBeedeina __________________. 10 Beds of late Desmoinesian age _________________ 14
Subzone of Beedeina leei _________ 10 Upper Pennsylvanian ____________________________ 14
Subzone of Wedekindellina _______ 10 Beds of Missourian age ______________________ 14
Subzone of Beedeina novamexicana 11 Beds of Virgilian age _________________________ 14
Subzone of Beedeina girtyi ______ II Lower Permian _________________________________ 14
Subzone of Beedeina acme ________ 11 Register of localities and collections ___________________ 14
Zone of Triticites __________________ 11 Systematic descriptions _____________________________ 26
Subzone of Triticites ohioensis ____ 11 References cited ___________________________________ 94
ILLUSTRATIONS
[Plates follow references cited]
PLATE 1. Profusulinella. PLATE 11. Beedeina.
2. Profusulinella, Fusulinella. 12. Beedeina
3. Fusulinella. 13. Beedeina.
4. Fusulinella 14. Beedeina.
5. Fusulinella. 15. Beedeina, Fusulinella.
6. Fusulinella. 16. Triticites, Beedeina, Wedekindellina.
1. Wedekindellina. 17. Triticites, Beedeina, Wedekindellina
8. Beedeina. 18. Triticites.
9. Beedeina. 19. Triticites.
10. Beedeina. 20. Triticites.
Ill
IV CONTENTS
Page
FIGURE 1. Index map showing localities for fusulinid collections 4
2. Representative fusulinids of eastern Kentucky and Ohio 6
3. Representative fusulinids of western Kentucky 7
4. Representative fusulinids of Illinois 8
5. Correlation chart 13
6-31. Numerical-data graphs for
6. Profusulinella kentuckyensis Thompson and Riggs, 1959 28
7. Profusulinella ohioensis Douglass n. sp. 29
8. Fusulinella imprima Douglass n. sp. 31
9. Fusulinella primotina Douglass n. sp. 33
10. Fusulinella pria Douglass n. sp. 36
11. Fusulinella stouti Thompson, 1936 40
12. Fusulinella iownensis Thompson, 1934 44
13. Fusulinella sp. 45
14. Wedekindellina euthy'septa (Henbest), 1928 51
15. Beedeina sp. aff. B. novamexicana (Needham), 1937 54
16. Beedeina leei (Skinner), 1931 59
17. Beedeina sp. aff. B. spissiplicata (Dunbar and Henbest), 1942 61
18. Beedeina henbesti Douglass n. sp. 62
19. Beedeina ashlandensis Douglass n. sp. 65
20. Beedeina girtyi (Dunbar and Condra), 1927 67
21. Beedeina sp. aff. B. haworthi (Beede), 1916 69
22. Beedeina acme (Dunbar and Henbest), 1942 71
23. Beedeina carmani (Thompson), 1936 72
24. Triticites skinneri Thompson, 1936 75
25. Triticites ricei Douglass n. sp. 77
26. Triticites ohioensis Thompson, 1936 84
27. Triticites smythi Douglass n. sp. 85
28. Triticites kehni Douglass n. sp. 87
29. Triticites callosus Dunbar and Henbest, 1942 89
30. Triticites mediocris Dunbar and Henbest, 1942 91
31. Triticites beardi Douglass n. sp. 93
TABLES
Page
TABLES 1-28. Measurements for
1. Profusulinella kentuckyensis Thompson and Riggs, 1959 27
2. Profusulinella ohioensis Douglass n. sp. 28
3. Fusulinella imprima Douglass n. sp. 30
4. Fusulinella primotina Douglass n. sp. 32
5. Fusulinella pria Douglass n. sp. 34
6. Fusulinella stouti Thompson, 1936 37
7. Fusulinella iowensis Thompson, 1934 41
8. Fusulinella sp 44
9. Wedekindellina euthysepta (Henbest), 1928 46
10. Wedekindellina sp 51
11. Beedeina sp. aff. B. novamexicana (Needham), 1937 52
12. Beedeina leei (Skinner), 1931, and B. sp. aff. B. leei (Skinner), 1931 55
13. Beedeina sp. aff. B. spissiplicata (Dunbar and Henbest), 1942 60
14. Beedeina henbesti Douglass n. sp. 61
15. Beedeina ashlandensis Douglass n. sp. 63
16. Beedeina girtyi (Dunbar and Condra), 1927 66
17. Beedeina sp. aff. B. haworthi (Beede), 1916 68
18. Beedeina acme (Dunbar and Henbest), 1942, and B. sp. aff. B. acme 70
19. Beedeina carmani (Thompson), 1936 72
20. Beedeina sp. 73
21. Triticites skinneri Thompson, 1936 74
CONTENTS V
Page
22. Triticites ricei Douglass n. sp. 76
23. Triticites ohioensis Thompson, 1936 78
24. Triticites smythi Douglass n. sp. 85
25. Triticites kehni Douglass n. sp. 86
26. Triticites callosus Dunbar and Henbest, 1942 88
27. Triticites mediocris Dunbar and Henbest, 1942 90
28. Triticites beardi Douglass n. sp. 92

FUSULINID BIOSTRATIGRAPHY AND CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE
APPALACHIAN AND EASTERN INTERIOR BASINS
By RAYMOND C. DOUGLASS
ABSTRACT
mine the relative position of many of the limestone beds
Fusulinids are common in marine rocks of the late Paleozoic succes in the surface exposures throughout western Kentucky.
sion in the Eastern Interior and Appalachian Basins. A detailed and Additional well-core samples were investigated and cor
systematic study of the fusulinids permits an improved correlation of
related with the surface samples.
the stratigraphy within and between these basins. Twenty-five species
One of the obvious discrepancies noted early in the
of fusulinids are recognized, of which 15 are forms previously named
and 10 are new. Three additional forms are assigned only to genera. study was the difference between the type Curlew in
All the species are not represented in both basins, but they can be Kentucky and the reported Curlew of southern Illinois.
assigned to five zones and nine subzones that are recognized and cor This difference pointed up the problem of correlation
related between the basins.
with the States adjacent to Kentucky, so samples from
fusulinid-bearing units in Indiana and Illinois were col
INTRODUCTION lected and studied. These samples and the published
record have made the correlation through the Illinois
In 1975, I was sent some limestone samples from Basin possible.
southeastern Kentucky near the Virginia-Tennessee Fusulinids from the Appalachian Basin had been
border, samples that contained many small fusulinids. I described previously from Ohio, so samples were col
was asked whether these samples correlated with the lected from various Middle and Upper Pennsylvanian
Curlew Limestone Member of the Tradewater Forma horizons from which fusulinids had been reported. To
tion of western Kentucky. Being unfamiliar with the round out the picture, samples were also collected from
Curlew, I asked whether comparative samples could be localities in western Pennsylvania, samples containing
obtained from that unit. A suite of nine samples of the the easternmost fusulinids known in the United States.
Curlew and mapped equivalents from five counties of
western Kentucky was provided. On the basis of the con ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tained fusulinids, these samples appeared to represent
five different stratigraphic levels in three general Most of the samples and stratigraphic data for this
groups-lower Atokan, upper Atokan, and Desmoin- study were provided by C.L. Rice and T.M. Kehn of the
esian. The sample from the type locality of the Curlew in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), who both worked in
Union County, Ky., belonged about in the middle of this cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey, Lex-
suite. ington, and by J.G. Beard of the Kentucky Geological
To get better control from the Middle Pennsylvanian Survey. Some core material was provided by the In
part of the section, a set of core samples was studied stitute of Mining and Mineral Research, University of
from seven wells drilled at sites in six western Kentucky Kentucky, Lexington. Additional faunas studied from
counties. It was gratifying to recognize in the core collections in the U.S. National Museum of Natural
samples all the fossil horizons that had been studied in History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, B.C.,
the surface samples. This study revealed that the were supplemented by collections that I made in Ken
Curlew Limestone Member was not represented in the tucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, with the aid of C.L. Rice
samples submitted from one of the wells, but, because and Richard Margerum, USGS; C.H. Cheong, Depart
adjacent horizons were recognized, I was able to request ment of Geology, Seoul National University, Seoul,
samples from the probable intermediate interval and to South Korea; and Rucha Ingavat, Geological Survey
find the missing Curlew fusulinids in them. Division, Department of Mineral Resources, Bangkok,
The corroboration of the surface-sample interpreta Thailand. Thin sections for the study were prepared
tion by the well data led to a flurry of activity to deter with great skill and dexterity by Richard Margerum.
1
Types for comparison were kindly lent by the Peabody fusulinids. Figure 1 also shows the localities in the Ap
Museum of Natural History at Yale University, New palachian Basin. The localities and the included collec
Haven, Conn., the Illinois State Geological Survey at tions are described elsewhere in this report. Every ef
Urbana, and the State University of Iowa, Iowa City. fort was made to obtain as complete a representation of
Susanne Kaiser, USGS, assisted in compilation of data the fusulinid faunas from the two basins as possible.
for this report, and Linda Jacobsen, USGS, assisted on Rumors of possible fusulinids in the proposed Penn
the text figures. The typescript was read by C.L. Rice, sylvanian stratotype section in central West Virginia
T.M. Kehn, T.W. Henry, and D.A. Meyers, all USGS; were pursued in the field and in laboratory studies, but
their helpful comments are greatly appreciated. no fusulinids were found. Collections from the Kentucky
and Ohio areas near the West Virginia border commonly
yield good Pennsylvanian fusulinids.
PREVIOUS STUDIES Preparation of useful thin sections of the fusulinids
was a difficult task, especially in samples of nearly black
Several published studies are especially pertinent to calcareous shale and argillaceous limestone. Fortunate
this report. Dunbar and Henbest (1942) documented an ly, Richard Margerum was able to use his knowledge
extensive study of the fusulinids and stratigraphy of Il and skill to obtain oriented sections even under the most
linois. Thompson (1936) described some of the fusulinids difficult conditions.
from Ohio; Thompson and Riggs (in Thompson, Shaver, Throughout the study, T.M. Kehn and C.L. Rice pro
and Riggs, 1959) studied early fusulinids from western vided consultation on field relations and physical cor
Kentucky; and Thompson and Shaver (1964) evaluated relation to supplement the published stratigraphic data
early fusulinds from Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. and were able to collect samples to fill out the
Smyth (1957, 1974) documented fusulinids from Ohio stratigraphic sections in Kentucky and in the adjoining
and adjacent parts of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, and States.
St. Jean (1957) studied some fusulinids from Indiana. The present study is based on these collections and on
Wanless (1975) presented a regional analyses of the many samples available in the National Museum of
Pennsylvanian System in the Appalachian region and Natural History (USNM) and in the collections at Yale
the Illinois Basin region. Rice, Kehn, and Douglass University (YPM), the State University of Iowa (SUI),
(1979) published on Pennsylvanian correlations between and the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS).
the Eastern Interior and Appalachian Basins. Douglass
(1979) illustrated the distribution of fusulinids and their
correlation between the Illinois Basin and the Ap GEOLOGIC SETTING
palachian Basin.
The two depositions! areas of rocks of late Paleozoic
age are separated by the structural high of the Cincin
CURRENT STUDY
nati Arch. To the east is the Appalachian Basin, and to
the west is the Eastern Interior or Illinois Basin. This
This paper documents the fusulinid faunas and cor
study concerns those parts of the Appalachian Basin
relations between the Eastern Interior Basin and the
represented in western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and
Appalachian Basin, providing a biostratigraphic frame
eastern Kentucky and those parts of the Eastern In
work and a description of the fusulinids. The study
terior Basin represented in southern Illinois, southern
started when a few samples were sent in for identifica
Indiana, and western Kentucky (fig. 1.)
tion but grew rapidly as more samples were acquired.
Surface samples were studied from all the exposed
Pennsylvanian limestone units in western Kentucky. APPALACHIAN BASIN
Figure 1 shows localities from which the samples were
taken. Comparative material was also assembled from Pennsylvanian marine deposits are common in an
Illinois and Indiana (fig. 1). Supplemental samples were elongate basin extending from Pennsylvania to Ten
taken from many drill hole cores. The calcareous inter nessee, but fusulinid foraminifers are not represented
vals represented in the cores were sampled for throughout the entire basin. Fusulinids required open
fusulinids. A large number of surface samples was also marine waters and are, therefore, found only in the
assembled from the Appalachian Basin, from Bell Coun parts of the basin where the seas encroached on the
ty in southeastern Kentucky along a broad line extend estuarine and riverine deposits sufficiently to dominate
ing north-northeast through Ohio and east into western the environment. Many parts of the basin have deposits
Pennsylvania. Two drill holes in eastern Kentucky were containing mollusks and even brachiopods that could
also sampled for the calcareous intervals containing tolerate a more brackish-water environment. The oldest
FAUNAL SUCCESSION
horizon containing fusiform fusulinids is in the Stoney EASTERN INTERIOR (ILLINOIS) BASIN
Fork Member of the Breathitt Formation (formerly the
Lost Creek Limestone of the Breathitt Formation of The western part of Kentucky includes the south
Morse, 1931), recognized in surface samples and drill eastern part of the late Palezoic Eastern Interior Basin
that covered much of Illinois and extended into adjoin
cores in southeastern Kentucky (localities 45-53).
Fusulinids of the same approximate age are found in the ing States. The section in western Kentucky includes
Boggs Limestone Member of the Pottsville Formation in beds ranging in age from Early Pennsylvanian through
eastern Ohio (localities 67, 74, 81). (Also, see fig. 2.) the Late Pennsylvanian and locally contains a remnant
These two parts of the basin are separated by more than of the Early Permian section (fig. 3).
100 miles in which correlative beds have not been iden Fusulinid-bearing marine beds, which are irregularly
tified. The younger section in Ohio contains additional interspersed with sandstone, shale, and coal beds, are
fusulinid-bearing marine horizons represented by the more persistent laterally than they are in the Ap
upper and lower Mercer Limestone Members (as used by palachian Basin. A relatively complete fusulinid succes
Smyth, 1957) of the Pottsville Formation. sion through the Middle and Upper Pennsylvanian is
The section in eastern Kentucky lacks fusulinid- available from surface exposures and drill-core samples.
bearing beds through most of the rest of the rocks of The oldest fusulinid horizon is a little older than any
Middle Pennsylvanian age. Small indeterminate represented in the Appalachian Basin and is found in the
fusulinids were found at locality 55 in Carter County in Lead Creek Limestone Member of the Tradewater For
rocks assigned to the Vanport Limestone Member of the mation. This horizon is present in surface samples in
Allegheny Formation. Abundant fusulinids occur on the southern Indiana and in surface and drill-core samples in
Ohio border at locality 61 in Greenup County, Ky. The seven counties in western Kentucky. It has not been
limestone at this locality was assigned to the Vanport recognized in Illinois (fig. 4). The youngest fusulinid
Limestone by Phalen (1912) but is now considered horizon is of Early Permian age and is known only from
equivalent to the Columbiana Limestone Member of the an unnamed limestone in the Mauzy Formation in a
Allegheny Formation in Ohio. Fusulinid-bearing graben of the Rough Creek Fault system (locality 19) in
limestones are present at several levels through the Union County, Ky. Rocks containing fusulinids of latest
Allegheny Formation in Ohio. The most persistent Pennsylvanian age are found at locality 1 in Cumberland
marine horizons are the Putnam Hill Limestone, the County, 111.
Vanport Limestone, and the Columbiana Limestone, all
members of the Allegheny Formation. The principal FAUNAL SUCCESSION
area of outcrop for these units is in east-central Ohio,
but the outcrops extend in a limited way into western Fusulinid zonations based on genera are commonly
Pennsylvania (localities 86, 87). used to recognize divisions of the Pennsylvanian and
Marine zones of Late Pennsylvanian age are geo Permian succession (Douglass, 1977). The rocks of the
graphically more limited in the basin. The section in Eastern Interior Basin and the Appalachian Basin can
eastern Kentucky includes fusulinid-bearing beds of the be assigned to the fusulinid zones as commonly used,
Brush Creek and Cambridge Limestone Members of the but, because of the large amount of data assembled for
Conemaugh Formation. These strata were found in out this study, it is appropriate to restudy the use of the
crops and drill cores only in Boyd, Carter, and Lawrence zones as they apply specifically to these basins. The
Counties in northeastern Kentucky (localities 54-61). following discussion indicates the uses and the limita
No occurrences have been confirmed from the adjoining tions of fusulinid zonation for correlation within and be
areas of West Virginia. The Ohio part of the basin con tween the basins.
tains additional fusulinid horizons in the Conemaugh
Formation in the areas of outcrop from Gallia County to ZONE OF MILLERELLA
Guernsey County. The principal units, as in Kentucky,
are the Brush Creek and Cambridge Limestone The zone of Millerella is commonly recognized as in
Members that represent the Missourian Series. The cluding beds of Early Pennsylvanian age below the first
Ames and Gaysport Limestone Members of the Con occurrence of Profusulinella. The genus Millerella is not
emaugh Formation also yield fusulinids at some well defined and ranges in age from at least Early Penn
localities in the same area. These horizons represent sylvanian to possible Permian. The upper limit of the
Virgilian age. One locality (88) in Pennsylvania at zone is indefinite in the absence of Profusulinella.
Brilliant Cut contains fusulinids that suggest Virgilian Millerella is present in rocks starting below the first
age. No fusulinids younger than the Conemaugh are Profusulinella and continuing into younger beds in
known from the Appalachian Basin. several parts of the basins studied, but no attempt was