Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 What is the consensus on the name of the formation exposed at Mineral Wells Fossil Park? I've seen both Keechi Creek Shale of the Mineral Wells Formation, Strawn Group, Missouri Series (Pennsylvanian Period) and I've seen Salesville Shale, Desmoinesian. Does anyone have a citation for a peer-reviewed paper that provides empirical data supporting the formation name given and correlating it with other exposures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Here’s what mine says. Sorry I don’t have the reference, and the reference looks like it’s to another map Hope a local can answer “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Paleontologist Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 As per this reasonably official looking website: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/SalesvilleRefs_10437.html The Salesville Shale seems to be a member of the Mineral Wells Formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 @BobWill Bob, know of any citations? In McKinzie's "Color Guide to Pennsylvanian Fossils of North Texas," he says the Wynn Limestone of the Palo Pinto Formation is on top of the Keechi Creek Shale of the Mineral Wells Formation. My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 @WhodamanHD, @Cowboy Paleontologist, @DPS Ammonite. Thanks all. The Pennsylvanian Atlas of Ancient Life has the Keechi Creek Fm. in the Missourian Stage and the Mineral Wells Fm. in the Desmoinesian. I know that there are differing classifications where some call strata a group comprised of formations while others call it a formation comprised of members, and so on. But usually they are at least in the same stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, doushantuo said: There we go. That explains some things. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 In McKinzie's book mentioned above, he says that Nestell in 1989 (no complete reference given) placed the Missourian/ Desmoinian contact within the East Mountain Shale of the Mineral Wells Formation. EDIT: added figure and text. @Peat Burns Guess for Nestell reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283296318_Middle_and_Late_Pennsylvanian_chronostratigraphic_boundaries_in_North-Central_Texas_Glacial_eustatic_events_biostratigraphy_and_paleoecology My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, doushantuo said: What is the source of these dou? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 No,last one from a Nordstrom report on the hydro(geo)logy of the area The one above that from a hi-res stratigraphical study by Darwin Boardman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said: EDIT: added figure and text. @Peat Burns That's helpful. Thank you. So it looks like, regardless of variations in nomenclature that MWFP is Keechi Creek (Fm/Sh) and in the Missourian. Thanks all for the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 I see reference is made to an unknown fusulinid Pennoceras has been revised in 2007(Work/Boardman et al),will try to get that paper I think(could be wrong) that isochroneity of biostratigraphical datum planes need not be equivalent to (iso)chronostratigraphic lithological boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 For those interested: the very base of the Missourian of the Midcontinent USA seems to have no fusulinid zone fossil(it's "unzoned" between the Beedeina eximia-Beedeina acme* zone and the Euwaeringella ultimata zone).(fide Garcia,her thesis(2017) * "maximal abundance" Below(Wahlmann/Stratigraphy/2013): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, doushantuo said: For those interested: the very base of the Missourian of the Midcontinent USA seems to have no fusulinid zone fossil(it's "unzoned" between the Beedeina eximia-Beedeina acme* zone and the Euwaeringella ultimata zone).(fide Garcia,her thesis(2017) * "maximal abundance" Below(Wahlmann/Stratigraphy/2013): I've been sifting matrix from mineral wells looking for some and haven't found any yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Dat sux! Maybe they are absent from lowstand tracts?Facies control? Mesh size? no fuzzies reported from Hepler,Shale Hill,Hertha(first ones from Sniabar LS),but that might not point to the cause,I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, doushantuo said: Dat sux! Maybe they are absent from lowstand tracts? Mesh size? I still haven't gotten to the finer fractions of the USGS seive series that I selected yet (can't remember mesh sizes off hand but definitely small enough), so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 something like this would be handy,though edit: If I am to believe Wahlmann(no reason why I shouldn't)the fusulinid -free interval is above incised-valley facies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, doushantuo said: something like this would be handy,though but that's mainly because the Russians like their Moscovian biostrat very detailed They're proud of their Pennsylvanian nomenclature and want perfection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 If the brachiopod Mesolobus turns up, that would place it within the Desmoinesian. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.