Abstract
Maastrichtian–Danian sediments of the Navesink and Hornerstown formations at the Jean and Ric Edelman Fossil Park of Rowan University in Mantua Township, New Jersey, have long intrigued paleontologists. Within the basal Hornerstown Formation occurs the Main Fossiliferous Layer (MFL), a regionally well-known and diverse bonebed. The lithostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic position of this fossil layer have been debated for more than 50 years, fueling debate over its origin. Herein, we present the results of a microstratigraphic analysis of the fossil composition and distribution of the MFL undertaken to rectify these discrepancies. Through methodical top-down excavation, we recorded the three-dimensional position of every fossil encountered. Three-dimensional visualization and analyses of these data in ArcGIS Pro yielded an unprecedented view of this bonebed. Most reported discrepancies about the stratigraphic placement and thickness of the MFL can be explained by the presence of two distinct fossil assemblages within this interval that are occasionally combined into a single bonebed. The stratigraphically-lower assemblage, herein termed an “oyster layer”, is geometrically-tabular and exhibits low taxonomic diversity, high abundance of the oyster Pycnodonte, and moderate taxonomic richness. The stratigraphically-higher assemblage, the MFL, occurs approximately 9 cm higher in section and exhibits high values of taxonomic diversity, fossil abundance, and taxonomic richness. Sedimentological homogeneity throughout this interval suggests that these faunal contrasts arise from the two assemblages having formed via independent taphonomic pathways. Specifically, prevalence of Pycnodonte in the oyster layer implies formation by a selective mortality event, whereas the diversity of the MFL appears to reflect a more universal agent of mortality. Spatial variations in the stratigraphic distribution of fossils within the MFL in our excavation area indicate this assemblage does not form a simple, tabular layer as previously thought and may, in part, record original bathymetry. Importantly, our definition of the MFL and detailed characterization of its stratigraphic placement are essential for future studies on the taphonomic origin and chronostratigraphy of this bonebed. Universal use of this definition would allow researchers to confidently elucidate the exact lithostratigraphic positions of precise chronostratigraphic indicators within the MFL and accurately estimate the degree of time averaging of its fossils.
Highlights
The Navesink and Hornerstown formations represent Maastrichtian–Danian deposits from an organic-rich, siliciclastic, shallow marine shelf composed of unconsolidated glauconitic greensands (Gallagher, 1993; Obasi et al, 2011)
Among these fossils are many taxa known to be common in the Main Fossiliferous Layer (MFL) at Edelman Fossil Park (e.g., Pycnodonte, Cucullaea vulgaris, Odontaspis cuspidata; Gallagher, 1993; Gallagher, 2003) as well as less common taxa (e.g., Sphenodiscus lobatus, associated Euclastes wielandi remains, a partial hexanchid shark tooth), indicating that the fauna we recovered is reasonably representative of the fauna of the MFL as a whole
As the largest historically-available outcrop of sediments spanning the Navesink-Hornerstown contact, Jean and Ric Edelman Fossil Park has been an important place for research on the geology, taphonomy, and taxonomy of these regional deposits
Summary
The Navesink and Hornerstown formations represent Maastrichtian–Danian deposits from an organic-rich, siliciclastic, shallow marine shelf composed of unconsolidated glauconitic greensands (Gallagher, 1993; Obasi et al, 2011). Edelman Fossil Park has been the focus of numerous studies concerning the stratigraphy and paleoecological transitions across the K/Pg boundary on the Atlantic Coastal Plain (e.g., Gallagher, 1993; Gallagher, 2002; Obasi et al, 2011; Wiest et al, 2016; Esmeray-Senlet et al, 2017) At this important locality, reports of the thickness of the MFL and its stratigraphic position above the underlying Navesink Formation vary greatly among many of these investigations. The origin of this bonebed has received various interpretation, such as a reworked lag deposit (Minard et al, 1969; Kennedy and Cobban, 1996; Gallagher, 2002; Landman et al, 2012; Horner et al, 2016; Esmeray-Senlet et al, 2017), condensed assemblage (Gallagher and Parris, 1996; Olsson et al, 2002; Gallagher, 2003, Gallagher, 2012; Wiest et al, 2016), or thanatocoenosis (Gallagher, 1993; Obasi et al, 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
