Larger Foraminifera Research Articles

Lower Tertiary of Puerto Rico

Larger Foraminifera, indicating correlation with upper Paleocene or lower Eocene deposits of Barbados and Trinidad, have been found at one locality (Loiza) in the deformed older rocks of Puerto Rico. These rocks have hitherto been widely accepted as being exclusively Late Cretaceous in age. At another locality (Corozal), smaller Foraminifera indicative of probable Paleocene age and a fauna of minute mollusks and crinoid columnals of uncertain age (more probably Tertiary than Late Cretaceous) have been found in the same sequence of formations. A thick section of beds in the San Juan area is thought on lithologic grounds to be correlative with the Corozal and Loiza Lower Tertiary. All recognized Lower Tertiary rocks give evidence of active volcanism. There is no readily app rent lithologic criterion to differentiate the Lower Tertiary rocks from the Upper Cretaceous on an island-wide basis. At Loiza the Lower Tertiary is conformable with the inferred Upper Cretaceous. The major Antillean crustal revolution in Puerto Rico is therefore demonstrated to be early Tertiary in age.

XV.—Recent publications on larger imperforate foraminifera of the Middle East

XV.—<i>Recent publications on larger imperforate foraminifera of the Middle East</i>

Large Foraminifera in the Flysch Formation of the Polish Carpathians

Large Foraminifera in the Flysch Formation of the Polish Carpathians

American Old and Middle Tertiary Larger Foraminifera and Corals. Part I. American Paleocene and Eocene Larger Foraminifera.Thomas Wayland VaughanAmerican Old and Middle Tertiary Larger Foraminifera and Corals. Part II. West Indian Eocene and Miocene Corals.John West Wells

<i>American Old and Middle Tertiary Larger Foraminifera and Corals. Part I. American Paleocene and Eocene Larger Foraminifera.</i>Thomas Wayland Vaughan<i>American Old and Middle Tertiary Larger Foraminifera and Corals. Part II. West Indian Eocene and Miocene Corals.</i>John West Wells

Neglected Gulf Coast Microfauna: ABSTRACT

Micropaleontology as a profession is scarcely more than 20 years old. In the region of the Gulf Coast the interest of micropaleontologists has centered chiefly on the smaller foraminifera, and to a lesser degree on the larger foraminifera and ostracodes. Despite the excellent monographs on bryozoa by Canu and Bassler, little use has been made of these organisms. Commercial reports occasionally mention certain lamellibranchs, gastropods, or otoliths, though seldom specifically. Fossil remains of other groups of organisms are not infrequently combined under the descriptive term shell-fragments. That the major interest of micropaleontologists should have centered on the foraminifera, both large and small, is not surprising, because of their abundance and excellent preserva ion in the deltaic clays and clayey sands, which predominate in the salt-dome region westward from the Mississippi River to the Rio Grande. Eastward from the Mississippi, however, terrigenous sediments rapidly diminish in quantity, with limes and chalks increasing in abundance. Many of these limes have been subjected to leaching since deposition. The smaller foraminifera appear to have been more soluble than other organisms. Because of the increasing interest in possible oil production from these eastern Gulf Coast states, the purpose of this paper is to point out not only the desirability of utilizing certain easily recognized and abundant species of bryozoa, but to note the occurrence and possible use of crinoids, holothurians, End_Page 898------------------------------ barnacles, crab's claws, diatoms, and other organisms. Of these, only the crabs have recently received more than passing attention. Despite the abundance of crinoid remains in several horizons, at numerous localities, the writer knows of no previous mention of them from the Gulf Coast Tertiary, nor has he seen previous reference to holothurians from the same region. End_of_Article - Last_Page 899------------

Neglected Gulf Coast Tertiary Microfossils

Micropaleontology as a profession is scarcely more than 20 years old. In the region of the Gulf Coast the interest of micropaleontologists has centered chiefly on the smaller foraminifera, and to a lesser degree on the larger foraminifera and ostracodes. Despite the excellent monographs on bryozoa by Canu and Bassler, little use has been made of these organisms. Commercial reports occasionally mention certain lamellibranchs, gastropods, or otoliths, though seldom specifically. Fossil remains of other groups of organisms are not infrequently mentioned under the descriptive term shell-fragments. That the major interest of micropaleontologists should have centered on the foraminifera, both large and small, is not surprising, because of their abundance and excellent preserv tion in the deltaic clays and clayey sands, which predominate in the salt-dome region westward from the Mississippi River to the Rio Grande. Eastward from the Mississippi, however, terrigenous sediments rapidly diminish in quantity, with limestones and chalks increasing in abundance. Many of these limestones have been subjected to leaching since deposition. The smaller foraminifera appear to have been more soluble than other organisms. Because of the increasing interest in possible oil production from these eastern Gulf Coast states, the purpose of this paper is to point out not only the desirability of using certain easily recognized and abundant species of bryozoa, but to note the occurrence and possible use of ophiurans, comatulid crinoids, starfish, and holothurians. Despite the abundant remains of these four classes of Echinodermata, the writer knows of no previous mention of any of these from the Gulf Coast Tertiary. Possible use of barnacles, crustacean claws, diatoms, and other organisms is also mentioned briefly. A locality list is given to show where the remains of these organisms may be readily obtained.

The Larger Foraminifera of the Lower Miocene of Victoria. By I. Crespin. Palaeontological Bulletin No. 2. pp. 1–13, plates 1–2, maps 1. Published by the Department of the Interior. Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra. 1936. Price not stated.

The Larger Foraminifera of the Lower Miocene of Victoria. By I. Crespin. Palaeontological Bulletin No. 2. pp. 1–13, plates 1–2, maps 1. Published by the Department of the Interior. Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra. 1936. Price not stated.

Societies and Academies

Societies and Academies

On Gypsina plana, and on the Systematic Position of the Stromatoporoids

ABSTRACT The study of the collection of large specimens of Gypsina plana (Carter) made by Professor J. Stanley Gardiner in the Indian Ocean, and described by Miss Lindsey in 1913 suggested to me the opinion that there is some relationship between these large Foraminifera and the ancient Stromatoporoids. My recent investigations of specimens collected by Dr. Crossland in Tahiti have so far strengthened and confirmed this opinion that I have no doubt now that the Stromatoporoids were Foraminifera. This conception of the systematic position of the Stromatoporoids is by no means new, as it was held very strongly by W. B. Carpenter and others in the nineteenth century ; but as the text-books on Palaeontology still classify these fossils with the Hydrozoa it is necessary to call for a reconsideration of the problem in the light of recent discoveries.

Larger Foraminifera from the Eocene of Santa Elena Peninsula, Ecuador

THE present paper gives a general account of the larger foraminifera from the Santa Elena Peninsula in south-west Ecuador, with descriptions of three new species. All the material except that from the Guayaquil Limestone was obtained from the concessions of the Anglo-Ecuadorian Oilfields, Limited, to whom my thanks are due for permission to publish these results.

Larger Foraminifera from the Tertiary of Somaliland.

Larger Foraminifera from the Tertiary of Somaliland.

Larger Foraminifera from the Tertiary of Somaliland

Larger Foraminifera from the Tertiary of Somaliland

Larger Foraminifera from the Tertiary of Somaliland

The foraminifera here described were collected by C. Barrington Brown in the course of a survey as geological member of the Anglo-Italian Boundary Commission of Somaliland in 1929–30. We are indebted to him for the opportunity of investigating these specimens and for the use of his unpublished maps and field-reports.

Dr. C. W. Gümbel on Deep-Sea Mud

DR. C. W. GUMBEL has recently published an important paper, containing an account of some highly interesting investigations on Deep-sea Mud. Sir R. Murchison and Professor Huxley provided him with a large quantity of mud, taken up from the Atlantic at lat. 29° 36′ 54″ N., and long. 18° 19′ 48″ W., at a depth of about 2,350 fathoms. This he first cleared, by long-continued washing, from all sea-salts soluble in water; then he divided it, by filtering, into three parts. In the first Foraminifera and larger organisms predominated; the second consisted of a sediment easily distinguished from the first, fine but heavy; the third was fine and flaky, remaining lightly suspended in water, and consisting almost exclusively of Bathybius, Coccoliths, Coccospheres, together with other organisms of the smallest kind (Diatoms, Radiolaria, Sponge-spicules, and a very few of the smallest Foraminifera). “Dried to about 100° C.” says Dr. Gümbel, “10 per cent, of the mud consisted of large Foraminifera; 1.3 per cent, of fine, heavy mud; and 88.7 per cent, of finest Bathybius mud. The 10 per cent, part consisted mostly of Globigerina, which occurred in an astonishing variety of forms, from the smallest shapes to figures of a considerable size, and could easily be distinguished as Gl. bulloides and Gl. inflata. Next to these in number were Orbulina universa, Cristellaria crepidula, Truncatulina lobatula, Discorbina rosacea, Rotalia soldanii, R. orbicularis, Pulvinulina elegans; P. micheliana, Nonionina umbilicata, Polystomella crispa, Lituola globigeriniiformis, with many other (but more dismembered) species. Along with these there were individual specimens of large Radiolaria, Siliceous Sponge-spicules, Diatoms, shells of Ostracoda, torn pieces of sponge and (very rarely) of Echinodermata, and fragments of wood, which were very decidedly distinguishable. It is a question whether the latter was a part of the apparatus used in raising the mud. It is in the highest degree remarkable that all traces of Bryozoa, corals, and firm pieces of more highly-organised animals, were wanting, or at least were very rare.