Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:22:34.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Miocene Tayassuidae (Mammalia) from the Chesapeake Group of the Mid-Atlantic coast and their bearing on marine-nonmarine correlation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

David B. Wright  and
Ralph E. Eshelman
David B. Wright
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01003
Ralph E. Eshelman
Affiliation:
Calvert Marine Museum, Solomons, Maryland 20688 and Research Associate, Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four morphologically distinct tayassuid species are present in the marine strata of the lower Chesapeake Group in Maryland and Virginia. The oldest of these, an unnamed species, occurs in bed 2 of the Calvert Formation and is the only terrestrial mammal yet known from this unit. In the upper Calvert and lower Choptank Formations three tayassuid species resemble closely in size and morphology taxa known from the middle and upper Miocene Olcott and Valentine Formations in Nebraska. “Cynorca proterva” and “Prosthennops” xiphidonticus are present in beds 10 and 14, respectively, of the Calvert Formation. “Prosthennops” niobrarensis occurs in bed 17 of the Choptank Formation. These taxa, considered together with the other known terrestrial mammals from the Chesapeake Group, indicate the following correlations with land mammal faunas from western North America: bed 2, ?late Arikareean or early Hemingfordian; bed 10, late Hemingfordian or early Barstovian; bed 14, early late Barstovian; bed 17, late late Barstovian. These correlations are largely concordant with micropaleontogical correlations for the Chesapeake Group, but the age indicated for bed 17 is younger than an age estimate based on diatoms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 604 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, W. H. 1978. Correlation and zonation of Miocene strata along the Atlantic margin of North America using diatoms and silicoflagellates. Marine Micropaleontology, 3:15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, W. H. 1982. Diatom biostratigraphy of the Chesapeake Group, Virginia and Maryland, p. 23–34. In Scott, T. M. and Upchurch, S. B. (eds.), Miocene of the Southeastern United States. Florida Bureau of Geology Special Publication 25.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1976. Miocene marine diatoms from the Choptank Formation, Calvert County, Maryland. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 910, 26 p.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1978. Marine diatom sequence in Miocene strata of the Chesapeake Bay region, Maryland. Micropaleontology, 24:371–406.Google Scholar
Barbour, E. H. 1925. Prosthennops xiphidonticus sp. nov., a new fossil peccary from Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum, 1:25–32.Google Scholar
Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., and Van Couvering, J. A. In press. Neogene geochronology and chronostratigraphy. Geological Society of London.Google Scholar
Berry, C. T. 1938. A Miocene dog from Maryland. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 85(3035):159–161.Google Scholar
Blackwelder, B. W. 1981. Late Cenozoic marine deposition in the United States coastal plain related to tectonism and global climate. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 34:87–114.Google Scholar
Blackwelder, B. W. and Ward, L. W. 1976. Stratigraphy of the Chesapeake Group of Maryland and Virginia. Geological Society of America, Guidebook for Field Trip 7b, Joint Meeting of Northeastern Southeastern Sections, Arlington, Virginia, 55 p.Google Scholar
Blow, W. H. 1969. Late Eocene to Recent plank-tonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy, p. 199–421. In Bronniman, P. and Renz, H. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference Planktonic Microfossils, Geneva, 1967.Google Scholar
Colbert, E. H. 1935. A new fossil peccary, Prosthennops niobrarensis from Brown County, Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum, 1:419–430.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1867. An addition to the vertebrate fauna of the Miocene period, with a synopsis of the extinct Cetacea of the United States. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 19:138–156.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1868. Second contribution to the history of the vertebrates of the Miocene period of the United States. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 20:184–194.Google Scholar
Dall, W. H. 1904. The relations of the Miocene of Maryland to that of other regions and to the Recent fauna, p. cxxix–xiv. In Clark, W. B., Shattuck, G. B., and Dall, W. H. (eds.), The Miocene Deposits of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey.Google Scholar
Gazin, C. L., and Collins, R. L. 1950. Remains of land mammals from the Miocene of the Chesapeake Bay region. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 116:1–21.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. G. 1971. Miocene of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, p. 1–15. In Gernant, R. E., Gibson, T. G., and Whitmore, F. C. Jr., Environmental history of Maryland Miocene. Field Trip 5 of Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting, Maryland Geological Survey Guidebook 3.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. G. 1982. Depositional framework and paleoenvironments of Miocene strata from North Carolina to Maryland, p. 1–22. In Scott, T. M. and Upchurch, S. B. (eds.), Miocene of the Southeastern United States. Florida Bureau of Geology Special Publication 25.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, L. 1974. Les Tayassuides des phosphorites du Quercy. Palaeovertebrata, 6:55–85.Google Scholar
Harlan, R. 1842. Notice of two fossil mammals from Brunswick Canal, Georgia; with observations on some of the fossil quadrupeds of the United States. American Journal of Science, 43:141–144.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. 1923. Description of two squalodonts recently discovered in the Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, and notes on the shark-toothed cetaceans. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 62:1–69.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. 1969. Cetothere skeletons from the Miocene Choptank Formations of Maryland and Virginia. United States National Museum Bulletin 294, 40 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonover, L. M. 1941. A stratigraphic study of the mollusks of the Calvert and Choptank Formations of southern Maryland. Bulletin of American Paleontology, 25(94B):1–32.Google Scholar
Shattuck, G. B. 1904. Geologic and paleontological relations with a review of earlier investigations, p. 73–94. In Clark, W. B., Shattuck, G. B., and Dall, W. H. (eds.), The Miocene Deposits of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. F., Skinner, S. M., and Gooris, R. J. 1968. Cenozoic rocks and faunas of Turtle Butte, south-central South Dakota. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 138:381–436.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. F., Skinner, S. M., and Gooris, R. J. 1977. Stratigraphy and biostratigraphy of late Cenozoic deposits in central Sioux County, western Nebraska. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 158:271–371.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. F., and Johnson, F. W. 1984. Tertiary stratigraphy and the Frick Collection of fossil vertebrates from north-central Nebraska. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 178:215–268.Google Scholar
Tedford, R. H. 1970. Principles and practices of mammalian geochronology in North America. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Conference, 1:666–703.Google Scholar
Tedford, R. H. and Hunter, M. E. 1984. Miocene marine/non-marine correlations, Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, North America. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and Palaeoecology, 47:129–151.Google Scholar
Tedford, R. H. et al. In press. Faunal succession and biochronology of the Arikareean through Hemphillian interval (late Oligocene through earliest Pliocene epochs), North America. In Woodburne, M. O. (ed.), Vertebrate Paleontology as a Discipline in Geochronology. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ward, L. W. 1984a. Stratigraphy and molluscan assemblages of the Pamunkey and Chesapeake Groups, upper Potomac River, p. 3–52. In Fredericksen, N. O. and Kraft, K. (eds.). Cretaceous and Tertiary stratigraphy, paleontology, and structure, southwestern Maryland and northeastern Virginia. American Association Stratigraphic Palynologists Field Trip Volume and Guidebook.Google Scholar
Ward, L. W. 1984b. Stratigraphy of outcropping Tertiary beds along the Pamunkey River—central Virginia coastal plain, p. 11–78. In Ward, L. W. and Kraft, Kathleen (eds.), Stratigraphy and paleontology of the outcropping Tertiary beds in the Pamunkey River region, central Virginia coastal plain. Guidebook 1984 Field Trip Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association, distributed by Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 1969. The Burge and Minnechaduza Clarendonian mammalian faunas of north-central Nebraska. University of California Publications in Geological Science, 78:1–191.Google Scholar
Whitmore, F. C. 1971. Vertebrate biofacies and paleoenvironments, p. 31–43. In Gernant, R. E., Gibson, T. G., and Whitmore, F. C. (eds.), Environmental history of Maryland Miocene. Maryland Geological Survey Guidebook No. 3.Google Scholar
Wood, H. E., et al. 1941. Nomenclature and correlation of the North American continental Tertiary. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 52:1–48.Google Scholar
Woodburne, M. O. 1969. Systematics, biogeography, and evolution of Cynorca and Dyseohyus (Tayassuidae). American Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 141:273–355.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B. 1983. Later Miocene Tayassuidae (Artiodactyla, Mammalia) of North America. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 350 p.Google Scholar