Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T18:29:03.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the age of the Hungry Hollow Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Dale R. Sparling
Dale R. Sparling*
Affiliation:
Earth Science Program, Southwest State University, Marshall, Minnesota 56258
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the paper by J. Keith Rigby (1991) in the January issue of the Journal, the Hungry Hollow Formation of southwestern Ontario is correlated with the basal Ludlowvillian Centerfield Limestone of New York. The new species of heteractinid sponge described in the paper was thus considered to be older than the designated type species of his new genus Gondekia, which is from the middle Ludlowvillian Wanakah Shale. The correlation was referred to as that of Rickard (1984) and was consistent with others going back several decades. It was also included in subsequent correlations based on conodont biostratigraphy (Johnson et al., 1985; Sparling, 1985) that are otherwise largely at odds with Rickard's conclusions. However, Brett and Baird (1985) provided convincing evidence that the Centerfield is a regressive unit between shales representing deeper water sedimentation, whereas the Hungry Hollow appears to be the basal unit of a transgressive sequence of strata and thus unlikely to be of the same age. Evidence for this was supplied by Landing and Brett (1987), who described a previously unrecognized disconformity beneath the Hungry Hollow and noted its regional significance. They also reported finding a single specimen of the conodont Polygnathus timorensis in the Hungry Hollow. This is the guide fossil for the Lower varcus Subzone, to which the Centerfield has been assigned, so placement of both units in at least the same conodont subzone was justified at that time.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , March 1992 , pp. 339
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

Brett, C. E., and Baird, G. C. 1985. Carbonate-shale cycles in the Middle Devonian of New York: an evaluation of models for the origin of limestones in terrigenous shelf sequences. Geology, 13:324–327.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. G. 1970. Taghanic onlap and the end of North American Devonian provinciality. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 81:2077–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. G., Klapper, G., and Sandberg, C. A. 1985. Devonian eustatic fluctuations in Euramerica. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 96:567–587.Google Scholar
Landing, E., and Brett, C. E. 1987. Trace fossils and regional significance of a Middle Devonian (Givetian) disconformity in southwestern Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 61:205–230.Google Scholar
Rickard, L. V. 1984. Correlation of the subsurface Lower and Middle Devonian of the Lake Erie region. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 95:814–828.Google Scholar
Rigby, J. K. 1991. The new Devonian (Givetian) heteractinid sponge Gondekia from Ontario, Canada, and evolution of the astraeospongiids and eiffeliids. Journal of Paleontology, 65:38–44.Google Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1985. Correlation of the subsurface Lower and Middle Devonian of the Lake Erie region: alternative interpretation. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 96:1213–1218.Google Scholar
Sparling, D. R. 1988. Middle Devonian stratigraphy and conodont biostratigraphy, north-central Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science, 88:2–18.Google Scholar
Uyeno, T. T., Telford, P. G., and Sanford, B. V. 1982. Devonian conodonts and stratigraphy of southwestern Ontario. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 332, 55 p.Google Scholar