Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:55:03.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taphonomic Signature and the Imprint of Taphonomic History: Discriminating Between Taphofacies of the Inner Continental Shelf and a Microtidal Inlet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

George M. Staff  and
Eric N. Powell
George M. Staff
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843
Eric N. Powell
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843
Get access

Extract

Although taphonomic processes alter or destroy much of the preservable portion of the original community, many of these processes also imprint valuable paleoecological information about the fauna and the environment of deposition which might be employed in paleoenvironmental reconstruction (Brett and Baird, 1986; Speyer and Brett, 1986, 1988). Accordingly, taphonomic analysis of modern and ancient death assemblages has received much attention recently (Powell et al., in press; Parsons et al., 1988; Kidwell and Behrensmeyer, 1988) and a new concept, that of the taphofacies, has been developed (e.g., Speyer, 1988). Taphofacies are based on distinct suites of taphonomic characteristics, taphonomic signatures, imprinted on the shell material and on its relationship to the sedimentary fabric by mixtures of physical, biological and chemical processes, which potentially are unique for a given environment. Ideally, if unique taphonomic signatures can be identified and the formative processes understood in a wide range of modern environments, this baseline can be employed to make more accurate reconstructions of equivalent paleoenvironments.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Paleontological Society Special Publications , Volume 5: Paleocommunity Temporal Dynamics: The Long-Term Development of Multispecies Assemblies , 1990 , pp. 370 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

Alexandersson, E.T. 1978. Destructive diagenesis of carbonate sediments in the eastern Skagerrak, North Sea. Geology. 6:324–327.Google Scholar
Alexandersson, E.T. 1979. Marine maceration of skeletal carbonates in the Skagerrak, North Sea, Sedimentology, 26:845–852.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E., and Baird, G.C. 1986. Comparative taphonomy: a key to paleoenvironmental interpretation based on fossil preservation. Palaios, 1:207–227.Google Scholar
Brown, L.F. Jr., Brewton, J.L., McGowen, J.H., Evans, T.J., Fisher, W.L. and Groat, C. G. 1976. Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas coastal zone–Corpus Christi area. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. 123 p.Google Scholar
Carthew, R., and Bosence, D. 1986. Community preservation in recent shell-gravels, English Channel. Palaeontology, 29:243–268.Google Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986. The size-frequency distribution in palaeoecology: the effects of taphonomic processes during formation of death assemblages in Texas bays. Palaeontology, 29:495–518.Google Scholar
Curray, J.R. 1960. Sediments and history of Holocene transgression, continental shelf, northwest Gulf of Mexico, p. 221–266. In Shepard, F.P., Phleger, F.B. and van Andel, T.H. (eds.), Recent sediments. northwest Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Davies, D.J., Powell, E.N., and Stanton, R.J. Jr. In press. Taphonomic signature as a function of environmental process: shells and shell beds in a hurricane-influenced inlet on the Texas coast. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.Google Scholar
Davies, D.J., Staff, G. M., Callender, W. R., and Powell, E. N. This volume. Description of a quantitative approach to taphonomy and taphofacies analysis: all dead things are not created equal.Google Scholar
Dörjes, J., Frey, R. W., and Howard, J.D. 1986. Origins of, and mechanisms for, mollusk shell accumulations on Georgia beaches. Senckenbergiana Maritima., 18:1–43.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E.G. 1967. Experimental field study of shell abrasion. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37:1117–1123.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E.G. 1970. Selective bivalve shell destruction in marine environments, a field study. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 40:898–905.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E.G., and Weltin, T. P. 1973. Sedimentary parameters as factors in abrasive shell reduction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 13:275–288.Google Scholar
Farrow, G.E, Allen, N.H., and Akpan, E.B. 1984. Bioclastic carbonate sedimentation on a high-latitude, tide-dominated shelf: northeast Orkney Islands, Scotland. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54:373–393.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, M.G., Parmenter, C.M., and Milliman, J.D. 1979. Particulate calcium carbonate in New England shelf waters: result of shell degradation and resuspension. Sedimentology, 26:853–857.Google Scholar
Flessa, K.W., and Brown, T. J. 1983. Selective solution of macroinvertebrate calcareous hard parts: a laboratory study. Lethaia 16:193–205.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W., and Howard, J.D. 1986. Taphonomic characteristics of offshore mollusk shells; Sapelo Island, Georgia. Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, 19:51–61.Google Scholar
Henderson, S.W., and Frey, R.W. 1986. Taphonomic redistribution of mollusk shells in a tidal inlet channel, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Palaios. 1:3–16.Google Scholar
Israel, A.M., Ethridge, F.G., and Estes, E.L. 1987. A sedimentologic description of a microtidal, flood-tidal delta, San Luis Pass, Texas. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 57:288–300.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S.M., and Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1988. Overview: ecological and evolutionary implications of taphonomic processes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 63:1–13.Google Scholar
Norris, R.D. 1986. Taphonomic gradients in shelf fossil assemblages: Pliocene Purisima Formation, California. Palaios. 1:256–270.Google Scholar
Parker, R.H. 1960. Ecology and distributional patterns of marine macroinvertebrates, northern Gulf of Mexico p. 302–337. In Shepard, F.P., Phleger, F.B., and van Andel, T.H. (eds.), Recent sediments, northwest Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Parsons, K.M., Brett, C.E., and Miller, K.B. 1988. Taphonomy and depositional dynamics of Devonian shell-rich mudstones. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 63:109–139.Google Scholar
Poulicek, M., Jaspar-Versali, M.F., and Goffinet, G. 1981. Etude expérimentale de la dégradation des coquilles de mollusques au niveau des sédiments marins. Bulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liege, 50:513–518.Google Scholar
Powell, E.N, Staff, G.M., Davies, D.J. and Callender, W.R. In press. Macrobenthic death assemblages in modern marine environments: formation, interpretation and application. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences.Google Scholar
Powell, E.N, Stanton, R. J. Jr., Davies, D., and Logan, A. 1986. Effect of a large larval settlement and catastrophic mortality on the ecologic record of the community in the death assemblage. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 23:513–525.Google Scholar
Snedden, J.W., Nummendal, D., and Amos, A.F. 1988. Storm- and fair-weather combined flow on the central Texas continental shelf. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 58:580–595.Google Scholar
Speyer, S.E. 1987. Comparative taphonomy and palaeoecology of trilobite lagerstätten. Alcheringa, 11:205–232.Google Scholar
Speyer, S.E., and Brett, C.E. 1986. Trilobite taphonomy and Middle Devonian taphofacies. Palaios, 1:312–327.Google Scholar
Speyer, S.E., and Brett, C.E. 1988. Taphofacies models for epeiric sea environments: middle Paleozoic examples. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 63:225–262.Google Scholar