Summary One of the most striking results of the Deep Sea Drilling Project is the proof that organic-rich sediments have a widespread geographical distribution during the period from Upper Cenomanian to Middle Turonian. Such sediments were drilled at North Atlantic DSDP Sites: 105, 135, 137, 138, 367, 398, 551, 603. They are also present (from outcrops or oil wells) on the shelf of the African continental margin (Senegal, Tarfaya and Agadir Basins), in the Tethys (former Alboran Block, Southern Spain, Algeria, Tunisia and Umbrian Apennines/Italy), and in the North Sea. Although these sediments have different lithologies and depositional environments (from shelf areas to the deep sea), their study, mainly based on organic geochemistry with additional data on sedimentology, biostratigraphy and palaeo-bathymetry, suggests that a unique ‘pulse’ of organogenic accumulation characterizes the Cenomanian/Turonian Boundary Event (CTBE). The content and type of organic matter are related to the depositional environment and organic preservation. The organogenic accumulation is distributed according to various trends. Off the African continental margin the organic content increases from onshore areas to the shelf (Casamance area), and, moreover, increases also in deep sea areas, with a gradual transition from terrestrial type III to marine type II (the best preservation of the organic matter being in the deepest areas, i.e. Site 367). Off the American continental margin Site 603 shows the same TOC and type of organic matter as at Site 105. The CTBE is also well recorded in the northern part of the Atlantic (Celtic margin, North Sea) by a drastic lithological change (black shales within chalks), but the type of organic matter is mainly terrestrial. In the Tethyan area the organic matter is of marine origin and well preserved. Results are compared with those of Pratt (1984) from the Western Interior Basin of the USA. Different hypotheses to explain this synchronous widespread accumulation of organic matter are discussed.

No abstract

Summary The heteromorph ammonoids are quoted as a favourite example of degeneration and the decline of a Bauplan‘condemned’ to extinction. With astonishing tenacity this view of the heteromorphs as ‘phylogenetic end‐forms’ has embedded itself in the palaeontological literature and is still current. This is contradicted by the most recent investigations, directed especially at the Cretaceous heteromorphs, which necessitate correction of the typolysis concept as well as modification of the most uncontested of the phylogenetic ‘laws’, Dollo's ‘law of irreversibility’. Contrary to the usual textbook hypothesis, the heteromorphs return in several evolutionary lineages to normal coiling of the shell and, in general, to a phylogenetically older type of suture line. At the same time these results encourage fresh reflexion on possible exogenous causes of phylogenetic extinction of the ammonoids. A clear causal connexion exists between this extinction and the far‐reaching epirogenic changes in sea level in the late Cretaceous; cosmic explanations are unnecessary. In conclusion it may be added that the precipitate formulation of phylogenetic ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ based on too little basic information has encumbered this branch of palaeontology with a stifling set of prejudices rather than providing it with guide lines crystallized from long experience and observation. It is vitally necessary in the interests of palaeontology that interpretation and observation be separated far more than has been the case in the past.

Summary 1. Biological revolutions at major stratigraphical boundaries have been given numerous explanations involving endogenous biological, exogenous ecological, physical, and cosmic, as well as sedimentary or chemical factors. In an attempt to elucidate the true nature of these faunal revolutions and to assess the possible influence of biological and/or physical factors, the evolution of ammonites at the boundaries of Mesozoic stratigraphical Systems is reviewed. It is believed that the more detailed data now available can give a clearer impression of evolutionary events at these boundaries. 2. It can be demonstrated that there is neither an abrupt and world‐wide extinction, nor a spontaneous replacement by new elements at these caesuras as had been generally supposed to have occurred at the Triassic‐Jurassic boundary, for example. Instead, one can recognize three distinct phases in the sequence of events: (1) a continuous disappearance of the ‘antique’ faunal elements; (2) a similarly continuous, gradual, and largely synchronous appearance of, or substitution by, qualitatively distinguishable ‘modern’ elements in small populations, yet in various parallel lineages (mosaic evolution); (3) a quite revolutionary, and quantitatively very sudden, diversification of these new elements, occurring at or with some delay above the boundary. 3. Thus one can demonstrate both continuous evolution of the modern faunas (‘preadaptational phase’), as well as ‘discontinuous’ spontaneous revolution, which does not produce qualitatively new characters and must be explained by diversification or adaptive radiation. This means that no further explanation by internal factors or by higher mutation rates resulting from the impact of cosmic rays becomes necessary. It is believed that, preceded by high extinction rates, world‐wide ecological factors promoting higher niche diversity suffice to explain these adaptive radiations. The high degree of provincialism, endemism and specialization of the ‘antique’ faunas and the constant survival of smooth oxycones — regarded as inhabitants of a deep‐sea environment — demonstrate that marine regressions and transgressions were the most effective ecological factors. 4. If there is not too much time involved between the two events, the caesura (Faunenschnitt) between final extinction of the old faunas and the radiation of the new is the most appropriate point by which to define System boundaries.