1983
DOI: 10.5026/jgeography.92.1_43
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biostratigraphic Study of Paleozoic and Mesozoic Groups in Central Andes-Report on the Field Survey-

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, biostratigraphic correlations (Azcuy et al 2007;Grader et al 2008) need to be reconciled with recent radiometric data (Henderson et al 2009) Biostratigraphic comparison between different taxonomic groups in the Copacabana Formation in Bolivia has led to age uncertainties as the unit is time-transgressive (Figures 2 and 4;Grader 2003). For the Permian part of the Copacabana Formation, this has included Wolfcampian (Asselian -mid-Sakmarian) conodont Neogondolella bisselli -Sweetognathodus whitei and fusulinid Pseudoschwagerina texana Assemblage Zones (Sakagami et al 1986(Sakagami et al , 1991Sua ´rez-Riglos et al 1987;Sakagami and Mizuno 1994). The Coal Member was previously thought to be part of the Artinskian (Leonardian) stage as determined by fusulinids (Eoparafusulina gracilus Subzone), conodonts (Neostreptognathous pequopensis-Sweetognathodus behnkeni Assemblage Zone) and small foraminifera (Frontinodosaria -Robuloides), as well as Wolfcampian -Leonardian/Artinskian(?)…”
Section: Previous Paleontological Information and Age Determinations ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, biostratigraphic correlations (Azcuy et al 2007;Grader et al 2008) need to be reconciled with recent radiometric data (Henderson et al 2009) Biostratigraphic comparison between different taxonomic groups in the Copacabana Formation in Bolivia has led to age uncertainties as the unit is time-transgressive (Figures 2 and 4;Grader 2003). For the Permian part of the Copacabana Formation, this has included Wolfcampian (Asselian -mid-Sakmarian) conodont Neogondolella bisselli -Sweetognathodus whitei and fusulinid Pseudoschwagerina texana Assemblage Zones (Sakagami et al 1986(Sakagami et al , 1991Sua ´rez-Riglos et al 1987;Sakagami and Mizuno 1994). The Coal Member was previously thought to be part of the Artinskian (Leonardian) stage as determined by fusulinids (Eoparafusulina gracilus Subzone), conodonts (Neostreptognathous pequopensis-Sweetognathodus behnkeni Assemblage Zone) and small foraminifera (Frontinodosaria -Robuloides), as well as Wolfcampian -Leonardian/Artinskian(?)…”
Section: Previous Paleontological Information and Age Determinations ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These authors did not attempt a biostratigraphic zonation. In contrast, fusulines have been recorded from South America for a century and they have been extensively used in the region (Yamagiwa and Range1 1979;Urdinea and Yamagiwa 1980;Sakagami 1986;Sakagami and Mizuno 1994). Endothyrids are often associated with fusulines in the upper part of carbonate platforms and ramps (Mamet 1984;Beauchamp 1994 One could imagine that the position of the subcontinent in rather high latitudes, as indicated by paleomagnetism (Scotese and Mc Kerrow 1990;Golonka et al 1994), would not favor proliferation of calcareous foraminifers that are normally associated with warm to temperate -warm temperatures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…These represent largely the field observations of this author. A Japanese research group studying the Paleozoic and Mesozoic biostratigraphy of Bolivia has been working partly in the same areas and has published (Sakagmi et al, 1983;Sakagmi, 1984Sakagmi, , 1986 Sakagami (1986) demonstrated that sections of the Copacabana Limestone in the Lake Titicaca area could be sim ply correlated biostratigraphically using a variety of inverte brates, principally fusulinids, brachiopods, bryozoans, and mollusks. My observations confirm this and add the corals as another useful group.…”
Section: Structure and Relationshipsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This assignment was accepted until Dunbar and Newell (1946) described the fusulinid faunas of the Copacabana Lime stone and reassigned the age to the Early Permian, an age ac cepted by later workers (Urdininea and Yamagiwa, 1980) on the fusulinids. However, Sakagami et al (1981;Sakagami, 1986) extended some of their columnar sections down into the Upper Pennsylvanian without explanation. Suarez-Riglos (1984) and Suarez-Riglos, Hunicken, and Merino (1987) reported high Virgilian conodonts in the lowermost beds of the formation at Yaurichambi.…”
Section: Structure and Relationshipsmentioning
confidence: 99%