First Diagnostic Carboniferous Fossils from New Zealand

Jenkins, D. Graham; Jenkins, T. B. H.

doi:10.1038/233117a0

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eleven zones, including 4 in the Lower Cretaceous, were recognised by , and these zones, with the addition of the Carboniferous zone recognised by Jenkins & Jenkins (1971a), were adopted by Landis & Bishop (1972). Although the 4 Cretaceous zones have been excluded, 15 zones are recognised in this paper, including the first record of the early Jurassic zone of Pseudaucella marshalli (Ururoan Stage) and the late Jurassic Buchia hochstetteri zone (early Puaroan).…”

Section: Biostratigraphic Zones In the Canterbury Suitementioning

confidence: 95%

“…The limestones themselves are remarkably variable and range from fossiliferous intrasparudites to uniform micritic or recrystallised micritic rocks. Shelly limestone rich in the Upper Triassic bivalve Monotis richmondiana is the most common fossiliferous type, though limestones with Carboniferous and Triassic conodonts (Jenkins & Jenkins 1971a;1971b), Permian fusulines (Hornibrook & Shu 1965), and Jurassic brachiopods and bivalves are also known.…”

Section: Volcanic Associationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the South Island, in particular, it has been widely studied during the last decade. The studies are varied in their emphasis (structural-e.g., Lillie & Gunn 1964;Bradshaw 1972;Andrews et al 1974;stratigraphicaljsedimentological-e.g., Campbell & Force 1972;Andrews 1974;Force 1974;and paleontological-e.g., Campbell & Warren 1965;Jenkins & Jenkins 1971a-;Stevens 1972). Together with work in progress they are beginning to provide a clear picture of the nature of the Canterbury Suite.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lithological and paleontological content of the Carboniferous-Jurassic Canterbury Suite, South Island, New Zealand

Andrews¹,

Speden²,

Bradshaw³

1976

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The late Paleozoic and Mesozoic quartzo-feldspathic Canterbury Suite contains a wide range of detrital lithotypes and facies, representing many depositional environments. The stratification, sedimentary structures, and fossils characteristic of 11 lithotypes are described and interpreted in terms of probable depositional environments.Fifteen recognisable faunal zones represent only part of the total time span of the Canterbury Suite (Carboniferous to late Jurassic). There is no record of early Permian, latest Permian and early Triassic, or latest Triassic through middle Jurassic, except for a single collection representing the Ururoan Stage (early Jurassic). All but two of the faunal assemblages consist mainly of epifaunal and nektonic species of low abundance and diversity. Infaunal species are virtually absent. The assemblages are characteristic of continental shelf environments.Marginal marine and non-marine depositional environments, coarse detrital conglomerates, and vascular plant material are common in the eastern part of the outcrop area. Thev become less abundant towards the west, and in the extreme west of the outcrop area, conglomerate is essentially absent, plant fossils very sparse, and probable deep marine facies relatively common. These trends show that the detritus was transported from east to west, and that the source rocks lay east of present-day New Zealand. Conglomerate and sandstone composition shows that during Triassic time the source area consisted of granodiorite and minor schistose and gneissic metamorphic rocks, but that by late Jurassic time acid volcanic rocks were also abundant.

show abstract

Section: Biostratigraphic Zones In the Canterbury Suitementioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Volcanic Associationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lithological and paleontological content of the Carboniferous-Jurassic Canterbury Suite, South Island, New Zealand

Andrews¹,

Speden²,

Bradshaw³

1976

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nor is absence of fossils, as used by Landis and Bishop (1972), a reliable basis for interpretation of Torlesse geology, as absence may reflect non-discovery or lack of recognition. Discoveries such as the collection of Titahia and Torlessia at Akatore, South Otago (Campbell and Campbell 1970), Carboniferous fossils at Kakahu, South Canterbury (Jenkins and Jenkins 1971), and Pseudaucella (Ururoan Stage, Early Jurassic) at Kaiwara, North Canterbury (Speden and Maxwell, in prep. ), may profoundly alter the geographic distribution of a zone and the stratigraphic representation, and significantly influence existing structural and paleogeographic interpretations.…”

Section: Provenance and Relationship To The H Okonui Faciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fossil localities in Torlesse rocks of the North Island, New Zealand

Speden

1976

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data on 110 fossil localities in Torlesse rocks of the North Island of New Zealand are tabulated, and the distribution of localities shown on maps. Zones are fewer and less well defined than in the South Island. The Permian is particularly fossiliferous, but no Kaihikuan (Ladinian) fossils are known. Much of the Torlesse might be Late Jurassic except for anticlinal cores, possibly in part faulted, of Permian, Late Triassic, and Early Jurassic.Although tectonic mobility is demonstrated by the occurrence of derived fossils, the distribution of fossil localities, is, by itself, of limited value in paleoenvironmental, paleogeographic, and provenance interpretations.

show abstract

“…4), and casts doubt on the basic assumption of Landis & Bishop. The discovery of Pseudaucella, when associated with the record of conodonts at Kakahu (Jenkins & Jenkins 1971), suggests that other stages missing from Canterbury Suite might be present, but not discovered because of the lack of detailed geological mapping in sedimentologicaHy and structurally complex rocks. To assume for Canterbury Suite that intervals of time are not represented by sediments, or that rates of deposition are slower or faster than during comparable intervals in Wakatipu Suite, seems premature.…”

Section: Preservation and Description Of The Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%