Lithostratigraphy of Upper Ordovician strata exposed in Kentucky, with a section on biostratigraphy

Weir, Gordon Whitney; Peterson, Warren Lee; Swadley, W.C.

doi:10.3133/pp1151e

Cited by 21 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7) and nearly everywhere consist of silty laminated dolostone with abundant desiccation cracks and sparse, short vertical burrows. These peritidal facies consistently pass northwards into coeval shallow subtidal facies (Weir et al, 1984;Holland, 1993;Pope and Read, 1997b). Localization of these peritidal facies demonstrates that the Jessamine Dome in central Kentucky was a persistent shallow area throughout the Cincinnatian Series.…”

Section: Taconic Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…2). Major structural elements associated with this arch were the Nashville and Jessamine 9 Domes on the crest, the Sebree trough on the western side and border faults of the Rome trough on the eastern side (Borella and Osborne, 1978;Weir et al, 1984;Cable and Beardsley, 1984;Diecchio, 1993;Kolata et al, 2001). …”

Section: The Cincinnati Arch and Appalachian Foreland Basinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A belt of grainstone shoals is sporadically present during the C3 to C5 sequences on the northern flank of the Jessamine Dome, but is oriented east-west (Holland, 1993;Weir et al, 1984). These grainstones are restricted to the transgressive systems tracts of these sequences and separate restricted lagoonal mudstones and wackestones to the south (e.g., Gilbert, Sunset…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bimodal paleocurrent measurements in the Garrard Siltstone suggest at least part of the Garrard Siltstone was deposited in a tidal setting. Outcrops of the Garrard Siltstone are restricted to a linear trend along the southeastern side of the Cincinnati Arch, suggesting its distribution was structurally controlled (Weir et al, 1984;Ettensohn, 1986a;Jacobs, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interpretations range from the arch having little or no influence on sedimentation (Gustadt, 1958;Weiss et al, 1965;Cressman, 1973;Weir et al, 1984), to limited uplift that affected sedimentation primarily during the Cincinnatian (Ettensohn, 1992(Ettensohn, , 1994, to geographic uplift only on the domes with an intervening saddle (Borella and Osborne, 1978). However, integration of outcrop and core data (Wilson, 1962;Hrabar et al, 1971;Mackey, 1972;Pope andRead, 1997a, b, 1998), favors uplift or decreased rates of subsidence along the Cincinnati Arch in Kentucky and Tennessee during much of the Late Ordovician and that this affected sedimentation, a view predicted by stratigraphic modeling (Quinlan and Beaumont, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Cincinnati Arch: A Stationary Peripheral Bulge during the Late Ordovician

Pope¹,

Holland²,

Patzkowsky³

2009

Perspectives in Carbonate Geology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shallow-water features, including peritidal carbonate complexes, tidally-influenced shoal-water facies, biostromes, and coincident subaerial unconformities on the peritidal complexes are restricted to the Cincinnati Arch during the Late Ordovician Taconic Orogeny. Persistence of these features along the Cincinnati Arch indicate this area experienced decreased subsidence relative to surrounding areas, forming the peripheral bulge within the Taconic foreland basin.These shallow-water features are surrounded on all sides by deeper water, shallow subtidal to deep subtidal facies. The Jessamine and Nashville Domes were prominent topographic highs on the arch and were the locus of shallow-water deposition and subaerial erosion, but many of these shallow-water features also occur in the subsurface between these two domes.The shallow-water features and unconformities on the Cincinnati Arch occur in a narrow band repeatedly throughout the Late Ordovician. The width of these features is much too narrow to have formed solely by flexure of the lithosphere and their persistent formation in the same location indicates they did not form as a viscoelastic response to orogenesis. Rather the boundary between the Grenville Front and the Eastern Granite-Rhyolite Province acted as a focusing mechanism for the orogenic load stresses to the east, producing a relatively stationary peripheral bulge. A temporal and spatial change in the stratigraphy and subsidence on the Nashville and Jessamine Domes during the Edenian likely records a northward shift of loading, possibly sedimentary loading, during the Taconic Orogeny.

show abstract

Section: Taconic Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Cincinnati Arch and Appalachian Foreland Basinmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations