1978
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3091.1978.tb00301.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recognition of ancient tidal inlet sequences: an example from the Upper Silurian Keyser Limestone in Virginia

Abstract: The Upper Silurian Keyser Limestone is a relatively thin ( < 8 5 m) unit of lagoonal, barrier, and shallow offshore sediments that crops out in the central Appalachians. Lithologies include massive micritic limestones to calcarenites, calcisiltites, and calcareous quartz arenites. The barrier lithofacies is preserved p r e dominantly as tidal inlet channel-fill. Its presence is supported by two lines of evidence: (1) the sequence of sedimentary textures and structures resembles that observed in modern inlets, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

1982
1982
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Barrier-inlet deposits described in Carboniferous rocks by Hobday and Horne (1977) and in the Silurian by Barwis and Makurath (1978) are both very similar to modern examples, but differ from one another in internal detail. Barrier-inlet deposits described in Carboniferous rocks by Hobday and Horne (1977) and in the Silurian by Barwis and Makurath (1978) are both very similar to modern examples, but differ from one another in internal detail.…”
Section: Inlet Faciesmentioning
confidence: 50%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Barrier-inlet deposits described in Carboniferous rocks by Hobday and Horne (1977) and in the Silurian by Barwis and Makurath (1978) are both very similar to modern examples, but differ from one another in internal detail. Barrier-inlet deposits described in Carboniferous rocks by Hobday and Horne (1977) and in the Silurian by Barwis and Makurath (1978) are both very similar to modern examples, but differ from one another in internal detail.…”
Section: Inlet Faciesmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…Intertidal sands near low-tide level show complex bedforms which increase in size with increasing tidal range. Migrating channels produce lateral accretion surfaces analogous to those of point bars, but are distinguished by textural alternations, trace fossil types, and bimodal cross beds (Reineck 1975;Barwis 1978). The dominant internal structures are cross-beds of simple or complex geometry, herringbone cross-bedding, reactivation surfaces, and alternating cross-bed sets of different scale and foreset dip angle (Klein 1970;Semeniuk 1981).…”
Section: Tidal Flats and Marshesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These channels migrate laterally parallel to shore, resulting in inlet-fill sequences (Hoyt and Henry, 1965;Reinson, 1984). The geometry of these sequences would probably not resemble the shape of the original channel (Barwis and Makurath, 1978). The resultant structures of this type of channel migration in the modern sediments of Fire Island Inlet, New York, were documented by Kumar and Sanders (1974).…”
Section: Bimodal Sandstone (Bms)mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The Byers Island Member, the lowest member of the Keyser, was deposited in an open-marine environment during a basinal transgression (Denkler and Harris 1988), but it is absent from the Water Sinks section. Minor regression accompanied by progradation of clastic sediments resulted in deposition of the overlying Clifton Forge Sandstone Member, a quartz-rich crinoidal and peloidal grainstone to calcarenaceous sandstone with several cross-bedded intervals (Barwis and Makurath 1978). Just to the north of the Water Sinks, the Clifton Forge Sandstone undergoes a facies change into the Big Mountain Shale Member.…”
Section: Stratigraphic Sectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%