The geology of Kong Karls Land, Svalbard

Smith, David G.; Harland, W. B.; Hughes, Norman F.; Pickton, C. A. G.

doi:10.1017/s001675680004320x

Cited by 62 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This formation is then represented by the Mohnhogda Member and Arnesenodden Bed on Svenskoya. On Kongsoya only the Sjogrenfjellet Member was recognized by Smith et al (1976). We accept the addition of a new member (at the base of the exposure) by Worsley & Heintz (1977), and it may be noted in passing that Worsley & Heintz called this unit the Kapp Koburg Member, although it is at the same level as our Arnesenodden Bed and the same Arnesenodden was therefore already available.…”

Section: C Hopen and Kong Karls Landmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Even if the base of the 'Wilhelmoya Formation' on Hopen is taken at the base of the Flatsalen Formation of Smith et al (1976), then it is no more (nor less) of a hiatus or erosion surface than the tops of numerous preceding cycles or of the three succeeding ones which make up our Flatsalen Formation. The more obvious facies change comes at the base of the Lyngef jellet Formation, which marks a change from marine to fluviatile conditions.…”

Section: E the Wilhelmoyalde Geerdalen Boundary Of Edwards Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the Hopen equivalent of the basal member of his new Wilhelmeya Formation was a shelly calcareous sandstone which forms the top of a coarsening-upward cycle). Bjaerke (1975) unfortunately maintained this definition, though Edwards et al appear to have accepted the definition of the Flatsalen Formation of Smith et al (1976). However, Bjaerke redefined the Flatsalen Formation to take in this 'basal bed', and Edwards et al may therefore be using this redefinition.…”

Section: E the Wilhelmoyalde Geerdalen Boundary Of Edwards Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mesozoic stratigraphy of Eastern Svalbard: a reply

et al. 1979

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SIR -We are grateful to Edwards et al. (this issue) for a preview of their paper in which they object to the nomenclature and classification of lithostratigraphic units that we have employed to describe the Mesozoic sequence in Svalbard. They present an alternative scheme in which they also take note of new data. In certain respects, therefore, we are bound to accept their suggestions, but in some others we argue below that their criticism is not well based.In parts of this discussion there is clearly room for more than one opinion; we debated between ourselves what descriptive scheme we should employ at the time of our publication (1975-6), and we now argue that in the interests of stability a scheme proposed as part of a new and systematic description should stand until an altogether more thorough study supersedes it. This has been policy since our group's first substantial publication on the Mesozoic geology of the region in 1965 (Buchan et al.).Our conclusions are summarized in two tables, which modify where necessary, but retain the original scheme where we consider it will serve beneficially. We also include, in anticipation, the scheme from another paper submitted in 1976 and accepted for publication as a Skrifter of the Norsk Polarinstitutt. This has already (informally) met with similar criticism, so we anticipate and attempt to justify what we have done. However, all in all, these are matters of convention rather than positive substance, and so we do not overestimate their importance. We are primarily concerned at the confusion that has arisen through the presentation of alternative schemes.In our papers we have followed current guides to stratigraphic procedure (e.g. Harland et al. 1972; Hedburg, 1976) in regarding the formation as the primary local rock unit that should be internally (relatively) homogenous, externally distinguishable and presumed to have originally been physically continuous. Other visible variations within the formation are recognized by member status. We do not regard age as a valid criterion with which to divide or combine otherwise distinctive units. We prefer to define the units by all characters (including fossils) and then begin or continue discussion on age, environment, etc. Thus a subsequent change of opinion as to the age of a particular unit does not automatically require a change in the name or rank of that unit. Indeed, after careful consideration, we decided to introduce new formational names for different, widely scattered areas on the basis of recognizable differences. A major factor in the argument of Edwards et al. is that because these formations are all about the same age they should have the same name -i.e. one should therefore extend the Spitsbergen nomenclature to the other islands of the archipelago. They argue also that it will be easier to remember fewer names, but for this function we consider that as there are already many formational names in Svalbard the memory need not be burdened with other than group names. So we unite our different formations in...

show abstract

Section: C Hopen and Kong Karls Landmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: E the Wilhelmoyalde Geerdalen Boundary Of Edwards Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: E the Wilhelmoyalde Geerdalen Boundary Of Edwards Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mesozoic stratigraphy of Eastern Svalbard: a reply

et al. 1979

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several specimens attributable to this genus were collected by members of the expedition from the fossiliferousTordenskjoldberget Limestone of Tordenskjoldberget, Kongs0ya, Kong Karls Land (see Smith et al 1976 for stratigraphical details), in association with an Acroteuthis, Pachyteuthis and Hibolithes assemblage of predominantly Valanginian age similar to that described by Bluthgen (1936). All these specimens are currently housed in the West Building of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge as part of the Cambridge Spitsbergen Expeditions (CSE) collection.…”

Section: Systematic Status Of Pseudohibolites Bluthgen 1936mentioning

confidence: 89%

Systematic status of Pseudohibolites Blüthgen, 1936 (Belemnitida, Coleoidea) from Kong Karls Land, Svalbard

Doyle

1987

Geol. Mag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A detailed description of the geological development of Eastern Svalbard, including extensive revision of pre-existing stratigraphical nomenclature, has appeared in three recent papers (Smith, Harland & Hughes, 1975;Smith, 1975;Smith et al 1976). The purpose of this contribution is to point out an alternative view on the stratigraphy proposed in these papers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesozoic stratigraphy of Eastern Svalbard: a discussion

Edwards¹,

Bjærke²,

Nagy³

et al. 1979

Geol. Mag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an alternative to the complex stratigraphical nomenclature introduced in recent descriptions of the stratigraphy of Eastern Svalbard. We believe that the platform nature of the Mesozoic succession in Svalbard enables recognition of individual stratigraphical units over very wide areas. Our principal conclusions are that the Wilhelmoya Formation can be recognized as the upper formation of the Kapp Toscana Group and occurs throughout Eastern Svalbard. It overlies the De Geerdalen Formation on Hopen and Wilhelmoya. The Janusfjellet and Helvetiafjellet Formations can be recognized on Kong Karls Land.

show abstract

The geology of Kong Karls Land, Svalbard

Cited by 62 publications

References 13 publications

Mesozoic stratigraphy of Eastern Svalbard: a reply

Mesozoic stratigraphy of Eastern Svalbard: a reply

Systematic status of Pseudohibolites Blüthgen, 1936 (Belemnitida, Coleoidea) from Kong Karls Land, Svalbard

Mesozoic stratigraphy of Eastern Svalbard: a discussion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About