Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:51:26.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cephalopods from the late Eocene Hoko River Formation, northwestern Washington

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Richard L. Squires
Richard L. Squires*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Northridge 91330
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rare specimens of the nautiloids Nautilus and Aturia and extremely rare specimens of a sepiamorph sepiid are described from the late Eocene Hoko River Formation, northern Olympic Peninsula, Washington. The well-preserved partial phragmocones are from channel-fill clastics deposited on the inner and middle slopes of a submarine-fan system.

The Nautilus specimen is allied to N. cookanum Whitfield from middle Eocene strata, New Jersey, and is probably conspecific with Nautilus sp. (Miller) from late Eocene strata, northwestern Oregon, both of which were previously assigned to Eutrephoceras. This is the first record of Nautilus in the northeastern Pacific.

The Aturia specimen is tentatively identified as A. cf. A. alabamensis (Morton), a species previously only known from late Eocene strata in the Atlantic-Gulf Coastal area and northeastern Mexico. Aturia alabamensis may be the same as numerous Eocene North American aturiid species.

The two sepiamorph sepiid specimens resemble Belosepia Voltz but are probably generically distinct. They are only the second record of sepiids in the Eocene of the northeastern Pacific.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 76 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, O. 1916. Paläobiologie der Cephalopoden aus der Gruppe der Dibranchiaten. Gustav Fischer, Jena, 281 p.Google Scholar
Anderson, F. M., and Hanna, G D. 1925. Fauna and stratigraphic relations of the Tejon Eocene at the type locality in Kern County, California. California Academy of Sciences, Occasional Papers, 11, 249 p.Google Scholar
Clark, B. L., and Palmer, D. K. 1923. Revision of the Rimella-like gastropods from the West Coast of North America. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 14:277–288.Google Scholar
Cooke, C. W., and Stephenson, L. W. 1928. The Eocene age of the supposed late Upper Cretaceous greensand marls of New Jersey. Journal of Geology, 36:139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. M. 1971. Tertiary Faunas: Vol. 1. The Composition of Tertiary Faunas. American Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 571 p.Google Scholar
DeChant, J. H. 1986. Submarine fan deposition of the late Eocene Hoko River Formation, Twin River Group, northern Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 18:100.Google Scholar
Deshayes, M. G. P. 1856-1866. Description des animaux sans vertèbres découverts dans le bassin de Paris. 3 Vols. J.-B. Bailliere et fils, Paris. 2,536 p. Atlas (2 Vols.), 107 Pls.Google Scholar
Donovan, D. T. 1977. Evolution of the dibranchiate Cephalopoda, p. 15–48. In Nixon, M. and Messenger, J. B. (eds.), The Biology of Cephalopods. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, Number 38, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. E. 1849. A monograph of the Eocene Mollusca, or description of shells from the older Tertiaries of England. Pt. 1, Cephalopoda. Palaeontographical Society of London, 56 p.Google Scholar
Elias, M. K. 1938. Studies of late Paleozoic ammonoids. 1. Methods of drawing sutures; bibliography. Journal of Paleontology, 12:86–90.Google Scholar
Givens, C. R. 1978. An occurrence of the Tethyan genus Volutilithes (Gastropoda: Volutidae) in the Eocene of California. Journal of Paleontology, 52:104–108.Google Scholar
Givens, C. R. 1979. The gastropod genus Volutocristata Gardner and Bowles (Eocene; California, Mexico): a synonym of Lyrischapa Aldrich (Eocene; Gulf Coast). Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, 15:117–127.Google Scholar
Hanna, M. A. 1927. An Eocene invertebrate fauna from the La Jolla Quadrangle, California. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 16:247–398.Google Scholar
Jeletzky, J. A. 1966. Comparative morphology, phylogeny, and classification of fossil Coleoidea. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Mollusca, Article 7, 162 p.Google Scholar
Jeletzky, J. A. 1969. New or poorly understood Tertiary sepiids from southeastern United States and Mexico. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 41, 39 p.Google Scholar
Keferstein, W. 1866. Malacozoa cephalophora, p. 1307–1464. In H. G. Bronn's Klassen und Ordnungen. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, T. 1957. On an Aturia from the Poronai Shale in Hokkaido. Transactions of the Proceedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan, n. s., 27:75–80.Google Scholar
Kummel, B. 1956. Post-Triassic nautiloid genera. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 114:324–494.Google Scholar
Kummel, B. 1964. Nautiloidea—Nautilida, p. 383–457. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. K, Mollusca 3. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Linné, C. von. 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, Editio Decima Reformata, Regnum Animale, Vol. 1. Holmiae, 824 p.Google Scholar
Lörenthey, E. 1898. Sepia in ungarischen Tertiär (Sepia hungarica n. sp.). Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft, Berichte aus Ungarn, 15:268–272.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. 1876. A report on the invertebrate Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils of the upper Missouri country. United States Geological Survey of the Territories (Hayden), 9, 629 p.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K. 1947. Tertiary nautiloids of the Americas. Geological Society of America Memoir 23, 234 p.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Downs, H. R. 1950. Tertiary nautiloids of the Americas: supplement. Journal of Paleontology, 24:1–18.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Furnish, W. M. 1938. Aturias from the Tertiary of Mexico. Journal of Paleontology, 12:149–155.Google Scholar
Morton, S. G. 1834. Synopsis of the organic remains of the Cretaceous group of the United States. Privately published, Philadelphia, 88 p.Google Scholar
Naef, A. 1921a. Day System der dibranchiaten Cephalopoden und die mediterranen Arten derselben. Mittheilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 22:527–542.Google Scholar
Naef, A. 1921b. Cephalopoda (systematics); fauna and flora of the Bay of Naples. Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, Monograph 35, Pt. 1, Vol. 1, fasc. 1, Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin, 292 p. (Translated from German, Israel Program for Scientific Translation, 1972.)Google Scholar
Naef, A. 1922. Die fossilen Tintenfische. Carl Fischer, Jena, 322 p.Google Scholar
Naef, A. 1923. Cephalopoda (systematics); fauna and flora of the Bay of Naples. Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, Monograph 35, Pt. 1, Vol. 1, fasc. 2, Friedländer und Sohn, Berlin, p. 293–917. (Translated from German, Israel Program for Scientific Translation, 1972.)Google Scholar
Nageo, T. 1926. Aturia yokoyamai, nov. nom. from the Palaeogene of Kyushu. Science Reports of the Tohoku Imperial University, ser. 2 (Geology), 9:29–32.Google Scholar
Newton, R. B., and Harris, G. F. 1894. A revision of the British Eocene Cephalopa. Malacological Society of London Proceedings, 1:119–131.Google Scholar
Nilsen, T. H. 1973. Facies relations in the Eocene Tejon Formation of the San Emigdio and western Tehachapi Mountains California, p. 7–23. In Fischer, P. J. (ed.), Sedimentary Facies Changes in Tertiary Rocks, California Transverse and Southern Coast Ranges. Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.Google Scholar
Olsson, A. A. 1930. Contributions to the Tertiary paleontology of northern Peru: Pt. 3, Eocene Mollusca. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 17:1–96.Google Scholar
Palmer, K. V. W. 1937. The Claibornian Scaphopoda, Gastropoda, and dibranchiate Cephalopoda of the southeastern United States. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 7, Pts. 1, 2, 730 p.Google Scholar
Palmer, K. V. W. 1961. A new nautiloid, Eutrephoceras eyerdami, new species from the Cowlitz Formation, upper Eocene, of Washington. Journal of Paleontology, 35:532–534.Google Scholar
Palmer, K. V. W. 1965. Notes on comparison of Eutrephoceras eyerdami Palmer, 1961 and Cimonia hesperia Miller and Downs, 1950. Journal of Paleontology, 39:155.Google Scholar
Rathbun, M. J. 1916. Description of a new genus and species of fossil crab from Port Townsend, Washington. American Journal of Science, 41:344–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, M. J. 1926. The fossil stalk-eyed Crustacea of the Pacific slope of North America. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, 138:1–155.Google Scholar
Rau, W. W. 1964. Foraminifera from the northern Olympic Peninsula, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 374-G, 33 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rau, W. W. 1981. Pacific Northwest Tertiary benthic foraminiferal biostratigraphic framework—an overview, p. 67–84. In Armentrout, J. M. (ed.), Pacific Northwest Cenozoic Biostratigraphy. Geological Society of America Special Paper 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitner, J., and Engester, T. 1982. Phylogenetic trends in phragmocone-bearing coleoids (Belemnomorpha). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, 164:156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roger, J. 1952. Sous-Classes des Dibranchiata Owen, 1836, p. 689–755. In Piveteau, Jean (ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, Vol. 2. Masson et Cie, Paris.Google Scholar
Sastry, M. V. A., and Mathur, U. B. 1968. Nautiloid Aturia from Eocene of western India. Journal of Paleontology, 42:240–242.Google Scholar
Schenck, H. G. 1931. Cephalopods of the genus Aturia from western North America. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 19:435–490.Google Scholar
Snavely, P. D. Jr., Niem, A. R., and Pearl, J. E. 1978. Twin River Group (upper Eocene to lower Miocene)—defined to include the Hoko River, Makah, and Pysht Formations, Clallam County, Washington, p. 111-120. In Sohl, N. F. and Wright, W. B., Changes in Stratigraphic Nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1977. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1457-A.Google Scholar
Snavely, P. D. Jr., Niem, A. R., Macleod, N. S., Pearl, J. E., and Rau, W. W. 1980. Makah—a deep marginal-basin sequence of late Eocene and Oligocene age in northwestern Olympic Peninsula, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1162-B, 28 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, R. L. 1983. New mollusks from the lower middle Eocene Llajas Formation, southern California. Journal of Paleontology, 57:354–362.Google Scholar
Squires, R. L. 1984. Megapaleontology of the Eocene Llajas Formation, Simi Valley, California. Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, Contributions in Science 350, 76 p.Google Scholar
Squires, R. L. 1986. New early Eocene mollusks from the Orocopia Mountains, southern California. Journal of Paleontology, 60:851–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, R. L. 1987. Eocene molluscan paleontology of the Whitaker Peak area, lower Piru Creek, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California. Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, Contributions in Science, 388, 93 p.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1935. Nautiloids of the genus Aturia from the Eocene of Texas and Alabama. Journal of Paleontology, 9:551–562.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1940. Tertiary nautiloids from the Gulf Coastal Plain. Texas University Publication 3945, p. 731–794.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H. B. 1942. Illustrated card catalogue of North American early Tertiary fossils of Atlantic-Gulf Coastal Plain. Cephalopoda, cards 1-28. Texas University, Bureau of Economic Geology.Google Scholar
Stolley, Erich. 1919. Die Systematik der Belemniten. Niedersächsischen Geologischen Vereins, Elfter Jahresbericht 11:1–59.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1964. Cephalopoda—general features, p. 4–53. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. K, Mollusca 3. Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Szörényi, E. 1933. Neue Tertiäre Sepiinae aus Ungarn nebst Bermerkunger zum zeitlichen Auftreten und zur Entwicklung der Gattung Sepia. Foldtani Közloni Magyarhoni Földtani Társulat Folyóirata, 63:183–189.Google Scholar
Termier, H., and Termier, G. 1960. La vie à l'Éocène (s.l.), p. 359–394. In Paléontologie Stratigraphique, 4th pt. Masson and Cie, Paris.Google Scholar
Traub, F. 1982. Eine neue Paleozäne Sepiidae aus dem Helvetikum des Haunsberges nördlich von Salzburg. Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Historische Geologie, 22:35–39.Google Scholar
Vokes, H. E. 1939. Molluscan faunas of the Domengine and Arroyo Hondo Formations of the California Eocene. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 38:1–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voltz, P. L. 1830. Observations sur les belemnites. Mémoires Société Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle Strasbourg, 1, 70 p.Google Scholar
Wagner, H. 1938. Die dibranchiaten Cephalopoden der mitteloligozänen (Rupélien) Tonschichten von Kiscell und neue Sepiinae aus dem ungarischem Eozän. Annales Historico–Naturales Museum Nationale Hungaricum, 31:179–199.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. E. 1943. Paleontology of the marine Tertiary formations of Oregon and Washington. University of Washington Publications in Geology, 5, 789 p.Google Scholar
Whitfield, R. P. 1892. Gasteropoda and Cephalopoda of the Raritan clays and Greensand marls. U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 18, 402 p. (Also issued as Geological Survey of New Jersey, Paleontology, Vol. 2.)Google Scholar
Woodring, W. P. 1966. The Panama land bridge as a sea barrier. American Philosophical Society Proceedings, 110:425–433.Google Scholar
Zinsmeister, W. J. 1983. Late Paleocene (“Martinez Provincial Stage”) molluscan fauna from the Simi Hills, Ventura County, California, p. 61–70. In Squires, R. L. and Filewicz, M. V. (eds.), Cenozoic Geology of the Simi Valley Area, Southern California. Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Field Trip Volume and Guidebook.Google Scholar