Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:24:37.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Miocene diatoms from Richmond, Virginia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

George W. Andrews
George W. Andrews*
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, 970 National Center, Reston, Virginia 22092
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In downtown Richmond, Va., a highly diatomaceous deposit contains a diatom assemblage in which 87 taxa have been identified. The diatoms indicate that this sedimentary unit is correlative with Lithologic Unit 19 of the Choptank Formation of middle Miocene age. Also in Richmond, a sedimentary unit correlated with the Eastover Formation overlies the Choptank Formation and contains a sparse diatom assemblage in which 24 taxa have been identified. The diatoms in this upper deposit form an assemblage that is distinctive from that of the Choptank Formation and is of late Miocene age. Both diatom assemblages are dominated by taxa indicating deposition in a littoral or shallow neritic marine environment. Although reasons for differences in diatom diversity and abundance between the two formations are obscure, these differences appear to reflect the greater primary productivity of diatoms in middle Miocene than in later Tertiary time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , March 1986 , pp. 497 - 538
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

Abbott, W. H. 1978. Correlation and zonation of Miocene strata along the Atlantic margin of North America using diatoms and silicoflagellates. Marine Micropaleontology, 3:15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, W. H. 1982. Diatom biostratigraphy of the Chesapeake Group, Virginia and Maryland. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Special Publication, 25:23–34.Google Scholar
Abbott, W. H. and Andrews, G. W. 1979. Middle Miocene marine diatoms from the Hawthorn Formation of the Ridgeland Trough, South Carolina and Georgia. Micropaleontology, 25(3):225–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1966. Late Pleistocene diatoms from the Trempealeau Valley, Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 523-A:A1–A27.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1975. Taxonomy and stratigraphic occurrence of the marine diatom genus Rhaphoneis . Nova Hedwigia, 53:193–222.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1976. Miocene marine diatoms from the Choptank Formation, Calvert County, Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 910, 26 p.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1977. Morphology and stratigraphic significance of Delphineis, a new marine diatom genus. Nova Hedwigia, 54:243–260.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1978. Marine diatom sequence in Miocene strata of the Chesapeake Bay region, Maryland. Micropaleontology, 24(4):371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1980. Neogene diatoms from Petersburg, Virginia. Micropaleontology, 26(1):17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1981. Revision of the diatom genus Delphineis and morphology of Delphineis surirella (Ehrenberg) G. W. Andrews, n. comb., p. 81–90. In Sixth Symposium on Recent and Fossil Diatoms, Budapest, Hungary, 1980, Proceedings. O. Koeltz, Koenigstein, W. Germany.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. 1984. Miocene diatomaceous beds of the Pamunkey River area Hanover and King William counties, Virginia, p. 117–123. In Ward, L. W. and Krafft, K. (eds.), Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Outcropping Tertiary Beds in the Pamunkey River Region, Central Virginia Coastal Plain. Guidebook for Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association 1984 Field Trip.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. W. and Abbott, W. H. 1985. Miocene diatoms from the Hawthorn Formation, Thomas County, Georgia. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 87(321):53–109.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W. 1842a. A sketch of the Infusoria, of the family Bacillaria, with some account of the most interesting species which have been found in a recent or fossil state in the United States, part 2. American Journal of Science and Arts, 42:88–105.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W. 1842b. A sketch of the Infusoria of the family Bacillaria, part 3. American Journal of Science and Arts, 43:321–332.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W. 1844. Account of some new infusorial forms discovered in the fossil Infusoria from Petersburg, Virginia, and Piscataway, Maryland. American Journal of Science and Arts, 46:137–141.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W. 1845a. Ehrenberg's observations on the fossil Infusoria of Virginia and Maryland, and comparison of the same with those found in the Chalk formations of Europe and Africa. American Journal of Science and Arts, 48:201–205.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W. 1845b. Fossil Infusoria of Virginia and Maryland. American Journal of Science and Arts, 48:330–337.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W. 1854. Notes on new species and localities of microscopical organisms. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 7(3), 16 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W. and Silliman, B. Jr. 1844. Notice of a memoir by C. G. Ehrenberg, “On the extent and influence of microscopic life in North and South America.” American Journal of Science and Arts, 46:297–313.Google Scholar
Barron, J. A. 1975. Marine diatom biostratigraphy of the upper Miocene-lower Pliocene strata of southern California. Journal of Paleontology, 49(4):619–632.Google Scholar
Barron, J. A. 1980. Lower Miocene to Quaternary diatom biostratigraphy of leg 57, off northeastern Japan, Deep Sea Drilling Project. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 56:641–685.Google Scholar
Blow, W. H. 1969. Late middle Eocene to Recent planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy, biochronology and paleoclimatology, p. 199–421. In First International Conference on Planktonic Microfossils, Geneva, Switzerland, 1967, Proceedings, vol. 1. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, C. S. 1901. The biddulphioid forms of North American Diatomaceae. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Proceedings, 1900:685–748.Google Scholar
Boyer, C. S. 1904. Thallophyta-Diatomacea, p. 487–507. In Systematic Paleontology of the Miocene Deposits of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey, Miocene.Google Scholar
Boyer, C. S. 1916. The Diatomaceae of Philadelphia and Vicinity. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 143 p.Google Scholar
Boyer, C. S. 1927. Synopsis of North American Diatomaceae. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Proceedings, 78 (supplement), 228 p.; 79 (supplement): 229–583.Google Scholar
Brightwell, T. 1853. On the genus Triceratium, with descriptions and figures of new species. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 1:245–254.Google Scholar
Brightwell, T. 1858. Remarks on the genus “Rhizosolenia” of Ehrenberg. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 6:93–95.Google Scholar
Brun, J. 1891. Diatomées espèces nouvelles marines, fossiles ou pélagiques. Société de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genève Mémoire, v. 31, pt. 2, no. 1, 47 p.Google Scholar
Castracane, A. F. 1886. Report on the scientific results of the voyage of the H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–76. Botany, vol. 2. H.M. Stationery Office, London, 178 p.Google Scholar
Cleve, P. T. 1873. On diatoms from the Arctic Sea. K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1(13), 28 p.Google Scholar
Cleve, P. T. 1894. Synopsis of the naviculoid diatoms. K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 26(1), 194 p.Google Scholar
Cleve, P. T. 1904. Plankton table for the North Sea. Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, Bulletin, 1903–1904:216.Google Scholar
Cleve, P. T. and Grunow, A. 1880. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der arctischen Diatomeen. K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 17(2), 121 p.Google Scholar
Cleve-Euler, A. 1951. Die Diatomeen von Schweden und Finnland. K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, ser. 4, pt. 1: 2(1), 163 p.Google Scholar
Darton, N. H. 1911. Economic geology of Richmond, Virginia, and vicinity. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 483, 48 p.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1838. Die Infusionsthierchen als vollkommene Organismen. L. Voss, Leipzig, 548 p.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1840. Characteristik von 274 neuen Arten von Infusorien. K. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Bericht, 1840:197–219.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1841. Über noch jetzt zahlreich lebende Thierarten der Kreidebildung und den Organismus der Polythalamien. K. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Physikalische Abhandlungen, 1839:81–174.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1843. Verbreitung und Einfluss des mikroskopischen Lebens in Süd- und Nord-Amerika. K. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Physikalische Abhandlungen, 1841:291–445.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1844. Über 2 neue Lager von Gebirgsmassen aus Infusorien als Meeres-Absatz in Nord-Amerika und eine Vergleichung derselben mit den organischen Kreide-Gebilden in Europa und Afrika. K. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Bericht, 1844:57–97.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1845a. Untersuchungen über die kleinsten Lebensformen in Quellenlande des Euphrats und Araxes, so wie über eine an neuen Formen sehr reiche marine Tripelbildung von den Bermuda-Inseln vor. K. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Bericht, 1844:253–276.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1845b. Neue Untersuchungen über das kleinste Leben als geologisches Moment. Mit Kurzer Characteristik von 10 neuen Genera und 66 neuen Arten. K. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Bericht, 1845:53–88.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1845c. Vorläufige zweite Mittheilung über die kleinsten organischen Lebens zu den vulkanischen Massen der Erde. K. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Bericht, 1845:133–157.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1854. Mikrogeologie. L. Voss, Leipzig, 374 p.Google Scholar
Fenner, J. 1977. Cenozoic diatom biostratigraphy of the equatorial and southern Atlantic Ocean. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 39:491–624.Google Scholar
Forti, A. 1909. Studi per una monografia del genera Pyxilla (Diatomee) e dei generi affini. Nuova Notarisia, series 20(1):19–38.Google Scholar
Forti, A. 1912. Primo elenco delli diatomee fossili contenute nei calcari marnosi biancastri di Monte Gibbio (Sassuolo—Emilia). Nuova Notarisia, series 23:79–87.Google Scholar
Forti, A. 1913. Contribuzioni diatomologiche XIII. Diagnoses diatomacearum quarundam fossilium italicarum. Reale Istituto Veneto, Atti, 72(2):1535–1700.Google Scholar
Fryxell, G. A. and Hasle, G. R. 1972. Thalassiosira eccentrica (Ehrenb.) Cleve, T. symmetrica sp. nov. and some related centric diatoms. Journal of Phycology, 8(4):297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, J. 1943. Mollusca from the Miocene and lower Pliocene of Virginia and North Carolina, part 1, Pelecypoda. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 199-A, 178 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, W. 1857. On new forms of marine Diatomaceae found in the Firth of Clyde and Loch Fine. Royal Society of Edinburgh Transactions, 21:473–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greville, R. K. 1861. Descriptions of new and rare diatoms, Series II, III, IV. Microscopical Society of London Transactions, 9:67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunow, A. 1862. Die österreichischen Diatomaceen nebst Anschluss einiger neuen Arten von andern Lokalitaten und einer kritischen Übersicht der bisher bekannten Gattungen und Arten. K.-K. Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft in Wien, Verhandlungen, 12:315–472.Google Scholar
Grunow, A. 1863. Über einige neue und ungenügend bekannte Arten und Gattungen von Diatomaceen, zweite Folge. K.-K. Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft in Wien, Verhandlungen, 13:137–162.Google Scholar
Grunow, A. 1878. Algen und Diatomaceen aus dem Kaspischen Meere. Dr. O. Schneiders Naturwissen Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Kaukausländer. Naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft “Isis” zu Dresden, 100–133.Google Scholar
Grunow, A. 1879. New species and varieties of Diatomaceae from the Caspian Sea. Royal Microscopical Society Journal, 2:677–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunow, A. 1884. Die Diatomeen von Franz Josefs-Land. K.-K. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Denkschrift, 48(2):53–112.Google Scholar
Hajós, M. 1976. Upper Eocene and lower Oligocene Diatomaceae, Archaeomodaceae, and Silicoflagellatae in southwestern Pacific sediments, DSDP leg 29. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 35:817–883.Google Scholar
Hanna, G. D. 1932. The diatoms of Sharktooth Hill, Kern County, California. California Academy of Science Proceedings, Series 4, 20(6):161–263.Google Scholar
Hasle, G. R. and Fryxell, G. A. 1977. The genus Thalassiosira: some species with a linear areola array. Nova Hedwigia, 45:15–66.Google Scholar
Hendey, N. I. 1937. The plankton diatoms of the southern seas. Discovery Reports, 16:151–364.Google Scholar
Hendey, N. I. 1958. Marine diatoms from some West African ports. Royal Microscopical Society Journal, 77:28–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendey, N. I. 1964. An introductory account of the smaller algae of British coastal waters, Part V, Bacillariophyceae (Diatoms). Great Britain Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fishery Investigation Series 4, 317 p.Google Scholar
Hustedt, F. 1927–1966. Die Kieselalgen Deutschlands, Österreichs und der Schweiz, vol. 7 of G. L. Rabenhorst, Kryptogamenflora. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig, pt. 1, 920 p., 1927–1930; pt. 2, 845 p., 1931–1959; pt. 3, 816 p., 1962–1966.Google Scholar
Hustedt, F. 1930. Bacillariophyta (Diatomeae), No. 10 of Pascher, A. (ed.), Die Süsswasser-flora Mitteleuropas. G. Fischer, Jena, 466 p.Google Scholar
Kain, C. H. and Schultze, E. A. 1889. On a fossil marine diatomaceous deposit from Atlantic City, New Jersey. Torrey Botanical Club Bulletin, 6:71–76, 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanaya, T. 1959. Miocene diatom assemblages from the Onnagawa Formation and their distribution in the correlative formations in northeast Japan. Tohoku University Science Reports, series 2 (Geology), 30, 130 p.Google Scholar
Keller, G. and Barron, J. A. 1983. Paleoceanographic implications of Miocene deep-sea hiatuses. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 94:590–613.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, I. 1973. The late Cenozoic diatoms of sites 183–193, leg 19, Deep Sea Drilling Project. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 19:805–855.Google Scholar
Kützing, F. T. 1844. Die kieselschaligen Bacillarien oder Diatomeen. W. Könne, Nordhausen, 152 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman, K. E. 1938. Pliocene diatoms from the Kettleman Hills, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 189-C:81–94.Google Scholar
Lohman, K. E. 1942 (1941). Geology and biology of North Atlantic deep-sea cores between Newfoundland and Ireland, Part 3, Diatomaceae. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 196-B:55–93. (Advance chapter issued 1941.)Google Scholar
Lohman, K. E. 1948. Middle Miocene diatoms from the Hammond Well, p. 151–187, 331–333. In Cretaceous and Tertiary Subsurface Geology. Maryland Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources Bulletin 2.Google Scholar
Lohman, K. E. 1972. A procedure for the microscopical study of diatomaceous sediments. Nova Hedwigia, 39:267–283.Google Scholar
Lohman, K. E. 1974. Lower middle Miocene diatoms from Trinidad. Naturforschende Gesellschaft in Basal Verhandlungen, 84(1):326–360.Google Scholar
Long, J. A., Fuge, D. P. and Smith, J. 1946. Diatoms of the Moreno Shale. Journal of Paleontology, 20(2):89–118.Google Scholar
Lyngbye, H. C. 1819. Tentamen Hydrophytologiae Danicae. Hafnia, 248 p.Google Scholar
Mann, A. 1907. Report on the diatoms of the Albatross voyages in the Pacific Ocean, 1888–1904. Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Herbarium, Contribution, 10(5):221–419.Google Scholar
Okuno, H. 1957. Electron-microscopical study of the fine structure of diatom frustules, XVI. Botanical Magazine, Tokyo, 70:216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantocsek, J. 1886. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der fossilen Bacillarien Ungarns. Julius Platzko, Nagy-Tapolcsány, pt. 1, 75 p.Google Scholar
Peragallo, H. 1890–1891. Monographie du genre Pleurosigma et des genres allies. Le Diatomiste 1(4), 16 p., 1890; 1(5), 17–35, 1891.Google Scholar
Pritchard, A. 1861. A History of Infusoria, 4th ed. Whittaker and Co., London, 968 p.Google Scholar
Rattray, J. 1888a. A revision of the genus Aulacodiscus Ehrb. Royal Microscopical Society Journal, 1888:337–382.Google Scholar
Rattray, J. 1888b. A revision of the genus Auliscus Ehrb. and of some allied genera. Royal Microscopical Society Journal, 1888:861–920.Google Scholar
Rattray, J. 1889. A revision of the genus Coscinodiscus Ehrb. and some allied genera. Royal Society Edinburgh Proceedings, 16:449–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattray, J. 1890. A revision of the genus Actinocyclus Ehrb. Quekett Microscopical Club Journal, 4 (new series):137–212.Google Scholar
Reinhold, T. 1937. Fossil diatoms of the Neogene of Java and their zonal distribution. Geologisch-Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap voor Nederland en Kolonien, Verhandelingen, Geologische Serie 12(1):43–132.Google Scholar
Rogers, W. B. 1841. Infusorial stratum and associated Tertiary beds in the vicinity of Richmond. Virginia Geological Survey Report, 1840:38–42.Google Scholar
Roper, F. C. S. 1859. On the genus Biddulphia and its affinities. Microscopical Society of London Transactions, 7, 24 p.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. et al. 1875–1959. Atlas der Diatomaceenkunde. O. R. Reisland, Leipzig, 480 pls.Google Scholar
Schrader, H.-J. 1973a. Cenozoic diatoms from the northeast Pacific, leg 18. In Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 18:673–797.Google Scholar
Schrader, H.-J. 1973b. Stratigraphic distribution of marine species of the diatom Denticula in Neogene North Pacific sediments. Micropaleontology, 19(4):417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrader, H.-J. 1974. Cenozoic marine planktonic diatom stratigraphy of the tropical Indian Ocean. In Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 24:887–967.Google Scholar
Schrader, H.-J. and Fenner, J. 1976. Norwegian sea Cenozoic diatom biostratigraphy and taxonomy. In Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 38:921–1099.Google Scholar
Shattuck, G. B. 1902. The Miocene problem of Maryland (abstr.). Science, new series, 15:906–908.Google Scholar
Shattuck, G. B. 1904. The Miocene deposits of Maryland; geological and paleontological relations, with a review of earlier investigations. Maryland Geological Survey Miocene, 33–137.Google Scholar
Simonsen, R. 1979. The diatom system: ideas on phylogeny. Bacillaria, 2:9–71.Google Scholar
Simonsen, R. and Kanaya, T. 1961. Notes on marine species of the diatom genus Denticula Kütz. Internationale Revue Gesamten Hydrobiologie, 46(4):498–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. 1856. A synopsis of the British Diatomaceae, 2. Smith and Beck, London, 104 p.Google Scholar
Stodder, C. 1877. A contribution to microgeology. Boston Society of Natural History Proceedings, 18:206–209.Google Scholar
Strel'nikova, N. I. 1974. Diatomei Pozdnego Mela (Zapadnaya Sibir'). Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Nauchnyi Sovet po Probleme (Moscow, Izdatel'stvo “Nauka”), 203 p.Google Scholar
van Heurck, H. 1880–1885. Synopsis des diatomées de Belgique. Antwerp, 235 p.Google Scholar
Ward, L. W. 1980. Chronostratigraphy and molluscan biostratigraphy of the Miocene— Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 104 p.Google Scholar
Ward, L. W. and Blackwelder, B. W. 1980. Stratigraphic revision of upper Miocene and lower Pliocene beds of the Chesapeake Group, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 1482-D, 61 p.Google Scholar