Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:25:55.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New kingenoid (Terebratellidina) brachiopods with larger body sizes from the Early Cretaceous of Zengővárkony (Mecsek Mountains, Hungary)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2019

László Bujtor Open the ORCID record for László Bujtor [Opens in a new window]  and
Attila Vörös
László Bujtor
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Meteorology, The University of Pécs, Baranya County, H-7624Pécs, Ifjúság útja 6, Hungary
Attila Vörös
Affiliation:
Department of Paleontology and Geology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, and MTA-MTM-ELTE Research Group for Paleontology POB 137, Budapest, H-1431, Hungary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The small, Lower Cretaceous, iron ore deposit at Zengővárkony (Mecsek Mountains, southern Hungary, Europe) contains new brachiopod taxa of kingenoid relationships. Dictyothyropsis vogli, Zittelina hofmanni, and Smirnovina ferraria are described as new species from late Valanginian to earliest Hauterivian strata. The new taxa strengthen the presence of Early Cretaceous biogeographical connections with the Western Carpathians and the Pieniny Klippen Belt of southern Poland. The newly described taxa have significantly larger dimensions than their closest relatives from the type localities, which is in line with previous research on brachiopods from this environment. These brachiopods lived in a nutrient-rich, unique environment related to iron-ore deposition linked to former hydrothermal activity on the seafloor that might have contributed to the large size of these brachiopods. Larger than normal rhynchonellide and terebratulidine brachiopods have previously been recorded from this locality.

UUID: http://zoobank.org/353882-2838-4eb7-b21a-8cc665d13408

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 94 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 475 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © 2019, 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

Agirrezabala, L.M., and López-Horgue, M.A., 2017, Environmental and ammonoid faunal changes related to Albian Bay of Biscay opening: Insights from the northern margin of the Basque-Cantabrian Basin: Journal of Sea Research, v. 130, p. 36–48, doi:10.1016/j.seares.2017.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barczyk, W., 1969, Upper Jurassic terebratulids from the Mesozoic border of the Holy Cross Mountains in Poland: Prace Muzeum Ziemi, v. 14, p. 3–82.Google Scholar
Barczyk, W., 1979, Brachiopods from the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary of Rogoźnik and Czorsztyn in the Pieniny Klippen Belt: Acta Geologica Polonica, v. 29, p. 207–214.Google Scholar
Bilik, I., 1974, Unterkretazische vulkanite des Mecsek-Gebirges: Acta Geologica Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae, v. 18, p. 315–325.Google Scholar
Bilik, I., 1983, Lower Cretaceous submarine (rift) volcanism in South Transdanubia (South Hungary), in Bisztricsány, E., and Szeidovitz, G., eds., Proceedings of the 17th Assembly of the European Seismological Committee: Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, p. 569–576.Google Scholar
Bujtor, L., 1993, Valanginian ammonite fauna from the Kisújbánya Basin (Mecsek Mts., South Hungary) and its palaeobiogeographical significance: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, v. 188, p. 103–131.Google Scholar
Bujtor, L., 2006, Early Valanginian brachiopods from the Mecsek Mts. (southern Hungary) and their palaeobiogeographical significance: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, v. 241, p. 111–152, doi:10.1127/njgpa/241/2006/111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bujtor, L., 2007, A unique Valanginian paleoenvironment at an iron ore deposit near Zengővárkony (Mecsek Mts, South Hungary), and a possible genetic model: Central European Geology, v. 50, p. 183–198, doi:10.1556/CEuGeol.50.2007.3.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bujtor, L., 2011, The early Valanginian ammonite, brachiopod and crustacean fauna of the Mecsek Mts. and its relationships with the embryonic shallow water hydrothermal vent at Zengővárkony (Mecsek Mts., South Hungary): Cretaceous Research, v. 32, p. 565–574, doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2011.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bujtor, L., 2012a, A mecseki alsó-kréta (valangini) hidrotermális hasadékrendszer őslénytani jellege: Földtani Közlöny, v. 142, p. 137–148.Google Scholar
Bujtor, L., 2012b, A Valanginian crustacean microcoprolite ichnofauna from the shallow marine vent site of Zengővárkony (Mecsek Mts., Hungary): Facies, v. 58, p. 249–260, doi:10.1007/s10347-011-0285-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bujtor, L., and Szinger, B., 2018, Micropaleontological observations on the Lower Cretaceous iron ore-related formations of the Mecsek Mts. (upper Valanginian–lower Hauterivian, South Hungary): Central European Geology, v. 61, p. 136–159, doi:10.1556/24.61.2018.08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bujtor, L., Janssen, N.M.M., and Verreussel, R., 2013, Early Cretaceous (Valanginian and Hauterivian) belemnites and organic-walled dinoflagellate cysts from a marine hydrothermal vent site and adjacent facies in the Mecsek Mts., Hungary: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, v. 269, p. 135–148, doi:10.1127/0077-7749/2013/0341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calzada, S., 1985 (‘1984’), Braquiópodos del Hauteriviense de Fortuna (Prov. Murcia, España): Bolletino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, v. 23, p. 75–90.Google Scholar
Cohen, K.M., Finney, S.C., Gibbard, P.L., and Fan, J.-X., 2013, The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart: Episodes, v. 36, p. 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Császár, G., and Turnšek, D., 1996, Vestiges of atoll-like formations in the Early Cretaceous of the Mecsek Mountains, Hungary: Cretaceous Research, v. 17, p. 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csontos, L., and Vörös, A., 2004, Mesozoic plate tectonic reconstruction of the Carpathian region: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 210, p. 1–56, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2004.02.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagys, A.S., 1972, Postembrional'noe razvitie brakhidiya pozdnepaleozoiskikh i rannemezozoiskikh Terebratulida, in Morfologicheskie i Filogeneticheskie Voprosy Paleontologii: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Institut Geologii i Geofiziki (IGIG), Trudy, v. 112, p. 22–58.Google Scholar
Davidson, T., 1852, A Monograph of the British Fossil Brachiopoda, Volume I, Part III: The Oolitic and Liassic Brachiopoda: Palaeontographical Society Monograph 4, 64 p.Google Scholar
Duméril, A.M.C., 1806, Zoologie Analytiqueou Méthode Naturelle de Classification des Animaux: Paris, Allais, xxiv + 344 p.Google Scholar
d'Orbigny, A., 1840–1842, Paléontologie Française. Terrains Crétacés. I. Céphalopodes : Paris, V. Masson, 662 p. (p. 1–120 [1840]; p. 121–430 [1841]; p. 431–662 [1842]; 148 pls.)Google Scholar
d’Orbigny, A., 1849, Description Zoologique et Géologique de Tous les Animaux Mollusques et Rayonnés Fossiles de France: Terrains Crétacés, Tome Quatrième (Brachiopodes), Texte: Paris, Arthus Bertrand, p. 33–104.Google Scholar
Elliott, G.F., 1948, The evolutionary significance of brachial developments in terebratelloid brachiopods: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 12, v. 1, p. 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embey-Isztin, A., 1981, Statistical analysis of major element patterns in basic rocks of Hungary: An approach to determine their tectonic settings: Földtani Közlöny, v. 111, p. 43–58.Google Scholar
Garcia Ramos, D.A., 2005, Estado actual de conocimiento sobre braquiópodos mesozoicos de la Región de Murcia: Boletin de la Associación Cultural Paleontologica Murciana, v. 4, p. 9–33.Google Scholar
Haas, J., and Péró, C., 2004, Mesozoic evolution of the Tisza Mega-unit: International Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 93, p. 297–313, doi:`0.1007/s00531-004-0384-9.Google Scholar
Hetényi, R., Hámor, G., and Nagy, I., 1968, Magyarázó a Mecsek Hegység Földtani Térképéhez, 10.000-es Sorozat, Apátvarasd: Budapest, Geological Institute of Hungary, 55 p.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K., 1907, Geologische Mitteilungen über das Pécser Gebirge: Földtani Közlöny, v. 37, nos. 4–5, p. 111–116.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K., 1912, A Mecsek hegység középső neokom rétegeinek kagylói: Matematikai és Természettudományi Értesítő, v. 30, p. 688–693.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K., and Vadász, E., 1912, A Mecsekhegység középső-neokom rétegeinek kagylói: A Magyar Királyi Földtani Intézet Évkönyve, v. 20, no. 5, p. 189–226.Google Scholar
Huemer, H., 1997, Multistage evolution of a volcanic suite in the Eastern Mecsek Mountains, southern Hungary: Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 59, p. 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jáger, V., and Molnár, F., 2009, Lower Cretaceous continental rift-type black smoker system in the East Mecsek Mts: Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Mineralogischen Gesellschaft, v. 155, p. 70.Google Scholar
Jáger, V., Molnár, F., Buchs, D., and Kodera, P., 2012, The connection between iron ore formations and ‘mud-shrimp’ colonizations around sunken wood debris and hydrothermal sediments in a Lower Cretaceous continental rift basin, Mecsek Mts., Hungary: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 114, p. 250–278, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krobicki, M., 1994, Stratigraphic significance and palaeoecology of the Tithonian-Berriasian brachiopods in the Pieniny Klippen Belt, Carpathians, Poland: Studia Geologica Polonica, v. 106, p. 89–156.Google Scholar
Krobicki, M., 1996, Valanginian (Early Cretaceous) brachiopods of the Spisz Limestone Formation, Pieniny Klippen Belt, Polish Carpathians: Their stratigraphic ranges and palaeoenvironment: Studia Geologica Polonica, v. 109, p. 87–102.Google Scholar
Loriol, P. de, 1862, Description des Animaux Invertebrés Fossiles Contenus dans l’Étage Néocomien Moyen du Mont Saléve: Geneva, H. Géorg, 214 p.Google Scholar
Mauritz, B., 1913, A Mecsek-hegység eruptivus kőzetei: Annales of the Hungarian Royal Geological Institute, v. 21, p. 151–190.Google Scholar
Mauritz, B., 1958, Zwei neue vulkanische Gesteinstypen aus dem Mecsekgebirge: Földtani Közlöny, v. 88, p. 42–47.Google Scholar
Middlemiss, F.A., 1984, Lower Cretaceous Terebratulidae of the Jura Region: Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, v. 77, p. 583–617.Google Scholar
Molnár, J., 1961, A zengővárkonyi vasérckutatás: Bányászati Lapok, v. 94, p. 187–194.Google Scholar
Morri, C., Bianchi, C.N., Cocito, S., Peirano, A., De Biasi, A.M., Aliani, S., Pansini, M., Boyer, M., Ferdeghini, F., Pestarino, M., and Dando, P.R., 1999, Biodiversity of marine sessile epifauna at an Aegean Island subject to hydrothermal activity: Milos, eastern Mediterranean Sea: Marine Biology, v. 135, p. 729–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir-Wood, H.M., 1955, A History of the Classification of the Phylum Brachiopoda: London, British Museum, 124 p.Google Scholar
Nagy, I., 1967, A felsőjura képződmények és a kréta vulkanitok viszonya a Mecsekben: Annual Report of the Geological Institute of Hungary, 1965, p. 149–168.Google Scholar
Nekvasilova, O., 1980, Terebratulida (Brachiopoda) from the Lower Cretaceous of Štramberk (north-east Moravia) Czechoslovakia. Sborník Geologických Věd, Paleontologie, v. 23, p. 49–80.Google Scholar
Ovtsharenko, V.N., 1983, Jurassic Brachiopods of the Pamirs]: Dusanbe, Tajikistan, Akademiia Nauk Tadzhikistana SSR, 196 p. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Palik, P., 1965, Remains of crustacean excrement from the Lower Cretaceous of Hungary: Micropalaeontology, v. 11, p. 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantó, G., Varrók, K., and Kopek, G., 1955, Nouvelles contributions à la géologie du gisement de minerai de fer de Zengővárkony: Földtani Közlöny, v. 85, p. 125–144.Google Scholar
Pictet, F.J., 1867, Etudes Paléontologiques sur la Faune à Terebratula diphyoïdes de Berrias (Ardèche): Mélanges Paléontologiques: Geneva, Edition Ramboz et Schuchardt, 110 p.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F.A., 1852, Handbuch der Petrefaktenkunde: Tübingen, Germany, Laupp, vi + 792 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quenstedt, F.A., 1858, Der Jura: Tübingen, Germany, Laupp'schen, 842 p.Google Scholar
Radulović, V., Radulović, B., and Jovanović, G., 2007, Early Hauterivian brachiopod fauna from the Stara Planina Mountain (eastern Serbia): Taxonomy, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, v. 246, p. 111–127, doi:10.1127/0077-7749/2007/0246-0111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, F.A., 1839, Die Versteinerungen des norddeutschen Oolithen-Gebirges: Ein Nachtrag: Hannover, Germany, Hahn, 59 p.Google Scholar
Rollier, L., 1919, Synopsis des spirobranches (Brachiopodes) jurassiques Celto-Souabes: Quatrième partie (Zeilleridés–Répertoises): Schweizerishe Palaeontologische Gesellschaft, Abhandlungen, v. 44, p. 279–422.Google Scholar
Schlotheim, E.F., 1820, Die Petrefactenkunde auf Ihrem Jetzigen Standpunkte Durch die Beschreibung seiner Sammlung Versteinerter und Fossiler Überreste des Their- und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt Erläutert, Volume 1: Gotha, Germany, Bekker, 437 p.Google Scholar
Skilling, I.P., White, J.D.L., and McPhie, J., 2002, Peperite: A review of magma-sediment mingling: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 114, p. 1–17, doi:10/1016/S0377-0273(01)00278-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, T.N., 1962, New data on Lower Cretaceous dallinids (Brachiopods): Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, v. 2, p. 97–105. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Suess, E., 1858, Die Brachiopoden der Stramberger Schichten: Beiträge zur Palaeontologie und Geologie Oesterreich-Ungarns und des Orients (Wien), v. 1, p. 15–32.Google Scholar
Sztrókay, K.I., 1952, Mecseki vasércképződés: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Műszaki Osztályának Közleményei, v. 3, p. 11–23.Google Scholar
Tchorszhevsky, E.S., 1989, Structure of shell and systematic of Tithonian Terebratulida (Brachiopoda) of Penin Klippen zone in Carpathian: Byulleten’ Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody Otdel Geologicheskii, v. 64, no. 5, p. 75–84. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Vadász, E., 1935, Das Mecsek-Gebirge: Budapest, Königliche Ungarischen Geologischen Anstalt, xxv + 180 p.Google Scholar
Viczián, I., 1966, Tenger alatti kitörési és kőzetlebontási jelenségek a Kisbattyán I. sz. fúrás alsókréta diabáz összletében: A Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Évi Jelentése az 1964, évről, p. 75–92.Google Scholar
Waagen, W.H., 1883, Salt Range Fossils, I, Productus-Limestone Fossils: Geological Survey of India, Memoirs, Palaeontologia Indica, ser. 13, v. 4, p. 391–546.Google Scholar
Wein, G., 1961, A szerkezetalakulás mozzanatai és jellegei a Keleti-Mecsekben: Annales of the Geological Institute of Hungary, v. 49, p. 759–768.Google Scholar
Wein, G., 1965, A Mecsek-hegység ‘Északi Pikkely’-ének földtani felépítése: Annual Report of the Geological Institute of Hungary, 1963, p. 35–52.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Carlson, S.J., Brunton, C.H.C., Holmer, L.E., and Popov, L.E., 1996, A supra-ordinal classification of the Brachiopoda: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, ser. B, v. 351, p. 1171–1193.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Brunton, C.H.C., and Carlson, S.J., 2006, Rhynchonelliformea (part), in Koesler, R.L., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda Revised, Volume 5: Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America (and University of Kansas Press), p. i–xlvi + 1689–2320.Google Scholar
Zittel, K.A., 1870, Die Fauna der aeltern cephalopodenfuehrenden Tithonbildungen: Palaeontographica, Supplement nos. 1–3, vii + 192 p.Google Scholar