Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:20:39.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Description of a Quantitative Approach to Taphonomy and Taphofacies Analysis: All Dead Things Are Not Created Equal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

David J. Davies ,
George M. Staff ,
W. Russell Callender  and
Eric N. Powell
David J. Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843
George M. Staff
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843
W. Russell Callender
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843
Eric N. Powell
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843
Get access

Extract

The utilization of taphonomic information to formulate biostratinomic models for modern and ancient assemblages has become a potentially powerful tool in paleoecologic analysis. The division of fossil assemblages into discrete suites of taphonomically-similar material adds an extra dimension to the interpretation of depositional setting and paleoecologic structure (Brett and Baird, 1986; Speyer and Brett, 1986, 1988; Speyer, 1987). This approach uses the hypothesis that taphonomic alteration varies in a predictable way with depositional setting. In other words, each specific environment (e.g., low-salinity muddy bay, storm-dominated clastic shelf) is characterized by a unique suite of physical, chemical and biological processes: these processes imprint a unique and predictable “taphonomic signature” on the death assemblage.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Paleontological Society Special Publications , Volume 5: Paleocommunity Temporal Dynamics: The Long-Term Development of Multispecies Assemblies , 1990 , pp. 328 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

Alexandersson, E.T. 1978. Destructive diagenesis of carbonate sediments in the eastern Skagerrak, North Sea. Geology (Boulder), 6:324–327.Google Scholar
Alexandersson, E.T. 1979. Marine maceration of skeletal carbonates in the Skagerrak, North Sea. Sedimentology, 26:845–852.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E. and Baird, G.C. 1986. Comparative taphonomy: a key to paleoenvironmental interpretation based on fossil preservation. Palaios, 1:207–227.Google Scholar
Cadeé, G.C. 1968. Molluscan biocoenoses and thanatocoenoses in the Rio de Arosa, Galicia, Spain. Zoologische Verhandelingen (Leiden), 95:1–121.Google Scholar
Davies, D.J., Powell, E.N. and Stanton, R.J. Jr. In press. Taphonomic signature as a function of environmental process: shells and shell beds in a hurricane-influenced inlet on the Texas coast. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E.G. 1967. Experimental field study of shell abrasion. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37:1117–1123.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E.G. 1970. Selective bivalve shell destruction in marine environments, a field study. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 40:898–905.Google Scholar
Driscoll, E.G., and Weltin, T.P. 1973. Sedimentary parameters as factors in abrasive shell reduction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 13:275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessa, K.W. and Brown, T.J. 1983. Selective solution of macroinvertebrate calcareous hard parts: a laboratory study. Lethaia 16:193–205.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W. and Howard, J.D. 1986. Mesotidal estuarine sequences: a perspective from the Georgia bight. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 56:911–924.Google Scholar
Henderson, S.W. and Frey, R.W. 1986. Taphonomic redistribution of mollusk shells in a tidal inlet channel, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Palaios, 1:3–16.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. 1980. Taphonomy, p. 27–39. In Broadhead, T.W. and Waters, J.A. (eds.), Echinoderms: Notes for a Short Course. University of Tennessee, Department of Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology 3.Google Scholar
Pilkey, O.H., Blackwelder, B.W., Doyle, L.J., Estes, E. and Terlecky, P.M. 1969. Aspects of carbonate sedimentation on the Atlantic continental shelf off the southern United States. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 39:744–768.Google Scholar
Plotnick, R.E. 1986. Taphonomy of a modern shrimp: implications for the arthropod fossil record. Palaios, 1:286–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, E.N., Staff, G.M., Davies, D.J. and Callender, W.R. In press. Macrobenthic death assemblages in modern marine environments: formation, interpretation and application. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences.Google Scholar
Speyer, S.E. 1987. Comparative taphonomy and palaeoecology of trilobite lagerstätten. Alcheringa, 11:205–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, S.E., and Brett, C.E. 1986. Trilobite taphonomy and Middle Devonian taphofacies. Palaios, 1:312–327.Google Scholar
Speyer, S.E., and Brett, C.E. 1988. Taphofacies models for epeiric sea environments: middle Paleozoic examples. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 63:225–262.Google Scholar
Staff, G.M. and Powell, E.N. This volume. Taphonomic signature and the imprint of taphonomic history: discriminating between taphofacies of the inner continental shelf and a microtidal inlet.Google Scholar
Staff, G.M., Powell, E.N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Cummins, H. 1985. Biomass: is it a useful tool in paleocommunity reconstruction? Lethaia, 18:209–232.Google Scholar
Walker, S.E. 1988. Taphonomic significance of hermit crabs (Anomura: Paguridea): epifaunal hermit crab-infaunal gastropod example. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 63:45–71.Google Scholar