Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T16:57:36.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXII.—The Maltese Fossil Echinoidea, and their Evidence on the Correlation of the Maltese Rocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2013

J. W. Gregory  and
John Murray
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rocks which form the Maltese islands have been at various times referred to very different parts of the Cainozoic group. At first they were all assigned to the Eocene, but a further knowledge of their fossils led to the transference of the whole series to the Miocene, in which system they have been included by most English writers. Herr Th. Fuchs, However, who first attempted any precise determination of the horizons of the subdivisions, correlated the Upper Limestone with the Leithakalk and the Blue Clay with the Schlier, and included the two lowest beds in the Oligocene. Dr Murray, however, in the course of his recent Memoir, has explained the striking palæontological differences between the faunas of the different deposits as due to altered conditions of formation rather than to lapse of time, and seems to follow earlier authors in including the whole series in the Miocene.

The Echinoidea of these deposits were originally described by Dr Wright in 1855,§ with additions and corrections in 1864; but since that time much work has been done on the allied faunas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , 1892 , pp. 585 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1892

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

page 585 note * Fuchs, Th., “Das Alter der Tertiärschichten von Malta,” Sitz. k. k. Ah. Wiss. Wien, lxx., Abth. 1, 1874, pp. 92–105Google Scholar; “Die Versuche einer Gliederung des unteren Neogen im Gebiete der Mittelmeers,” Zeit. deut. geol. Ges., xxxvii., 1885, p. 141Google Scholar.

page 585 note † Fuchs, Th., “Über den sogenannten ‘Baditer Tegel’ auf Malta,” Sitz. k. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien, lxxiii., Abth. i., 1876, pp. 67–74Google Scholar, pl. i.

page 585 note ‡ Murray, J., “The Maltese Islands, with special reference to their Geological Structure,” Scott. Geogr. Mag., vi., 1890, pp. 449–488Google Scholar, pl. i. ii.

page 585 note § Wright, T., “On Fossil Echinoderms from the Island of Malta, with Notes on the Stratigraphical Distribution of the Fossil Organisms in the Maltese Beds,” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), xv. pp. 101–127, 175–196, 262–277Google Scholar, pl. iv.-vii. (This paper was also issued in the Proc. Cotteswold Field Club, ii., 1855, pp. 55–117Google Scholar, pl. iv.-vii., and some of the species should perhaps really date from that work; but as it happens to make no difference, the more accessible publication only is referred to.)

page 585 note ∥ Wright, T., “On the Fossil Echinidæ of Malta, with additional Notes on the Miocene Beds of the Island, and the Stratigraphical Distribution of the Species therein, by A. Leith Adams,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xx., 1864, pp. 470–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. xxi. xxii. ProfessorForbes, had previously published a few lines on the Echinoids, “Report on the Collections of Tertiary Fossils from Malta and Gozo,” Proc. Geol. Soc., iv., 1844, pp. 231–232Google Scholar.

page 586 note * Op. cit., p. 490.

page 587 note * De Corporibus Marinis Lapidescentibus (1747), ed. 2, 1752Google Scholar, pl. xxiii. xxiv.

page 589 note * De Corporibus Marinis Lapid., ed. 2, 1852Google Scholar, pl. xxiii.I f. 2; pl. xxiii.II f. 2; pl. xxiv.

page 591 note * “Echinides fossiles des Pyrénées,” Congrès scientifique de France, sess. xxviii. t. iii., Bordeaux, 1863, pp. 222, 223, pl. I. f. 5–9Google Scholar.

page 593 note * “Sur les Echinides du Miocène moyen de la Bretagne,” Bull. Soc. géol. France (3), xii., 1884, pp. 37, 38Google Scholar, pl. iii. f. 1–6.

page 593 note † See, e.g., that figured by Tournouer, R., “Recensement des Échinodennes de l'étage du Calcaire à Astéries dans le S. O. de la France,” Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, xxvii., 1869Google Scholar, pl. xv. f. 2, c and b.

page 593 note ‡ “Étude sur les fossiles de l'étage tongrien (d'Oibigny) des environs de Rennes en Bretagne,” Bull. Soc., géol. France (2), vii., 1879, p. 467Google Scholar, pl. x. f. 14.

page 595 note * De Corporibus Marinis Lapid., ed. 2, pl. ix. f. 1, 2.

page 598 note * Catalogue systematique et raisonné des Curiosités iii., Paris, 1767, p. 184Google Scholar.

page 598 note † Andrea, , Briefe aus der Schweiz nach Hannover geschreiben, ed. 2, 1776, p. 40Google Scholar, tab. v, f. g.

page 598 note ‡ “Recensement Échinod. du Calc. à Astéries,” Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, xxvii., 1869, pp. 278–282Google Scholar.

page 599 note * “Mémoire de Géo-Zoologie sur les Oursins fossiles (Échinides),” Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, viii., 1836, pp. 155, 156 Pl. I. fig. 7Google Scholar.

page 599 note † “Pal. Franç. Terr. Tert.,” Éoc. Éch., ii., 1891, p. 194Google Scholar.

page 601 note * See Loven, , “On the Echinoidea described by Linneus,” Bihang Till. K. Sv. Vet. Ak. Handl., xiii. Afd. No. 5, pp. 172–176Google Scholar.

page 601 note † “Über den Bau der Echinodermen,” Abh. k Ah Wiss. Berlin (1853), 1854, pp. 153–157Google Scholar, pl. v.

page 601 note ‡ “Revision of Echini,” Ill. Cat. Mus. Comp. Zool., No. vii., 1872, pp. 306–310Google Scholar.

page 601 note § “When the evidence as to the original type of a genus is not perfectly clear and indisputable, then the person who first subdivides the genus may affix the original name to any portion of it at his discretion, and no later author has a right to transfer that name to any other part of the original genus.”—Brit. Ass. Reports (1842), 1843, p. 111Google Scholar.

page 601 note ∥ Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool., xxiii., 1889, pp. 149–151Google Scholar.

page 601 note ¶ Classification Méthodique et Genera des Échinides vivants et Fossiles, Paris, 1883, p. 68Google Scholar.

page 601 note ** Lutken, Chr. F., Bidrag til. Kundskab om Echiniderne, Vid. Medd. 1863, pp. 116, 117Google Scholar.

page 603 note * “On Palæolampas, anew genus of the Echinoidea,” Proc. Zool. Soc., 1880, pp. 43–49Google Scholar, pl. iv.

page 603 note † Classif. meth. et Gen. des Échinides, p. 62.

page 603 note ‡ Revision, Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool., xxiii. (1889), p. 194Google Scholar.

page 604 note * Dr Wright having omitted to describe this species, only naming it on the explanation of the plates, a diagnosis is here given.

page 606 note * M. Pomel suggested this name in 1883 (Genera, p. 62), but gave no diagnosis, and appears to have subsequently abandoned it, so it may be dismissed as a list name only.

page 607 note * “Description of two new Genera and some new Species of Scutellidae and Echinolampidae in the Collection of the British Museum,” Proc. Zool. Soc., xix., 1851, p. 38Google Scholar.

page 607 note † “Description des Échinides des environs de Camerino (Toscane),” Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat. Genève, xxviii., No. 3, 1882, p. 16Google Scholar.

page 607 note ‡ Ibid., pp. 13–18, pl. ii. iii. f. 1, 2.

page 610 note * “Vicentinische Ech.,” Denksch. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien, xxix. Abt. ii. p. 24Google Scholar, pl. iv. f. 2.

page 610 note † Baldacci, L., Mem. desc. Carta geol. Italia, i. p. 109Google Scholar; de Gregorio, A., 1881, Fauna Argille Scagliosa di Sicilia, Palermo, p. 11Google Scholar, pl. i. f. 2.

page 611 note * “Some Additions to the Australian Tertiary Echinoidea,” Geol. Mag., 1890 (3), vii. p. 489Google Scholar; and “A Revision of the British Cainozoic Echinoidea,” Proc. Geol. Ass., 1891, xi. p. 21Google Scholar.

page 611 note † “Ech. oesterr.-ung. ob. Tertiärabl.,” Abh. k k. geol Reichs., v., 1871, pp. 68, 69Google Scholar, pl. xviii. f. 6.

page 613 note * Loven, S., “On Pourtalesia, a Genus of Echinoidea,” Kongl. Svensk. Vetensk. Ak. Handl., N.S., xix., No. 7, 1883, p. 95Google Scholar.

page 613 note † Agassiz, Al., “Preliminary Report on the Echini of the Exploring Expedition of H.M.S. ‘Challenger,’” Proc. Amer Acad. (Boston, 1879), xiv. p. 210Google Scholar. Agassiz, Al., “Report on the Echinoidea dredged by H.M.S. ‘Challenger’ during the years 1873–1876,” Challenger Reports, Zool. III., No. 1, 1881, pp. 184–186Google Scholar, pl. xx. f. 5–16.

page 615 note * “Ech. osterr.-ung. ob. Tertiarabl.” Abh. k. k. geol. Reichs., v. 1871, p. 68Google Scholar, pl. xvii. f. 2.

page 615 note † The length has been reduced by crushing; a specimen that better retains its shape gives a length of 62 mm. and a width of 60 mm.

page 616 note * Laube, op. cit., p. 68, pl. xvii. f. 2.

page 616 note † Manzoni, A., “Ech. foss. Schlier Bologna,” Denksch. k. Ah. Wiss. Wien, xxxix., Abt. 2, p. 155, 156Google Scholar, pl. i. f. 4–7, pl. ii. f. 8, 9.

page 619 note * Cat. rais. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., 1847 (3), viii. p. 13Google Scholar.

page 620 note * Lamarck, , Anim. sans Vert., iii., 1816, p. 30Google Scholar.

page 620 note † “Revision of the British Fossil Cainozoic Echinoidea,” Proc. Geol. Ass., xii., 1891, p. 41Google Scholar.

page 622 note * Cotteau, G., “Ech. tert. Iles St Barthélemy et Anguilla,” K. Svensk Vet. Ak. Handl., xiii., No. 6, 1875, pp. 41, 42Google Scholar, pl. viii. f. 7, 8.

page 622 note † Brissopsis elegans, Agassiz, 1840, Cat. Syst. Ectyp. Foss. Ech. Neoc., p. 3.

page 622 note ‡ D'Archiac, , “Description des fossiles du groupe nummulitique recueillis … aux environs de Bayonne et de Dax,” Mém. Soc. géol. France (2), iii., 1850, p. 424Google Scholar, pl. x. f. 20.

page 622 note § Dames, W., “Die Echiniden der vicentinischen und veronesischen Tertiärablagerungen,” Paléontographica, xxv., 1877, p. 70Google Scholar.

page 622 note ∥ von Schauroth, C., Verzeichniss der Versteinerungen im Herzoglichen Naturalien Cabinet zu Coburg, Coburg, 1865, p. 192Google Scholar, pl. xi. f. 2.

page 623 note * Hærnes, R., “Die Fauna des schliers von Ottnang,” Jahrb. k k. geol. Reichs., xxv., 1875, pp. 389–91Google Scholar, pl. xii. f. 4, pl. xv. f. 2–7.

page 623 note † de Loriol, P., “Description des Échinide s des environs de Camerino (Toscane),” Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat. Genève, xxviii., No. 3, 1882Google Scholar, pl. iii. f. 4–7.

page 623 note ‡ “Faune tert. Corse,” Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyons (4), ix., 1877, p. 340Google Scholar.

page 624 note * Ebert, Th., “Die Echiniden des Noid und Mitteldeutschen Oligocäns,” Abh. geol. Specialk. Preussen, ix Abt. 1. 1889, pp. 55, 56Google Scholar.

page 625 note * Revision, Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool., xxiii., 1889, p. 265Google Scholar.

page 625 note † Cotteau, G., Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyons (4), ix., 1877, pp. 334, 335Google Scholar, pl. xvi. f. 3–4.

page 628 note * “Faune tert. Corse,” Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyons (4), ix. pp. 275–278Google Scholar.

page 628 note † “Formaz. terz. Reggio,” Mem. R. Ac. Lincei (3), vi. p. 88Google Scholar, pl. x. f. 2.

page 628 note ‡ Ann., Mag. Nat Hist. (2), xv. pp. 118–120Google Scholar.

page 629 note * Ebert, Th., “Die Echiniden des Nord- und Mitteldeutschen Oligocäns,” Abh., geol. Specialk. Preussen und Thür. St., ix., Abt. 1, 1889, pp. 39, 43Google Scholar, pl. ii. f. 1–3; iii. f. 1, 2; x. f. 1.

page 629 note † Syn. Éch. foss., p. 404.

page 631 note * “Note stratigraphique et paléntologique sur les faluns du département de la Gironde,” Bull. Soc. géol France (2), xix., 1862, p. 1069Google Scholar.

page 631 note † Untersuchungen über den Character der oesterreichischen Tertiärablagerungen. I, “Ueber die Gliederung der tertiären Bildungen zwischen dem Mannhart, der Donau und dem äusseren Saume des Hochgebirges,” Sitz. k. k. Ak. Wits. Wien, liv., 1866, Abt. 1, pp. 87–149Google Scholar.

page 631 note ‡ Ibid., p. 118.

page 631 note § DrStur, , “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der stratigraphischen Verhältnisse der marinen Stufe des Wiener Beckens,” Jahrb. k. k. geol. Reichs., xx., 1870, pp. 303–342Google Scholar. “Zur Leithakalk-Frage,” Verh. k. k. geol. Reichs., 1871, pp. 230–234Google Scholar.

page 631 note ∥ Cappellini, G., “Sui terreni terziari di una parte del versante settentrionale dell' Appennino,” Mem. Acc. Sc. Instit. Bologna (3), vi., 1876, pp. 587–621Google Scholar. “Sulle marne glauconifere dei dintorni di Bologna,” Boll. R. Com. geol. Italia, viii., 1877, pp. 398–406Google Scholar; and Rendic. Acc. Sci. Ist. Bol., 1877, pp. 110–121Google Scholar.

page 631 note ¶ Fuchs, Th. and Karrer, F., “Geologische Studien in den Tertiärbildungen des Wiener Beckens,” No. 1–21, Jahrb. k. k. geol. Reichs., Bd. xviii.-xxvGoogle Scholar.

page 631 note ** Manzoni, A., “Lo Schlier di Ottnang nell' Alta Austria e lo Schlier delle colline di Bologna,” Boll. R. Com. geol. Italia, vii., 1876, pp. 122–132Google Scholar. “Geologia della provincia di Bologna,” Ann. Soc. Nat. Modena, xiv., fasc. 1, 1880, pp. 1–33Google Scholar. “Gli Echinodermi fossili dello Schlier delle colline di Bologna,” Denk. k. At Wiss. Wien, xxxix., Th. 2, 1879, pp. 149–164Google Scholar, pl. i.-iv. “Echinodermi fossili della Molassa serpentinosa e supplemento agli Echinodermi dello Schlier delle colline di Bologna,” ib., xlii., Th. 2, 1880, pp. 185–190, pl. i.-iii.

page 631 note ‡ Mazzetti, G., “La molassa marnosa delle montagne Modenesi e Reggiane e lo Schlier delle colline Bolognese,” Ann. Soc. Nat. Modena, xiii., 1879, pp. 105–126Google Scholar.

page 632 note * Vide the series of papers by Fuchs, Th., Sitz. k. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien, lxvi.–lxxviiGoogle Scholar.

page 632 note † Lapworth, C., “On the Ballantrae Rocks of South Scotland, and their place in the Upland Sequence,” Geol Mag. (3), vi., 1889, pp. 20–24, 59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 632 note ‡ Andrusov, N. Ī., “Gheologhīcheskiya īzslyedovaniya v zaradnoĭ polovīnye Kerchenskagho polyostrova proīzvedennuiya lyetom 1884 ghoda,” Zap. Novoross. Obshch. Est, xi., pt. 2, pp. 117, 118, 121Google Scholar; see also “O tretīchnuikh otlozheniyakh Daghestana,” Trud. St. Pet. Obshch. Est., xix., pt. 2, 1888, p. xvGoogle Scholar; and “O kharaksherye Miotzenobuikh ocadkov Kpuima,” Trud. St. Pet. Obshch. Est., xvii., pt. 2, 1886, pp. 59–61Google Scholar.

page 632 note § Süss, E., Das Antlitz der Erde, i., 1885, pp. 375–414Google Scholar.

page 632 note ∥ Neumayr, M., Erdgeschichte, ii., 1887, pp. 515–522Google Scholar.

page 632 note ¶ Inostranzev, A., Gheologhiya, ii., 1887, pp. 394–396Google Scholar.

page 632 note ** Bittner, A., “Ueber den Charakter der sarmatischen Fauna des Wiener Beckens,” Jahrb. k. k. geol. Reichs., xxxiii, 1883, pp. 131–150Google Scholar. “Zur Literatur der österreichischen Tertiärablagerungen,” ib., xxxiv., 1884, pp. 137–146. “Noch ein Beitrag zur neueren Tertiärliteratur,” ib., xxxvi., 1886, pp. 1–70. Also “Neue Daten über den Charakter und die Herkunft der sarmatischen Fauna,” Verk. k. k. geol. Reichs., 1891, pp. 195–8Google Scholar.

page 633 note * Sitz. k Ak. Wiss. Wien, lxx., Abth. i., 1874, pp. 92–105Google Scholar.

page 633 note † Locard, A., “Description de la Faune des Terrains tertiares moyens et supérieurs de la Corse,” Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyons (4), ix., 1877, pp. 345–360Google Scholar.

page 633 note ‡ Quart Journ. Geol. Soc., 1864, vol. xx. p. 490Google Scholar.

page 634 note * Atti. R. Ac. Lincei, 3a Ser. Mem., vol. vi., 1879, pp. 1–446Google Scholar, pl. i.-xvii.

page 634 note † See the remarks on this species, ante, p. 597–98.

page 635 note * “Descrizione geologica dell' Isola Sicilia,” Mem. descr. Carta geol. Italia, i., 1886, pp. 93, 108Google Scholar.

page 635 note † Site. k. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien, lxx., Abth i., pp. 95, 96Google Scholar.

page 635 note ‡ Scott. Geogr. Mag., vi. p. 480Google Scholar.

page 636 note * See List by Dames, W., “Die Echiniden der Vicentinischen und Veronesischen Tertiarablagerungen,” Paläontogr., xxv., 1877, pp. 93, 94Google Scholar.

page 636 note † Op. cit., p. 347.

page 363 note ‡ Zeit. deut. geol. Ges., xxix., 1877, pp. 661, 662Google Scholar

page 637 note * Op. cit., pp. 465, 466.

page 637 note † “Description des Echinides dea environs de Camerino (Toscane),” Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat. Genève, xxviii., No. 3, 1882, pp. 27–3Google Scholar0, pl. i, f. 12–14.