Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:04:57.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ouachita Basin of Oklahoma vis-a-vis the Craven Lowlands of Yorkshire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

E. E. L. Dixon
E. E. L. Dixon
Affiliation:
H. M. Geological Survey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Geological Magazine for February the limestone-boulders in the Bowland Shales of School Share near Settle were redescribed by Dr. R. G. S. Hudson and the writer, and the conclusion reached that they represented a landslip from a fault-scarp raised along part of the Craven Fault-system during the mid-Carboniferous earth-movement. Whilst that article was in the press the writer became aware that great limestone-boulders occur in the Caney Shale of Oklahoma and that they have occasioned much discussion or even, owing to their size and varied fossils, uncertainty as to the age of the associated beds. His interest was piqued, for he recalled that a close comparison had been drawn by Bisat between the contrast of Bowland Shale (Culm) and Yoredale facies of sedimentation, displayed in the Craven Lowlands and in the Craven Uplands and the Yorkshire Dales, and a contrast in Oklahoma between the sedimentation in the Ouachita Mountains and that in the nearby Arbuckle Mountains.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 68 , Issue 8 , August 1931 , pp. 337 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

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 337 note 1 “A Yorkshire Carboniferous (Bowland Shale) Fauna in Oklahoma, U.S.A.”: Naturalist, 1924, 86–8.Google Scholar

page 338 note 1 Miser, H. D. and Honess, C. W., “Age Relations of the Carboniferous Rocks of the Ouachita Mts., etc.”: Oklahoma Geol. Surv., Bull. 44, 1927.Google Scholar Ulrich, E. O., “Fossiliferous Boulders in the Ouachita ‘Caney’ Shale and the Age of the Shale containing them,” Bull. 45, 1927.Google Scholar Powers, S., “Age of the Folding of the Oklahoma Mts., etc.”: Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., xxxix, 1928, 1031–72; also maps on the 1: 500,000 scale, published by the Federal and Arkansas Geol. Surveys, of Oklahoma (1926) and Arkansas (1929).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 338 note 2 “The Fauna of the Caney Shale of Oklahoma”: U.S. Geol. Survey, Bull. 377, 1909.Google Scholar

page 340 note 1 Op. cit.; and in Miser and Honess, 23–4.

page 340 note 2 Delépine comes to the same conclusion and for the same reason (“Les Zones à Goniatites du Carbonifère,” Soc. Géol. de France Livre Jubilaire, 1930, 228).Google Scholar

page 341 note 1 It is difficult to fix the position, in this country, of the Wapanucka Limestone, as it is not developed with the same facies, it is generally regarded as the base of the Pennsylvanian and its horizon, therefore, it not far from the base of the Namurian.

page 342 note 1 Proc. Geol. Assoc., xli, 1930, 316–17.Google Scholar

page 342 note 2 E. O. Ulrich, op. cit., pls. iii, v, and vi.

page 342 note 3 S. Powers, op. cit., 1046.

page 342 note 4 “Palæozoic Submarine Landslips near Quebec City”: Journ. Geol., xxxvi, 1928, 606–7.Google Scholar

page 342 note 5 Macgregor, M., “A Jurassic Shore-line”: Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow, xvi, 1916, 79, 84, and p1. iii.Google Scholar

page 344 note 1 See, e.g., Ulrich, op. cit., Bull. 45, 27; and Miser and Honess, op. cit., fig. 2 and p. 25. These authors clearly regard the contact as one of original deposition.

page 344 note 2 As shown, without committing themselves, in Miser and Honess, fig. 2A.