Douglas Lake Member[1][2]
Stratigraphic range: [3]
Holotype specimen of Chasmataspis laurencii
TypeMember[2]
Unit ofLenoir Limestone
Underliesnodular member of Lenoir Limestone
OverliesMascot Dolomite (Knox Group)
Thicknessup to 37 meters (121 ft)
Lithology
Primaryrubble conglomerate, chert conglomerate, and black dolomite[1]
OtherShale (shaly dolomite), volcanic ash[4]
Location
Regioneastern  Tennessee
Country USA
Extentdiscontinuous, paleokarst fills in top of Mascot Dolomite
Type section
Named forDouglas Lake (Douglas Reservoir)
Named byJ. Bridge[1]
Locationnorth shore of Douglas Lake, 2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) northeast of the Douglas Dam
Year defined1995

The Douglas Lake Member is a geologic unit of member rank[2] of the Lenoir Limestone that overlies the Mascot Dolomite and underlies typical nodular member of the Lenoir Limestone in Douglas Lake, Tennessee, region. It fills depressions that are part of a regional unconformity at the base of Middle Ordovician strata, locally the Lenoir Limestone, that separates them from the underlying Lower Ordovician strata, locally the Knox Group.[1][2][4]

Nomenclature

The type locality of the Douglas Lake Member lies on the north shore of Douglas Lake, 2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) northeast of Douglas Dam, Jefferson County. It was named by Josiah Bridge for Douglas Lake, Tennessee.[1][2]

Lithology

The Douglas Lake Member is composed of a diverse set of sedimentary rocks, including rubble conglomerate, chert conglomerate, and black dolomite. In outcrops along the north shore of Lake Douglas, the chert conglomerate overlies the rubble conglomerate and both of which fill prehistoric sinkholes, called paleokarst, developed in upper surface of the Mascot Dolomite. Up to 10 meters (33 ft) of black, fine-grained, thick-bedded dolomite fill two large, prehistoric sinkholes and grade upward almost imperceptibly into Lenoir Limestone.[1] Such paleokarst depression fills, which are part of a regional uncomformity, are common throughout this region. They are generally included in the Lenoir Limestone as the Douglas Lake Member.[5]

At Douglas Dam, the Douglas Lake Member consists of three-part sequence of volcanic ash, conglomerate and shale and / or shaly dolomite that fill one of these ancient sinkholes developed in the Mascot Dolomite of the Knox Group. This prehistoric sinkhole varies between 18 and 27 meters (59 and 89 ft) in with and is at least 45 meters (148 ft) deep.[2][4] The upper unit consisted of about 11 meters (36 ft) of thin-bedded, slabby reworked volcanic ash and impure dolomite with green shale partings. The upper unit overlied a middle unit, which consisted of varve-like graded beds with concentrations of organic matter at their top and interlayered with recurrent layers and lenses of conglomerate and breccia. It is this unit from which all of the fossils were recovered. The lowest unit consisted of the lowest member is composed of 22 meters (72 ft) of massive, blocky, fine-grained, pyroclastics without laminations.[6] This exposure of the Douglas Lake Member was named the 33 beds in 1944.[7] In 1955, the 33 beds were assigned to the Douglas Lake Member of the Lenoir Limestone.[1][4] The 33 beds were completely excavated for construction of Douglas Dam by the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1942, but yielded articulated arthropod fossils including Chasmataspis and Douglasocaris.[6][8] This kind of preservation by volcanic ash is paralleled by Silurian Herefordshire Lagerstätte.[8]

Fossils

At Douglas Dam, the Douglas Lake Member has long been known for its articulated Chasmataspidid Chasmataspsis laurenci and phyllocarid Douglasocaris collinsi.[6] In addition, enigmatic fossil Cestites mirabilis is known, originally interpreted as ctenophore.[8]

In 2000, Gregory Retallack, who is famous for paleobotany research and interpretation of Ediacaran Biota as terrestrial environment,[9] considered this site as terrestrial environment with plant fossils.[10] In 2019, he claimed compression fossils of a variety of non-vascular land plants, described four taxa of plants, two taxa of fungi and reinterpreted Cestites as a liverwort.[3]

TaxonInterpretationImage
Cestites mirabilis Considered as a liverwort in the family Marchantiaceae. It has narrow gametophyte thallus, with a wide midrib and dichotomizing at long intervals. The archegoniophores are parasol shaped and clustered.
Casterlorum crispum Considered as a liverwort in the family Leiosporocerotaceae. It has a wide dichotomizing gametophyte thallus with dichotomizing dark lines interpreted as mucilage canals with cyanobacterial symbionts. The sporophyte horns have a thick basal involucre and when dehisced form whip like curls. Spores are small and laevigate. The genus was named in honor of Ken Caster.
Janegraya sibylla Considered as a minute balloonwort (Sphaerocarpaceae), similar to living Sphaerocarpos. Its spores are permanent tetrads closed within a thin perine, widely known among Ordovician dispersed spores as Tetrahedraletes.[11] The generic name honors Jane Gray, and the epithet means "prophetess".
Dollyphyton boucotii Considered as a peat moss in the family Flatbergiaceae. Its leaves are wide and have lateral teeth. Its capsule is terminal on a short pseudopodium. Unlike most peat mosses Dollyphyton has broad leaves like those of the living peat moss Flatbergium, considered basal to Sphagnales.[12] The generic name honors Dolly Parton whose Dollywood resort is nearby. The epithet honors Art Boucot.
Edwardsiphyton ovatum Considered as a moss in the family Pottiaceae. It has narrow acutely pointed leaves and recurved capsules. Spores are small and verrucate. The genus was named in honor of Dianne Edwards, and the epithet refers to the shape of the capsules.
Palaeoglomus strotheri Microscopic mycorrhizal fungus.
Prototaxites honeggeri Considered as the earliest appearance of genus of giant fungi Prototaxites.

He claimed that the fossils are compressions of original carapaces of the arthropods and the organic carbon of the plant fossils.[3] While this is accepted in a few studies and review of his book,[13][14][15] in 2022 researchers such as paleobotanist Dianne Edwards who studied about Paleozoic plants referred his study and commented "When diagnostic features are absent, such fragmentary organic materials can be misinterpreted, leading to implausible attributions".[16] This is agreed in later review as well, considered to lack sufficient characters to be unequivocally assigned to land plants.[17]

Age

The paleokarst depressions occupied by the Douglas Lake Member are part of the Knox Unconformity that separates the Lower Ordovician Knox Group from the Middle Ordovician Chickamauga Group. The Lenoir Limestone is the basal unit of the Chickamauga Group in the Douglas Lake region. In this region, the Knox Unconformity is a highly irregular surface, which appears to represent karst terrain that formed during a 12- to 13-million-year-long period of subaerial exposure that forms a hiatus in sedimentary record between the Sauk and Tippecanoe sequences. This unconformity represents periods of falling relative sea level starting in latter part of the Floian Stage, which halted the accumulation marine sediments of the Knox Group and exposed the region to terrestrial erosion and karstification. It is not until late in the Darriwilian Stage that rises in relative sea level drowned the Douglas Lake region and initiated the accumulation of the marine sediments that now comprise the Lenoir Limestone.[18] Therefore, the Douglas Lake Member and the fossils it contains are younger than the underlying Floian strata and older than the late Darriwilian limestones of the Lenoir Limestone.[3]

Depositional environment

At Douglas Dam, the Douglas Lake Member is argued to have accumulated within a within a cenote at a time of lowered sealevel and, based on paleogeographic reconstructions, to have been many kilometers from the sea.[7][19] Caster and Brooks[6] differently interprets the environment of deposition at Douglas Dam as being a marine submarine spring fed by an underground channel or system of underground channels from the nearby land. Steinhauff and Walker suggested that a lagoonal marginal marine setting is the most likely.[8]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bridge, J., 1955. Disconformity between Lower and Middle Ordovician Series at Douglas Lake, Tennessee. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 66(6), pp.725-730.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 U.S. Geological Survey, 2020. Geologic Unit: Douglas Lake, National Geologic Map Database.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Retallack, G.J. (2019). "Ordovician land plants and fungi from Douglas Dam, Tennessee". The Palaeobotanist. 68: 1–33.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Walker, K.R., Steinhauff, D.M., and Roberson, K.E., 1992. Uppermost Knox Group, the Knox unconformity, the Middle Ordovician transition from shallow shelf to deeper basin at Dandridge, Tennessee, In Driese, S.G., and others, eds., Paleosols, paleoweathering surfaces, and sequence boundaries, University of Tennessee, Department of Geological Sciences Studies in Geology, no. 21, p. 13–18.
  5. ↑ Carpenter, R.H., Fagan, J.M. and Wedow, H., 1971. Evidence on the age of barite, zinc, and iron mineralization in the lower Paleozoic rocks of east Tennessee. Economic Geology, 66(5), pp.792-798.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Caster, K.E.; Brooks, H.K. (1956). "New fossils from the Canadian–Chazyan (Ordovician) hiatus in Tennessee". Bulletins of American Paleontology. 36: 157–199.
  7. 1 2 Laurence, R.A., 1944. An early Ordovician sinkhole deposit of volcanic ash and fossiliferous sediments in east Tennessee. The Journal of Geology, 52(4), pp.235-249.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Dunlop, Jason A.; Anderson, Lyall I.; Braddy, Simon J. (2003). "A redescription of Chasmataspis laurencii Caster & Brooks, 1956 (Chelicerata: Chasmataspidida) from the Middle Ordovician of Tennessee, USA, with remarks on chasmataspid phylogeny". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 94 (3): 207–225. doi:10.1017/S0263593300000626. ISSN 1473-7116. S2CID 130713268.
  9. ↑ Retallack, G. J. (1994). "Were Ediacaran fossils lichens?". Paleobiology. 20 (4): 523–544. doi:10.1017/S0094837300012975. S2CID 129180481.
  10. ↑ Retallack, Gregory J. (2000). "Ordovician Life on Land and Early Paleozoic Global Change". The Paleontological Society Papers. 6: 21–46. doi:10.1017/S1089332600000693. ISSN 1089-3326.
  11. ↑ Wellman, Charles H.; Cascales-Miñana, Borja; Servais, Thomas (2023). "Terrestrialization in the Ordovician". Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 532 (1): 171–190. doi:10.1144/SP532-2022-92. S2CID 253011815.
  12. ↑ Shaw, A.J.; Cox, C.J.; Buck, W.R.; Devos, N.; Buchanan, A.M.; Cave, L.; Seppelt, R.; Shaw, B.; Larrain, J.; Andrus, R.; Greilhuber, J. (2022). "Newly resolved relationships in an early plant lineage: Bryophyta Class Sphagnopsida (peat mosses)". American Journal of Botany. 974: 1511–1531.
  13. ↑ Vajda, Vivi; Cavalcante, Larissa; Palmgren, Kristoffer; Krüger, Ashley; Ivarsson, Magnus (2023-01-01). "Prototaxites reinterpreted as mega-rhizomorphs, facilitating nutrient transport in early terrestrial ecosystems". Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 69 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1139/cjm-2021-0358. ISSN 0008-4166. PMID 36511419. S2CID 254670640.
  14. ↑ Draper, Isabel; Garilleti, Ricardo; Calleja, Juan Antonio; Flagmeier, Maren; Mazimpaka, Vicente; Vigalondo, Beatriz; Lara, Francisco (2021). "Insights Into the Evolutionary History of the Subfamily Orthotrichoideae (Orthotrichaceae, Bryophyta): New and Former Supra-Specific Taxa So Far Obscured by Prevailing Homoplasy". Frontiers in Plant Science. 12. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.629035. ISSN 1664-462X. PMC 8034389. PMID 33841460.
  15. ↑ Leigh, Egbert Giles (2022-09-12). "Fossil soils: trace fossils of ecosystems on land and windows on the context of evolution". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 15 (1): 14. doi:10.1186/s12052-022-00173-3. ISSN 1936-6434.
  16. ↑ Edwards, Dianne; Morris, Jennifer L.; Axe, Lindsey; Duckett, Jeffrey G.; Pressel, Silvia; Kenrick, Paul (2022). "Piecing together the eophytes – a new group of ancient plants containing cryptospores". New Phytologist. 233 (3): 1440–1455. doi:10.1111/nph.17703. ISSN 0028-646X. PMID 34806774. S2CID 244495761.
  17. ↑ Wellman, Charles H.; Cascales-Miñana, Borja; Servais, Thomas (2023). "Terrestrialization in the Ordovician". Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 532 (1): 171–190. doi:10.1144/SP532-2022-92. ISSN 0305-8719. S2CID 253011815.
  18. ↑ Morgan, William A., 2012, Sequence stratigraphy of the great American carbonate bank, In J. R. Derby, R. D. Fritz, S. A. Longacre, W. A. Morgan, and C. A. Sternbach, eds., The great American carbonate bank: The geology and economic resources of the Cambrian — Ordovician Sauk megasequence of Laurentia. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 98, pp. 37–79.
  19. ↑ Gray, J. and Boucot, A.J., 1993. Early Silurian nonmarine animal remains and the nature of the early continental ecosystem. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 38(3-4), pp.303-328.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.