Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:33:29.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Siluro-Devonian Boundary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

C. H. Holland
C. H. Holland
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bedford College, Regent's Park, London, N.W. 1.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The positioning of the Siluro-Devonian boundary is reviewed in the light of recent studies in both shelly and graptolitic facies in Europe and elsewhere. A case can be made for retaining the present position at the base of the Ludlow Bone Bed; but international opinion may demand a new standard section in the graptolitic facies, for example in Central Europe. In this event, it is suggested that a position at the base of the Monograptus uniformis Zone might prove the most widely satisfactory solution.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , June 1965 , pp. 213 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

REFERENCES

Alberti, G. K. B., 1963. Zur Kenntnis rheinisch-herzynischer Mischfaunen (Trilobiten) im Unterdevon. Mitt. geol. Staatsinst. Hamb., 32, 148–159.Google Scholar
Allen, J. R. L., and Tarlo, L. B., 1963. The Downtonian and Dittonian Facies of the Welsh Borderland. Geol. Mag., 100, 129–155.Google Scholar
Barrois, C., Pruvost, P., and Dubois, G., 1922. Description de la faune Siluro-Dévonienne de Liévin. Mém. Soc. géol. Nord., 6, Mém. 2, fasc. 2.Google Scholar
Berry, W. B. N., 1964. Siluro-Devonian Graptolites from Eildon, Victoria. Aust. J. Sci., 26, 223–4.Google Scholar
Bouček, B., 1963. Einige Bemerkungen zu der Fauna und Beziehungen der Ubergangsschichten zwischen Silur und Devon in Mitteleuropa und zu der Frage der Grenze zwischen Silur und Devon. Ann. Mus. geol. Bologna, 31, 93–108.Google Scholar
Bouček, B., and Horný, R., 1964. Bemerkungen zu einer neuen Interpretation der Bezeihungen zwischen dem böhmischen, polnischen und deutschen höheren Silur. Geologie, Berl., 13, 543–555.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J., 1960. Lower Gedinnian brachiopods of Belgium. Mém. Inst. géol. Univ. Louvain, 21, 283–324.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J., 1963. The Eospiriferidae. Palaeontology, Lond., 5, 682–711.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J., and Pankiwskyj, K., 1962. Llandoverian to Gedinnian stratigraphy of Podolia and adjacent Moldavia. Symposium Silur/Devon-Grenze, 1960, 1–11.Google Scholar
Dahmer, G., 1946. Gotlandium (Mittel-Ludlow) mit Dayia navicula im Taunus; seine Beziehungen zu den Köbbinghäuser (Dayia)- Schichten des Ebbe- und Remscheider Sattels und zu den Schichten von Weismes. Senckenbergiana, 27, 76–84.Google Scholar
Dahmer, G., 1951. Die Fauna der nach-ordovizischen Glieder der Verse-Schichten, mit Ausschluss der Trilobiten, Crinoiden und Anthozoen. Palaeontographica, 101, 1–144.Google Scholar
Dahmer, G., 1952. Graptolithen aus den “ Grauen Phylliten ” des Taunus. Notizbl. hess. Landesamt. Bodenforsch, 6, 82–86.Google Scholar
Erben, H. K., ed., 1962. Symposiums-Band der 2. Internationalen Arbeits-tagung über die Silur/Devon-Grenze und die Stratigraphie von Silur und Devon, Bonn-Bruxelles 1960. Stuttgart. (The title of this volume has been abbreviated in other places in this reference list.)Google Scholar
Holland, C. H., 1962. The Ludlovian-Downtonian succession in Central Wales and the Central Welsh Borderland. Symposium Silur/Devon-Grenze, 1960, 87–94.Google Scholar
Holland, C. H., Lawson, J. D., and Walmsley, V. G., 1963. The Silurian Rocks of the Ludlow District, Shropshire. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) geol., 8, 95–171.Google Scholar
Hollard, H., and Willefert, S., 1961. Présence de Monograptus hercynicus Perner dans le Silurien du Tafilalt (Maroc). C.R. Soc. géol. Fr., 2, 42–4.Google Scholar
Horný, R., 1960. Notes on the Correlation of the Bohemian and British Silurian. Vestn. ústf. Ust. geol., 35, 251–4.Google Scholar
Jaeger, H., 1962. Das Silur (Gotlandium) in Thüringen und am Ostrand des Rheinischen Schiefergebirges (Kellerwald, Marburg, Giessen). Symposium Silur/Devon-Grenze, 1960, 108–135.Google Scholar
Jaeger, H., 1964. Monograptus hercynicus in den Westsudeten und das Alter der Westsudeten-Hauptfaltung. Geologie, Berl., 13, 249–277 and 377–394.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, R., 1929. Les brachiopodes gotlandiens de la Podolie Polonaise. Palaeont. polon., 1, 1–254.Google Scholar
Legrand, P., 1962. Découverte de Monograptus hercynicus Perner dans les Chaines d'Ougarta (Algérie). Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., sér. 7, 3, 201–5.Google Scholar
Martinsson, A., 1962. Ostracodes of the family Beyrichiidae from the Silurian of Gotland. Bull. geol. Inst. Univ. Uppsala, 41, 1–369.Google Scholar
Martinsson, A., 1963 (a). Kloedenia and related ostracpde genera in the Silurian and Devonian of the Baltic area and Britain. Bull. geol. Inst. Univ. Uppsala, 42, 1–63.Google Scholar
Martinsson, A., 1963 (b). The concealed Silurian of the Baltic area. Geol. Fören. Stockh. Förh., 84, 539–541.Google Scholar
Martinsson, A., 1964. Palaeocope Ostracodes from the Well Leba I in Pomerania. Geol. Fören. Stockh. Förh., 86, 125–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obut, A. M., 1960. Zonale Einteilung des Silurs in der UdSSR nach Graptolithen. Prager Arbeitstagung über die Stratigraphie des Silurs und des Devons (1958) 269–275, Prague.Google Scholar
Richter, R., 1937. Die Herscheider Schiefer, ein zweites Vprkommen von Ordovicium im Rheinischen Schiefergebirge, und ihre Beziehung zu den wiedergefundenen Dayia-Schichten. Senckenbergiana, 19, 289–313.Google Scholar
Richter, R., and E., 1954. Die Trilobiten des Ebbe-Sattels und zu vergleichenden Arten (Ordovizium, Gotlandium/Devon). Abh. senckenb. naturf. Ges., 488, 1–62.Google Scholar
Rshonsnitzkaja, M. A., 1960. Die Korrelation der karbonatischen Sedimente des Unter- und Mitteldevons in der Sowjetunion und in Westeuropa. Prager Arbeitstagung über die Stratigraphie des Silurs und des Devons (1958), 123–136, Prague.Google Scholar
Shtrley, J., 1938. Some aspects of the Siluro-Devonian boundary problem. Geol. Mag., 75, 353–362.Google Scholar
Shtrley, J., 1962. Review of the correlation of the supposed Silurian strata of Artois, Westphalia, the Taunus and Polish Podolia. Symposium Silur/Devon-Grenze, 1960, 234–242.Google Scholar
Solle, G., 1963. Hysterolites hystericus (Schlotheim) [Brachiopoda; Unter-devon], die Einstufung der oberen Graptolithen-Schiefer in Thüringen und die stratigraphische Stellung der Zone des Mono-graptus hercynicus. Geol. Jb., 81, 171–220.Google Scholar
Straw, S. H., 1962. The Silurian-Devonian boundary in England and Wales. Symposium Silur/Devon-Grenze, 1960, 257–264.Google Scholar
Teller, L., 1964 (a). On the stratigraphy of beds younger than Ludlovian and the Silurian-Devonian boundary in Poland and Europe. Acta. geol. polon., 14, 303–320.Google Scholar
Teller, L., 1964 (b). Graptolite fauna and stratigraphy of the Ludlovian deposits of the Chelm borehole, Eastern Poland. Studia geol. polon., 13, 1–88.Google Scholar
Tomczyk, H., 1960. The problem of the boundary between the Lower and Middle Ludlovian in Central Europe. Rept. Int. Geol. Congr., XXI Sess., Norden, 1960, VII, 134–142.Google Scholar
Tomczyk, H., 1962. Problem stratygrafii ordowiku i syluru w Polsce w świetle ostatnich badań. (Stratigraphic problems of the Ordovician and Silurian in Poland in the light of recent studies). Trav. Serv. géol. Pologne, 35, 1–134.Google Scholar
Tomczyk, H., 1964. Stratygrafia syluru w pólnocnowschodniej Polsce (Silurian stratigraphy in northeastern Poland). Kwart. geol., Warsz., 8, 506–523.Google Scholar
Walliser, O. H., 1962. Conodontenchronologie des Silurs (= Gotlandiums) und des Tieferen Devons mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Formationsgrenze. Symposium Silur/Devon-Grenze, 1960, 281–7.Google Scholar
White, E. I., 1950. The vertebrate faunas of the Lower Old Red Sandstone of the Welsh Borders. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) geol., 1, 51–67.Google Scholar