Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T00:22:41.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on some trace fossils and other parataxa from the Maastrichtian type area, southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2014

S.K. Donovan ,
J.W.M. Jagt  and
D.N. Lewis
S.K. Donovan*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Nederlands Centrum voor Biodiversiteit (Naturalis), Postbus 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands
J.W.M. Jagt
Affiliation:
Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht, de Bosquetplein 6-7, NL-6211 KJ Maastricht, the Netherlands
D.N. Lewis
Affiliation:
The Natural History Museum, Department of Palaeontology, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom
*
*Email: Steve.Donovan@ncbnaturalis.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

New specimens described herein add to our knowledge of uncommon parataxa (embedment structures, borings and a certain type of burrow) from the type area of the Maastrichtian Stage, the material originating from the ENCI-HeidelbergCement Group (Maastricht), Ankerpoort-'t Rooth (Bemelen) and former Blom (Berg en Terblijt) quarries in southern Limburg (the Netherlands), and from the CBR-Romontbos (Eben Emael) and CPL SA (Haccourt) chalk pits in the province of Liège (northeast Belgium). Although Centrichnus eccentricus Bromley & Martinell has previously been recorded from this area, it has not received formal description; the specimen documented herein shares a test of the echinoid Echinocorys gr. conoidea with numerous other episkeletozoans. Podichnus cf. centrifugalis Bromley & Surlyk occurs both on echinocorythid echinoid tests and guards of belemnitellid coleoids; two out of seven specimens display radial discontinuous channels, indicative of the extreme penetration of filaments from the attached brachiopod's pedicle. Renichnus arcuatus Mayoral shows a range of morphologies, from the embedment structure sensu stricto through to specimens retaining internal moulds of the producing, embedded vermetid gastropod to free shells of Vermetus binkhorsti Cossmann. Burrows packed with bioclastic debris, particularly primary spines and a few test plates of phymosomatid echinoids, present a systematic conundrum, although appearing comparable to the ichnogenera Nummipera Hölder and Baronichnus Breton in several respects.

Keywords

IchnologysystematicsCentrichnusPodichnusRenichnusburrowsMaastrichtian
Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , Volume 90 , Issue 2-3 , November 2011 , pp. 99 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Stichting Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 2011

Footnotes

*

In: Jagt, J.W.M., Jagt-Yazykova, E.A. & Schins, W.J.H. (eds): A tribute to the late Felder brothers – pioneers of Limburg geology and prehistoric archaeology.

References

Andrew, C., Howe, P., Paul, C.R.C. & Donovan, S.K., 2010. Fatally bitten ammonites from the lower Lias Group (Lower Jurassic) of Lyme Regis, Dorset. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 58: 81–94.Google Scholar
Bengtson, P., 1988. Open nomenclature. Palaeontology 31: 223–227.Google Scholar
Bertling, M., Braddy, S.J., Bromley, R.G., Demathieu, G.R., Genise, J., Mikuláš, R., Nielsen, J.K., Nielsen, K.S.S., Rindsberg, A.K., Schlirf, M. & Uchman, A., 2006. Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach. Lethaia 39: 265–286.Google Scholar
Binkhorst van den Binkhorst, J.-T., 1861. Monographie des Gastéropodes et des Céphalopodes de la Craie supérieure du Limbourg, suivie d'une description de quelques espèces de Crustacés du même dépôt crétacé, avec dix-huit planches dessinées et lithographiées par C. Hohe, de Bonn. A. Murquardt (Bruxelles) and Muller Frères (Maastricht): vi + 1-83, 1–44.Google Scholar
Breton, G., 2002. Baronichnus armatus igen. nov., isp. nov.: un fouisseur du tuffeau turonien de Touraine arme son terrier de bryozoaires. Bulletin trimestriel de la Société Géologique de Normandie et des Amis du Muséum du Havre 87 (for 2000): 29–37.Google Scholar
Breton, G., 2004. Nummipera eocenica Hölder, 1989 est un nomen dubium pour un ichnotaxon douteux. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie et des Amis du Muséum du Havre 90 (for 2003): 43–44.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1981. Concepts in ichnotaxonomy illustrated by small round holes in shells. Acta Geológica Hispánica 16: 55–64.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1994. The palaeoecology of bioerosion. In: Donovan, S.K. (ed.): The palaeobiology of trace fossils. John Wiley & Sons (Chichester): 134–154.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 2004. A stratigraphy of marine bioerosion. In: McIlroy, D. (ed.): The application of ichnology to palaeoenvironmental and stratigraphic analysis. Geological Society Special Publication 228: 455–479.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Heinberg, C., 2006. Attachment strategies of organisms on hard substrates: a palaeontological view. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 232: 429–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Martinell, J., 1991. Centrichnus, new ichnogenus for centrically patterned attachment scars on skeletal substrates. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 38: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Surlyk, F., 1973. Borings produced by brachiopod pedicles, fossil and Recent. Lethaia 6: 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckeridge, J.S., Jagt, J.W.M. & Speijer, R.P., 2008. Verruca punica, a new species of verrucomorph barnacle (Crustacea, Cirripedia, Thoracica) from the Lower Danian (Paleocene) of Tunisia. Zootaxa 1844: 37–46.Google Scholar
Cossmann, M., 1902. Rectifications de nomenclature. Revue critique de Paléozoologie 6: 161.Google Scholar
Cotteau, G., 1875. Note sur les échinides crétacés de la province du Hainaut. Bulletin de la Société géologique de France (3)2: 638–660.Google Scholar
Defrance, M.J.L., 1818. Cranie (Foss.). In: Levrault, F.G. (ed.): Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles 11: 312–314.Google Scholar
Deshayes, G.P., 1856–1865. Description des animaux sans vertèbres découverts dans le Bassin de Paris, 1-3. J.-B. Baillière (Paris): 1–912.Google Scholar
De Gibert, J.M., Domènech, R. & Martinell, J., 2004. An ethological framework for animal bioerosion trace fossils upon mineral substrates with proposal of a new class, fixichnia. Lethaia 37: 429–437.Google Scholar
De Gibert, J.M., Domènech, R. & Martinell, J., 2007. Bioerosion in shell beds from the Pliocene Roussillon Basin, France: implications for the (macro)bioerosion ichnofacies model. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 52: 783–798.Google Scholar
Donovan, S.K., 2004. The ichnofossil Renichnus arcuatus Mayoral, 1987 in the Pleistocene of Jamaica. Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum 30 (for 2003): 137–140.Google Scholar
Donovan, S.K. & Pickerill, R.K., 2002. Pattern versus process or informative versus uninformative ichnotaxonomy: Reply to Todd and Palmer. Ichnos 9: 85–87.Google Scholar
Dortangs, R.W., 1998. Sporenfossielen. In: Jagt, J.W.M., Dhondt, A.V. & Leloux, J. (eds): Limburgnummer 9B: Fossielen van de St. Pietersberg. Grondboor & Hamer 52: 150–151, pl. 28.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, A., 1829. Petrefacta Germaniae tam ea, quae in museo universitatis regiae Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanae servantur quam alia quae cunque in museis hoeninghausiano, muensteriano aliisque extant, iconibus et descriptionibus illustrate. Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der angränzenden Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Herrn Grafen Georg zu Münster. Arnz & Co. (Düsseldorf): 77–164, pls 26-50.Google Scholar
Häntzschel, W., 1975. Trace fossils and problematica (2nd edition, revised and enlarged). In: Teichert, C. (ed.): Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part W, Miscellanea, Supplement 1. Geological Society of America (Boulder) and University of Kansas Press (Lawrence): xxi + 1–269.Google Scholar
Hölder, H., 1989. Spuren auf der Spur. Palichnologische und verwandte Notizen über Teredolites, Entobia, Nummipera nov. gen. und einiges andere. Münstersche Forschungen zur Geologie und Paläontologie 69: 13–30.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 2000. Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene echinoderms and the K/T boundary in the southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium – Part 4: Echinoids. Scripta Geologica 121: 181–375.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 2003. The ichnofossil genera Radulichnus and Renichnus in the Maastrichtian of the Netherlands and Belgium. Bulletin de l'Institut royal des sciences naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre 73: 175–184.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 2010. Upper Cretaceous and Lower Paleogene in the type area of the Maastrichtian Stage (70.6-65.5 Ma). Berichte des Instituts für Geowissenschaften, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel 23: 1–21.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M. & Dortangs, R.W., 2000. Opmerkelijke Luiks-Limburgse Krijtfossielen. Deel 4. Goedzittende paardezadels. Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 89: 183–186.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., Dortangs, R., Simon, E. & Van Knippenberg, P., 2007. First record of the ichnofossil Podichnus centrifugalis from the Maastrichtian of northeast Belgium. Bulletin de l'Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre 77: 95–105.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., Van Rijsselt, W. & Van Rijsselt, E., 2009. Opmerkelijke Luiks-Limburgse Krijtfossielen. Deel 13. Honkvaste slakken. Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 98: 159–161.Google Scholar
Keighley, D.G. & Pickerill, R.K., 1994. The ichnogenus Beaconites and its distinction from Ancorichnus and Taenidium. Palaeontology 37: 305–337.Google Scholar
Kruytzer, E.M., 1969. Le genre Crania (sic) du Crétacé supérieur et du post-Maastrichtien de la province de Limbourg néerlandais (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata). Publicaties van het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg 19: 1–42.Google Scholar
Małkowski, K., 1975. Attachment scars of the brachiopod Coenothyris vulgaris (Schlotheim, 1820) from the Muschelkalk of Upper Silesia. Acta Geologica Polonica 25: 275–283.Google Scholar
Mayoral, E., 1987. Acción bioerosiva de Mollusca (Gastropoda, Bivalvia) en el Plioceno Inferior de la Cuenca del Bajo Guadalquivir. Revista Española de Paleontología 2: 49–58.Google Scholar
Nowak, J., 1913. Untersuchungen über die Cephalopoden der oberen Kreide in Polen. III. Teil. Bulletin international de l'Académie des Sciences de Cracovie, Classe des Sciences mathématiques et naturelles B1913: 335–415.Google Scholar
Pickerill, R.K., 1994. Nomenclature and taxonomy of invertebrate trace fossils. In: Donovan, S.K. (ed.): The palaeobiology of trace fossils. John Wiley & Sons (Chichester): 3–42.Google Scholar
Radwański, A., 1977. Present-day types of trace in the Neogene sequence; their problems of nomenclature and preservation. In: Crimes, T.P. & Harper, J.C. (eds): Trace fossils 2. Geological Journal, Special Issue 9. Seel House Press (Liverpool): 227–264.Google Scholar
Robinson, J.H. & Lee, D.E., 2008. Brachiopod pedicle traces: recognition of three separate types of trace and redefinition of Podichnus centrifugalis Bromley & Surlyk, 1973. In: Harper, D.A.T., Long, S.L. & Nielsen, C. (eds): Brachiopods: fossil and Recent. Fossils and Strata 54: 219–225.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M.J.S., 1970. Living and fossil Brachiopods. Hutchinson (London): 1–199.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C., 1883. Die regulären Echiniden der norddeutschen Kreide. I. Glyphostoma (Latistellata). Abhandlungen der königlichen preussischen geologischen Landesanstalt 4: iv + 1–72.Google Scholar
Taddei Ruggiero, E. & Annunziata, G., 2002. Bioerosion on a Terebratula scillae population from the Lower Pleistocene of Lecce area (southern Italy). Acta Geologica Hispanica 37: 43–51.Google Scholar
Taddei Ruggiero, E. & Raia, P., 2010. Bioerosion structures and their distribution on shells of the Lower Pleistocene terebratulid brachiopod Gryphus minor . Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 293: 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J.A., 1927. Brachiopod morphology and genera (Recent and Tertiary). New Zealand Board of Science and Arts, Manual 7: xv + 1–338.Google Scholar
Van der Tuuk, L.A., 1982. A Maastrichtian conchorhynch (Conchorhynchus limburgicus n. sp., Cephalopoda) from Limburg, the Netherlands. Geologie en Mijnbouw 61: 179–182.Google Scholar
Žítt, J., Vodrážka, R., Hradecká, L., Svobodová, M. & Zágoršek, K., 2006. Late Cretaceous environments and communities as recorded at Chrtníky (Bohemian Cretaceous Basin, Czech Republic). Bulletin of Geosciences 81: 43–79.Google Scholar