Advertisement

Microfossil Sample Contamination and Reliability Problems

  • Owen R. Green
Chapter

Abstract

There are two aspects of processing micropalaeontological samples that have to be considered when interpreting and evaluating the fauna within the residue. Firstly, the effects of mechanical and chemical techniques employed during collection, disaggregation, maceration and residue dispersal must be eliminated. Secondly, sample reliability in reflecting a fauna contemporaneous with the time of deposition must be assessed. Discussions of the effects of sample processing can be found in other sections (see sections 14 DISAGGREGATION AND DISPERSAL OF PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED AND UNCONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTS, 16 WASHING AND SIEVING TECHNIQUES USED IN MICROPALAEONTOLOGY and 17 CENTRIFUGE TECHNIQUES USED IN MICROPALAEONTOLOGY), and will only briefly be outlined here.

Keywords

Fossil Assemblage Unconsolidated Sediment Collecting Technique Calcareous Nannofossil Airborne Contaminant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AUSTIN, W. E. N. 1994. Disturbed foraminiferal stratigraphies–a cautionary tail. Cushman Foundation Special Publication. 32. 155–159.Google Scholar
  2. BAUMGARTNER, P. 0, BJORKLUND, K. R, CAULET, J-P, DE WEVER, P, KELLOGG, D, LABRACHERIE, M, NAKASEKO, K, NISHIMURA, A, SCHAAF, A, SCHMIDT-EFFING, R and YAO, A. 1981. EURORAD II, 1980 -Second European meeting of radiolarian paleontologists: current research on Cenozoic and Mesozoic radiolarians. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae. 74, (3), 1027–1061.Google Scholar
  3. BRASIER, M. D. 1981. Microfossil transport in the tidal Humber basin, pp 314–322: In; J. W. Neale and M. D. Brasier (eds), Microfossils from Recent and Fossil Shelf Seas. Ellis Horwood (Chichester). 380 p.Google Scholar
  4. COLTHURST, J. R. J and SMITH, D. G. 1977. Palaeontological evidence for the age of the Lower Palaeozoic rocks of the Slievenamon Inlier, County Tipperary. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 77B, 143–148.Google Scholar
  5. CULVER, S. J and BANNER, F. T. 1978. Foraminiferal assemblages as Flandrian environmental indicators. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 24, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EATON, J. G, KIRKLAND, J. I and DOI, K. 1989. Evidence of reworked Cretaceous fossils and their bearing on the existence of Teriary dinosaurs. Palaios. 4, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EMO, G. T and SMITH, D. G. 1978. Palynological evidence for the age of the Lower Palaeozoic rocks of Slieve Aughty, Counties Clare and Galway. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 78B, 281–292.Google Scholar
  8. FIORILLO, A. R. 1998. Measuring fossil reworking within a fluvial system: an example from the Hell Creek Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of eastern Montana, pp 243–251: In; Y. Tomida, L. J. Flynn and L. L. Jacobs (eds), Advances in Vertebrate Paleontology and Geochronology. National Science Museum Monographs (Tokyo). xii + 292.Google Scholar
  9. FOURCADE, E and BUTTERLIN, J. 1988. Reworked and redeposited larger foraminifers on slopes and in basins of the Bahamas, Leg 101. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 101, 47–61.Google Scholar
  10. HAY, W. W. 1977. Calcareous nannofossils, pp 1055–1200 (techniques 1056–1069): In; A. T. S. Ramsay (ed), Oceanic Micropalaeontology ( 2 Volumes ). Academic Press (London). xii + 1453.Google Scholar
  11. JONES, D. J. 1958. Displacement of microfossils. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. 28, (4), 453–467.Google Scholar
  12. KONTROVITZ, M, SNYDER, S. W and BROWN, R. J. 1978. A flume study of the movement of foraminifera tests. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 23, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. LOFGREN, D. L, HOTTON, C. L and RUNKEL, A. C. 1990. Reworking of Cretaceous dinosaurs into Paleocene channel deposits, upper Hell Creek Formation, Montana. Geology. 18, 874–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MARTIN, R. E. 1988. Benthic foraminiferal zonation in deep-water carbonate platform margin environments, Northern Little Bahama Bank. Journal of Paleontology. 62, (1), l-8.Google Scholar
  15. McCAFFREY, W. D, BARRON, H. F, MOLYNEUX, S. G, KNELLER, B. C. 1992. Recycled acritarchs as provenance indicators: implications for Caledonian terrane reconstruction. Geological Magazine. 129, (4), 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NIGAM, R and SEITY, M. G. A. P. 1980. Paleogene reworked foraminifera in Recent sediments off Daman, Western India. Proceedings of the 3rd Indian Geological Congress, Poona. 273–280.Google Scholar
  17. RILEY, L. A and KING, A. D. 1973. Causes of unreliability in microfossil samples. The Mercian Geologist. 4, (3), 197–203.Google Scholar
  18. STANLEY, E. A. 1966. The problems of reworked pollen and spores in marine sediments. Marine Geology. 4, 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. TURNER, R. E. 1982. Reworked acritarchs from the type section of the Ordovician Caradoc Series, Shropshire. Palaeontology. 25, (1), 119–143.Google Scholar
  20. WHITE, D. E, BARRON, H. F, BARNES, R. P and LINTERN, B. C. 1991. Biostratigraphy of late Llandovery (Telychian) and Wenlock turbidite sequences in the SW Southern Uplands, Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences. (at press).Google Scholar
  21. WILLIAMS-MITCHELL, E. 1948. The zonal value of foraminifera in the Chalk of England. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. 59, (2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. WILSON, L. R. 1964. Recycling, stratigraphie leakage, and faulty techniques in palynology. Grana Palynologica. 5, (3), 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Owen R. Green 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owen R. Green
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of OxfordHolt, NorfolkUK

Personalised recommendations