GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 53, 6, BRATISLAVA, DECEMBER 2002
381 — 390
CALCAREOUS NANNOPLANKTON FROM THE EGGENBURGIAN
STRATOTYPE AND FACIOSTRATOTYPES
(LOWER MIOCENE, CENTRAL PARATETHYS)
KATARÍNA HOLCOVÁ
Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Charles University Prague, Albertov 6, 128 43 Praha 2, Czech Republic; holcova@natur.cuni.cz
(Manuscript received November 8, 2001; accepted in revised form October 3, 2002)
Abstract: Calcareous nannoplankton was studied at the Eggenburgian holostratotype and faciostratotypes of Loibersdorf,
Achberg, Brunnstube, “Judenfriedhof”, Burgschleinitz, Fels am Walgram, Va ovce, Podkylava, Sverepec, Ve ká Čausa
and Lipovany. As sections with rich shallow-water molluscan fauna were chosen for Eggenburgian type sections, most of
the samples are not favourable for the analysis of calcareous nannoplankton. Of 51 samples, 28 samples contain common
to abundant calcareous nannoplankton which can be quantitatively analysed. Three bioevents were searched for in the
type sections: FAD of Discoaster druggii (NN1/NN2 boundary), FAD of Helicosphaera ampliaperta (middle part of
NN2 Zone, approximately Egerian/Eggenburgian boundary sensu Rögl 1998), FAD of Sphenolithus belemnos (NN2/
NN3 boundary, upper part of the Eggenburgian). In areas with continuous sedimentation from the Egerian to Eggenburgian
(the Outer Western Carpathians: Waschberg, Pouzdřany and Ždánice Units and the remnant flysch trough of the Skole-
Skiba Zone; the Inner Western Carpathians: the Fi akovo (Pétervására) Basin, all three events are successively observed
while in areas with transgressive Eggenburgian sediments (Lower Austria, the Vienna Basin, the Danube Basin, the Váh
River Valley and Horná Nitra Basin), sequences started with FAD of Helicosphaera ampliaperta. Two types of autoch-
thonous assemblages were distinguished by multivariate statistical analysis (cluster and factor analysis): (1) abundant,
dominated by Coccolithus pelagicus, (2) rare, dominated by reticulofenestrids. The third type of assemblage is domi-
nated by reworked Cretaceous species.
Key words: Eggenburgian, holostratotype and faciostratotypes, Central Paratethys, calcareous nannoplankton, quantitative
analysis, biostratigraphy.
Introduction
The regional Central Paratethys stages were defined in the
large edition: “Chronostratigraphy and Neostratotypes of the
Central Paratethys”. Descriptions of biostratigraphically sig-
nificant fossils represent a very important part of the charac-
teristics of every stage. The “Eggenburgian” volume of this
edition (Steininger & Seneš 1971) was published in the time
when the study of calcareous nannoplankton in the Paratethys
started. Eggenburgian biostratigraphy was based on mollus-
can and foraminiferal assemblages.
Meanwhile, calcareous nannoplankton has turned into the
most important group for Tertiary biostratigraphy (Berggren
et al. 1995). Data on calcareous nannoplankton assemblages
from some faciostratotype localities were given later by Leho-
tayová & Molčíková (1975), Báldi (1986) and Müller (in
Steininger & Roetzel 1991), but synthetic data about calcare-
ous nannoplankton from the type sections of the Eggenburg-
ian are missing.
The aim of this work is to update biostratigraphic data for
the stratotype localities and most of the faciostratotype locali-
ties of the Eggenburgian with the analysis of calcareous nan-
noplankton assemblages.
Previous studies
The regional Central Paratethys stage of Eggenburgian was
defined by Steininger & Seneš (1971). The positions of its
boundaries were defined more precisely later (Steininger et al.
1990; Rögl 1998). The more recent stratigraphic study (Rögl
1998) correlated the base of the Eggenburgian with the base
of the Burdigalian, dated approximately to 20.5 Ma. The up-
per boundary is less clear and is placed in the middle part of
the Burdigalian (about 18.8 Ma). On the basis of the ranges of
standard calcareous nannoplankton NN zones (Martini 1971)
from Berggren et al. (1995), the time interval of the Eggen-
burgian (20.5—18.8 Ma) can be correlated with the upper part
of NN2 Zone and lower part of NN3 Zone. Together with this
concept of the Eggenburgian, the older one is still persisting,
which correlated the Egerian/Eggenburgian boundary with
the lower boundary of the NN2 Zone (Mărun eanu 1992; Le-
hotayová 1984).
The following important bioevents in the calcareous nan-
noplankton assemblages were recorded around the analysed
time interval, that is during the NN2 and NN3 Zones, in the
world ocean (Berrgren et al. 1995) and in the Mediterranean
(Fornaciari & Rio 1996):
(1) The FAD of Discoaster druggii indicates the base of
the NN2 Zone. This event is dated to 23.2 Ma (Berggren et al.
1995). In the Central Paratethys, it was correlated with the
base of the Eggenburgian (Lehotayová 1982; Mărun eanu
1992). Based on the more recent correlation (Steininger et al.
1990; Rögl 1998), this bioevent is correlated with the Mi-
ocene part of the Egerian Stage.
(2) The FAD of Helicosphaera ampliaperta. This event is
recognizable in the Indo-Pacific area and in the Mediterranean
where it is dated to about 20 Ma (Fornaciari & Rio 1996).
This event can be correlated with the middle part of NN2
Zone. In the Mediterranean area, the event defined the lower
382 HOLCOVÁ
Fig. 1. Locations of the studied type sections and lithostratigraphy of the areas of interest. Lithostratigraphical schemes according to Roetzel
et al. 1999 (Horn Basin, Fels area, Eggenburg Bay).
boundary of MNN2b Subzone correlated with the upper part
of NN2 Zone (Fornaciari & Rio 1996). The type sections of
Burdigalian (Pont-Pourqui Falunes and Montbrison-Font-
bonau sections) contain assemblages with H. ampliaperta
(Müller & Pujol 1979; Demarque & Perrieux 1984). The
event can be correlated approximately with the Egerian/Egg-
enburgian boundary dated to 20.5 Ma (Rögl 1998) .
(3) The FAD of Sphenolithus belemnos is correlated with
the base of the NN3 Zone and dated to 19.2 Ma (Berggren et
al. 1995).
In the Central Paratethys, larger syntheses about the bios-
tratigraphy of calcareous nannoplankton were published for
the Western Carpathians (Lehotayová 1984), Romania
(Mărun eanu 1992) and Ukraine (Andreyeva-Grigorovich et
al. 1997). Besides the events described from the world ocean,
other events have been described for the Lower Miocene of
the Central Paratethys. These events can be correlated with
the Miocene part of the Egerian: the FAD of Reticulofenestra
pseudoumbilicus (Mărun eanu 1992); the FAD of the endemic
species Reticulofenestra excavata (Lehotayová 1975); FAD
of Helicosphaera scissura (Holcová 2001).
From the Eggenburgian, Lehotayová & Molčíková (1975)
described poor calcareous nannoplankton assemblages with
prevailing Coccolithus pelagicus which cannot be well corre-
lated with the standard nannoplankton zones (Martini 1971).
Lehotayová (1982) described calcareous nannoplankton as-
semblages of NN2 Zone with Discoaster druggii and Heli-
cosphaera ampliaperta from the Slovak part of the Western
Carpathians and correlated their occurrence with the Eggen-
burgian.
From Romania, Mărun eanu (1992) described a successive
appearance of Discoaster druggii, Helicosphaera ampliaperta
and Sphenolithus belemnos correlable with the Mediterra-
nean. Helicosphaera ampliaperta is absent from the Lower
Miocene sediments of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Andreyeva-
Grigorovich et al. 1997).
NANNOPLANKTON FROM EGGENBURGIAN STRATOTYPE AND FACIOSTRATOTYPES 383
Müller (in Steininger & Roetzel 1991) correlated Eggen-
burgian sediments from Austria with the NN2—NN3 Zones,
but provided no list of nannoflora.
Material
The Eggenburgian Stage of the Central Paratethys is de-
fined at the Loibersdorf holostratotype in Lower Austria and
at 19 faciostratotypes: of these, 9 are located in Austria, 9 in
western and southern Slovakia and one in Hungary (Steinin-
ger & Seneš 1971). All these sections are described in detail
by Steininger & Seneš (1971). Material from 11 of these
type sections was available for study. Unfortunately, bore-
hole material from the PB-1 borehole Sverepec (Váh River
Valley) and ČČ-3 borehole Ve ká Čausa (Horná Nitra Basin)
has not been found and could not be studied.
The studied holostratotype and faciostratotype sections are
located in the following areas (Fig. 1):
(1) Horn Basin: holostratotype – Loibersdorf (Loibersdorf
Formation); faciostratotypes – Mold (Mold Formation, basal
Loibersdorf Formation); Achberg – Scutellensande (Loibers-
dorf Formation). Eggenburgian sedimentary cycle started with
the Mold Formation deposited in a brackish environment.
This formation contains abundant euryhaline molluscs. Its
stratigraphic position is not safely determined and varied from
the Upper Egerian to the Lower Eggenburgian in different pa-
pers. Its sediments are overlain by marine, sublittoral deposits
of the Loibersdorf Formation (Steininger & Roetzel 1991;
Roetzel et al. 1999).
(2) The Eggenburg Bay: faciostratotypes of Brunnstuben-
graben bei Eggenburg (Kühnring Subformation); “Juden-
friedhof” of Kühnring near Eggenburg (Kühnring Forma-
tion); Burgschleinitz—Kirchenburg (Burgschleinitz Forma-
tion and Gauderndorf Formation). Eggenburgian sedimenta-
tion started with the Kühnring Subformation containing fau-
na of intertidal molluscs. The overlying Burgschleinitz For-
mation is represented by sandstones with rich and
diversified macrofauna, indicating a normal marine, sublit-
toral paleoenvironment. Foraminiferal assemblages were
dominated by shallow-water cibicidoids, elphidiids and am-
monias. The Eggenburgian succession in the Eggenburg Bay
is topped by siltstone and fine-grained sandstone of the
Gauderndorf Formation, which was deposited in a similar
paleoenvironment to the underlying Burgschleinitz Forma-
tion (Steininger & Seneš 1971; Steininger & Roetzel 1991;
Pervesler et al. 1998; stratigraphic data summarized by Roe-
tzel et al. 1999).
(3) Area of Fels: faciostratotype Fels am Wagram (Fels
Formation). Eggenburgian sedimentation started with the Fels
Formation deposited under marine littoral conditions (Stein-
inger & Seneš 1971).
All the formations described from Austria (with the excep-
tion of the Mold Formation) are dated to the Eggenburgian ac-
cording to the molluscan fauna, and correlated with calcare-
ous nannoplankton zones NN2—NN3 and planktonic
foraminiferal zone N5 (Steininger & Roetzel 1991).
(4) Megasyncline of Brezová: faciostratotypes of Va ovce
and Podkylava. Eggenburgian sediments are represented by
conglomerates, sandstones and detrital limestones (Buday et
al. 1965) with rich sublittoral, marine molluscan fauna (Čty-
roký 1959). Cicha (1957) described diversified sublittoral to
neritic foraminiferal assemblages.
(5) Váh River Valley: faciostratotype of Sverepec. Lacus-
trine claystones are overlain by brackish pelites and normal
marine sandstones and conglomerates. The succession is ter-
minated by pelites. Coarser-grained sediments contain sublit-
toral molluscs; neritic molluscs were described from fine-
grained sediments (Buday et al. 1965; Steininger & Seneš
1971). Foraminiferal assemblages from the Váh River Valley
were studied by Cicha (1957) who described diversified sub-
littoral to neritic marine assemblages without planktonic fora-
minifers. Salaj & Zlinská (1991) described assemblages domi-
nated by planktonic foraminifers. Lehotayová (1982)
described poorly preserved calcareous nannoplankton assem-
blages of NN2 Zone (Martini 1971) with Helicosphaera am-
pliaperta.
(6) Horná Nitra Basin: faciostratotype Ve ká Čausa. The
Eggenburgian is represented by the Čausa Formation (Gaš-
parík et al. in Steininger et al. 1985) formed by siltstones to
claystones with sandstone intercalations (Gašparík 1969). The
molluscan fauna indicates a sublittoral marine paleoenviron-
ment. Poorly diversified shallow-water foraminiferal assem-
blages were described by Lehotayová (1959). Abundant cal-
careous nannoplankton assemblages of the NN2 Zone with
abundant Coccolithus pelagicus and with Helicosphaera am-
pliaperta from the Horná Nitra Basin were recorded by Leho-
tayová (1982).
(7) The Fi akovo Basin (faciostratotype of Lipovany): Li-
povany Member represents sandstones with conglomerate and
siltstone beds and tuffite beds (Vass et al. 1992). The Lipova-
ny Member is characterized by common macrofauna (On-
drejíčková 1972). Foraminiferal assemblages contain shallow-
water benthic foraminiferal assemblages dominated by the
Ammonia parkinsonia-tepida group as well as assemblages
dominated by cibicidoids (Holcová 2001). Both foraminifers
and molluscs indicate a sublittoral paleoenvironment with
normal salinity. The overlying Čakanovce Member is charac-
terized by siltstones to fine-grained sandstones. It contains
neritic molluscan fauna (Ondrejíčková 1972). Among benthic
foraminiferal assemblages, stenohaline upper neritic assem-
blages appear (dominated by cibicidoids). Euryoxibiont fora-
miniferal assemblages with Cassidulina and Bulimina were
recorded locally in the deepest part of the basin (Holcová
2001).
The analysis of the Eggenburgian type sections was com-
pleted by the study of the Miocene Egerian faciostratotype of
Bretka for comparison of changes between the Lower Mi-
ocene calcareous nannoplankton assemblages in the Egerian
and Eggenburgian. This locality is correlated with the Mi-
ocene on the basis of large foraminifers (Váňová 1975).
Methods
Calcareous nannoplankton was studied by standard meth-
ods using an optical microscope. The relative abundance of
the taxa is related to the number of nannofossils. Therefore,
taxa with a high number of coccoliths in coccosphaeras seem
to be more abundant than those with low number of cocco-
384 HOLCOVÁ
Fig.
2.
Continued
on
page
385.
NANNOPLANKTON FROM EGGENBURGIAN STRATOTYPE AND FACIOSTRATOTYPES 385
Fig.
2.
A
list
of
nannoplankton
taxa
from
the
studied
Eggenburgian
type
sections.
Light
grey
hatching
–
samples
from
O.
Mandic,
dark
g
rey
hatching
–
samples
from
R.
Roetzel.
386 HOLCOVÁ
liths. About 300 nannofossils were counted in each sample.
The numbers of nannofossils in the assemblages were listed in
a table and used as input data in multivariate statistical analy-
sis (Fig. 3). Transposed matrixes were used for the computa-
tion: the taxa were arranged in rows (cases), samples in col-
umns (variables).
Quantitative data were analysed by standard methods of
multivariate statistics, computation was performed using sta-
tistical software BMDP (Dixon 1993). Before the analysis,
samples with no or very rare calcareous nannoplankton were
excluded from further computation. Cluster analysis of vari-
ables was used for clustering of samples. The correlation coef-
ficient was used as a distance measure. For combined clusters,
all three criteria were tested: single linkage, complete linkage
and average linkage. Results of these three methods were
compared (Fig. 4). Samples were also classified by factor
analysis. Principal component analysis and varimax rotation
were used for the computation. Variabilities in species com-
position of the assemblages in samples were reduced to three
factors. Clusters of samples with a high factor score of the
same factor were compared with results of cluster analysis
(Fig. 4). High values of factor loading indicate which nanno-
fossil taxa are decisive for the classification of samples.
Results
Characteristics of calcareous nannoplankton assemblages
As sections with rich shallow-water molluscan fauna were
chosen for Eggenburgian type sections, most of the samples
are not favourable for the analysis of calcareous nannoplank-
ton. Calcareous nannoplankton assemblages are rare and
poorly diversified at most of the localities. The assemblages
are dominated by Coccolithus pelagicus, reticulofenestrids
and helicoliths. A list of species of calcareous nannoplankton
for the sections analysed is given in Fig. 2, relative abundanc-
es of selected taxa in Fig. 3.
No calcareous nannoplankton was recorded in the Fels,
Mold and Burgenschleinitz formations. Foraminifers com-
monly occur in the Loibersdorf Formation at Loibersdorf ho-
lostratotype and in the Kühnring Formation at Brunnstube-
Raimundstollen faciostratotype. Calcareous nannoplankton is
most common in the Gauderndorf Formation, where it occurs
in the sections at Brunnstube, Kühnring and Burgschleinitz.
No or very rare occurrence of calcareous nannoplankton was
recorded also at Sverepec (Váh River Valley). Calcareous
nannoplankton is absent from our samples from Ve ká Čausa
(Horná Nitra Basin).
The following classification of calcareous nannoplankton
assemblages was proposed on the basis of the occurrence of
biostratigraphically significant taxa. Assemblages with very
rare occurrence of calcareous nannoplankton were excluded
from this classification because the absence/presence of strati-
graphically significant species in this type of assemblages are
random.
(1) Assemblages with the Miocene species Reticulofenes-
tra excavata, R. pseudoumbilicus and Helicosphaera scissura
without Helicosphaera ampliaperta were observed at
Sverepec (Váh River Valley) and in the basal Eggenburgian
sediments of the Kühnring Subformation (Brunnstube) in
Lower Austria. Similar assemblages occur in the faciostrato-
type of Bretka in the Miocene part of the Egerian. The occur-
rence of Discoaster druggii in the Brunnstube section is indic-
ative of the NN2 Zone. The absence of Helicosphaera
ampliaperta indicates the lower part of the NN2 Zone, which
cannot be correlated with the Eggenburgian sensu Rögl
(1998). The occurrence of this type of assemblages at the fa-
ciostratotypes has two possible explanations: (i) faciostrato-
types without Helicosphaera ampliaperta can be correlated
with the lower part of NN2 Zone and may then validate the
Egerian/Eggenburgian boundary at the boundary of the nan-
noplankton zones NN1/NN2, or confirm the validity of type
sections such as the Eggenburgian ones. (ii) The absence of
Helicosphaera ampliaperta may be caused by unfavourable
paleoenvironmental conditions during its deposition, and the
type sections may be also correlated with the upper part of
NN2 Zone. This is very probable in the Kühnring Subforma-
tion and also in the section of Sverepec. This conception is
confirmed by the scarce occurrence of Helicosphaera amplia-
perta (missing in the section of the Sverepec faciostratotype)
in other sections in the Váh River Valley (Lehotayová 1984).
(2) Assemblages with Helicosphaera ampliaperta can be
correlated with the upper part of NN2 Zone and with the Egg-
enburgian and Burdigalian. These assemblages occur in the
Loibersdorf Formation including the holostratotype area, in
the Gauderndorf Formation in the Eggenburg Bay and at the
faciostratotypes of Podkylava and Va ovce from the Me-
gasyncline of Brezová. At the locality of Podkylava, Heli-
cosphaera ampliaperta is accompanied by Sphenolithus dis-
belemnos. Although no nannofossils were recorded in the
analysed material from the Ve ká Čausa section, Lehotayová
(1984) described this type of calcareous nannoplankton as-
semblage from another faciostratotype section from the Horná
Nitra Basin (borehole ČČ-3).
(3) Assemblages with Sphenolithus belemnos which can be
correlated with zone NN3 were found at the faciostratotype of
Lipovany in the Fi akovo Basin.
Multivariate statistical analysis
All the tested multivariate statistical methods give compara-
ble results (Fig. 4) although some differences were observed
in the obtained results. The results of cluster analysis by com-
plete linkage based on minimum similarity, it is the maximum
distance of variables can be best interpreted. The results of
this method are similar to average linkage. All methods in-
cluding factor analysis enable us to distinguish the following
types of assemblages:
(1) Assemblages dominated by Coccolithus pelagicus are
the most frequent type. They occur in the Lipovany and Loi-
bersdorf Formation, and dominate the Čakanovce Member
and Gauderndorf Formation. The high similarity of samples
shown in dendrograms in Fig. 4 reflects small differences in
the species composition of clustered assemblages.
(2) Assemblages dominated by reworked Cretaceous
Watznaueria sp. occur in the Váh River Valley and in the Me-
gasyncline of Brezová. Samples from the sections at
Brunnstube and Burgschleinitz were also classified to this
group by some methods (factor analysis, cluster analysis us-
NANNOPLANKTON FROM EGGENBURGIAN STRATOTYPE AND FACIOSTRATOTYPES 387
ing average linkage). Two “subgroups” of this type of assem-
blages can be distinguished by cluster analysis using average
or complete linkage: (i) assemblages dominated by Cocco-
lithus pelagicus among autochthonous taxa (Podkylava and
Krajné sections); (ii) assemblages dominated by reticu-
lofenestrids in autochthonous parts of the assemblages (main-
ly the Sverepec section).
(3) A small group is represented by samples dominated by
Reticulofenestra minuta from certain levels of the Čakanovce
Member in the Fi akovo Basin.
Reworked nannofossils
Three groups of reworked nannofossils can be distin-
guished in the Eggenburgian type sections on the basis of
their stratigraphic range: (1) Cretaceous, (2) Eocene, (3) Oli-
gocene.
Their occurrences reflect stratigraphical ranges of the un-
derlying sediments which can be reworked and embedded in
the Eggenburgian sediments. Reworked taxa are included in
the list of taxa (Fig. 2); relative abundances of reworked taxa
are given in Fig. 3.
Reworked species are generally scarce in the Fi akovo Ba-
sin (below 15 %). They are dominated by Oligocene redeposi-
tions. This sufficiently documents the marked dominance of
Oligocene sediments below the Lower Miocene sediments
(Vass et al. 1992).
Abundant reworked nannofossils in the Megasyncline of
Brezová and the Váh River Valley are dominated by Creta-
ceous redepositions (about 50 %). This is in agreement with
the widespread occurrence of Cretaceous sediments in this
area. Remarkable is the occurrence of reworked Oligocene
species although Oligocene sediments have not been reported
from these areas.
Reworked nannofossils are also common in the Austrian
type sections. They are dominated by Cretaceous redeposi-
tions, but Eocene and Oligocene taxa are also relatively abun-
dant (Fig. 4).
Discussion
Eggenburgian calcareous nannoplankton was also studied
in other areas of the Central Paratethys. The results of these
studies (e.g., Krhovský et al. 1995; Lehotayová 1982, 1984;
Andreyeva-Grigorovich et al. 1997; Andreyeva-Grigorovich
& Halásová 2000) were used for the classification of the Low-
er Miocene sediments of the Central Paratethys. The division
Fig. 3. Relative abundances of the most abundant taxa, biostratigraphically significant taxa and reworked taxa in the studied sections.
388 HOLCOVÁ
Fig. 4. Classification of calcareous nannoplankton assemblages using cluster and factor analysis.
is based on their stratigraphical ranges assessed by the calcar-
eous nannoplankton bioevents (FAD of Discoaster druggii
and Helicosphaera scissura; FAD of Helicosphaera ampliap-
erta, FAD of Sphenolithus belemnos) (Fig. 5):
(1) The area with sediments where all three events were re-
corded, and the stratigraphic range of the sediments continues
above and below these events: Pouzdřany Unit (Krhovský et
al. 1995); Ždánice Unit (Molčíková & Straník 1987);
NANNOPLANKTON FROM EGGENBURGIAN STRATOTYPE AND FACIOSTRATOTYPES 389
Fig. 5. Distribution of the Lower Miocene sediments with differ-
ent stratigraphic ranges in the Central Paratethys. General paleo-
geographical scheme modified after Kováč et al. (1993) and
Kováč (2000).
The following paleogeographic conclusions can be drawn
from these data:
Continuous sedimentation from the Egerian to the Eggen-
burgian is characteristic for the Waschberg Zone, Pouzdřany
and Ždánice units and for the residual flysch trough of the
Skole-Skiba Zone. The index species of Helicosphaera ampli-
aperta did not penetrate into the eastern unit (Ukrainian Car-
pathians) and probable also not into the Eastern Slovak Basin.
In the Fi akovo (Pétervására) Basin, sedimentation also con-
tinued from the Egerian, but came to an end during the time
corresponding to the NN3 Zone.
Transgressive Eggenburgian sediments in Lower Austria, in
the Vienna Basin, Danube Basin, the Váh River Valley and
Horná Nitra Basin start with the FAD of Helicosphaera am-
pliaperta, which can be correlated with the base of the Burdi-
galian sensu Berggren et al. (1995) and Eggenburgian sensu
Rögl (1998). Here, the Eggenburgian sedimentary cycles may
be topped by the deposition of terrestrial or brackish sedi-
ments.
Conclusions
(1) Calcareous nannoplankton from the Eggenburgian ho-
lostratotype and faciostratotypes of Loibersdorf, Achberg,
Brunnstube, “Judenfriedhof”, Burgschleinitz, Fels am Wa-
gram, Va ovce, Podkylava, Sverepec, Ve ká Čausa and Lipo-
vany, as well as from other sections in the vicinity of the type
sections (Mold-Kirchensteig, Maigen-Sandgrube Stranzl,
Kühnring-Gemeindesandgrube, Krajné) was studied quantita-
tively.
(2) First appearances of the following biostratigraphically
significant species were recorded at the holostratotype and fa-
ciostratotypes: Discoaster druggii (NN1/NN2 boundary),
Helicosphaera ampliaperta (middle part of NN2 Zone, Egeri-
an/Eggenburgian boundary sensu Rögl 1998), Sphenolithus
belemnos (NN2/NN3 boundary, upper part of the Eggenburg-
ian). Stratigraphical range of the Eggenburgian type sections
can be correlated with the upper part of NN2 Zone; NN3 Zone
was recorded in the Lipovany section of the Fi akovo Basin.
This stratigraphical range is in agreement with the present
concept of the Eggenburgian boundary (Rögl 1998). Eggen-
burgian sediments may start with a level without Heli-
cosphaera ampliaperta: unfavourable living conditions for
calcareous nannoplankton are interpreted for this level.
(3) Multivariate statistical analysis (cluster and factor anal-
ysis) enabled us to distinguish two types of autochthonous as-
semblages: most assemblages are dominated by Coccolithus
pelagicus, the second rare type of assemblage is dominated by
reticulofenestrids. The type of assemblages with high relative
abundances of reworked Cretaceous species can be distin-
guished with high statistical significance.
(4) Two different types of Lower Miocene depositional
area were distinguished in the Central Paratethys on the basis
of the occurrence of calcareous nannoplankton bioevents
(FAD of Discoaster druggii; FAD of Helicosphaera ampliap-
erta, FAD of Sphenolithus belemnos): (i) Continuous sedi-
mentation from the Egerian to the Eggenburgian with all three
events is characteristic for the Waschberg, Pouzdřany and
Ždánice Units and for the remnant flysch trough of the Skole-
Fi akovo (Pétervására) and Novohrad (Nógrád) Basin in
southern Slovakia and northern Hungary (Vass et al. 1992;
Báldi 1986; Sztanó 1994; Holcová 2001). This stratigraphical
range of the Lower Miocene sediments is expected also for
the Ukraine although Helicosphaera ampliaperta has not
been recorded in this area (Andreyeva-Grigorovich et al.
1997).
(2) The oldest deposits of the Eastern Slovak Basin are
claystone to sandstone of the Prešov Formation (Vass 2000).
From the index nannoplankton taxa, only Helicosphaera scis-
sura was recorded in this formation. Therefore, the Prešov
Formation may be correlated with the time interval to the
FAD of Helicosphaera ampliaperta. The more probable inter-
pretation also correlates the Prešov Formation with the time
interval above the FAD of H. ampliaperta. The index species
did not penetrate to the Eastern Slovak Basin or to the
Ukraine.
(3) Transgressive sediments with Helicosphaera ampliap-
erta initiate the Lower Miocene sedimentation in the Vienna
Basin (Andreyeva-Grigorovich & Halásová 2000), Megasyn-
cline of Brezová (this work), Danube Basin – Bánovce De-
pression (Fordinál et al. 2001) and Horná Nitra Basin (Leho-
tayová 1982).
(4) Transgressive sediments with the absence of Heli-
cosphaera ampliaperta at the base have been described from
Lower Austria (Horn Basin and Eggenburg Bay) and from the
Váh River Valley. The absence of H. ampliaperta at the base
of the transgressive sediments is probably caused by the not
fully marine character of these sediments (Roetzel et al.
1999).
390 HOLCOVÁ
Skiba Zone in the Outer Western Carpathians. Continuous
sedimentation from the Egerian also occurred in the Fi akovo
(Pétervására) Basin (the Inner Western Carpathians) but
stopped during the time corresponding to the NN3 Zone. (ii)
Transgressive Eggenburgian sediments in Lower Austria, in
the Vienna Basin, the Danube Basin, the Váh River Valley
and Horná Nitra Basin started with the FAD of Helicosphaera
ampliaperta which can be correlated with the base of the Bur-
digalian sensu Berggren et al. (1995) and Eggenburgian sensu
Rögl (1998).
Acknowledgments: The author wishes to acknowledge R.
Roetzel and O. Mandic (Wien) and K. Zágoršek (Prague) for
providing sample material from the Austrian holostratotype
and faciostratotypes and helpful information. The author
thanks the reviewers for their comments and suggestions.
This research was supported by Grant Project No. 205/98/
P251 of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic.
References
Andreyeva-Grigorovich A.S., Kulchytsky Y.O., Gruzman A.D., Lozo-
nyak P.Y., Petrashkevich M.I., Portnyagina L.O., Ivanina A.V.,
Smirnov S.E., Trofimovich N.A. & Savitskaya N.A. 1997: Re-
gional stratigraphic scheme of Neogene formations of the Central
Paratethys of Ukraine. Geol. Carpathica 48, 2, 123—136.
Andreyeva-Grigorovich A.S. & Halásová E. 2000: Calcareous nanno-
fossils biostratigraphy of the Early Miocene sediments of the Vi-
enna Basin NE part (Slovakia). Slovak Geol. Mag. 6, 2—3,
101—105.
Báldi T. 1986: Mid-Tertiary stratigraphy and paleogeographic evolu-
tion of Hungary. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 1—201.
Berggren W.A., Kent D.V., Swisher III. C.C. & Aubry M.-P. 1995: A
revised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy. In:
Berggren W.A., Kent D.V. & Hardenbol J. (Eds.): Geochronolo-
gy, time scale and global stratigraphic correlations: A unified
temporal framework for historical geology. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 54,
129—212.
Buday T., Cicha I. & Seneš J. 1965: Miozän der Westkarpaten. Geolog-
ický ústav Dionýza Štúra, Bratislava, 1—295.
Cicha I. 1957: Research report on the Lower Miocene Foraminifera of
Váh River Valley. Zprávy o geol. výzkumech v R. 1956, 10—13 (in
Czech).
Čtyroký P. 1959: Fauna of the marine Lower Burdigalian molluscs of
the Váh River valley. Geol. Práce 51, 53—140 (in Czech).
Demarque G. & Perrieux J. 1984: Synthése géologique du sud-est de la
France. Mém. Bur. Res. géol. min. 125, 223—230.
Dixon W.J. 1993: BMDP statistical software. University California
Press, Berkeley.
Fordinál K., Elečko M., Šimon & L. Holcová K. 2001: Bánovská kotli-
na Depression (northern part of the Danube Basin); Neogene
stratigraphy and geological development. Slovak Geol. Mag. 7, 3,
289—301.
Fornaciari E. & Rio D. 1996: Latest Oligocene to early middle Miocene
quantitative calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy in the Mediter-
ranean region. Micropaleontology 42 1, 1—36.
Holcová K. 2001: New methods in foraminiferal and calcareous nanno-
plankton analysis and evolution of Oligocene and Miocene basins
of the Southern Slovakia. Slovak Geol. Mag. 7, 19—41.
Kováč M. 2000: Geodynamic, paleogeographical and structural devel-
opment of the Carpathian-Pannonian region during the Miocene.
VEDA Bratislava, 1—202.
Kováč M., Michalík J., Plašienka D. & Ma o . 1993: Alpine develop-
ment of the Western Carpathians. Přír. fak. Univ. Masarykovy,
Brno, 1—95 (in Slovak).
Krhovský J., Bubík M., Hamršmíd B. & Š astný M. 1995: Lower Mi-
ocene of the Pouzdřany Unit, the West Carpathian Flysch Belt,
Southern Moravia. Knihovnička ZPN 16, 73—84.
Lehotayová R. 1975: Reticulofenestra excavata n.sp. from the Eggen-
burgian to Karpatian of Central Slovakia. Západ. Karpaty, Sér.
Paleont. 2, 39—40.
Lehotayová R. 1982: Miocene nannoplankton zones in West Car-
pathians. Západ. Karpaty, Sér. Paleont. 8, 91—110.
Lehotayová R. 1984: Lower Miocene calcareous nannoflora of the West
Carpathians. Západ. Karpaty, Sér. Paleont. 9, 99—110.
Lehotayová R. & Molčíková V. 1975: The present research results of
calcareous nannoflora in relation to biozones of the Neogene of
the Central Paratethys. In: Cicha I. (Ed.): Biozonal Division of the
Upper Tertiary Basins of the Eastern Alps and West Carpathians.
Ústř. Ústav Geol., Praha, 82—87.
Martini E. 1971: Standard Tertiary and Quaternary calcareous nanno-
plankton zonation. Proc. II. Plankt. Conf. Roma 1970, Edizioni
Tecnoscienza, Roma, 739—785.
Mărun eanu M. 1992: Distribution of the Miocene calcareous nannofos-
sils in the Intra- and Extra- Carpathian areas of Rumania. Kni-
hovnička ZPN 14b, 2, 247—262.
Molčíková V. & Straník Z. 1987: Calcareous nannoplankton from the
Ždánice-Hustopeče Fm. and its relations to the overlying beds.
Knihovnička ZPN 6(II/2), 59—76 (in Czech).
Müller C. & Pujol C. 1979: Etude du nannoplancton calcaire et des For-
aminiféres planctoniques dans l’Oligocéne et le Miocéne en
Aquitaine (France). Géol. Médit. 6, 2, 357—368.
Ondrejíčková A. 1972: Eggenburgian molluscs of Southern Slovakia.
Zbor. Geol. Vied, Západ. Karpaty 16, 5—147.
Pervesler P., Roetzel R. & Mandic O. 1998: Sirenenlagerstatten in den
marinen Flachwasser-Ablagerungen der Eggenburger Bucht
(Burgschleinitz-Formation, Eggenburgium, Untermiozan). Geol.
Paläont. Mitt. Innsbruck, 23, 87—103.
Roetzel R., Mandic O. & Steininger F.F. 1999: Litostratigraphie and
Chronostratigraphie der Tertiären Sedimente im Westlichen Wein-
viertel und Angrenzenden Waldviertel. Arbeitstagung Geolo-
gische Bundesanstalt, 38—54.
Rögl F. 1998: Paleogeographic considerations for Mediterranean and
Paratethys seaways (Oligocene to Miocene). Ann. Naturhist. Mus.
Wien, 99A, 279—310.
Salaj J. & Zlinská A. 1991: Early-Miocene sediments of marly facies at
Považská Teplá (West Carpathians). Miner. Slovaca, 23, 2, 173—178.
Lehotayová R. 1959: Microbiostratigraphical study of the Tertiary of
the northern part of the Handlová Basin. MS, Geol. Úst. D. Štúra.
Bratislava (in Slovak).
Steininger F.F., Bernor R.L. & Fahlbush V. 1990: European Neogene
marine/continental chronologic correlations. In: Lindsay E.H.,
Fahlbush V. & Mein P. (Eds.): European Neogene mammal chro-
nology. Plenum Press, New York, 15—46.
Steininger F.F. & Roetzel R. 1991: Die tertiären Molassesedimente am
Ostrand der Bohmischen Masse. Exkursionen im Tertiär Öster-
riech, 63—123.
Steininger F.F. & Seneš J. 1971: M1 – Eggenburgien. Chronostratigra-
phie und Neostratotypen. Veda, Bratislava, 1—827.
Steininger F., Seneš J., Kleeman K. & Rögl F. 1985: Neogene of the
Mediterranean Tethys and Paratethys. Vol. 2. Inst. of Paleont.
Univ., Vienna, 1—536.
Sztanó O. 1994: The tide-influenced Petervasara sandstone, Early Mi-
ocene, northeastern Hungary: Sedimentology, paleogeography and
basin development. Geol. Ultraiectina 120, 1—153.
Váňová M. 1975: Lepidocyclina and Miogypsina from the faciostrato-
type localities Budikovany and Bretka (South Slovakia). In: Báldi
T. &. Seneš J. (Eds.): OM – Egerien. Chronostratigraphie und
Neostratotypen, Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied, Bra-
tislava, 315—339.
Vass D. et al. 1992: Explanations to the geological map of the Lučenec
Basin and Cerová Upland 1:50,000. GÚDŠ, Bratislava, 1—196 (in
Slovak).
Vass D., Elečko M., Janočko J., Karoli S., Pereszlenyi M., Slávik J. &
Kaličiak M. 2000: Paleogeography of the East Slovakian Basin.
Slovak Geol. Mag. 6, 4, 377—407.