www.geologicacarpathica.sk

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

, OCTOBER 2012, 63, 5, 407—421 doi: 10.2478/v10096-012-0032-4

Reworked nannofossils from the Lower Miocene deposits in

the Magura Nappe (Outer Western Carpathians, Poland)

MARTA OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

Institute of Geological Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Oleandry 2a, 30-063 Kraków, Poland; m.oszczypko-clowes@uj.edu.pl

(Manuscript received October 3, 2011; accepted in revised form June 13, 2012)

Abstract: Studies, based on calcareous nannofossils, proved that the level of reworked microfossils had so far been
underestimated. More recently detailed quantitative studies of calcareous nannoplankton of the Magura, Malcov, Zawada
and Kremna formations from the Magura Nappe in Poland documented a degree of nannofossil recycling among those
formations. In the Late Eocene—Early Oligocene pelagic Leluchów Marl Member of the Malcov Formation the level of
redeposition is very low (0—3.80 %), however, in the flysch deposits of the Malcov Formation reworking increased to
31.4 %. Late Oligocene through Early Miocene “molasse” type deposits of the Zawada and Kremna formations contain
43.7—69.0 % of reworked nannofossils. Quantitative analyses of the reworked assemblages confirmed the domination
of Paleogene nannofossil species over Cretaceous ones. The most abundant, reworked assemblages belong to the Early—
Middle Eocene age.

Key words: stratigraphy, calcareous nannoplankton, reworked specimens, Paleogene—Lower Neogene, Outer Western
Carpathians, Magura Succession.

Introduction

The Polish Outer Carpathians are composed of Upper Juras-
sic—Lower  Miocene  flysch  deposits:  deep-water  siliciclastic
turbidites,  deposited  by  submarine  gravity  flows  –  mainly
turbidity  currents.  The  exception  is  the  Late  Cretaceous—
Eocene  Sub-Silesian  succession,  which  is  represented  by
variegated  marls  deposited  in  pelagic  environments.  The
Carpathian flysch is composed of an alternation of conglomer-
ates,  sandstones,  mudstones,  claystones  and,  less  frequently,
by marls and cherts. In the Cretaceous—Paleogene flysch for-
mations these components are mixed in different proportions.

The first stratigraphic studies of the Magura Nappe succes-

sion are more than 100 years old. The earliest biostratigraphic
data, dating the youngest deposits of the Magura Nappe to the
Eocene,  were  based  upon  large  foraminifera.  A  significant
qualitative change in biostratigraphic studies took place after
the  application  on  calcareous  nannoplankton  (Radomski
1967;  Birkenmajer  &  Oszczypko  1989;  Oszczypko  et  al.
1990).  This  research  resulted  in  the  introduction  of  formal
lithostratigraphic schemes in the Krynica and Bystrica facies
zones (for references see Oszczypko-Clowes 2001). Contem-
porary research on calcareous nannoplankton from the Krynica
and  Bystrica  zones  suggested  the  presence  of  mainly  Early-
Eocene age formations, while the younger data were found in
the  outer  zones,  mainly  in  the  Siary  Zone.  Such  a  biostrati-
graphical  framework  strongly  affected  the  contemporary  pa-
leogeographic  and  paleotectonic  reconstructions  –  not  only
for the Magura Nappe, but also for the entire Outer Western
Carpathians.  Further  studies,  based  on  calcareous  nannofos-
sils, proved that the level of reworked microfossil associations
had  been  underestimated  (e.g.  Birkenmajer  &  Oszczypko
1989;  Oszczypko  et  al.  1990).  The  significance  of  these,  de-
tailed  quantitative  studies  of  calcareous  nannoplankton  from

the Magura, Malcov, Zawada and Kremna formations of the
Magura Nappe, is documented by the degree of nannofossils re-
cycling and its impact on the age determination.

The concept of the turbidity current, as a mechanism re-

sponsible for the deposition of sandy/silty and muddy turbidi-
tes, was developed by Kuenen & Migliorini (1950). Over time
turbiditic deposits were divided into several classes (see Ein-
sele  2002):  coarse-grained  turbidites,  sandy  medium-grained
turbidites  (siliciclastic  and  carbonate),  carbonate  turbidites
(calciturbidites  or  allodapic  limestones)  and  mud  turbidites.
The hypothesis of medium-grained siliciclastic turbidites was
popularized in literature by Bouma (1962). The Bouma (1962)
concept  of  Ta  division  has  been  extended  by  Lowe  (1982),
who distinguished sub-divisions S1, S2, S3, which result from
grain flows. The first two sub-divisions: (S1 and S2), with an
inverse  gradation,  are  represented  by  coarse-grained  sandy
turbidites, deposited by a bottom traction. A massive S3 di-
vision, resulting from grain-flow “freezing”, displays water-
escape  structures  (e.g.  “dish”)  and  levels  of  intraclasts,
derived  from  the  erosion  of  a  bottom  muddy-clay  layer.  A
later modification of the Bouma Ta division was introduced by
Shanmungan (2000) as gravelly traction intervals, R2 and R3.

In terms of the formation of gravitational flow deposits

Einsele  (2002)  highlights  the  importance  of:  marine  delta,
prodelta  slopes,  submarine  canyon  heads,  shelf  break  ero-
sion,  subduction-related  depositional  environments  and  de-
posits of the forearc basins.

The presence of allochthonous, shallow-marine faunas in

sediment suspension currents have been known since the late
50’s (Kuenen & Migliorini 1950). This was particularly re-
lated to turbidites derived from carbonate skeleton material
and reef detritus from carbonate shelves and platforms (see
Einsele 2002). At the end of the nineteenth century, and dur-
ing the first half of the twentieth century, allochthonous fau-

408

OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

nas (e.g. ammonites, inoceramids, corals and larger foramin-
ifera)  were  often  the  only  basis  for  biostratigraphy  of  the
flysch strata in the Outer Carpathians, the Apennines, Dinar-
ides  and  other  orogens.  A  revision  of  these  views,  based  on
small foraminifera and calcareous nannoplankton, sometimes
provoked  long  controversy.  Examples  of  such  exchanges  in-
clude discussions concerning the age of “black flysch” in the
Pieniny Klippen Belt, in Poland (Sikora 1962; Birkenmajer &
Pazdro  1968;  Oszczypko  et  al.  2004;  Birkenmajer  &  Gedl
2004;  Birkenmajer  et  al.  2008;  Oszczypko  et  al.  2008a,b),
“Crete Nero” and the Cilento Flysch in the Southern Apen-
nines  (see  Cieszkowski  et  al.  1994,  1995  and  references
therein). The most recent example of these scientific exchanges
focuses on the principal age revision of the Outer Dinarides,
flysch deposits in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Montenegro  (Mikes  et  al.  2008).  The  issue  of  reworked  mi-
crofossils from the Western Carpathian flysch was also raised
by Švábenická & Bubík (1992) and Švábenická et al. (2007).

Previous works

Polish Outer Carpathian flysch deposits, with massive re-

worked microfossil assemblages, were first recognized in the
Paleogene Magura Succession deposits of the Nowy Sącz
and Orava-Nowy Targ depressions (Fig. 1B).

In 1973 Oszczypko documented the presence of Upper

Eocene/Oligocene  deposits  in  the  southern  margin  of  the
Nowy  Sącz  Basin  (borehole  Nowy  Sacz I),  occurring  at  the
top  of  the  Upper  Eocene  Magura  Sandstone,  which  was  re-
garded as the youngest beds of the Magura Succession. At the
same  time,  in  the  Biegonice  and  Zawada  sections  (Bystrica
Subunit), among the yellow-grey, massive marls of the Łącko,
Blaicher  (cf.  Oszczypko  1973)  recognized  three  different
age,  foraminifera  assemblages  (benthic  and  planktonic)
which were mixed with each other and contained Early/Mid-
dle Eocene; Late Eocene/Oligocene and Oligocene species.

The youngest Oligocene foraminifera were considered au-

tochthonous, while the two remaining assemblages were re-
garded  as  reworked.  These  sections  (Fig. 1B)  were  once
more  revised by Oszczypko et al. (1999) and Oszczypko &
Oszczypko-Clowes (2002) and were included in the Zawada
Formation.  These  new  studies  documented  the  presence  of
Early  Miocene  foraminifera  (N5)  and  calcareous  nanno-
plankton  (NN1—2)  as  well  as  large  quantities  of  reworked
Late Cretaceous to Middle Eocene foraminifera and calcare-
ous nannoplankton in the Zawada Formation.

The history of biostratigraphical research of the Magura-

type sandstones in the proximity of Nowy Targ (Krynica Sub-
unit) was more or less similar. These thick-bedded sandstones
with intercalations of grey marly claystones were regarded as
the Inoceramian beds (Cenomanian—Turonian – Halicki
1959 or Turonian—Maastrichtian—Danian – Watycha 1963).

New data on the age of these deposits have been published

by Cieszkowski & Olszewska (1986), who established these
beds  as  the  Malcov  Formation  (Late  Eocene/Oligocene).
Later Cieszkowski (1992) described the Lower/?Middle Mio-
cene  deposits  of  the  Magura  Succession  in  the  Stare  Bystre
and  Rogoźnik  sections  of  the  Podhale  region  (Fig. 1B).

These  strata  revealed  multiple  layers  of  reworked  foramin-
ifera and calcareous nannoplankton of a Cretaceous and Pa-
leogene  age.  The  contemporaneous,  Lower  Miocene  flysch
of  the  Magura  Succession  was  also  drilled  in  the  Nowy
Targ 1  borehole  (Paul  &  Poprawa  1992),  at  the  northern
boundary of the Pieniny Klippen Belt.

A similar approach was conducted via biostratigraphic

studies in the Poprad valley, near Stará  ubovňa ( ubovnianska
Vrchovina,  East  Slovakia).  In  this  area  (Fig. 1B),  within  the
contact  zone  of  the  Magura  Nappe  and  the  Pieniny  Klippen
Belt, Matějka (1959) described the Kremna facies. Previously,
those  strata  were  included  in  the  “Nordliche  Granz  Flysch
Zone” (Uhlig 1890) or “Peri-Klippen Flysch” or “Inter Klip-
pen  Flysch”  (Horwitz  1935).  Stráník  &  Hanzlíková  (1968)
described the “Kremna facies” as a sandy-conglomeratic cal-
careous flysch, with intercalations of grey-greenish claystones
and siltstones. On the basis of the foraminiferal studies, these
strata  were  determined  as  Paleocene/Eocene  to  Late  Eocene
intermediate lithofacies between the PKB and Magura Paleo-
gene. More recently, Oszczypko et al. (2005) defined these de-
posits as the development of the Kremna Formation, being the
youngest (Oligocene—Early Miocene) member of the Magura
Succession  in  the  Peri-PKB  zone.  The  calcareous  nanno-
plankon  studies  of  this  formation  showed  a  predominance
(60 %)  of  reworked  species,  mainly  Middle—Late  Eocene,
while  the  youngest  species  that  were  identified  belonged  to
the  Early  Miocene  (NN1  and  NN2,  see  Oszczypko  et  al.
2005). The Kremna Formation is regarded as the equivalent of
the Zawada and Stare Bystre formations in the Nowy Sącz and
Podhale areas. Over recent years the Kremna Formation was
recognized  in  the  Krynica  facies  zone  in  the  Muszyna  and
Jaworki  areas  (Oszczypko  &  Oszczypko-Clowes  2010;
Oszczypko-Clowes 2010) as well as in the “Magura Autoch-
thonous  Paleogene”  in  the  tectonic  windows  of  the  PKB
(Oszczypko  &  Oszczypko-Clowes  2010;  Oszczypko  et  al.
2010). Likewise, Lower Miocene strata were also found in the
Krynica Zone within the vicinity of Humenné.

Regional settings and studied sections

The following selected profiles were examined in this re-

search: Zawada, Leluchów and Ujak as well as the Kremna
sections  of  the  Magura  Nappe  and  Pieniny  Klippen  Belt.
Figure 2 shows the synthetic lithostratigraphic profiles of the
Paleogene-to-Lower  Miocene  deposits  across  the  Magura
Nappe. These profiles are representative of the eastern sector
of the Magura Nappe in Poland (Fig. 1B). The top of the var-
iegated  shales  with  Reticulophragmium  amplectens  (Mid-
dle—Late  Eocene)  or  the  Sub-Menilite  Globigerina  Marls
(SMGM) were adopted as the correlation level.

The Krynica Zone

The Krynica facies’ Zone (Figs. 1B, 2) provides an impor-

tant insight for our understanding of the terminal history of
the Magura Basin. This zone contains facies linked with the
post-nappe: Late Eocene—Oligocene of the Central Carpathian
Paleogene Basin and Pieniny Klippen Belt suture zone (Újak

409

REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE DEPOSITS (MAGURA NAPPE, POLAND)

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Fig. 1. A – Simplified tectonic scheme of the Alpine-Carpathian orogens (based on Picha 1996). B – Geological map of the Polish Car-
pathians (Żytko et al. 1989, modified), with location of studied areas. Abbreviations: Su – Siary, Ru – Rača, Bu – Bystrica, Ku – Krynica,
Tu – Tylicz facies zones of the Magura Nappe.

Fig. 2. Lithostratigraphic table of the Paleogene/Early Miocene deposits of the Magura Nappe and Pieniny Klippen Belt (Oszczypko &
Oszczypko-Clowes 2009).

410

OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

section, Fig. 1B). In the southern part of the Krynica Zone the
youngest  deposits  belong  to  the  Malcov  and  Kremna  forma-
tions (Figs. 2, 3, 4). Until this point, the only outcrops of the
Malcov  Formation  in  Poland  were  located  in  the  Leluchów
section (for reference see Oszczypko-Clowes 2001; Oszczypko
& Oszczypko-Clowes 2010). In the Leluchów profile (Fig. 3)
the  Malcov  Formation  is  composed  of  the  following,  Upper
Eocene—Oligocene lithostratigraphic units: the Leluchów Marl
Member, the Smereczek Shale Member and the Malcov For-
mation s.s. The Leluchów Marl Member (see SMGM) consists
of green and grey, marly shales covered by red, greyish-green,
greenish  and  olive  marls.  The  Smereczek  Shale  Member
(Fig. 3) contains a marly development with a few tuffite inter-
calations in the lower portion whereas the upper portion con-
sists  of  black  non-calcareous,  bituminous  shales  with  a  few

layers of coarse-grained, thick-bedded sandstone. Thin-bed-
ded turbidites, dark-grey marly shales occur in the uppermost
part of the Leluchów section. These flat-lying, south dipping
strata belong to the Malcov Formation s.s.

A similar type of the Malcov Formation, is also known

from exposures in the Újak village near Stará ubovňa and
Plaveč (Fig. 1B).

The sedimentary transition from the Poprad Sandstone

Member to the Kremna facies is well exposed in the Matysova
section (Fig. 4). A continuation of the Magura Formation from
the Krynica-Muszyna-Leluchów area is visible in the northern
part of the  ubovnianska Vrchovina Range, SW of the Poprad
River.  In  the  ubovnianska  Vrchovina  Range  the  Poprad
Sandstone  Member  (Strihov  beds)  fill  the Hraničné-Kremna-
Matysova, a 4—6 km wide synclinal zone (see Nemčok 1990;
Oszczypko et al. 2005). The Poprad Sandstone Member, up to
1000 m thick, is underlain by the Mniszek Shale Member and
covered by the Kremna Formation (Oszczypko et al. 2005). In
the  Matysova  section,  the  lower  part  of  formation  (Fig. 4)  is
represented  by  coarse-  to  very  coarse-grained,  thick-bedded
(0.40 to 2 m) sandstones, with sporadic intercalations of dark-
grey,  marly  mudstones.  A  characteristic  feature  of  these  de-
posits is the occurrence of Magura type sandstones as well as
1.5—2.0 m  thick  intercalations  of  dark-grey-to-greenish  cal-
careous Łącko type marly mudstones.

The thickness of the Kremna Formation varies from 200—

300 m in the Matysova and Dubne section and ranges up to
500—600 m in the Kremna and Jaworki-Kosarzyska section
(Figs. 1B, 4).

The Bystrica Zone

The youngest deposits of this zone belong to the Zawada

Formation (Figs. 2, 5) which was documented on the southern
periphery of the Nowy Sącz Basin (Fig. 1B). This formation
was found in the Nowy Sącz 4 borehole as well as in Zawada
Biegonice (Oszczypko et al. 1999; Oszczypko-Clowes 2001)
and also the Poręba Mała sections (Oszczypko & Oszczypko-
Clowes 2002). The Zawada Formation is represented by me-
dium-  to  thick-bedded,  sometimes  glauconitic,  sandstones
with  intercalations  of  thick-bedded  marls  and  marly  clay-
stones.  The  thickness  of  the  formation  is  at  least  550 m
(Figs. 2, 4).

According to Oszczypko et al. (1999), this formation occurs

in the southern part of the Rača Subunit and at the front of the
Bystrica Subunit of the Magura Nappe. Due to the lack of ex-
posure, the relationship between the Malcov Formation of the
Rača Subunit and the Zawada Formation is not yet clear.

Materials and methods

The current research utilizes samples previously used in

the following papers: Oszczypko-Clowes 2001; Oszczypko &
Oszczypko-Clowes 2002; Oszczypko et al. 2005; Oszczypko
& Oszczypko-Clowes 2010.

All samples were analysed with a Nikon-Eclipse E 600

POL, at a 1000 magnification using both parallel and
crossed nicols. The applied taxonomic framework is based

Fig. 3. Lithostratigraphic profile and sample intervals – Leluchów
Succession, Krynica Zone of the Magura Nappe (Oszczypko-Clowes
2001; Oszczypko et al. 2005; Oszczypko-Clowes & Żydek 2012).

411

REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE DEPOSITS (MAGURA NAPPE, POLAND)

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Fig. 5. Lithostratigraphic profile and sample intervals –
Poręba Mała Succession, Bystrica Zone of the Magura Nappe
(Oszczypko & Oszczypko-Clowes 2002).

Fig. 4.  Lithostratigraphic
profile  and  sample  inter-
vals – Matysova, Jarabina
and  Kremna  successions,
Krynica Zone of the Magura
Nappe  (Oszczypko  et  al.
2005).

upon Aubry (1984, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1999), Perch-Nielsen
(1985), and Bown (1998 and references therein).

Quantitative analyses were performed using counts of 300

specimens per slide. The authors accepted a 5 % margin of
error in analysis and calculation of percentage abundance of
autochthonous and allochthonous assemblages. The nominal
values as well as the percentage abundance, are presented in
Tables 1, 2 and 3. Specimens photographed using the LM
are illustrated in Figs. 6—7.

To distinguish reworked from in-place nannofossils the full

stratigraphic ranges of species, were used. Individual species
older  than  the  youngest  assemblage  were  identified  as  re-
worked  taxa.  Issues  arise  concerning  long-ranging  Cenozoic
taxa,  which  also  form  a  part  of  the  Early  Neogene  assem-
blages. In such assemblages, autochthonous or allochthonous,

both types occur together in the sample and cannot be distin-
guished from each other. In this study long-ranging taxa  such
Braarudosphaera  bigelowii,  Cyclicargolithus  floridanus,
Coccolithus  pelagicus  and  Sphenolithus  moriformis  were
counted as autochthonous species. In such a situation the cal-
culated  percent  value  of  reworking  should  be  interpreted  as
the minimum level of reworking.

Results

Calcareous nannofossil preservation and abundance

State of preservation is one of the methods used in identi-

fying reworked fossils via the presence of very intensive

412

OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Fig. 6.  Autochthonous  species  in  LM  (scale  bar  is  the  same  for  all  photographs).  1  –  Braarudosphaera  bigelowii  (Leluchów  section,
Smereczek  Shale  Mb,  sample  38/98/N);  2  –  Coronocyclus  nitescens  (Matysova  section,  Magura  Fm,  sample  9/03/N);  3  –  Cyclicar-
golithus abisectus (Leluchów section, Malcov lithofacies, sample 41/98/N); 4 – Cyclicargolithus floridanus (Poręba section, Zawada Fm,
sample 16/00/N); 5 – Dictyococcites bisectus (Leluchów section, Leluchów Marl Mb, sample 49/82/N); 6 – Discoaster deflandrei (Le-
luchów section, Malcov lithofacies, sample 40/98/N); 7 – Helicosphaera compacta (Leluchów section, Malcov lithofacies, sample 41/98/N);
8 – Helicosphaera intermedia (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 17/00/N); 9 – Holodiscolithus macroporus (Jarabina section, Magura
Fm,  sample  5/01/N);  10  –  Reticulofenestra  dictyoda  (Leluchów  section,  Leluchów  Marl  Mb,  sample  48/82/N);  11  –  Reticulofenestra
lockerii (Leluchów section, Smereczek Shale Mb, 39/98/N); 12 – Reticulofenestra ornata (Leluchów section, Smereczek Shale Mb, 39/98/N);
13 – Reticulofenestra sp. small (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 18/00/N); 14 – Ponthosphaera multipora (Kremna section, Kremna Fm,
sample 8/01/N); 15, 16 – Sphenolithus conicus (Matysova section, Magura Fm, sample 9/03/N); 17 – Sphenolithus dissimilis; 18 – Transver-
sopontis fibula (Leluchów section, Smereczek Shale Mb, 39/98/N); 19 – Transversopontis pulcher (Jarabina section, Magura Fm, sample
5/01/N); 20 – Transversopontis pulcheroides (Leluchów section, Leluchów Marl Mb, sample 54/82/N).

413

REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE DEPOSITS (MAGURA NAPPE, POLAND)

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Fig. 7. Allochthonous species in LM (scale bar is the same for all photographs). 1, 2 – Chiasmolithus gigas (Matysova section, Magura
Fm, sample 9/03/N); 3 – Chiasmolithus grandis (Matysova section, Magura Fm, sample 9/03/N); 4 – Chiasmolithus solitus (Matysova
section, Magura Fm, sample 9/03/N); 5 – Chiasmolithus oamaruensis (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 25/00/N); 6 – Discoaster
barbadiensis (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 16/00/N); 7 – Discoaster binodosus (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 25/00/N);
8 – Discoaster lodoensis (Jarabina section, Magura Fm, sample 4/01/N); 9 – Discoaster saipanensis (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample
23/00/N); 10 – Ellipsolithus macellus (Matysova section, Magura Fm, sample 9/03/N); 11 – Ericsonia formosa (Jarabina section, Magura
Fm, sample 4/01/N); 12 – Heliolithus kleinpelli (Matysova section, Magura Fm, sample 10/03/N); 13 – Isthmolithus recurvus (Jarabina
section, Magura Fm, sample 5/01/N); 14 – Lanternithus minutus (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 24/00/N); 15 – Neococcolithes dubius
(Jarabina section, Magura Fm, sample 5/01/N); 16 – Reticulofenestra hillae (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 16/00/N); 17, 18 – Spheno-
lithus calyculus (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 24/00/N); 19 – Transversopontis fibula (Poręba section, Zawada Fm, sample 22/00/N);
20 – Tribrachiatus orthostylus (Matysova section, Magura Fm, sample 8/03/N).

414

OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

mechanical damage as well as signs of etching, severe dissolu-
tion and overgrowth. When considering all investigated as-
semblages the preservation of calcareous nannofossils is
moderate (m) or predominantly moderate-to-good (m-g) in all
investigated samples (Tables 1, 2, 3 – published in the elec-
tronic version at the www.geologicacarpathica.sk). Nannofos-
sils show minor etching and minor-to-moderate over growth.
A good to moderate preservation of nannofossils indicates that
little carbonate dissolution has occurred in these sediments.

Estimates of the nannofossil abundance for individual sam-

ples (Tables 1, 2, 3) was established using the following crite-
ria: VH – very high ( > 20 specimens per 1 field of view),
H – high (10—20 specimens per 1 field of view), M – mode-
rate (5—10 specimens per 1 field of view), L – low (1—5
specimens per 1 field of view), VL – very low ( < 5 speci-
mens per 5 fields of view).

Calcareous nannofossils biostratigraphy

Biostratigraphic analyses, using the standard Martini zona-

tion (1971), confirmed results obtained through earlier re-
search (Oszczypko et al. 1999, 2005; Oszczypko-Clowes
2001; Oszczypko & Oszczypko-Clowes 2002, 2010).

For reference purposes, the biostratigraphic framework

can be summarized as follows:

Malcov Formation: Leluchów Marl Member – Zones

NP19—20—NP22 (Late Eocene—Early Oligocene), Smereczek
Shale Member – Zone NP23 (Early Oligocene) and the Mal-
cov Formation s.s. – Zone NP24 (Early Late Oligocene);

Poprad Sandstone Member of Magura Formation: Zones

NP25—NN1 (latest Oligocene—earliest Miocene);

Kremna Formation: NN2 (Early Miocene);
Zawada Formation: NN1—NN2 (Early Miocene).
The zone assignment of NP25 is based on the first occur-

rence  (FO)  of  Sphenolithus  capricornutus  and  S.  conicus.
Slightly less abundant are Cyclicargolithus abisectus, Reticu-
lofenestra  lockeri,  S.  dissimilis  and  R.  dictyoda.  Dictyococ-
cites bisectus is present, though rare. The FO of Sphenolithus
conicus has been frequently used as the base of the NN1 Zone,
however,  Bizon  &  Műller  (1979),  Biolzi  et  al.  (1981)  and
Melinte  (1995)  observe  the  FO  of  this  species  as  low  as  the
upper part of the NP25 Zone.

The zone assignment of NN1 is based on a continuous

range  of  S.  conicus  and  S.  dissimillis  following  the  disap-
pearance  of  D.  bisectus.  Traditionally  the  last  occurrence
(LO) of Helicosphaera recta was used to define the base of
NN1  (Martini  &  Worsley  1970).  It  is  now  well-known  that
this species also appeared in the Early Miocene. As a result,
Perch-Nielsen  (1985),  Berggren  et  al.  (1995),  Fornaciari  &
Rio (1996) and Young (in Bown 1998) suggested redefining
the  base  of  NN1  as  the  LO  of  D.  bisectus.  The  biostrati-
graphic range of S. delphix is also problematic. According to
Young  (Young  in  Bown  1998),  this  species  is  only  charac-
teristic for the upper part of NN1, however this taxon was re-
ported by Aubry (1985) from NP25 and NN1.

The NN2 assignment is based on the co-occurrence of the

following species: Sphenolithus conicus, Sphenolithus dis-
belemnos, Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica and Triquetror-
habdulus carinatus. At the same time Dictyococcites bisectus,

Cyclicargolithus abisectus and Zygrhablithus bijugatus are
absent from this association assemblage. According to Young
(1998), the FO of S. disbelemnos and/or Umbilicosphaera
rotula are reliable biostratigraphical events, characteristic for
the lower limit of the NN2 Zone.

Additionally, the nannofossil association from the Zawada

Formation contains Discoaster druggi and Helicosphaera
ampliaperta. The presence of D. druggi was observed in

50 % of investigated samples, whereas the occurrence of

Helicosphaera ampliaperta is extremely rare. The presence
of H. ampliaperta can suggest the upper part of Zone NN2
(see Holcová 2002, 2005).

Species diversity – reworked assemblages

The Malcov Formation

Forty four species were identified during quantitative analy-

ses  of  calcareous  nannoplankton.  Samples  from  the  Leluchów
Marl Member are characterized by a very low level of rework-
ing, which does not exceed 3.80 % (sample 3/08/N). The great-
est  number  of  reworked  specimens  (13.3 %—31.35 %;  Fig. 8;
Table 1) were observed in samples taken from thin marly in-
tercalations  in  the  Smereczek  Shale  Member  (39/98/N  and
38/98/N) as well as the Malcov lithofacies (37/98/N, 42/98/N,
41/98/N  and  40/98/N).  The  reworked  assemblage    is  domi-
nated  by  Paleogene  taxa.  They  constitute  between  11—30 %
(samples 39/98/N 40/98/N, respectively) of all identified speci-
mens. Cretaceous species are a minor component with less than
3 %. The main components of the Paleogene assemblage (Ta-
ble 1) are Discoaster spp., Reticulofenestra spp. and Ericsonia
spp., Discoaster  spp.  varies  from  0.32  (sample  39/98/N)
through 4.4 (sample 37/98/N) up to 14.2 %, (sample 40/98/N),
whereas the abundance of Reticulofenestra spp. ranges from 3.5
(sample  39/98/N)  up  to  11.7 %  (sample  41/98/N).  The  abun-
dance of Ericsonia spp. does not exceed 8 % (sample 39/98/N).

The Poprad Sandstone Member of the Magura Formation

The quantitative analyses show a substantial quantity of

reworked nannofossils (Fig. 8; Table 2). The greatest re-
working is observed in sample 4/01/N (60.8 %), whereas the
lowest amounts occur in sample 13/03/N (21.9 %). The re-
maining samples range from 37%—53 %.

Cretaceous species make up ~11 % (samples 16/03/N, 13/03/N,

14/03/N,  15/03/N),  whereas  the  remaining  samples  contain
between 2.9 % and 7.6 %. Cretaceous species (Fig. 9) are con-
sistently less abundant compared with Paleogene species, with
the exception of sample 15/03/N (Paleogene taxa – 16.5 %,
Cretaceous  taxa  –  21 %).  The  Paleogene  assemblage  (Ta-
ble 2)  is  composed  mainly  of  Discoaster  spp.,  Sphenolithus
spp. and a heterogeneous group “other”. The group labelled as
“other”  is  composed  of  Ellipsolithus  macellus,  Ericsonia
fenestrata,  E.  formosa,  Helicosphaera  heezenii,  Isthmolithus
recurvus, Neococcolithes dubius, Pontosphaera lateliptica, P.
plana, Reticulofenestra reticulata, Rhabdosphaera clavigera,
Toweius rotundus, Tribrachiatus orthostylus. The most com-
mon  taxon  is  T.  orthostylus,  reaching  a  value  of  18.05 %  in
sample  4/01/N.  The  content  of  Discoaster  spp.  is  greatest  in

415

REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE DEPOSITS (MAGURA NAPPE, POLAND)

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Fig. 8. Percentage abundance of autochthonous and allochthonous species in samples (Leluchów section after Oszczypko-Clowes & Żydek,
2012).

samples 16/03/N, 8/03/N and 4/03/N, reaching values of
19 %, 18 % and 16 %, respectively. The abundance of Sphe-
nolithus spp. varies from 0 % (samples 16/03/N, 13/03/N, 15/
03/N) through to 1.3 % and up to almost 15 % (5/03/N).

The Kremna Formation

The level of reworking is also high (Fig. 8; Table 2), rang-

ing from 46.2 % (sample 9/01/N) up to 54.2 % (6/01/N). Per-
centages  of  Cretaceous  species  are  very  low  and  range  from
4.1 %  to  a  maximum  of  13.3 %  in  sample  10/01/N  (Fig. 9).
Paleogene species account for 37.6 % to 50.03 % of the total
assemblage. The most abundant is the group of species labeled
as “other” which include: Ellipsolithus macellus, E. fenestrata,
E.  formosa,  Toweius  spp.,  Transversopontis  fibula  and  Tri-
brachiatus orthostylus. This group forms nearly 23 % (sample
6/01/N) of all specimens, which decrease to a value not higher
than  16.5 %  (sample  10/01/N).  The  most  common  species  is
T. orthostylus reaching a value of 12 % in samples 6/01/N and
10/01/N. The genus Discoaster averages  about 12 %, whereas
Sphenolithus spp. is lower varying from 4.4 %—6.3 %.

The Zawada Formation

All investigated samples are characterized by the presence

of reworked specimens (Fig. 8; Table 3). The level of re-
working is highest in samples 17/00/N (maximum 42.4 %),

16/00/N, 23/00/N where reworked taxa represent more than
34 % of all identified species. This value decreases in sam-
ples 15/00/N, 18/00/N, 19/00/N, 21/00/N and 25/00/N with
maximum values

29—32 %. The remaining samples con-

tain less than 26 % of the reworked species.

The percent abundance of Cretaceous species varies from

1.5 %—9 % (Fig. 9; Table 3), with an average content less than
5 %. Paleogene species are much more abundant, and consti-
tute  20 %—39 %  of  the  total  assemblage.  The  assemblage  is
dominated  by  specimens  of  genera  Chiasmolithus  and  Dis-
coaster. Chiasmolithus spp. range from 2 % up to nearly 10 %
of  all  determined  species,  with  an  average  content  of  ~ 4 %.
Discoaster  spp.  average  ~ 3 %.  The  highest  abundance  (10,
13 %)  was  observed  in  sample  16/00/N.  Helicosphaera  spp.
are  less  abundant,  with  an  average  content  of  approximately
3 % reaching a maximum of 6.9 % in sample 21/00/N.

The group labeled as “other” is represented by the following

species:  Holodiscolithus  macroporus,  Lanternithus  minutus,
Neococcolithes  dubius,  Pontosphaera  lateliptica,  Rhabdo-
sphaera clavigera, R. inflata, Transversopontis fibula and Tri-
brachiatus orthostylus. These taxa are generally very rare in the
assemblage and, in sum, do not constitute more than 6 % of all
determined  species.  In  fact,  the  increased  abundance  of  this
group  in  samples  17/00/N,  24/00/N,  23/00/N  and  21/00/N  is
linked to the increased abundance of Neococcolithes dubius. The
most common species of this assemblage is Ericsonia formosa,
with a value ranging from 3 %—8 % of all determined species.

416

OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Fig. 9. Percent abundance of allochthonous species – Cretaceous versus Paleogene taxa.

Age determination of reworked assemblages

Cretaceous species commonly occur together with Ceno-

zoic taxa. The precise age determination of Paleogene as-
semblages is not easy, especially as an overlap pattern of
several index species is visible.

The Malcov Formation

The Lower Eocene assemblage is represented by Discoaster

multiradiatus  (range:  NP9—11)  and  Discoaster  lodoensis
(NP12—14). The long-lasting species include Discoaster bar-
badiensis (NP10—20), D. nodifer (NP15—22), D. saipanensis
(NP15—20),  D.  tanii  (NP16—22),  Isthmolithus  recurvus
(NP19/20—22),  Lanternithus  minutus  (NP16—22),  Reticulo-
fenestra  hillae  (NP16—22)  and  R.  umbilica  (NP16—22).  The
presence of Isthmolithus recurvus suggests that the entire as-
semblage  may  be  not  older  than  Zone  NP19/20  and  not
younger  than  NP22  (as R.  umbilica  is  the  index  species  for
the upper limit of Zone NP22).

The Poprad Sandstone Member of the Magura Formation

and the Kremna Formation

A number of characteristic taxa of the Early/Middle Paleo-

gene are present such as Chiasmolithus gigas (NP15),

Ch.  grandis  (NP11—17),  Ch.  solitus  (NP10—16),  Discoaster
barbadiensis  (NP10—20),  D.  binodosus  (Lower  to  Middle
Eocene),  D.  multiradiatus  (NP9—11),  D.  salisburgensis
(NP9—12),  Ericsonia  formosa,  Toweius  spp.,  Tribrachiatus
orthostylus  (NP11—12).  On  the  basis  of  the  stratigraphic
range  of  the  above  given  species  it  is  possible  to  interpret
two  independent  assemblages:  Early  Eocene  –  not  older
than  NP9  and  not  younger  than  NP12  and  Middle  Eocene
spanning from NP15 to NP16 or even NP17. As for the Late
Eocene or rather Early Oligocene, specimens of Isthmolithus
recurvus (NP19/20—22), Pontosphaera lateliptica, Transver-
sopontis fibula NP23 (only observed in the Kremna Forma-
tion) occurred across the entire studied material.

The Zawada Formation

In this formation the assemblages are even more mixed

with overlapping species much more prominent. The Early
Eocene is represented by Discoaster multiradiatus (NP9—11),
D. distinctus (NP12—14), D. lodoensis (NP12—14).

Longer ranging species, spanning from the Middle Eocene

to  Early  Oligocene,  include  Chiasmolithus  gigas  (NP15),
Discoaster  tanii  (NP16—22),  Helicosphaera  bramlettei
(NP14—23), Lanternithus minutus (NP16—22), Reticulofenestra
umbilica (NP16—22). These taxa may constitute either  Mid-
dle  Eocene,  Late  Eocene  or  even  Early  Oligoceene  assem-

417

REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE DEPOSITS (MAGURA NAPPE, POLAND)

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

blages. The presence of the Middle Eocene could be dated by
the Chiasmolithus gigas zonal marker, whereas the presence
of Chiasmolithus oamaruensis (NP18—22) may suggest Late
Eocene or Early Oligocene.

Concurrently, there is a biostratigraphic overlap with typi-

cal Oligocene species, such as Pontosphaera lateliptica,
Transversopontis fibula and, very rarely, Sphenolithus capri-
cornutus and S. calyculus. The two latter species are typical
of the latest Oligocene period.

Discussion

The Oligocene—Early Miocene closing of the northern sec-

tor  of  the  Outer  Carpathian  sedimentary  area  is  manifested
by  the  deposition  of  the  Krosno  synorogenic  lithofacies,
which  occupied  the  Grybów-Dukla-Silesian/Sub-Silesian/
Skole and Boryslav-Pokuttya basin system. These lithofacies
represent  fining  and  thinning  upward  sequences.  Towards
the top, these sedimentary sequences are dominated by marly
pelites. The beginning and termination of these deposits was
diachronic and migrated across the basins towards the north
(Garecka 2008).

The Malcov lithofacies, an equivalent of the Krosno types,

are typical for the Pieniny Klippen Belt/Magura Basin. In the
PKB and Krynica Zone of the Magura Basin, the deposition of
the Malcov lithofacies was initiated during the NP24 and per-
sisted until the NP25 Zone. In Rača Zone Malcov lithofacies
belong  to  NP24  and  NP25  zones  (Oszczypko-Clowes  2001).
In  the  northern  part  of  the  Magura  Basin  (Siary  Zone)  the
youngest deposits (so-called Supra-Magura beds) belong to the
NP24  Zone  (Oszczypko-Clowes  2001).  In  the  Grybów-Dukla
units,  the  Krosno  shaly  facies  belong  to  NP25  (Oszczypko-
Clowes 2008; Oszczypko-Clowes & Oszczypko 2011).

During the Late Oligocene (NP25/NN1), the frontal part of

the Magura Nappe thrust northwards onto the terminal Krosno
flysch basin (Oszczypko & Oszczypko-Clowes 2009). The

northward thrusting of the Magura Nappe was accompanied
by the formation of the piggy-back basin on the Magura
Nappe and was filled with synorogenic turbidites from the
Zawada and Kremna formations (NN1 and NN2 zones).

Reworked microfossils can be used to determine the

source of sediments in order to provide information on the
processes of source rock erosion, transportation, sedimenta-
tion and preservation.

A majority of the allochthonous nannoflora consists of

Middle Eocene taxa, together with less abundant Cretaceous,
Early  Eocene  and  Oligocene  nannofossils.  Various  age  dis-
tributions provide an insight into the Cretaceous to Cenozoic
sediment reworking history in the remnant flysch basin. Cre-
taceous species, as well as Early Eocene taxa, are reworked
into Middle Eocene sediments. These sediments, most likely
formed low, consolidated basin slopes periodically incorpo-
rated into gravity flows. These flows provided a significant
proportion  of  older,  many  times  redeposited  forms  in  the
studied  material.  The  presence  of  reworked  Oligocene  nan-
nofossil  shows  a  more  or  less  continuous  erosion  of  newly
deposited  sediments  on  the  sea  floor  during  the  Early  Mio-
cene.  The  scarcity  of  Paleocene  nannofloral  elements  is
probably  due  to  the  unavailability  of  Paleocene  sediments
for  reworking  processes.  The  diversity  of  Paleocene  index
species  and  their  resistance  to  degradation  would  permit
them to be abundant in Cenozoic flysch sediments. The same
reworking pattern was observed throughout the entire flysch
belt of the Outer Dinaride nappe front by Mikes et al. (2008).

In the studied material, Paleogene derived nannofossils

show preservation as good as, or even better, than that of the
original rock. This may be due to transportation in a coated
muddy suspension. In addition, all reworked species are re-
sistant to dissolution. In such situations the original assem-
blages had to be much more diversified.

It is very difficult to show precisely the lithological forma-

tions which formed the source rocks for the reworked material.
This is connected with a 23° clockwise rotation of the eastern

Fig. 10. Model of gravity flow deposition versus coccoliths settling (Bouma 1962; Lowe 1982; Einsele 2002, supplemented).

418

OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

part of the Alpine-Carpathian-Pannonian region which took
place in the Early Miocene, 20 Ma BP (Ustaszewski et al.
2008). According to this reconstruction the maximal width of
the Magura Basin at that time ranged up to 200 km.

The percentage of reworked species is clearly associated

with  lithology  (Fig. 8).  This  is  very  clearly  visible  in  the
Malcov  Formation.  The  lowest  number  (0 %—3.8 %)  of  re-
worked species was recorded in samples from marly, pelagic
facies  from  the  Leluchów  Marl  Member.  Turbidite  facies,
from  the  Malcov  lithofacies,  are  characterized  by  an  in-
creased  reworking,  reaching  31.4 %.  The  values  are  even
higher for the Poprad Sandstone Member and Kremna Forma-
tion,  where  the  samples  were  collected  from  massive  marly
claystones (Te), originating from the finest cloud suspension.

The quantitative analyses proved that the level of rework-

ing  is  high  and  very  high  for  flysch  deposits,  which  led  to
age  misinterpretations  in  the  past.  Age  determination  based
on  the  youngest  assemblage  can  be  approximated,  and  al-
ways should be phrased as not older than. The most reliable
indicator  for  the  determination  of  age  can  be  observed  via
muddy-clay intraclasts (S3), which were eroded by the gravi-
tational front directly from the sea floor (Fig. 10), as well as
from pelagic “rain”. That is why nannofossils remain the most
important tool for biostratigraphic interpretations in flysch.

Conclusion

1. The youngest deposits of the Magura Basin belong to

the Zawada/Kremna formations of the Early Miocene age
(NN1, NN2).

2. These synorogenic turbidite facies are characterized by

a high level of reworked nannofossils.

3. A quantitative analysis of the reworked assemblages

confirmed the domination of Paleogene nannofosssil species
over Cretaceous ones.

4. The most abundant, reworked assemblages belong to

the Early-Middle Eocene age.

5. The reworked assemblages are also much better pre-

served than the autochthonous ones which has led to misin-
terpretations concerning their age in the past.

Acknowledgments: The author wishes to thank Anonymous
reviewers for their constructive criticism and detailed review
of the manuscript. Miroslav Bubík and Lilian Švábenická are
also gratefully acknowledged for their valuable comments
on the manuscript.

Reference

Aubry M.-P. 1984: Handbook of Cenozoic calcareous nannoplankton.

Book 1: Ortholithae (Discoasters). Micropaleontology Press,
Amer. Mus. Natur. Hist., New York, 1—265.

Aubry M.P. 1985: Northwestern European Palaeogene magneto-

stratigraphy: calcareous nannofossil evidence. Geology 13, 3,
198—202.

Aubry M.-P. 1988: Handbook of Cenozoic calcareous nannoplank-

ton. Book 2: Ortholithae (Holochoccoliths, Ceratoliths and
others). Micropaleontology Press, Amer. Mus. Natur. Hist.,

New York, 1—279.

Aubry M.-P. 1989: Handbook of Cenozoic calcareous nannoplankton.

Book 3: Ortholithae (Pentaliths, and others) Heliolithae (Fasci-
culiths, Sphenoliths and others). Micropaleontology Press,
Amer. Mus. Natur. Hist., New York, 1—279.

Aubry M.-P. 1990: Handbook of Cenozoic calcareous nannoplankton.

Book 4: Heliolithae (Helicoliths, Cribriliths, Lopadoliths and
others). Micropaleontology Press, Amer. Mus. Natur. Hist.,
New York, 1—381.

Aubry M.-P. 1999: Handbook of Cenozoic calcareous nannoplankton.

Book 5: Heliolithae (Zygolithus and Rhabdolithus). Micropale-
ontology Press, Amer. Mus. Natur. Hist., New York, 1—367.

Bąk K. & Oszczypko N. 2000: Late Albian and Cenomanian rede-

posited foraminifera from Late Cretaceous—Paleocene deposits
of the Rača Subunit (Magura Nappe, Polish Western Car-
pathians) and their paleogeographical significance. Geol. Car-
pathica 51, 6, 371—382.

Berggren W.A., Kent D.V., Swisher C.C. & Aubry M.P. 1995: A

revised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy.
SEPM, Spec. Publ. 54, 129—212.

Biolzi M., Műller C. & Palmieri G. 1981: Calcareous nannoplankton.

In: Gelati R. & Steininger F. (Eds.): In search of the Paleo-
gene-Neogene boundary stratotype. Part II. Rev. Ital. Paleont.
Stratigr. 89, 4, 460—471.

Bizon G. & Műller C. 1979: Remarks on the Oligocene/Miocene

boundary based on the results obtained from the Pacific and
the Indian Ocean. Ann. Géol. Pays Hellén. 1, 101—111.

Birkenmajer K. & Gedl P. 2004: Dinocyst ages of some Jurassic

strata, Grajcarek Unit at Sztolnia Creek, Pieniny Klippen Belt,
Poland. Stud. Geol. Pol. 123, 245—277.

Birkenmajer K., Gedl P., Myczyński R. & Tyszka J. 2008: “Creta-

ceous black flysch” in the Pieniny Klippen Belt, West Car-
pathians: a case of geological misinterpretation. Cretaceous
Research 29, 535—549.

Birkenmajer K. & Oszczypko N. 1989: Cretaceous and Palaeogene

lithostratigraphic units of the Magura Nappe, Krynica Subunit,
Carpathians. Ann. Soc. Geol. Pol. 59, 145—181.

Bouma A.H. 1962: Sedimentology of some flysch deposits: a graphic

approach to facies interpretation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1—168.

Bown P.R. (Ed.) 1998: Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy.

British Micropalaeontological Society Series. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Cambridge, 1—315.

Cieszkowski M. 1992: Marine Miocene deposits near Nowy Targ,

Magura Nappe, Flysch Carpathians (South Poland). Geol. Car-
pathica 46, 339—346.

Cieszkowski M. & Olszewska B. 1986: Malcov Beds in Magura

Nappe near Nowy Targ, Outer Carpathians, Poland. Ann. Soc.
Geol. Pol. 56, 53—71.

Cieszkowski M., Oszczypko N., Pescatore T., Senatore M.R., Ślączka

A. & Valente A. 1995: Carbonate megaturbidites in the flysch
successions of the South Appenines (Cilento, Italy) and the Outer
Carpathians (Poland). [Megatorbiditi calcareo-marnose nelle
succesioni flyscioidi dell’Appennino Meridionale (Cilento, Italia)
e dei Carpazi Settentrionali (Polonia).] Boll. Soc. Geol. Ital. 114,
18, 67—88.

Cieszkowski M., Oszczypko N., Pescatore T., Senatore M.R.,

Ślączka A. & Valente A. 1994: Deep-sea clastic sediments and
associated megaturbidites and olistostromes (Cenozoic, Cilento,
Southern Italy). 15th IAS Regional Meeting, Ischia, 1994, Pre
Meeting Fieldtrip Guidebook, Excursio A9, 191—220.

Dżułyński S., Książkiewicz M. & Kuenen P.H. 1964: Turbidites in

flysch of the Polish Carpathians. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 70,
1089—1118.

Einsele G. 2002: Sedimentary basins-evolution, facies and sediment

budget. Second edition, Springer Verlag, Berlin—Haidelberg—
New York, 1—792.

419

REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE DEPOSITS (MAGURA NAPPE, POLAND)

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Fornaciari E. & Rio D. 1996: Latest Oligocene to Early Middle

Miocene quantitative calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy in
the Mediterranean region. Micropaleontology 42, 1—37.

Garecka M. 2008: Oligocene/Miocene boundary in the Polish Outer

Carpathians based on calcareous nannoplanton. Biul. Państw.
Inst. Geol. 432, 1—45 (in Polish, English summary).

Halicki B. 1959: Notes on the Podhale and Magura flysch in the

Podhale region. Acta Geol. Pol. 11, 477—491 (in Polish, English
summary).

Haq B.U., Hardenbol J. & Vail P.R. 1987: Chronology of fluctuating

sea levels since the Triassic. Science 235, 1156—1167.

Holcová K. 2002: Calcareous nannoplankton from the Eggenburgian

stratotype and faciostratotypes (Lower Miocene, Central Para-
tethys). Geol. Carpathica 53, 6, 381—390.

Holcová K. 2005: Quantitative calcareous nannoplankton bio-

stratigraphy of the Oligocene/Miocene boundary interval in
the northern part of the Buda Basin (Central Paratethys). Geol.
Quart. 49, 3, 263—274.

Horwitz L. 1935: New schematic cross-section through the Pieniny

Klippen Belt in Poland. Spraw. Państw. Inst. Geol. 8, 3, 79—105
(in Polish).

Kuenen P.H. & Migliorini C.I. 1950: Turbidity currents as a cause

of graded bedding. J. Geol. 58, 91—127.

Lowe D.R. 1982: Sediment gravity flows. II. Depositional models

with special reference to the deposits of high-density turbidity
currents. J. Sed. Petrology 52, 279—297.

Martini E. 1971: Standard Tertiary and Quaternary calcareous nanno-

plankton zonation. II. Proc. II Planktonic Conf. Roma 1970,
Edizioni Tecnoscienza, Rome, 729—785.

Martini E. & Worsley T. 1970: Standard Neogene calcareous nan-

noplankton zonation. Nature 225, 289—290.

Ma ašovský M. & Andreyeva-Grigorovich A.S. 2002: The Lower

Miocene deposits of the Krynica Subunit of the Magura Nappe
near Humenne (eastern Slovakia). Paleogeographical, Paleo-
ecological and Paleoclimatic Development of Central Europe,
Abstract Book, Bratislava, 63—64.

Matějka A. 1959: Sector de Šariš de la zone des Klippes internes

entre le Poprad et le Sekčovský potok. Zprávy o Geol. Výzk. v
r. 1957, Praha.

Melinte M. 1995: Changes in nannofossil assemblages during the

Oligocene—Lower Miocene interval in the Eastern Carpathians
and Transylvania. Abstracts 10

RCMNS, Bucharest 1995, Ro-

manian J. Stratigr. 76, suppl., 7, 171—172.

Middletown G.V. 1993: Sediment deposition from turbidity cur-

rents. Ann. Rev. Earth and Planet. Sci. 21, 89—114.

Mikes T., Báldi-Beke M., Kazmer M., Dunkl I. & von Eynatten H.

2008: Calcareous nannofossil age constraints on Miocene flysch
sedimentation in the Outer Dinarides (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Montenegro). In: Siegesmund S., Fugenschuh
B. & Froitzheim N. (Eds.): Tectonic aspects of the Alpine-Di-
naride-Carpathian System. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 298,
335—363.

Nemčok J. 1990: Geological map of the Pieniny, ubovnianska and

Ondavská vrchovina Mts. Geologický Ústav D. Štúra, Bratislava.

Olszewska B. & Oszczypko N. 2010: The geological position, sedi-

mentary record and composition of the Tylicz Conglomerate
(Late Eocene—Oligocene): stratigraphical and paleogeographical
implications (Magura Nappe, Polish Outer Carpathians). Geol.
Carpathica 61, 39—54.

Oszczypko N. 1973: The geology of the Nowy Sącz Basin (The

Middle Carpathians). Biul. Inst. Geol. 271, 101—197 (in Polish,
English summary).

Oszczypko N., Dudziak J. & Malata E. 1990: Stratigraphy of the

Cretaceous through Palaeogene deposits of the Magura Nappe
in the Beskid Sądecki Range, Polish Outer Carpathians. Stud.
Geol. Pol. 97, 109—181 (in Polish).

Oszczypko N., Andreyeva-Grigorovich A.S., Malata E. & Oszczypko-

Clowes M. 1999: The Lower Miocene deposits of the Rača
Subunit near Nowy Sącz (Magura Nappe, Polish Outer Car-
pathians). Geol. Carpathica 50, 6, 419—433.

Oszczypko N. & Oszczypko-Clowes M. 2002: Newly discovered

Early Miocene deposits in the Nowy Sącz area (Magura Nappe,
Polish Outer Carpathians). Geol. Quart. 46, 2, 117—133.

Oszczypko N. & Oszczypko-Clowes M. 2009: Stages in the Magura

Basin: a case study of the Polish sector (Western Carpathians).
Geodinamica Acta 22, 1—3, 83—100.

Oszczypko N. & Oszczypko-Clowes M. 2010: The Paleogene and

Early Neogene stratigraphy of the Beskid Sądecki Range and

ubovnianska Vrchovina (Magura Nappe, Western Car-

pathians). Acta Geol. Pol. 60, 317—348.

Oszczypko N., Dudziak J. & Malata E. 1990: Stratigraphy of the

Cretaceous through Palaeogene deposits of the Magura Nappe
in the Beskid Sądecki Range, Polish Outer Carpathians. Stud.
Geol. Pol. 97, 109—181 (in Polish, English sumary).

Oszczypko N., Golonka J. & Malata E. 2008a: The age of so-called

black flysch of the Pieniny Klippen Belt in Poland. Reply for re-
ply. [Wiek tzw. czarnego fliszu pienińskiego pasa skałkowego w
Polsce – odpowiedź na odpowiedź.] Przegl. Geol. 56, 459—460
(in Polish).

Oszczypko N., Golonka J. & Malata E. 2008b: Response to “The voice

in the discussion of the biostratigraphy so-called black flysch of
Pieniny Klippen Belt in Poland”. [Odpowiedź na “Głos w dys-
kusji nad biostratygrafią tzw. czarnego fliszu pienińskiego pasa
skałkowego w Polsce.”] Przegl. Geol. 56, 221—224 (in Polish).

Oszczypko N., Plašienka D. & Jurewicz E. 2010: Tectonics of the

Klippen Belt and Magura Nappe in the Eastern Part of the Pie-
niny Mts. (Western Carpathians, Poland and Slovakia) – new
approches and results. Proceedingss XIX Congress of the Car-
pathian-Balkan Geological Association, Thessaloniki, Greece,
23—26 September 2010. Scientific Annales of the School of Ge-
ology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Faculty of Sciences,
Special Volume 100, 1—2, 221—230.

Oszczypko N., Oszczypko-Clowes M., Golonka J. & Marko F.

2005:  Oligocene—Lower  Miocene  sequences  of  the  Magura
Nappe  and  Pieniny  Klippen  Belt  and  adjacent  Magura  Nappe
between  Jarabina  and  the  Poprad  River  (East  Slovakia  and
South  Poland)  –  their  tectonic  position  and  paleogeographic
implications. Geol. Quart. 49, 379—402.

Oszczypko N., Malata E., Švábenická L., Golonka J. & Marko F.

2004: Jurassic Cretaceous controversies in the Western Car-
pathian Flysch: “black flysch” case study. Creteceous Research
25, 89—113.

Oszczypko-Clowes M. 2001: The nannofossil biostratigraphy of the

youngest deposits of the Magura Nappe (East of the Skawa river,
Polish Flysch Carpathians) and their palaeoenvironmental con-
ditions. Ann. Soc. Geol. Pol. 71, 139—188.

Oszczypko-Clowes M. 2008: The stratigraphy of the Oligocene de-

posits from the Ropa tectonic window (Grybów Nappe, Western
Carpathians, Poland). Geol. Quart. 52, 2, 127—142.

Oszczypko-Clowes M. 2010: Calcareous nannoplankton biostratigra-

phy  of  the  terminal  sediments  of  the  Magura  Basin  –  a  case
study  of  the  Polish  sector  (Outer  Western  Carpathians).  Pro-
ceedings    XIX  Congress  of  the  Carpathian-Balkan  Geological
Association, Thessaloniki, Greece, 23—26 September 2010, Sci-
entific Annales of the School of Geology, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki,  Faculty  of  Sciences,  Special  Volume  100,  1—2,
221—230.

Oszczypko-Clowes M. & Oszczypko N. 2011: Stratigraphy and tec-

tonics of a tectonic window in the Magura Nappe (Świątkowa
Wielka, Polish Outer Carpathians). Geol. Carpathica 62, 2,
139—154.

Oszczypko-Clowes M. & Żydek B. 2012: Paleoecology of the Upper

420

OSZCZYPKO-CLOWES

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Eocene Lower Oligocene Malcov Basin based on the calcare-
ous nannofossils: a case study of the Leluchów section (Krynica
Zone, Magura Nappe, Polish Outer Carpathians). Geol. Car-
pathica 63, 2, 149—164.

Paul Z. & Poprawa D. 1992: Geology of the Magura Napppe in the

Peri-Pieniny Zone in light of the Nowy Targ PIG 1 borehole.
Przegl. Geol. 40, 7, 404—409 (in Polish, English summary).

Perch-Nielsen K. 1985: Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils. In: Bolli

H., Saunders J.S. & Perch-Nielsen K. (Eds.): Plankton stratig-
raphy. Cambridge University Press, 11, 427—554.

Picha F. 1996: Exploring for hydrocarbons under thrust belts – A

challenging new frontier in the Carpathians and elsewhere.
AAPG Bull. 80, 10, 1547—1564.

Radomski A. 1967: Some stratigraphic units based on nannoplankton

in the Polish Outer Carpathians. Inst. Geol. Biul. 211, 385—393.

Shanmugam G. 2000: 50 years of the turbidite paradigm (1950s—

1990s): deep-water processes and facies models – a critical
perspective. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 17, 285—342.

Sikora W. 1962: New data on the geology of the Pieniny K1ippen

Belt. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci., Earth Sci. 10, 203—211.

Stráník Z. & Hanzlíková E. 1968: Stratigraphy of the Magura Group

of nappes. In: Mahel M. & Buday T. (Eds.): Regional geology of
Czechoslovakia. Part II. The West Carpathians. 446—480.

Švábenická L. & Bubík M. 1992: The fossil record (calcareous nan-

nofossils and foraminifers) in single intervals of the Upper
Cretaceous flysch sequence of the West Carpathians, Czecho-

slovakia. Cretaceous Research 13, 583—590.

Švábenická L., Bubík M. & Stráník Z. 2007: Biostratigraphy and

paleoenvironmental changes on the transition from the Menilite
to Krosno lithofacies (Western Carpathians, Czech Republic).
Geol. Carpathica 58, 3, 237—262.

Te ák F. 2008: Paleogene depositional systems and paleogeography

of the submarine fans in western part of the Magura Basin (Ja-
vorníky Mountains, Slovakia). Geol. Carpathica 59, 4, 333—344.

Uhlig V. 1890: Geologische Spezialkarte der Ősterreichisch-Un-

garischen Monarchie. k.k. Geol. R.A., Zone 8, XXIII, Alt Lu-
blau (Stará ubowna) und Szczawnica, Wien.

Ustaszewski K., Schmid S., Fügenschuh B., Tischler M., Kissling

E. & Spakman W. 2008: A map-view restoration of the Al-
pine-Carpathian-Dinaridic system for the Early Miocene.
Swiss J. Geosci., 101/supplementary issue, 273—294.

Watycha L. 1963: Magura flysch of the southern part of Gorce Mts.

Przegl. Geol. 8, 371—378 (in Polish, English summary).

Young J. 1998: Miocene. In: Bown P. (Ed.): Calcareous nannofos-

sil biostratigraphy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
225—265.

Żytko K., Gucik S., Ryłko W., Oszczypko N., Zając R., Garlicka I.,

Nemčok J., Eliás M., Menčík E. & Stráník Z. 1989: Map of the
Tectonic Elements of the Western Outer Carpathians and their
Foreland. In: Poprawa D. & Nemčok J. (Eds.): Geological Atlas
of the Western Outer Carpathians and their Foreland. PIG,
Warszawa, GÚDŠ, Bratislava, ÚÚG, Praha.

421

REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE DEPOSITS (MAGURA NAPPE, POLAND)

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA

GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2012, 63, 5, 407—421; Electronic Table Edition I—III

Appendix

Nannofossil taxa in text, in alphabetic of genera epihets

Blackites creber (Deflandre, 1954) Roth, 1970
Braarudosphaera bigelowii (Gran & Braarud, 1935) De-

flandre, 1947

Calcidiscus leptoporus (Murray & Blackman, 1898) Loe-

blich & Tappan, 1978

Chiasmolithus altus Bukry & Percival, 1971
Chiasmolithus bidens (Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961) Hay &

Mohler, 1967

Chiasmolithus expansus (Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961)

Gartner, 1970

Chiasmolithus gigas (Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961) Ra-

domski, 1968

Chiasmolithus grandis (Bramlette & Riedel, 1954) Ra-

domski, 1968

Chiasmolithus medius Perch-Nielsen, 1971
Chiasmolithus modestus Perch-Nielsen, 1971
Chiasmolithus oamaruensis (Deflandre, 1954) Hay, Mohler

& Wade, 1966

Chiasmolithus solitus (Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961) Locker,

1968

Coccolithus pelagicus (Wallich, 1871) Schiller, 1930
Coronocyclus nitescens (Kamptner, 1963) Bramlette &

Wilcoxon, 1967

Cyclicargolithus abisectus (Müller, 1970) Wise, 1973
Cyclicargolithus floridanus (Roth & Hay in Hay et al.,

1967) Bukry, 1971

Cyclicargolithus luminis (Sullivan, 1965) Bukry, 1971
Dictyococcites bisectus (Hay, Mohler & Wade, 1966)

Bukry & Percival, 1971

Discoaster barbadiensis Tan, 1927
Discoaster binodosus Martini, 1958
Discoaster deflandrei Bramlette & Riedel, 1954
Discoaster distinctus Martini, 1958
Discoaster druggi Bramlette &Wilcoxon, 1967
Discoaster kuepperi Stradner, 1959
Discoaster lodoensis Bramlette & Riedel, 1954
Discoaster multiradiatus Bramlette & Reidel, 1954
Discoaster saipanensis Bramlette & Riedel, 1954
Discoaster salisburgensis Stradner, 1961
Discoaster sublodoensis Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961
Discoaster tanii Bramlette & Riedel, 1954
Discoaster tanii nodifer (Bramlette & Riedel, 1954) Bukry,

1973

Ellipsolithus macellus (Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961) Sulli-

van, 1964

Ericsonia fenestrata (Deflandre & Fert, 1954) Stradner in

Stradner & Edwards (1968)

Ericsonia formosa (Kamptner, 1963) Haq, 1971
Ericsonia subdisticha (Roth & Hay in Hay et al., 1967)

Roth in Baumann & Roth, 1969

Helicosphaera ampliaperta Bramlette & Wilcoxon, 1967
Helicosphaera bramlettei Müller, 1970

Helicosphaera carteri (Wallich, 1877) Kamptner, 1954
Helicosphaera compacta Bramlette & Wilcoxon, 1967
Helicosphaera euphratis Haq, 1966
Helicosphaera heezenii (Bukry, 1971) Jafar & Martini,

1975

Helicosphaera intermedia Martini, 1965
Helicosphaera lophota Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961
Heliolithus kleinpelli Sullivan, 1964
Isthmolithus recurvus (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert,

1954)

Lanternithus minutus Stradner, 1962
Neococcolithes dubius (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert,

1954) Black, 1967

Neococcolithes minutus (Perch-Nielsen, 1967) Perch-

Nielsen, 1971

Pontosphaera discopora Schiller, 1925
Pontosphaera lateliptica (Báldi-Beke & Baldi, 1974)

Perch-Nielsen, 1984

Pontosphaera multipora (Kamptner, 1948) Roth, 1970
Pontosphaera plana (Bramlette & Sullivan, 1961) Perch-

Nielsen, 1971

Reticulofenestra callida (Perch-Nielsen, 1971) Bybell, 1975
Reticulofenestra daviessi (Haq, 1968) Haq, 1971
Reticulofenestra dictyoda (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert,

1954) Stradner in Stradner & Edwards, 1968

Reticulofenestra hillae Bukry & Percival, 1971
Reticulofenestra ornata Müller, 1970
Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica (Gartner, 1967) Gartner,

1969

Reticulofenestra reticulata (Gartner & Smith, 1967) Roth

& Thierstein, 1972

Reticulofenestra umbilica (Levin, 1965) Martini & Ritz-

kowski, 1968

Sphenolithus calyculus (Bukry, 1985)
Sphenolithus capricornutus Bukry & Percival, 1971
Sphenolithus conicus Bukry, 1971
Sphenolithus delphix Bukry, 1973
Sphenolithus disbelemnos Fornaciari & Rio, 1996
Sphenolithus dissimilis Bukry & Percival, 1971
Sphenolithus editus Perch-Nielsen in Perch-Nielsen et al.,

1978

Sphenolithus moriformis (Brönnimann & Stradner, 1960)

Bramlette & Wilcoxon, 1967

Sphenolithus radians Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert, 1954
Sphenolithus spiniger Bukry, 1971
Transversopontis fibula Gheta, 1975
Transversopontis pulcher (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert,

1954) Hay, Mohler & Wade, 1966

Transversopontis pulcheroides (Sullivan, 1964) Báldi-

Beke, 1971

Tribrachiatus orthostylus Shamrai, 1963
Triquetrorhabdulus carinatus Martini, 1965
Triquetrorhabdulus milowii Bukry, 1971
Umbilicosphaera rotula (Kamptner, 1956) Varol, 1982
Zygrhablithus bijugatus (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert,

1954) Deflandre, 1959

Electronic Edition of Tables 1– 3 — OSZCZYPKO -CLOWES: REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE

Leluchów Marl Mb

Smereczek Shale Mb

Malcov lithofacies

Calc. nannofossil Zone
(Martini 1971)

NP19–20

NP21

NP22

NP23

NP24

Sample

48/82/N

49/82/N

1/08/N

2/08/N

3/08/N

4/08/N

5/08/N

6/08N

54/82/N

39/98/N

38/98/N

37/98/N

42/98/N

41/98/N

40/98/N

Sample abundance

Nannofossil preservation

Chiasmolithus grandis

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus medius

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus oamaruensis

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus sp.

2 0.6

Discoaster barbadiensis

6 1.9

1 0.3

2 0.6

6 1.9

11 3.5

Discoaster lodoensis

2 0.6

3 1.0

1 0.3

Discoaster multiradiatus

3 1.0

2 0.6

3 1.0

4 1.3

2 0.6

Discoaster saipanensis

2 0.6

3 1.0

2 0.6

Discoaster sp.

1 0.3

9 2.9

6 1.9

3 1.0

15 4.8

14 4.4

Discoaster tanii

1 0.3

2 0.6

4 1.3

3 1.0

9 2.9

Discoaster tanii nodifer

3 1.0

2 0.6

1 0.3

5 1.6

6 1.9

Ericsonia fenestrata

Ericsonia formosa

13 4.1

25 7.9

18 5.7

17 5.4

16 5.1

21 6.7

Ericsonia subdisticha

Isthmolithus recurvus

10 3.2

2 0.6

5 1.6

3 1.0

Lanternithus minutus

Neococcolithes dubius

1 0.3

0.0

2 0.6

Reticulofenestra dictyoda

6 1.9

4 1.3

11 3.5

5 1.6

Reticulofenestra hillae

12 3.8

3 1.0

4 1.3

5 1.6

7 2.2

Reticulofenestra reticulata

5 1.6

2 0.6

3 1.0

4 1.3

1 0.3

Reticulofenestra umbilica

4 1.3

19 6.0

15 4.8

20 6.3

13 4.1

Sphenolithus predistentus

Sphenolithus radians

1 0.3

2 0.6

Sphenolithus spiniger

2 0.6

3 1.0

2 0.6

Tribrachiatus orthostylus

1 0.3

0.0

undivided Cretaceous species

5 1.6

1 0.3

3 1.0

9 2.9

5 1.6

3 1.0

7 2.2

9 2.9

6 1.9

4 1.3

3 1.0

4 1.3

REWORKED SPECIES

11 3 %

5 2 %

3 1 % 12 4 %

4 1.3 %

5 2 %

3 1 % 42 13 % 77 24 % 70 22 %

71 22 % 95 30 % 99 31 %

Braarudosphaera bigelowii

1 0.3

2 0.6

3 1.0

Chiasmolithus oamaruensis

1 0.3

Coccolithus pelagicus

53 17

82 26

79 25

75 24

66 21

122 39

34 11

44 14

56 18

51 16

65 21

72 23

34 11

65 21

Coronocyclus nitescens

8 2.5

3 1.0

2 0.6 X

2 0.6

1 0.3

2 0.6 X

2 0.6

3 1.0

Cyclicargolithus abisectus

5 1.6

10 3.2

11 3.5

6 1.9

Cyclicargolithus floridanus

4 1.3

31 9.8

61 19

91 29

110 35

47 15

70 22

89 28

81 26

41 13

50 16

46 15

56 18

68 22

44 14

Dictyococcites bisectus

83 26

73 23

64 20

47 15

42 13

66 21

87 28

27 8.6

77 24

99 31

76 24

77 24

45 14

44 14

57 18

Dictyococcites sp.

2 0.6

6 1.9

2 0.6

4 1.3

11 3.5

9 2.9

7 2.2

4 1.3

7 2.2

4 1.3

12 3.8

22 7.0

14 4.4

Discoaster barbadiensis

5 1.6

2 0.6

Discoaster deflandrei

1 0.3

2 0.6

Discoaster saipanensis

1 0.3

Discoaster sp.

4 1.3

6 1.9

1 0.3

Discoaster tanii

1 0.3

3 1.0

2 0.6

Discoaster tanii nodifer

1 0.3

Ericsonia fenestrata

1 0.3

3 1.0 X

Ericsonia formosa

4 1.3

7 2.2

11 3.5

5 1.6

1 0.3

2 0.6

Ericsonia subdisticha

11 3.5

12 3.8

9 2.9

14 4.4

16 5.1

2 0.6

Helicosphaera bramlettei

1 0.3

Helicosphaera compacta

1 0.3

2 0.6

3 1.0

2 0.6

Isthmolithus recurvus

9 2.9

5 1.6

3 1.0

1 0.3

2 0.6

7 2.2

Lanternithus minutus

2 0.6

91 29

47 15

3 1.0 X

Pontosphaera multipora

1 0.3

2 0.6

Reticulofenestra callida

4 1.3

3 1.0

1 0.3

Reticulofenestra dictyoda

15 4.8

10 3.2

4 1.3

3 1.0

2 0.6

3 1.0

Reticulofenestra hillae

26 8.2

4 1.3

2 0.6

4 1.3

1 0.3

4 1.3 X

Reticulofenestra lockerii

19 6.0

15 4.8

11 3.5

3 1.0

2 0.6

Reticulofenestra ornata

22 7.0

11 3.5

7 2.2

11 3.5

10 3.2

Reticulofenestra reticulata

2 0.6

3 1.0

2 0.6

Reticulofenestra umbilica

84 27

67 21

36 11

29 9.2

1 0.3

3 1.0 X

3 1.0

Sphenolithus dissimilis

3 1.0

5 1.6

2 0.6

4 1.3

Sphenolithus moriformis

5 1.6

14 4.4

11 3.5

15 4.8

22 7.0

3 1.0

15 4.8

4 1.3

8 2.5

11 3.5

4 1.3

5 1.6

Sphenolithus predistentus

Transversopontis fibula

1 0.3

Transversopontis pulcher

6 1.9 X

2 0.6

1 0.3

Transversopontis pulcheroides

3 1.0

1 0.3

Zygrhablithus bijugatus

1 0.3

1 0.3 X

12 3.8

7 2.2

19 6.0

12 3.8

7 2.2

2 0.6 X

1 0.3

AUTOCHTONOUS SPECIES 290 92 % 295 93 % 300 95 % 297 94 % 288 91 % 296 94 %

300 95 % 295 93 % 297 94 % 258 82 % 223 71 % 230 73 % 229 73 % 205 65 % 201 64

Electronic Edition of Tables 1–3 — OSZCZYPKO -CLOWES: REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE

Matysova

Jarabina

Kremna

Lithostratigraphy

Magura Fm

Kremna Fm

Age

OLIGOCENE

O/M

MIOCENE

Calcareous nannofossil
Zones Martini (1971)

NP24/25

NP25

NN1

NN2

Sample Nos.

16/03/N

13/03/N

14/03/N

15/03/N

9/03/N

8/03/N

10/03/N

4/01/N

5/01/N

6/01/N

8/01/N

9/01/N

10/01/N

Sample abundance

Nannofossil preservation

Chiasmolithus bidens

1 0.3

5 1.6

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus gigas

1 0.3

2 0.6

5 1.6

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus grandis

1 0.3

11 3.5

5 1.6

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus medius

2 0.6

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus solitus

5 1.6

1 0.3

3 1.0

11 3.5

4 1.3

6 1.9

8 2.5

12 3.8

6 1.9

Discoaster barbadiensis

45 14.3

14 4.4

20 6.3

7 2.2

17 5.4

13 4.1

16 5.1

7 2.2

8 2.5

14 4.4

15 4.8

21 6.7

31 9.8

Discoaster binodosus

10 3.2

3 1.0

14 4.4

13 4.1

15 4.8

22 7.0

7 2.2

29 9.2

10 3.2

18 5.7

8 2.5

7 2.2

Discoaster kuepperi

5 1.6

3 1.0

Discoaster lodoensis

1 0.3

2 0.6

8 2.5

6 1.9

Discoaster multiradiatus

6 1.9

1 0.3

8 2.5

11 3.5

13 4.1

0 0

1 0.3

4 1.3

2 0.6

Discoaster saipanensis

0 0

3 1.0

Discoaster salisburgensis

9 2.9

5 1.6

1 0.3

2 0.6

Discoaster sp.

0 0

6 1.9

4 1.3

1 0.3

3 1.0

1 0.3

X 0

Discoaster tanii

0 0

1 0.3

9 2.9

Discoaster tanii nodifer

0 0

1 0.3

2 0.6

Ellipsolithus macellus

6 1.9

9 2.9

1 0.3

6 1.9

2 0.6

9 2.9

12 3.8

Helicosphaera papilata

Ericsonia fenestrata

0 0

1 0.3

0 0

5 2

1 0.3

0 0

Ericsonia formosa

4 1.3

8 2.5

16 5.1

11 3

6 1.9

7 2.2

3 1.0

7 2.2

Heliolithus kleinpelli

3 1.0

2 0.6

1 0.3

3 1.0

Helicosphaera heezenii

Isthmolithus recurvus

1 0.3

Neococcolithes dubius

1 0.3

6 1.9

1 0.3

Pontosphaera lateliptica

1 0.3

2 0.6

1 0.3

Pontosphaera plana

4 1.3

1 0.3

7 2.2

Reticulofenestra reticulata

1 0.3

Rhabdosphaera clavigera

22 7.0

Sphenolithus editus

8 2.5

1 0.3

34 10.8

29 9.2

Sphenolithus radians

1 0.3

20 6.3

3 1.0

26 8.2

10 3.2

18 5.7

19 6.0

14 4.4

18 5.7

Sphenolithus spiniger

1 0.3

0.0

1 0.3

Toweius rotundus

14 4.4

4 1.3

5 1.6

2.9

7 2.2

10 3.2

13 4.1

7 2.2

1 0.3

12 3.8

5 1.6

8 2.5

Transversopontis fibula

5 1.6

3 1.0

2 0.6

Tribrachiatus orthostylus

8 2.5

5 1.6

21 6.7

13 4.1

23 7.3

42 13.3

23 7.3

57 18.1

30 9.5

38 12.0

21 6.7

35 11.1

37 11.7

undivided Cretaceous species

35 11.1

34 10.8

41 13.0

67 21.2

11 3.5

14 4.4

24 7.6

9 2.9

13 4.1

16 5.1

13 4.1

42 13.3

REWORKED SPECIES

125 39.6 % 69 21.9 % 119 37.7 % 121 38.3 % 145 45.9 % 144 45.6 % 146 46.2 % 192 60.8 % 169 53.5 % 171 54.2 % 146 46.2 % 146 46.2 % 161 51.0 %

Braarudosphaera bigelowii

27 8.6

11 3.5

4 1.3

32 10.1

1 0.3

15 4.8

1 0.3

2 0.6

1 0.3

10 3.2

Chiasmolithus oamaruensis

1 0.3

0.0

Coccolithus pelagicus

28 8.9

54 17.1

51 16.2

49 15.5

36 11.4

53 16.8

50 15.8

48 15.2

41 13.0

34 10.8

40 12.7

77 24.4

Coronocyclus nitescens

2 0.6

2 0.63

7 2.22

5 0

4 1.3

6 1.9

3 0.95

Cyclicargolithus abisectus

4 1.3

1 0.3

3 1.0

7 2.2

4 1.3

2 0.6

Cyclicargolithus floridanus

0 0

2 0.6

6 1.9

0 0

Cyclicargolithus luminis

0 0

10 3.2

0 0

2 0.6

15 4.8

18 5.7

0 0

Dictyococcites bisectus

5 1.6

6 1.9

1 0.3

2 0.6

Discoaster deflandrei

1 0.3

X 0

0 0

1 0.3

0 0

X 0

1 0.3

0 0

X 0

Helicosphaera carterii

0 0

Helicosphaera compacta

Helicosphaera euphratis

Holodiscolithus macroporus

2 0.6

Pontosphaera discopora

1 0.3

0 0

3 1.0

8 2.5

2 0.6

Pontosphaera multipora

1 0.3

4 1.3

Reticulofenestra daviessi

1 0.3

2 0.6

Reticulofenestra dictyoda

5 1.6

1 0.3

Reticulofenestra sp. small

7 2.2

0 0.0

0 0

6 1.9

5 1.6

16 5.1

0 0

Reticulofenestra ornata

1 0.3

Sphenolithus conicus

5 1.6

8 2.5

10 3.2

15 4.8

8 2.5

9 2.9

5 1.6

8 2.5

4 1.3

9 2.9

Sphenolithus delphix

1 0.3

3 1.0

Sphenolithus disbelemnos

4 1.3

0 0

X 0

1 0.3

X 0

Sphenolithus dissimilis

3 0.3

5 1.6

4 0.6

5 0.6

5 1.3

2 0.6

0 0

1 0.3

13 1.3

0 0

5 0.3

Sphenolithus moriformis

72 22.8

79 25.0

62 19.6

67 21.2

35 11.1

65 20.6

53 16.8

24 7.6

20 6.3

43 13.6

30 9.5

40 12.7

20 6.3

Transversopontis pulcher

1 0.3

0 0

9 2.9

6 1.9

7 2.2

2 0.6

0 0

Transversopontis pulcheroides

1 0.3

0 0

4 1.3

3 1.0

15 4.8

4 1.3

Triquetrorhabdulus carinatus

0 0

2 0.6

0 0

X 0

Zygrhablithus bijugatus

31 9.8

69 21.9

44 13.9

16 5.1

32 10.1

9 2.9

21 6.7

17 5.4

23 7.3

14 4.4

31 9.8

3 1.0

AUTOCHTONOUS SPECIES 175 55.4 % 231 73.2 % 184 58.3 % 181 57.3 % 155 49.1 % 156 49.4 % 156 49.4 % 108 34.2 % 131 41.5 % 128 40.9 % 155 49.1 % 157 49.7 % 139 44.0 %

Electronic Edition of Tables 1–3 — OSZCZYPKO -CLOWES: REWORKED NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE LOWER MIOCENE

III

Lithostratigraphy

Zawada Formation

Age

MIOCENE

Calcareous nannofossil
Zones Martini (1971)

NN1

NN2

Sample Nos.

18/00/N

17/00/N

16/00/N

15/00/N

25/00/N

24/00/N

23/00/N

22/00/N

21/00/N

20/00/N

19/00/N

Sample abundance

Nannofossil preservation

Chiasmolithus altus

4 1.3

14 4.4

4 1.3

7 2.2

Chiasmolithus bidens

6 1.9

2 0.63

2 0.6

Chiasmolithus expansus

5 1.6

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus gigas

2 0.6

3 1.0

Chiasmolithus grandis

11 3.5

1 0.3

2 0.6

4 1.3

2 0.6

4 1.3

Chiasmolithus medius

2 0.6

Chiasmolithus oamaruensis

2 0.6

6 1.9

2 0.6

1 0.3

Chiasmolithus solitus

2 0.6

11 3.5

9 2.9

4 1.3

13 4.1

9 2.9

11 3.5

10 3.2

Discoaster adamanteus

3 1.0

1 0.3

Discoaster barbadiensis

1 0.3

11 3.5

20 6.3

3 1.0

5 1.6

11 3.5

5 1.6

9 2.9

2 0.6

10 3.2

Discoaster binodosus

1 0.3

2 0.6

Discoaster distinctus

1 0.3

2 0.6

1 0.3

4 1.3

Discoaster kuepperi

2 0.6

Discoaster lodoensis

3 1.0

1 0.3

3 1.0

2 0.6

4 1.3

Discoaster mediosus

Discoaster multiradiatus

1 0.3

Discoaster saipanensis

5 1.6

3 1.0

4 1.3

6 1.9

Discoaster sp.

Discoaster tanii

3 1.0

2 0.6

7 2.2

3 1.0

5 1.6

1 0.3

Discoaster tanii nodifer

2 0.6

1 0.3

Ericsonia fenestrata

4 1.3

1 0.3

4 1.3

1 0.3

Ericsonia formosa

28 8.9

16 5.1

15 4.8

22 7.0

20 6.3

16 5.07

9 2.9

19 6.0

16 5.1

11 3.5

15 4.8

Ericsonia subdisticha

5 1.6

1 0.3

Helicosphaera bramlettei

9 2.9

14 4.4

6 1.9

11 3.5

9 2.9

14 4.4

13 4.1

3 1.0

Helicosphaera elongata

1 0.3

Helicosphaera lophota

2 0.6

1 0.3

2 0.6

8 2.5

Holodiscolithus macroporus

1 0.3

Lanternithus minutus

3 1.0

1 0.3

2 0.6

1 0.3

Neococcolithes dubius

10 3.2

5 1.6

1 0.3

4 1.3

5 1.6

3 1.0

9 2.9

1 0.3

3 1.0

Pontosphaera lateliptica

4 1.3

2 0.6

5 1.6

1 0.3

Reticulofenestra dictyoda

5 1.6

10 3.2

11 3.5

26 8.2

11 3.5

6 1.9

10 3.2

12 3.8

10 3.2

8 2.5

16 5.1

Reticulofenestra hillae

2 0.6

3 1.0

7 2.2

3 1.0

1 0.3

4 1.3

1 0.3

Reticulofenestra umbilica

1 0.3

Rhabdosphaera clavigera

2 0.6

1 0.3

4 1.3

3 1.0

1 0.3

Rhabdosphaera inflata

8 2.5

Semihololithus kerabyi

1 0.3

6 1.9

4 1.3

1 0.3

2 0.6

Sphenolithus calyculus

1 0.3

Sphenolithus capricornutus

1 0.3

Sphenolithus delphix

1 0.3

Sphenolithus editus

2 0.6

1 0.3

2 0.6

1 0.3

Sphenolithus radians

1 0.3

2 0.6

4 1.3

2 0.6

Sphenolithus spiniger

2 0.6

1 0.3

2 0.6

Transersopontis fibula

2 0.6

3 1.0

2 0.6

1 0.3

3 1.0

1 0.3

Tribrachiatus orthostylus

1 0.3

undivided Cretaceous species

25 7.9

10 3.2

7 2.2

6 1.9

10 3.2

5 1.6

7 2.2

14 4.4

7 2.2

18 5.7

9 2.9

REWORKED SPECIES

96 30.4 % 134 42.4 % 114 36.1 % 94 29.8 % 91 28.8 % 83 26.3 % 110 34.8 % 79 25.0 % 104 32.9 % 82 26.0 % 94 29.8 %

Braarudosphaera bigelowii

5 1.6

Calcidiscus leptoporus

2 0.6

5 1.6

Coccolithus pelagicus

79 25.0

34 10.8

26 8.2

50 15.8

44 13.9

35 11.1

55 17.4

38 12.0

52 16.47

47 14.88

Coronocyclus nitescens

5 1.6

3 1.0

2 0.6

7 2.2

3 1.0

4 1.3

5 1.6

1 0.3

22 7.0

Cyclicargolithus abisectus

3 1.0

7 2.2

5 1.6

23 7.3

9 2.9

5 1.6

14 4.4

9 2.9

6 1.9

1 0.3

Cyclicargolithus floridanus

66 20.9

19 6.0

36 11.4

56 17.7

58 18.4

42 13.3

33 10.5

80 25.3

39 12.4

57 18.1

51 16.2

Cyclicargolithus luminis

1 0.3

4 1.3

1 0.3

4 1.3

14 4.4

3 1.0

2 0.6

3 1.0

Discoaster deflandrei

4 1.3

16 5.1

20 6.3

10 3.2

4 1.3

7 2.2

12 3.8

2 0.6

5 1.6

7 2.2

12 3.8

Discoaster druggi

1 0.3

6 1.9

3 1.0

2 0.6

3 1.0

Helicosphaera ampliaperta

Helicosphaera euphratis

2 0.6

3 1.0

1 0.3

3 1.0

1 0.3

Helicosphaera intermedia

1 0.3

Reticulofenestra sp. small

17 5.4

9 2.9

11 3.5

14 4.4

24 7.6

15 4.8

18 5.7

13 4.1

21 6.7

12 3.8

Neococcolithes minutus

1 0.3

Pontosphaera discopora

1 0.3

2 0.6

1 0.3

2 0.6

Pontosphaera multipora

2 0.6

5 1.6

4 1.3

9 2.9

1 0.3

Pontosphaera plana

1 0.3

4 1.3

1 0.3

2 0.6

3 1.0

1 0.3

2 0.6

4 1.3

3 1.0

Pontosphaera rothi

Reticulofenestra daviesii

4 1.3

Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica

0 0

Sphenolithus conicus

3 1.0

4 1.3

13 4.1

2 0.6

4 1.3

17 5.4

10 3.2

4 1.3

12 3.8

8 2.5

14 4.4

Sphenolithus disbelemnos

4 1.3

Sphenolithus dissimilis

1 0.3

3 1.0

1 0.3

Sphenolithus moriformis

6 1.9

20 6.3

22 7.0

21 6.7

23 7.3

25 7.9

19 6.0

9 2.9

24 7.6

9 2.9

21 6.7

Transversopontis obliquipons

2 0.6

Transversopontis pulcher

12 3.8

7 2.2

3 1.0

4 1.3

1 0.3

2 0.6

13 4.1

11 3.5

24 7.6

1 0.3

Transversopontis pulcheroides

1 0.3

11 3.5

7 2.2

4 1.3

1 0.3

12 3.8

6 1.9

2 0.6

8 2.5

15 4.8

5 1.6

Triquetrorhabdulus carinatus

2 0.6

3 1.0

4 1.3

Triquetrorhabdulus milowii

Umbilicosphaera rotula

2 0.6

1 0.3

3 1.0

Zygrhablithus bijugatus

4 1.3

15 4.8

30 9.5

39 12.4

4 1.3

17 5.4

4 1.3

3 1.0

5 1.6

12 3.8

8 2.5

AUTOCHTONOUS SPECIES 204 64.6 % 162 51.3 % 186 58.9 % 206 65.2 % 209 66.2 % 217 68.7 % 189 59.9 % 219 69.4 % 195 61.8 % 217 68.7 % 205 64.9 %

Document Outline

Table1-3.pdf
- Stránka 1
- Stránka 2
- Table3.pdf
  - Stránka 1
- Table3.pdf
  - Stránka 1