background image


, JUNE 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

doi: 10.1515/geoca-2017-0019

Significant hiatuses in the terrestrial Late Variscan Central 

and Western Bohemian basins (Late Pennsylvanian–Early 

Cisuralian) and their possible tectonic and climatic links


Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Albertov 6, 128 43 Prague 2, Czech Republic;,

(Manuscript received September 3, 2016; accepted in revised form March 15, 2017)

Abstract: Significant changes in the stratigraphy of the Central and Western Bohemian Upper Palaeozoic basins occur 

during or shortly after hiatuses. The different extent and changes in the depocentres of the Radnice and Nýřany members 

(Moscovian) in the Plzeň Basin clearly indicate changes in the structure of this basin taking place during a break in 

 sedimentation between these two units (311.9–308.3 Ma). Thick weathered rocks that occur in boreholes in the Mšeno–

Roudnice Basin indicate another sedimentation break (305.9–304.1 Ma) between the Nýřany Member and the Týnec 

Formation (Kasimovian). Another possible hitherto undiscovered hiatus occurred between the Týnec and Slaný  formations 

(Kasimovian–Gzhelian, about 304–303 Ma). The most significant changes in the configuration of the basins occurred 

between the Slaný and Líně formations (Gzhelian–Asselian, 301.6–300.6 Ma). This is indicated by deeply cut river 

 valleys at the top of the Slaný Formation, by high thickness of weathered deposits occurring immediately beneath the 

Líně Formation, and mainly by the shift of depocentres from the southern to the northern part of the Central Bohemian 

basins.  The  hiatuses  between  the  Radnice  and  Nýřany  members  and  between  the  Slaný  and  Líně  formations  are 

 accompanied by significant changes in the depocentres, and they are therefore interpreted primarily as tectonic events 

related to the extensional collapse of the Variscan orogenic belt. By contrast, the hiatuses beneath and above the Týnec 

Formation are interpreted as being the products of lower sedimentation rates during drier climates, which is consistent 

with the characteristics of the sediments, correlation with other Central European basins, and with climate models for this 

period. Due to the characteristics of the Líně Formation, in which the effects of climate aridization are clearly seen, the 

authors presume that tectonic as well as climatic changes occurred at the hiatus between the Slaný and Líně formations. 

Keywords: Pennsylvanian, Cisuralian, terrestrial basins, hiatuses, climate changes, tectonics, weathering.


The Bohemian Massif is the easternmost and also the largest 

block of the eastern branch of the Variscides. This area was 

formed during the Carboniferous as a result of the collision of 

Baltica (the eastern branch of Laurasia) and Gondwana, when, 

during simultaneous rotation, the new supercontinent Pangea 

was formed (Kearey et al. 2009). Variscan processes of con-

siderable intensity occurred in the territory of present-day 

Central Europe because of its location in the collision zone. 

The emerging Variscan orogeny also incorporated older, par-

ticularly Cadomian consolidated blocks such as the Vosges, 

the Black Forest and the Bohemian Massif (Kroner et al. 

2008). The regressive nature of Middle Devonian sediments 

and subsequent termination of sedimentation in the Prague 

Basin reflect the onset of the Variscan Orogeny, which culmi-

nated in the Bohemian Massif in the Late Visean. At that time, 

folding of Cambrian to Early Namurian (Serpukhovian) sedi-

ments occurred in this area (McCann et al. 2008). The youn-

gest deposits that were folded in the Bohemian Massif are the 

sediments, tuffs and tuffites of the Ostrava Formation in the 

Czech part of the Upper Silesian Basin (folded as early as 

 between the Lower and Middle Namurian, comp. Dopita et al. 

1997), which is a foreland basin partially filled with paralic 

deposits. The other Late Palaeozoic basins in the Czech 

 Republic are terrestrial intermontane basins, which formed 

primarily in an extensional or transtensional regime.

Arthaud & Matte (1977) deduced that these types of basins 

formed as a result of the extensional collapse of the Variscan 

orogenic belt after the collision of Gondwana and Baltica, 

which reactivated older NW–SE oriented fault structures 

transforming them into normal faults and predominantly 

right-lateral strike-slip faults. According to Ziegler (1990),  

the formation of the Late Palaeozoic terrestrial basins of the 

Bohemian Massif are probably also related to the movements 

along these structures and their conjugate equivalents. The fill 

of these basins never underwent significant folding. Initially, 

the thickness of deposits was usually more or less influenced 

by the unevenness of the basin basement. Later, interruptions 

in sedimentation of variable duration may have occurred in 

response to the Variscan post-orogenic tectonics and climatic 


 The terrestrial basins of the Czech Republic include the 

Western Bohemian, Central Bohemian, Sudetic (Lusatian) and 

Brandov basins, Blanice and Boskovice grabens, and Late 

 Palaeozoic relics preserved in the surroundings of nearly all 

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

basins (Fig. 1). The Western Bohemian basins include the 

Plzeň Basin, Manětín and Žihle basins and the small Radnice 

Basin (see Fig. 2). The first three basins, now more or less 

 independent, were undoubtedly connected at least from the 

Asturian (Moscovian), and a connection to the Radnice Basin 

cannot be ruled out (Pešek et al. 1998). The Central Bohemian 

basins  include  the  Kladno–Rakovník  and  Mšeno–Roudnice 

basins, which pass into one another. In the west, the fill of the 

Kladno–Rakovník Basin is separated only formally from the 

Žihle  Basin,  whereas  in  the  east,  the  fill  of  the  Mšeno– 

Roudnice Basin passes into the Mnichovo Hradiště Basin in 

the  Sudetic (Lusatian) region. Individual basins are thus deli-

mited and named merely historically. The use of the term 

 “basin“ is purely formal and not based on basin structure, as 

the all basins mentioned above represent a single gradually 

developing sedimentation basin. 

 Most of the Central and Western Bohemian basins are filled 

with the sediments comprising all four formations — the 

Kladno, Týnec, Slaný and Líně formations of Duckmantian to 

Autunian age (Moscovian–Asselian) (Table 1). The Kladno 

and Slaný formations are subdivided into several lithostrati-

graphic units. The formation of these basins was influenced 

mainly by two deep-seated faults — the Central Bohemian 

Fault to the south of the Central and Western Bohemian basins, 

which has been active since the beginning of Langsettian/

Westphalian sedimentation, and, with a slight delay, the 

 gradually increasingly active Litoměřice Fault to the north of 

all these basins (Havlena & Pešek 1980). The works by Pešek 

(1994, 2004) provide a detailed description of the lithostrati-

graphic units, their age and the evolution of the above- 

mentioned basins. Due to the relatively small area of the 

Manětín and Žihle basins, and to the lower level of knowledge 

regarding these basins, this study deals only with the Plzeň 

Basin  and  also  with  the  Kladno–Rakovník  and  Mšeno– 

Roudnice basins.

Methods and data

 The information presented in this paper is based mostly on 

boreholes drilled from the surface into the basement of the 

Pennsylvanian after 1945 mainly during the prospecting for 

and exploration of coal deposits — specifically around 400 

bore holes  in  the  Plzeň  Basin,  about  200  boreholes  in  the 

 Kladno–Rakovník  Basin,  and  roughly  60  boreholes  in  the 

Mšeno–Roudnice  Basin.  The  boreholes  in  the  Plzeň  and 

 Kladno– Rakovník  basins  were  drilled  primarily  by  the  em-

ployees  of  the  former  companies  Uhelný  průzkum  (Coal 

 Exploration), later known as Geologický průzkum, n. p. (Geo-

logical Exploration, national enterprise) and Geoindustria, n. p.  

Fig. 1. Upper Palaeozoic continental basins. After Chlupáč & Štorch (1992). Upper right: Simplified geological map of the western part of  

the Czech Republic without Quaternary cover. Modified after Chlupáč et al. (2002). 1 — Neogene, 2 — Palaeogene, 3 — neovolcanic rocks, 

4 — Upper Cretaceous, 5 — Upper Palaeozoic, 6 — Lower Palaeozoic, 7 — Neoproterozoic, 8 — granitoids, 9 — orthogneisses, 10 — different 

types of basic rocks, 11 — granulites, 12 — Moldanubian Crystalline Complex, 13 — overthrust and normal faults.

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

The boreholes in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin, whose fill is 

completely covered by Upper Cretaceous sediments, were 

drilled in the 1960s by the former Central Geological Institute 

(known today as the Czech Geological Survey). These were 

followed-up in the 1970s and 1980s by the boreholes of 

Geoindustria, n. p. The second author of this paper, in 

 parti cular, has had an opportunity to study most of the bore-

holes as they were being drilled in the Plzeň Basin in the late 

1950s and in all of the above-mentioned basins in the 1960s 

and later. 

The boreholes in the Plzeň and Mšeno–Roudnice basins are 

distributed unevenly but cover a greater part of these basins. 

This provided detailed information regarding the characteris-

tics and development of the deposits of the Plzeň Basin, pri-

marily  in  the  Radnice  and  Nýřany  members. 

Due to tectonic development thicker sections 

of the deposits of the remaining units, namely 

the  Týnec,  Slaný  and  Líně  formations,  were 

preserved only in a much smaller area of   this 

basin (see App. II in Pešek 1994). The Radnice 

Member is absent in the Mšeno–Roudnice 

 Basin except for a small area in the southwest 

 because the deposition of sediments in this basin 

began  mainly  in  the  Nýřany  Member.  In  the 

Kladno–Rakovník  Basin,  which  began  to  be 

filled around the same time as the Plzeň Basin, 

most of the boreholes were drilled in the 

 southern part of the basin. The Radnice Mem-

ber occurs only rarely in the remai ning part of 

the Kladno–Rakovník Basin. That is why the 

data on its thickness and characteristics are suf-

ficient but less  detailed when compared with 

the Plzeň Basin. By contrast, the deposits of the 

Týnec,  Slaný  and  Líně  formations  in  the 

 Kladno–Rakovník as well as Mšeno–Roudnice 

basins provide far better evidence regarding 

the characteristics and significant changes in the evolution of 

these basins. The data from all the above-mentioned boreholes 

and even older boreholes were used to compile isopach maps 

as well as other maps, for example, in the papers of Havlena & 

Pešek (1980), Pešek (1994) and Pešek et al. (1998).

Hiatuses and their depositional aspects 

This study follows the publication of Opluštil et al. (2016) 

and focuses primarily on the significant changes in sedimenta-

tion that occurred during hiatuses in individual basins. It also 

documents some other possible interruptions in sedimentation, 

which are more likely of local significance.

Two significant interruptions in sedimentation are thus far 

known in the Central and Western Bohemian basins: the hiatus 

between the Radnice and Nýřany members, namely between 

the Bolsovian and Asturian, as indicated by a macrofloral 

studies, for example, by Němejc (1937), recently by Opluštil 

et al. (2016) and the hiatus between the Slaný and Líně forma-

tions, namely between Stephanian B and C as reflected, for 

example, in drill cores by the presence of weathered rocks at 

the contact of these two units (e.g., Havlena & Pešek 1980; 

Bosák 1991). It can also be inferred from a significant shift of 

the depocentres from the southern part of the basin to the north 

(Pešek 1994). A study of detrital zircons of the volcaniclastic 

rocks of all the units of the Central and Western Bohemian 

basins was conducted by Opluštil et al. (2016). In addition to 

confirming the existence of hiatuses between the above-men-

tioned units, they identified or verified other thus far mostly 

unknown or only presumed but not reliably documented 

 hiatuses and their duration (Table 1). These authors revealed 

a previously unknown hiatuses between the Lower and  

Upper Radnice members, between the Nýřany Member and 

Fig. 2. Relationship of the oldest unit, the Radnice Member, to the 

geology of the basement. After Pešek (1994). Basins: PB — Plzeň, 

RB  —  Radnice,  MB  —  Manětín,  ŽB  —  Žihle,  KRB  —  Kladno– 

Rakovník, MRB — Mšeno–Roudnice.

Table 1: Stratigraphic units of the Central and Western Bohemian basins.

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

the Týnec Formation, the existence of which was sugges ted by 

Wagner (1977) based on floristic research. In the case of all 

these hiatuses, Opluštil et al.  (2016)  were  also  the  first  to 

 document the hiatuses duration.

Considerable changes in the evolution of the Central and 

Western Bohemian basins occurred during a break in sedimen-

tation particularly between the Radnice and Nýřany members 

(Moscovian)  and  between  the  Slaný  and  Líně  formations 

(Gzhelian). The first of the above-mentioned changes is best 

demonstrated by the formation of a NW–SE oriented depo-

centres in the Plzeň Basin (Fig. 3), the second is evident both 

from a significant change in the configuration of the basins 

and source areas (e.g., Pešek et al. 1998) and from the changes 

in dip direction and dip of the mudstones of the Slaný and Líně 

Fig. 3. Isopach maps of the Nýřany and Radnice members in Plzeň Basin. After Pešek (1968).

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

formations, which were verified by acoustic logging 

 (Svrčinová in Žbánek et al. 1990 a, b; Bosák 1991) in the bore-

hole Sč


1 (Semčice) in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin (Fig. 4a).  

The acoustic logging was unfortunately not used in other bore-

holes due to technical reasons, so the authors of this study used 

the data on the dip of the mudstone beds that were obtained in 

the boreholes drilled in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin only 

(Fig. 4b). The existence of these hiatuses is also indicated by 

the weathered rocks (i.e primary grey sediment colour is highly 

altered  by  motting)  at  the  top  of  the  Nýřany  Member  and 

 primarily by those of the Slaný Formation (Fig. 5) and also by 

numerous erosional features in the upper part of the Slaný 

 Formation (Fig. 6) that were previously discovered by  Havlena 

& Pešek (1980) and specified, for example, by Skopec et al. 

(1990 and 2001). All the data shown in Figures 4 a, b and 6 

were gathered mainly from boreholes drilled in the 1960s to 

1980s in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin.

Relationship between the basement and the basal unit — 

the Radnice Member

The Radnice Member, of Duckmantian to Bolsovian 

 (Moscovian)  age,  occurs  in  the  area  of  the  Plzeň,  Kladno– 

Rakovník and Radnice basins (Figs. 1 and 2). It is also known 

from  small  occurrences  in  the  Žihle  and  Mšeno–Roudnice 

 basins and also from a series of small relics that lie in a  NE–SW 

band south of the Central and Western Bohemian basins.  

The Radnice Member is the most explored unit of this Upper 

Palaeozoic complex due to a number of boreholes and coal 

mines that verified its coal–bearing capacity. The influence of 

the basement on the extent and characteristics of the deposits 

of this unit can only be studied in the areas of the Plzeň and 

Kladno–Rakovník  basins.  Opluštil  (2005)  made  a  detailed 

 reconstruction of the river network, of the extent of peatlands 

and of other specific environments in the Kladno–Rakovník 

Basin. The lithological characteristics of the deposits of this 

unit are relatively well-known and also its spatial and tem-

poral changes. It is presumed that the present extent of the 

Radnice Member is only a relic of the larger area originally 

covered (see App. 35 in Pešek et al. 1998; Opluštil 2005). 

Plzeň Basin

According  to  Pašek  &  Urban  (1990),  the  Plzeň  Basin  is 

an extensional basin. The so-called central depocentre (Pešek 

1968), in which by contrast to its surroundings all four forma-

tions were largely preserved, runs approximately through the 

basin centre in NNE–SSW direction. The central depocentre 

also predisposes the NNE–SSW elongation of the whole  basin. 

The Radnice Member (Fig. 3) occurs in approximately one 

half of the basin area (e.g., Dvořák 1960; Havlena & Pešek 

1980; Pešek 1994). Folded rocks of the Teplá–Barrandian Neo-

proterozoic with NE–SW oriented axes occur in the basement 

of  the  predominantly  volcaniclastic  fill  of  the  Plzeň   Basin. 

Bands of variously resistant weakly metamorphosed shales 

and greywackes alternate with isolated intercalations of 

 palaeobasalts and palaeobasaltic tuffs. Erosion-resistant grey-

wackes and palaeobasaltic rocks form ridges mostly only 

a few tens of metres high, which protected peatlands evolving 

in depressions from the input of coarse-grained clastic material. 

As  a  result  a  sediment  shadow  developed  (Pešek  1968),  in 

which several (and rarely up to 14) metres thick seams were 

formed and mostly grey claystones and siltstones as well as 

tuffs and tuffites were deposited. The fill of these mainly ero-

sional palaeo-valleys is generally only a few tens of metres 

Fig. 4. a — Dip directions and dips of mudstones in the borehole Sš 1 

based on acoustic logging. After Svrčinová in Žbánek et al. 1990a.   

b  —  Bedding  dips  of  mudstones  in  the  Líně,  Slaný  and  Týnec 

 formations  and  Nýřany  Member  in  drill  cores  from  the  Mšeno– 

Roudnice Basin. Based on numerous unpublished drilling reports.



background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

Fig. 5. Deep weathering on the top of the Slaný and Týnec formations and Nýřany Member in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin. Based on numerous 

unpublished drilling reports.

Fig. 6. Erosional features on the top of the Slaný Formation in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin. Based on numerous unpublished drilling reports.

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

thick. These depressions are divided into two parts by the 

NNE–SSW oriented central depocentre. It may have origi-

nated either as a deep river valley of unknown age formed by 

erosion or as a tectonically formed synsedimentary structure. 

In the Radnice Member, it is filled mainly with up to more 

than 250 m thick coarse clastic rocks — subarkoses and 

 conglomerates. Coal seams are either entirely absent or only 

a few tens of centimetres thick.

KladnoRakovník Basin

The Kladno–Rakovník Basin is elongated in a roughly ENE 

direction and tectonically bounded to the north. By contrast, 

its boundary with the surrounding units to the south and west 

is mostly erosional. In the east, it passes into the siliciclastic 

fill of the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin. The Radnice Member fills 

only  about  one-third  of  the  area  of  the  Kladno–Rakovník 

 Basin.  Even  though  it  is,  as  in  the  Plzeň  Basin,  underlain 

 mostly by folded weakly metamorphosed Neoproterozoic 

shales and greywackes of the Teplá–Barrandian area, it was 

verified that it contains several larger bodies of palaeobasalts 

and palaeobasaltic tuffs as well. The basement also comprises 

the granites of the Čistá Massif, which continues to the north-

east. At the northwest of the basin (Fig. 1), the basement is 

formed by phyllites, schists and schistose gneisses of the 

Krušné hory (Erzgebirge) Crystalline Complex. A narrow 

body  of  amphibolites  of  the  Mariánské  Lázně  Complex 

 extends into the basement in the west.

Two significant depocentres were active in the Radnice 

Member. The first is the Rakovník depocentre in the vicinity 

of the town of Rakovník, which is narrow and elongated in 

a NNE direction. It is bounded to the west by the granites of 

the Čistá Massif (Fig. 1). This is probably the fill of a pre-Late 

Westphalian river valley that cut not only into the Neoprotero-

zoic shales and greywackes but also into the palaeobasalts and 

palaeobasaltic tuffs. It comprises a complex of up to more than 

260 m thick mostly grey clastic rocks, in which coal seams are 

either entirely absent or which contain coal seams only a few 

tens of centimetres thick. Unlike the central depocentre of the 

Plzeň Basin, this structure was probably not active during the 

deposition of other lithostratigraphic units. By contrast, 


the second depocentre, which lies northeast of the Rakovník 

depo centre and which is elongated in a NW direction and 

 referred to by Havlena & Pešek (1980) as the Zlonice–Peruc 

depocentre  (and  by  Opluštil  2005  as  the  Třtěno–Zlonice 

 depocentre), is a structure that is apparently bounded by   

NW–SE trending faults. In addition to the relatively thick 

Radnice Member, the more than 500 m thick deposits 


of  the  Nýřany  Member  (see  below)  were  preserved  in  this 

structure as well. The extensive, nearly E–W oriented valley, 

which was filled with coal- bearing deposits, begins near  

the village of Petrovice west of Rakovník and extends as far as 

the surroundings of Otvovice near Kladno in the east of this 

basin (Opluštil 2005). This  author rightly presumes the exis-

tence of a number of E–W to NW–SE oriented tributary 


Hiatus between the Radnice and Nýřany members

The existence of the hiatus between the Radnice and Nýřany 

members was already known at the end of the 19


 century, as 

is evident from the palaeobotanical research of Frič (1879) or 

Purkyně (1899) and from a number of geological and palaeon-

tological papers published in the past and in this century (e.g., 

Němejc 1937; Pešek 2004, 2005). Until now, the duration of 

this hiatus has only been the subject of speculation. However, 

it was probably a longer break in sedimentation as indicated 

by, among other things, the fact that, with the exception of 

 local areas, nearly the entire upper part of the Radnice  Member, 

including the Lubná seams, is absent in the Plzeň Basin or by 

the fact that, for example, in the former mines Důl Obránců 

míru  and  Důl  v Týnci  in  the  Plzeň  region,  the  basal  clastic 

rocks of the Nýřany Member lie directly on the Upper Radnice 

Seam, which was locally partially or completely eroded  

(Fig. 7). In addition, the logs of some boreholes in the Kladno 

area (e.g., Bř


1 and 2 near Beřovice, Br


5 near Třebusice) sug-

gest that a larger section or even the entire upper part of the 

Radnice Member was eroded during the hiatus. The study of 

the palaeosol in this unit indicates several stages in the deve-

lopment of vertisols, which had to take at least several tens of 

thousands of years to form (Opluštil et al. 2015). When Opluštil 

et al. (2016) dated the detrital zircons in the volcanogenic inter-

layers of all formations, they also documented, among other 

things, the age of the Kladno Formation and  determined the 

dura tion of the hiatus between the Radnice and Nýřany mem-

bers (about 3.6 Ma), which reflects the Leonian Phase of the 

Variscan Orogeny. Their research suggests that as many as seve-

ral hundred metres of deposits of the Radnice Member may 

have been eroded prior to the deposition of the Nýřany Member. 

Fig. 7. Erosion of the Upper Radnice Coal Seam. Former Mine 

Obránců míru, Plzeň Basin. From Pešek (1978).

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

Significant tectonic reorganization of the Central and 

 Western Bohemian basins occurred during the break in sedi-

mentation  between  the  Radnice  and  Nýřany  members.  For 

 example, in the Plzeň Basin, the depocentres changed signifi-

cantly (Fig. 3). They were elongated in a NNE–SSW direction 

during the deposition of the sediments of the Radnice Member, 

but  they  are  oriented  in  a  NW–SE  direction  in  the  Nýřany 

Member. Few boreholes have explored the sediments of these 

units in the Kladno–Rakovník Basin, so that definite conclu-

sions cannot be made here. In the major part of the Mšeno–

Roudnice Basin, sedimentation began in the Nýřany Member.

Nýřany Member

The sediments of the Nýřany Member, of Asturian to Canta-

brian (Late Moscovian to Early Kasimovian) age, occur in all 

Central and Western Bohemian basins and also in some Penn-

sylvanian relics, which flank these basins. In this unit, subar-

koses and mostly grey siltstones and claystones dominate over 

tuffs, tuffites and seams occasionally up to 2.5 m thick. 

A northward fining of sediments is noticeable in the Central 

Bohemian basins (see App. VIII in Pešek 1994). The deposits 

of the Nýřany Member cover a substantially larger area than 

the preceding unit. They occur in the entire area of the Plzeň 

Basin, cover more than half of the Manětín and Žihle basins, 

and  most  of  the  area  of  the  Kladno–Rakovník  and  Mšeno–

Roudnice basins. They occur locally in the Radnice area as 

well. They are also known from a number of Pennsylvanian 

relics,  particularly  west  of  the  Plzeň  and  Manětín  basins.  

The varying age of the basal sediments of this unit, for 

 example,  in  the  Plzeň  area  and  the  Mšeno–Roudnice  Basin 

 indicates a gradual onset of their deposition. 

Plzeň Basin

During the break in sedimentation between the Radnice and 

Nýřany members, significant changes occurred in the struc-

ture of the Central and Western Bohemian basins (see above). 

Due to the relatively detailed exploration of the Plzeň Basin,  

it is possible to reliably clarify its tectonic reconstruction.   

The central depocentre was still active in the basin and, in 

 addition, four NW–SE oriented tectonically predisposed indi-

vidual depo centres separated by narrow horsts were formed. 

While  the  ave rage  thickness  of  the  Nýřany  Member  is  less 

than 290 m in the Plzeň Basin, it is a several tens of metres 

greater in the synsedi mentary central depocentre. The sedi-

ments of this unit are also thicker in the NW–SE oriented 

structures (Fig. 3), the most prominent of which is the depo-

centre in the south of the basin. 

Kladno–Rakovník and MšenoRoudnice basins

Despite the fact that a large number of boreholes were 

drilled into the basement in both basins (several hundred in the 

Kladno–Rakovník Basin and about 60 in the Mšeno–Roudnice 

Basin), the level of knowledge regarding the tectonic evolu-

tion of these basins during the deposition of the Nýřany Mem-

ber is slightly lower in comparison with the Plzeň Basin. How-

ever, it is very likely that similar changes occurred in the 

Central Bohemian basins as in the Plzeň Basin. The Zlonice–

Peruc depocentre (see above) undoubtedly remained active 

even though the trend of the axis of this depocentre differs 

somewhat from that of the Radnice Member (Fig. 8). Its acti-

vity is indicated by a significant increase in the sediment 

thickness of this unit. The average thickness of the mostly grey 

sediments  of  the  Nýřany  Member  is  about  335  m  in  the 

 Kladno–Rakovník  area,  whereas  their  verified  thickness  in 

this structure is greater than 500 m. A further increase in thick-

ness in a NW–SE direction, albeit considerably smaller in 

comparison with the Zlonice–Peruc depocentre, is evident in 

an area northwest of Rakovník. It cannot be excluded that this 

is a narrow tectonically predisposed depocentre.

 A relatively considerable decline in the thickness of the 

sedi ments of the Nýřany Member is noticeable to the east in 

the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin. While the average thickness of 

the  Nýřany  Member  in  the  Roudnice  (western)  part  of  this 

 basin is about 170 m, it decreases below 100 m in the Mšeno 

(eastern) part of the basin. This decline is probably related to 

the subsequent onset of sedimentation in this part of the basin 

(see above). In both of these basins, the axes of the depocen-

tres of the Nýřany Member are clearly oriented in a roughly 

E–W or ENE–WSW direction, which may be considered as 

the oldest reflection of terrestrial sedimentation of the reacti-

vation of main basin boundary faults governing the sedimen-

tation along the structure of the Variscan Arc of the Bohemian 

Massif (Havlena & Pešek 1980).

Hiatus between the Nýřany Member and the Týnec Formation

The notion that a hiatus occurred between these two units 

was first expressed by Wagner (1977) based on a study of 

 flora. Its existence was also considered by Havlena & Pešek 

(1980) based on further spreading of the sediments of the 

Týnec Formation over the crystalline basement, and the  

Fig. 8. Major depocentre axes showing shifts of maximum subsidence 


background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

“... formation of a single Central Bohemian – Sudetic sedimen-

tation area ..., and the connection of the thus far independently 

developing sedimentary basins ...”, namely the Central and 

Western Bohemian basins on one side and the Sudetic (Lusa-

tian) basins on the other. The break in sedimentation between 

the Nýřany Member and the Týnec Formation is also indicated 

by occurrences of relatively massive conglomerate beds at the 

base  of  the Týnec  Formation  in  the  Plzeň  area.  During  this 

hiatus, or prior to the deposition of the sediments of the Týnec 

Formation, the tectonic movements that occurred may not 

have been strong or they occurred rather locally because the 

average dip of the siltstones of the Nýřany Member and Týnec 

Formation differs by only 2 degrees (Fig. 4b). However, the 

weathered rocks at the top of the Nýřany Member that were 

identified from the descriptions of drill cores, for example, 

from boreholes Je


1, MB








20, ŘP


1, Vs


1 and Vůj


1 from 

the Mšeno-Roudnice Basin (Fig. 5) may provide evidence of 

the break in sedimentation. In borehole Je


1, the weathered 

rocks at the top of the Nýřany Member were up to about 15 m 

thick. The existence of this hiatus and its duration of 1.8 Ma 

was clearly documented by Opluštil et al. (2016). 

Týnec Formation

The sediments of the Týnec Formation, of Barruelian to 

Lower Saberian (Kasimovian) age, occur in all the Central and 

Western Bohemian basins with the exception of the Radnice 

Basin. Their thickness varies in individual basins due to the 

varying subsidence rate of the basement. The deposits of this 

unit are occasionally preserved in the Pennsylvanian relics 

near several basins. However, the sediments of this unit do not 

differ much petrographically from the preceding unit. By con-

trast, the usually pronounced red colours of mudstones are 

distinctive for this unit. Beds of whitish conglomerates and 

dark green mottled siltstones and claystones occur relatively 

frequently in the Plzeň Basin. In comparison to the Nýřany 

Member, the volcanic products and coals in the Central and 

Western Bohemian basins occur rarely in the Týnec Forma-

tion. Carbonate concretions occur more or less frequently, 

with abundant occurrences mainly at the top of this unit. 

Plzeň Basin

The Týnec Formation was preserved in this basin only in the 

central depocentre and in transverse NW–SE oriented grabens 

that originated and were apparently still weakly subsiding 

(Fig. 3). This is indicated by a slight increase in the thickness 

of the deposits of the Týnec Formation in these structures, in 

which they are up to 125 m thick, while their average thick-

ness slightly exceeds only 110 m in the entire basin.

KladnoRakovník and MšenoRoudnice basins

The sediments of the Týnec Formation fill roughly the same 

area as the preceding unit, since they are absent particularly at 

the western and eastern margins of the Rakovník part of the 

Kladno–Rakovník  Basin.  Locally,  however,  they  slightly 

 extend beyond the preceding unit and lie on the Neoprote-

rozoic basement. They are, however, absent along the entire 

southern margin of the Central Bohemian basins, where this 

unit was eroded. The average thickness of the sediments of the 

Týnec Formation is about 175 m in the area of Kladno– 

Rakovník Basin and probably 125 m in the Mšeno–Roudnice 

Basin. However, mudstones occur more often in the 


Mšeno– Roudnice Basin than in the Kladno-Rakovník Basin. 

The Třtěno–Zlonice depocentre was active in the Týnec For-

mation in the east of the Kladno–Rakovník Basin, where the 

deposits of this unit were up to 245 m thick, and a NW–SE 

oriented depocentre was also active in an area north of 

 Rakovník  with  a  roughly  200  m  thick  fill.  In  both  of  these 

 basins, the E–W axis of maximum subsidence more or less 

follows a similar structure of the Nýřany Member (Fig. 8).

Hiatus between the Týnec and Slaný formations

A short-term, local rather than basin-wide break in sedimen-

tation between the two formations (Pešek 1994) cannot be 

ruled out due to local differences in the thickness and other 

characteristics of the Jelenice Member (the basal unit of the 

Slaný Formation). The unit reaches a thickness of more than 

100 m of predominantly coarse conglomerates, in borehole 



2 in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin southeast of Mělník. By 

contrast, the sediments of this member are only about 10 m 

thick in the Plzeň Basin. This notion is also supported, among 

other things, by the occurrence of numerous carbonate concre-

tions and signs of weathering (Fig. 5) at the top of the sedi-

ments of the Týnec Formation (e.g., boreholes KV


1 and MJ


in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin) and also by slight differences 

in the average dip of the siltstones of both units, for example, 

in the boreholes in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin (only two 

 degrees, Fig. 4 b). A hiatus duration of less than 1 Ma may be 

inferred from the dating of volcaniclastic horizons (Opluštil et 

al. 2016) assuming that the sedimentation rate for the Týnec 

Formation is similar to that of the other units.

Slaný Formation 

The deposits of the Slaný Formation, of Saberian (Gzhelian) 

age, are known from all Central and Western Bohemian basins 

with the exception of the Radnice Basin. The petrographic 

characteristics of the basal unit, the Jelenice Member, do not 

differ much from those of the sediments of the underlying 

 formation. There is a difference mainly in the colour of the 

mudstones, which are mostly grey and in which a locally up to 

more than 4


m thick bituminous coal seam occurs in the 

 majority of boreholes primarily in the Mšeno–Roudnice  Basin. 

One to two coal seams mostly less than 1 m thick were dis-

covered at the top of this unit in the Plzeň Basin and in the 

Central Bohemian basins. Numerous volcaniclastic layers 

mostly only a few cm thick, which suggest the resumption of 

volcanic activity in source areas or which by contrast to the 

preceding unit were better preserved due to a suitable environ-

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

ment, occur in the Slaný Formation mainly in the Central 

 Bohemian  basins.

A specific feature of this unit is the formation of an exten-

sive intrabasinal lake during the deposition of the sediments of 

the Malesice Member, which probably extended well beyond 

its present southern margin to the south in the Plzeň Basin.  

In the east, the lake extended into the Intra-Sudetic Basin, or 

even further northeastward into Poland through the Mnichovo 

Hradiště and Krkonoše Piedmont basins. Previous notions that 

the sediments of this unit were deposited in a relatively tran-

quil environment are probably not entirely correct. It cannot be 

ruled out that the deposition of the Malesice Member may have 

been, as indicated by geological and geophysical studies in the 

Mšeno–Roudnice Basin, interrupted locally or across a wider 

area several times (e.g., Bosák 1989; Žbánek et al. 1990 a, b; 

Pešek 1994 and Lojka et al. 2014). An angular unconformity 

was also reported in this unit in a man-made exposure of the 

sediments  of  the  Hředle  Member  east  of  the  village  of  Pas-

tuchovice in the Kladno–Rakovník Basin (Lojka et al. 2014).

Plzeň Basin

The Slaný Formation was preserved in this basin only in the 

central depocentre and in transverse grabens. However, it can-

not be clearly demonstrated that these structures were still 

 active during the deposition of the sediments of this formation. 

The average thickness of the deposits of the Slaný Formation 

is nearly 180 m. Despite the fact that only the remains of the 

unit were preserved in this basin, a different, coarser, peri-

pheral development of the sediments of the Slaný Formation 

was confirmed by several boreholes (e.g., near the villages of 

Chotíkov and Tlučná) on the western as well as the eastern 

basin margin (Havlena & Pešek 1980).

KladnoRakovník and MšenoRoudnice basins

As in the case of the preceding Kladno and Týnec forma-

tions, it is appropriate to characterize the deposits of the Slaný 

Formation regarding both basins together. The sediments of 

this formation fill roughly the same area as the preceding unit, 

but they slightly exceed its extent to the north and lie on the 

Neoproterozoic basement. However, in comparison to the 

Týnec Formation, they are absent over a much larger area 

along the entire southern margin of the Central Bohemian 

 basins, where they were eroded during the Permian or even 

later. The average thickness of these sediments is around 

175 m in the Kladno–Rakovník area and about 125 m in the 

Mšeno–Roudnice Basin. As in the Týnec Formation, the sub-

sidence axis in this unit is also oriented approximately in 

an E–W direction. The trend of isopachs clearly shows that the 

thickness of the sediments of the Slaný Formation decreases 

northward. By contrast, a significant increase in the thickness 

of the deposits of this unit was documented in the Central 

 Bohemian basins in the Slaný area north of Kladno, and also 

the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin in the wider surroundings of   

 Mělník, near Všetaty and Benátky nad Jizerou (Pešek 1994).

  Figures  4 a  and  b  clearly  show  the  different  dips  and  dip 

 directions of the mudstone beds of the Líně Formation, dipping 

gently (ca. 6 degrees) northeast. While the sediments of Slaný 

and Kladno formations dip steeply (ca. 10 degrees) mostly to 

the southwest (Svrčinová in Žbánek et al.1990 a, b; Bosák 1991).

Hiatus between the Slaný and Líně formations

The break in sedimentation between these two units is asso-

ciated with the Intra-Stephanian phase of the Variscan Oro-

geny, which took place in most of the terrestrial basins of the 

Czech Republic. Significant changes in source areas, for 

 example, the formation of new basins — the Blanice and 

Boskovice grabens are also associated with this phase. 


The existence of the hiatus between the Slaný and Líně forma-

tions is also indicated by the change of average dip of the mud-

stones between these two units (four degrees difference), by 

the sediments of the Slaný Formation that were locally eroded 

down to the Hředle Member (Fig. 6), by signs of weathering at 

the top of the preserved deposits of the Slaný Formation  

(Fig. 5), and also by the different characteristics and colours of 

the sediments of these two units (see below). By reinterpreting 

the  seismic  measurements  of  Kadlečík  et  al.  (1985,  1990), 

Skopec et al. (e.g., 1990, 2001) a roughly E–W direction of 

a nearly 100 m deep river valley with several smaller tributaries 

was  discovered.  Figure  6  clearly  shows  that  the  above- 

mentioned stream flowed from the east or east-southeast to the 

west, where in the boreholes in the east of the Mšeno– 

Roudnice Basin it even eroded down into the Hředle Member 

and all its overlying layers (i.e. the Ledec and Kounov mem-

bers). This palaeo-stream probably flowed further westward, 

where the original thickness of the sediments of the Hředle 

Member is preserved and where only the thickness of the 

Kounov Member partially declines in the east of this basin. 

The occurrence of weathered rocks of the uppermost part of 

the Slaný Formation below the erosional surface of the Líně 

and Slaný formations clearly demonstrates that the weathering 

of the preserved deposits did not take place until after their 

erosion (Fig. 5). The shift of the depocentre from the south to 

the north is also very significant (Fig. 8). The duration of this 

hiatus can be estimated at about 1 Ma based on the dating of 

volcaniclastic horizons (Opluštil et al. 2016).

Líně Formation

The  deposits  of  the  Líně  Formation,  of  Stephanian  C  to 

 Autunian (Late Gzhelian to Asselian) age (Opluštil et al. 

2016), occur in all the Central and Western Bohemian basins 

with the exception of the Radnice Basin. However, there are 

significant, possibly primary, depositional differences in the 

thickness of this unit in individual basins. The average thick-

ness  of  the  Líně  Formation  is  less  than  50  m  in  the  Plzeň 

 Basin, but it reaches about 245 m and nearly 500 m in the 

Kladno–Rakovník Basin and Mšeno–Roudnice Basin, respec-

tively. The maximum thickness of the deposits of this unit 

(over  1000  m)  was  verified  in  the  Rakovník  part  of  the 

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

 Kladno–Rakovník Basin in the Žatec area north of Rakovník. 

The  Líně  Formation  is  mostly  dominated  by  red-coloured 

mudstones with green circular spots. One so-called grey hori-

zon occurs in the formation in the Kladno–Rakovník Basin, 

whereas up to three such horizons were discovered in the 

 Mšeno–Roudnice Basin. A bituminous coal seam up to several 

tens of centimetres thick occurs in the bottom and middle hori-

zons. Numerous carbonate concretions, in which many mostly 

thin volcanogenic intercalations were discovered, formed in 

the entire complex.

Plzeň Basin

The sediments of this unit were preserved in the Plzeň Basin 

only at the intersection of the NNE–SSW oriented central 

depo centre and in some NW–SE oriented transverse grabens. 

While the occurrence of the sediments was verified only in 

three small relics north of the Mže River (northern basin half), 

the largest area that they fill is located in the south of the basin 

north of the village of Líně and east of the town of Nýřany (see 

Dopita et al. 1985). By contrast to the Central and Western 

Bohemian basins, the Plzeň Basin does not contain any grey 

horizons or volcanogenic intercalations (see below) because 

only a small thickness of the Líně Formation was preserved.

KladnoRakovník and MšenoRoudnice basins

As in the case of the preceding units, the sediments of the 

Líně  Formation  were  characterized  regarding  both  basins 

 together. The sediments of the formation fill roughly the same 

area as the preceding unit. However, they were verified also in 

the west and north of the Kladno–Rakovník Basin, where they 

locally overlie the Neoproterozoic basement. In the east of the 

Mšeno–Roudnice  Basin,  Zikmundová  &  Holub  (1965)  dis-

covered an occurrence of conglomerates with pebbles of the 

Barrandian type, which have thus far not been found in any 

other lithostratigraphic unit. Breccias with a clayey matrix that 

are thus far also not known in the older units of the Central 

Bohemian basins occur at the northern margin of this basin. 

As in the case of both preceding units, the subsidence axis in 

the Líně Formation has an approximately E–W orientation as 

well. However, unlike in the preceding units, it has shifted 

northward (Fig. 8). In addition, a significant increase in the 

thickness of the deposits of this formation is noticeable in 

a NNE–SSW oriented depocentre in the west of the Rakovník 

part of the Kladno–Rakovník Basin. According to Elznic et al. 

(1974), the orientation of this structure is similar to the elonga-

tion of the central depocentre of the Plzeň Basin. An increase 

in the thickness of Tertiary clastic rocks in the Žatec area north 

of Rakovník suggests that this structure was apparently active 

later on as well.

Hiatuses in the Líně Formation

By reinterpreting seismic profiles in the Mšeno–Roudnice 

Basin, Skopec et al. (2001) discovered several river valleys at 

around 100, 200 and 300 m above the base of this unit. It can 

be presumed that, at these levels, a local break in sedimenta-

tion occurred and that hitherto unknown river valley up to 

more than 100 m deep were formed. They were oriented in 

a roughly E–W direction that is more or less identical to the 

direction of the main stream, which erodes the uppermost 

lithostratigraphic units of the Slaný Formation. These valleys 

were filled with mostly coarse clastic sediments.

Discussion and conclusions

The activity of fault structures and deep fault zones oriented 

mainly in a NE–SW and NW–SE directions led to the forma-

tion of the Western and Central Bohemian basins. Our work as 

well as a number of previous studies, for example, by Havlena 

& Pešek (1980), Pešek (1994) and Pešek et al. (1998) suggest 

that, throughout the filling of the Western and Central Bohe-

mian basins, the Central Bohemian Fault Zone was conside-

rably active and that the Litoměřice Fault, or also the  Jáchymov 

Fault, gradually became more active as well. Their activity is 

indicated by the quantity and quality of the material transpor-

ted into these basins, primarily into the Central Bohemian 

 basins from the south, north and west. The greatest amount of 

clastic rocks were undoubtedly transported from the south. 

The northward shifting of the depocentres of the units of the 

Central Bohemian basins is related to the continuous uplift of 

the southern source area, so that the Nýřany Member and all 

other subsequent units do not have a peripheral but more or 

less mid-basin position.

 The tectonic evolution of the Plzeň and Central Bohemian 

basins was completely different, with the exception of the 

Radnice Member. The sediments of this unit were deposited in 

the  central  depocentre  in  the  Plzeň  Basin  and  in  the  NNE–

SSW  oriented  Rakovník  depocentre  as  well  as  in  NE–SW 

orien ted depressions. The latter are very likely morphological 

depressions, which formed due to the differential erosion of 

weakly metamorphosed Neoproterozoic shales, greywackes 

as well as palaeobasalts and their tuffs. These depressions are 

generally very productive. They contain several-metre-thick 

bituminous coal seams accompanied mostly by mudstones and 

volcaniclastic rocks only a few metres to a few tens of metres 

thick. By contrast, the origin of the central depocentre in the 

Plzeň Basin remains unclear. It cannot be excluded that it was 

originally an old river valley of unknown age. The more than 

250 m thickness of the non-coal-bearing mostly coarse clastic 

rocks of this unit, the increase in the thickness of other units, 

and the postsedimentary recurrence of movements in this 

structure clearly demonstrate that this structure was repeatedly 

tectonically active.

The geological structure of the Plzeň Basin has two domi-

nant features, the central depocentre with a NNE–SSW direc-

tion,  in  which  also  the  sediments  of  the  Líně  Formation, 

among others, were locally preserved and the roughly NW–SE 

oriented transverse grabens, separated by narrow horsts.  

The sediments of the Slaný Formation occur in these transverse 

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

grabens and also locally in the central depocentre in areas 

where the deposits of the Líně Formation were not preserved. 

In both cases, these are tectonically active synsedimentary and 

postsedimentary structures, which is demonstrated by 

an  increase in the thickness of their fill when compared with 

the thickness of deposits of the same age located outside these 

depocentres. In view of the fact that only the sediments of 

Týnec Formation were preserved in several transverse grabens, 

it is evident that the movements in these transverse structures 

were undoubtedly younger than in the central depocentre. 

The  Kladno–Rakovník  and  Mšeno–Roudnice  basins  form 

a single accommodation space. The Kladno–Rakovník Basin, 

for example, shares specific common features with the Plzeň 

Basin with regard to the formation of the basal unit, the 

 Radnice Member. By contrast, the deposits of this unit are 

 absent in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin with the exception of 

minor areas. In addition, a NNE–SSW oriented depression 

filled mainly with coarse-grained clastic sediments more than 

260 m thick was discovered north of Rakovník in the Kladno–

Rakovník Basin. However, a significant increase in the thick-

ness of the deposits of younger units was not found. It is there-

fore possible that this is only the fill of an erosional valley, 

which was however no longer tectonically active later on. 

An erosional valley oriented in a roughly NNE–SSW direction 

exists in the Kladno–Rakovník Basin as well. However, given 

the extent of the basin, it is considerably longer than the length 

of morphological depressions in the Plzeň Basin. The tectoni-

cally predisposed and undoubtedly repeatedly active NW–SE 

oriented Zlonice–Peruc depocentre is completely different. In 

this structure, the thickness of the Radnice and Nýřany mem-

bers and also that of the Týnec Formation increases conside-

rably. In the Nýřany Member and Týnec Formation, a NW–SE 

oriented structure was active in the area north of Rakovník as 

well. This is indicated by an increase in the thickness of the 

deposits of these units in comparison with the surroundings. 

While being more or less identical in the Nýřany Member and 

in the Týnec and Slaný formations, the axis of maximum sub-

sidence  is  shifted  northward  in  the  Líně  Formation.  This 

change is probably related to significant changes in the evolu-

tion of the basins and source areas caused by the Intra- 

Stephanian phase of the Variscan Orogeny and apparently also 

by the uplift of the core of the Bohemian Massif. A NNE–SSW 

oriented structure, which lies in the elongation of the central 

depocentre of the Plzeň Basin to the north, was active in the 

west of the Kladno–Rakovník Basin as well. Unlike the Plzeň 

Basin, this structure was still active in the Miocene as indica-

ted by an increase in its sedimentary fill during this period in 

the North Bohemian Basin.

Two hiatuses associated with a major shift of the depo-

centres between the Radnice and Nýřany members and between 

the Slaný and Líně formations are interpreted here as being the 

product of the tectonic reorganization of the basins. By con-

trast, hiatuses below and above the Týnec Formation, where 

substantial changes in depocentres did not occur and where 

carbonate cementation was discovered in addition to fossil 

weathering products, are interpreted as being mainly climati-

cally  driven  (comp.  Roscher  &  Schneider  2006).  It  is  very 

likely that a stronger climate aridization occurred during this 

period, which could have slowed down the input of clastic 

sediments into the basins and so may have caused the hiatuses. 

This is supported by the characteristics of the sediments of the 

Týnec Formation (a predominance of red fine-grained clastic 

rocks, abundance of carbonate cementation, a poor preserva-

tion of fossils), by correlation with other Central European 

basins, and also by climate models for this period (Roscher & 

Schneider 2006; Roscher et al. 2008). 

In view of the characteristics of the Líně Formation, we pre-

sume that both tectonic and climatic changes occurred during 

the formation of the hiatus between the Slaný and Líně forma-

tions, where the severe effects of climate aridization are clearly 

evident. This hiatus corresponds to the Early Gzhelian dry phase 

of Roscher & Schneider (2006), which could be traced across 

the European Late Palaeozoic basins. But there is also evidence 

for tectonic activity in the region, for example, in the Saale 

and Saar-Nahe basins thick red bed sediments were deposited 

during this interval. In the case of the Saale Basin a strong 

tectonic event with basin reorganization is indicated between 

the Rothenburg and Siebigerode formations (Schneider et al. 

2005, 2006; Schneider & Romer 2010), approximately at the 

level of the hiatus between the Slaný and Líně formations.

Acknowledgements: This study was supported by the Grant 

Agency of the Czech Republic, project No. 16-24062S. Many 

thanks to reviewers Pavel Bosák and Joerg Schneider who 

helped to improve the manuscript. The authors thank Robert 

Alger for English proof reading.


Arthaud  F.  &  Matte  P.  1977:  Late  Paleozoic  strike–slip  faulting  in 

southern Europe and northern Africa: Result of a right-lateral 

shear zone between the Appalachians and the Ural. Geol. Soc. 

Amer. Bull. 88, 1305–1320. 

Bosák P. 1989: The borehole Bš 4 — results. Open file report – 

Geoindustria, Praha, 1–8 (in Czech).

Bosák P. 1991: Lithofacies correlation, sedimentology and evolution 

of the Mšeno area durinng Carboniferous. In: Final Report of 

Exploration in the area of Mělník–Benátky nad Jizerou, No. 29 

79 2204. Raw material: hard coal, appendix No. B 2/2-2-1,  

Open file report – Geoindustria, (Geofond ČR), Praha, 1–220  

(in Czech). 

Chlupáč I. & Štorch P. (Eds.) 1992: Regional geological subdivision 

of the Bohemian Massif. Čas.  Mineral.  Geol. 37, 4, 257–275  

(in Czech with English abstract).

Chlupáč I., Brzobohatý R., Kovanda J. & Stráník Z. 2002: The Geo-

logical Past of the Czech Republic. Academia,  Praha,  1–436  

(in Czech).

Dopita M., Havlena V. & Pešek J. 1985: Fossil fuel deposits. SNTL–

ALFA, Praha, 1–203 (in Czech).

Dopita M., Aust J., Brieda J., Černý I., Dvořák P., Fialová V., Foldyna J., 

Grmela A., Grygar R., Hoch I., Honěk J., Kaštovský V., Konečný P., 

Kožušníková A., Krejčí B., Kumpera O., Martinec P., Merenda M., 

Müller  K.,  Novotná  E.,  Ptáček  J.,  Purkyňová  E.,  Řehoř  F., 

 Strakoš Z., Tomis L., Tomšík J., Valterová P., Vašíček Z., Vencl J. 

&  Žídková  S.  1997:  Geology  of  the  Czech  Part  of  the  Upper 

background image




, 2017, 68, 3, 269 – 281

Silesian Basin. Ministry of the Environment of the Czech  Republic, 

Praha, Open file report - Geofond ČR, 1–278 + 26 supplements 

(in Czech with English abstract). 

Dvořák J. 1960: Preliminary report on the formation of Westphalian 

coal seams in Pilsen Coal Basin. Čas. Mineral. Geol. 5, 101–103 

(in Czech with English summary).

Elznic  A.,  Cháb  J.  &  Pešek  J.  1974:  Graben  sructure  striking 

north-northeast–south-southwest in the Plzeň Basin. Folia Mus. 

Rer. Natur. Bohem. occident., Geol. 4, 1–18. 

Frič A. 1879: Fauna der Gaskohle und der Kalksteine des Permforma-

tion in Böhmen. Selbstverlag, Prague, 1–388. 

Havlena  V.  &  Pešek  J.  1980:  Stratigraphy,  paleogeography  and 

 tectonic classification of the Bohemian and Moravian limnic 

Permo–Carboniferous. Sbor. Příroda 34, 1–134 (in Czech with 

English summary).

Kadlečík J., Benda V., Filková V., Škárová M. & Vašinová J. 1985: 

Evaluation of geophysical measurements from the area of  Mšeno 

Basin taken during 1979–1982. Open file report – Czech Geol. 

Survey, Praha (in Czech).

Kadlečík J., Benda V., Filková V., Píchová E. & Vašinová J. 1990: 

Geophysical works final synthesis. Open file report – Geofyzika

Brno (in Czech).

Kearey P., Klepeis K. A. & Vine F. J. 2009: Global Tectonics (3rd. ed). 

Wiley, Chichester, 1–152. 

Kroner U., Mansy J.-L., Mazur S., Aleksandrowski P., Hann H.P., 

Huckriede H., Lacquement F., Lamarche J., Ledru P., Pharaoh 

T.C., Zedler H., Zeh A., Zulauf G. 2008: Variscan tectonics.  

In: McCann T. (Ed.): The Geology of Central Europe: Volume 1: 

Precambrian and Palaeozoic. Geological Society, London, 



Lojka R., Bosák P. & Pešek J. 2014: Angular discordance in Malesice 

Member,  Mšeno-Roudnice  and  Žihle  Basin  (Stephanian  B). 

Open file report – Czech Geological Survey Reports 2013,  

16–18 (in Czech with English abstract).

McCann T., Skompski S., Poty E., Dusar M., Vozárová A., Schneider 

J., Wetzel A., Krainer K., Kornpihl K., Schafer A., Krings M., 

Oplustil S. & Tait J. 2008: Carboniferous. In: McCann T. (Ed.): 

The Geology of Central Europe: Volume 1: Precambrian and Pa-

laeozoic. Geological Society, London, 411–530.

Němejc F. 1937: The sequence of the floras in the limnic coal districts 

of Bohemia and its limits between the Westphalian, Stephanian 

and Permian. 2


Congrès  pour  l´avancement  des  études  de 

stratigraphie Carbonifère. Heerlen (1935), Abbdr. Gebrs. Van 

Aelst, O.L., Maastricht, 1–18.

Opluštil S. 2005: Evolution of the Middle Westphalian river valley 

drainage system in the Central Bohemia (Czech Republic) and 

its palaeogeographic implication. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. 

Palaeoecol. 222, 223–258.

Opluštil S., Lojka R., Rosenau N.A., Strnad L. & Sýkorová I. 2015: 

Middle Moscovian climate of eastern equatorial Pangea recor-

ded in paleosols and fluvial architecture. Palaeogeogr. Palaeo-

climatol. Palaeoecol. 440, 328–352.

Opluštil S., Schmitz M., Cleal J.C. & Martínek K. 2016: A review of 

Middle-Late Pennsylvanian west European regional substages 

and floral biozones, and their correlation to the Geological  

Time Scale based on new U–Pb ages. Earth–Sci. Rev. 154, 


Pašek J. & Urban M. 1990: The tectonic evolution of the Plzeň Basin 

(Upper Carboniferous, West Bohemia): a review and reinter-

pretation.  Folia Mus. Rer. Natur. Bohem. occident., Geol. 32, 


Pešek J. 1968: Geological structure and sediments development of the 

Pilsen Coal Basin. Sbor. Příroda 2, 1–112 (in Czech with  English 


Pešek J. 1978: Erosion and clastic dikes in coal seams of the Central 

Bohemian basins and their significance for the detrmination of 

plant substance coalification. Folia Mus. Rer. Natur. Bohem. 

 occident.,  Geol. 12, 1–34.

Pešek J. 1994: Carboniferous of Central and Western Bohemia (Czech 

Republic). Czech Geol. Surv., Prague, 1–60.

Pešek J. 2004: Late Paleozoic limnic basins and coal deposits of the 

Czech Republic. Folia Mus. Rer. Natur. Bohem. occident., 

 Geologica, Ed. Spec. 1, 1–188. 

Pešek J. 2005: Hiatuses between the base of the Pennsylvanian and 

the base of the Triassic in the Bohemian Massif (Czech 

 Republic).  Bull. Geosci. 80, 67–78.

Pešek J., Opluštil S., Kumpera O., Holub V. & Skoček V. 1998: Paleo-

geographic Atlas, Late Paleozoic and Triassic formations, Czech 

Republic. Czech Geol. Survey, Prague, 1–53. 

Purkyně C. 1899: Nýřany coal seam near Nýřany. Rozpravy České 

Akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy a slovesnost a umění. 

tř. II, VIII, Abbdr., 3, 1–30 (in Czech with German summary).

Roscher M. & Schneider J. W. 2006: Permo–Carboniferous Climate: 

Early Pennsylvanian to Late Permian climate development of 

central Europe in a regional and global context. Geol. Soc. Spec. 

Publ. 265, 95–136.

Roscher M., Berner U & Schneider J. W. 2008: A Tool for the Assess-

ment of the Paleo-distribution of Source and Reservoir Rocks. 

Oil Gas European Magazine 3, 131–137.

Schneider J.W., Rössler R. Gaitzsch B.G., Gebhardt U. & Kampe A. 

2005: 4.2.4 Saale-Senke. In: Wrede V. (Ed.): Stratigraphie von 

Deutschland, Oberkarbon. Cour. Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg 254, 


Schneider J.W. & Romer R. 2010: The Late Variscan Molasses (Late 

Carboniferous to Late Permian) of the Saxo-Thuringian Zone. 

In: Linnemann U., Kroner U. & Romer R.L. (Eds.): Pre-Mesozoic 

Geology of Saxo-Thuringia - From the Cadomian Active Margin 

to the Variscan Orogen. Schweizerbart, Science Publishers, 

Stuttgart, 323–346.

Schneider J.W., Körner F., Roscher M. & Kroner U. 2006: Permian 

climate development in the northern peri-Tethys area – the 

Lodève basin, French Massif Central, compared in a European 

and global context. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 

240, 161–183.

Skopec J., Pešek J. & Kobr M. 1990: Fossil river drainage system on 

the top of Slaný Formation, Mšeno-Roudnice Basin. Uhlí Rudy 

Geol. Průzk. 5, 3–11 (in Czech).

Skopec  J.,  Kobr  M.  &  Pešek  J.  2001:  Carboniferous  river  valleys 

identified in the Mšeno–Roudnice Basin on the Slaný and Líně 

formations (Stephanian B and C) in Central Bohemia and their 

manifestations in geophysical methods. Acta Univ. Carol., Geol. 

45, 117–123. 

Wagner R.H. 1977: Comments on the Upper Westphalian and 

 Stephanian floras of Czechoslovakia, with particular reference to 

their stratigraphic age. Symposium on Carboniferous strati-

graphy. Ústř. úst. geol., Praha, 441– 457. 

Žbánek  J., Alexejeva  L.,  Benda  V.,  Bosák  P.,  Crha  J.,  Franke  M., 

Kolář  P.,  Martinec  P.,  Neužil  V.,  Pěgřimočová  J.,  Prouza  J., 

 Rejent J., Souta M., Stáník E. & Stritzko J. 1990a: Report on 

mapping drilling. Raw material: hard coal. Final report of the 

project Mělník Benátky nad Jizerou. Open file report – Geofond

Praha, 1–247 (in Czech).

Žbánek J. Bosák P. & Žáková B. 1990b: Report on drilling core Sš 1. 

Raw  material:  hard  coal.  Final  report  of  the  project  Mělník 

Benátky nad  Jizerou. Open file report – Geofond, Praha, 1–36. 

(in Czech)

Ziegler P.A. 1990: Geological Atlas of Western and Central Europe. 

Shell, The Hague, 1–230. 

Zikmundová J. & Holub V. 1965: Silurian and Devonian limestone 

pebbles in Permo-Carboniferous of Mladá Boleslav region.  

Věst.  Ústř.  Úst.  geol. 40, 185–187 (in Czech with English