GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, AUGUST 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
doi: 10.2478/geoca-2019-0020
www.geologicacarpathica.com
The calcareous nannofossils and magnetostratigraphic
results from the Upper Tithonian–Berriasian
of Feodosiya region (Eastern Crimea)
VLADIMIR ARKADIEV
1,
, MARINA LESCANO
2
, ANDREA CONCHEYRO
2
,
ANDREY GUZHIKOV
3
and EVGENY BARABOSHKIN
4
1
Saint Petersburg State University, University Embankment 7/9, 199034 Saint Petersburg, Russia;
arkadievvv@mail.ru
2
Instituto de Estudios Andinos Don Pablo Groeber, Conicet-Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina;
andrea@gl.fcen.uba.ar
3
Saratov State University, Astrahanskaya Street 83, 410012 Saratov, Russia; aguzhikov@yandex.ru
4
Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory Street 1,119991 Moscow, Russia; ejbaraboshkin@mail.ru
(Manuscript received March 27, 2019; accepted in revised form June 17, 2019)
Abstract: This article is concerned with nannofossil study of Tithonian–Berriasian sediments of Eastern Crimea.
The NJT 16, NJT 17a, NJT 17b, NKT, and NK 1 nannofossil zones were determined. The occurrence of Nannoconus
kamptneri minor, one of the potential marker-types of the Tithonian–Berriasian boundary (the base of the NKT Zone)
of the Tethyan sequence in the Feodosiyan section is assigned here to the Pseudosubplanites grandis ammonite Subzone
and the magnetic Chron M18n. The base of the NKT Zone is closer to the Grandis Subzone base than to the base of
the Jacobi Subzone. Contradictions in the interpretation of magnetic chrons obtained by the present authors (Arkadiev et al.
2018) and by Bakhmutov et al. (2018) might be caused by mistakes admitted in the latter work on the compiled section.
Keywords: calcareous nannofossils, magnetostratigraphy, Tithonian, Berriasian, Eastern Crimea.
Introduction
The section of the Tithonian–Berriasian boundary sediments
located in the Feodosiya area, Eastern Crimea, has been attrac-
ting the attention of researchers for over 100 years. The study
of the Feodosiyan section began in the XIX century (Sokolov
1886; Retowski 1893) and has been reviewed in a monograph
(Arkadiev et al. 2012). Guzhikov et al. (2012) first provided
a description of the compiled Upper Tithonian–Lower Berria-
sian section situated at the southern edge of the town of Feo-
dosiya within the area of Dvuyakornaya Bay Saint Ilya Cape,
and Feodosiisky Cape. Later, Arkadiev et al. (2018) and Bara-
boshkin et al. (2016a) detailed the structure of the section, sum-
marized and analysed data on bio- and magnetostratigraphic
stratification of the section, and provided zonal schemes on
ammonites, calpionellids, foraminifera, ostracods, dinocysts,
and trace fossils. The section covers an interval from the Upper
Tithonian (Microcanthum and Andreaei ammonite Zones) to
the Lower Berriasian (Jacobi Zone), where corresponding of
the magnetic chrons from M20n to M17r inclusively were
determined. The thickness of the sediments between the upper-
most findings of Upper Tithonian ammonites and lowest fin-
dings of Berriasian ammonites is at least 100 metres. There-
fore, the boundary between the Jurassic and Cretaceous was
assumed by the authors to be the base of the Berriasella jacobi
ammonite Zone but it has not been accurately positioned in
the section. Higher levels of the Berriasian section (Occitanica
and Boissieri Zones) were studied within the Zavodskaya
Balka quarry in the Feodosiya area (Arkadiev et al. 2015,
2017, 2018; Savelieva et al. 2017; Baraboshkin et al. 2017,
2019). There, on the basis of bio- and magnetostratigraphic
data the boundary between the Berriasian and Valanginian was
first justified.
Previously, the authors of this paper have not studied calca-
reous nannofossils in the Feodosiyan section.
To recent times, the data on the distribution of calcareous
nannofossils in the Tithonian–Berriasian of Mountain Crimea
has been quite poor. Matveyev, in his studies of the Tithonian–
Berriasian in Eastern Crimea (Matveyev 2009, 2010), inclu-
ding the sections of the Thonas River and Feodosiya, mentioned
a pretty poor collection of nannofossils from those sites.
He assigned the Tithonian/Berriasian boundary to the first
appearance datums (FADs) of Nannoconus steinmannii stein
mannii, N. steinmannii minor and N. dolomiticus, although
the former subspecies was found in the Tithonian as well
(Matveyev 2009). According to the widely accepted concepts,
Nannoconus steinmannii Kamptner is a species determining
the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary (see Casellato 2010;
Wimbledon et al. 2011). Stoykova et al. (2018a, b), however,
provided calibrated ammonite and calcareous nannofossil
documentation from Bulgaria, showing that Nannoconus
steinmannii minor appeared above the bases of the Berriasella
jacobi Zone and Calpionella alpina Subzone, and Nannoconus
steinmannii steinmannii appeared even very up-section; the
lat ter bioevent correlates with the Calpionella elliptica Sub-
zone and the M17r magnetic Chron. Actually, the calcareous
356
ARKADIEV, LESCANO, CONCHEYRO, GUZHIKOV and BARABOSHKIN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
nannofossil event which is closer to the base of the Calpionella
alpina Subzone, namely to the base of the Berriasian, is
Nannoconus wintereri first occurrence. This bioevent shows
relatively short vertical dispersal in many sections, such as
the Bosso Valley, Font de St Bertrand, Lókút, Nutzhof, Puerto
Escaño (Casellato 2010; Grabowski et al. 2017; Svobodová &
Košťák 2016; Stoykova et al. 2018a, b).
Based on this data and taking into consideration the infor-
mation on the distribution of foraminifera and palynomorphs
within the section of the Thonas River, Dorotyak et al. (2009)
determined the boundary between Tithonian and Berriasian
from the occurrence of the assemblage of foraminifera Proto
peneroplis ultragranulatus–Siphoninella antique, calcareous
nannofossil assemblage of Crepidolithus crassus (Deflandre),
Nannoconus dolomiticus Cita, as well as Nannoconus stein
mannii Kamptner and Lithraphidites carniolensis, and the
dinocyst species Pseudoceratium pelliferum (Pp.). In the boun-
dary interval of the Thonas River section, there is a suggestion
to distinguish a Zeugrhabdotus embergeri Zone in the Upper
Tithonian and a Lithraphidites carniolensis Zone in the Lower
Berriasian at the base of which a “bloom” of nannoconids was
observed (Dorotyak et al. 2009). Unfortunately, calcareous
nannofossils were not figured in that article.
Recently, a team of European researches published indepen-
dent bio- and magnetostratigraphic data and interpretation that
they obtained in studying the Jacobi Zone of the Feodosiyan
section (Bakhmutov et al. 2018), which significantly differs
from our outcomes made earlier (Arkadiev et al. 2018;
Guzhikov et al. 2012;). Discussion of these contradictions
along with presentation of new data on calcareous nannofos-
sils is the purpose of this article.
Geological setting
The compiled Feodosiyan section comprises several inde-
pendent sections (outcrops 2901, 2922-2924, 3112, 3113,
2456, 2927, 2920, and 2921) of the Dvuyakornaya Formation
exposed as coastal cliffs at the Black Sea beach in the
Feodosiisky Cape, Saint Ilya Cape, and in Dvuyakornaya Bay,
at the southern edge of the Feodosiya town (Fig. 1) (see
Guzhikov et al. 2012; Arkadiev et al. 2018). The section rep-
resents calciturbidites, debrites and pelagic deposits from the
deeper part of a distally steepened ramp (Guzhikov et al. 2012;
Baraboshkin et al. 2016b) of about 400 m total thickness.
The bed dips vary from north-east to north-west with dip
angles basically varying from 20° to 40°.
Compilation of such a complex section covering the Upper
Tithonian–Lower Berriasian (Jacobi Zone) interval was
a challenging task considering the numerous disjunctive dislo-
cations, gaps in exposure and absence of lithological markers
which might be traced from outcrop to outcrop. The base of
the package of Feodosiyan Marls, with more or less lateral
continuity, looks like a lucky exception. Guzhikov et al. (2012)
assumed that the upper beds in sections of the Dvuyakornaya
Bay (outcrop 2924) and Feodosiisky Cape (outcrop 2921)
were an analogue of the thick (1.5–3.0 m) conglomerate-type
limestone channel turbidite at the base of the Cape Saint Ilya
section (outcrop 2456). Inconsistency of such assumptions
becomes clearly understandable when one observes the sec-
tions at a distance from the sea. The results of revision of the
section we made in 2016 indicated that beds of conglome rate-
type limestones in outcrops 2924 and 2921 that looked like
a three-metre bed of similar limestone in the Cape Saint Ilya
Fig. 1. Sketch map of the Tithonian–Berriasian studied sections
in Eastern Crimea. GPS coordinates of the localities — outcrop
2456: 45°00’41.7” N, 35°25’17.0” E; outcrops 2920–2921:
45°01’16.0” N, 35°24’54.0” E; outcrop 2927: 45°00’37.7” N,
35°25’11.2 E; outcrop 3058: 45°01’49.1” N, 35°20’59.5” E;
outcrop 2901: 45°00’03.6” N, 35°23’20.9” E; outcrop 2922:
45°00’14.1” N, 35°23’08.6” E.
357
CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE FEODOSIYA REGION (EASTERN CRIMEA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
section should actually be regarded as older and younger beds,
respectively (Arkadiev et al. 2018). These limestones are
channel turbidites in origin and, therefore, their thickness is
not consistent. At the present time, it became evident that the
Feodosiyan Upper Tithonian–Lower Berriasian compiled sec-
tion includes three stratigraphic gaps of undetermined thick-
nesses (Fig. 2). Some indirect data (including magnetic
sus ceptibility) allow us to assume that these gaps hardly
exceed the first tens of metres.
The Zavodskaya Balka quarry on the outskirts of Feodosiya
Town has provided outcrops of the well-developed Sul-
tanovskaya Formation, basically represented by grey pelagic
mudstones (Baraboshkin et al. 2019) of about 100 m thickness
with Berriasian ammonites of the Occitanica and Boissieri
Zones (outcrops 2900, 2925, 3031, 3032, 3058, and 3092).
Calcareous nannofossils from this part of the section have
been studied for the first time ever.
Material and methods
Samples to conduct bio- and magnetostratigraphic studies
on the “sample to sample” system were taken in the process of
field research. A total of 43 samples from the four Crimean
sections were examined for calcareous nannofossils, 38 of
them being fossiliferous.
Smear slides were prepared following the smear slide tech-
nique (Edwards 1963) and the slides were fixed with UV
curing Norland Optical Adhesive. Systematic determinations
and photographs were established by a standard LEICA DMLP
petrographic microscope with 1000× magnification under
polarized light. The fossiliferous samples are housed in the
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Buenos
Aires, under the acronym BACF-NP 4147-4189.
Calcareous nannofossil bioevents and zonation
The recorded assemblages of calcareous nannofossils from
Eastern Crimea are diverse enough and are represented by 67
Tethyan species. The full list of the nannofossils recovered is
provided in Table 1. Estimation of the nannofossil total abun-
dance has been recorded as follow (Table 2): VA (very abun-
dant): ≥15 specimens per field of view; A (abundant): 5–15
specimens per field of view; C (common): 1–5 specimens per
field of view; F (few): 1 specimen every 1–10 fields of view;
R (rare): 1 specimen every 11–100 fields of view.
The nannofossil species from the Crimean sections are illus-
trated in Figs. 3–5. The Crimean nannofossils assemblages
show low abundance, moderate state of preservation and are
mainly dominated by abundant Watznaueria fossacincta
(Fig. 4G), W. britannica (Fig. 4C), W. barnesiae (Fig. 4E), and
Cyclagelosphaera sp.
A specific horizon contains some Early Jurassic species such
as Parhabdolithus robustus (Fig. 5A, B) and Crepidolithus sp.
(Fig. 5C, D), which were reworked from older strata.
Bralower et al. (1989) proposed a calcareous nannofossil
zonation for the Jurassic and Cretaceous based on southern
European land sections and sites from the western North
Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 6). In particular, the NJK Zone straddled
the Tithonian–Berriasian boundary. The NJK Zone is divided
into four subzones (NJK-A, NJK-D, NJK-C, and NJK-D),
their lower boundaries being marked at the FADs of Helenea
chiastia, Umbria granulosa granulosa, Rotelapillus laffittei,
and Nannoconus steinmannii, respectively. These authors
placed the base of the Berriasian in the middle of the NJK-C
Subzone, which coincides with the base of M18 magnetic
Chron, the base of the Berriasella jacobi ammonoid Zone, and
the base of the Calpionella alpina Subzone. Besides, Bralower
et al. (1989) correlated their zones with other bioevents such
as the FADs of Rhagodiscus asper and Nannoconus
wintereri.
More recently, Casellato (2010) proposed a new calcareous
nannofossil biostratigraphic scheme for the Tithonian–Early
Berriasian established for the Southern Alps in Northern Italy.
She defined the NJT 16, NJT 17, and NKT Zones on the basis
of FADs of Helenea chiastia, Nannoconus globulus minor,
and Nannoconus steinmannii minor, respectively, and placed
the base of the Berriasian at the base of NKT Zone (the FAD
of N. steinmannii minor). In the Crimean sections, five mar-
kers of calcareous nannofossils were determined like in other
Tethyan sections (see Bralower et al. 1989; Casellato 2010).
These bioevents have defined the studied interval as Early
Tithonian to Berriasian in age. In particular, the NJT 16-17,
NKT, and NK-1 Tethyan Zones have been determined (Fig. 2).
The FO of Helenea chiastia (sample 2901-19, Fig. 4S) has
been assumed as the first recorded event (Bralower at el. 1989;
Casellato 2010); it defines the base of NJT 16a, which is cor-
related with the top of the Lower Tithonian. No ammonites
typical for Early Tithonian were detected in this part of the
section.
Up-section, the FO of Hexalithus strictus (sample 3112-3,
Fig. 3F) has been used to determine the NJT 17a Subzone
(middle part). In the Feodosiyan section, it correlates directly
with the ammonite Berriasella chomeracensis, the latter being
characteristic for the Lower Berriasian. Findings of the Upper
Tithonian ammonites Paraulacosphinctes transitorius, P. cf.
senoides were recorded approximately 110 m down-section. It
is likely that the base of the NJT 17a Subzone is located down
the section, within the Upper Tithonian, as well as in the
Kopanista section (Stoykova et al. 2018a).
The FO of Nannoconus wintereri (sample 2456-31,
Fig. 5O, P), is a bioevent that determines the base of the NJT
17b Subzone (Casellato 2010). N. wintereri was detected in
the section definitely higher than the Lower Berriasian
finds of Pseudosubplanites cf. lorioli and Delphinella cf.
obtusenodosa.
The FO of Nannoconus kamptneri minor (sample 2456-51)
(Fig. 5Q, R) defines the base of the NKT Zone which is
assigned to the Berriasian. A number of researches considered
this event to be a reliable marker of the Tithonian–Berriasian
boundary (Michalík & Reháková 2011; Wimbledon et al.
358
ARKADIEV, LESCANO, CONCHEYRO, GUZHIKOV and BARABOSHKIN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Fig. 2.
Compiled
Tithonia
n–Berriasian
section
of
Eastern
Crimea
and
its
bio-stratigraphic
and
magnetostratigraphic
zonation.
Legend:
1
—
clay
, 2
—
aleuroli
te,
3
—
calcareous
sandstone,
4
—
con
-
glomerate,
5
—
limestone,
6
—
marlstone,
7 —
siderite
lenses,
8
—
ammon
ites,
9 —
not
observed,
10–12
—
geomagnetic
polarity:
10
—
normal,
11
—
reverse,
12
— anomalous.
13 —
missing
data,
14 — F
ADs.
359
CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE FEODOSIYA REGION (EASTERN CRIMEA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Section
1
2
3
4
1 Axopodorhabdus cylindratus (Noël, 1965) Wind and Wise in Wise and Wind, 1977
X
2 Biscutum sp.
X
3 Bukrylithus ambiguus Black, 1971
X
4 Conusphaera mexicana Trejo, 1969
X
X
X
X
5 Cretarhabdus madingleyensis (Black, 1971) Crux, 1989
X
X
6 Crepidolithus sp.
X
X
7 Cruciellipsis cuvillieri (Manivit, 1966) Thierstein, 1971
X
8 Cyclagelosphaera argoensis Bown, 1992
X
9 Cyclagelosphaera brezae Applegate & Bergen, 1988
X
X
X
10 Cyclagelosphaera deflandrei (Manivit, 1966) Roth, 1973
X
X
11 Cyclagelosphaera lacuna Varol & Girgis 1994
X
X
X
12 Cyclagelosphaera margerelii Noël, 1965
X
X
X
X
13 Diazomatolithus galicianus de Kaenel & Bergen, 1996
X
14 Diazomatolithus lehmanii Noël, 1965
X
X
X
X
15 Eiffellithus primus Applegate & Bergen, 1988
X
16 Ethmorhabdus gallicus Noël, 1965
X
X
X
17 Ethmorhabdus hauterivianus (Black, 1971) Applegate et al. in Covington & Wise, 1987
X
18 Hayesites irregularis (Thierstein in Roth & Thierstein, 1972) Applegate et al. in Covington & Wise, 1987
X
19 Helenea chiastia Worsley, 1971
X
X
20 Helenea quadrata (Worsley, 1971) Rutledge & Bown in Bown et al., 1998
X
X
21 Helenea staurolithina Worsley, 1971
X
X
X
X
22 Hexalithus noeliae Loeblich & Tappan, 1966
X
23 Hexalithus strictus Bergen, 1994
X
X
24 Lithraphidites carniolensis Deflandre, 1963
X
25 Manivitella pemmatoidea (Deflandre in Manivit, 1965) Thierstein, 1971
X
X
26 Micrantholithus hoschulzii (Reinhardt, 1966) Thierstein, 1971
X
27 Micrantholithus obtusus Stradner, 1963
X
28 Micrantholithus parvistellatus Varol 1991
X
29 Micrantholithus sp.
X
30 Nannoconus compressus Bralower & Thierstein in Bralower et al., 1989
X
X
31 Nannoconus globulus subsp. globulus Brönnimann, 1955
X
32 Nannoconus globulus subsp. minor (Brönnimann, 1955) Bralower in Bralower et al., 1989
X
X
X
33 Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. kamptneri Brönnimann, 1955
X
34 Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. minor (Brönnimann, 1955) Bralower in Bralower et al., 1989
X
X
X
35 Nannoconus sp.
X
X
X
36 Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. minor (Kamptner, 1931) Deres and Achéritéguy, 1980
X
X
37 Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. steinmannii Kamptner, 1932
X
X
38 Nannoconus wintereri Bralower & Thierstein, in Bralower et al. 1989
X
X
X
39 Parhabdolithus robustus Noël, 1965
X
X
40 Percivalia fenestrata (Worsley, 1971) Wise, 1983
X
41 Polycostella beckmannii Thierstein, 1971
X
X
42 Polycostella senaria Thierstein, 1971
X
X
43 Polycostella sp.
X
44 Retecapsa angustiforata Black, 1971
X
45 Retecapsa crenulata (Bramlette & Martini, 1964) Grün in Grün and Allemann, 1975
X
46 Retecapsa octofenestrata (Bralower in Bralower et al., 1989) Bown in Bown & Cooper, 1998
X
47 Retecapsa schizobrachiata (Gartner, 1968) Grün in Grün and Allemann, 1975
X
48 Retecapsa surirella (Deflandre & Fert, 1954) Grün in Grün and Allemann, 1975
X
49 Rhagodiscus adinfinitus Bown, 2005
X
50 Rhagodiscus asper (Stradner, 1963) Reinhardt, 1967
X
51 Speetonia colligata Black, 1971
X
52 Staurolithites sp.
X
53 Tubodiscus verenae Thierstein, 1973
X
54 Umbria granulosa Bralower & Thierstein in Bralower et al., 1989
X
55 Watznaueria barnesiae (Black in Black & Barnes, 1959) Perch-Nielsen, 1968
X
X
X
X
56 Watznaueria biporta Bukry, 1969
X
57 Watznaueria britannica (Stradner, 1963) Reinhardt, 1964
X
X
X
X
58 Watznaueria communis Reinhardt, 1964
X
X
X
X
59 Watznaueria fossacincta (Black, 1971) Bown in Bown & Cooper, 1989
X
X
X
60 Watznaueria manivitiae Bukry, 1973
X
X
X
X
61 Watznaueria ovata Bukry, 1969
X
62 Zeugrhabdotus diplogrammus (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert, 1954) Burnett in Gale et al., 1996
X
63 Zeugrhabdotus embergeri (Noël, 1959) Perch-Nielsen, 1984
X
X
X
X
64 Zeugrhabdotus erectus (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert, 1954) Reinhardt, 1965
X
X
X
65 Zeugrhabdotus fissus Grün & Zweili, 1980
X
66 Zeugrhabdotus sp.
X
X
67 Tegumentum sp.
X
Table 1: List of recorded calcareous nannofossil species of Eastern Crimea.
360
ARKADIEV, LESCANO, CONCHEYRO, GUZHIKOV and BARABOSHKIN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Section 4
Ethmor
habdus gallicus
Nannoconus sp. W
atznaueria manivitiae
Staur
olithites sp.
Micrantholithus hoschulzii Conusphaera mexicana Cyclagelosphaera br
ezae
Cyclagelosphaera mar
ger
elii
W
atznaueria barnesiae
Diazomatolithus lehmanii Rhagodiscus asper Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. minor Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. kamptneri Nannoconus globulus subsp. minor W
atznaueria britannica
Hexalithus strictus Polycostella senaria Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. steinmannii Zeugr
habdotus ember
geri
Helenea chiastia W
atznaueria communis
Per
civalia fenestrata
Retecapsa angustiforata Micrantholithus sp. Micrantholithus parvistellatus Zeugr
habdotus sp.
Biscutum sp. Cr
epidolithus sp.
Nannoconus winter
eri
Eiffellithus primus Cruciellipsis cuvillieri Lithraphidites carniolensis Nannoconus globulus subsp. globulus Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. minor Cyclagelosphaera deflandr
ei
Polycostella sp. Micrantholithus obtusus Polycostella beckmannii W
atznaueria fossacincta
Umbria granulosa Retecapsa surir
ella
W
atznaueria biporta
Zeugr
habdotus diplogrammus
Rhagodiscus adinfinitus Helenea staur
olithina
Zeugr
habdotus er
ectus
Speetonia colligata Diazomatolithus galicianus Ethmor
habdus hauterivianus
Tubodiscus ver
enae
Cocosfera Helenea quadrata Retecapsa cr
enulata
Hayesites irr
egularis
Cyclagelosphaera lacuna Bukrylithus ambiguus Manivitella pemmatoidea Axopodor
habdus cylindratus
Retecapsa octofenestrata Retecapsa schizobrachiata Nannoconus compr
essus
Tegumentum sp.
3058-51
R R
R C C A C C
R F C
R
C
R C
R
R
R R
F R C R
3058-45
R
A A R F
R
R R
R
R R
R A F R
R
R
R F R R R
3058-35
C C F
F
R
C
R
R R
3058-25
F R F F
E C
R
F R
F R
R R R
R
C
F R
R
R R
3031-19
C C C C R
F
F R
R
R
R
R C
R R R R R
3031-12
C C
C
C A R C C R
R
C R R R
R C
R
R
R R R C
R
R R
R R R R R R
2925-33
R
R
C C C A F F F
C
C F C
R F
F
C C C C R R
2925-23-22
R
A A R
R C
C
C
R
A R C
2925-14
C C
R
C A C R
R C C
R R C
R C F R R R R R R R
3092-6
F F C C A F F F C E C F C F F F F R
3092-1
F C C F C R F A C F F F R F F R
Section 3
Cyclagelosphaera mar
ger
elii
Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. minor
W
atznaueria barnesiae
W
atznaueria manivitiae
Nannoconus winter
eri
W
atznaueria communis
Zeugr
habdotus ember
geri
Diazomatolithus lehmanii
W
atznaueria britannica
Conusphaera mexicana
Nannoconus globulus subsp. minor
Nannoconus sp.
Cyclagelosphaera lacuna
Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. minor
Cr
epidolithus sp.
Zeugr
habdotus sp.
Helenea staur
olithina
Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. steinmannii
2921-13
C C C
C C
R
2921-7
F C C C C C R
C R
R R
R R
F
2921-1
2920-1
C A C C A C
F
2920-10
C C A A R A R R C R R F
Section 2
Helenea quadrata
Helenea staur
olithina
Diazomatolithus lehmanii
Cr
etar
habdus madingleyensis
Par
habdolithus r
obustus
Cyclagelosphaera mar
ger
elii
W
atznaueria barnesiae
W
atznaueria fossacincta
Coccospher
e
W
atznaueria britannica
W
atznaueria ovata
Zeugr
habdotus fissus
Zeugr
habdotus er
ectus
Ethmor
habdus gallicus
W
atznaueria manivitiae
Cyclagelosphaera br
ezae
Zeugr
habdotus ember
geri
Nannoconus winter
eri
Nannoconus globulus subsp. minor
W
atznaueria communis
Conusphaera mexicana
Nannoconus sp.
Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. minor
2456-51
C A A
R C C C C
C
2456-41
C A F
F
F F F
C
3056-31
C A A
C
R C C C C C
2456-23
A A F F F
C C F
2456-12
C C R R R VAVA C R C R R R R
2456-1
2927-2
Section 1
Cyclagelosphaera deflandr
ei
Zeugr
habdotus ember
geri
W
atznaueria fossacincta
W
atznaueria britannica
Cyclagelosphaera mar
ger
elii
W
atznaueria barnesiae
W
atznaueria communis
W
atznaueria manivitiae
Helenea chiastia
Manivitella pemmatoidea
Coccospher
e
Cr
etar
habdus madingleyensis
Ethmor
habdus gallicus
Polycostella beckmannii
Conusphaera mexicana
Diazomatolithus lehmanii
Cyclagelosphaera lacuna
Zeugr
habdotus er
ectus
Nannoconus compr
essus
Polycostella senaria
Par
habdolithus r
obustus
Hexalithus noeliae
Cyclagelosphaera br
ezae
Helenea staur
olithina
Hexalithus strictus
Cyclagelosphaera ar
goensis
3112-3
R C C A A R C
C
R R
R R R
3113-3
F C F C C C R
R
F R
R
F
R R
2922-32C
C C C C C C R
R
2923-13
2923-8
R C R C A R
A A
2923-3
2901-94
F C C C C R
E R
R
R
2901-87
C R C C
R
R
R
2901-82
A F
A R
C C
2901-77
A
A R R
A A R
2901-72
A F C A
F
C R
F
F
2901-65
C
C C R
C R R
R
2901-61
C F C C
R C
R R R
2901-59
C R C C
2901-53
R R C C C A
C R R R R
2901-46
R
C R C C
R
2901-36
C F F C
F
R R
2901-19
R C R C C R R R R R R
2901-5
R R F R
2901-1
R F C F F F
Table 2: Semi-quantitative estimation of nannofossil’ abundance in the studied samples.
361
CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE FEODOSIYA REGION (EASTERN CRIMEA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
2011). However, this is significantly higher than the base of
the Calpionella alpina Subzone, which is currently accepted
as the marker of the Tithonian–Berriasian (Wimbledon 2017;
Svobodová et al. 2019).
The FO of Nannoconus steinmannii steinmannii (sample
2921-7, Fig. 5G, H) is a major event that defines the base of
NK-1 Zone in the Berriasian. Ammonites Delphinella cf.
tresannensis and Berriasella subcallisto that characterize the
Grandis Subzone were determined at this level of the section.
At the top of the Zavodskaya Balka section, at the level of
sample 3058-25, the last occurrences of Polycostella senaria,
P. beckmanii, and Nannoconus wintereri were fixed, which,
together with the ammonite Berriasella callisto, has proved
Berriasian age.
Discussion
It is remarkable that the FO of the subspecies Nannoconus
kamptneri minor is assigned to beds characterized by ammo-
nites of the Grandis Subzone (sample 2456-51) and corre-
sponds to the top M18n magnetic Chron. It is about 80 m
above the level of the Tithonian–Berriasian boundary deter-
mined on the basis of ammonites. According to Bakhmutov et
al. (2018), N. kamptneri minor occurs approximately in the
middle of the M19n.2n magnetic Subchron, and N. stein
mannii steinmannii and N. kamptneri kamptneri — at the level
of M18r magnetic Chron. If we consider the boundaries estab-
lished by magnetostratigraphic data to be isochronous, then
with respect to them, the boundaries established by nanofos-
sils seem to be diachronous. This is confirmed by the analysis
of numerous publications. Wimbledon et al. (2011) stated that
the base of the NKT Zone is assigned to the top M19n mag-
netic Chron. In the Le Chouet section (France), the FADs of
Nannoconus steinmannii minor and N. kamptneri minor corre-
spond to the top M19n magnetic Chron (Wimbledon et al.
2013). A similar relationship has been observed in the section
Barlya in the West Balkan Mts, Bulgaria (Lakova et al. 2017).
In the Southern Alps, Casellato in Channell et al. (2010) deter-
mined the lower boundary of the Berriasian based on the FAD
of Nannoconus steinmannii minor which is correlated with the
M18r magnetic Chron. However, in the Torre de’ Busi section,
the base of the NKT Zone corresponds to the top M19n Chron,
and in the Colme di Vignola section — to the top M18n Chron.
In the Puerto Escaño section (Southern Spain), the boundary
between the ammonite Durangites and Jacobi Zones has been
assigned to the base of the M19n Chron, while the base of the
NKT Zone has been traced at the top of the M19n Chron
(Svobodová & Košťák 2016). In the Western Carpathians, the
FAD of N. steinmannii minor has been fixed in the middle part
of the M19n Chron (Michalík et al. 2016; Elbra et al. 2018)
which is slightly above the Tithonian–Berriasian boundary
level determined from calpionellids. In Hungary, in the Lόkút
section, the base of the NKT Zone has been determined at
the top M19n2n Subchron (Grabowski et al. 2017). Thus,
the position of the base of the NKT Zone varies from the top
M19n Chron to the top M18n Chron. Therefore, the FAD of
Nannoconus steinmannii minor could hardly be accepted as
one of major markers of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary.
The integrated ammonite, calcareous nannofossil and mag-
netostratigraphic data obtained in studying the Feodosiyan
sections may be applied to justify the boundary markers.
The proximity of the base of the M18r Chron to the base of
the Grandis Subzone in the Feodosiyan sections confirms the
earlier declared opinion regarding the Tithonian–Berriasian
boundary to be determined at the base of the ammonite
Grandis Subzone (Arkadiev et al. 2018). In addition, the base
of the NKT Zone is close to this level in the Feodosiyan
section. The base of the Calpionella alpina Subzone in the
Feodosiyan section is much lower (Platonov et al. 2014), but it
is poorly defined due to the rarity of the finds and the poor
preservation of the calpionellids.
Magnetostratigraphic interpretation
Petromagnetic and paleomagnetic data obtained indepen-
dently from the both research teams are well-harmonized.
The data on anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility and the
results of the component analysis are equal in the papers of
Bakhmutov et al. (2018) and Guzhikov et al. (2012). Also,
the mean directions of characteristic remanent magnetization
(ChRM) across the section obtained by different researchers
statistically coincide. The paleomagnetic column of the out-
crop at the boathouse [outcrop B in Bakhmutov et al. (2018)
and outcrops 2920, 2921 in Arkadiev et al. (2018); Guzhikov
et al. (2012)] is similar. The reverse polarity magnetic zone
(R) at the top of the composite section has been interpreted as
the M17r Chron by all authors (Fig. 7).
However, the paleomagnetic column and results of magne-
topolar interpretations of the Cape Saint Ilya section vary and
have been done by different researchers, as in the cases of out-
crops A and 1–6 (Bakhmutov et al. 2018) and outcrop 2456
(Arkadiev et al. 2018; Guzhikov et al. 2012).
In our opinion, the outcrop A in Bakhmutov et al. (2018),
namely the Feodosiyan Marls under the light tower, duplicates
the outcrop B. We came to such a conclusion after we had
restudied in detail the section structure in 2016. If our approach
to comparison of the outcrops is meaningful, then the R-Zone
[top part of the outcrop 4 in Bakhmutov et al. (2018)], which
is the next reversal zone down-section, should rather be the
M18r Chron, than the M19n.1r Subchron (“Brodno”) (Fig. 7).
The analysis of magnetostratigraphic data along the entire
composite Upper Tithonian–Lower Berriasian section (Arka-
diev et al. 2018; Guzhikov et al. 2012) confirms that this
R-Zone cannot be the analogue of the M19n.1r Subchron.
Admitting the contrary, it should be concluded that two under-
lying R-Zones assigned to beds hosting Neoperisphinctes cf.
falloti and Paraulacosphinctes cf. transitorius should be inter-
preted as the M19r and M20r Chrons, respectively. However,
such an interpretation is not applicable from the view point of
the ammonite stratigraphy since predominantly the Early
362
ARKADIEV, LESCANO, CONCHEYRO, GUZHIKOV and BARABOSHKIN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Fig. 3. Calcareous nannofossils from the Feodosiyan section. All photomicrographs under polarized light; scale bar = 2 μm. A — Micrantholithus
obtusus Stradner (sample 2925-33); B–D — Micrantholithus parvistellatus Varol (sample 2925-14); E — Micrantholithus sp (sample 2925-
14); F — Hexalithus strictus Bergen (sample 3112-3). G–H — Hexalithus noeliae Loeblich & Tappan (sample 3113-3); I — Polycostella
beckmannii Thierstein (sample 2901-53); J — Polycostella senaria Thierstein (sample 3092-6); K–L — Conusphaera mexicana Trejo (sample
3058-51); M — Cyclagelosphaera lacuna Varol & Girgis (sample 2901-53); N — Cyclagelosphaera deflandrei (Manivit) Roth (sample 2901-1);
O — Cyclagelosphaera margerelii Noël (sample 2921-7); P — Lithraphidites carniolensis Deflandre (sample 2925-14); Q — Diazomatolithus
galicianus de Kaenel & Bergen (sample 3031-19); R — Diazomatolithus lehmanii Noël (sample 3031-12); S — Zeugrhabdotus diplogrammus
(Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert) Burnett in Gale et al (sample 3031-12); T — Zeugrhabdotus embergeri (Noël) Perch-Nielsen (sample
3058-51).
363
CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE FEODOSIYA REGION (EASTERN CRIMEA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Fig. 4. Calcareous nannofossils from the Feodosiyan section. All photomicrographs under polarized light; scale bar = 2 μm. A — Watznaueria
communis Reinhardt (sample 3113-3); B — Watznaueria manivitiae Bukry (sample 2901-36); C — Watznaueria britannica (Stradner) Reinhardt
(sample 2456-12); D — Watznaueria ovata Bukry (sample 2456-12); E — Watznaueria barnesiae (Black in Black & Barnes) Perch-Nielsen
(sample 3112-3); F — Watznaueria biporta Bukry (sample 3031-12); G — Watznaueria fossacincta (Black) Bown in Bown & Cooper (sample
2901-19); H — Speetonia colligata Black (sample 3058-35); I — Percivalia fenestrata (Worsley) Wise (sample 3092-6); J — Eiffellithus primus
Applegate & Bergen (sample 3058-25); K — Retecapsa angustiforata Black (sample 2925-14); L — Retecapsa surirella (Deflandre & Fert)
Grün in Grün and Allemann (sample 3058-45); M — Ethmorhabdus gallicus Noël (sample 2901-61); N — Axopodorhabdus cylindratus (Noël)
Wind and Wise in Wise and Wind (sample 2901-36); O — Tubodiscus verenae Thierstein (sample 3031-19); P — Rhagodiscus asper (Stradner)
Reinhardt (sample 3058-45); Q — Cruciellipsis cuvillieri (Manivit) Thierstein (sample 3058-45); R — Helenea quadrata (Worsley) Rutledge &
Bown in Bown et al. (sample 3058-51); S — Helenea chiastia Worsley (sample 2901-19); T — Helenea staurolithina Worsley (sample
3031-12).
364
ARKADIEV, LESCANO, CONCHEYRO, GUZHIKOV and BARABOSHKIN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Fig. 5. Calcareous nannofossils from the Feodosiyan section. All photomicrographs under polarized light; scale bar = 2 μm. A, B — Par
habdolithus robustus Noël (sample 2901-94); C, D — Crepidolithus sp. (sample 2921-7); E, F — Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. minor
(Kamptner) Deres and Achéritéguy (sample 2920-1); G, H — Nannoconus steinmannii subsp. steinmannii Kamptner (sample 2921-7);
I, J — Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. kamptneri Brönnimann (sample 3092-6); K, L — Nannoconus compressus Bralower & Thierstein in
Bralower et al. (sample 2901-61); M, N — Nannoconus globulus subsp. minor (Brönnimann) Bralower in Bralower et al. (sample 2925-33);
O, P —Nannoconus wintereri Bralower & Thierstein, in Bralower et al. (sample 2456-31); Q –T — Nannoconus kamptneri subsp. minor
Bralower (sample 2456-51).
365
CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE FEODOSIYA REGION (EASTERN CRIMEA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Tithonian age of the M20r Chron is substantiated in the key
sections of different regions (Grabowski et al. 2010; Houša et
al. 1999; Lukeneder et al. 2010; Pruner et al. 2010), while the
oldest sediments we have studied in the Feodosiyan sections
have been assigned to the Upper Tithonian on the basis of
ammonite finds (Arkadiev et al. 2018; Guzhikov et al. 2012).
The paleomagnetic section and petromagnetic diagrams
(magnetic susceptibility) corresponding to the top of the out-
crop 2456 (Guzhikov et al. 2012) are well correlated with
the data of the outcrops 5 and 6 and top of the outcrop 4
(Bakhmutov et al. 2018) (Fig. 7). It is obvious that different
authors studied the same interval of the section.
The lower part of the outcrop 2456 (Guzhikov et al. 2012)
and the outcrop 1 (Bakhmutov et al. 2018) are undoubtedly the
same research subject because their bases represent a litholo-
gical benchmark — a 3 m-thick bed of conglomerate-type
limestone (the base of the package 10 according to Guzhikov
et al. (2012) that crops out in the area of Cape Saint Ilia
approximately at sea level. Both groups of researchers regis-
tered there an alternated polarity as alternation of four inter-
vals of anomalous polarity (Guzhikov et al. 2012; Arkadiev et
al. 2018) (Fig. 7). According to the data of Bakhmutov and his
colleagues, a large number of bipolar intervals are obviously
associated with a higher density of sampling in this part of
the section: they sampled about 20 levels while we did only 7.
The earlier assumption was that the zone of bipolar polarity is
assigned to the bottom of the M18r Chron (Guzhikov et al.
2012; Arkadiev et al. 2018) but, perhaps, it is more reasonable
not to identify this magnetic zone with magnetic chrons in
view of its anomalous character as was done by Bakhmutov et
al. (2018).
Close to the boundary between the packages 10 and 11
(Arkadiev et al. 2018), a gap in sampling, which we did not
cover in our work, can really be available (Guzhikov et al.
2012). Up to now, we have not managed to assess the thick-
ness of the gap, but we assume that it is not large. Moreover,
we could not find the sediments near the Cape Saint Ilya
[including areas where the outcrops 2 and 3 are situated,
according to Bakhmutov et al. (2018)], which could be securely
defined as those corresponding to the gap. In our opinion, the
thickness of this gap mentioned by Bakhmutov et al. (2018) is
significantly exaggerated, and the outcrops 2 and 3 may have
the same beds multiplied more than once. We believe that
whatever the case, this matter should be additionally studied.
On the basis of the currently existing data, it is not incon-
ceivable that the interval covering outcrop 4, which does not
have determinations of the magnetic polarity (Bakhmutov et
al. 2018), corresponds to an extension of a reversed polarity
zone. In all cases, it is premature to interpret the bottom part of
outcrop 4 as an interval of normal (N) polarity (Bakhmutov et
al. 2018).
New data on calcareous nannofossils herein presented have
confirmed the eligibility of the explanation we outlined for
contradictions between results of the magnetostratigraphic
interpretation of our data, on one side, and those of Bakhmutov
et al. (2018), on the other (Fig. 7).
Fig. 6. Calcareous nannofossil zonation of the Tithonian–Berriasian interval and main bio-events according to Bralower et al. (1989), Casellato
(2010). Ammonite boundary of Tithonian–Berriasian and appearance of nannofossils in Feodosiya region.
366
ARKADIEV, LESCANO, CONCHEYRO, GUZHIKOV and BARABOSHKIN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
0
50 100
k [1E-5 SI]
C
B
(Arkadiev
et al., 2018)
(Bakhmutov et al., 2018)
Cape St. Iliya
(Guzhikov et al., 2012)
Cape Feodosiisky
(Guzhikov et al., 2012)
M18r
M17r
M18n
2456
2921
2920
2921
2920
2456
Polarity
Member
Outcrops
Formation
Dvuyakornaya
10
11
12
M18r
M17r
M18n
Polarity
Member
10
11
12
?
2927
This paper
Nannofossil
events
N. steinmanni steinmanni
N. kamptneri
minor
scale [m]
scale [m]
0
5
10
C
B
A
6
5
4
3
2
1
scale [m]
- 2
- 1
- 3
Glushkov
Cliff
Ili Burnu
?19n.1r
18r
18n
17r
?19n.1n
19n
N. kamptneri minor
N. steinmanni steinmanni
0
200 400 600
k [1E-6 SI]
Mayak Formation
Dvuyakornaya
Formation
Fig. 7. Correlation of compiled magnetostratigraphic sections of Feodosiyan Lower Berriasian produced on the basis of our data (Guzhikov et
al. 2012; Arkadiev et al. 2018) and data of Bakhumtov et al. (2018). 1 — interval with increased magnetic susceptibility; 2 — intervals mistak-
enly included in the composite section (Bakhmutov et al. 2018); 3 — true positions of outcrops B and C relative to outcrop A.
367
CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE FEODOSIYA REGION (EASTERN CRIMEA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
The FAD of N. kamptneri minor has been assigned by
Bakhmutov et al. (2018) to the middle of the outcrop 2, which
testifies in favour of our version about duplicating of the same
intervals of the section. Presumably, the outcrops 2 and 3
duplicate the outcrops 5 and 6, while we (in the outcrop 2456)
and Bakhmutov et al. (2018) fixed approximately the same
level of the FAD of N. kamptneri minor (Fig. 7).
According to the interpretation of Bakhmutov et al. (2018),
the FADs of N. steinmannii steinmannii and N. kamptneri
kamptneri were assigned to the M18r Chron. It contradicts to
the data given by the same authors on the age dispersion of
nannofossils associations (fig. 24 in Bakhmutov et al. 2018),
according to which the FADs of these subspecies are assigned
to base of the M17r Chron. This contradiction is cleaned away
in our version, according to which the top of the Cape Saint
Ilya section (outcrop A) duplicates the section near the boat-
house (base of the outcrop B) (Fig. 7).
If one admits the rightness of our version, the FADs of
nannofossil taxa in the section on the data of Bakhmutov et al.
(2018) is much better correlated with the new data about the
age dispersion of FADs of nannofossils associations (fig. 24 in
the paper of Bakhmutov et al. 2018) (Fig. 8).
The interval between the uppermost findings of Upper
Tithonian ammonites and the lowest findings of Lower
Berriasian ammonites is over 100 metres in the Dvuyakornaya
Bay section, which extends downwards the Cape Saint Ilya
section (Arkadiev et al. 2018). The target to justify more accu-
rately the level of the base of Jacobi Zone in the Feodosiyan
section like in other sections of the Mountainous Crimea is
quite challenging. The level of the Grandis Subzone base,
which is close to the base of the NKT nannofossil Zone has
been determined and traced much better. Unfortunately, we
have not managed to distinguish the base of the magnetic
M18r Chron. Most likely, this level is located in the sampling
gap between the Dvuyakornaya Bay and Cape Saint Ilya sec-
tions (refer to fig. 20 in Arkadiev et al. 2018). It is not impro-
bable that the zone of mixed (unknown) polarity at the bottom
of the Cape Saint Ilya section, which is allocated both by
Guzhikov et al. (2012) and Bakhmutov et al. (2018) (Fig. 7),
corresponds to the geomagnetic reversal epoch between the
M19 and M18 Chrons. Whatever the case, the lowest boun-
dary of M18r is situated in the Feodosiyan section below the
base of the Grandis Subzone and above the Jacobi Subzone
bottom. If our assumptions regarding the small thickness of
gaps in the composite section are correct, then the M18r bot-
tom in the section is likely close to the base of the Grandis
Subzone.
Lithostratigraphic notes
In the top part of the Dvuyakornaya Formation (the package
of Feodosiyan Marls), Bakhmutov et al. (2018) has introduced
as a new formation, the so-called Mayak Formation. At first
this name was proposed in abstracts of the meeting of the
Berriasian Working Group held in Slovakia (Bakhmutov et al.
2016). “Dvuyakornaya Formation” is a widely used and
well-established name in literature. Initially, the formation
was distinguished by Astakhova et al. (1984). The detailed
lithological and paleontological description of the formation
has been provided in our publications (Arkadiev et al. 2012,
2018). In Bakhmutov et al. (2016), it is mentioned that the
Feodosiyan Marls occur above the Dvuyakornaya Formation.
However, Astakhova et al. (1984, p. 62) considered the
Feodosiyan Marls as the facial analogue of the clays and lime-
stones of the Dvuyakornaya and base of the Sultanovskaya
formations. In our opinion, changing the name and volume of
the existing formation is not reasonable. It will just lead to
some additional complications in the matter of formation stra-
tification of the Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous interval of
Mountainous Crimea.
Conclusion
New data about calcareous nannofossils from the Feodo-
siyan section significantly enlarges its characteristics and
highlights this section as one of the best in terms of degree of
description of details of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary
interval for the Tethys. The base of the NKT Zone and likely
Fig. 8. Correlation of first occurrences of calcareous nannofossils
(FO) in the Lower Berriasian Feodosiyan section (this paper) with
data of Bakhmutov et al. and FAD range in different regions (refers to
fig. 24, Bakhmutov et al. 2018).
368
ARKADIEV, LESCANO, CONCHEYRO, GUZHIKOV and BARABOSHKIN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
the lower boundary of the M18r magnetic chron are close to
the base of the ammonite Grandis Subone, which allows high-
lighting of the base of the Grandis Subzone as the Tithonian/
Berriasian (Jurassic/Cretaceous) boundary rather than the base
of the Jacobi Zone/Subzone.
Acknowledgements: The authors thank Valentina Koval for
help in translating the paper into English. We are very grateful
to K. Stoykova and I. Lakova (Geological Institute, Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences) for linguistic proofreading and very
constructive comments, which greatly improved the text of
the manuscript.
References
Arkadiev V.V., Bogdanova T.N., Guzhikov A.Yu., Lobacheva S.V.,
Myshkina N.V., Platonov E.S., Savelyeva Yu.N., Shurekova O.V.
& Yanin B.T. 2012: Berriasian stage of the Mountainous Crimea.
LEMA Publishing House, Saint Petersburg, 1–472 (in Russian).
Arkadiev V.V., Guzhikov A.Yu, Savelieva Yu.N., Feodorova A.A.,
Shurekova O.V., Bagaeva M.I., Grishchenko V.A. & Manikin A.G.
2015: New Data on Bio- and Magnetostratigraphy of the Upper
Berriasian Zavodskaya Balka section (Eastern Crimea, Feodo-
siya). Bull. Saint Petersbur
g St. Univ., Geology 7, 4, 4–36 (in
Russian).
Arkadiev V.V., Grishchenko V.A., Guzhikov A.Yu., Manikin A.G.,
Savelieva Yu.N., Feodorova A.A. & Shurekova O.V. 2017:
Ammonites and Magnetostratigraphy of the Berriasian–Valan-
ginian Boundary Deposits from Eastern Crimea. Geol. Carpath.
68, 6, 505–516.
Arkadiev V., Guzhikov A., Baraboshkin E., Savelieva Ju., Feodorova A.,
Shurekova O., Platonov E. & Manikin A. 2018: Biostratigraphy
and Magnetostratigraphy of the Upper Tithonian–Berriasian of
the Crimean Mountains. Cretaceous Res. 87, 5–41.
Astakhova T.V., Gorak S.V., Kraeva E.Y., Kulichenko V.G., Permya-
kov V.V., Plotnikova L.F., Semenenko V.N., Barchenko O.I.,
Blagodarov M.I., Bugaets A.T., Bondarenko V.G., Borisenko
L.S., Vanina M.V., Vdovenko M.V., Voronov M.A., Gorbach
L.P., Grigoriev A.V., Gurevich K.Y., Dulub V.G., Isagulova E.Z.,
Korbut Y.B., Kotlyar O.E., Konenkova D.I., Makarenko D.E.,
Menkes M.A., Nerodenko V.M., Novik N.N., Naga V.I., Plakhot-
nogo L.G., Pyatkova D.M., Romanov L.F., Savron E.B. Slyusar
B.S., Sulimov I.N., Teslenko Y.V., Fedorov P.V., Tsegelnyk P.D.
& Yanovskaya G.G. 1984: Geology of Shelf of the UkrSSR.
Stratigraphy (Shelf and Black Sea Coast). Naukova Dumka,
Kiev, 1–184 (in Russian).
Bakhmutov V.G., Casellato C.E., Halásová E., Ivanova D.K.,
Reháková D. & Wimbledon W.A.P. 2016: Bio- and Magnetostra-
tigraphy of the Upper Tithonian–Lower Berriasian in Southern
Ukraine. XIIth Jurassica Conference. In: Michalík J. & Fekete
K. (Eds.): Workshop of the ICS Berriasian Group and IGCP 632.
Field Trip Guide and Abstracts Book. Earth Science Institute,
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, 97–100.
Bakhmutov V.G., Halásová E., Ivanova D.K., Jόzsa S., Reháková D.
& Wimbledon W.A.P. 2018: Biostratigraphy and magnetostrati-
graphy of the uppermost Tithonian–Lower Berriasian in the
Theo dosia area of Crimea (Southern Ukraine). Geol. Quarterly
62, 2, 197–236.
Baraboshkin E.Yu., Arkadiev V.V. & Kopayevich L.F. 2016a: Refe-
rence sections of the Cretaceous System of the Mountainous
Crimea. Guidebook of the Field Excursions of the 8th All-Rus-
sian meeting, September 26–October 3, 2016. ChernomorPress
Publishing House, Simferopol, 1–90 (in Russian).
Baraboshkin E.Yu., Baraboshkin E.E., Yanin B.T. & Piskunov V.K.
2016b: Tithonian–Berriasian deep-water ichnoassemblages of
Feodosiya (Republic of Crimea). In: E.Yu. Baraboshkin (Ed.):
The Cretaceous System of Russia and Neighbouring Countries:
Problems of Stratigraphy and Paleogeography. Materials of the
VII All-Russian Conference, September 26–October 3, 2016,
Republic of Crimea. Chernomorpress Publishing House, Sim-
feropol, 45–48 (in Russian).
Baraboshkin E.Yu., Guzhikov A., Arkadiev V. & Baraboshkin E.E.
2017: New Data on the Berriasian Stage of the Crimea. In: 10
th
International Symposium on the Cretaceous. Vienna, August
21–26, 2017. Abstracts. Berichte der Geol. Bundes anst. 120, 23.
Baraboshkin E.Yu., Arkadiev V.V., Guzhikov A.Yu. & Baraboshkin
E.E. 2019: Tirnovella occitanica Zone of the Berriassian in Feo-
dosiya region (Eastern Crimea). Moscow University Geology
Bull. 1, 25–35 (in Russian).
Bralower T.J., Monechi S. & Thierstein H.R. 1989: Calcareous Nan-
nofossil Zonation of the Jurassic–Cretaceous Boundary Interval
and Correlation with the Geomagnetic Polarity Timescale. Mar.
Micropaleont. 14, 153–235.
Casellato C.E. 2010: Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy of Upper
Callovian–Lower Berriasian from the Southern Alps, North Italy.
Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 116, 357–404.
Channell J.E.T., Casellato C.E., Muttoni G. & Erba E. 2010:
Magnetostratigraphy, Nannofossil Stratigraphy and Apparent Polar
Wander for Adria–Africa in the Jurassic–Cretaceous Boundary
Interval. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 293, 51–75.
Dorotyak Yu.B., Matveyev A.V. & Schevchuk Ye.A. 2009: Micro-
paleontologic characteristic of the boundary Jurassic–Creta-
ceous deposits of the Mountain Crimea by foraminifers, calca-
reous nannoplankton, dinocysts, spores, and pollen. In: Fossil
flora and fauna of Ukraine: paleoecological and stratigraphic
aspects. Proceedings of the Institute of Geological Sciences of
the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, 108–117
(in Ukrainian with an English abstract).
Edwards A. 1963: A preparation technique for calcareous nanno-
plankton. Micropaleontology 9, 103–104.
Elbra T., Bubík M., Reháková D., Schnabl P., Čížková K., Pruner P.,
Kdýr Š., Svobodová A. & Švábenická L. 2018: Magneto- and
biostratigraphy across the Jurassic–Cretaceous Boundary in the
Kurovice section, Western Carpathians, Czech Republic. Creta
ceous Res. 89, 211–223.
Grabowski J., Haas J., Márton E. & Pszczółkowski A. 2010: Magne-
to- and biostratigraphy of the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary in
the Lókút section (Transdanubian range, Hungary). Stud. Geo
phys. Geod. 54, 1–26.
Grabowski J., Haas J., Stoykova K., Wierzbowski H., Brański P.
2017: Environmental Changes around the Jurassic/Cretaceous
Transition: New Nannofossil, Chemostratigraphic and Stable
Isotope Data from the Lόkút Section (Transdanubian Range,
Hungary). Sediment. Geol. 360, 54–72.
Guzhikov A.Yu., Arkad’ev V.V., Baraboshkin E.Yu., Bagaeva M.I.,
Piskunov V.K., Rud’ko S.V., Perminov V.A. & Manikin A.G. 2012:
New sedimentological, bio-, and magnetostratigraphic data on the
Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary interval of Eastern Crimea (Feodo-
siya). Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 20, 3, 261–294.
Houša V., Krs M., Krsová M., Man O., Pruner P. & Venhodová D.
1999: High-resolution magnetostratigraphy and micropaleon to-
logy across the J/K boundary strata at Brodno near Žilina, wes-
tern Slovakia: summary results. Cretaceous Res. 20, 699–717.
Lakova I., Grabowski J., Stoykova K., Petrova S., Reháková D.,
Sobień K. & Schnabl P. 2017: Direct correlation of Tithonian/
Berriasian boundary calpionellid and calcareous nannofossil
events in the frame of magnetostratigraphy: new results from the
West Balkan Mts, Bulgaria, and review of existing data. Geol.
Balcanica 46, 2, 47–56.
369
CALCAREOUS NANNOFOSSILS FROM THE FEODOSIYA REGION (EASTERN CRIMEA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, 2019, 70, 4, 355–369
Lukeneder A., Halásová E., Kroh A., Mayrhofer S., Pruner P.,
Reháková D., Schnabl P., Sprovieri M. & Wagreich M. 2010:
High resolution stratigraphy of the Jurassic–Cretaceous boun-
dary interval in the Gresten Klippenbelt (Austria). Geol. Carpath.
61, 4, 365–381.
Matveyev A.V. 2009: Tithonian Calcareous Nannoplankton of the
Eastern Crimea. In: Fossil flora and fauna of Ukraine: paleo-
ecological and stratigraphic aspects. Proceedings of the Institute
of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Kiev, 104–107 (in Ukrainian with an English
abstract).
Matveyev A.V. 2010: Lower Berriasian Calcareous Nannoplankton of
Mountainous Crimea. In: Cretaceous System of Russian and
FSU. Materials of the V All-Russian Meeting. 23–28 August
2010, Ulyanovsk. Ulyanovsk State University Press, 251–256
(in Russian).
Michalík J. & Reháková D. 2011: Possible Markers of the Jurassic/
Cretaceous Boundary in the Mediterranean Tethys: a Review
and a State of Art. Geoscience Frontiers 2, 475–490.
Michalík J., Reháková D., Grabowski J., Lintnerová O., Svobodová A.,
Schlögl J., Sobień K. & Schnabl P. 2016: Stratigraphy, plankton
communites, and magnetic proxies at the Jurassic/Cretaceous
boundary in the Pieniny Klippen Belt (Western Carpathians,
Slovakia). Geol. Carpath. 67, 4, 303–328.
Platonov E., Lakova I., Petrova S. & Arkadiev V. 2014: Tithonian and
Lower Berriasian calpionellid against ammonite biostratigraphy
of the Dvuyakornaya Formation in eastern Crimea. Geol. Balca
nica 43, 1–3, 63–76.
Pruner P., Houša V., Olóriz F., Košťák M., Krs M., Man O., Schnabl P.,
Venhodová D., Tavera J.M. & Mazuch M. 2010: High-resolution
magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphic zonation of the Juras-
sic/Cretaceous boundary strata in the Puerto Escaño section
(Southern Spain). Cretaceous Res. 31, 192–206.
Retowski O. 1893: Die tithonischen Ablagerungen von Theodosia.
Bull. Soc. Natur. Mosc. N. sér. 7, 2–3, 206–301.
Savelieva Yu.N., Shurekova O.V., Feodorova A.A., Arkadiev V.V.,
Grishchenko V.A., Guzhikov A.Yu. & Manikin A.G. 2017:
Microbiostratigraphy of the Berriasian–Valanginian boundary in
Eastern Crimea: foraminifers, ostracods, organic-walled dinofla-
gellate cysts. Geol. Carpath. 68, 6, 517–529.
Sokolov V.D. 1886: Materials on Geology of Crimea. Crimea Titho-
nian. Bull. of Moscow Soc. Devotees Nat. Sci., Anthropology and
Ethnography XIV, 1–43 (in Russian).
Stoykova K., Idakieva V., Ivanov M. & Reháková D. 2018a: Calcareous
nannofossil and ammonite integrated biostratigraphy across the
Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary strata of the Kopanitsa composite
section (West Srednogorie Unit, Southwest Bulgaria). Geol.
Carpath. 69, 2, 199-217.
Stoykova K., Michalík J., Petrova S., Reháková D., Idakieva V.,
Ivanov M. & Andreeva P. 2018b: Correlation of the Jurassic/
Cretaceous boundary sequences in the sections of West Sredno-
gorie, Bulgaria, based on micro- and macrofossil data and sea
level changes.
Review of the Bulgarian Geological Society 79, 3,
103–104.
Svobodová A. & Košťák M. 2016: Calcareous nannofossils of the
Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary strata in the Puerto Escaño Sec-
tion (Southern Spain) — biostratigraphy and paleoecology.
Geol. Carpath. 67, 3, 223–238.
Svobodová A., Švábenická L., Reháková D., Svobodová M., Skupien P.,
Elbra T. & Schnabl P. 2019: The Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary
and high resolution biostratigraphy of the pelagic sequences of
the Kurovice section (Outer Western Carpathians, the northern
Tethyan margin). Geol. Carpath. 70, 2, 153–182.
Wimbledon W.A.P. 2017: Developments with fixing a Tithonian/Ber-
riasian (J/K) boundary. Volumina Jurassica XV, 181–186.
Wimbledon W.A.P., Casellato C.E., Reháková D., Bulot L.C., Erba E.,
Gardin S., Verreussel R.M., Munsterman D.K. & Hunt C.O.
2011: Fixing a Basal Berriasian and Jurassic–Cretaceous (J–K)
Boundary — is there perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel?
Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 117, 295–307.
Wimbledon W.A.P., Reháková D., Pszczółkowski A., Casellato C.E.,
Halásová E., Frau C., Bulot L.G., Grabowski J., Sobień K.,
Pruner P., Schnabl P. & Čížková K. 2013: An Account of the
Bio- and Magnetostratigraphy of the Upper Tithonian–Lower
Berriasian Interval at Le Chouet, Drôme (SE France). Geol.
Carpath. 64, 6, 437–460.