Le Flysch: Définition; Dépôt de Faible Profondeur?

Rech-Frollo, Marguerit

doi:10.1016/s0070-4571(08)70507-7

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If so, and if detrital clays were widely dispersed, the indication is of early diagenetic transformations that did not proceed to completion before burial and consequent restriction of circulation. On the other hand, glauconitisation may have been influenced by the presence of organic matter in the sediment (e.g., Hower 1961;Rech-Frollo 1963;Seed 1965). Because solutions rich in organic complexes will circulate as a result of compaction after burial, the cauliflower glauconite may have formed relatively late in diagenesis.…”

Section: Fig Lo-scanning Electron Photomicrographsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authigenic, perigenic, and allogenic glauconites from the Castle Hill Basin, North Canterbury, New Zealand

McConchie

Lewis

1978

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two major vanenes of glauconite are distinguished within the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary formations of the Castle Hill Basin. Type A is the only variety present in the Upper Cretaceous Broken River Coal Measures, is absent in the Upper Cretaceous to Eocene Iron Creek Greensand which overlies the coal measures, and is sparsely present in the younger (Oligocene to Miocene and possibly early Pliocene) detrital formations. This type is dusky yellow-green, crystallographically disordered with 40-50% expandable layers. It shows a characteristic "cauliflower" texture under the scanning electron microscope. Type A occurs mainly as a matrix/cement in the coal measures, but outlines of rounded grains can be discerned within this interstitial filling; it occurs only as partly rounded fragments in younger formations. Type B is the only variety present in the Iron Creek Greensand and is the most abundant glauconite variety in the younger formations. It is greenish black, crystallographically disordered with 15-25% expandable layers, and has more iron, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium than Type A. Type B always occurs as pellets with spheroidal, ovoidal, or lobate morphology, and resembles the common glauconite de-scribed in most previous literature.Glauconite of Type B is formed originally at the sediment-water interface in a normal marine environment, i.e., it is authigenic and perigenic (transported locally). Glauconite of Type A developed after burial, under conditions of reduced marine salinity and/or influenced by organic decomposition products. In the coal measures it is authigenic, in part being the result of chemical modification of parent glauconite grains which themselves probably had formed at the sedimentwater interface. The vast majority of the glauconite in the younger formations studied has been recycled from the Broken River Coal Measures and the Iron Creek Greensand; i.e., in these occurrences the grains are allogenic.Different varieties of glauconite can be distinguished and used to decipher the stratigraphic record. Also, glauconite can be recycled, hence care must be exercised when using this mineral to provide radiometric dates for deposition of the enclosing sediments.

show abstract

Section: Fig Lo-scanning Electron Photomicrographsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authigenic, perigenic, and allogenic glauconites from the Castle Hill Basin, North Canterbury, New Zealand

McConchie

Lewis

1978

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rejection, which is solely based on the hypothesis that flysch-type deposits are deep-water sediments, is considered unwarranted by the present author. Moreover, bird tracks have also been recorded from flysch-type sequences in Switzerland and Poland (Mangin, 1962a;Rech-Frollo, 1964).…”

Section: Depth Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Depth is but one of the many factors influencing their ecology (Neumann, 1967;Hornibrook, 1968). Some authors, for instance, consider temperature to be more important than depth (Rech-Frollo, 1962). Hornibrook (1968) states that "It appears, however, from the numerous published studies of distribution that many species have different depth distributions in different areas and generalisations about their individual depth limits are unsafe" (p. 26).…”

Section: Depth Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hornibrook (1968) states that "It appears, however, from the numerous published studies of distribution that many species have different depth distributions in different areas and generalisations about their individual depth limits are unsafe" (p. 26). Rech-Frollo (1962) in an excellent discussion of forams as depth indicators, cites many forams, described from flysch-type deposits and considered to indicate great depth of deposition, that today live at shallow depths or at different depths in different latitudes.…”

Section: Depth Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter always contain an appreciable amount of primary matrix, while many occurrences of very clean sands have been reported from deepsea deposits (Ericson et al J 1951;Rech-Frollo, 1962;Hubert, 1964;Hollister and Heezen, 1966;Shepard and Dill, 1966;Felsher, 1967). Nesteroff and Heezen (1963) state that in modern turbidites each sequence is graded vertically.…”

Section: Texture and Sedimentary Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Turbidite Problem

Lingen¹

1969

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The turbidity current hypothesis has met with much support as well as severe criticism. Dogmatic statements in support of this hypothesis are not uncommon in the literature and a clear distinction between fact and inference is not always made. First developed as an explanation for the origin of submarine canyons, the turbidity current hypothesis was later applied to explain the deposition of ancient flysch-type sediments as well as recent deep-sea deposits of alternating coarse and fine layers. Though a turbidity current origin for these two facies has not yet been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, diagnostic features of the one are commonly used to prove such an origin for the other. Such circular reasoning is unwarranted and data from both facies should be kept strictly separated. Evidence to support the turbidity current hypothesis comes from three areas: ancient flysch-type sediments; Recent deep-sea deposits; and experimental turbidity currents. Careful study of this evidence shows so many exceptions, irregularities, and inconsistencies in the general turbidity current concept, that serious doubt as to its general validity must be expressed. More consideration should be given to alternative theories, such as ocean bottom currents and tectonically controlled sedimentation. The ocean bottom current theory provides a good explanation for Recent deep-sea sedimentation, but cannot explain flysch-type deposits. Tectonically controlled sedimentation under relatively shallow water conditions provides a promising working hypothesis for the origin of flysch-type sediments.

show abstract

Le Flysch: Définition; Dépôt de Faible Profondeur?

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Authigenic, perigenic, and allogenic glauconites from the Castle Hill Basin, North Canterbury, New Zealand

Authigenic, perigenic, and allogenic glauconites from the Castle Hill Basin, North Canterbury, New Zealand

The Turbidite Problem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About