A Review of the Devonian Brachiopod Record in the Canning Basin, Western Australia

While brachiopods from the Devonian of the Canning Basin were first described by Hosking (1933),the only monograph of the fauna is that of Veevers (1959), who also introduced a comprehensive zonation forthe basin. Veevers had at his disposal the earlier collection of Teichert (1949), and the large collections madeby the BMR and WAPET survey parties (see Guppy et al., 1958). The BMR survey also had the benefit of airphotography taken in 1947. Most (but unfortunately not all) of Veevers' localities were marked on the airphotos, which are still held by the palaeontological group of BMR. Veevers quoted air-photo coordinates forhis and the WAPET localities, and I have found these very useful in cross-checking the marked points, wherefield and published numbering systems have diverged. In the process, I discovered several misprints in Veevers'published list.
As a recent BMR project to analyse the development of the Canning Basin progressed, it becameapparent that any use of Veevers' brachiopod biostratigraphy was severely limited by uncertainty over the correctstratigraphic position of his localities, in terms of more recently published geological maps (especially Playford&amp; Lowry, 1966). This report is an attempt to address that problem.
From all available information, but particularly the air-photos, I have plotted the localities quoted byVeevers onto the current 1:100,000 topographic sheets. Except in areas of little topographic expression thiscould be done with an accuracy equal to that of the map compilations. The results are presented in the firstsection of this report, in which I give as detailed as possible a description of the location of each publishedbrachiopod locality. Coincidentally I have been compiling a catalogue of the BMR holdings of published corals.In the process of providing locality and stratigraphy details I found that there were frequently small discrepanciesfor the heights quoted for localities in measured sections by Hill &amp; Jell (1970) on the one hand, and Veevers(1959) and Veevers &amp; Wells (1961) on the other. I have no way to resolve this, and quote Veevers' figuresherein.
I then compared Veevers' published stratigraphic information on the localities against the maps inPlayford &amp; Lowry (1966). These are at the same scale of 1:100,000, although with the old 10,000 yard grid.There were a few topographic discrepancies, but in general this was straightforward. Note was also taken,where possible, of more recent published geological maps (e.g. Druce &amp; Radke, 1979). In making thiscomparison I found relatively few significant changes were needed, other than those resulting from actualchanges in stratigraphic terminology. In the absence of additional biostratigraphic data, I could not generallygo beyond the reassessment of the zonation made by Roberts et al. (1972). 
However, work on conodont faunasby Nicoll (1980) near a couple of key localities in the Crurithyris apena Zone has led me to establish with someconfidence that that zone must extend into the early Famennian. This partly or completely closes the gapbetween it and the succeeding Nyege scopimus Zone shown by Roberts et al, and is discussed in more detailbelow.
Several of the species described by Veevers have since been either fully revised, or at least placed indifferent genera. A few new taxa have also been described. I have brought the results together here in a singlesystematic list, as well as incorporating them in the various lists showing brachiopod distribution, and the tableof zonal distribution.

Tags: AU-WA, Earth Sciences, GA Publication, Published_External, Record, palaeontology
Organization: Geoscience Australia Data