Age and Correlation ofthe
Chattanooga Shale andthe Maury Formation
GEOLOGICALSURVEYPROFESSIONAL

PAPER

286

Age and Correlation ofthe
Chattanooga Shale andthe Maury Formation
By WILBERT H. HASSGEOLOGICALSURVEYPROFESSIONAL

PAPER

286

A contribution to the Devonian and Mississippian
black-shale problem, based on conodont studies

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1956

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFred A. Seaton, Secretary
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Thomas B. Nolan, Director

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D. C.

CONTENTS

Abstract.__________________________________
Introduction. ______________________________
Previous work.______________________________
Chattanooga shale.__-___.-____-___________.
Standard section of the Chattanooga shale.
Hardin sandstone member_______________
Dowelltown member.___________________
Gassaway member.____-__--_-___-______

Page
1
2
3
13
13
15
16
20

Page
23
23
23
26
L8
44
47

Maury formation__________________________
Standard section of the Maury formation .
Age and characteristics.________________
Measured sections.______________--_-_---_Conodont collections.______-______--__-____
Literature cited__________________________

Index, ____________________________________ILLUSTRATIONS[PL 1, in pocket; pis. 2-5 follow index]
PLATE 1. Collecting localities, Chattanooga shale and Maury formation.
2. Conodonts from the Maury formation.
3. Conodonts from the Gassaway member of the Chattanooga shale.
4. Conodonts from the Dowelltown member of the Chattanooga shale.
5. Type section of the Chattanooga shale, Cameron Hill, Chattanooga, Tenn.

Page

FIGURE 1. Range of significant conodont genera and species in the Chattanooga shale of the Eastern Highland Rim, in
Tennessee-__._-__-______-___-___-____________-______-________-_____--___-_---._-_-__--____-______

17

TABLESPage
TABLE 1. Standard section of the Chattanooga shale_-________-_______-_____-._-_--____-,_-..--_-_--___..-__----____
12
2. Comparison of stratigraphic limits of Campbell's type sections of his Dowelltown and Gassaway formations andthe amended section adopted for this report-________._________-_-_____---______.---__-____---____-_---1&
3. Distribution of easily recognized conodont species of the basal sandstone of the Dowelltown member where, theChattanooga shale section is essentially complete, and of the Trousdale shale of Pohl_______________________
18
4. Distribution of significant conodont species present in the lower fauna of the Gassaway member________-._.___
21
5. Distribution of significant conodont species present in the major part of the Maury formation—_____ — _______
25
6. Conodont collections from the Chattanooga shale, Maury formation, and New Providence shale _______________
38
7. Distribution of conodont species.-.-._______________________________________________ _______________ In pocket
8. Distribution of conodont species______-___--__-------____._____________-__-_-____--___--____.___.___ In pocketmAGE AND CORRELATION OF THE CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND THE MAURY FORMATION
By WILBERT H. HASSABSTRACTThe Chattanooga shale and the overlying Maury formation ofcentral Tennessee and adjacent States belong to the Devonianand Mississippian black-shale sequence. This sequence occurs
throughout much of the interior of the United States and a partof Canada.
The Chattanooga shale is herein considered to be of Late
Devonian age though the oldest beds of the formation could beof late Middle Devonian age. The Maury formation is hereinconsidered to be of Mississippian (Kinderhook and possibly
Osage) age with one exception—in a part of north-central
Tennessee the basal bed of the Maury is classified as very late
Devonian. The age designations, faunal zonations, and correlations of the paper are based, for the most part, on a studyof the conodonts in 325 collections from 65 measured sections;conodonts in 186 collections from 27 of the measured sections
are mentioned by number.
The Chattanooga shale has three members: the Hardin sandstone, the Dowelltown, and the Gassaway (youngest). The
Hardin sandstone member grades into the overlying Dowelltown
member. It is a local thickening of the basal sandstone bed of
the Chattanooga shale, and is restricted to the vicinity of Wayne,
Perry, Lawrence, and Hardin Counties, Tenn., and to the adjoining part of Alabama. The Hardin consists chiefly of siliceous
fine-grained sand and silt, and is as much as 16 feet thick. It isherein classified as early Late Devonian though some part of themember could be late Middle Devonian.
The basal sandstone bed of the Chattanooga shale commonly
ranges in thickness from a featheredge to about 0.5 foot, though,as stated above, to the southwest of the Nashville Basin, itis thicker and is there called the Hardin sandstone member.
This basal sandstone is a transgressive deposit, for in some areas
it is a part of the Dowelltown member and elsewhere, where theDowelltown is absent, it is a part of the Gassaway member.
Along the Eastern Highland Rim where it is a part of the Dowelltown member, the basal sandstone contains early Late Devonian
conodonts like those in the lowermost part of the New Albany
shale of Indiana and the "conodont bed" of the Genundewa
limestone lentil of the Geneseo shale of New York; but where theolder beds of the Chattanooga shale are missing, as, for example,
near the crest of the Cincinnati anticline, and in south-central
Tennessee and north-central Alabama, the basal sandstone contains younger Late Devonian conodonts.
Good sections of the Chattanooga shale are exposed along theEastern Highland Rim of central Tennessee from southern Jackson County south into Coffee and Bedford Counties. Throughout much of that area the formation is between 25 and 35 feetthick and its subdivisions—the Gassaway and the Dowelltown
members—are well developed. In the above-mentioned areaof the Eastern Highland Rim, the Dowelltown is between
10 and 17.5 feet thick and consists of two persistent litho-

logic units: a lower one which is predominantly black shaler
and an upper one which is primarily a grayish mudstone, near
the top of which occurs a bentonite bed, about 0.1 foot thick.
This bentonite bed is probably present throughout at least 4,000'
square miles of east-central Tennessee. Along the outcrop,
northward from southern Jackson County—except in the Flynn
Creek structure—the Dowelltown is probably less than 10 feetthick. Also, it wedges out southward in the Sequatchie Valleyof eastern Tennessee and has not been recognized in south-central
Tennessee or in north-central Alabama. On the west flank of
the Cincinnati anticline the Dowelltown is commonly a sandy
black shale, and is as much as 17 feet thick. At Olive Hill,
Hardin County, where its relationships to the Hardin sandstone
member are evident, the Dowelltown is 31.8 feet thick. The
Dowelltown is assigned by the writer to the Upper Devonian
Finger Lakes, Chemung, and basal Cassadaga stages of Cooper(Cooper and others, 1942); however, its basal beds may belong
to the uppermost part of the Middle Devonian.
The Gassaway member is chiefly a thin-bedded, grayish-blackshale, though along a part of the Eastern Highland Rim, it cart
be subdivided into two black-shale units and an intervening
thin zone consisting of gray mudstone and black shale. The
member is between 12 and 21 feet thick along the Eastern Highland Rim but is thinner in south-central Tennessee and northcentral Alabama. It is absent throughout most of Lawrence
County, Tenn. and parts of the adjacent counties; on the other
hand, it is at least 46.4 feet thick in south-central Kentucky.
Phosphatic nodules occur in the youngest beds of the Gassaway
member. These nodule-bearing beds range in thickness froma featheredge in DeKalb County, Tenn., to more than 8 feet in
the vicinity of Somerset, Pulaski County, Ky.
The Gassaway member contains two distinct conodont faunas.
The older fauna ranges throughout most of the Gassaway interval and its widespread occurrence indicates that during somepart of Gassaway time, deposition of sediments took placethroughout most of the central Tennessee area. Beds having
this older fauna are correlated with the lower part of the Ohio
shale of Ohio and Kentucky; the Antrim shale as exposed in the
Paxton shale pit west of Alpena, Mich.; the major part of the
middle division of the New Albany shale of Indiana; a faunalzone of the middle division of the Arkansas novaculite of Arkansas and Oklahoma; a faunal zone of the Woodford chert ofOklahoma; and a faunal zone that ranges throughout most of
the Chattanooga shale of northeastern Oklahoma. All theseformations or parts of formations are classified as Late Devonian.
The Chattanooga shale and the Maury formation probably
are separated by an unconformity throughout much of southcentral Tennessee and north-central Alabama for, there, theyoungest beds of the Gassaway member have not been recognized. These youngest beds have phosphatic nodules andconodonts like those in the upper part of the Upper Devonian
1

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

Ohio shale of Ohio and Kentucky, and in that part of the Sanderson formation of Campbell (1946) which, at the type localityof the Sanderson, near New Albany, Ind. contains phosphatic
nodules and directly underlies Campbell's Falling Run memberof his Sanderson formation. The present writer classifies theFalling Run member as early Mississippian (Kinderhook) andthe underlying beds of the type Sanderson as Late Devonian.
The Maury formation is a well-defined lithologic unit wherever it underlies the Fort Payne chert but its top is indefinite
wherever it underlies beds identified in the literature as the
Ridgetop shale and the New Providence shale. The formationis generally 1.5 to 3.0 feet thick and consists for the most partof grayish-yellow, green, and greenish-gray, glauconitic mudstones. Phosphatic nodules are commonly scattered throughout
the Maury and at many localities also occur as a course or bed
at or near the base of the formation. In a part of north-central
Tennessee this nodule bed contains Late Devonian conodonts
like those in the youngest beds of the Gassaway member of the
Chattanooga shale, but elsewhere in central Tennessee, it contains early Mississippian (Kinderhook) conodonts. The phosphatic-nodule bed at the base of the New Providence shale ofsouth-central Kentucky has a similar Mississippian conodont
fauna and, therefore, the writer considers the Maury formation
to be the biostratigraphic equivalent of the lower part of the
New Providence shale.
There are several distinct conodont faunas in the Maury formation. In a part of north-central Tennessee, a thin grayishblack shale occurs just above the aforementioned basal phosphatic-nodule bed that contains Late Devonian conodonts.
This black shale has an early Mississippian conodont fauna;"but the conodonts that seem to range throughout most of theMaury formation are like those in the Sunbury shale of Ohio
and Kentucky; the uppermost part of the New Albany shale ofIndiana; the Bushberg sandstone member of the Sulphur Springs
formation and the Hannibal shale, both of Missouri; beds near
the top of the middle division of the Arkansas novaculite of
Arkansas and Oklahoma; a faunal zone of the Woodford chertof Oklahoma; and a faunal zone of the Chattanooga shale ofnortheastern Oklahoma. All these formations or parts of formations are classified as Mississippian (Kinderhook). At somelocalities the Maury formation contains conodonts of late Kinderhook age and probably others of early Osage age.
INTRODUCTION

Because the Chattanooga shale of central Tennessee
is a potential source of oil, uranium., and other materials,
members of the United States Geological Survey havebeen investigating that formation. This report on the.age and correlation of the Chattanooga shale and theMaury formation is a part of that study.
The Chattanooga shale, which, when first delimited
by Hayes (1891, 1892, 1894a, 1894b, 1894c, 1894d,
1895), included the beds herein called the Maury formation, is a part of the Devonian and Mississippian
black-shale sequence. This sequence is present throughout much of the interior of the United States and a partof Canada. It varies in age from place to place and is
known by many different names; usually, the oldest
beds are considered to be of late Middle Devonian age
and the youngest, of early Mississippian age. Numerous

papers have been written on the age and correlation ofthese beds but much of the record is incorrect because
it is based on inadequate data, for the black shales do
not contain—except at a few widely spaced localities—
the fossils commonly used in stratigraphic paleontology.
Instead, the recognizable fauna and flora consist
chiefly of inarticulate brachiopods, a few arthropods,
fish remains, conodonts, and plant fragments andspores. Of these, conodonts are the best fossils on
which to base an age determination or correlation. In
central Tennessee the black shales unconformably overlie beds of Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian ages
and underlie beds of Mississippian age.
This report is based on a study of conodonts in 325
collections from 65 measured sections. However, inorder to avoid a great duplication of data, only 186 ofthese collections from 27 of the measured sections are
mentioned by number in the report. The stratigraphic
position of each collection has been referred either tothe Chattanooga shale-Maury formation contact orto the Chattanooga shale-New Providence shale
contact. Conodonts in most of the 186 collections arelisted either in table 7 or in table 8; and the localities
from which the collections came are indicated in plate 1.
Locality data are given on pages 26 to 38, and information pertaining to individual collections is listed on
pages 38 to 43. Some of the conodonts consideredsignificant in determining the age and correlation of the
Chattanooga shale and the Maury formation are
illustrated in plates 2-4, and their stratigraphic range
in the Chattanooga shale of the Eastern Highland Rimof central Tennessee is recorded in figure 1. All specimens illustrated in this paper have been deposited in
the United States National Museum. Locality numbers are the same as those used by L. C. Conant andV. E. Swanson in a paper they are now preparing on the
Chattanooga shale.
Many conodonts that belong chiefly to the bladelike
and barlike genera have been disregarded because thespecies of these genera are not easily differentiated.
Molds of conodonts are common in the black shales,
and rubber replicas were made of many such specimens
as an aid to their identification.
The stratigraphic classification used in this paper
was agreed upon during a field conference held May 4 to
7, 1952, in central Tennessee between P. E. Cloud, Jr.,J. S. Williams, L. C. Conant, V. E. Swanson, and thewriter. The classification follows:
Mississippian:Maury formation: throughout much of the area the basal
bed of the Maury contains many phosphatic nodules.
This nodule bed is classified as early Mississippian except
in a part of north-central Tennessee where it is probablyof very late Devonian age.

INTRODUCTION

Upper Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member
Dowelltown member
Hardin sandstone member

Field work was T)egun in June 1944 when A. L.
Slaughter, S. E. Clabaugh, and the writer did reconnaissance work on the Devonian and Mississippian blackshales of the eastern United States. Outcrops incentral Tennessee—at Horseshoe Bend on the Caney
Fork in White County (locality 88) and in the Flynn
Creek area of Jackson County (locality 54)—weremeasured and sampled, and it was partly through theseinvestigations that the potentialities of the black shales
in a part of the Eastern Highland Run of Tennessee asa source of uranium became evident. During June
1947 the writer collected conodonts from some of thesections in central Tennessee and south-central Kentucky that Campbell (1946) listed in his paper on the
New Albany shale; also, in June 1947, the writer (Hass,
1948) discovered a thin bed of bentonite in the upper
part of the Dowelltown member of the Chattanooga
shale. The type area of the Chattanooga shale was
first studied by the writer (Hass, 1947b) during thesummer of 1947.
In November 1947 the United States Geological
Survey placed a party hi central Tennessee for the
purpose of investigating the Chattanooga shale for
the Raw Materials Division of the Atomic Energy
Commission. L. C. Conant was in charge of theinvestigation, and the writer, who was with the party
intermittently, was responsible for the paleontologic
and some of stratigraphic phases of the work. V. E.
Swanson joined the party in June 1949 and worked
mostly in the area between the Western Highland
Rim of central Tennessee and the Tennessee River.
He worked also in northwest Georgia, north Alabama,and northeast Mississippi. The following field men
assisted in the measurement and interpretation ofsections: R. C. Robeck, 1947-49; R. E. Smith, 1947-48;
Andrew Brown, 1947-49; and W. A. Heck, 1948. Mostof the collections were prepared in 1948 and 1949 by
L. A. Shirley, W. M. Hisey, and Alford Rarick, all ofwhom were geology students at the University of
Alabama.
PREVIOUS WORK

The literature on the age and correlation of theblack-shale sequence of central Tennessee and nearby
States contains many conflicting opinions. Witness,for example, some of the ideas that have been held:
Safford (1851) regarded the "Black or bituminous
slate" of central Tennessee as one of his five major
stratigraphic units. He assigned it to the Devonian

but several years later he (1856, p. 148, 149) placed
the "Black slate" in the Carboniferous as the lowest
division of that system. Even so, Safford (1856, p.
158) mentioned in a footnote that the age of the "Blackslate" is in doubt.
In his "Geology of Tennessee" Safford (1869, p. 150,
151) regarded the black shale as of Devonian age. He(1869, p. 330, 331) stated that to the west of the
Cumberland tableland the "Black shale group" or"Black shale formation" consists of three parts, whichfrom top to bottom are:
1. A thin bed of argillaceous, fetid, concretionary
bodies commonly called "kidneys".
2. Black shale.
3. A dark-gray sandstone which is bituminous,
fetid, and commonly fined grained. This
sandstone was reported to range in thickness
from a few inches to 15 feet and to form
conspicuous ledges in Wayne, Hardin, andsouthwest Lewis Counties, Tenn.
The divisions of Safford's "Black shale group" havebeen recognized by subsequent workers, but, as indicated on the following pages, these divisions have beentreated in various ways.
Killebrew and Safford (1874, p. 28, 39) briefly mentioned the "Black shale" of Tennessee. They assigned
it to the Devonian "Hamilton period." And Smith(1878, p. 10, 11; 1890, p. 154, 155) who worked in
Alabama considered the "Black shale" of that State
to be of Devonian age.
The name "Chattanooga black shale" was proposed
by Hayes (1891, p. 142, 143) as a substitute for Smith's(1878, p. 10, 11; 1890, p. 154, 155) and Safford's (1869,
p. 330) nongeographic term "Black shale." It included the beds between the Rockwood formation of
Silurian age and the Fort Payne chert of Carboniferous
age. Hayes' (1892, 1894a, 1894b, 1894c, 1894d, 1895)"Chattanooga black shale" consists of two units: alower black shale and an upper gray one which commonly contains a layer of round concretions. He
placed the formation in the Devonian and designatedthe outcrop at the north end of Cameron Hill in
Chattanooga, Tenn., as the type locality.
Safford and Killebrew (1900, p. 104) proposed aclassification of the black-shale sequence that differedfrom previous ones. They used several new stratigraphic names:
Carboniferous:
Mississippian or Subcarboniferous:
Maury green shale (ball or kidney phosphate)
Devonian:Black shale (Chattanooga shale)
Swan Creek phosphate
Hardin sandstone

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATIONThe Maury green shale of Safford and Killebrew(1900, p. 104, 141-143) is the top division of Safford's(1869) "Black shale group", and the gray-shale unit ofHayes' (1892, 1894a, 1894b, 1894c, 1894d, 1895)"Chattanooga black shale." The Maury was describedas ranging from a few inches to 5 feet in thickness, as
containing concretions of calcium phosphate, and as
including the beds between the Tullahoma formationand the underlying "Black shale (Chattanooga shale)."
It was named for Maury County. Safford and Killebrew (1900, p. 104, 138, 139) proposed the name "Swan
Creek phosphate" for a phosphatic bed which they statedranges from 10 to 50 inches in thickness in Lewis andHickman Counties, Tenn., and from 1 to 10 inches, inthe adjacent area. In the present paper the name
"Swan Creek phosphate" is not used. The bed so identified by Safford and Killebrew is the basal sandstone of
the Gassaway member. The Hardin sandstone of
Safford and Killebrew (1900, p. 104, 137) is the lower
division of Safford's (1869) "Black shale group."
Hayes and Ulrich's (1903) Chattanooga shale—
which they also refer to as the "Chattanooga formation"—is the "Chattanooga black shale" of Hayes(1891). As so defined, their Chattanooga shale includes
Safford and Killebrew's (1900) Maury green shale,
Black shale (Chattanooga shale), Swan Creek phosphate,and Hardin sandstone. Hayes and Ulrich (1903, explanation of correlation table) classified the Chattanooga shale as Devonian, stating that it "seems torepresent the whole of, and perhaps more than, theupper Devonian deposits of Pennsylvania and New
York."
Ulrich (1905, p. 24, 25) suggested that the Devonian
black shale should be called the Ohio shale because thatname had priority over other geographic names including Chattanooga shale and New Albany shale.
Also, he divided the Mississippian into two divisions ofundesignated rank: the Tennessean, which included
Chester and Meramec rocks, and the Waverlyan,
which included Osage and Kinderhook rocks.
Grabau (1906, p. 612, 613) regarded the "Black
shale" of the southern United States asa basal deposit—a residual soil of an ancient peneplain, very fineand very carbonaceous, and the result in many places of thesolution of calcareous strata. [He believed that] this soil was
worked over by the transgressing Mississippian sea, which rearranged it, washed it from the higher points, and collected it
in greater thickness in the depressions of the old peneplain. As
the water deepened, deposition of calcareous shales or of limestones followed, the transition being a perfect one—sometimes
gradual, sometimes abrupt.

Grabau held that the name Ohio shale—of Late Devonian age—could not be used for the transgressive "Black
shale" of the southern United States. He suggested
that the name "Chattanooga shale" might be used if itwere "dissociated from the idea of any definite age
relations."
In 1911 Ulrich proposed a new classification of the
Paleozoic. In this classification Mississippian rocks
were assigned either to the Tennessean system, which
included those of Meramec and Chester ages, or to the
Waverlyan system, which included those of Kinderhook and Osage ages. Ulrich refused to accept suchstratigraphic concepts as facies faunas and lithofacies;
moreover he was of the opinion that the geologic systems should be delimited by widespread pronounced
unconformities. Because of these views, Ulrich proposed that a new series—the Chattanoogan—be inserted into the Waverlyan system below the Kinderhookian. The general time scale of the Waverlyan
according to Ulrich (1911, pi. 29) and the formations in
middle Tennessee assigned to that system follow:
Middle Tennessee formations

General time scale

Waverlyan:
Osagian:
KeokukLate Burlington
Early Burlington
Fern Glen
Kinderhookian:Chouteau
Hannibal
Glen Park
Louisiana
Chattanoogan:
Sunbury
Berea
BedfordCleveland

Fort Payne chertiK
3
H

New Providence shale

Ridgetop shale
Maury shale
Black shaleuHardin sandstone

By 1911 Ulrich's (1911, p. 426) studies had led him
to believe that much of the black-shale sequence of theinterior of the United States is post-Devonian, for, withthe exception of "the lower part of the 'New Albany
shale,' which is probably of Devonian age," he knew of
no deposits of unquestionable Late Devonian age in
Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, or Oklahoma.
In 1911 Bassler (1911, p. 214) also considered theChattanooga shale and its thin basal sandstone—
identified as the Hardin sandstone member—as thefirst post-Devonian deposit of central Tennessee. The
basal sandstone was reported to contain reworked
silicified fossils of Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian
ages in addition to many specimens of fish teeth andconodonts that Bassler thought are like those that
Newberry (1875) had found in the Cleveland shale ofOhio. A similar conodont fauna was believed (Bassler,
1911, p. 214) to be present in the black-shale portionof the Chattanooga shale.
Bassler believed that two Tennessee formations ofWaverlyan age had been deposited in a number ofclosely spaced embayments. He (Bassler, 1911, p.

PEEVIOUS WOEK216) proposed the name "Bidgetop shale" for theolder formation and designated the outcrops along theLouisville and Nashville Railroad between Bakers in
Davidson County and Eidgetop in Robertson County
as the type locality. The Ridgetop shale according
toBassler (1911, p. 223) is early Kinderhookian.
The New Providence shale is the other Waverlyan
formation that Bassler believed was deposited in a
number of embayments. He (1911, p. 218-220, 223)
was of the opinion that the formation is early Osagianand regarded the exposures at Whites Creek Springs(Crocker Springs), Davidson County, Tenn., as themost "important Waverlyan section of Tennessee."
Kindle (1912b) believed that it is possible to havedifferent contemporaneous faunas and distinct lithofacies
represented in the rocks of the same basin of deposition;and instead of accepting the idea that the Chattanooga
shale is Mississippian because it is separated from theunderlying rocks by a widespread unconformity,
Kindle placed most of the black-shale sequence of theeastern United States in the Devonian. According toKindle (1912a, p. 136) the hiatus at the base of the
Chattanooga shale represents the early Genesee, thelate Hamilton, or both.
Kindle (1912a, p. 130-135) believed that so far as
the Chattanooga shale is concerned, Bassler's (1911)
paper on "The Waverlyan period of Tennessee" canbe reduced to the following three propositions:
1. The Chattanooga shale of central Tennessee isdistinct from the black shales designated as the Chattanooga shale in the U. S. Geological Survey folios ofeastern Tennessee. Kindle rejected this proposition;
he regarded the black shales of central and eastern
Tennessee as correlatives and as Devonian in age.
General time scale

His opinion was based on his finding identical conodont
faunas in the shales of the two areas.
2. The Chattanooga shale is a correlative of theCleveland shale of Ohio. Kindle did not take issue
with this proposition, but stated that, in his opinion,
the Chattanooga shale is probably a correlative not
only of the Cleveland shale of Ohio but also "of muchof the remainder of the Ohio shale as well."
3. The Cleveland shale of Ohio is of Waverlyan age.
Kindle disagreed with this proposition. According toKindle, the evidence, submitted by Newberry and restated by Bassler, in support of a Waverlyan age for
the Cleveland shale is incorrect. That age designation
was based in part on the reported presence of Carboniferous fishes in the Cleveland shale; but, according toKindle, such fishes have not been found by subsequent
workers. Instead, Kindle claimed some of the Cleveland fishes are similar to those present in rocks ofaccepted Devonian age. As for the conodont faunaof the Cleveland shale, which Bassler claimed is also
hi the Chattanooga shale of central Tennessee, Kindle
stated that the recorded evidence indicated a Devonian
Ulrich (1912, p. 157, 162, 164) regarded diastrophism
as the ultimate basis for the division of the geologic
column hi to systems. He clarified his stand on the timestratigraphic limits of the Chattanoogan series, statingthat the Cleveland shale, as previously delimited by him,
consists of the Cleveland shale, Olmsted shale, and Huron
shale of other authors—that is, the Chattanoogan series
embraces the formations from the base of the Huron
shale to the top of the Sunbury shale. These formations and their correlatives in Tennessee, according to
Ulrich, are given below.
Tennessee section

Ohio section

Waverlyan:
Kinderhookian
Chattanoogan:
Sunbury
Berea
BedfordCleveland
Olmsted
Huron
Devonian:
Neodevonian:
Chemung
Portage
Genesee

Sunbury shale
Berea sandstone
Bedford shale
Cleveland shale
Olmsted shale
Huron shaleO

Sunbury shale equivalent

Cleveland shale equivalent

Chagrin formation(? break)? Genesee shale

Ulrich (1912, p. 158) did not believe that the Cleveland-Olmsted-Huron sequence could be a black lithofacies which grades eastward into the gray, Upper
Devonian, Chagrin shale—a view held at least in partby many geologists, including Prosser (1912, p. 515-518),
Kindle (1912b), Kindle (in Prosser, 1912, p. 518), and
366719—56———2

beo

G. A. Cooper (Cooper and others, 1942, p. 1764).
Instead, Ulrich (1912, p. 159, 166) held that the
Cleveland-Olmsted-Huron sequence wedges out eastward on top of the Chagrin shale which in turn wedges
out westward. The wedging out in different directionsof these two rock sequences was due, in Ulrich's

6

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

opinion (1912, p. 159), to a tilting of the North American
Continent; this tilting permitted the sea to invade theContinent from the north-middle-Atlantic area in the
Late Devonian and from the Gulf of Mexico in Chattanoogan time. Ulrich (1912, p. 158) believed that there
is a close and undeniable similarity in the conodont
and fish faunas of the Cleveland shale and the Huron
shale—faunas which, he claimed, are quite unlike those"in the supposed intervening Chagrin shale." However,
his opinion regarding the close similarity of the conodont faunas of the Cleveland shale and the Huron shaleis open to question. The writer (Hass, 1947a) hasstudied the conodont faunas of these two shales andhas found them to be dissimilar.
According to Ulrich (1912, p. 170, 171)
In Tennessee, more particularly in the west middle part of thestate, a ... [time] break is indicated by the Maury shale, athin glauconite bed often filled with phosphatized concretions,that probably represents surficial decomposition and subsequent
recementation. This layer was referred to the top of the Chattanooga by Hayes and Ulrich [1903], which is correct if we consider chiefly the origin of its material. But if the date of its
recementation and the fact that its top includes both reworked
and transported material is brought into the foreground, thelayer becomes debatable ground. On the latter grounds, I[Ulrich] take it, Safford [and Killebrew, [1900], and more recently
Bassler [1911], have classified the Maury shale as post-Chattanoogan.

Ulrich did not favor this classification. On practicalgrounds he preferred to place the Maury green shale ofSafford and Killebrew (1900) in the Chattanooga shale,
instead of regarding it as the recemented basal depositof the immediately overlying formation. Otherwise,
he claimed, the age of the Maury, even in the samegeneral area, would differ from outcrop to outcrop.
For example, where directly overlain by the Ridgetop
shale, the recemented Maury would be of early Kinderhook age; where directly overlain by the New Providence shale, it would be of early Osage age; and where
directly overlain by the Fort Payne chert, it would beof late Osage age.
To Ulrich (1912, p. 162) the term "Chattanooga
shale" as used by many of his contemporaries refers to
the entire black-shale sequence present "between the
middle Devonian and the first limy or sandy beds ofthe Mississippian." In Ulrich's opinion, the following
two distinct groups of black shales are present within
this interval:
1. A younger group of Waverlyan age, which includes
the Chattanooga shale of the middle Tennessee area.
2. An older group of Devonian age, of which theGenesee segment is the most important.
Although Ulrich (1912, p. 164, 166, 167) believed that
representatives of both groups are probably in Kentucky, he was of the opinion that only the upper partof the younger group (Cleveland shale and Sunbury
shale equivalents) is in central Tennessee. The Hardinsandstone was considered to be the transgressive basal
bed of the Chattanooga shale.
Drake (1914), in his paper on the economic geologyof the Waynesboro quadrangle in Tennessee considered
the Chattanooga shale and the Hardin sandstone member to be of Late Devonian age. He referred to theMaury green shale of Safford and Killebrew (1900)
as the Maury glauconitic member of the Ridgetop shaleand believed it rested unconformably upon either the
Chattanooga shale or the Hardin sandstone member.
In 1915, Ulrich (1915, p. 96-99) stated that his"Chattanoogan is approximately contemporaneouswith the Kinderhookian series." The presence of awidespread unconformity beneath the Chattanooga
shale was cited as evidence for placing that formationin the Mississippian. Also, he regarded the Ridgetop
shale of Tennessee as of late Kinderhook age—rather
than early, as previously held—and stated that inasmuch as the Ridgetop grades into the underlying
Chattanooga shale, the latter formation is inferred tobe "at least in part, of early Mississippian age."
Shaw and Mather (1919, p. 48-51) reported on the
Chattanooga shale in Alien County, Ky. In theirpaper, the shale was classified as Devonian. They published a paleontological report by Ulrich, who statedthat the fossils from an upper horizon of the Chattanooga shale indicate an early Mississippian (Berea"grit" and Sunbury shale) age, and those from a lower
horizon indicate a possible "late Devonian but moreprobably [a] very early Mississippian (Cleveland shale)age." Ulrich identified Lingula cf. L. subspatulata,[probably = Barroisella campbelli Cooper], ?Pseudobornia, "Sporangites huronensis" [Tasmanites huronensis (Dawson)], and conodonts in a collection from thelower part of the Chattanooga shale; and Lingula melief
Orbiculoidea newberryi, and conodonts in collections fromthe upper part of the shale. He also reported on somefossils that were collected by Wallace Lee and Mather
from a thin conglomeratic sandstone at an exposure on"Bledsoe Creek, 2 or 3 miles north of Bransford,"
Sumner County, Tenn. (See Mather, 1920, p. 19, 20.)
This sandstone is CampbelTs (1946) Bransford sandstone member of his Gassaway formation. Ulrich
recognized some fish bones and teeth, including a
Cladodus tooth, and two species of Lingula in the collection from the sandstone in addition to conodonts which
he stated are like those "commonly found in the Cleveland shale in Ohio, in the lower and middle parts of the
Chattanooga shale in the Appalachian region, and in thephosphatic basal deposit of the same formation incentral Tennessee." He suggested that the sandstone
might represent a part of the Berea sandstone of Ohio.

PREVIOUS WORK

Shaw and Matter's report on Alien County, Ky.,
was followed by Mather's (1920) paper on an adjoining
area in Sumner County, Tenn. In Mather's paper
the Chattanooga shale was officially classified by theUnited States Geological Survey and the State Geological Survey of Tennessee as Devonian or Carboniferous; but Mather (1920, p. 19) personally considered
the Chattanooga shale of northern Tennessee andsouthern Kentucky to be of early Mississippian age.
He stated that the black-shale sequence consists of
two divisions or formations: "the lower of theseformations may be of Devonian age, but the upper, inthe writer's [Mather's] opinion, must be considered
Mississippian."
Miser (1921, p. 16, 23, 24) classified the Chattanooga
shale as Devonian or Carboniferous. He considered
the Hardin sandstone to be a member of the Chattanooga shale and placed the Maury glauconitic member of the Ridgetop shale in the Carboniferous.
Swartz (1924, p. 24) proposed the name "Glendale
shale" for "a thin, hard, gray shale crowded with Lingulamelie" that overlies the Chattanooga shale and underlies
the Fort Payne chert hi the vicinity of Chattanooga,
Tenn. The Glendale shale of Swartz is consideredherein to be the upper division of Hayes' (1891, 1892,
1894a, 1894b, 1984c, 1894d, 1895) "Chattanooga blackshale," and the Maury green shale of Safford andKUlebrew (1900). Swartz, however, was of the opinion
that his Glendale shale consists of beds which, prior
to his work, had been included in the Fort Payne chert.
He correlated his Glendale with the lower part of the
Cuyahoga shale of Ohio; this correlation was based on
the presence in both formations of numerous phosphatic brachiopods, identified as Lingula melie.
He(1924, p. 24-26) regarded an exposure near Apison,
Tenn., as important for determining the age and correlatives of the Chattanooga shale. His section is
given below:
Ft. Payne chert.
Hard gray shale, full of concretions, becoming
much darker towards the base. From 4 to 6
inches above the base are found Lingula melie
abundant- ____________ ____________________
Black shale-_--------____-__-_.--___--____-___
Light to somewhat dark gray clay shale, containing, about 6 inches above the base, Lingula
irvinensis, Orbiculoidea ovata var. transversa n.
var., Schuchertella sp., Rhipidomella sp., Chonetes
acutiliratus Girty, and a poorly preserved rhynchonelliform braehiopod-____________________
Black shale._________________________________
Very argillaceous sandstone._-__---_-_____-____
Rockwood formation: gray, greenish, and buff
arenaceous shale and argillaceous sandstone.

Feet

Inches

2
2

11
10/2

1
10

10
8
4

Swartz's (1924, p. 25, 26) remarks on the Apison
section follow;

The fossiliferous gray shale of the above section furnishes the
key to the situation. Chonetes acutiliratus Girty (in manuscript) was originally described from the Bedford shale of Ohio.
The Rhipidomella sp. is very similar to if not identical with aform from the Bedford shale of Ohio also being described by
Girty. Lingula irvinensis was originally described from the
Bedford-Berea shale of Indian Fields, Kentucky. Both thefossils and lithology serve to identify it with the Bedford-Berea
wedge traced to east central Kentucky by Morse and Foerste
in 1909. This correlation is further strengthened by its position
between two black shales.
Swartz also wrote that the black shale immediately
overlying the above-mentioned gray fossiliferous shalecontains [the] abundant and characteristic Lingula melie. Thisfact, together with its position above a gray shale containing,a Bedford-Berea fauna, and below a second gray shale whichappears to represent the lower part of the Cuyahoga shale ofOhio, makes highly probable its correlation with the Sunbury
shale of Ohio. The stratigraphic succession would also appear
to demand the correlation of the lower black shale with theCleveland shale of the Ohio section.

Swartz (1924, p. 26) also investigated the type*
locality of the Chattanooga shale at the north end of
Cameron Hill in Chattanooga, Tenn. His section is
given below:
Ft. Payne chert.
feet inches.
Glendale shale: hard gray shale with some concretions toward the base______________________
2
4Black shale.__________________---__-_----_--_%.
Mottled brown and gray shale________________
0-9
Black shale__________._________-----80
Concealed.

He (Swartz, 1924, p. 26) commented that
Although no fossils were found in it, it is thought that the
mottled shale probably represents the Bedford-Berea interval.
In that event the overlying % inch black shale is all that is leftof the Sunbury shale of the Apison section. The main mass ofthe shale at the type locality is thus of Cleveland age.

As for the Maury shale of central and western
Tennessee, Swartz (1924, p. 28, 29) stated that it isseparated from the Chattanooga shale by "a marked
unconformity" and that it is older in central Tennessee
where, at Eulie, Sumner County [sic] it contains fossilsof Hamburg oolite age, than in western Tennessee
where, at Linden, Perry County, it contains "in addition to Ridgetop forms, a number of species hitherto
known only from the basal Ft. Payne chert."
Ulrich and Bassler (1926) published a descriptive
paper on the conodont faunas of two formations: theRhinestreet shale (=Attica shale of Chadwick, 1923)
at Shaletown, Erie County, N. Y., and the basal sandstone of the Chattanooga shale at Mount Pleasant,Maury County, Tenn. (vicinity of locality 154 of present paper), which they considered to be the Hardinsandstone. The paleontologic data published by Ulrich
and Bassler are hi tended to support their opinion thattwo groups of beds are involved in the black-shale

8

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

problem: an older group of Devonian age and a younger
one, which includes the Chattanooga shale, of earlyMississippian age. Among the conodonts Ulrich andBassler (1926) described from the basal sandstone atMount Pleasant, Tenn., the following are regarded by
the present writer to be characteristic of the Upper
Devonian Gassaway member of the Chattanooga shale(fig. 1):Names used in present paper
Ancyrognathus bifurcata (Ulrich and Bassler)
Palmatolepis glabra Ulrich andBassler
Palmatolepis perlobata Ulrich
and Bassler

Names used by Ulrich and BassJer, WK
Palmatolepis bifurcata Ulrich

and Bassler
Palmatolepis glaber Ulrich andBassler'Palmatolepis perlobata Ulrich
and Bassler
Palmatolepis extralobata Ulrich
and Bassler
Palmatolepis peculiaris Ulrich
and Bassler

Polylophodonta confluens (Ulrich and Bassler)

Polygnathus confluens Ulrich andBassler

Ulrich and Bassler's Rhinestreet shale (=Attica
shale of Chadwick, 1923) conodont fauna includes
Prioniodus alatus Hinde. This species is in the lowermost beds of the Upper Devonian Dowelltown memberof the Chattanooga shale.
In Butts' (1926) paper, the Chattanooga shale of
Alabama was officially classified by the United States
Geological Survey and the Geological Survey of Alabama as Devonian or Carboniferous. Butts (1926,
p. 161), however, classified the Chattanooga shale ofsouthwestern Tennessee and Alabama as Mississippianand correlated it with the Sunbury shale of Ohio; however, the explanation of plate 48 of his paper statesthat the black-shale fossils illustrated on that plate
occur in the Cleveland shale as well as in the Sunbury
shale. Butts' conodonts were collected at Quicks Mill,
about 4 miles west of New Market, Madison County,
Ala. (locality 127 of present paper). Among those heillustrated are Ancyrognathus bifurcata (Ulrich andBassler), Palmatodella delicatula Bassler, and Polylophodonta confluens (Ulrich and Bassler). These
conodonts have not been found by the present writerin either the Cleveland member of the Ohio shale (formerly Cleveland shale) or the Sunbury shale, but they
have been found by him in the Huron member of the
Ohio shale. The conodonts illustrated by Butts (1926)
were later described and figured by Holmes (1928).
Swartz (1927) reported on the black-shale sequenceof eastern Tennessee and the adjacent part of Virginia.
He considered his Chattanooga shale of that area—
which corresponds to the upper black-shale unit ofCampbell's (1894) "Chattanooga black shale" and to
the Big Stone Gap shale of Stose (1923)—to be partly of
Devonian and partly of Mississippian age and divided

it into an upper and a lower black shale and a middle
gray shale. Swartz proposed the following names forhis divisions:
Big Stone Gap member (youngest)
Olinger member
Cumberland Gap member (oldest)
Swartz also held (1927, p. 494, 499) that the name
Big Stone Gap shale of Stose (1923) must be abandoned,
because it refers to beds considered by Swartz to be
the exact equivalent of the Chattanooga shale of thetype area. However, believing that Stose's nameshould be preserved, Swartz (1927, p. 494) proposedthat it be redefined so as to apply only to the upper
member of Swartz's Chattanooga shale. According to
Swartz (1927, p. 498) a well-marked unconformity
separates his Big Stone Gap member from his Olinger
member throughout southeastern Tennessee; he (1927,
p. 497) also stated that his "Olinger member was
deposited concomitantly with the upper part of the
Cumberland Gap member."In discussing the sections he published in 1924,
Swartz (1927) stated that all three members of his
Chattanooga shale are at the type locality of the formation on Cameron Hill as well as at the locality near
Apison. His assignment of the beds at these two
localities follows:
Type locality of Chattanooga shale, north end of Cameron Hill,
Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tenn.
[Swartz, 1927, p. 486, modified by present writer]

Chattanooga shale:
Big Stone Gap member:Black shale-______-_____-___---_-Unconformity.
Olinger member:Gray clay shale________-_-_-___-Cumberland Gap member:Black shale_________.-___--__-_----

Feet

Inches0-90Section near Apison, approximately 16 miles east of Chattanooga,
Hamilton County, Tenn.
[Swartz, 1927, p. 485, modified by present writer]

Chattanooga shale:
Big Stone Gap member:
FeetBlack shale with Lingula melie _________
2
Unconformity.
Olinger member:Gray clay shale with Lingula irvinensis,
Rhipidomella sp., and abundant Chonetes acutiliratus? ___________________
1
Cumberland Gap member:Black shale-..------______________ 10

inches10}£108Holmes (1928) described a conodont fauna from the
Chattanooga shale at Quicks Mill, Madison County,
Ala. (locality 127 of present paper). She regarded
the Chattanooga shale as of Mississippian age. Among

PREVIOUS WORK

the conodonts she described, the writer of this paper
regards the following species as characteristic of theUpper Devonian Gassaway member of the Chattanooga shale (fig. 1):
Names used in present paper
Palmatolepis glabra Ulrich andBassler
Palmatolepis perlobata Ulrich
and Bassler

Polylophodonta confluens Ulrieh and Bassler

Ancyrognathus bifurcata (Ulrich and Bassler)
Palmatodella delicatula Bassler

Names used by Holmes, 19%8
Palmatolepis elongata Holmes
Palmatolepis perlobata Ulrich
and Bassler
Polygnathus gyratilineata Holmes
Polygnathus pergyrata Holmes
Polygnathus trilobata Holmes
Polygnathus concentrica Ulrich
and Bassler
Polygnathus rhomboidea Ulrich
and Bassler
Palmatolepis inequalis Holmes
Palmatodella delicatula Ulrich
and Bassler

Morse (1928) named the black-shale sequence ofnortheast Mississippi the Whetstone Branch shale.
This formation was described as consisting chiefly of
black shale together with some sandy shales and a few
sandstones. Morse (1928, p. 36) found Lingulo, sp.,
Tentaculites sp., and other fossils in the shale and concluded that
because of the fossils, and especially because of its unconformable
relation to other beds of more definite age, the Whetstone Branchformation is referred to the Devonian. It belongs, therefore, tothe lower and greater part of the Chattanooga shale of the type
locality.

Swartz later (1929) reported more fully on the
Chattanooga shale of northeastern Tennessee and theadjacent part of Virginia, and (1929, p. 447, 448) concluded * that
the Chattanooga shale in Tennessee and Virginia, with the possible
exception of the lower part of the Cumberland Gap member, isMississippian throughout.
This is especially true in the type area about Chattanooga
where the Cumberland Gap member, which there comprises
almost the entire Chattanooga shale, is represented by its upper
part only, the part which intertongues with the Mississippian
Olinger member.

Savage (1930) identified the black-shale sequence of
Kentucky with the New Albany shale. He (1930, p.
16-21) listed some of the fossils in the black shales andstated that these fossils indicate a Late Devonian(Tully and Genesee) age.
Pohl (1930a, p. 62) considered some of the blackshales of northern Tennessee to be of Genesee age, but
stated that "because of the unestablished relations of
the Genesee equivalent in Tennessee the name Trousdale shale is here tentatively proposed for" these
1 The italics are Swartz's.

9

shales. Later, he (1930b, p. 152) suggested a correlation of the Trousdale with the "Genesee-Portage
black shales of the northeastern Devonian." Pohl
(1930b, p. 151) also stated that the term "Chattanooga
shale" cannot be used to refer to the entire black-shale
sequence because the type Chattanooga shale, according
to Swartz, is Mississippian. He, therefore, proposed torestrict the name "Chattanooga shale" to deposits of"post-Devonian-pre-Osage" age.
Pohl's (1930b) classification of the black-shale
sequence of central Tennessee follows:
Mississippian:
Kinderhookian:Chattanooga shale (widespread occurrence):
Upper black shale; a correlative of the Sunbury
shale of Ohio and Kentucky.
Widespread unconformity representing the Berea
sandstone and Bedford shale interval of Ohio
and Kentucky.
Lower black shale; a correlative of the Cleveland
shale of Ohio and Kentucky.
Upper Devonian:
Trousdale shale (local occurrence): a correlative ofGenesee and Portage rocks of the northeasternStates.

Morse (1930) published a second paper on the blackshale of northeast Mississippi. Previously he (1928)
had named this shale, the Whetstone Branch shale,
had correlated it with a part of the Chattanooga shale,and had classified it as Devonian. Morse's conclusions
were based partly on fossils—which include Tentaculites—and partly on the supposed presence of an importantwidespread unconformity at the top of the Whetstone
Branch shale. Morse (1928) named the overlying
formation the Carmack limestone and considered it to
be of Mississippian age. He (1930, p. 72) stated thatthe basal foot of his Carmack limestone consists "oflong flat shalelike pebbles in a dark matrix of oolitic
and green sand texture. Some of the larger roundedmasses may be concretions instead of pebbles, andsome of them give the test for phosphate." This
description suggests that the basal bed of the Carmack
limestone of Morse is the upper division of Safford's(1869) black-shale sequence, the upper unit of Hayes'(1891, 1892, 1894a, 1894b, 1894c, 1894d, 1895) "Chattanooga black shale," and the Maury green shale ofSafford and Killebrew (1900).
Jewell (1931, p. 22, 37), because of his work in Hardin
County, Tenn., considered the "Chattanooga formation" to be of Mississippian age and to consist of theMaury glauconitic member at the top, a Black shale
member, and the Hardin sandstone member at thebase. He (1931, p. 38) held that the Chattanooga is
set off by unconformities from the adjacent formations
and regarded the break at the base of the Chattanooga

10CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

as more important than the one at the top. Jewell(1931, p. 41) placed the Maury glauconitic member inthe "Chattanooga formation" instead of in the overlying Ridgetop shale because to him the Maury seems
to be absent throughout most of Hardin County.
Jewell argued that if the Maury were the basal bed of
the Ridgetop shale, its geographic distribution should
conform closely with that of the Ridgetop shale.
As a result of their work in south-central Kentucky,
Savage and Sutton (1931) considered the black-shale
sequence of that State to be chiefly of Late Devonian
age, though partly of early Mississippian (Kinderhook)age. In their opinion the Upper Devonian portion is
widespread in its occurrence; it contains beds of Tully
and Genesee ages and, in addition, may include younger
Devonian beds. They stated that in south-central
Kentucky the Mississippian portion of the black-shale
sequence—which contains megafossils—is restricted in
its occurrence and lies unconformably upon the Devonian black shales.
In 1932, in keeping with the philosophical concepts
expressed in his 1911 paper, Bassler stated (1932, p. 7)"that many of the important formations [in central
Tennessee] are restricted to small areas and . . .
thin out along the old shore lines instead of passing
laterally into different rock types holding distinct
fossils." In the same paper (1932, p. 136 passim)
he also classified the Chattanooga shale and the Hardinsandstone member in the areas he mapped as lowermost
Mississippian and placed both stratigraphic units in the"Chattanooga group." He (1932, p. 143) believed thatthe "Maury green shale" represents the introductory
stage of whatever formation directly overlies it—that
is, at some localities, as at Bakers Station, Davidson
County (Bassler, 1932, p. 140), the Maury is in thebasal Ridgetop shale and is of Kinderhook age; atother localities, as at Whites Creek Springs (Crocker
Springs), Davidson County (1932, p. 147), it is in thebasal New Providence shale and is of early Osage age;
and at still other localities (1932, p. 179), it is in thebasal Fort Payne chert and is of late Osage age. Bassler further mentioned (1932, p. 133) that "in northern
Tennessee the lower part of the Black shale is separated
from the upper by a well-marked unconformity and,moreover, contains Devonian fossils. This Devonianpart of the shale does not apparently extend southward
over the Nashville Dome to any great distance." Onfigure 4 of Bassler's (1932) paper, this Devonian blackshale is called the "Chattanooga shale (lower)" inorder to distinguish it from his Mississippian or "Chattanooga shale (upper)" black shale. Also on figure 4,
Bassler shows the Hardin sandstone as a transgressive
sandstone that is partly of Devonian age and partly of
early Mississippian age.

According to Wilson and Spain (1936) the Ridgetop
shale is not a valid stratigraphic unit; in their opinion,,
it is merely a phase of the New Providence shale andis of early Osage (Fern Glen) age. Their opinion was
based on field and faunal studies. Wilson and Spainclassified the "Maury shale" as a member of the Chattanooga shale.
Klepser (1937, p. 187) thought that "the Chattanooga
and Maury formations are merely facies developments or shore phases of the New Providence,, Fort
Payne, and possibly Warsaw formations. They become increasingly younger toward the south." Stockdale's (1939, p. 54, 55) opinions are similar to thoseof Klepser (1937).
"Because of the established facies relationships of
the Devonian of New York and Pennsylvania,"1
Cooper (Cooper and others, 1942, p. 1736) regarded"much of the black shale of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky,
Illinois, and Michigan" as Devonian; but he was undecided as to how some of the black shale of the southern
States should be classified and, therefore, on the correlation chart that accompanies the paper, he placed mostof the Chattanooga shale and the Hardin sandstone ofwest Tennessee in the Devonian or Mississippian. He
regarded the Trousdale shale of Pohl as late Middle
Devonian and correlated it with the Geneseo shale of
New York.
Guy Campbell (1946) has published a comprehensive paper on the stratigraphy of the Devonian andMississippian black shales of the eastern interior of theUnited States. His (1946, p. 881 passim) classification
for central Tennessee follows:
Maury shale:
Mississippian (Osage): Considered to be the basal bed of
the Fort Payne chert and the New Providence shale.
Chattanooga shale:
Mississippian (Kinderhook):
Westmoreland shale
Eulie shale
Gassaway formation:
Bransford sandstone member
Upper Devonian:
Dowelltown formation:
Hardin sandstone member
Middle Devonian:
Trousdale formation

Campbell named all the above-listed divisions of
the Chattanooga shale with the exception of the
Trousdale and the Hardin sandstone. Campbell's
Trousdale formation is the Trousdale shale of Pohl.
Pohl (1930b) considered his formation to be of Late
Devonian (Genesee-Portage) age, but Campbell, as
did Cooper (Cooper and others, 1942, chart 4), preferred
to assign the formation to the late Middle Devonian.
In the present report the name "Trousdale formation"

PREVIOUS WORKor "Trousdale shale" is not used; beds so identified byCampbell, Pohl, and Cooper are placed in the Upper
Devonian Dowelltown member of the Chattanooga
shale.
The type localities of Campbell's (1946, p. 886)
Dowelltown and Gassaway formations are locatedalong the Eastern Highland Rim of central Tennessee:
the Dowelltown is in DeKalb County, the Gassaway
in Cannon County. Campbell placed his Dowelltown
formation in the Upper Devonian and his Gassaway
formation in the lower Mississippian. In the present
report the Dowelltown and the Gassaway are bothclassified as Upper Devonian and are considered to bemembers of the Chattanooga shale rather than distinct
formations.
Campbell stated (1946, p. 883) that to theeast of the Central Basin, in DeKalb County and adjacentterritory, the Dowelltown shows deposition under normal conditions for the formation and consists of a lower and an upper
member, each with a lower bed of fissile black shale and an upper
bed with interbedded layers of gray and black shale. The two
members are delimited by Barroisella n. sp. and Spaihiocaris,
which occur in the lower member but not in the upper. This isin harmony with the characters of the Blackiston [formation] inIndiana.

11

Campbell's Eulie shale and Westmoreland shale arethin beds that crop out in the vicinity of eastern
Sumner County, Tenn. The Eulie shale is a gray togreenish-gray mudstone that contains phosphatic nodules. Campbell held that this shale is of early Mississippian age, but the present writer classifies it as verylate Devonian. The Westmoreland shale is a grayishblack shale which locally contains phosphatic nodules.
Campbell, as does the writer, classified this bed as earlyMississipian. The names "Eulie shale" and "Westmoreland shale" are not used herein; the beds so named
by Campbell are placed in the Maury formation and are
not named.
The writer, in an abstract entitled The Chattanooga
shale type area (1947b, p. 1189), stated that the Chattanooga shale in the vicinity of Chattanooga, Tenn.,consists of an upper and a lower black shale and a middle
gray shale. He wrote:
At the Apison locality [locality 228, see p. 36], the upper
black shale member contains lower Mississippian conodonts andis correlated with the Sunbury shale of Ohio. The lower blackshale member . . . contains conodonts that correlate it with
the Huron shale of Ohio, a formation that the U. S. Geological
Survey classifies as Upper Devonian. The middle gray shale
member contains Huron conodonts, but its age is equivocal as
J. H. Swartz has reported macrofossils from it which he considered to be of early Mississippian age. . . . The presence of
Huron conodonts in the lower black shale member of the Chattanooga disproves the thesis, held by some workers, that, as aunit, the Chattanooga shale is younger than the black shale
sequence of the North-Central States.

The Hardin sandstone according to Campbell (1946,
p. 881, 892) is the basal sandstone member of his Dowelltown formation.
Campbell (1946, p. 881, 884) correlated his Gassaway
formation with his Sanderson formation, stating thatits "only change in character from the Sanderson of
Herein, the above-mentioned upper black shale is
Kentucky and Indiana is in the addition of a layer ofplacedin the Maury formation and the middle graysandstone at the base." The Bransford sandstone
shale
and
the lower black shale in the Upper Devonian
member of Campbell is at the base of his Gassaway
Gassaway
member of the Chattanooga shale.
formation throughout the northwestern part of theStockdale (1948, p. 265, 266) regarded the ChattaNashville Basin. At its type locality on Bledsoe Creek,
3.6 miles north of Bransford, Sumner County, Tenn., nooga shale as a time-transgressing unit that resulted
the Bransford sandstone is as much as 0.25 foot thick from the deposition of near-shore sediments in a southand consists of very-light-gray to dark-gray iron-oxide- ward advancing sea. He published the above quotastained unsorted rounded grains of quartz sand together tion from Hass (1947b) and argued against the stratiwith bone fragments, teeth, conodonts, and iron sulfide graphic usefulness of conodonts, suggesting in the form
grains and nodules. The Bransford sandstone, accord- of a question that they are facies fossils that "might
ing to Campbell (1946, p. 884), occurs "at the level of the have remained unchanged throughout a considerable
marked faunal break between the Blackiston and Sand- span of time and might now be found as a fossil assemerson [formations] in Indiana and at the level of the blage coextensive with the given lithologic, timelithic break between the Olmsted and Cleveland [shales] transgressing unit."
in Ohio." In Shaw and Mather (1919) and Mather
According to Weller and others (1948, chart 5,(1920), Ulrich said that this sandstone might correlate column 86) the Chattanooga shale of central Tennessee
with the Berea sandstone of Ohio; and Pohl (1930b) consists of two parts. Rocks of the lower part are ofbelieved that it occurs at the level of an unconformity Late Devonian age and rocks of the upper part are
which corresponds to the Berea sandstone and Bedford partly of Mississippian or Devonian (Fabius group of
shale interval of Ohio. The name "Bransford sandstone" their Kinderhookian series) age and partly of Missisis not used in the present paper; the bed so designated sippian (Easley group of their Kinderhookian series)
by Campbell is not named.
age. The authors (1948, p. 105) commented on the12CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MATIRY FORMATIONTABLE 1.—Standard section of the Chattanooga shale

g

CO
CO ^

CO
•1-4

Formation

COda*

Informal field names

OT|?
!a *""'
H

Description

Fort Payne
chert

Limestone, light -gray; numerous
cherty beds

Maury
formation

2.3

Mudstone, light- to medium-bluish-gray.
Phosphatic nodules throughout interval;
nodules in basal 0.4 ft embedded inolive-gray sandy matrix and classified
as Upper DevonianTop black shale

6.9

Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; iron sulfides common as
grains, nodules, and lenses. Phosphatic nodules present in topmost
0.45 ft. They are embedded in blackshale and separated from underlying
beds of unit by a 0.04 ft thick olive gray sandstone

Upper gray beds

2.3

Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; interbedded with thin graymudstone beds. A finely laminatedbed, 0.13 ft thick, at base

Middle black shale

7.5

Shale, grayish -black, carbonaceous,
tough

9.2

Mudstone; consists of alternating, thin,greenish-gray, grayish-olive, andgrayish-brown beds together with a
few thin grayish-black shale beds.
A bentonite bed, 0.09 ft thick, ispresent 0.82 - 0.91 ft below top

6.2

Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough. A basal sandstone, as much
as 0.2 ft thick, may be present; itis grayish black, poorly sorted, andconsists chiefly of rounded grains ofquartz sand

OT
OT

1

V

"g
g
>>

1—1

cd

(0
0

cd

l-H

1
a

'c
•3
o

|
O

0>

Q

s §*a
w

0)

o>

13
05

00
OJ

cd
O

cu

cd

tuo
o
g

cd
-»->
O

<y

Middle gray beds

|
§

a
o
3
1
Q

§i

O £>

Lower black shale

Limestone, gray

13

CHATTANOOGA SHALE

widespread occurrence of an unconformity at the baseof the black-shale sequence; stating that
if diastrophism is accepted as the ultimate basis for the subdivision of geologic time, and if plants and animals are believed
to have altered in response to the resulting physical changes, agood case can be made for accepting this unconformity as the[Devonian and Mississippian] systemic boundary.

It is evident from the above resume" that the age andcorrelation of the Chattanooga shale have been controversial subjects for many years. Ellison (1946, p.
102) summarized the status of the problem as follows:
there exist three present-day interpretations of the age of the
Chattanooga and its equivalents. The paleobotanists, someconodont workers, and the United States Geological Survey
geologists have much evidence that these formations are in thegreater part Devonian in age. A number of workers, including
some petroleum geologists and a few State Geological Survey
men, prefer to remain neutral and classify the Chattanooga
problem as Mississippian-Devonian. Many petroleum geologists, some conodont workers, and a number of State Geological
Survey men believe that these beds are definitely Mississippianin age.

CHATTANOOGA SHALE

Hayes (1891, p. 142,143) proposed the name "Chattanooga black shale" as a substitute for Smith's (1878,
1890) and Safford's (1869) nongeographic term "Black
shale." The first reference to the Chattanooga shaleis brief. It appears as part of the descriptive matterof a geologic column and indicates that the "Chattanooga black shale" is of Devonian age, that it is overlain
by the Fort Payne chert of Carboniferous age andunderlain by the Rockwood formation of Silurian age,and that it is as much as 35 feet thick. Hayes' (1892,
1894a, 1894b, 1894c, 1894d, 1895) "Chattanooga blackshale" consists of two lithologic units: an upper grayshale, 3 to 4 feet thick, which commonly contains alayer of concretions; and a lower black shale. Outcrops at the north end of Cameron Hill in Chattanooga,
Tenn., were designated the type locality. The best
exposure at the type locality is pictured in plate 5.
Swartz (1924, p. 24) named the upper gray-shale unit ofHayes' "Chattanooga black shale" the Glendale shale.
Swart?, however, was of the opinion that the beds heidentified as Glendale were, prior to his work, a part of
the Fort Payne chert. The name "Glendale shale" isnot used herein; beds so named by Swartz are called theMaury formation.
STANDARD SECTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA SHALE

The best exposures of the Chattanooga shale incentral Tennessee are situated along the Eastern High-land Rim from Jackson County southward to Coffee
and Bedford Counties. Throughout much of that area
the Chattanooga shale is between 25 and 35 feet thick
and at most localities consists of the lithologic divisions given in table 1. Because the type section ofCampbelPs Dowelltown formation and the type section of his Gassaway formation—both herein reduced
to the rank of members of the Chattanooga shale—are
not exceptional exposures, and because the type localityof the Chattanooga shale on Cameron Hill in Chattanooga, Tenn., is a poor exposure (see pi. 5), a standard
section for the Chattanooga shale has been proposedby L. C. Conant, V. E. Swanson, and the writer. Thissection is a cut on Tennessee Highway 26, at the east
approach to the bridge over Caney Fork, 7.1 miles
east of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County,
Tenn. The standard section is locality 76. (Seetable 1 for description.)
The type locality of Campbell's Dowelltown formation (1946, p. 886) is given as "one and one half miles
east of Dowelltown, DeKalb County, Tennessee." No
section was found at that distance east of the community of Dowelltown, but there is an exposure, 3.1
miles east of Dowelltown, on the portion of Tennessee
Highway 26 that was abandoned as the main highway
in 1953. This exposure is taken to be Campbell's type
locality. The section given below was measured after
the Chattanooga shale and the Maury formation interval had been completely exposed. The section is
locality 95.
Section S.I miles east of Dowelltown, Tenn.
[See locality 95, pi. 1]

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation (in part):
peet
Mudstone, yellowish-brown tobluish-gray, iron-oxide-stained,laminated; a few phosphatic nodules present._________________
3. 0
Mudstone, olive-gray, laminated-.
. 6
Shale, grayish-black, tough; withcourse of phosphatic nodules at
top__.__-_-_-------------_-.2
Mudstone, iron-oxide-stained_____. 1
Course of phosphatic nodules.-.-. 1
Mudstone, greenish-gray, laminated, iron-oxide-stained______. 2
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Course of large phosphatic nodules
embedded in iron-oxide-stained
mudstone _-___---------__---

.3

14

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

Section 8,1 miles east of Dowelltown, Tenn.—Continued
Devonian—Continued
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Upper black shale:
Top black shale:
peet
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; bedding undulating. _ _ _ _0. 3
Course of phosphatic nodules embedded in grayish-black shale__.2
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; iron sulfides present as
grains and nodules____________. 2
Course of phosphatic nodules embedded in grayish-black shale __. 1
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,laminated, tough; iron sulfides
present as nodules, grains, andpaper-thin layers.___________
5. 8
Upper gray beds:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough, with iron sulfides present
as nodules, grains, and paperthin layers; alternating with thinbeds of grayish-olive to greenishgray mudstone. The laminatedbed, commonly present at thebase of this unit, was notrecognized._______________
2. 2
Middle black shale:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough, with iron sulfides present
as nodules, grains, and paperthin layers.__________________
4. 2
Dowelltown member:
Middle gray beds:
Mudstone, alternating thin greenish-gray, grayish-olive, olivegray, and grayish-brown beds
together with a few thin grayishblack shale beds. A very lightgray iron-oxide-stained bentonite
bed, 0.07 ft thick, present 0.53
to 0.60ft below top_______
7.9
Lower black shale:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; iron sulfides present asnodules, grains, and paper-thinlayers; a few thin grayish-olive
to greenish-gray siltstone beds__
5. 1
30.5
Ordovician.

The thicknesses recorded above differ from Campbell's (1946, p. 886) measurements. However, his
description of the section is sufficiently detailed for•one to determine that the limits of his type Dowelltown formation are as indicated in table 2. Thus,

with reference to the lithologic divisions of the Chattanooga shale used in the present paper, CampbelPs type
Dowelltown includes the beds from the base of thelower black shale to the top of the upper gray beds.
Also, the beds Campbell assigned to his Gassaway
formation belong to the top black shale, and those heidentified as the Maury shale and "New Providence (?)
soft blue shale" belong to the Maury formation.
The type locality of Campbell's (1946, p. 886) Gassaway formation is "on [Tennessee] Highway 53, 5 miles
south of Gassaway, Cannon County, Tennessee."
There are two exposures on Highway 53 within 0.4
mile of each other, one on the north side of a hill andthe other on the south side of the same hill. Although
it is not certain which outcrop is the type section of
the Gassaway, the northern one is so taken because
the upper black shale is better exposed there. The
section given below is a composite one; the lower
black shale and the middle gray beds were trenched
and measured at the southern exposure, the upper
black shale and the Maury formation at the northern
outcrop. This is locality 100.
Section 5 miles south of Gassaway, Tenn.
[See locality 100, pi. 1]

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation:

Feet
Mudstone, bluish-green, laminated;
phosphatic nodules present, but
not common. Topmost 0.6 ft
contains glauconite__________ 2. 2
Mudstone, greenish-gray; iron sulfide nodule course present 0.150.19 ft.below top__________.3
Mudstone, bluish-green; phosphatic nodules present, especially attop___________._.____.8
Mudstone, greenish-gray, laminated____-__________________.4
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous..
. 35
Sandstone, iron-oxide-stained-- __.15

Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Upper black shale:
Top black shale:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,very well laminated, tough; ironsulfides present as grains andnodules. Weathered outcrop is
distinctly banded. No phosphatic nodules in upper part ofthis unit________-____-____-__ 5. 6

CHATTANOOGA SHALE

Section 5 miles south of Gassaway, Tenn.—Continued
Devonian—C ontinued
Chattanooga shale—Continued
Gassaway member—Continued
Upper black shale—Continued
Upper gray beds:
Feet
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough, alternating with thin bedsof grayish-olive to greenish-graymudstone; iron sulfides present
as grains and nodules. A laminated bed, 0.25 ft thick, consisting of alternating paperthin layers of grayish-black shale
and iron-oxide-stained fine tovery fine sand at base________ 2. 3
Middle black shale:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough, with iron sulfides present
as nodules, grains, and paperthin layers. __________________ 6. 2
Dowelltown member:
Middle gray beds:
Mudstone, alternating thin greenish-gray, grayish-olive, olivegray, and grayish-brown beds
together with a few thin grayishblack shale beds. The thinbentonite bed commonly present
near the top of this interval was
not recognized________________8. 5
Lower black shale:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; iron sulfides present asnodules, grains, and paper-thinlayers. Few thin grayish-olive
to greenish-gray mudstone beds_ 6. 35
Sandstone, consisting chiefly ofrounded quartz grains and conodonts; iron oxide stained______. 05
TotaL___________ 33.20
Ordovician.

Campbell's (1946, p. 886) measurements differ fromthe thicknesses recorded above, but his description of
the section indicates that he regarded the limits of his
Dowelltown formation, at the type locality of his
Gassaway formation, to be as shown in table 2. Thus,
with reference to the lithologic divisions of the Chattanooga shale used in the present paper, the Dowelltown
of Campbell is the lower black shale and the middle
gray beds; and the type Gassaway formation is theupper black shale. The Maury formation includes
beds that Campbell identified as Maury shale and Fort
Payne chert.

15

The above discussion is summarized in table 2, whichshows that the basal beds of Campbell's type Gassaway
formation are the exact correlatives of the topmost bedsof his type Dowelltown formation. Therefore, Campbell's Dowelltown formation has been amended so as
to consist only of the lower black shale and middle graybeds. The stratigraphic limits of Campbell's Gassaway
formation are not changed; they correspond to those of
the upper black shale. Table 2 also indicates that
Campbell's formations are herein treated as members of
the Chattanooga shale.
HARDIN SANDSTONE MEMBERThe Hardin sandstone member underlies the Dowelltown member. It is a part of the widespread basal
sandstone of the Chattanooga shale and is restricted to
the vicinity of Wayne, Perry, Lawrence, and Hardin
Counties, Tenn. and the adjoining part of Alabama. It
is as much as 16 feet thick and consists chiefly ofsiliceous fine-grained sand and silt. The Hardin sandstone member is well exposed along a secondary roadby a stone church, 0.15 mile south of United States
Highway 64 at Olive Hill, Hardin County, Tenn. where
it grades into the overlying beds of the Dowelltown
member. The section at Olive Hill is locality 239.
Although conodonts have not been found in the Hardinsandstone member, the writer did collect a few specimens of Palmatolepis unicornis Miller and Youngquist(pi. 4, figs. 7, 8) from the overlying Dowelltown member
at Olive Hill, Hardin County (locality 239). These
specimens came from 8.5 to 17.5 feet below the top of
the Chattanooga shale and, as indicated in figure 1,
they belong to a species which does not range above theDowelltown member along the Eastern Highland Rimof central Tennessee.
Because Palmatolepis unicornis is present in the overlying beds and because the Hardin sandstone member
grades into the Dowelltown member, the writer suggeststhat the Hardin is of early Late Devonian age, though
it is possible that some part of the member could beslightly older. The Hardin is probably about the sameage as the basal sandstone of the Dowelltown memberof the Eastern Highland Rim area and the basal partof the Dowelltown member of north-central Tennessee.
Tjlrich and Bassler (1926) considered the Hardinsandstone member to be a widespread basal deposit ofMississippian age. They described some conodonts
collected from a thin sandstone at an exposure west of
Mount Pleasant, Tenn., and identified the bed fromwhich their fossils came as the Hardin sandstone. As

16

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATIONTABLE 2.—Comparison of stratigraphic limits of Campbell's type sections of his Dowelltown and Gassaway formations and theamended section adopted for this report

This report

Guy Campbell, 1946

Informal
names

Formation

Type locality ofDowelltown formation

Fort Payne

Fort Payne

chert

chert

Maury

New Providence( ? )shale

Type locality of
Gassaway formation

Fort Payne
chert

Maury shale

formation

Maury shaleTop
Gassaway
JS

i—i
ctf

GassawayW

member

ctf
W)
O

o

c
cd

black

formationW

1jCtf ————————————
shale
43 Upper grayft
beds§; Middle
53
black
shale
Middleformation
Upper
Dowelltown
memberfDorwmelatoiwn

gray

Lower

beds

Dowelltown

._ rj
g o
£J
!H3 ±iw

membero oRDowelltown
cd
U

Gassaway

memberLower blackshale

stated above on page 8, Ulrich and Bassler's (1926)
fauna includes Ancyrogathus bifurcata, Palmatolepis
glabra, Palmatolepis perlobata, and Polylophodonta confluens. Along the Eastern Highland Rim of central
Tennessee, these species, as a group, are a part of thelower fauna of the Upper Devonian Gassaway member.
(See fig. 1.) It is the writer's opinion, therefore, thatthe thin sandstone bed from which Ulrich and Bassler's(1926) conodont fauna came is neither the same age as
the Hardin sandstone member of the present report norof early Mississippian age.
DOWELLTOWN MEMBERThe Dowelltown member is well developed along theEastern Highland Run of central Tennessee—fromsouthern Jackson County to the vicinity of Manchester
in Coffee County. In that area, it is between 10 andUpper
Dowelltown
member
Lower
Dowelltown
member

17.5 feet thick and consists of a lower grayish-blackshale unit and an upper predominantly gray mudstone
unit. The lower black shale unit is as much as 10.6
feet thick—except in the Flynn Creek structure where,
within a mile of locality 54, it is probably on the orderof 150 feet thick. The upper division of the Dowelltown member is called the middle gray beds. This
unit is as much as 9.7 feet thick and consists chiefly ofgray mudstone together with a few thin layers ofgrayish-black shale. Individual beds commonly range
between 0.01 and 0.3 foot in thickness. Where weathered, many of these beds are yellowish or brownish, butsome are greenish.
In central Tennessee, during Dowelltown time, thebasins of deposition appear to have been partly delimited by the Cincinnati anticline and a slightly elevated area in south-central Tennessee and the adjacentCHATTANOOGA SHALE

11 f_ -g-g"s•°"2"2£"-Sg«"=«m»-Sg-g
g = g = ? (ns|5

-

-S"
Sg

17

|-i
I
S s z'£D 'i4l
-gS=g

i^

g
^^

i"l s =i|l ** Ill-si^ •^''

Mudstone

Cherty limestoneP

Laminated bed™

Sandstone

I

Limestone

ipl,

100 a S-5j

Phosphatic nodules

18

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MATJRY FORMATION

part of Alabama. Also, the axis of the Cincinnati
anticline seems to have trended southwestward fromeastern Macon County, Tenn., into central Maury
County, where it merged with the aforementioned elevated area of south-central Tennessee. The writerbelieves this to have been the case because the Dowelltown member wedges out toward these structurally
higher areas. These areas seem also to have effectively
prevented the eastward transport of coarse arenaceous
material, for to the west of them the Dowelltown iscommonly sandy from bottom to top, whereas to theeast the member is sandy only at the base. A basal
sandstone is present at many localities. This sandstone commonly ranges from a featheredge to several
tenths of a foot in thickness, though to the southwestof the Nashville Basin, it is thicker and there is called
the Hardin sandstone member; it contains fish remains,conodonts, and reworked fossils. The color of thebasal sandstone is light to dark gray where freshly
exposed, and light to dark brown where weathered.
A bentonite bed (Hass, 1948), which averages 0.1
foot in thickness, is present within a foot or two of the
top of the Dowelltown member throughout at least
4,000 square miles of east-central Tennessee. This bed
has been recognized along the Eastern Highland Rimfrom the vicinity of the Flynn Creek structure in Jackson County (locality 54) to the vicinity of Shelbyvillehi Bedford County. It has also been seen on the westside of the Nashville Basin in southeast Williamson
County (locality 185), in the Sequatchie Valley ofeastern Tennessee (localities 215 and 220), near Dayton
in Rhea County, and in cuttings from wells drilled in
the area east of the Nashville Basin.
This bentonite bed is an excellent datum. Its widespread occurrence supports the writer's opinions on theage and correlation of the Chattanooga shale as basedon conodonts and disproves the thesis suggested by
Grabau (1906) and later adopted by Klepser (1937)
and by Stockdale (1939, 1948) that the black-shale
sequence of the southern United States is a timetransgressing unit that resulted from the deposition ofnear-shore sediments in a southward advancing sea.
Along the Eastern Highland Rim of central Tennessee
where the Chattanooga shale is best developed, thestratigraphic ranges of distinctive conodont genera andspecies have been found to be constant with reference
to the bentonite bed (see figure 1); were it otherwise,
there would be reason for believing that conodonts areof no use to the stratigraphic paleontologist.
Conodonts are abundant in the basal sandstone of the
Dowelltown member. Where the Chattanooga shaleis well developed—as in the vicinity of the standard
section (locality 76)—the basal sandstone contains
conodonts like those in Pohl's (1930a, 1930b) Trousdale

TABLE 3.—Distribution of easily recognized conodont species ofthe basal sandstone of the Dowelltown member where the Chattanooga shale section is essentially complete, and of the Trousdale
shale of Pohl
No. offigureon pi. 4

1

2

3

21
23
22
7,8
16,17
2,3
24

j

1. Trousdale shale of Pohl (1930a, 1930b). Included in Dowelltown member ofphattanooga shale in present report. Writer's collections.
2. Blocher formation of Campbell (1946); species illustrated by Huddle (1934) aspart of lower conodont fauna of New Albany shale of Indiana.
3. "Conodont bed" of Genundewa limestone lentil of the Geneseo shale of New
York. Writer's collections; some species illustrated by Hinde (1879), Bryant (1921),
and Branson and Mehl (1933).

shale of north-central Tennessee, Campbell's (1946)
Blocher formation of Indiana, and the "conodont bed"of the Genundewa limestone lentil of the Geneseo shaleof New York. The distribution of the easily recognizedconodont species of the basal sandstone along theEastern Highland Rim and of the Trousdale shale ofPohl is given in table 3. The species listed in table 3,
however, represent only a small part of the conodont
fauna, as most of the specimens hi this sandstone areindeterminable fragments.
In addition to the stratigraphic distribution given intable 3, specimens identified as Bryantodus sp. A inthis report are similar to some of the bryantodids inthe "conodont bed" of the Genundewa limestone lentilof the Geneseo shale of New York; to some of thebryantodids described from the Rhinestreet shale(=Attica shale of Chadwick, 1923) of New York by
Ulrich and Bassler (1926); as well as to other bryantodids described from the lower part oi the Attica shaleof Chadwick (1923) by Youngquist, Hibbard, andReimann (1948). Also, some of the specimens listed
herein as Palmatolepis unicornis Miller and Youngquist
resemble Palmatolepis punctata (Hinde) from the"Genesee shale" of New York and the Rhinestreet
shale (=Attica shale of Chadwick, 1923). Prioniodus
alatus Hinde is in the Rhinestreet shale (=Attica shaleof Chadwick, 1923), and Polygnathus linguiformis
Hinde occurs in some Middle Devonian limestones ofOhio. Hibbardella sp. A (pi. 4, fig. 22) is known only
through fragmentary material. It has a short tonguelike posterior bar which supports one or two minutedenticles.
Polygnathus sp. A (pi. 4, fig. 19) which has rostralridges adjacent to the blade, and Ancyrodetta sp. B(pi. 4, fig. 20) which has a posteriorly trending secondary carina on the outer platform are both shownin figure 1 as doubtfully in the basal sandstone of the
Dowelltown member along the Eastern Highland Rim

CHATTANOOGA SHALE

of central Tennessee. Both species have been foundin the beds that Pohl named the Trousdale shale.
Herein these beds are placed in the Dowelltown member and they are probably the same age as the basal
sandstone of the Dowelltown member of the Eastern
Highland Rim area. Ancyrodella sp. B is also in thebasal sandstone of the Dowelltown at locality 220 insoutheastern Tennessee and locality 204 near Nashville.
The writer has not differentiated the species of Icriodus(pi. 4, figs. 4-6) that occur in the Chattanooga shale.
However, the stratigraphic range of Icriodus is recorded
on figure 1 because the writer considers this genus tobe an index of the Middle and Upper Devonian.
Although no recognizable unreworked megafossils havebeen found in the basal sandstone of the Chattanooga
shale along the Eastern Highland Rim, such fossils are
known to occur in association with some of the conodonts listed in table 3 in Pohl's Trousdale shale ofnorth-central Tennessee and in CampbelTs Blocher
formation of Indiana. The writer, as well as Campbell(1946, p. 883), has collected Schizobolus sp. from Pohl's
Trousdale shale. This brachiopod, which, according
to Cooper (Cooper and others, 1942, p. 1761 and chart4), ranges from near the top of the Middle Devonian
into the lower part of the Upper Devonian, is an important element of the Geneseo fauna. The Blocher
formation of Campbell is the same part of the New
Albany shale from which Huddle's (1934) lower conodont fauna came. According to Campbell (1946, p.
841) "Chonetes lepidus Hall, Leiorhynchus quadricostatum Hall, and Styliolina fissurella intermittens Hall arecommon to abundant at many localities" in the lower
bed of the Blocher and Leiorhynchus, Styliolina, andTentaculites gracilistriatus Hall are abundant in thenext higher bed of the formation. Also Schizobolus
concentricus Vanuxem is in the basal foot of Campbell's
Blocher at a few localities.
Campbell (1946) classified his Blocher formation andPohl's Trousdale shale as Middle Devonian, but someof the earlier workers classified these same stratigraphic units as Upper Devonian. Kindle (1899, p.
Ill), for example, stated that the fauna of the New
Albany shale seems to be an equivalent of the faunaof the Genesee shale of New York; later, he (1900, p.
569) concluded that the formation seems to be a correlative of both the Genesee and the Portage of New
York. Huddle (1934, p. 17) placed the lower part of
the New Albany shale (Campbell's Blocher formation)in the Genesee. As for the Trousdale shale, Pohl
(193 Ob) considered his formation to be of GeneseePortage age. Cooper (Cooper and others, 1942, chart4), however, classified the lower part of the New Albany
shale (Blocher formation of Campbell), the Trousdale
shale of Pohl, the Geneseo shale in New York, and19other black shales throughout the interior of the UnitedStates as late Middle Devonian.
At the present time, the United States Geological
Survey classifies the Genundewa limestone as a lentilof the Geneseo shale which, in turn, is the basal formation of the Genesee group. Because the Federal Survey
classifies the Genesee group as early Late Devonian, andbecause Pohl's Trousdale shale and the basal sandstoneof the Chattanooga shale—where that formation is bestdeveloped—contain conodonts like those in the Genundewa limestone lentil and the younger beds of the New
York section, the writer of this report classifies the basal
beds of the Dowelltown member as early Late Devonian.
An early Late Devonian age designation applies tothe basal sandstone only where the Chattanooga shalesection is as complete as it is along the Eastern Highland
Rim. Elsewhere in central Tennessee the age of thissandstone is younger; for example, at locality 154, near
Mount Pleasant in Maury County, the basal sandstone
contains Ancyrognathus bifurcata, Palmatolepis glabra,
Palmatolepis perlobata, and Polylophodonta confluens;
and at locality 126a, near Fayetteville in Lincoln
County, the basal sandstone contains, among others,.
Ancyrognathus bifurcata, Palmatolepis distorta, Palmatolepis glabra, Palmatolepis perlobata, Palmatolepis
quadrantinodosa, Palmatolepis subperlobata, Palmatolepis
sp. A, and Polylophodonta confiuens. The stratigraphic
ranges of these species in the Chattanooga shale of theEastern Highland Rim area indicate that the basal
sandstone at localities 154 and 126a is a part of the
Gassaway member. (See fig. 1.)
Along the Eastern Highland Rim in the vicinity ofthe standard section, beds of the Dowelltown member
above the basal sandstone contain several distinctive
conodont species. With the exception of Polygnathus
pennata (pi. 4, figs. 2, 3)—which ranges upward forseveral feet above the basal sandstone—and Palmatolepis unicornis (pi. 4, figs. 7, 8)—which ranges throughout most of the Dowelltown interval—the species in thebasal sandstone of the Eastern Highland Rim area havenot been recognized in collections from the overlying
beds of the Chattanooga shale. Palmatolepis subrecta
Miller and Youngquist (pi. 4, figs. 9-15) is anothereasily recognized conodont species of the Dowelltown;
it ranges from the lower beds of the lower black shale
into the basal beds of the overlying Gassaway member.
P. subrecta, according to the writer (Hass, 1951, p. 2536),
was described by Miller and Youngquist (1947) from material
collected at the type locality of the Sweetland Creek shale near
Muscatine, Iowa, and it, or a very closely related species, is alsopresent in the basal beds of the Dunkirk shale of New York; P.
subrecta may also be conspecific with Palmatolepis flabelliformis
described by Stauffer from the Olentangy shale. The officialclassification of the United States Geological Survey places theOlentangy shale and the Dunkirk shale in the Upper Devonian

20

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

but it places the Sweetland Creek shale in the Devonian orMississippian. It is quite possible, however, that the Sweetland
Creek shale contains beds of several different ages and it is thewriter's opinion that those beds at the type locality of the Sweetland Creek shale, from which Miller and Youngquist (1947,
pp. 501-17) obtained their conodonts, are Upper Devonian.
Miller and Youngquist (1947, p. 502) have suggested that theGrassy Creek shale of Missouri may be approximately contemporaneous with the Sweetland Creek shale of Iowa. Be this as
it may, the present writer regards the beds from which Miller
and Youngquist's conodont fauna came as being older than thebeds from which Branson and Mehl (1934a) obtained their
Grassy Creek conodont fauna.

The writer (Hass, 1951, p. 2534-2536) has collected
Palmatolepis subrecta from the Arkansas novaculite at
Caddo Gap, Montgomery County, Ark., where thespecies is in a faunal zone approximately 184 feet below
the top of the middle division. This portion of the
middle division of the Arkansas novaculite is classified
as Upper Devonian.
Ancyrognathus sp. A (pi. 4, fig. 1), distinguished bynarrow upturned platforms, and Ancyrodella sp. A (pi. 4,
fig. 18), a rather generalized form, are represented in
the collections by only a few specimens. The occurrence of these two species is recorded in order to help
establish the stratigraphic range of Ancyrognathus andAncyrodella. The writer is of the opinion that Ancyrognathus is an index of the Upper Devonian and thatAncyrodella ranges from the Middle Devonian into theUpper Devonian; however, some stratigraphers believethat these two genera—as well as Icriodus, Palmatolepis,
and Polylophodonta—range naturally into the lower
beds of the Mississippian. As indicated on figure 1,
along the Eastern Highland Rim of central "Tennessee,
the stratigraphic range of all 5 above-mentioned genera
is restricted to the Devonian.
Palmatolepis marginata Stauffer (pi. 4, figs. 25, 26)
ranges from near the base of the Dowelltown member
into the basal beds of the Gassaway. This species was
first described from the Olentangy shale of Ohio andhas since been recognized in a faunal zone of the middle
division of the Arkansas novaculite, where it is associated with Palmatolepis subrecta. Ancyrognathus euglypheus (pi. 4, fig. 27), which is characterized by theabrupt heightening of the distal end of the blade, appears to be restricted to the Dowelltown member.
This species is in the Olentangy shale of Ohio and afaunal zone of the Woodford chert of Oklahoma.
Recently the writer made serial collections of conodont material from the Upper Devonian succession ofwestern New York and found that the highest stratigraphic appearance of any of the above-mentioned conodonts of the Dowelltown member is in the Dunkirk
shale member of the Perrysburg formation. The Dunkirk is classified by Cooper (Cooper and others, 1942)
as basal Cassadaga stage. The writer is of the opinion,

therefore, that the Dowelltown member of the Chattanooga shale correlates in a general way with Copper's
Finger Lakes, Chemung, and basal Cassadaga stages of
the Upper Devonian. The basal beds of the Dowelltown
member, however, could be upper Middle Devonian.
As indicated in table 2, the Dowelltown member of
the Chattanooga shale is the lower member of Campbell's type Dowelltown formation. Campbell (1946,
p. 881, 883) correlated the lower member of his
Dowelltown formation with the lower member of his
Blackiston formation of Indiana. This correlation
appears to have been based chiefly on the belief that
Barroisella and Spathiocaris are restricted to the lower
member of each formation. Because of the stratigraphic
position of the beds involved, the writer considers thiscorrelation to be essentially correct. However, thereported occurrence (Campbell, 1946, p. 844, 845) inthe lower member of Campbell's Blackiston formation ofAncyrognathus bijurcata, Palmatodella delicatula, Palmatolepis glabra, Palmatolepis perlobata, and Palmatolepis
subperlobata indicates that, based on conodonts, a partof this lower member is a correlative of the upper member of Campbell's Dowelltown formation (Gassaway
member of Chattanooga shale of present report)
instead of the lower member of his Dowelltown formation (Dowelltown member of present report).
GASSAWAY MEMBER

Along much of the Eastern Highland Rim, as well as
in north-central Tennessee, in the vicinity of Nashville,
and in south-eastern Tennessee, the Gassaway member
is between 12 and 21 feet thick. It is commonly lessthan 6 feet thick along the west and south margins of
the Nashville Basin, and is even absent throughout
most of Lawrence County, Tenn. and parts of adjacentcounties. On the other hand, the Gassaway is as muchas 46.4 feet thick in the vicinity of Somerset, PulaskiCounty, Ky. Throughout a large part of the Eastern
Highland Rim the Gassaway member consists of two
black-shale units and an intervening zone of alternating
thin beds of gray mudstone and black shale. These
three units are called informally the middle black shale(lowermost unit), the upper gray beds, and the top
black shale (topmost unit); combined, they are theupper black shale. Phosphatic nodules occur in thevery youngest beds of the Gassaway member; thesenodules are commonly scattered throughout the shale,
though at some places they also form one or morecourses. At most localities the phosphatic nodules in
the Gassaway member are smaller than those in thebasal bed of the overlying Maury formation.
The Gassaway member contains two conodont faunas
whose stratigraphic ranges overlap slightly. As indicated in figure 1, the species of the older fauna range,

CHATTANOOGA SHALE

TABLE 4.— Distribution of significant conodont species present in
the lower fauna of the Gassaway member
No. on—AncyrognathiLS bifurcata (Ulrich andPalmatolepis distorta Branson and Mehl.
subperlobata Branson and Mehl.
Polylophodonta confluens (Ulrich and

PI.

Fig.

3

25,26

2
3
3
3

1
15-17
19-21
4-9

3

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

1. Lower part of the Ohio shale of Ohio and Kentucky. Writer's collections;
Hass (1947a).
2. Antrim shale; exposure in Paxton shale pit near Alpena, Alpena County, Mich.
Writer's collections.
3. Blackiston formation of Campbell (1946); species illustrated by Huddle (1934)
as part of middle conodont fauna of New Albany shale of Indiana.
4. Faunal zone, 46.5 to 140 feet below top of middle division of Arkansas novaculite,
Caddo Gap, Montgomery County, Ark. Writer's collections; Hass (1951).
5. Fauna! zone of Woodford chert of Oklahoma. Writer's collections.
6. Faunal zone of Chattanooga shale of northeast Oklahoma. Writer's collections.

as a unit, throughout most of the Gassaway member,whereas those of the younger fauna range throughout
only the very topmost beds of the member. In northcentral Tennessee the younger fauna is also found in thephosphatic-nodule bed at the base of the Maury formation. The older or lower conodont fauna of the Gassaway member includes the species given in table 4.
The species listed hi table 4 make possible a correlation of all but the youngest beds of the Gassaway member with the lower part of the Ohio shale of Ohio and
Kentucky; the Antrim shale as exposed in the Paxton
shale pit west of Alpena, Mich.; the major portion of the
middle division of the New Albany shale (most ofCampbell's Blackiston formation) of Indiana; a faunalzone of the middle division of the Arkansas novaculiteof Arkansas and Oklahoma which, at Caddo Gap,
Montgomery County, Ark., is 46.5 to 140 feet below
the top of the middle division; a faunal zone of the
Woodford chert of Oklahoma; and a faunal zone that
ranges throughout most of the Chattanooga shale ofnortheastern Oklahoma. The formations or parts offormations mentioned above are placed in the Upper
Devonian series. Recently, the writer found conodonts
similar to those listed in table 4 in the Gowanda shale
member of the Perrysburg formation of western New
York. The Gowanda shale member is placed in
Cooper's (Cooper and others, 1942) Cassadaga stageof the Upper Devonian.
Other species in this fauna—which, in the writer's
opinion, indicate a Late Devonian age—are Ancyrognathus quadrata Branson and Mehl, Palmatolepis gracilis
Branson and Mehl, Palmatolepis quadrantinodosa Branson and Mehl (pi. 3, fig. 11), Palmatolepis sp. A (pi. 3,
figs. 1-3, 13)—a species with distinctly noded platforms
anterior to the azygous node—and Prioniodus mutabilis
Branson and Mehl. The thalli of Foerstia—a small

21

sargassoid alga of probable fucoidal affinity (J. M.
Schopf, February 1953, oral communication)—havebeen found associated only with conodonts like thosein the lower fauna of the Gassaway member. Good
specimens of this plant have been collected by thewriter from the Gassaway member of the Chattanooga
shale in Kentucky and Tennessee (localities 14, 225,228); from the Chattanooga shale of southwestern
Virginia (Little Stone Gap), and northeastern Oklahoma (Spavinaw Dam section); and from the lower
part of the Ohio shale of Ohio (The Narrows, near
Columbus; and from a core at the limestone mine at
Barberton, between 1,429 and 1,527 feet below thesurface). The information now on hand indicates that
Foerstia is restricted stratigraphically to rocks of Late
Devonian age that contain conodonts like those in thelower faunal zone of the Gassaway member.
The widespread occurrence of the older fauna of the
Gassaway member indicates that during some part ofGassaway time, the sea in which the Chattanooga shale
was deposited covered most, if not all, of central Tennessee and the adjoining parts of Kentucky, Alabama,
Georgia and Mississippi.
Swartz (1924, 1927, 1929; see also p. 7-9 and 25, 26 of
the present paper) subdivided the Chattanooga shale
into the Big Stone Gap member (youngest), the Olinger
member, and the Cumberland Gap member. He
believed that the Olinger member interfingers with the
Cumberland Gap member and that, with the possible
exception of the lowest beds of the Cumberland Gap
member, the Chattanooga shale of Tennessee and southwestern Virginia is definitely of Mississippian age.
However, some of Swartz's conclusions are herein considered to be invalid, as they are based in part on
Swartz's interpretation of a megafauna collected near
Apison, Tenn. (locality 228). Swartz believed that
this fauna consists of Mississippian fossils and correlated the 2-foot-thick bed in which the fauna occurs
with the Bedford shale and Berea sandstone wedge of
Ohio and Kentucky and with the Olinger member of
his Chattanooga shale of eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia. Swartz's fossils were not available
for study and comparison with the writer's poorly
preserved specimens from the same bed. G. A. Cooper,of the United States National Museum, who examined
the writer's collection stated (July 1947, oral communication) that, with the exception of an Orbiculoidea sp.,the preservation of the fossils is such that even generic• determinations are not justified. In 1947 the writer(Hass, 1947b) stated that the age of the above-mentioned fossiliferous bed is equivocal, but he now believes
that this bed, as well as the underlying black shale,belongs in the Upper Devonian, Gassaway member.
The writer's opinion is based on the fact that all of theCHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MATJRY FORMATION

species given below occur in the aforementioned blackshale, and that the first three listed also occur in the 2ioot-thick bed from which Swartz's fossils came.
.fioerstia sp. (a sargassoid alga of probable fucoidal affinity).
Palmatolepis distorta Branson and Mehl (pi. 2, fig. 1).
Palmatolepis glabra Ulrich and Bassler (pi. 3, figs. 15-17).
Ancyrognathus bifurcata (Ulrich and Bassler) (pi. 3, figs. 25, 26).
Palmatodella delicatula Bassler.
Palmatolepis perlobata Ulrich and Bassler (pi. 3, figs. 19-21).
Palmatolepis rugosa Branson and Mehl.
Polylophodonta confluens (Ulrich and Bassler) (pi. 3, fig. 10).

As delimited by the writer, the Chattanooga shale
ut its type locality (locality 226) is the Cumberland
Gap member of Swartz's section (see p. 8). The
immediately overlying beds, which Swartz assigned to
his Olinger member and his Big Stone Gap member, areherein placed in the Maury formation. Identifiable
conodonts were found in the type Chattanooga at only
one place, about 350 feet south of the north end of
Cameron Hill; there, molds of Palmatolepis perlobata(pi. 3, figs. 19-21), Palmatolepis sp. B (pi. 3, fig. 18)—
which is based on a single specimen whose outer platform resembles that of Palmatolepis rugosa Branson
and Mehl—Hindeodella sp., and other barlike conodonts,
were collected from the upper foot of the shale. The
occurrence of Palmatolepis perlobata in the topmost
foot of the Chattanooga shale indicates that at its type
locality the shale is Devonian and assignable, at least inpart, to the Gassaway member.
Sedimentation appears to have been continuous in
the vicinity of the standard section (locality 76) duringlate Dowelltown and early Gassaway time. Were it
otherwise, the bentonite bed which is within a foot or
two of the top of the Dowelltown member would
probably not be present today throughout more than
4,000 square miles of east-central Tennessee. Under
such conditions, mixing of conodont faunas does notseem probable and therefore on figure 1 Ancyrognathus
bifurcata, Palmatolepis gracilis, Palmatolepis subperlobata, and Palmatolepis sp. A are indicated as ranging
down into the topmost beds of the Dowelltown member
and Palmatolepis marginata and Palmatolepis subrecta
as ranging up into the basal beds of the Gassaway
member.
However, sedimentation was not continuous duringlate Dowelltown and early Gassaway time throughout
all of central Tennessee. For example, the topmost
beds of the Dowelltown member are missing fromthe section in the vicinity of the type locality of Campbell's Gassaway formation (locality 100). Also, a thinsandstone bed is at the base of the Gassaway member
along the northwest rim of the Nashville Basin (forexample, at localities 204, 205 and 206). This sandstone is Campbell's Bransford sandstone member of his

Gassaway formation. The conodont fauna of thissandstone contains reworked specimens, for in addition to those that are characteristic of the lower faunaof the Gassaway member along the Eastern Highland Rim, it also contains numerous representativesof species which, along the Eastern Highland Rim,are restricted to the Dowelltown member. (See figure
1. Also see table 8, locality 204, collections 328, 335;
and locality 206, collection 451.) At Bransford (locality 206) this sandstone unconformably overlies theDowelltown member of the Chattanooga shale.
The main area of deposition during latest Gassaway
time was in north-central Tennessee and the adjacentpart of Kentucky. The strata resulting from thisdeposition commonly contain phosphatic nodules which,in addition to being scattered throughout the interval,
are locally concentrated into one or more courses.
These beds have not been recognized along the Eastern
Highland Rim very much farther south than thestandard section (locality 76) in DeKalb County; norhave they been recognized in south-central Tennessee
and the adjacent part of Alabama. Northward fromthe vicinity of the standard section to Somerset, PulaskiCounty, Ky. (locality 6), however, this interval gradually increases in thickness from a featheredge to 8 feet.
A thin bed containing phosphatic nodules has been observed at the top of the Gassaway member at a few
exposures in the Sequatchie Valley, including locality
220 near Dunlap, where it is one foot thick, and locality
215 in Bledsoe County, where it is 2.2 feet thick; also,
the nodule bed is in the top of the Gassaway member
along United States Highway 64, 1.8 miles west of
Olive Hill, Hardin County, where it is 0.1 foot thick;and at Bakers Station, Davidson County, (locality204), where it is 0.7 foot thick. The nodule bed ismore than 2 feet thick in Macon County, Tenn. andabout 6 feet thick in Clay County, Tenn.
The topmost beds of the Gassaway member have asmall, distinctive set of conodonts. As indicated infigure 1, these conodonts, though characteristic of that
portion of the Gassaway which contains phosphatic
nodules, range into slightly older beds where they areassociated with conodonts that range throughout theolder portions of the Gassaway member. In a part ofnorth-central Tennessee the conodonts that characterize
the topmost beds of the Gassaway are also in the very
oldest beds of the Maury formation. The species inquestion are:Hindeodella sp. A (pi. 3, figs. 27, 28); this species has a long
downward-trending anterior bar.
Spathognathodus aculeatus (Branson and Mehl).
Spathognathodus inornatus (Branson and Mehl) (pi. 3, figs. 22—
24).
Spathognathodus disparilis (Branson and Mehl).

23

MAURY FORMATIONThe Chattanooga shale and the Maury formation
are evidently separated by an unconformity throughout
much of south-central Tennessee and north-central
Alabama for in that area the youngest beds of the
Gassaway member—those characterized by phosphatic
nodules and the conodonts listed above—have not beenrecognized. Instead, the beds directly beneath theMaury formation contain the conodonts of the lower
fauna of the Gassaway member. Some of the conodontsof the lower fauna have also been found as reworked
material in the basal 0.05 foot of the Maury formation.
The conodont fauna of the youngest beds of the
Gassaway is like that in the upper part of the Ohio
shale of Ohio and Kentucky, as well as in that part ofCampbell's (1946) Sanderson formation which, at thetype locality of the Sanderson, near New Albany, Ind.,
directly underlies Campbell's Falling Run member of
the Sanderson and contains phosphatic nodules. The
Falling Run member is considered by the writer to beof early Mississippian age but he regards the immediately
underlying beds of the Sanderson at the type locality ofthat formation to be of Late Devonian age and to be acorrelative of the upper part of the Ohio shale of Ohio
and Kentucky. The oldest beds of the type Sanderson,
however, contain the same conodont fauna as theunderlying Blackiston formation of Campbell (1946);
the writer correlates these beds with the lower part of
the Ohio shale.
MAURY FORMATION

Safford and Killebrew (1900, p. 104,141-143) proposed
the name "Maury green shale" for the beds between
the "Black shale (Chattanooga shale)" and their Tullahoma formation. They considered the Maury to beof early Carboniferous age and described it as consistingof green or greenish shale with embedded concretionsof calcium phosphate. Some stratigraphers have classified the Maury as the topmost member of the Chattanooga shale; others have considered it to be a distinct
formation; and still others have regarded it as the basal
bed of the immediately overlying formation.
STANDARD SECTION OF THE MAURY FORMATIONThe Maury formation of the present paper is the"Maury green shale" of Safford and Killebrew, who
designated Maury County, Tenn., as the type locality.
L. C. Conant, V. E. Swanson, and the writer failed tofind an adequate exposure of the formation in Maury
County and therefore selected an exposure near Cross
Key in Williamson County as the standard section(locality 185). This is given below.

Section along south side of road near top of west slope of Pull
Tight Hill, IS.6 miles southeast of Franklin and 1.8 miles east of
Cross Key, Williamson County, Tenn.
[Measurements of Chattanooga shale by V. E. Swanson]

Mississippian:
Feet
Fort Payne chert: Limestone, gray, cherty.
Maury formation: Mudstone, grayish-yellow, green,greenish-gray; lowermost 0.3 ft dark gray togreenish black. Phosphatic nodules throughout
interval as well as in a course, 0.3-0.6 ft thick,
0.3-0.9 ft above base__-_-----_-_--_--_-------- 1. 5
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;phosphatic nodules throughout interval- 1. 6
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough- 2. 1
.1Siltstone, dark-gray-_-________-_.___-_-_
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough. 1. 6
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone_ -_________-___-.__-__-_-____. 45

Sandstone. ____________________________
Mudstone and interbedded thin grayishblack carbonaceous shale ______________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough_Covered-________-_-_-_-_-------_------

. 05
. 2
.2
4. 3
7. 0
1. 0

Total__ — _-___-_-__---.______--_ 20. 10
Ordovician.

The lithologic characteristics, the stratigraphic position, and the fauna of the Glendale shale of Swartz(1924) are similar to those of the Maury formation ofcentral Tennessee, and it is the writer's opinion thatthese names refer to the same lithologic unit. The
name "Maury formation" is used in the present reportin preference to Glendale shale because Maury is anolder and better known name.
AGE AND CHARACTERISTICS

The Maury formation is an easily recognized unit
wherever it is overlain by the Fort Payne chert, but
its top is indefinite wherever it is overlain by either
the Ridgetop shale or the New Providence shale. The
Maury consists chiefly of grayish-yellow, green, andgreenish-gray mudstone. Grayish-black shale is pres-'ent at some localities. Phosphatic nodules are generally
scattered throughout the formation and at many outcrops are also concentrated into a course at or very
near the base. Generally, the formation is between
1.5 and 3.0 feet thick, though at one locality (228) it
is more than 7 feet thick. The Maury is chiefly ofKinderhook age; however, the youngest beds of theformation are probably of Osage age and the oldest

24

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

beds in a part of north-central Tennessee are probably the Maury formation. It is the writer's opinion thatof very late Devonian age. The formation contains if a correlative of the Bedford shale and Berea sandstoneinterval of Ohio is present in central Tennessee, it isseveral distinct conodont faunas.
At many places along the north and west margins of probably the grayish-black shale that Campbell called
the Nashville Basin of Tennessee, the Maury formation the Westmoreland shale.
The conodonts in the phosphatic-nodule bed thatappears to grade into the overlying formation. At
indicatea very Late Devonian age are Hindeodella sp.
some localities (for example, Bakers Station, locality
204) the overlying formation has been identified in the A (pi. 3, figs. 27, 28), Spaihognaihodus aculeatus (Branliterature as the Eidgetop shale—a formation classified son and Mehl), Spathognathodus disparilis (Branson
as Kinderhook by the United States Geological Sur- and Mehl), and Spathognathodus inornatus (Branson
vey—but at other nearby outcrops (for example, and Mehl) (pi. 3, figs. 22-24). The last-named species,
Whites Creek Springs or Crocker Springs, locality 203) however, ranges into younger beds, as it has been
the overlying strata have been identified as the New recognized in collections from the Bedford shale of OhioProvidence shale—a formation classified as Osage by and the Louisiana limestone of Missouri; both formathe United States Geological Survey. Wilson and tions are Mississippian. In these two formations,
Spain (1936) have a different opinion, they regard the however, Spathognathodus inornatus is associated with
Eidgetop shale as a phase of the New Providence conodonts unlike those in the nodule bed of northshale and as Osage in age. Be this as it may, the central Tennessee.
Conodonts in the phosphatic-nodule bed of thewriter of the present report restricted his investigations
to 1 or 2 feet of beds, directly on top of the Chattanooga Maury formation that indicate a Mississippian (Kindershale, that contain for the most part phosphatic nodules, hook) age are listed in table 5. These conodonts haveglauconite, and conodonts of Kinderhook age. The been recognized in many collections in west-central
writer has not concerned himself with the problems of Tennessee including those from localities 203 and 204
the age, nomenclature, or stratigraphy of the beds in Davidson County; 163, 165, 168, and 250 in Hickman
commonly called Eidgetop shale and New Providence County; 249 in Perry County; and 134 in Marshallshale, except to note that the basal beds of the New County. The same conodonts are also in the phosProvidence in south-central Kentucky are of Kinder- phatic-nodule bed at the base of the New Providence
hook age and are the biostratigraphic equivalent of the shale in south-central Kentucky, for example, atMaury formation of Tennessee.
locality 6, in Pulaski County; 11 in Eussell County;
The course of phosphatic nodules at the base of the and 14 in Cumberland County.
Maury formation may be a transgressive deposit,
At several localities in north-central Tennessee, abecause in a part of north-central Tennessee the nodule grayish-black shale overlies the aforementioned phosbed contains conodonts like those in the youngest beds phatic-nodule bed that contains Upper Devonianof the underlying Gassaway member of the Chatta- conodonts. This shale is 0.2 foot thick at locality 92
nooga shale, whereas in west-central Tennessee, and in DeKalb County; 0.5 foot thick at locality 207 insouth-central Kentucky—where the nodules occur at Sumner County, where it has been designated the typethe base of the New Providence shale—the bed contains of the Westmoreland shale by Campbell (1946, p. 885);
conodonts of early Mississippian (Kinderhook) age. and 1.0 foot thick at locality 206, also in Sumner
On the other hand, there could be two distinct phos- County. The shale is 0.35 foot thick at locality 100phatic-nodule beds, as no correlative of the Bedford in Cannon County. The following species have been
shale and Berea sandstone of Ohio has been definitely recognized in one or more collections from this shale:
recognized in central Tennessee. Some stratigraphers Gnathodus sp. B.
might prefer to place the thin phosphatic-nodule bed Polygnathus communis Branson and Mehl (pi. 2, figs. 2-5).
of north-central Tennessee—that contains conodonts Spathognathodus aciedentatus (E. R. Branson) (pi. 2, fig. 26).
like those in the youngest beds of the Gassawav mem- Spathognathodus sp. A (pi. 2, fig. 19).
ber—in the Chattanooga shale, and to regard the Hindeodella sp. A (pi. 3, figs. 27, 28).
The first three species listed above are characteristicMaury formation as entirely of Mississippian age.
(See descriptions of sections at localities 39, 60, 74, 75, of the Mississippian and range into the overlying beds
76, 78, 91, 92, 95, 206, and 207.) However, from the of the Maury formation. The remaining two have notviewpoint of the field man who is concerned with been recognized in younger beds. One of theser
delimiting easily recognized mappable units, the afore- Hindeodella sp. A, ranges down into the topmost bedsmentioned phosphatic-nodule bed is a good base for of the Gassaway member of the Chattanooga shale.
the Maury formation of central Tennessee, and for that The other, Spathognathodus sp. A, is represented in thereason, L. C. Conant's party placed the nodule bed in writer's collections by only one specimen; this species

MAURY FORMATIONTABLE 5.—Distribution of significant conodont species present in
the major part of the Maury formation
No. offigure 1
on pi. 2
Dinodus fragosus (E. R. Bransoii) ___Elictognathus bialata (Bransoii andMehl)._..-.— _ _....—— .........
Pinacognathus profunda (Branson andMeal)....— -——..——._..-—
longipostica Branson and Mehl __Pseudopolygnathus prima Branson andMehl-.-.-...-.--.-. _ -. ___ ......
SiphonodeUa duplicata (Branson andMehl)....— ........................
duplicata (Branson and Mehl) var.
A.......... .....................
lobata (Branson and Mehl), ........
guadruplicata (Branson and Mehl).
sexplicata (Branson and Mehl) . __Spatkognathodus aciedentatus (E. R.
Polygnathus communin Branson andMehl........——— _-——_——

2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

21,22
17
18
28
24
0-11
13,23
25
29
30

TC

26
2-5
14,15

TC

1. Sunbury shale of Ohio (Hass, 1947a).
2. Bushberg sandstone member of the Sulphur Springs formation of Missouri(Branson and Mehl, 1934b).
3. Hannibal shale of Missouri (E. R. Branson, 1934).
4. Cbouteau limestone of Missouri (Branson and Mehl.1938).
5. Upper faunal zone of New Albany shale of Indiana (Huddle, 1934).
6. Pre-Welden shale interval of Oklahoma (Cooper, 1939).
7. Middle division of Arkansas novaeulite, Caddo Gap, Ark., 18.8-19.5 ft below topof middle division (Hass, 1951).
8. Middle division of Arkansas novaeulite, Caddo Gap, Ark., 20.0-20.2 ft below
top of middle division (Hass, 1951).
9. Middle division of Arkansas novaeulite, Caddo Gap, Ark., 28.0-28.5 ft below
top of middle division (Hass, 1951).
10. Faunal zone in Chattanooga shale of northeastern Oklahoma. Writer's collections.

has a spinelike denticle on the inner lip of the pulp
cavity, and in that feature, resembles a distinctive
spathognathodid of the Bedford shale of Ohio. Unfortunately, a good rubber replica of the spinelike denticle—which is approximately as high as the blade—could not be made. (See pi. 2, fig. 19.) A single specimen of Polygnathus communis Branson and Mehl has
been found in the prepared material of collection 172
from the topmost 0.3 foot of the Gassaway member at
locality 207. Because this is the only known occurrenceof the species in rocks of Late Devonian age, the writerprefers to regard the presence of P. communis in collection 172 as having resulted either through a stratigraphic leak or through a mixing of collections. The
latter is a likely possibility, as lithologically, at locality
207, chips from the topmost beds of the Gassaway
member and those from the grayish-black shale of theMaury formation are indistinguishable.
The conodont species that appear to range throughout
a large part of the Maury formation are listed in table 5.
The name Siphonodella duplicata (Branson and Mehl)
refers to specimens which, like the types of the species,
have transverse ridges on the oral surface of both platforms, and the name Siphonodella duplicata (Branson
and Mehl) var. A is used for specimens that differ
from the types by having nodes rather than transverse
ridges on the oral surface of the inner platform. Mostof the species listed in table 5 belong to one of the fol-25

lowing genera: Dinodus, Elictognathus, Pinacognathus,
Pseudopolygnathus, and Siphonodella. It is the writer's
opinion that these genera as well as Gnathodus are index
fossils of the post-Devonian. The conodonts listed intable 5 make it possible to correlate part of the Maury
with the Sunbury shale of Ohio; the uppermost part of
the New Albany shale of Indiana; the Bushberg sandstone member of the Sulphur Springs formation and theHannibal sfyale, both of Missouri; beds near the top of
the middle division of the Arkansas novaeulite of
Arkansas and Oklahoma; a faunal zone of the Chattanooga shale of northeastern Oklahoma; and a faunalzone in the lower part of C. L. Cooper's (1939) preWelden shale of Oklahoma. All these formations orparts of formations are classified as Mississippian.
The writer believes that the Maury formation isa biostratigraphic equivalent of the basal portion of the
New Providence shale of south-central Kentucky; thatis, the New Providence shale contains beds of Kinderhook age. This opinion is held because identical speciesof Kinderhook conodonts are present in the basal bedsof the New Providence shale in south-central Kentucky—including the exposures at localities 6, 11, and14—and in the Maury formation—including exposures
at locality 204, the type locality of the Ridgetop shale,
and at locality 203, the local standard section of the
New Providence shale.
A few specimens of Siphonodella sp. A (pi. 2, fig. 12)
have been collected from the Maury formation at locality
205 in Sumner County, Tenn., and from the phosphaticnodule bed at the base of the New Providence shale atlocality 6 in Pulaski County, Ky. This species has
an outer platform whose oral surface is nearly smooth; it
has not been recognized in any of the formations listed
in table 5, but it has been observed by the writer incollections from the Mississippian Chappel limestoneof Texas.
A single specimen of Spaihognathodus sp. B (pi. 2,
fig. 27) has been found in the Maury formation at
locality 205 in Sumner County, Tenn. This specimen
resembles Spathognathodus aciedentatus, but differs inthat the lateral expansions of its pulp cavity are more
asymmetric.
A few of the conodont species listed in table 5 havebeen found in the Maury formation at locality 226,
the type locality of the Chattanooga shale, and at
locality 228, an exposure near Apison, Tenn. Conodonts collected at the type locality of the Chattanooga
shale include Polygnathus communis Branson andMehl (pi. 2, figs. 2-5) and Siphonodella duplicata(Branson and Mehl) (pi. 2, figs. 6-11). These fossils
came from an interval of small phosphatic nodules
and olive-gray to dark-gray shale that is 0.4 to 0.45
foot above the Chattanooga shale and Maury formation

26

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

contact. Swartz placed this bed in the Chattanooga
shale and identified it as his Big Stone Gap member.
(See p. 7-9 for a review of Swartz's papers.) However,for the reasons given on page below, the present writerprefers to place the above-mentioned bed in the Maury
formation. The thin gray mudstone bed at the type
locality of the Chattanooga shale, which Swartz identified as his Olinger member of the Chattanooga shale,is also placed in the Maury formation because its
lithologic character more closely resembles that of theMaury formation than that of the underlying grayishblack Chattanooga shale, which at locality 226 isdeformed and slickensided.
The Maury formation at locality 228 consists of two
lithologic units: a greenish-gray mudstone, 3 feet thick,and an underlying grayish-black shale, which, because
the shale is slightly deformed, varies in thickness from.
3.8 to 4.7 feet along the face of the outerop. Bothunits contain numerous phosphatic nodules. No conodonts were collected from the greenish-gray mudstone,
but the following species have been found in the underlying grayish-black shale:
Elictognathus lacerata (Branson and Mehl) (pi. 2, figs. 21, 22).
Pseudopolygnathus prima Branson and Mehl (pi. 2, fig. 24).
Siphonodella duplicata (Branson and Mehl) (pi. 2, figs. 6-11).
Siphonodella duplicata (Branson and Mehl) var. A (pi. 2, figs. 13,
23).
Palmatolepis distorta Branson and Mehl (pi. 2, fig. 1).

These conodonts, with the exception of Palmatolepis
distorta, are characteristic of the lower Mississippian(Kinderhook) and are like those in the Maury formationof the central Tennessee area. Palmatolepis distorta
must have been reworked into the Maury formationfor elsewhere in Tennessee it is a typical fossil of thelower faunal zone of the Gassaway member of the
Chattanooga shale. (See figure 1.)
Locality 228 is the only one at which a thick blackshale of Mississippian age was recognized. Swartz,
like the writer, correlated this shale with the Sunbury
shale of Ohio and Kentucky. However, Swartz—who
worked in eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia, where the black-shale sequence contains beds ofboth Devonian and Mississippian ages—preferred toplace the above-mentioned black shale of Mississippian
age in the Chattanooga shale and identified it as the
Big Stone Gap member; whereas, the present writer—
who worked in central Tennessee, where the Chattanooga shale is definitely of Devonian age—prefers toplace this shale, as well as the beds mentioned above,in the Maury formation. This stratigraphic assignment is made because the beds in question either contain conodonts like those in the Maury formation ofcentral Tennessee or have a lithology similar to thatformation. Moreover, the Maury, as delimited in thepresent paper, lies unconformably on the Chattanooga
shale throughout much of southeastern Tennessee
with the youngest beds of the Gassaway member missing from the section. These beds are discussed on
pages 21-23.
In addition to conodonts that indicate an early
Kinderhook age, the Maury formation at some localities
contains still younger conodonts. These fossils include
Griathodus punctatus (Cooper) (pi. 2, fig. 20) and
Bactrognathus sp. Gnathodus punctatus is represented
in the writer's collections by a single specimen whichcame from locality 134 near Cornersville, MarshallCounty, Tenn., where it is associated with Gnathodus
sp. A (pi. 2, fig. 16), a gnathodid that resembles Gnathodus delicatus Branson and Mehl from the Chouteau
limestone of Missouri. Gnathodus punctatus is also ina faunal zone of the Chappel limestone of Texas; inboth C. L. Cooper's Welden limestone and the topmost
bed of Cooper's (1939) pre-Welden shale of Oklahoma;
and in beds between 11.5 and 19.5 feet below the topof the middle division of the Arkansas novaculite at
Caddo Gap, Montgomery County, Ark. (See Hass,
1951). The Chappel limestone, the Welden limestone,
and the above mentioned beds of the middle divisionof the Arkansas novaculite are all classified as of late
Kinderhook (Chouteau) age. Bactrognathus sp. has
been found in collections from the Maury formation
at the following localities: 89 and 95 in DeKalb County,
249 in Perry County, and 250 in Hickman County.
The genus Bactrognathus ranges from the upper Kinderhook into the lower Osage. Collection 15003 from the
top 3.6 feet of the Maury formation at locality 95 in
DeKalb County, Tenn., and collection 350 from 0.5 to
0.8 foot above the base of the New Providence shale atlocality 6 in Pulaski County, Ky., each contain a few
specimens of an elongate pseudopolygnathid which inthis paper is listed as Pseudopolygnathus sp. These
specimens resemble Pseudopolygnathus striata Mehl andThomas from the Fern Glen limestone of Missouri.
A few specimens of Taphrognathus have been foundin the Maury formation at localities 165 and 250 inHickman County, Tenn. This genus has not beenrecorded in the literature as ranging into rocks older
than those of Keokuk age. It cannot be determinedfrom the material at hand whether these specimens occur naturally in the Maury formation or whether they
are there as the result of a stratigraphic leak.
MEASURED SECTIONS

The locality numbers used in this paper are thesame as those that will be used in a report on the
Chattanooga shale and related rocks of central Tennessee and nearby areas which L. C. Conant and V. E.
Swanson are preparing. (See pi. 1.)

27

MEASURED SECTIONSLOCALITY 6.—In cut and on hillside below Oil Center Road, justeast of the crossing over Big Clifty Creek, 5.4 miles west ofSomerset, Pulaski County, Ky.
Mississippian:
New Providence shale:
Feet
The basal part of this formation is considered to be the biostratigrapbic equivalent of the Maury formation of Tennessee.
It is a dark-gray glauconitic mudstone.
A course of phosphatic nodules is situated
0.3-0.45 ft above base.
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;pbosphatic nodules scattered throughout.
8. 0
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains, nodules,
and thin seams. No fossils obtained frombasal 4.5 ft; this part may belong to
Dowelltown member._________________ 38. 4
Dowelltown member:
Sandstone, consisting chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand, calcareous bond___.4
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough. _.2
Sandstone, consisting chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand, calcareous bond__.4
Total..__________________________
Boyle limestone.

47. 4

LOCALITY 11.—Cut on State Highway 85,1.5 miles south-southeastof Rowena and just north of the county line, Russell County, Ky.
Mississippian:
New Providence shale:
Feet
The basal part of this formation is considered to be the biostratigraphic equivalent of the Maury formation of Tennessee.
It is a light-gray siltstone with a concentration of large phosphatic nodules in thebasal 0.4 ft.
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Phosphatic nodules scattered throughout,some as much as 0.6 ft long. Iron
sulfides present as grains and nodules. __4. 6
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Iron sulfides present as grains, nodules,
and thin seams_______________________ 25. 8
Mudstone, various shades of gray and greenish-gray, laminated, weathers hackly;interbedded with thin grayish-black
carbonaceous shale. Iron sulfides present
as grains and nodules. Basal 0.02 ft
sandy__.__________________
4. 9
Total..___________________
Ordovician.

35. 3

LOCALITY 14.—Cut on State Highway 90, 1.25 miles west of
Burkesville, Cumberland County, Ky.
Mississippian:
New Providence shale:
Feet.
The basal part of this 'formation is considered to be the biostratigraphic equivalent of the Maury formation of Tennessee.
It is a greenish-gray mudstone with aconcentration of large phosphatic nodules
in the basal 0.6 ft.
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;phosphatic nodules throughout _________
4. 1
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough_ 13. 5
Mudstone, dark-gray, alternating with thinbeds of grayish-black carbonaceous shale_
1. 3
Mudstone, dark-gray__________________
1.9
Sandstone, consisting chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand__________________.1
Total---..-._______________

20. 9

Ordovician.
LOCALITY 39.—Cut on State Highway 56, 1.7 miles south ofGainesboro, Jackson County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Feet
Basal beds include a coarse textured, lenticular, biohermal mass. Pelmatozoan columnals abundant, megafossils present.
Basal beds somewhat cherty.
Maury formation (in part):
Mudstone, dusky-green to dusky-yellow__ 0. 07"
Mudstone, yellowish-gray to olive-gray;phosphatic nodules scattered throughout- 1. 43.
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Persistent course of phosphatic nodules,
0.5 ft thick, embedded in grayish-bluegreen to dusky-blue-green glauconitic
mudstone which is underlain by darkgray to olive-gray crossbedded siltstone. 1. 0
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Phosphatic nodules throughout intervaland concentrated in two courses; themain course located approximately 1 ft
below top; the other, approximately 3.2
ft below top. Iron sulfides present as
grains and nodules____________________ 4. 7
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains, nodules, andpaper-thin layers...__________________ 6. 5Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;alternating with thin beds of greenishgray mudstone. Iron sulfides present as
grains______________ — __________ 3. 8«

28

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MATIRY FORMATIONLOCALITY 39—Continued

Devonian—Continued
Chattanooga shale—Continued
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone, "greenish-gray, banded; alternating with thin beds of grayish-black
carbonaceous shale and sandy beds.
Iron sulfides present as grains, nodules,
and thin seams_______________________

LOCALITY 54—Continued

peet

Devonian—Continued
Chattanooga shale—Continued
Dowelltown member—Continued
Feet
Sandstone, iron-oxide-stained, consisting
chiefly of rounded quartz grains. Lower
surface uneven. Thickness ranges from
0.25-0.5 ft; average___-----_--_--_--__
0. 4

5. 9
TotaL_______________________-___

TotaL.________-____________ 23. 40

34 9

Ordovician.

Ordovician.
LOCALITY 54.—Cut on road leading northwest from State Highway
56 into the Flynn Creek structure, 1.2 miles from Highway 56
and 6.5 miles (airline} south-southeast of the courthouse at
Gainesboro, Jackson County, Tenn.
[Chattanooga shale measurements made by W. A. Heck, March 1,1948]

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, cherty.
New Providence shale:
peet
Mudstones, bluish-green and greenish-gray.
Thin siliceous layers, iron sulfide grains,and pelmatozoan columnals present. A
course of siliceous geodes up to 0.1 ft
in diameter at base-___-___-__--______
7. 2
Maury formation:
Mudstone, greenish and brownish, glauconitic_-____----------------------___.4
Mudstone, yellowish-gray to olive-gray,laminated. Iron sulfides present as grains.
Phosphatic nodules scattered throughout_______________-_---_________
1. 8
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:.
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Phosphatip nodules scattered throughout
interval. Iron sulfides present as grains
and nodules._________________________
2. 5
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Iron sulfides present as grains __________
9. 3
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough,with iron sulfides present as grains; alternating with thin beds of grayish-olive togreenish-gray mudstones. A laminatedbed, 0.1 ft thick, present at base______
1. 4
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Iron sulfides present as grains-_________
2. 3
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds together with a few thin
grayish-black-shale beds. A light-grayiron-oxide-stained bentonite bed, 0.1 ft
thick, present 0.4-0.5 ft below top______
3. 4
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains.________
6. 2

LOCALITY 60.—Cut on United States Highway 70N, 0.8 mile
west of Chestnut Mound, Smith County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
feet
Limestone, blocky, interbedded with chert.
Maury formation (in part):
Mudstone, grayish-green, laminated_______
3. 1
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in dark-gray shale and mudstone.
1. 2Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Phosphatic nodules scattered throughout. Iron sulfides present as grains andnodules__-_----__-----------_-------3.4
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough,laminated; iron sulfides present as grains,nodules, and thin layers.______________
7. 3
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;interbedded with thin beds of gray mudstone. A laminated bed, which ranges
from 0.3-0.13 ft in thickness, present
at the base____-____________________
3. 0
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough__
2. 1
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with a few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A mediumdark-gray bentonite bed (very light grayand iron oxide stained where weathered),
0.1 ft thick, present 1.3-1.4 ft below
top_____-_----____-----------_-----5. 3
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;interbedded with thin gray mudstone
beds--..---------------------------2. 3
Mudstone, gray; interbedded with a few
thin grayish-black carbonaceous shale
beds_______--________-------.____
3. 8
Sandstone, iron-oxide-stained, consisting
chiefly of rounded grains of quartz sand__. 1
Total_.._ —____ — -- — --___-Ordovician.

31. 6

29

MEASURED SECTIONSLOCALITY 74.—Face of Taylor Creek Falls (Fanchers Mill), about
10 miles (airline) northwest of Sparta, White County, Tenn.
[Modified from notes of Ralph Smith, dated May 19,1948]

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation (in part):
peet
Mudstone, grayish-green_______________
1. 6
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in grayish-black, carbonaceous
shale. Iron sulfides present as grains andnodules___--__-_--____-___-_-_-____-_. 9
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;scattered phosphatic nodules___________
1.7
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough- _7. 4
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous; interbedded thin beds of gray mudstone_____
3. 1
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous.
Alaminated bed, 0.15 ft thick, present
1.25-1.40ft below top__.__--..---__--_
8. 4
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with few thin grayish-black shale beds. A bentonite bed,
0.12 ft thick, present 0.93-1.05 ft below
top____ ——____.____________.__
9. 4
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough_ _6. 7
Total________-________--__--_

39. 2

Ordovician.

LOCALITY 75.— Cut on abandoned farm road, 0.5 mile northwest of
point on State Highway 26 where descent starts to the east end of
the Sligo Bridge over the Caney Fork, and 5.8 miles (airline) eastof the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation (in part):
Feet
Mudstone, grayish-green_______________
2. 1
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Course of large phosphatic nodules_ _ _ _ _ _.3
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough__
7. 7
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, withsome interbedded gray mudstones. A
laminated bed, 0.2 ft thick, consisting ofalternating paper-thin layers of blackshale and gray fine to very fine sandstone
at base______________________________
1.9
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough__
7. 7Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with a few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A bentonite
bed, 0.11 ft thick, present 0.67-0.78 ft
below top—_________________________
9. 3
36,719—56———3

LOCALITY 75—Continued
Devonian—Continued
Chattanooga shale—Continued
Dowelltown member—Continued
Feet
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough-_
6.9
Sandstone, brownish to grayish-black, poorly
sorted, consisting chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand__---_----__--___-

Totfd__._____ —-- — __- —_ — --_—

36.

Ordovician.
LOCALITY 76.—Cut on State Highway 26, at east approach to the
Sligo Bridge over the Caney Fork, 5.9 miles (airline) or 7.1 miles
by road east of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County,
Tenn. Standard section of the Chattanooga shale, described on
page 12.
LOCALITY 78.—Cut on that portion of State Highway 26 abandonedin 1948, approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the eastern approach
to Sligo Bridge over the Caney Fork on the present State Highway
26, and 5.9 miles (airline) east of the courthouse at Smithville,
DeKalb County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation (in part):
peet
Mudstone, olive-gray, laminated, slightly
glauconitic____ _-_--_-_-__---_----__-_
2. 1
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Course of large phosphatic nodules._______. 3
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough-_
7. 0
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough,interbedded with thin beds of gray mudstone. A laminated bed, 0.25 ft thick,consisting of alternating, paper-thinlayers of black shale and gray very
finegrained sand at base__________.____
3. 3
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough- _8. 4
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with a few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A bentonite
bed, 0.11 ft thick, present 0.69-0.80 ft
below top-_----_---_-----_----------9. 7
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough. _4. 5
Sandstone, grayish-black, consisting chiefly
of rounded grains of quartz sand—_____. 2
Total- — — — — — - — — — — — -35. 5

Ordovician.

LOCALITY 88. —Horseshoe Bend; along the right bank of the Caney
Fork, 4-8 miles (airline) west-northwest of United States Highway
70S at the community of Walling, White County, Tenn.
[This locality is now below the normal pool level of a reservoir]
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, gray, bedded, cherty, withsiliceous geodes. Uneven contact
with underlying beds.

30

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAUBY FORMATIONLOCALITY 88—Continued

LOCALITY 89—Continued

Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Upper black shale:
Feet
Mudstone, greenish-gray to olive-gray.
0. 7
Mudstone, greenish-gray to olive-gray,induratad, blocky; iron sulfides present as grains and nodules __________
1.0
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; iron sulfides present as
grains and nodules______________ 13.7
Dowelltown member:
Middle gray beds:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenishgray, grayish-olive, olive-gray, andgrayish-brown beds, together with a
few thin grayish-black shale beds.
A medium-dark-gray bentonite bed,
0.1 ft thick, present 1.22-1.32 ft
below top_______________________
5.5
Lower black shale:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous,
tough; iron sulfides present as
grains___________________________ 10. 6

Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:peet
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough. _5. 0
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;interbedded with thin beds of gray mudstone. A laminated bed, 0.19 ft thick,consisting of paper-thin layers of blackshale and gray very fine grained sandat base____________________________
2. 3
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
7. 7Dowelltown member:
Mudstone: alternating thin grayish-green,
grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with a few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A bentonite
bed, 0.08 ft thick, 0.60-0.68 ft below
top..._____________________
9. 3
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Basal contact under water. Measured. _6. 7

Total___ _____________

31. 5

Ordovician.

Locality 88 is now below the normal pool level of areservoir. The Maury formation was not recognizedat this locality. The mudstone beds just beneath theFort Payne chert contain numerous conodonts likethose that characterize the lower faunal zone of the
Gassaway member of the Chattanooga shale and include Ancyrognathus bifurcata, Palmatolepis glabra,
Palmatolepis perlobata, Palmatolepis subperlobata, andPolylophodonta confluens. The Maury formation could
have been cut out of the section through faulting as
elsewhere, within a mile or two of locality 88, theChattanooga shale and Maury formation interval has
been greatly contorted and ranges from 3 to 6 feet inthickness.
LOCALITY 89.—Face of waterfall on Pine Creek, 4-4 "miles (airline)
west of confluence with Caney Fork and S.S miles (airline) southeast of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, blocky, interbedded with chert.
Maury formation:
Feet
Mudstone, grayish-green, laminated_______
1. 6
Mudstone, medium-gray to olive-gray,laminated__________________________.3

Total exposed._____________.

32. 9

Ordovician.
LOCALITY 91.—Cut on farm road, one mile north of State Highway
26 and 8.4 miles northeast of the courthouse at Smithville,
DeKalb County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation (in part):
Mudstone, grayish-green, laminated_____
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Course of phosphatic nodules embedded ingray mudstone-__-_--__-__---__-_-_-_
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough_Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous; interbedded with thin gray mudstones. A
laminated bed, consisting of alternating paper-thin layers of black shaleand gray very fine grained sand at
base____-__--__-________________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough.
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A bentonite
bed, 0.1 ft thick, 0.6-0.7 ft below top_
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough_Sandstone, iron-oxide-stained, consisting
chiefly of rounded grains of quartz sand_TotaL__________________._
Ordovician.

Feet
2. 1

. 1
7. 0

2. 4
7. 6

9. 3
5. 9
. 1
34 5

31

MEASURED SECTIONSLOCALITY 107—Continued

LOCALITY 92.—Cut on the Holmes Creek road, 1.6 miles north ofthe courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Covered, float only.
Maury formation (in part):
Covered interval.
Mudstone, grayish-green, laminated_____-_
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough__
Mudstone, gray________________________
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part) :Course of phophatic nodules embedded ingray mudstone-______________________
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;scattered phosphatic nodules ___________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough, _Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;interbedded with thin beds of graymudstone. A laminated bed, 0.2 ft
thick, consisting of alternating paperthin layers of black shale and gray very
finegrained sand at base______-_--____
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough,_
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin grayish-green,
grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with a few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A bentonite
bed, 0.12 ft thick, present 0.50-0.62
ft below the top._____________________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough, _Total__________._________________

peet
1. 0
. 2
. 4

.5

.2
6. 7

2.0
6. 2

9. 0
6. 1
32. 3

Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Feet
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough. _0. 2
Mudstone, gray, iron-oxide-stained________.2
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains and nodules.
Interval contains a few mudstone beds
0.01-0.08 ft thick___________.__-_._
5. 1
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough,alternating with thin beds of grayish-olive
to greenish-gray siltstone; iron sulfides
present as grains and nodules. A laminated bed, 0.4 ft thick, consisting ofalternating, paper-thin layers of grayishblack shale and iron-oxide-stained veryfine grained sand at base____-_____-_-_
1.2
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough. _5. 8
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone; alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with a few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A bentonite
bed, 0.05 ft thick, present 1.16-1.21 ft
below top._________________________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;a few thin gray mudstone beds. Iron sulfides present as grains and nodules._____
Sandstone, medium-light-gray to grayishblack, calcareous. Consists chiefly ofrounded quartz grains and iron sulfide
grains and stringers. Top 0.45 ft ofinterval contains thin layers of grayishblack, carbonaceous shale— ____________

9. 4
7. 5

.6

Ordovician.

Total____-___--_--_---_-_-_---_
LOCALITY 95.—Cut on that portion of State Highway 26 abandoned
as the main highway in 1953, 3.1 miles east of Dowelltown, DeKalb
County, Tenn. Regarded as the type locality of Campbell's
Dowelltown formation. This section is described on pages 13, 14LOCALITY 100.—Cut on State Highway 53, about 5 miles by roadsouth of Gassaway, Cannon County, Tenn. Type locality ofCampbell's Gassaway formation. This section is described on
pages 14, 15.
LOCALITY 107.—Deep cut on United States Highway 41, 1 mile
northwest of Noah and 10.1 miles northwest of Manchester, Coffee
County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation:
Mudstone, light-greenish-gray to grayishyellow - green, laminated, iron - oxide stained._____________________________

Feet
0. 9

30. 8

Ordovician.
LOCALITY 126a.—In gully about 100 feet south of United States
Highway 241, 4 miles south of the courthouse at Fayetteville,
Lincoln County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation:
Mudstone, light - greenish - gray to pale greenish-yellow where freshly exposed,
and yellowish-orange where weathered.
Basal 0.5 ft greenish gray, indurated.___Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains, nodules,
and paper-thin layers. The shale beds,
which may be as much as 0.1 ft thick, areseparated by reddish-brown silty beds asmuch as 0.02 ft thick______________

feet

1. 5

5. 2

32

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATIONLOCALITY 126a—Continued

Devonian—Continued
Chattanooga shale—Continued
Gassaway member—Continued
Sandstone; light olive gray where freshly exposed, but yellowish brown and moderate
brown where weathered; somewhat friable, consists chiefly of rounded grains ofquartz sand. Iron sulfides common in top
0.1 ft________________________________
Total.

LOCALITY 154.— Cut on road to Hampshire, 3.8 miles west of UnitedStates Highway 43 at Mount Pleasant, Maury County, Tenn.
[Ulrich and Bassler's (1926) "Hardin sandstone" conodont fauna came from thisvicinity. See Bassler (1932, p. 141) for his description of section]

Feet

0. 7
7.4

Ordovician.
LOCALITY 127.—Quicks Mill on Flint River, about 4 miles west of
New Market, Madison County, Ala. Section measured along millrace, approximately 0.2 mile upstream from Quicks Mill.
[Holmes (1928) conodont fauna came from vicinity of this locality]

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, yellowish-gray.
Maury formation:
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in gray siltstone. ______________
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, dark-gray to grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough; iron sulfides present as
grains.______________________________
TotalWater level of mill race.

TotaL —_-_--_-----_------__----

Total.
Ordovician.

Feet
13. 0

.8

.6
14. 4

Ordovician.
Feet

LOCALITY 163.— Cut on State Highway 50, S miles southwest of
the main intersection at Coble, Hickman County, Tenn.

0.3

5.0
5.3

LOCALITY 134.— Cut on south side of State Highway 129, 0.9 mile
west of junction uith United States Highway 31A in Cornersville,
Marshall County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation:
Mudstone, light-greenish-gray, iron-oxidestained, with few phosphatic nodules inbasal 0.2 ft_________________________
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Mudstone, pale-olive.___-___-__._____-__
Shale, dark-gray, carbonaceous, silty______
Claystone, light-green and orange-brown,
laminated---.-_--____--_--___________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;with persistent sandy bed, 0.6 ft thick, at
base_______________________________
Shale, grayish-black, with paper-thin silty
seams; iron sulfides are present as grains
and nodules._________________________

Mississippian:Ridgetop shale:
Mudstone, laminated, lighl/-bluish-gray togreenish-gray. Approximately. ________
Maury formation:
Mudstone, greenish-gray and yellowishbrown, glauconitic, phosphatic grains
common; course of phosphatic nodules inbasal 0.2 ft_______.___________
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Sandstone, several shades of brown, indurate, poorly sorted. Consists chiefly ofquartz sand together with phosphatic
grains, glauconite, bones and conodonts__

Feet
1. 3

1.6
1. 0
. 4
3.4
1.0

Mississippian:Maury formation:
Mudstone, light-olive-gray, glauconitic; few
phosphatic nodules__________________
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in light-olive-gray mudstone;
glauconitic. __________________________
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough__
TotaL

Feet
0. 2
.3

1. 0
1. 5

Covered.
LOCALITY 165.— Cut on State Highways 48 and 100; 2 miles
northeast of Centerville, Hickman County. Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, cherty; basal foot weathered
reddish-brown and dusky red.
Maury formation:
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in a glauconitic grayish-olive
mudstone-___________________________
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough__
Sandstone, consisting chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand. Upper 0.25 ft
bluish-gray to olive gray; lower 0.35 ft
iron oxide stained-_---_-_--_-__--____-

5.7

TotaL
Silurian.

feet
0. 6

3. 6

.6
4.8

33

MEASURED SECTIONSLOCALITY 168. — Cut on State Highway 50, about 3.5 miles
southeast of Centerville, Hickman County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert.
Maury formation:
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in dusky-yellow-green to grayisholive, glauconitic mudstone ____________
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black carbonaceous, tough _ _Sandstone, bluish-gray to olive-gray, unsorted; consisting of quartz grains, phosphatic pellets, bone fragments, conodonts, and iron sulfide grains, nodules,
and lenses___________________________
TotaL

Feet

0. 7

4. 2

. 7

5. 6

Silurian.

LOCALITY 185.—Standard section of the Maury formation. Southside of a road 13.5 miles (airline) southeast of Franklin and
1.2 miles east of the road junction at Cross Key, Williamson
County, Tenn. This section is described on page %S.

LOCALITY 203.—Local standard section of the New Providence
shale. Cited in literature as Whites Creek Springs, but locallyknown as Crocker Springs, about 10.5 miles (airline} north ofState Capitol in Nashville and 1.3 miles north of communityof Mount Hermer, Davidson County, Tenn.
[The following description is from L. C. Conant's notes of April 29,1952]
Mississippian:

New Providence shale.
Maury formation:
Feet
Top indefinite. Greenish-gray, glauconitic
mudstone. Phosphatic nodules numerous and as much as 0.75 ft long. Interval
poorly exposed; approximate thickness__
1. 0
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, massive. Probableduplication of beds through faulting___ 24. 0
Dowelltown member (?):
Shale, grayish-black, hackly in top 2 ft.
Remainder of interval mostly concealed. .
5. 0
Covered. Estimated thickness_________ 1. 0-2. 0
Shale, grayish-black, massive; exposed increek bed. Base not exposed. Approximate thickness of exposed beds_________
3. 0
Total____.____________________ 34.0-35. 0

LOCALITY 204. — Type locality of the Ridgetop shale, in cuts along
the tracks of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad at Bakers
Station, Davidson County, Tenn. From community of Ridgetop
go south 3 miles on United States Highway 41 to road junction,
turn west onto secondary road, go 0.7 mile to cuts along railroad
tracks. The Gassaway member was measured in a cut at Bakers
Station crossing, the Dowelltown member in a cut 1,560 ft southof the Bakers Station crossing.
Mississippian:
Feet
Ridgetop shale (only basal beds described) :Limestone, cherty , fossiliferous ___________ 1.3
Mudstone, gray, laminated--------------- 1. 5Maury formation:
Mudstone, glauconitic____--_-_----_-_-_. 3
Mudstone, gray________________________. 7
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in gray mudstone_________________. 6
Mudstone, gray and dark-brown, laminated _ _____________________________. 3
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;. 7
phosphatic nodules throughout _ ______
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains andnodules. A persistent re-entrant zone,
0.3 ft thick, present 2.0-2.3 ft above
base__-___--_-----_-__--_--~_-----___ 10. 5
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;numerous iron sulfide grains and nodules. I.0
Sandstone (Bransford sandstone of Campbell, 1946) ,J yellowish-gray, iron-oxidestained; unsorted, consisting chiefly ofrounded quartz grains, bone fragments,
teeth, and conodonts _ _______________. 4
Dowelltown member:
Shale, dark-gray to grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough. _____-__-_-____-____--__. 5
Mudstone, dark-gray, hackly, iron sulfides
present as grains and thin seams _ _____ 3. 1
Sandstone, medium-light-gray, iron-oxidestained, friable; ranges in thickness from. 1
0.02-0.13 ft; average.-.-.- _ __ _ __Shale, grayish-black to dark-gray, carbona. 35
ceous, laminated-______-_- ____________
Mudstone, sandy, laminated. Upper halfconsists of alternating paper-thin layersof dark-gray shale and light-gray mudstone; lower half consists chiefly of quartz. 15
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;interbedded thin gray beds and lenses of
mudstone and sandstone. Iron sulfides
present as grains and nodules _ ________ II.7
Sandstone, dark-gray to naedium-dark-gray,unsorted; consists chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand___ _ ______________ 1.0
TotaL_--__-______-______---_-_ 34. 20
Silurian.
i Section carried 1,560 ft south of Bakers Station crossing on this sandstone.

34

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MATJRY FORMATIONLOCALITY 206—Continued

LOCALITY 205.—Cut on State Highway 109, 5.5 miles north ofGallatin, Sumner County, Tenn.

Mississippian:
New Providence shale (basal portion):
Feet
Chert, porous, weathered, iron-oxide-stained2. 0
Siltstone, indurated, laminated, greenishgray to pale-olive; basal 0.15 ft contains
glauconite and phosphatic nodules _ _____
9. 5
Maury formation:
Mudstone, plastic, dusky-yellow to greenishgray, glauconitic. Contact with overlying
New Providence shale indefinite._______.9
Mudstone, grayish-green, glauconitic_--_-_.3
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in dark-gray siltstone. Largest
nodule observed measured 2.5 by 0.1 by
0.3ft-_---_-_-__----_---_-_-_-___-_-_.2
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;no phosphatic nodules recognized in topmost portion of interval. Lower portion
disturbed-___________________________ 16. 0
Sandstone (Bransford sandstone of Campbell, 1946), very light gray to dark-gray,iron-oxide-stained, poorly sorted, indurated; consists chiefly of rounded grainsof quartz sand. Lenticular, ranges fromfeatheredge to 0.2 ft in thickness, average. 1
Dowelltown member:
Shale, grayish-black, with sandy lenses;
beds of interval disturbed. Base not exposed ; estimated thickness.____________ 15. 0
TotaL__-__----_--_-____--__.___

44. 0

Covered.
LOCALITY 206.— Type locality of Campbell''$ Bransford sandstone
member of his Gassaway formation. In west bank of Bledsoe
Creek which parallels United States Highway 81E, 8.6 miles
north of intersection with State Highway 10A at Bransford, Sumner County, Tenn.

>ian:
New Providence shale:
peet
Limestone interbedded with mudstone.
Unit greenish gray and light bluish gray,crinoidal. Grades into overlying cherty
limestones.
Maury formation (in part):
Covered, probably Maury formation, estimated thickness- _____________________
1.0
Shale (Westmoreland shale of Campbell,1946), grayish-black to black, carbonaceous, tough; iron sulfides present as
grains and nodules.___________________
1.0

Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
Feet
Mudstone (upper part of Eulie shale ofCampbell. 1946), yellowish-gray to paleolive-gray, indurated----__-__-_----_
0. 2
Course of large phosphatic nodules (lower
part of Eulie shale of Campbell)________.3
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains and nodules.
Phosphatic nodules common, may be as
much as 1 ft in length— _________---___.5
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains, nodules,
and seams. A few very thin beds of graymudstone____________________________ 15. 5
Sandstone (Type Bransford sandstone ofCampbell, 1946), very light gray to darkgray, iron-oxide-stained; poorly sorted,indurated; consists chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand, bone fragments,
fish teeth, conodonts, and iron sulfide
grains and nodules. Base uneven. As
much as 0.25 ft thick; average.-_______.2
Dowelltown member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;a few thin beds of gray mudstone present.
Rocks of interval weather to small chips
and dip about 8° NW_.-_---_-______ 15. 0
Shale (Trousdale shale of Pohl, 1930a),grayish-black, carbonaceous; interbedded ''with medium-gray to dark-gray calcareous
sandstones that consist chiefly of roundedgrains of quartz sand. Iron sulfides
present as grains and nodules_________
2. 0
Tota______---___-___-_-_-_-_-____

35. 7

Silurian.
LOCALITY 207.— Type locality of Campbell's Westmoreland shale;
200 yards north of Garretts Creek Church and 5.6 miles by roadnorth of Westmoreland, Sumner County, Tenn.
Mississippian:
New Providence shale:
Limestone, crinoidal, light-gray; interbedded with thin greenish-gray calcareous
silty beds.
Maury formation (in part):

Covered___________..._________
Mudstone, light-gray__________________
Shale (type Westmoreland shale of Campbell, 1946), grayish-black, carbonaceous;a few phosphatic nodules, as much as 0.3
ft long, throughout interval. Iron sulfides present as grains,________________

Feet

0. 2
.2

.5

35

MEASURED SECTIONSLOCALITY 220—Continued

LOCALITY 207—Continued
Devonian:
Maury formation (in part):
pea
Mudstone (upper part of Eulie shale ofCampbell, 1946), olive-gray, mediumgray, and greenish-gray______________
0. 4
Course of large phosphatic nodules (lower
part of Eulie shale of Campbell, 1946) __.2
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains. Few phosphatic nodules embedded in top 0.1 ft.
Basal contact covered. Measured______
6. 0
TotaL

7.5

Covered, creek level.
LOCALITY 215.—Road cut and hillside, 2 miles east of road Junetion near Cedar Ridge, northeast corner of Melvine quadrangle,
Bledsoe County, Tenn.

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, cherty.
Maury formation:
Mudstone; predominantly yellow green,
friable. Indurated and dark gray at base.
Phosphatic nodules throughout interval _Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous; phosphatic nodules present_______________
Mudstone, light-gray__________________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous; phosphatic nodules present_______________
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, somewhat disturbed. Iron sulfides present as
grains_______________________________
Dowelltown member:
Mudstone: alternating thin greenish-gray,grayish-olive, olive-gray, and grayishbrown beds, together with a few thin
grayish-black shale beds. A light-graybentonite bed, 0.14 ft thick, present 0.430.57 ft below top. This interval is poorly
exposed and somewhat disturbed.______
Shale, grayish-black, disturbed ___________
Sandstone, consists chiefly of rounded grainsof quartz sand______________________
Total.___________._____________

peet
1. 5

.4
.2
1. 6
10.7

7. 4
2. 5
.2
24. 5

Silurian.
LOCALITY 220.— West slope of Walden Ridge. Cut along State
Highway 8, 1 mile southeast of junction with State Highway £8,near Dunlap, Sequatchie County, Tenn.

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, cherty, blocky; basal 0.25 ft
weathered.

Mississippian—Continued
Maury formation:
Mudstone, plastic, grayish-green to duskygreen; phosphatic nodules abundant-___Mudstone, indurated, dusky-yellow-green;phosphatic nodules abundant; calcareoussiliceous geodes in top 0.4 ft__________
Mudstone, indurated, greenish-gray to darkgreenish-gray; phosphatic nodules in top
0.5 ft—_-_--------_- — ___________
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, tough. Numerous
phosphatic nodules throughout interval,
also concentrated in a persistent course
0.9-1.0 ft below top. Iron sulfides
present as grains and nodules_________
Shale, grayish-black, tough, very thinly
bedded. Iron sulfides common as grains,nodules, and paper-thin layers.._______
Shale, grayish-black, somewhat disturbed.
Iron sulfides present as grains andnodules______-_______-_____-_---__.
Dowelltown member:
Bentonite bed, 0.04-0.15 ft thick.______
Shale, grayish-black, alternating with thinbeds of light- to medium-gray mudstone.
Sandstone, indurated; light gray where
freshly exposed and dark rusty brown
where weathered. Thickness varies from
0.3-0.6 ft; average______________

Feet
0. 1
1. 1
1. 7

1. 0
4.2
7. 4
. 15
. 95

.5

Total__________________ 17. 10
Silurian.
LOCALITY 225.— Type locality of the Glendale shale of Swartz(1924). Hillside exposure along railroad tracks, just southwestof junction of State Highway 27 (not United States Highway 27)
and State Highway 8, North Chattanooga, Hamilton County,
Tenn.

Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert:
Limestone, cherty, blocky; basal 0.25 ft
weathered.
peet
Maury formation (Glendale shale of Swartz):
Mudstone, plastic, grayish-green to duskygreen; phosphatic nodules and calcareoussiliceous geodes common___________- 0. 2
Mudstone. Top 0.25 ft somewhat plastic,
predominantly grayish yellow green to
dusky yellow green; phosphatic nodules
and calcareous-siliceous geodes abundant.
Bottom 0.85 ft indurated, dusky yellow
green; phosphatic nodules present but
not abundant___-_.____________--_--_ 1. 1
Mudstone, indurated, laminated, greenishgray to dark-greenish-gray; phosphatic
nodules scarce______________________.7
Mudstone, indurated, olive-gray __________ . 1
Course of phosphatic nodules in olive-graysilty matrix._________________________.2

36

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATIONLOCALITY 228—Continued

LOCALITY 225—Continued
Mississippian—Continued
Maury formation—Continued
peet
Mudstone, less indurated than middle portion of formation, olive-gray, with few
phosphatic nodules in basal 0.1 ft and aconcentration of conodonts in paper-thinlayer at very base_____________________
0. 5
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, carbonaceous, grayish-black, tough.
Exposed.____________________________
2.3
Total_.

5. 1

Covered.
LOCALITY 226.— Type locality of the Chattanooga shale. Hillside
exposure at the north end of Gamer on Hill, Chattanooga, Hamilton
County, Tenn.
[See pi. 5]
Mississippian:Port Payne chert:
Feet
Limestone, cherty, blocky; basal beds locallyweathered to a porous, somewhat friable,
reddish-brown rock.
Maury formation:
Mudstone, plastic, grayish-green to duskygreen; phosphatic nodules and calcareoussiliceous geodes common_____________ 0. 2
Mudstone. Top 0.25 ft somewhat plastic,
predominately greenish gray to light olive
brown; bottom 0.35 ft indurated, dusky .
yellowish green.
Phosphatic nodules
throughout_________________________. 6
Mudstone, indurated, pale-olive and grayish-olive. Phosphatic nodules scarce. _ 1. 2
Course of small phosphatic nodules embedded in olive-gray to dark-gray shale. _. 05
Mudstone, indurated, olive-gray._________.4
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, carbonaceous, grayish-black, incompetent, fractured; slickensided surfaces common; iron sulfides present as
stringers, paper-thin layers, nodules, andclusters of pyrite crystals ______________ 7.0
TotaL._.__________________

9. 45

Silurian.
LOCAIITY 228.— Cut along tracks of Southern Railroad, immediately
south of the Ooltewah-Apison rood crossing. About 1 mile eastof Collegedale and 2 miles west of Apison, Hamilton County,
Tenn.
Mississippian:Port Payne chert:
Limestone, cherty, blocky; basal beds locallyweathered to a porous, somewhat friable,
reddish-brown rock.

M iss issippian—Continue d
Maury formation:
Mudstone, plastic, dusky-green to duskyyellow-green; phosphatic nodules common
and as much as 0.5 ft long____________
Mudstone, indurated, dark-greenish-gray;phosphatic nodules common, irregularly
shaped, as much as 0.2 ft long__________
Mudstone, indurated, olive-black to olivegray; phosphatic nodules present, as much
as 0.2 ft long__________._________
Shale, carbonaceous, dark-gray to grayishblack, incompetent; phosphatic nodules
abundant, as much as 0.1 ft long; ironsulfides present as grains and nodules.
Thickness varies from 3.8-4.7 ft; average.
Sandstone, indurated, brownish-black; composed chiefly of rounded grains of quartz
sand cemented with iron sulfides _ ______
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Mudstone, indurated, olive-gray to oliveblack.______________________
Claystone; pale olive to grayish olive where
freshly exposed and dark yellowish orange
where weathered_._____-__________-Mudstone, grayish-olive. Poorly preserved
megafossils_--___________-_-_____---_Mudstone, indurated, olive-gray, sandy.___Shale, carbonaceous, grayish-black; roundedgrains of quartz sand common; iron sulfides present as grains and paper-thinlayers___-____________-_-________-_-_
Mudstone, olive-gray; thickness varies from0.02-0.17 ft; average__--__-.____-----Shale, carbonaceous, grayish-black; roundedgrains of quartz sand---_---_____--__-Mudstone, olive-gray. Thickness varies
from 0.02-0.33 ft; average___________
Shale, carbonaceous, grayish-black; roundedgrains of quartz sand--__-_-_____--_--Mudstone, indurated, olive-gray, interbedded with grayish-black shale; numerous rounded grains of quartz sand; also
irregularly shaped, very light gray togreenish-gray granules and pebbles ofsiltstone. Thickness varies from 2.5-3.0
ft; average.-_______________________
Sandstone, indurated, blocky; dark graywhere freshly exposed and moderate
brown where weathered-----___-_-_--_-

Feet
0.25
2.25
.5

4. 2
. 2

.2
1. 3
.3
. 2

1. 5
. 1
1. 0
. 2
5. 6

2.7
. 2

TotaL_____________-__________--_ 20. 70
Silurian.

Through faulting, some of the beds in the lower part of
the Chattanooga shale at locality 228 appear to havebeen duplicated. The stratigraphic thickness of the
shale is probably about 10 feet.

37

MEASURED SECTIONSLOCALITY 235.— Type locality of Whetstone Branch shale of
Morse (1928), Whetstone Branch, Tishomingo County, Miss.
From junction of State Highways 25 and 72 in luka go north on
Highway 25 for 8.5 miles; turn north onto well-traveled secondaryroad; go 3.5 miles to road fork, continue north; go 8.1 miles toroad fork, continue north; go 0.8 mile and immediately after
crossing tributary of Whetstone Branch, turn onto dirt road thatparallels Whetstone Branch; go 0.5 mile. The best outcrop isalong the north bank of Whetstone Branch, about 300 feet fromits confluence with the Tennessee River.
Mississippian:

Carmack limestone of Morse:
Limestone, bluish-gray.
Maury formation:
feet
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in glauconitic mudstone. (Basal
bed of Morse's Carmack limestone) _____
0. 5
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale (Whetstone Branch shale of Morse)
Gassaway member:
Mudstone, gray, indurated, siliceous; numerous grains and stringers of ironsulfide_____________________________.1
Mudstone, gray, indurated; numerous conodonts in basal 0.1 ft----_------_--___.5
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;iron sulfides present as grains, nodules,
and lenses.__________________________.8
Sandstone, grayish-black, lenticular, calcareous, crossbedded; iron sulfides present
as grains and nodules. The sandstone
beds are 0.3-0.4 ft thick and are separated
by thinner undulating beds of grayishblack carbonaceous shale._____________
1. 2
Dowelltown member:
Sandstone and shale similar to that above.
The topmost 1 or 2 ft of interval may
belong to the Gassaway member. Exposed _______________________________
9.5
Total exposed.

12.6

Bed of Whetstone Branch.
LOCALITY 239.—In gutter and bed of secondary road by stone
church, 0.15 mile south of United States Highway 64 at Olive
Hill, Hardin County, Tenn. [The description and thicknessof the lithologic units given below are after V. E. Swanson's
notes of July 1, 1949. The present writer is responsible forassigning beds to the Gassaway and Dowelltown members of
the Chattanooga shale]
Mississippian:Rldgetop shale.
Maury formation:
Total thickness not determinable, top not
exposed. Sandstone unit at base, 0.5 ft
thick, contains abundant glauconite,abundant phosphatic nodules, some marcasite nodules, and siliceous geodes.
Conformable with Chattanooga shale.
Approximately_______________________
36ft719—66———*

Feet
-

1. 0

LocAHTr 239—Continued
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:peet
Shale; weathered to chocolate-brown claylike material.________________________
0. 9
Covered___________-___-_-___________
3. 3
Shale, grayish-black, finely laminated. _ _ _ _.4Dowelltown member:
Covered__________--_---_____-_-_--____
1.5
Siltstone, light-gray to light-buff; somewhat ferruginous-__--_-------_-_-----3. 4
Sandstone, buff, medium-grained; very
friable on weathered surfaces.__________.6
Shale, dark-gray to grayish-black; thin
marcasite lenses._____________________
2. 7
Sandstone, light-gray to yellowish-gray, finegrained, individual beds as much as 0.3 ft
thick___________________________
1. 7
Shale, gray to chocolate-brown (probably
weathered grayish-black shale)_________
1.2
Sandstone, probably gray where unweathered.
Surface iron oxide stained. Small marcasite nodules present.________________.3
Shale and some siltstone. Dominantly
grayish-black shale which weathers lightgray to tan. Shale grades into thin siltstone beds which commonly are dark grayand have black lamellae.______________
7. 5
Shale and sandstone beds, alternating; eachbed approximately 0.4 ft thick. The
shale beds are grayish black and thesandstone beds have grayish-black lamellae. Marcasite present______________
4.1
Sandstone, buff to gray, fine-grained-_____.3
Sandstone and siltstone; gray sandstoneinterbedded with grayish-black siltstones.
Thin zones appear to be crossbedded,slightly calcareous; marcasite nodules
present. Surface with iron oxide stain. _5. 8
Covered_-______________-____________-_
1.0
Sandstone, gray to buff, very fine grained. _.2
Siltstone, gray to dark-gray._____________.6
Hardin sandstone member:
Sandstone, buff to gray, fine-grained, massive to poorly bedded. Top 2.7 ft well
exposed; additional 10 ft poorly exposed.
Base covered_-___-___________-_______ 12. 7
Total__________________________

49. 2

Covered.

LOCALITY 249.— Vicinity of city pumphouse. along small stream
valley, west of State Highway 100, 0.2 mile northeast of courthouse at Linden, Perry County, Tenn. Additional exposures
along Highway 100, 0.25 mile from courthouse.
Mississippian:Maury formation:
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in fine-grained, glauconitic, lightolive-gray, iron-oxide-stained sandstone.
Thickness varies from 0.15 - 0.9 ft_____

Feet

0. 9

38

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATIONLOCALITY 249—Continued
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, dark-gray to grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough_______________________
Sandstone, brownish-gray, interbedded withdark-gray shale_____________________
Dowelltown member:
Shale, dark-gray to grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough_____________________
Hardin sandstone member:
Sandstone, fine-grained__________________

LOCALITY 250—Continued

peet
5. 2
.5
1.0

Mississippian—Continued
Maury formation—Continued
peet
Mudstone, glauconitic___________________
0. 2
Devonian:
Chattanooga shale:
Gassaway member:
Shale, grayish-black, carbonaceous, tough;Palmatolepis glabra Ulrich and Bassler
present at very base of interval_________
1. 5
Sandstone, grayish-black; consisting chiefly
of rounded quartz grains_______________.3

2. 5
Total____- — _- ——-----

Total__________________________

10. 1

4.7

Silurian.

Quail limestone.

CONODONT COLLECTIONSLOCALITY 250.—Exposure to east of the entrance to the Hayes andElkins limestone mine; 100 ft north of State Highway 100, 0.5
mile west of the intersection at Pleasantville, Hickman County,
Tenn.
Mississippian:
Fort Payne chert (?):
Limestone, bluish; grading into basal silty
limestone.
Maury formation:
Mudstone, olive-gray, laminated________
Mudstone, glauconitic___________________
Course of large phosphatic nodules embedded in glauconitic mudstone___-___

Feet
2. 0
.5
. 2

Listed below are data pertaining to the conodont
collections mentioned by number in the text. Almost
all the collections were prepared in 1948 and 1949, at
which time each was given the number listed in thefirst, or left-hand, column of table 6. Subsequently,
each collection was given the permanent number listed
in column 2 of the table. In this column the letter"C" affixed to a collection number indicates that the
number is from the "Carboniferous" catalog, andthe letters "SD," that the number is from the "Silurian
and Devonian" catalog.

TABLE 6.— Conodont collections from the Chattanooga shale, Maury formation, and New Providence shale.'[Stratigraphic position given with reference to top of Chattanooga shale, base of Maury formation, or base of New Providence shale. All collections made by WrH. Hass]
Locality

Collection
No. onpl.l

II. S. G. S.
No.

Date

Stratigraphic position

315500-C

Nov. 14, 1947

Maury formation: 0.3-0.5 ft above base _____

7853650-SD

Nov. 14, 194778

73651-SD

Nov. 19,1947

93652-SD

Nov. 19, 1947113653-SD

Nov. 19, 19471515501-C

T»Af>
UK\s.

Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 1.3-1.7
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 27.029.0 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member:basal 1.5 ft or 28.7-30.2 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member:
20.0-20.3 ft below top.
Manry formation: basal 0.05 ft. —— _ ..„-.„-.

17
18

15502-C
3654-SD

Nov. 29, 1947
Nov. 14, 194719

3655-SD

Nov. 19, 1947.13656-SD

Nov. 13, 1947

22

15503-C

Jan. 22,1948

23

3657-SD

Nov. 20, 194724

3799-SD

Nov. 12, 1947

No.

18 J..ri/
104 7
J.O,

Maury formation: 0.9-1.1 ft above base __ _.- _Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 3.5-4.0
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 9.410.5 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 12.012.6ft below top.
Maury formation: 0.15-0.5 ft above base ---- _Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 1.1-1.6
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 20.020.7 ft below top.

Description
Cut on that portion of State Highway 26 abandoned in 1948; approximately
0.6 mile southeast of eastern approach to Sligo Bridge over the Caney
Fork on present State Highway 26 and 5.9 miles (airline) east of thecourthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County, Tenn.
Same as collection 3.

92

Cut on the Holmes Creek road, 1.6 miles north of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County, Tenn.
Same as collection 7.

92

Same as collection 7.

RQ
oy

92
78

Face of waterfall on Pine Creek, 4.4 miles (airline) west of confluence with
Caney Fork and 3.3 miles (airline) southeast of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County, Tenn.
Same as collection 7.
Same as collection 3.

92

Same as collection 7.

78

Same as collection 3.

100

92

Type locality of Campbell's Gassaway formation. Cut on State Highway
53, about 5 miles by road south of Gassaway, Cannon County, Tenn.
There are two exposures within 0.4 mile of each other: one on the northslope of a hill, the other on the south slope. All collections mentioned inthis report from this locality are from the outcrop on the north slope.
Same as collection 7.

78

Same as collection 3.

92

39

CONODONT COLLECTIONSTABLE 6.— Conodont collections from the Chattanooga shale, Maury formation, and New Providence shale— Continued

jStratigraphic position given with reference to top of Chattanooga shale, base of Maury formation, or base of New Providence shale. All collections made by W. H. Hassl
Locality

Collection
No.

U. S. Q. S.
No.

263658-SDJan.

Jan. 15,1948

Date

Stratigraphic position

Description

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 11.8711.9 ft below top.

95

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 4.5-4.9
ft below top.
Jan. 22,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 8.5-9.3
ft below top.
Jan. 19,1948 Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 14.514.8 ft below top.
Jan. 19,1948 Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 21.522.5 ft below top.
Jan. 22,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: top 0.4 ft.
Jan. 15,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 9.5-9.7
ft below top.
Jan. 15,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 2.3-3.6 ft
below top.
Jan. 15,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 6.2-6.5 ft
below top.
Jan. 22,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 2.3-2.7 ft
below top.
Jan. 15,1948 Chattanooga shale. Qassaway member: top 0.8 ft.
Jan. 24,1948 Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 24.525.4 ft below top.
Jan. 22,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 12.813.5 ft below top.
Jan. 22,1948 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 2.0-2.3
ft below top.
Nov. 20, 1947 Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
0.1 ft or 32.2-32.3 ft below top.
Nov. 12, 1947 Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
0.2 ft or 32.9-33.1 ft below top.
Nov. 29, 1947 Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
0.2 ft or 33.5-33.7 ft below top.

95

Regarded as the type locality of Campbell's Dowelltown formation. Cuton that portion of State Highway 26 abandoned as the main highway ia
1953, 3.1 miles east of Dowelltown, DeKalb County, Term.
Same as collection 26.

100

Same as collection 22.

95

Same as collection 26.

95

Same as collection 26.

100
95

Same as collection 22.
Same as collection 26.

95

Same as collection 26.

95

Same as collection 26.

100

Same as collection 22.

95
95

Same as collection 26.
Same as collection 26.

100

Same as collection 22.

100

Same as collection 22.

91

Cut on farm road, 1 mile north of State Highway 26 and 3.4 miles north*east of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb County, Term.
Same as collection 3.

8, 194827

3659-SD-28

3660- SD-29

3661 SD

30

3662-SD31
32

3663-SD
3664-SD

33

3665-SD:34

3666-SD

.35

3667-SD40
423668-SD
3669-SD43

3670-SD

44

3671-SD

46

3672-SD

47

3673-SD

48

3674-SD•49.50

15504-C15505-C

Jan.
Jan.

.51
.55

15506-C15507-C

Jan. 22,1948
June 26,1947•643675-SD

June 28,1947•653676-SD•66

3677-SD•673678-SD•68

3679-SD• 69

3680-SD71

3681-SD

June 24,1947

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: top 2.3
ft.

-72
'73
74

3682-SD
15508-G15509-C

June 24,1947
June 26,1947
June 23,1947

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: top 0.9 ft.
Maury formation: 4.2-4.4 ft above base _____
Maury formation: 0.4-0.45 ft above base. ____

'763683-SD

June 28,1947

-77
•82

3684-SD
3685-SD

June 24,1947
June 26,1948:«33686-SDMay 20, 1948

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 8.7-9.5
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: top 0.9 ft .
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 4.7-5.2
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 4.1-4.5
ft below top.

2, 1948
2, 1948Maury formation: 0.5-0.9 ft above base—..— _Maury formation: top 0.1 ft or 1.8-1.9 ft abovebase.
Maury formation: 0.5-1.7 ft above base— — __Maury formation: 3.8-4.1 ft above base.— -------

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 7.0-8.0
ft below top.
June 27,1947 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 3.6-4.6
ft below top.
June 26,1947 Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 0.2
ft.
June 28,1947 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 0.2-1.4
ft above base or 11.9-13.1 ft below top.
June 27,1947 Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 2.02.7 ft below top.
July 1, 1947 Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: top 1.0
ft.

'

No. on
pl.l

78
75

89
89

Cut on abandoned farm road, 0.5 mile northwest of point on State Highway
26 where descent starts to the east end of the Sligo Bridge over the Caney
Fork, and 5.8 miles (airline) east of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb
County, Tenn.
Same as collection 15.
Same as collection 15.

Same as collection 22.
Cut along tracks of the Southern Railroad, immediately south of the Ooltewah-Apison road crossing. About 1 mile east of Collegedale and 2
miles west of Apison, Hamilton County, Tenn.
228 Same as collection 55.
100
228

228

Same as collection 55.

228

Same as collection 55.

228

Same as collection 55.

228

Same as collection 55.

Type locality of the Chattanooga shale. Hillside exposure, about 350 ft
south of the north end of Cameron Hill, Chattanooga, Hamilton County,
Tenn.
225 Type locality of Swartz's Qlendale shale. Hillside exposure along railroad
tracks, just southwest of junction of State Highway 27 (not United States
Highway 27) and State Highway 8, North Chattanooga, Hamilton
County, Tenn.
225 Same as collection 71.
22S Same as collection 55.
226 Type locality of the Chattanooga shale. Hillside exposure at the north endof Cameron Hill, Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tenn.
228 Same as collection 55.
226

225
126a
207

Same as collection 71.
In gully about 100 ft south of United States Highway 241, 4 miles southof the courthouse at Fayetteville, Lincoln County, Tenn.
Type locality of Campbell's Westmoreland shale, 200 yards north of
Garretts Creek Church and 5.6 miles by road north of Westmoreland,
Sumner County, Tenn.

40

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATIONTABLE 6.— Conodont collections from the Chattanooga shale, Maury formation, and New Providence shale— Continued[Stratigraphic position given with reference to top of Chattanooga shale, base of Maury formation, or base of New Providence shale. All collections made by W. H. Hassf
Locality

Collection
No.

u. s. o. s.
No.

Date

Stratigraphic position

843687-SDMay 19,1948

Maury formation: basal 0.5 ft.. _ .. _ . _ - _ --74853688-SD

June 22,1948

107

86

3689-SD

May 31,1948

Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 12.913.2 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: 10.7-11.2
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: 0.3-0.7
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: top 0.2 ft.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 18.519.0 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 22.222.7 ft below to p.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: top 0.6 ft.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: 13.6-13.9
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 0, 10.3ft above base or 21.7-21.9 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: 19.6-21.0
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 10.6-11.6
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 30.0-30.4
ft below top.
Maury formation: 0.6-1.1 ft above base. Thisis from CampbelFs type Westmoreland shale.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: 19.6-21 .0
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: basal 0.1
ft or 35.2-35.3 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 4.9-5.2
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
0.6 ft or 31.5-32.1 ft below top.

95

3690-SDMay 20, 1948

100
102

3691-SD
3692-SDMay 20,1948
May 22, 1948

1033693-SD

June 22,1948

104
106

3694-SD
3695-SD

June 23,1948
May 20, 1948

1073696-SDMay 26, 1948

110

3697-SD

June 2, 1948

111

3698-SD

June 2, 1948

112

3699-SD

June 2, 1948

113

15510-C

May 20,1948

115

3700-SD

June 2, 1948

116

3701-SD

June 2, 1948

119

3702-SDMay 26,1948

120

3703-SDMay 17,1948

No. onpl.l

Description

60

Face of Taylor Creek Falls (Fanchers Mill), about 10 miles (airline) northwest of Sparta, White County, Term.
Deep cut on United States Highway 41, 1 mile northwest of Noah and 10. L
miles northwest of Manchester, Coffee County, Tenn.
In cut and on hillside below the Oil Center Eoad, just east of the crossing:over Big Clifty Creek, 5.4 miles west of Somerset, Pulaski County, Ky.
Cut on United States Highway 70N, 0.8 mile west of Chestnut Mound,-

207
107

Same as collection 83.
Same as collection 85.

107

Same as collection 85.

107
60

Same as collection 85.

39

Cut on State Highway 56, 1.7 miles south of Oainesboro, Jackson County,.

11

Cut on State Highway 35, 1.5 miles south-southeast of Rowena and just.

11

Same as collection 110.

11

Same as collection 110.

207

Same as collection 83.

11

Same as collection 110.

11

Same as collection 110.

39

Same as collection 107.

76

Standard section of the Chattanooga shale. Cut on State Highway 26, atr
the east approach to the Sligo Bridge over the Caney Fork, 5.9 miles;

6

Smith County, Tenn.

Same as collection 95.
Tenn.
north of the county line, Russell County, Ky.

(airline) or 7.1 miles by road east of the courthouse at Smithville, DeKalb123

3704-SD

May 31,1948

126

3705-SDMay 26,1948

129

3706-SD

June 28,1948

1303707-SD

May 31,1948

131
133

3708-SD
3709-SD

June 27,1948
May 20,1948

137

15511-O

June 14,1948

138

3710-SD

June 16,1947

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 12.4-13.1
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: top
0.8ft.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 8.9-9.9ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 14.3-14.7
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: top 0.5 ft.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 6.7-7.0
ft below top.
Maury formation: 0.6-0.66 ft above base. Thisis from hasal 0.06 ft of CampbelPs type Westmoreland shale.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 0.6-1.0
ft below top.

6

Oounty, Tenn.
Same as collection 86.

39

Same as collection 107.

?20

West slope of Walden Ridge. Cut on State Highway 8, 1 mile southeastof junction with State Highway 28, Sequatchie County, Tenn.
Same as collection 86.

6
126a
60

Same as collection 82.
Same as collection 95.

207

Same as collection 83.

206

Type locality of Campbell's Bransford sandstone member of his Oassaway
formation. In west bank of Bledsoe Creek which parallels United StatesHighway 31E, 3.6 miles north of intersection with State Highway 10A.
at Bransford, Sumner County, Tenn.

1433711-SD

June 23, 1948

144

3712-SD

June 16,1947

145

3713-SD

June 29,1948

146

3714-SD

June 16,1947

1493715-SDMay 26, 1948

150

3716-SD

June 28,1948

151

3717-SD

June 22, 1948

1533718-SD

June 17,1947

Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 11.5-12.5
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 1.5-2.0
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 1.5-2.1 ft
below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 12.5-12.9
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: 4.4-4.6
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Oassaway member: 4.4-5.2
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 27.728.4 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Qassaway member: 6.0-6.5
ft below top.

107

Same as collection 85.

206

Same as collection 138.

220

Same as collection 129.

206

Same as collection 138.

39

Same as collection 107.

220

Same as collection 129.

107

Same as collection 85.

206

Same as collection 138.

41

CONODONT COLLECTIONSTABLE 6.— Conodont collections from the Chattanooga shale, Maury formation, and New Providence shale— Continued

IStratigraphic position given with reference to top of Chattanooga shale, base of Maury formation, or base of New Providence shale. All collections made by W. H. Hass]
Collection

LocalityNo.

U. 8. Q. 8.
No.

Date

Stratigraphic position

No. onpl.l

1643719-SD

June 16,1947

206

Same as collection 138.

155

3720-SD

June 17,1947

206

Same as collection 138.

157

3721-8D

June 19,1947

100

Same as collection 22.

15815512-C

June 16,1947

206

Same as collection 138.

159

3722-SD

June 18,1947

95

Same as collection 26.

160

3723-8D

June 18,1947

95

Same as collection 26.

161

3724-SDMay 17,1948

76

Same as collection 120.

162

3725-SD

June 23,1948

107

Same as collection 85.

16515513-0

June 14,1947

207

Same as collection 83.

1673726-SD

June 18,1947

95

Same as collection 26.

169

3727-SD

June 17,1947

206

Same as collection 138.

172

3728-SD

June 14,1947

207

Same as collection 83.

1733729-SD

June 18,1947

95

Same as collection 26.

175

3730-SD

Mar. 9,1948

220

Same as collection 129.

176

3731-SD

Mar. 2,1948

206

Same as collection 138.

179

3732-SDMay 26,1948

39

Same as collection 107.

1803733-SDMay 26, 1948

39

Same as collection 107.

1813734-SD

June 19,1947

100

Same as collection 22.

1823735-SD

June 18,1947

95

Same as collection 26.

1843736-SD

May 31, 1948

6

Same as collection 86.

1853737-SD

June 18,1947

95

Same as collection 26.

1863738-SD

June 18,1947

95

Same as collection 26.

1893739-SD

Jan. 19, 1948

95

Same as collection 26.

191

3740-SDMay 19,1948

74

Same as collection 84.

192

3741-SD

June 10,1948

206

Same as collection 138.

193

3742-SD

June 10,1948

206

Same as collection 138.

1953743-8D

May 26, 1948

39

Same as collection 107.

199

3744-8D

June 2,1948

11

Same as collection 110.

•200

3745-SD

May 31, 1948

6

Same as collection 86.

201

3746-SD "May 31, 1948

6

Same as collection 86.

•202

3747-SD[May 26, 1948

39

Same as collection 107.

207

3748-SD

June 2, 1948

11

Same as collection 110.

208

3749-SDMay 26, 1948

39

Same as collection 107.

211

3750-SD

June 3, 1948

Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 10.510.8 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 20.622.1 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 13.714.1 ft below top.
Maury formation: 0.5-1 . 5 ft above base. This isfrom Campbell's Westmoreland shale.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 8.6-8.8 ft
below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelitown member: 14.114.5 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member:
20.1-20.2 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 0.4-1.4
ft below top.
Maury formation: 0.6-1.1 ft above base. This isfrom Campbell's type Westmoreland shale.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 0.8-1.1
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member:
31.2-33.2 ft below top. This is from Pool's
Trousdale shale.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 0.3
ft.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 11.4-12.2
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 0.9ft.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 14.3-14.4
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 0.8
ft.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 2.3-3.1
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 8.0-8.5
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member:
20.9-21.9 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 9.6-9.9
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 10.4-11.4
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member:
14.5-14.8 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member:
18.0-18.3 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 4.0-4.3
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 9.07-9.1
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 7.4-7.6
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 5.4-5.8
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 31.3-31.9
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 8.6-3.0
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 4.3-4.6
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 16.417.0 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 19.6-21.0
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 10.7-11.0
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 4.2-4.6
ft below top.

11

Same as collection 110.

Description

42

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATIONTABLE 6.— Conodont collections from the Chattanooga shale, Maury formation, and New Providence shale— Continued[Stratigraphic position given with reference to top of Chattanooga shale, base of Maury formation, or base of New Providence shale. All collections made by W. H. Hassi
Locality

Collection
No.

U. S. G. S.
No.

Date

Stratigraphic position

No. onpi. 1

Description

213

3751-8D

June 14,1948

Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 0.7 ft.

204

214

3752-SD

June 10,1948

206

216

3753-SD

June 10,1948

206

Same as collection 138.

218

3754-SD

June 10,1948

206

Same as collection 138.

220

3755-SD

June 14,1948

204

Same as collection 213.

224

3756-SD

June 14,1948

204

Same as collection 213.

225

3757-SD

June 1, 1948

6

Same as collection 86.

2273758-SD

June 3,1948

11

Same as collection 110.

228

3759-SD

June 1, 1948

6

Same as collection 86.

229

3760-SD

June 1, 1948

6

Same as collection 86.

230

3761-SD

June 3, 1948

11

Same as collection 110.

231

3762-SD

June 1, 1948

6

Same as collection 86.

2323763-SDMay 29,1948

6

Same as collection 86.

236

3764-SD

Jan. 15,1948

95

Same as collection 26.

237
238

3765-SD
3766-SD

Jan. 22,1948
Jan. 22,1948

100
100

Same as collection 22.
Same as collection 22.

239

3767-8D

Jan. 15,1948

95

Same as collection 26.

2403768-SD

Jan. 19,1948

95

Same as collection 26.

2413769-SD

Jan. 15,1948

95

Same as collection 26.

242

3770-SD

Jan. 22,1948

100

Same as collection 22.

243

3771-SD

Jan. 22,1948

100

Same as collection 22.

244
245
328

15514-C3772-8D
3773-SD

Jan. 22,1948
Jan. 22,1948
June 14,1948

100
100
204

Same as collection 22.
Same as collection 22.
Same as collection 213.

329

3774-SD

June 14,1948

204

Same as collection 213.

331
332

3775-SD
3776-SDMay 26, 1948
May 26, 1948

39
39

Same as collection 107.
Same as collection 107.

334
335

15515-C3777-SD

June 12,1948
June 24,1948

204
204

Same as collection 213.
Same as collection 213.

336

3778-SD

June 24,1948

204

Same as collection 213.

337

15516-C

June 11,1948

Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 18.719.2 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 27.527.8 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 18.719.2 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 12.1-12.2
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 4.4-4.7
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 34.434.9 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 7.2-8.1
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 39.439.7 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 34.434.9 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top
0.4 ft.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 41.341.6 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 1.4-1.7
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 6.2-6.5
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 0.4 ft.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 12.813.5 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 4.5-4.9
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 21.522.5 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 9.5-9.7
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 2.3-2.7
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 8.5-9.3
ft below top.
Maury formation: 0.15-0.5 ft above base -_ _ -Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 0.4 ft.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 12.212.6 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 19.019.5 ft below top.
Maury formation: basal 1.0ft.. _________
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 20.320.5 ft below top.
Maury formation: 0.3-0.9 ft above base _ .. ....
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 12.2-12.6
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 19.019.5 ft below top.
Maury formation: 1.2-1.4 ft above base— --------

Type locality of the Ridgetop shale, cuts along the tracks of the Louisvilleand Nashville Railroad at Bakers Station, Davidson County, Term.
From community of Ridgetop go south for 3 miles on United States
Highway 41 to road junction; turn west onto secondary road, go 0.7 mile
to cuts along railroad tracks. The Gassaway member was measured ina cut at Bakers Station crossing, the Dowelltown member in a cut 1,56ft
ft south of Bakers Station*crossing.
Same as collection 138.

205

Cut on State Highway 109, 5.5 miles north of Gallatin, Stunner County3443779-SDMay 26, 1948

39

Same as collection 107.

Tenn.

Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 19.619.7 ft below top.

*

43

CONODONT COLLECTIONSTABLE 6.— Conodont collections from the Chattanooga shale, Maury formation, and New Providence shale— Continued[Stratigraphic position given with reference to top of Chattanooga shale, base of Maury formation, or base of New Providence shale. All collections made by W. H. Hass
Locality

Collection
No.

U. S. G. S.
No.

Date

345
348
349
350
352

15517-C15518-C15519-C
15520-C
3780-SDMay 26,1948
May 29,1948
May 29,1948
May 29,1948
June 1, 1948

353
354
355
357

15521-C15522-C15523-C
3781-SD

June 3, 1948
June 11,1948
June 11,1948
June 14,1948

391
392
400
421

3782-SD
3783-SD
15524-C3784-SD

Nov. 14,1947
Nov. 14,1947
Mar. 11, 1948
June 14,1947

423

3785-SD

June 16,1947

426
428
433

3786-SD
15525-C3787-SD

June 18,1947
June 19,1947
Nov. 11, 1947

451

3788-SD

Mar. 2,1948

460

3789-SD

Mar. 11,1948

461
462
472
473

15526-C
15527-C15528-C
3790-SD

Mar. 11,1948
Mar. 11, 1948
June 27,1948
June 27,1948

474

3791-SD

June 28,1948

591

3792-SDJuly

647

15529-C

Sept. 1, 1949

652

3793-SD

Sept. 2,1949

Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: top 1.0
ft.

653

3794-SD

Sept. 2,1949

654

3795-SD

Sept. 2,1949

655^796-SD

Sept. 2,1949

656

3797-SD

Sept. 2,1949

657

3798-SD

Sept. 2,1949

11113

11113-C

Mar. 2, 1948

15000

15000-C

June 25,1950

Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 1.0-1.6
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 3.7-3.8
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 2.4-2.5
ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 7.07.5 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 7.88.8 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
2 ft or 31.2-33.2 ft below top. This is from
Pohl's Trousdale shale.
Maury formation: basal 0.3 ft. This is from
Campbell's Eulie shale.

15001
15002
15003
15004

15001-C
15002-C
15003-C
15004-C

June 12,1950
June 12,1950
June 17,1950
June 14,19485, 1949

Stratigraphic position

New Providence shale: 0.5-0.8 ft above base _Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: 47.047.4 ft below top.

Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
1.0 ft or 28.5-29.5 ft below top.

Maury formation: basal 0.6 ft. This is from
CampbelFs Eulie shale.
Maury formation: basal 0.1 ft. This is from
Campbell's Eulie shale.

Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
0.2 ft or 29.8-30.0 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 16.0-16.2
ft below top. This is from Campbell's type
Bransford sandstone member of his Gassaway
formation.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: 1.5-1,8ft below top.
Maury formation: basal 0.05 ft _________
Maury formation: entire formation, 1.5 ft thick-Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: basal
0.7 ft or 5.2-5.9 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Dowelltown member: basal
0.5 ft or 13.7-14.2 ft below top.
Chattanooga shale, Gassaway member: basal
0.3 ft or 4.6-4.9 ft below top.
Maury formation: entire formation, 1.3 ft thick. .

No. onpl.l

Description

39
6
6
6
6

Same as collection 86.
Same as collection 86.

11
205
205
204

Same as collection 213.

92
78
228
207

Same as collection 83.

206

Same as collection 138.

95
100
107

Same as collection 85.

206

Same as collection 138.

228

Same as collection 55.

225
225

126a
126a

Same as collection 82.
Same as collection 82.

220

Same as collection 129.

Cut on State Highway 50, about 3.5 Wles jsoutheast of jCenterville,
Hickman County, Tenn.
134 Cut on south side of State Highway 129, 0.9 mile west of junction with
United States Highway 31A in Cornersville, Marshall County, Tenn.
185 Standard section of the Maury formation. South side of a road 13.5 miles(airline) southeast of Franklin and 1.2 miles east of the road] junction at
Cross Key, Williamson County, Tenn.
185 Same as collection 652.
168

185

Same as collection 652.

185

Same as collection 652.

185

Same as collection 652.

185

Same as collection 652.

206

Same as collection 138.

206

Same as collection 138.

168
39
95
75

44

CHATTANOOGA SHALE AND MAURY FORMATION

Hayes, C. W., 1894a, Description of the Ringgold quadrangle,
Ga.-Tenn.: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, folio 2.
Bassler, R. S., 1911, The Waverlyan period of Tennessee: U. S. ———— 1894b, Description of the Kingston quadrangle, Tenn.:Nat. Mus. Proc., v. 41, no. 1851, p. 209-224.
U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, folio 4.
——— 1932, The stratigraphy of the central basin of Tennessee: ———— 1894c, Description of the Chattanooga quadrangle,
Tenn. Div. Geology Bull. 38, 268 p., 49 pis., 4 figs., 4 maps.
Tenn.: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, folio 6.
Branson, E. B., and Mehl, M. G., 1933, A study of Hinde's types ———— 1894d, Description of the Sewanee quadrangle, Tenn.:of conodonts preserved in the British Museum, in Conodont
U. S. Geol. Survey, Geol. Atlas, folio 8.
studies no. 2: Mo. Univ. Studies, v. 8, no. 2, p. 133-156,
1895, Description of the McMinnville quadrangle, Tenn.:
165-167, pis. 11, 12.
U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, folio 22.
———— 1934a, Conodonts from the Grassy Creek shale of Mis- Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. O., 1903, Description of the Columsouri, in Conodont studies no. 3: Mo. Univ. Studies, v. 8,
bia quadrangle, Tenn.: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, folio
no. 3, p. 171-259, pis. 13-21. (Date of imprint, 1933.)
95.
———— 1934b, Conodonts from the Bushberg sandstone and Hinde, G. J., 1879, On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati
equivalent formations of Missouri, in Conodont studies no.
group of the Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton andGenesee-shale divisions of the Devonian, in Canada and
4: Mo. Univ. Studies, v. 8, no. 4, p. 265-299, 335-338, pis.
22-24. (Date of imprint, 1933.)
the United States: Geol. Soc. London Quart. Jour., v. 35,———— 1938, Conodonts from the Lower Mississippian of Misp. 351-369, pis. 15-17.
souri, in Branson, E. B., and others, Stratigraphy and Pal- Holmes, G. B., 1928, A bibliography of the conodonts witheontology of the Lower Mississippian of Missouri, pt. 2: Mo.
descriptions of early Mississippian species: U. S. Nat. Mus.
Univ. Studies, v. 13, no. 4, p. 128-148, 203-206, pis. 33, 34.
Proc., v. 72, art. 5, 38 p., 11 pis.
Branson, E. R., 1934, Conodonts from the Hannibal formation Huddle, J. W., 1934, Conodonts from the New Albany shale ofof Missouri, in Conodont studies no. 4: Mo. Univ. Studies,
Indiana: Bull. Am. Paleontology, v. 21, no. 72, 136 p., 12
v. 8, no. 4, p. 301-334, 338-343, pis. 25-28. (Date ofpis., 3 figs.
imprint, 1933.)
Jewell, W. B.. 1931, Geology and mineral resources of Hardin
Bryant, W. L., 1921, The Genesee conodonts: Buffalo Soc. Nat.
County, Tennessee: Tenn. Div. Geology Bull. 37, 117 p.,
Sci. Bull., v. 13, no. 2, 59 p., 16 pis., 7 figs.
9 pis., 3 figs.
Butts, Charles, 1926, The Paleozoic rocks, in Adams, G. I., and Killebrew, J. B., and Safford, J. M., 1874, Introduction to theresources of Tennessee: Tenn. Bureau of Agriculture, 1st.
others, Geology of Alabama: Ala. Geol. Survey Special
Rept. no. 14, p. 41-230, pis. 3-76, figs. 2-4.
and 2d. Repts., 1,193 p., geologic map.
—Campbell, Guy, 1946, New Albany shale: Geol. Soc. America Kindle, E. M., 1899, The Devonian and lower Carboniferous
faunas of southern Indiana and central Kentucky: Bull.
Bull., v. 57, p. 829-908, 3 pis., 7 figs.
Am. Paleontology, v. 3, no. 12, 111 p., 2 figs.
€ampbell, M. R., 1894, Description of the Estillville quadrangle,———— 1900, The Devonian fossils and stratigraphy of Indiana:
Ky.-Va.-Tenn.: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, folio 12.
Ind. Dept. Geol. and Nat. Res., 25th Ann. Rept., p. 529—Chadwick, G. H., 1923, Chemung stratigraphy in western New
York [abs.]: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 34, p. 68, 69.
758, 773-775, 31 pis.
Cooper, C. L., 1939, Conodonts from a Bush berg-Hannibal ——— 1912a, The unconformity at the base of the Chattanooga
shale in Kentucky: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., v. 33, p. 120horizon in Oklahoma: Jour. Paleontology, v. 13, p. 379-422,
136, 3 figs.
pis. 39-47, 2 figs.
1912b, The stratigraphic relations of the Devonian shales
Cooper, G. A., and others, 1942, Correlation of the Devonianof northern Ohio: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., v. 34, p. 187sedimentary formations of North America: Geol. Soc.
213, 3 figs.
America Bull., v. 53, p. 1729-1794, 1 pi., 1 fig.
Drake, N. F., 1914, Economic geology of the Waynesboro quad- Klepser, H. J., 1937, The Lower Mississippian rocks of theEastern Highland Rim: Abstracts of Doctor's Dissertations,rangle, in The resources of Tennessee: Tenn. Div. Geology,
no. 24, Ohio State Univ. Press, p. 181-187.
v. 4, p. 99-120, 2 figs.
Ellison, S. P., Jr., 1946, Conodonts as Paleozoic guide fossils: Mather, K. F., 1920, Oil and gas resources of the northeasternpart of Sumner County, Tenn.: Tenn. Div. Geology Bull.
Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 30, p. 93-110, 3
24-2B, 39 p.
figs.
Grabau, A. W., 1906, Types of sedimentary overlap: Geol. Soc. Miller, A. K., and Youngquist, Walter, 1947, Conodonts fromthe type section of the Sweetland Creek shale in Iowa:
America Bull., v. 17, p. 567-636, 17 figs.
Jour. Paleontology, v. 21, p. 501-517, pis. 72-75.
Hass, W. H., 1947a, Conodont zones in Upper Devonian andlower Mississippian formations of Ohio: Jour. Paleontology, Miser, H. D., 1921, Mineral resources of the Waynesboro quadrangle Tennessee: Tenn. Div. Geology Bull. 26, 171 p.,
v. 21, p. 131-141, 1 fig.
16 pis., 7 figs.
———— 1947b, The Chattanooga shale type area [abs.]: Geol.
Morse, W. C., 1928, Paleozoic rocks of Mississippi: Jour. Geology,
Soc. America Bull., v. 58, p. 1189.
v. 36, p. 31-43, 1 fig.
———— 1948, Upper Devonian bentonite in Tennessee: Am.
———— 1930, Paleozoic rocks: Miss. Geol. Survey Bull. 23, 212
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 32, p. 816-819.
p., 23 pis., 15 figs.
———— 1951, Age of Arkansas novaculite: Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Morse, W. C., and Foerste, A. F., 1909, The Waverly formations
Geologists Bull., v. 35, p. 2526-2541, 1 pi.
of east-central Kentucky: Jour. Geology, v. 17, p. 164-177.
Hayes, C. W., 1891, The overthrust faults of the southern Appalachians: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 2, p. 141-154, pis. Newberry, J. S., 1875, Descriptions of fossil fishes, in Newberry,J. S., and others, Geology and Paleontology, pt. 2, Paleon2,3.
tology: Ohio Geol. Survey, Rept., v. 2, p. 1-64, pis. 54-59.
———— 1892, Geology of north-eastern Alabama, and adjacentportions of Georgia and Tennessee: Ala. Geol. Survey Bull., Pohl, E. R., 1930a, Devonian formations of the Mississippi
basin: Tenn. Acad. Sci. Jour., v. 5, p. 54-63.
no. 4, 85 p., 1 pi., 15 figs., geologic map.
LITERATURE CITED

LITEBATUBE CITED

Pohl, E. R., 1930b, The black shale series of central Tennessee[abs.]: Am. Jour. Sci., 5th ser., v. 20, p. 151-152.
Prosser, C. S., 1912, The Devonian and Mississippian formationsof northeastern Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, 4th ser., Bull. 15,574 p., 33 pis., 1 fig.
Safford, J. M., 1851, The Silurian Basin of Middle Tennessee,with notices of the strata surrounding it: Am. Jour. Sci.,
2d ser., v. 12, p. 352-361, geologic map.
———— 1856, A geological reconnoissance of the State of Tennessee: 1st biennial report presented to the 31st general
assembly of Tennessee, 164 p.
———— 1869, Geology of Tennessee, 550 p., 7 pis., geologic map.
Safford, J. M., and Killebrew, J. B., 1900, The elements of thegeology of Tennessee, 264 p.
Savage, T. E., 1930, The Devonian rocks of Kentucky: Ky.
Geol. Survey, ser. 6, v. 33, p. 1-161, 4 pis., 52 figs.
Savage, T. E., and Sutton, A. H., 1931, Age of the black shalein south-central Kentucky: Am. Jour. Sci., 5th ser., v. 22,
p. 441-448, 1 fig.
Shaw, E. W., and Mather, K. F., 1919, The oil fields of Alien
County Kentucky: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 688, 126 p.,
10 pis., 10 figs.
Smith, E. A., 1878, Outline of the geology of Alabama, 68 p.,
geologic map.
———— 1890, Geology of the valley regions adjacent to the
Cahaba field, in Squire, Joseph, Report on the Cahaba coal
field: Ala. Geol. Survey, Special Rept. no. 2, p. 133-180,
pis. 6, 7, geologic map.
Stock dale, P. B., 1939, Lower Mississippian rocks of the eastcentral interior: Geol. Soc. America Special Papers, no. 22,248 p., 26 pis., 2 figs.
———— 1948, Some problems in Mississippian stratigraphy of thesouthern Appalachians: Jour. Geology, v. 56, p. 264-268.

45

Stose, G. W., 1923, Pre-Pennsylvanian rocks, in Eby, J. B., andothers, The geology and mineral resources of Wise County
and the coal-bearing portion of Scott County, Va.: Va.
Geol. Survey Bull., no. 24, p. 22-62, pis. 7-10, figs. 2, 3.
Swartz, J. H., 1924, The age of the Chattanooga shale of Tennessee: Am. Jour. Sci., 5th ser., v. 7, p. 24-30.
———— 1927, The Chattanoogan age of the Big Stone Gap shale:
Am. Jour. Sci., 5th ser., v. 14, p. 485-499, 2 figs.
1929, The age and stratigraphy of the Chattanooga
shale in northeastern Tennessee and Virginia: Am. Jour.
Sci., 5th ser., v. 17, p. 431-448, 3 figs.
Ulrich, E. O., 1905, Geology and general relations, pt. 1, in Ulrich,
E. O., and Smith, W. S. T., The lead, zinc, and fluorspar
deposits of western Kentucky: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof.
Paper 36, p. 1-105, pis. 1-7.
———— 1911, Revision of the Paleozoic systems: Geol. Soc.
America Bull., v. 22, p. 281-680, pis. 25-29.
———— 1912, The Chattanoogan series with special reference to
the Ohio shale problem: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., v. 34, p.
157-183, 3 figs.
1915, Kinderhookian age of the Chattanoogan series[abs.]: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 26, p. 96-99.
Ulrich, E. O., and Bassler, R. S., 1926, A classification of the
toothlike fossils, conodonts, with descriptions of American
Devonian and Mississippian species: U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc.,
v. 68, art. 12, 63 p., 11 pis., 5 figs.
Weller, J. M., and others, 1948, Correlation of the Mississippian
formations of North America: Geol. Soc. America Bull.,v. 59, p. 91-196, 2 pis., 7 figs.
Wilson, C. W., Jr., and Spain, E. L., Jr., 1936, Age of Mississippian "Ridgetop shale" of central Tennessee: Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull. v. 20, p. 805-809, 1 fig.
Youngquist, Walter, Hibbard, R. R., and Reimann, I. G., 1948,
Additions to the Devonian conodont faunas of western
New York: Jour. Paleontology, v. 22, p. 48-59, pis. 14, 15.

INDEX
Page
Abstract_______________________ 1-2
aciedentatus, Spathognathodus............ 24, 25; pi. 2
aculeatus, Spathognathodus.......... _.... 17, 22, 24
acutiliratus, Chonetes................... ____
7
atates, Prioniodus...................... 8, 17, 18; pi. 4
allocota, Polygnathus______ 25; pi. 2: tables 7, 8
Ancyrodella rotundiloba.................. 17, 18; pi. 4
sp. B.___ ......................... 17,18; pi. 4
Ancyrognathus bifurcata............... 8,9,21,22; pi. 3
euglypheus............................ 17, 20; pi. 4
guadrata.................................... 17, 21
Apison, Term,..__________.____
7
Bactrognathus sp___________. ___ 26; table 7
Barroisetta campbelli............................
6
Bentonite bed in Dowellto wn member... __.
18bialata, Elictognathus........................ __25
bifurcata, Ancyrognathus.............. 8, 9,21,22; pi. 3
Big Stone Gap member of Chattanooga shale_—
8
Big Stone Gap shale_________.____
8
Bryantodus sp. A______....___ 17,18; pi. 4
Campbell, Guy, quoted._____________
11
Carmack limestone.________________
9
Chattanooga, Tenn________________
8
Chattanooga shale, collecting localities—. 38-43; pi. 1
standard section._______________ 12,13
type section....____________ 8,13-15; pi. 5
See also names of individual members.
Chonetes acutiliratus............................
7
Cladodus.......................................
6

Cleveland member of Ohio shale.._______
8
eommunis, Polygnathus......... 24,25; pi. 2; tables 7,8
confluens, Polylophodonta....... ___ 8,9,21,22; pi. 3
Conodont species, distribution... ________ 18,
21, 25, 38-43; tables 7, 8
Cumberland Gap member of Chattanooga shale.
8
delicatula, Palmatodetta.................... 8, 9, 21, 22
Binodus fragosus____________.___
25
disparilis, Spathognathodus.............. . _ 17, 22, 24
distorta, Palmatolepis............... 17, 21,22,26; pi. 2
Dowelltown formation of Guy Campbell, section
at type locality..—............. 13-14,16
Dowelltown member of Chattanooga shale.._ 16-20
a, Siphonodella.................... 25, 26; pi. 2
Elictognathus bialata............................
25
lacerata............................... 25, 26; pi. 2
euglypheus, Ancyrognathus................ 17, 20; pi. 4
Eulie, Tenn---_-___.__--------____...
7
Eulie shale-..--.-.—._.-.„......„„.__..
11
Folrstia sp._____________________ 21, 22
fragosus, Dinodus____.___________...
25
Gassaway formation of Guy Campbell, section at
type locality—--..___....... 14-15, 16
Gassaway member of Chattanooga shale. - __ 20-23
glabra, Palmatolepis............. 8, 9,17, 21, 22; pi. 3
Glendale shale.__________________ 7,13Gnathodus punctatus.......................... 26; pi. 2
sp. A_____________ 26; pi. 2; tables 7, 8
sp. B...__.__,___,____. 24; tables 7, 8
Grabau, A. W., quoted.___________-4
Us, Palmatolepis—————————— 17, 21, 22
Hardin sandstone member of Chattanooga shale. 15-16,
37
Hass, W. H., quoted-.....—..........—.. 11,19-20

Page
Hibbardettasp. A.... ---.---...__......-- 17, 18; pi. 4
Hindeodettasp.A---.. .... ........... ... 17, 22, 24; pi. 3
sp___ ___ ................
..................................

22

Huron member of Ohio shale
kuronensis, Sporangites... ....
Icriodus sp.__________________ 17, 20; pi. 4
inornata, Polygnathus........................ 25; pi. 2
inornatus, Spathognathodus............ 17, 22, 24; pi. 3
irvinensis, Lingula..............................
7
linguiformis, Polygnathus.-.--............ 17,18; pi. 4
longipostica, Polygnathus................ .__ 25; pi. 2
lacerata, Elictognathus---.... .______. 25, 26; pi. 2
Linden, Tenn..-.---__.__.__._._....-....._.._.
7
Lingula irvinensis........ ___..________
7melie.......................................
7
subspatulata................................
6
sp.————————.—--—-—.-.
9lobata, Siphonodetta.......................... 25; pi. 2
marginata, Palmatolepsis..-.............. .___ 17,22
Maury formation, collecting localities—.. 38-43; pi. 1
Maury formation, standard section. __.___
23
melie, Lingula..................................
7
Morse, W. C., quoted___.___.- — .___
9
Mount Pleasant, Term.______________ 7,8
mutabilis, Prioniodus.:......................... 17,21
New Market, Ala...----...--.-----------.----- 8,32
New Providence shale collecting localities.-. 43; pi. 1
newberryi, Orbiculoidea..........................
6
OhiO-Sfaale.._____________...
Olinger member of Chattanooga shale.
Orbiculoidea newberryi.................
ovata transaersa....................
Sp. ——— —— —— —— — —— —— ..........

ovata transversa, Orbiculoidea...........

guadrantinodosa, Palmatolepis............. 17,21; pi. 3
guadrata, Ancyrognathus.............—..—..- 17,21
guadruplicata, Siphonodella.-................. 25; pi. 2
Quicks Mill, Ala........._.——-———— 8,32
Rhinestreet shale.-—.___.——————————— 7,8
Rhipidometta sp.———- — - — —— ——————
7
Ridgetop shale.-—----.---—-————-— 4, 5, 33
rotundiloba, Ancyrodella................... 17,18' pi. 4
rugosa, Palmatolepis......................... 17,21,22
Schuchertetta sp__—__———— — — —— — 7
sexplicata, Siphonodella....................... 25; pi. 2
Shaletown, N. Y———........———————
7
Siphonodettaduplicata..................... 25,26; pi. 2
lobata-.....-.—————---—-——---- 25; pi. 2
guadruplicata..--......................... 25; pi. 2
sexplicata...........................—-.. 25; pi. 2

sp. A..—————————————— 25; pi. 2
6
7
21
7

Palmatodetta delicatula ..................... 8,9,21,22
Palmatolepis distorta............... 17, 21, 22, 26; pi. 2
elongata.....................................
9glabra-.-.-................... 8, 9, 17, 21, 22; pi. 3....._-,....._........___ 17,21,22——— ——— — — — — — — — 17,22

perlobata...................... 8, 9,17, 21, 22; pi. 3
punctata.................... ...._.. — — —18
guadrantinodosa....................... 17, 21; pi. 3
rugosa................................... 17,21,22
subperlobata....................... 17, 21, 22; pi. 3
subrecta......................... 17,19 20;pis.3,4
unicornis———————————— 15,17,18; pi. 4
sp. A——————-——--—- 17, 21, 22; pi. 3
pennata, Polygnathus........—....-..... 17,18; pi. 4
perlobata, Palmatolepis—......... 8, 9,17, 21, 22; pi. 3
Pinacognathus profunda...................... 25; pi. 2
Polygnathus allocota-.......... ... 25; pi. 2; tables 7, 8
eommunis................. 24, 25; pi. 2; tables 7, 8
concentrica..................................
9inornata..-.............................. 25; pi. 2
linguiformis.................... ——.. 17,18; pi. 4
longipostica.....,........................ 25; pi. 2
pennata............................... 17,18; pi. 4
pergyrata...................................
9rhomboidea..................................
9
O

Page
Polygnathus altocota— Continued
trilobata.....................................
9
sp. A...————————————— 17,18; pi. 4
Polylophodonta confluens.............. 8,9,21,22; pi. 3
prima, Pseudopolygnathus................. 25,26; pi. 2
Prioniodus alatus—..................... 8,17,18; pi. 4
mutabilis................................... 17,21 .
profunda, Pinaccgnathus......... —————— 25; pi. 2
Pseudobornia...... ——————————————
6
Pseudopolygnathus prima.................. 25,26; pi. 2
striata..................... —————————
26
sp__........................__-. 26; tables 7,8punctatus, Onathodus........... —————— 26; pi. 2

Spatbognathodus aciedentatus...........—. 24,25; pi. 2
acuUatus................ ........ ———— 17,22,24
disparilis..-—-.................... ..... 17,22,24
inornatus—-—- — .————— 17,22,24; pi. 3
sp. A--——————————————— 24; pi. 2
sp. B.—......——..—.-——-— — -— 25; pi. 2
Sporangties huronensis..........................
6
Standard section, Chattanooga shale...————— 12,13
Maury formation..——————————————
23
Stratigraphic classification proposed, by Saflord
and Killebrew————————————
3
by Ulrich.—...................————— 4, 5
for this report---...—————————— — --- 2-3
Stratigraphic sections, measured for this report. 12-15,
23,26-38
quoted, from J. H. Swartz—————————— 7,8
from E. R. Pohl——.....——————»
striata, Pseudopolygnathus......................
26
sub perlobata, Palmatolepis.............. 17,21,22; pi. 3
subrecta, Palmatolepis.............. 17,19,20; pis. 3, 4
subspatulata, Lingula ——————————————
6
Sunbury shale——————————————————
8
Swartz, J. H., quoted.-.——— ———————- 7,926
Tasmanites huronensis... ————————— —6
Tentaculites sp———————————————————
9transversa, Orbiculoidea ovata....................
7
Trousdale shale—....._.——————„.„..— 9,10,11
Ulrich, E. O., quoted——————————-6
unicornis, Palmatolepis...........—---- 15,17,18; pi. 4
Weller, J. M., quoted....__———.————..
Westmorland shale—.———......——.——
Whetstone Branch shale..——_..._.— — ..—47

13
11
6

PLATES 2-5

PLATE 2[Figures are 30 times natural size]

JIGURE

1. Palmatolepis distorta Branson and Mehl.
Oral view. Rubber replica, collection 400, USNM 123466.
2-5. Polygnathus communis Branson and Mehl.
Oral views. 2, Collection 74, USNM 123467; 3, rubber replica, collection 113, USNM 123468; 4, collection 355,
USNM 123469; 5, collection 355, USNM 123470.
6-11. Siphonodella duplicate/, (Branson and Mehl).
Oral views. 6, Rubber replica, collection 400, USNM 123471; 7, rubber replica, collection 55. USNM 123472;
8, collection 74, USNM 123473; 9, collection 355, USNM 123474; 10, collection 355, USNM 123475; 11,collection 355, USNM 123476.
12. Siphonodella sp. A.
Oral view. Collection 355, USNM 123477.
13, 23. Siphonodella duplicata (Branson and Mehl) var, A.
Oral views. 13, Rubber replica, collection 55, USNM 123478; 23, rubber replica, collection 73, USNM 123479.
,14, 15. Polygnathus inornata E. R. Branson.
Oral views. 14, Collection 354, USNM 123480; 15, collection 355, USNM 123481.
16. Gnathodus sp. A.

Oral view.

Collection 647, USNM 123482.

17. Pinacognathus profunda (Branson and Mehl).

Lateral view.

Inner side, collection 355, USNM 123483.

18. Polygnathus allocota (Cooper).

Lateral view.

Collection 355, USNM 123484.

19. Spathognathodus sp. A.

Lateral view.

Rubber replica, collection 113, USNM 123485.

20. Gnathodus punctatus (Cooper).

Oral view. Collection 647, USNM 123486.
21, 22. Elictognathus lacerata (Branson and Mehl).
Lateral views. 21, Inner side, collection 355, USNM 123487; 22, outer side, collection 355, USNM 123488.
24. Pseudopolygnathus prima Branson and Mehl.

Oral view. Collection 355, USNM 123489.
25. Siphonodella lobata (Branson and Mehl).
Oral view. Collection 355, USNM 123490.
26. Spathognathodus aciedentatus (E. R. Branson).

Lateral view.

Collection 355, USNM 123491.

27. Spathognathodus sp. B.

Oral view.

Collection 355, USNM 123492.

28. Polygnathus longipostica Branson and Mehl.

Oral view.

Collection 355, USNM 123493.

29. Siphonodella quadruplicata (Branson and Mehl).

Oral view. Collection 355, USNM 123494.
,30. Siphonodella sesplicata (Branson and Mehl).
Oral view. Collection 355, USNM 123495.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 286

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PLATE 230

CONODONTS FROM MAURY FORMATION

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 286

24

"

28

CONODONTS FROM GASSAWAY MEMBER OF CHATTANOOGA SHALE

PLATE 3

PLATE 3[Figures are 30 times natural size].Figures 1-3, 13. Palmatolepis sp. A.
Oral views. 1, Rubber replica, collection 28, USNM 123496; 2, rubber replica, collection 28, USNM 123497;
3, collection 157, USNM 123498; 13, rubber replica, collection 243, USNM 123499.
4-9. Palmatolepis subperlobata Branson and Mehl.
Oral views. 4, Rubber replica, collection 157, USNM 123500; 5, rubber replica, collection 157, USNM
123501; 6, rubber replica, collection 157, USNM 123502; 7, rubber replica, collection 243, USNM 123503;
8, rubber replica, collection 43, USNM 123504; 9, rubber replica, collection 43, USNM 123505.

10. Polylophodonta confluens (Ulrich and Bassler).
Oral view. Rubber replica, collection 243, USNM 123506.
11. Palmatolepis quadrantinodosa Branson and Mehl.
Oral view. Rubber replica, collection 181, USNM 123507.
12, 14. Palmatolepis subrecta Miller and Youngquist.
Oral views. 12, collection 157, USNM 123508; 14, rubber replica, collection 157, USNM 123509.
15-17. Palmatolepis glabra Ulrich and Bassler.
Oral views. 15,, Rubber replica, collection 28, USNM 123510; 16, rubber replica, collection 28, USNM
123511; 17, rubber replica, collection 243, USNM 123512.
18. Palmatolepis sp. B.
Oral view. Rubber replica, collection 69, USNM 123513.
19-21. Palmatolepis perlobata Ulrich and Bassler.
Oral views. 19, Rubber replica, collection 181, USNM 123514; 20, rubber replica, collection 69, USNM
123515; 21, rubber replica, collection 31, USNM 123516.
22-24. Spathognathodus inornatus (Branson and Mehl).
Lateral views. 22, Inner side, collection 167, USNM 123517; 23, inner side, collection 201, USNM 123518;
24, outer side, collection 180, USNM 123519.
25, 26. Ancyrognathus bifurcata (Ulrich and Bassler).
Oral views. 25, Rubber replica, collection 28, USNM 123520; 26, collection 242, USNM 123521.
27, 28. Hindeodella sp. A.
Lateral views. 27, Inner side, collection 167, USNM 123522; 28, inner side, collection 167, USNM 123523.

PLATE 4[Figures are 30 times natural size
Figure 1. Ancyrognathus sp. A.
Oral view. Rubber replica, collection 182, USNM 123524.
2, 3. Polygnathus pennata Hinde.
2, Aboral view, collection 169, USNM 123525; 3, oral view, collection 11113, USNM 123526.
4. Icriodus sp.

Oral view.

Rubber replica, collection 240, USNM 123527.

5. Icriodus sp.

Lateral view.

Rubber replica, collection 42, USNM 123528.

6. Icriodus sp.
Oral view. Collection 11113, USNM 123529.
7, 8. Palmatolepis unicornis Miller and Youngquist.
Oral views. 7, Collection 7, USNM 123530; 8, rubber replica, collection 7, USNM 123531.
9-15. Palmatolepis subrecta Miller and Youngquist.
Oral views. 9, rubber replica, collection 186, USNM 123532; 10, rubber replica, collection 186,-USNM 123533;
11, rubber replica, collection 186, USNM 123534; 12, rubber replica, collection 186, USNM 123535; 13, rubber
replica, collection 186, USNM 123536; 14, rubber replica, collection 186, USNM 123537; 15, rubber replica,
collection 182, USNM 123538.
16,17. Polygnathus linguiformis Hinde.
Oral views. 16, collection 357, USNM 123539; 17, collection 169, USNM 123540.
18. Ancyrodella sp. A.

Oral view.

Rubber replica, collection 240, USNM 123541.

19. Polygnathus sp. A.

Oral view.

Collection 169, USNM 123542.

20. Ancyrodella sp. B.

Oral view.

Collection 474, USNM 123543.

21. Ancyrodella rotundiloba (Bryant).

Oral view.

Collection 46, USNM 123544.

22. Hibbardella sp. A.

Oral view.

Collection 48, USNM 123545.

23. Bryantodus sp. A.

Lateral view.

Collection 11113, USNM 123546.

24. Prioniodus alatus Hinde.
Lateral view. Inner side, collection 46, USNM 123547.
25, 26. Palmatolepis marginata Stauffer.
Oral views. 25, Rubber replica, collection 240, USNM 123548; 26, rubber replica, collection 240, USNM 123549.
27. Ancyrognathus euglypheus Stauffer.
Oral view. Rubber replica, collection 42, USNM 123550.

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 286

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

*

1

27

CONODONTS FROM DOWELLTOWN MEMBER OF CHATTANOOGA SHALE

PLATE 4

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

TYPE SECTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA SHALE, CAMERON HILL, CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEEPROFESSIONAL PAPER 286

PLATE 5