Stratigraphy of the 

Outcropping Post-Magothy 

Upper Cretaceous Formations 

in Southern New Jersey and 

Northern Delmarva Peninsula, 

Delaware and Maryland

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 674
Stratigraphy of the 

Outcropping Post-Magothy 

Upper Cretaceous Formations 

in Southern New Jersey and 

Northern Delmarva Peninsula, 

Delaware and Maryland

By JAMES P. OWENS, JAMES P. MINARD, NORMAN F. SOHL, and JAMES F. MELLO 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 674

Lithostratigraphic and biostratigraphic 

studies confirm the persistence of four 

Gampanian formations from northern New Jersey 

to northern Delaware and eastern Maryland

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1970
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

William T. Pecora, Director

Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-608366

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U. S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 Price 65 cents (paper cover)
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................ 1

Previous investigations .... ................ ..-................. ............. 1

Rock stratigraphic studies, by James P. Owens and

James P. Minard .......................................................... 5

New Jersey ........................................................................ 5

Merchantville Formation ........................................ 5

Woodbury Clay .......................................................... 6

Englishtown Formation .......................................... 6

Marshalltown Formation ........................................ 6

Wenonah Formation ................................................ 6

Mount Laurel Sand .................................................. 6

Navesink Formation ................................................ 7

Red Bank Sand ........................................................ 7

Tinton Sand .............................................................. 7

Distribution of formations ...................................... 7

Summary of rock stratigraphic studies in New 

Jersey ...................................................................... 10

Northern Delaware .......................................................... 11

Distribution of formations ..................................... 11

Section along Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal near Summit Bridge ........................ 11

Section 1.1 miles west of St. Georges to 1.3

miles east of St. Georges at Biggs Farm 15 

Section near Odessa ........................................ 17

Comparison of the Upper Cretaceous formations in northern Delaware and southern 

New Jersey ............................................................ 17

Eastern Maryland ............................................................ 20

Distribution of formations ...................................... 20

Summary of rock stratigraphic studies in eastern Maryland ........................................................ 22

Page

Rock stratigraphic studies Continued

Petrologic studies .............................................................. 22

Heavy-mineral analyses .......................................... 23

Light-mineral analyses ............................................ 23

Glauconite-clastic ratios .......................................... 24

Clay-mineral analyses .............................................. 25

Conclusions ........................................................................ 26

Biostratigraphic analysis, by Norman F. Sohl and

James F. Mello .............................................................. 28

Megapaleontologic studies .............................................. 28

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain .......................... 28

Problems of regional correlation .................. 28

Revised correlations ........................................ 31

Summary of Cretaceous megafauna ............ 35

Cretaceous megafauna fossils from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ........................ 35

Merchantville Formation ................................ 35

Englishtown Formation .................................. 39

Marshalltown Formation ................................ 41

Mount Laurel Sand .......................................... 44

Navesink and younger formations ................ 49

Summary of megapaleontologic studies ...... 50

Micropaleontologic studies .............................................. 50

Sampling procedures and sample designations .. 50

Taxonomic revisions ................................................ 52

Age interpretations .................................................. 52

Environmental interpretations .............................. 54

Summary of micropaleontologic studies .............. 54

Selected references .................................................................. 55

Index ............................................................................ 57

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

9-12.

Page 

Index map of southern New Jersey and northern Delmarva Peninsula ................................................................ 2

Correlation chart showing development of stratigraphic interpretations of the pre-Miocene strata in New

Jersey .................................................................................................................................................................^ 3

Composite columnar section showing the Upper Cretaceous formations in the northern and west-central

Coastal Plain in New Jersey ............................................................................................. .....................-....... ... .. 5

Stratigraphic section showing Upper Cretaceous formations from southwestern New Jersey to eastern

Maryland .................................................................................................................................--........--............-.......... . 8

Geologic map of southern New Jersey and northern Delmarva Peninsula ..................._....................................... 9

Sketch map showing localities along the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ............................................................ 12

Photograph showing excavation for new railroad bridge near Summit Bridge, Del ........................................ 12

Columnar section for new railroad bridge near Summit Bridge, Del ...................................................................... 13

Photographs showing:

9. Contact between Marshalltown and Englishtown Formations .................................................................... 14

10. Sharp contact between overlying Englishtown and Merchantville Formations .................................. 14

III
IV CONTENTS

Page 

FIGURE 11. Large Ophionwrpha nodusa borings in the Englishtown Formation ...................................................... 15

12. Contact between sandy and clayey calcareous beds of the Mount Laurel Sand .................................. 16

13-15. Columnar sections showing:

13. Stratigraphic sequence in northern Delaware .............................................................................................. 18

14. Cyclic pattern of deposition in northern Delaware and New Jersey .................................................... 19

15. Upper Cretaceous formations in eastern Maryland .................................................................................. 20

16-18. Photographs showing:

16. Contact of the Merchantville and Magothy at Grove Point on Chesapeake Bay ................................ 21

17. Dark massive-bedded Marshalltown Formation along north bank of Sassafras River ........................ 21

18. Contact between Mount Laurel Sand and Marshalltown Formation ........................................................ 22

19. Histograms showing heavy-mineral distribution from Woodstown, N.J., to the eastern shore of Maryland 26

20. Histograms showing light-mineral and glauconite-clastic ratio distributions from Woodstown, N.J., tc the

eastern shore of Maryland ........................................................................................................................................... 27

21. Diagram showing ranges of molluscan species from the Upper Cretaceous rocks of New Jersey .................... 29

22. Graphs showing state of preservation of the described Late Cretaceous pelecypod and gastropod faura of

New Jersey ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30

23. Chart showing correlation of the Upper Cretaceous post-Raritan formations .................................................... 32

24. Chart showing comparison of stage nomenclature as it has been applied to the Upper Cretaceous sequence

in New Jersey .................................................................................................................................. ............................ 33

25. Graph showing clustering of nine samples from the Mount Laurel Sand and Marshalltown Formation ...... 54

TABLES

Page

TABLE 1. Stratigraphic interpretations of formations cropping out along or south of the Chesapeake and Delaware

Canal ... .............. ....... ..._........ ......_ 4

2. Heavy- and light-mineral content and glauconite-clastic ratios from Woodstown quadrangle, New Jersey,

and from eastern Maryland ........................................................................................................................................... 24

3. Heavy- and light-mineral concentrations and glauconite-clastic ratios from localities in the vicinity of the

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ....................................................................................................... ....................... 25

4. Minerals in the clay-silt range in the formations discussed in the text .......................... ........... ........................... 28

5. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Merchantville Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area

and New Jersey ............................................ ........................................................................ . . .. .... .. . 36

6. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Englishtown Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area

and New Jersey ...................................................................................................................................... ...... ........ . . 40

7. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Marshalltown Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area

and New Jersey ..._...................................................................................................................-... ..... ........ . . - 42

8. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Mount Laurel Sand in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area and

New Jersey ................................................................................................................................................ ................ . 46

9. Distribution of microfauna in the Englishtown and Marshalltown Formations and Mount Laurel Sard in

southern New Jersey and northern Delaware............................................................ ............. .... .. 51
STRATIGRAPHY OF THE OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY

UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS IN SOUTHERN NEW

JERSEY AND NORTHERN DELMARVA PENINSULA,

DELAWARE AND MARYLAND

By JAMES P. OWENS, JAMES P. MINARD, NORMAN F. SOHL, AND JAMES F. MELLO

ABSTRACT

Stratigraphic studies of the post-Magothy Upper Cretaceous Coastal Plain formations of the Delmarva Peninsula 

indicate that four of the formations recognized in New Jersey 

are present in northern Delaware and eastern Maryland. 

These are the Merchantville, Englishtown, and Marshalltown 

Formations and the Mount Laurel Sand; the Wenonah and 

Navesink Formations probably either pinch out or have been 

eroded away between southern New Jersey and northern 

Delaware. Although the four formations persist as recognizable lithostratigraphic units from New Jersey into the 

Delmarva Peninsula, each shows a depletion of glauconite 

sand toward the southwest.

Comparison of the faunas of the formations in the two 

areas confirms the rock Stratigraphic correlations. The megainvertebrate fossils have proved to be, in this area, more 

useful than the microfauna in Stratigraphic correlation. The 

Exogyra cancellata zone in the Mount Laurel Sand and the 

E. ponderosa zone in the Marshalltown Formation are in 

the same Stratigraphic positions in southern New Jersey and 

in the Delmarva Peninsula.

INTRODUCTION

The northern Atlantic Coastal Plain was one of 

the earliest areas investigated geologically in North 

America, and a stratigraphy of Coastal Plain formations gradually evolved from the many early investigations. Much effort was devoted to the study of the 

sediments of Cretaceous to early Tertiary age because of their good exposure between Raritan Bay, 

N.J., and the Potomac River in northern Virginia. 

North and south of this region, younger sediments 

overlap and obscure the underlying Cretaceous and 

lower Tertiary beds. In the northern Atlantic Coastal 

Plain the most detailed stratigraphy of these beds 

was established for the west-central and northern 

parts of the Coastal Plain in New Jersey. In Delaware and Maryland, the stratigraphy that evolved 

was less detailed. One of the major reasons for the 

lack of knowledge of detailed stratigraphy southwest 

of New Jersey is that Delaware Bay and Chesapeake 

Bay prevent tracing along the outcrop of the New

Jersey formations into Delaware and Maryland. 

These bays divide the outcrop belt of Upper Cretaceous and lower Tertiary formation^, in the northern 

Atlantic Coastal Plain into three arts: New Jersey, 

Delmarva Peninsula (east of Chesapeake Bay), and 

the western Maryland Coastal Plain (west of Chesapeake Bay).

In recent years, three major attempts have been 

made to extend the Upper Cretaceous-lower Tertiary 

stratigraphy of New Jersey into the Delmarva 

Peninsula, the flat low-lying area between the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays (fig. 1).

Since 1957 the U.S. Geological Survey has been 

mapping the rock Stratigraphic units of the Coastal 

Plain in New Jersey. An area of about 600 square 

miles has been mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 in 

west-central New Jersey near Trenton and in the 

adjacent parts of Pennsylvania. Mapping also has 

been completed in the Sandy Hook quadrangle to the 

northeast and in the Woodstown quadrangle to the 

southwest (fig. 1), both in New Jersey. Reconnaissance has been done in the areas between. In addition, mapping and reconnaissance recently has be^n 

extended into the Delmarva Peninsula.

This report is divided into two parts: (1) rock 

Stratigraphic studies and (2) biostratigraphic analysis. The region discussed extends from Sandy Hook, 

N.J., to Chesapeake Bay, Md. (fig. 1). The main 

emphasis is on the Stratigraphic relationships tetween units of southern New Jersey and the northern Delmarva Peninsula.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Numerous lithostratigraphic and biostratigraphic 

studies have been made of Cretaceous-Tertiary rocks 

in the northern part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain 

during the past century. Only those that are particularly significant to the main topic of this paper will
STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

1. Trenton West (unpublished data)

2. Trenton East, GQ-341

3. Allentown, GQ-566

4. Roosevelt, GQ-340

5. Bristol, GQ-342

6. Columbus, GQ-160

7. New Egypt, GQ-161

8. Mount Holly, GQ-272

9. Pemberton, GQ-262

10. Browns Mills, GQ-264

11. Woodstown, GQ-404

12. Sandy Hook, Bull. 1276

Approximate inner edge of Coastal Plain Province-^ Atlantic Highlands

PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

Sassafras. 

River '

DELAWARE BAl

PENINSULA i

I

FIGURE 1. Index map of southern New Jersey and northern Delmarva Peninsula showing locations of 

minute quadrangles that have been mapped. A-A' is line of section for figure 4.

be discussed here. More detailed discussions of early 

investigations have been given by Groot, Organist, 

and Richards (1954) for Delaware and by Greacen 

(1941) for New Jersey.

Detailed stratigraphic investigations of the Cretaceous formations for the entire region began with 

the studies of W. B. Clark and his associates during 

the period from 1894 to 1916. Clark, Bagg, and 

Shattuck (1897) proposed a stratigraphic sequence

(fig. 2) from which most of the present divisions 

evolved. Kummel and Knapp (1904) modified Clark's 

stratigraphy in New Jersey, particularly the Matawan Formation (fig. 2). Weller and Knapp (Weller, 

1907) modified the earlier stratigraphic studies and 

further subdivided the basic units (fig. 2). This 

stratigraphic sequence is accepted today not only in 

New Jersey but also in Delaware and eastern Maryland. They were the first to define the relation be-
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Clark, Bagg, and Shattuck (1897)

EOCENEJ Shark River Formation

CRETACEOUS UPPER 

Manasquan Formation

|

at

0

fc

o

1

Monmouth Formation

Matawan Formation

Vincentown Lime-Sands

Sewell Marls

Redbank Sands

Navesink Marls ^^^ 

. Mount Laurel Sands

Hazlet Sands

Crosswicks Clays

Raritan Formation

Kummel and Knapp (1904)

Upper marl 

(in part)

Limesand 

(including yellow sand)

Middle marl 

(Sewell)

Red Sand 

(Red Bank Sand)

Lower marl 

(Navesink Marl)

Wenonah Sand

Marshalltown Bed

Columbus Sand

Woodbury Clay

Merchantville Clay

Cliffwood lignitic 

w sands and clays 

'C Laminated Sands No. 4 

en Amboy Stoneware Clay 

j£ Sand Bed No. 3 

£5 South Amboy Fire Clay 

c "Feldspar" Kaolin Sand Bed 

.2 Woodbridge Clay 

'§ Fire Sand No. 1 

P3 Raritan Fire and Terracotta 

(Potters Clay)

Weller (1907)

Manasquan Marl

Vincentown Formation 

(including yellow sand)

Hornerstown Marl

Tinton Beds

Red Bank Sand

Navesink Formation .^-~" 

Mount Laurel Formation

Wenonah Sand

Marshalltown Clay-Marl

Englishtown Sand

Woodbury Clay

Merchantville Clay-Marl

Magothy Formation 

(including Cliffwood Clay)

Raritan Clay

Cooke and Stephenson (1928)

EOCENE

UPPER CRETACEOUS

Shark River Marl 

Manasquan Marl

a

£ O'A

a 

a

tf

Monmouth Grop

Group Matawan 

Vincentown Sand

Hornerstown Marl

Tinton Sand Member

Red Bank Sand

Navesink Marl . ^ 

^^ Mount Laurel Sand

Wenonah Sand

Marshalltown Formation

Englishtown Sand

Woodbury Clay

Merchantville Clay

Magothy Formation

Raritan Formation

FIGURE 2. Development of stratigraphic interpretations of the pre-Miocene strata in New Jersey.

tween the lithostratigraphy and the biostratigraphy 

of the Upper Cretaceous beds in New Jersey (Weller, 

1907). Cooke and Stephenson (1928) showed that 

the uppermost formations assigned to the Upper

Cretaceous by previous investigations were actually 

lower Tertiary (fig. 2).

The stratigraphic section proposed by Clark, 

Bagg, and Shattuck (1897) for the Coastal Plain of
STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

Delaware and Maryland was similar to that of New 

Jersey. However, despite the fact that Clark continued his investigations in Delaware and Maryland 

well into the early 1900's, the stratigraphic section 

proposed in 1897 was not formally subdivided in 

this region as it was in New Jersey.

Carter studied the strata along the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal during 1934 and 1935, especially 

near Summit Bridge, Del. He (1937) applied some 

of the New Jersey formation names to his units 

(table 1). The Matawan of the area was subdivided 

for the first time, and the Monmouth Group, along 

the canal, contained only a single formation (table

1). Spangler and Peterson (1950) examined the 

canal section as part of a regional study of the 

northern Atlantic Coastal Plain. They also applied 

New Jersey names to the units, but their identification and correlation of units differed from Carter's 

(table 1). Groot, Organist, and Richards (1954) 

made the most recent study of the canal section before the present report (table 1). Names of stratigraphic units of New Jersey were assigned to the 

units, but the interpretation of the section by Groot, 

Organist, and Richards differed from that of Carter 

and that of Spangler and Peterson (table 1). The 

authors of this report first studied the canal section

TABLE 1. Stratigraphic interpretation of the formations cropping out along or nearby to the south of the Chesapeake and

Delaware Canal

[The column by Carter and the column of this report are nearly identical and are considered, by the present authors, to be the correct interpretation of

the stratigraphy]

Clark 

(1916, p. 27)

to

0

0>

o ri s

O

a 

P

PI '32 

Q

PI ri

§ 

PI

VI

m

Turoni

omanian

g

CJ

Rancocas 

Formation

Monmouth

Formation

Matawan

Formation

Magothy 

Formation

Raritan 

Formation

Carter 

(1937, p. 245)

0)

fc r/?

u

"S

6

a

a

0

O

xl

I

G 

0

§

a

2

o

S

Mataw

Navesink marl

(presence inferred in area

south of the

canal)

Mount Laurel

Sand

Marshalltown

Formation

Englishtown

Sand

Crosswicks Clay is 

the equivalent of 

the Woodbury 

Clay and Merchantville Clay

in New Jersey

Magothy Formation

Raritan Formation

Spangler and Peterson 

(1950, p. 6, 47)

0)

C

0)

o 

o 

H

to

8o

a

0

o>

Vincentown (Aquia)

"P?

o

£

o

0

(fej

^^PI

0

c

o

atawan (I

8

uiicuiiiurmiiy

Navesink

Mount Laurel

Wenonah

Marshalltown, 

Woodbury, and 

Merchantville

undifferentiated

Magothy

Raritan

Groot, Organist, and Richards

(1954, p. 7, 21)

to

£

0

S

a

P

a

o

O

^3

o

S O

^j

a

s>

0

PI

rt

£ 

rt "M

c3

§

Red Bank

Navesink-Mount

Laurel

Wenonah

Merchantville

This report

>>

.2

0)

EH

en

8

3

0)

O

o>

Hornerstown Sand

Mount Laurel

Sand

Marshalltown

Formation

Englishto^Ti

Formation

Merchantville 

Formation

Magothy 

Formation

Unconformity
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES

in 1963 and mainly agree with Carter's interpretation 

(table 1).

The Upper Cretaceous stratigraphic nomenclature 

in eastern Maryland has remained much as Clark 

(1916) had shown, dark's Matawan and Monmouth 

Formations were the standard for the east side of 

Chesapeake Bay (Overbeck and Slaughter, 1958) 

prior to this report.

In the following section, the units in New Jersey 

will be described in detail in order to establish their 

lithologic characteristics and to compare these units 

with those in the northern Delmarva Peninsula.

ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES

By JAMES P. OWENS and JAMES P. MINAED

The sedimentary rocks of Late Cretaceous age in 

New Jersey are mostly mixed or interbedded unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays. Both allogenic 

(quartz, feldspar, mica, and carbonaceous debris) 

and authigenic (glauconite, pyrite, and siderite) 

minerals are abundant, although the allogenic constituents predominate.

These sedimentary rocks can be divided into 11 

lithostratigraphic units which are well defined in 

outcrop. These have a pronounced cyclic pattern that 

has not been previously recognized and that has 

been a major cause for misidentifications in earlier 

regional stratigraphic studies.

NEW JERSEY

MERCHANTVILLE FORMATION

The Merchantville Formation is the oldest of the 

glauconite sandy units in the Coastal Plain in New 

Jersey (fig. 3), but unlike most of the younger greensands it consists of more than one lithofacies.

In the north, the Merchantville is mainly a sequence of thin (2-6 in.) very fine to fine-grained 

sandy and silty beds and, less commonly, thick (3-6 

ft) beds of glauconite sand. Discontinuous layers of 

rounded pale-gray siderite concretions are abundant 

in the thin-bedded sequence. In the west-central outcrop area, the Merchantville is a thick-bedded (5-15 

ft) sequence of dark-gray clayey quartz silts and 

dark-greenish-gray quartz-glauconite sands. In the 

southwest, the formation is a dark-gray massive 

silty fine to very fine glauconite-quartz sand. All 

beds in the Merchantville are poorly sorted; So 

(Trask sorting coefficient) equals 2.56 millimeters 

average. Fossil casts are abundant, and locally in 

the southwest, very fossiliferous siderite concretions 

are common in the lower part of the formation. The 

Merchantville ranges in thickness from 40 to 60 

feet. The contact with the underlying Magothy is 

sharp and disconformable. A bed about 1 foot thick

Hornerstown 

Sand

TERTIARY 

CRETACEOUS

Tmton 

Sand

Red Bank 

Sand

Navesink 

Formation

JX^'-' : > *<' '. '&*''. 

V/j^v.+x**-. ^ /. . j^. ::? 

 . ':J**'-:'-:(rr-:

Wenonah

Formation

Marshalltown 

Formation

Englishtown 

Formation

Woodbury 

Clay

Merchantville 

Formation

EXPLANATION

Crossbedding

r-0

-20'

-40'

-60'

U 80'

FIGURE 3. Composite columnar becuon showing general 

thickness and lithology of Upper Cretaceous formations in 

the northern and west-central Coastal Plain in New Jersey.
STRATIGRAPHY OP OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

containing reworked gravel and rounded woody fragments is present along the contact between the two 

units.

WOODBURY CLAY

The Woodbury Clay is chiefly a dark-grayish-black 

unconsolidated massive very clayey silt, except in 

the upper part where lentils of glauconite sand are 

common. It is very poorly sorted (So =2.62-4.24 mm 

commonly). The silt fraction consists mainly of 

quartz, feldspar, and mica; mica plates are also 

common in sand sizes. Carbonaceous matter, both 

finely comminuted and coarse grained, is also very 

abundant. Imprints of fossil shells are abundant, and 

locally in the southwest, well-preserved calcareous 

shells have been collected. The unit ranges in thickness from a maximum of 50 feet in the west-central 

part to zero in the southwest. It is gradational into 

the underlying Merchantville Formation.

ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION

The Englishtown Formation is chiefly a clastic 

sand that consists of more than one lithofacies. In 

the north where this unit is approximately 140 feet 

thick, it is mainly a pale-gray to white cross-stratified medium sand in the upper part and a dark-gray 

silt with thin quartz sandy partings in the lower 

part. In the west-central outcrop area, it is chiefly 

an intercalated thin-bedded sand-clay sequence. The 

Englishtown is approximately 90 feet thick in this 

area. In the southwest, the Englishtown thins to 

approximately 40 feet and is a dark-gray massive 

very fine to fine sand. These beds resemble the 

Wenonah Formation.

The sandy beds in the Englishtown are typically 

moderately to well sorted (So = 1.35-1.58 mm). 

Quartz, feldspar, weathered glauconite grains, and 

mica are the major sand constituents. The thin clay 

beds in the intercalated sequences and the massive 

dark beds are very silty and micaceous and contain 

large concentrations of fine to coarse lignitized plant 

matter.

Few fossils have been reported from the Englishtown. Locally, fossiliferous pale-gray sideritic concentrations are present in the base of the intercalated 

sequences. Fossil casts are also common in the 

massive dark sand in the southwest.

The Englishtown grades downward into the Woodbury Clay throughout most of the outcrop, but in 

the southwest where the Woodbury is absent, it overlies and grades downward into the Merchantville 

Formation.

MARSHALLTOWN FORMATION

The Marshalltown Formation is a massive darkgreenish-gray very fine to fine sand, which locally 

contains abundant silt and clay. Small pebbles and 

granules are common in the base and middle of the 

formation. It is moderately to very poorly sorted 

(So 1.36-4.80 mm commonly). Quartz and glauconite are the common sand minerals; feldspar and 

mica are present in small amounts. Glauconite is 

abundant in the middle and upper parts of the formation; quartz and, locally, concentrations of lignitized wood are common in the base. The glauconite 

grains are light to dark green and very fine to fine 

and include several percent of "accordion" forms. 

Fossils are rare in the north and west-central part 

of the Coastal Plain but are abundant in the southwest, especially the pelecypod Exogyra ponderosa 

(Roemer). The Marshalltown is remarkably constant 

in outcrop thickness, ranging from 10 to 15 feet. 

The contact with the underlying Englishtovn Formation is sharp; a thin reworked bed occurr locally 

along the boundary.

WENONAH FORMATION

The Wenonah Formation is an unconsolidated 

massive to thick-bedded dark-gray silty very fine to 

fine sand. It is very poorly to moderately sorted 

(So = 1.49-2.81 mm commonly). The Wenonah is 

chiefly a very micaceous, glauconite-feldspar-quartz 

sand. Finely disseminated pyrite and sand- to siltsized carbonaceous particles are particularly abundant. The formation has few fossils; only carts have 

been observed. Abundant cylindrical borings indicate 

that the unit ranges in thickness from a maximum 

of 60 feet in the west-central part of the Coastal 

Plain in New Jersey to a minimum of 15 feet in 

the southwest. The contact with the unc^rlying 

Marshalltown Formation is gradational.

MOUNT LAUREL SAND

The Mount Laurel Sand is largely a clastic sand, 

which weathers readily to a light gray or reddish 

brown. These weathered beds strongly resemble the 

upper quartz sand unit of the Red Bank Sand for 

which it is commonly mistaken. The Mount Laurel 

consists of more than one lithofacies along strike. In 

the northeast, it is mostly a sequence of intercalated 

thin (6 in. or less) dark-gray clay and light-gray 

sand beds. In the west-central area, it is largely a 

massive sand that locally interfingers with th^ intercalated sequence, particularly at the base of the 

formation. In the southwest, the formation is mainly 

a massive to thick-bedded sand. A 5- to 10-foot-thick
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES

bed of pebbly coarse sand occurs everywhere in outcrop at the top of the formation. Most of the sandy 

facies are moderately sorted (50 = 1.15-1.87 mm 

commonly), except in the upper coarser beds where 

the sorting is poor. Characteristically, this formation 

is a glauconite-feldspar-quartz sand. Locally, mica is 

abundant in the base. Fossils are largely in thin to 

thick layers throughout; the upper shell beds include 

Exogyra cancellata (Stephenson) and Belemnitella 

americana (Morton). E. cancellata is restricted to 

this formation. The Mount Laurel Sand ranges in 

thickness from 20 feet in the north to 70 feet in the 

southwest. The contact with the underlying Wenonah 

is typically gradational but locally may be distinct.

NAVESINK FORMATION

The Navesink Formation is a massive unconsolidated dark-greenish-gray clayey and silty medium 

to coarse sand. It is moderately to very poorly sorted 

(So 1.57-3.24 mm commonly). The Navesink is primarily a clayey glauconite sand (greensand) ; the 

lower few feet contain a few percent quartz, reworked from the underlying Mount Laurel. The unit 

is differentiated from the quartz-glauconite lithofacies of the Red Bank Sand mainly by the lack of 

sand-sized mica and by the smaller amounts of carbonaceous matter. However, clay- to silt-sized mica 

is abundant. The Navesink is very fossiliferous, 

especially the base. In the north, the middle and 

upper parts of the formation contain fossil beds as 

much as 5 feet thick largely consisting of mollusks. 

The unit crops out along the entire inner edge of the 

Coastal Plain in New Jersey. Here it ranges in thickness from a maximum of 35 feet in the west-central 

part to 5 feet in the southwest. The contact with the 

underlying Mount Laurel Sand is sharp.

RED BANK SAND

The Red Bank Sand is restricted to the northern 

and west-central parts of the Coastal Plain in New 

Jersey where it forms a wedge-shaped deposit that 

pinches out downdip and along strike to the southwest. The formation consists of three major lithofacies: an upper quartz sand, a lower silt, and a 

lower glauconite sand (fig. 3).

Upper quartz sand. The upper quartz sand is an 

unconsolidated massive reddish-brown fine to coarse 

sand, which locally contains pebbles and which is 

well to moderately sorted (50 = 1.17-1.83 mm commonly). It is a glauconite-feldspar-quartz sand. 

Typically, it is weathered throughout and locally is 

cemented by iron oxides. Most of the unit is unfossiliferous, but it contains some poorly preserved 

reworked fossils in the base. The upper quartz sand

unit ranges from 0 to 100 feet in thickness and 

grades into the underlying lithofacies, commonly 

through a transitional zone several feet thick.

Lower silt. The lower silt crops out only in the 

northern part of the Coastal Plain. It is an unconsolidated massive dark-gray silty medium sand. 

Typically it is poorly to very poorly sorted (£0 = 

2.34-3.93 mm). This lower silty unit is a moderately 

to very micaceous feldspar-glauconite-quartz sand; 

locally it contains much sand-sized carbonace.ous 

matter and pyrite. The unit is very fossiliferous, rnd, 

locally, calcareous tests are well preserved. It ir as 

much as 30 feet thick.

Lower glauconite sand. The lower glauconite 

sand crops out only in the west-central part of the 

Coastal Plain. It is an unconsolidated dark-greenishgray massive fine sand containing much clay and 

silt. Typically it is very poorly sorted (5o=2.12 

mm). The sand consists of feldspar, quartz, and 

especially glauconite. Carbonaceous matter and sandsized mica are especially abundant in this lithofacies. 

This unit is sparingly fossiliferous. It is as much as 

30 feet thick, and to the north it grades laterally into 

the lower silty unit and downward into underlying 

Navesink with no perceptible break.

TINTON SAND

The Tinton Sand is an unconsolidated palegreenish-gray sand in the base to locally reddishbrown well-indurated sandstone in the upper 8-10 

feet. Induration is largely due to fine crystalline 

sideritic cement. The sand is mostly fine to medium. 

Near the top, however, it is coarse and pebbly and 

is very poorly sorted (5o = 3.0 mm commonly). The 

Tinton is mostly a feldspar-glauconite-quartz sand to 

quartz-glauconite sand; glauconite is much more 

abundant near the top of the formation. In seme 

areas, it contains many fossils, chiefly mollusks and 

Callinassa sp. The cephalopod Sphenodiscus is fairly 

common at the type locality. The unit is restricted to 

the northern part of the Coastal Plain where it attains a maximum thickness of about 25 feet, ^he 

contact with the underlying Red Bank Sand is gradational. The upper boundary with the Hornerstown is 

sharp and unconformable.

DISTRIBUTION OF FORMATIONS

A major stratigraphic problem in New Jersey ir to 

determine which formations persist from the northeast, where the Upper Cretaceous section is the 

thickest, to the southwest, where the section is thinner and the formations are fewer. An additional 

problem is to determine what facies changes occur 

within each formation. The Upper Cretaceous sec-
STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS 

EXPLANATION

Glauconite unit of 

the Red Bank Sand

Cretaceous-Tertiary 

boundary

FIGURE 4. Stratigraphic section along the Upper Cretaceous outcrop belt from southwestern New Jersey to eastern Maryland. Line of section shown in figure 1.

tion, excluding the Raritan Formation, thins from 

about 500 feet in the Raritan Bay area to about 250 

feet at Woodstown (fig. 4). As can be seen in figure 

4, major changes toward the southwest primarily 

involve the uppermost Cretaceous units, the Tinton, 

Red Bank, and Navesink. The absence and thinning 

of these units toward the southwest can be explained 

by nondeposition and (or) postdepositional erosion.

A map showing the areal distribution of the 

Coastal Plain formations from New York to northern 

Virginia has been published by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (1967). Part of this map is reproduced in 

figure 5 and illustrates the authors' interpretation 

of the geology of southwestern New Jersey and the 

northern Delmarva Peninsula.

The section at Woodstown is discussed in more

detail than any other from New Jersey because it is 

the closest area to the Delmarva Peninsula in which 

detailed mapping was completed.

At Woodstown (figs. 4 and 5), the Tinton and Red 

Bank Sands are absent, as postulated by Knapp 

(Weller, 1907, p. 15) and mapped by Minard (1965). 

The basal Tertiary unit, the Hornerstown, he^e rests 

on the Navesink and locally on the Mount Laurel in 

updip areas. The Navesink thins in outcrop from 

about 12 feet near the east boundary of the Woodstown quadrangle to zero at the west edge. I owndip 

or southwestward, the Navesink thickens to more 

than 20 feet. The wedge shape of the Navesink in 

this quadrangle suggests an angular unconformity 

between this unit and the overlapping Hornerstown 

Sand.
Raritan Formation, 

undifferentiated

O Mineral analysis sample

FIGURE 5. Geologic map of southwestern New Jersey and northern Delmarva Peninsula. Modified from U.S. Geological Survey (19
10 STRATIGRAPHY OP OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

The Mount Laurel Sand underlying the Navesink 

is approximately 80 feet thick at Woodstown. This 

is the maximum outcrop thickness of this unit in 

New Jersey. Weller and Knapp (Weller, 1907, p. 

103) considered the thickening of the Mount Laurel 

to be at the expense of the Navesink. It should be 

noted, however, that the underlying Wenonah also 

thins southwestward, and at Woodstown, the formation is only 15 feet thick. This fact suggests that the 

thickening of the Mount Laurel may be related to 

the thinning of the Wenonah because of a simple 

textural change from the silt (Wenonah) to a 

coarser sand (Mount Laurel). If the above explanation is correct, then a radical mineralogic change is 

not required as would be so for the change from the 

Mount Laurel (detrital sand) to the Navesink 

(authigenic sand).

The Marshalltown has virtually the same thickness 

and lithology at Woodstown as to the northeast; 

fossils, however, are abundant at Woodstown, but 

rare to the northeast. The Marshalltown, because of 

its persistent lithic characteristics, serves as an excellent stratigraphic marker in New Jersey and the 

Delmarva Peninsula.

The Englishtown shows a marked change in facies 

in the Woodstown area. In the north-central part of 

the quadrangle, near Swedesboro, this unit is a sequence of intercalated thin-bedded clays and sands, 

like much of the Englishtown to the northeast. Between Swedesboro and Woodstown, the formation 

changes to a thick-bedded silt and sand. At the west 

edge of the quadrangle, the formation is a massive 

dark very micaceous silty very fine to fine sand that 

strongly resembles the Wenonah, the basal Red Bank 

in the northern Coastal Plain, and the underlying 

Woodbury Clay in its type area. A major stratigraphic problem has been whether this dark very 

fine sand is the Woodbury or a facies change in the 

Englishtown. On the geologic map of New Jersey 

(Lewis and Kiimmel, 1912), the Englishtown is 

shown to pinch out in the Woodstown quadrangle 

and the Woodbury to continue through. However, 

because the bedded clay-sand sequence of the formation laterally interfingers with the massive unit 

formerly mapped as Woodbury, Minard (1965) 

mapped the Englishtown continuously across the 

Woodstown quadrangle. Johnson and Richards 

(1952, p. 2155) reported at least 36 feet of Englishtown at Layton Lakes, which is several miles west 

of the Woodstown quadrangle.

The Woodbury Clay is not present in the Woodstown quadrangle and apparently pinches out northeast of Swedesboro (Minard, 1965).

The Merchantville Formation is far lesr glauconitic in the vicinity of Woodstown than it ir to the 

north between Trenton and Camden. However, sufficient glauconite still occurs in the Merchantville at 

Woodstown to help in differentiating it from the 

overlying and similar but less glauconitic dark 

massive Englishtown.

One of the unforeseen results of the detailed 

mapping in several areas and examination of formations in the intervening areas was the detection of a 

probable basement high in southern New Jersey and 

northern Delaware. This conclusion was reached 

partly as a result of lithologic changes in the 

formations. These changes were most evident in the 

greensands. In New Jersey, several units contain 

glauconite in superabundance. One formation, the 

Hornerstown, of early Tertiary age, is commonly 30 

feet thick. The sand fraction in this unit is as much 

as 95 percent glauconite. The other glauconite-rich 

units of appreciable extent are the Navesink, Marshalltown, and Merchantville Formations.

As these formations are traced from the northeast 

to the southwest, a marked depletion of glauconite 

is evident. To the northeast, these formations are 

excellent marker beds because of their high glauconite content. To the southwest, however, their use 

as stratigraphic markers is much less reliable because they have become so deficient in glauconite, or 

have pinched out, or have been overlapped. Accompanying the depletion of glauconite is an increase in 

the amount of detrital minerals, particularly quartz.

The authors believe that glauconite is primarily an 

authigenic mineral and is deposited in a low-energy 

environment in waters a few to several hundred feet 

deep on the middle and outer continental shelf. Based 

on this concept of the origin of glauconite, the glauconite depletion and the thinning or overlapping of 

glauconite-rich beds to the southwest and the concomitant increase in amount of detrital minerals and 

in grain size suggest a shoaling of the ser on a 

possible structural high.

SUMMARY OF ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES IN 

NEW JERSEY

The important changes in the Upper Crete ceouslowermost Tertiary section that take place from 

northern New Jersey southwestward to the Woodstown area are:

1. The Hornerstown Sand of early Tertiary age rests 

on progressively older sediments to war is the 

southwest (fig. 4). It lies on the Tinton in the 

extreme north, the Red Bank in the west-central 

part, the Navesink in the west-central to south-
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 11

western part, and the Mount Laurel in the 

updip section in the southwestern part.

2. The upper quartz-sand unit of the Red Bank is 

absent in the southwestern part of the Coastal 

Plain in New Jersey as S. Weller and G. N. 

Knapp (Weller, 1907, p. 18) had postulated. 

This is significant when the interpretation of 

Groot, Organist, and Richards (1954, table 2) 

in northern Delaware is considered.

3. As a result of the erosion of progressively lower 

parts of the uppermost Cretaceous beds from 

north to south, the Navesink is only 5 feet thick 

in much of the updip section at Woodstown and 

locally is absent.

4. Thickening of the coarse sandy Mount Laurel 

southwestward and a concomitant thinning of 

the underlying finer grained Wenonah suggests 

shallowing of the basin of deposition during 

Wenonah-Mount Laurel time.

5. The Marshall town persists with little change in 

lithology or thickness in outcrop throughout the 

entire Coastal Plain in New Jersey and therefore serves as an excellent marker bed. Concentrations of Exogyra ponderosa are present 

only in the southwest.

6. A significant reduction in the thickness of the 

Englishtown-Woodbury interval was produced 

by the pinchout of the Woodbury and by a 

change to a thinner, deeper water silty sand 

facies within the Englishtown, which here resembles the Wenonah.

7. The Merchantville also undergoes a facies change. 

It is largely a greensand in the Trenton-Camden 

area, but the glauconite content decreases 

markedly to the southwest, where the Merchantville is a somewhat silty fine glauconite 

quartz sand.

8. Within the Coastal Plain in New Jersey, the 

quartz-rich sandy or silty units vary more in 

thickness and lithology along outcrop than the 

glauconite-rich units, which maintain remarkable uniformity in texture, mineralogy, and 

thickness for the entire outcrop distance. Facies 

changes are present, but the changes from one 

texture, lithology, or thickness to another are 

gradual and commonly take place over many 

miles.

9. The most significant feature of the stratigraphy 

is the repetition of similar lithologies in the 

vertical section throughout the Upper Cretaceous beds of New Jersey. This characteristic 

requires a very detailed knowledge of the 

spatial distribution of the formations before

any regional synthesis of the Upper Cretaceous 

stratigraphy can be made.

NORTHERN DELAWARE

Although the marine Cretaceous sediments of 

Delaware are lithologically similar to those of New 

Jersey, the authigenic mineral glauconite is generally less abundant than in formations of the same 

age in New Jersey. The outcropping Cretaceous section continues to thin southwestward into Delaware 

where the section is estimated to be only 240 feet 

thick (fig. 4).

There are no exposures of the complete Cretaceous 

section in Delaware. Even the more or less continuous exposures along the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal are incomplete because no basal Tertiary beds 

have ever been found. In order to locate these lower 

Tertiary beds and establish a top to the section, a 

series of shallow holes were bored south of the canal 

in the vicinity of Odessa, Del. (fig. 1), where Booth 

(1841) and Johnson and Richards (1952, p. 2158- 

2159) reported the early Tertiary brachiopod 

Oleneothyris harlani. The presence of Tertiary rocks 

in that area was also suggested by the fact that 

glauconite mining once flourished. The bulk of the 

glauconite mining in New Jersey was in the Hornerstown Sand of Paleocene age.

Studies in Delaware were concentrated at three 

main localities: along the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal from the new Summit Bridge to the new railroad bridge (fig. 6) ; from the St. Georges Bridge 

east to the Biggs Farm locality of Groot, Organist, 

and Richards (1954, fig. 5) ; and the general vicinity 

of Odessa (fig. 5) south of the canal. These localities 

are approximately 15 miles southwest along strike 

from Woodstown, N.J.

DISTRIBUTION OF FORMATIONS

The areal distribution of Upper Cretaceous and 

lower Tertiary beds from southern New Jersey to 

northern Delaware is shown in figure 5. As can be 

seen, four Cretaceous formations younger than the 

Magothy extend into the canal area: the Merchantville, Englishtown, and Marshalltown Formations, 

and the Mount Laurel Sand.

SECTION ALONG CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL NEAR 

SUMMIT BRIDGE

An unusually good exposure was studied in a 

fresh cutbank in the footings for the new railroad 

bridge on the south bank of the canal. About 65 feet 

of section was exposed (fig. 7). Weathering, always 

a problem in surface or near-surface studies of the 

Coastal Plain formations, was perceptible to a depth
12 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

FIGURE 6. Localities along the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal described in text (modified from Groot and others, 1954,

pi. 2).

of about 50 feet. The impermeable clayey units were 

the least altered, but even in the more permeable 

sands, weathering did not mask the essential lithologic characteristics.

FIGURE 7. Upper Cretaceous formations exposed in cutbank 

at site of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal railroad bridge.

Except for the Navesink and Wenonah Formations, the same lithologic units are recognized here as 

at Woodstown, N.J. (fig. 4). The change in facies 

within the Wenonah to a coarser sand southwestward in New Jersey has been carried to completion 

in northern Delaware where the Wenonah-Mount 

Laurel interval is occupied by a Mount Laurel 

lithology.

Particularly fine exposures of the Marshalltown, 

Englishtown, and the upper part of the Merchantville Formations at this locality are of special interest. It is also noteworthy that the placement of our 

formational boundaries is nearly coincident with 

those of Carter (1937) in this general area.

A measured section, which accompanies figure 8, 

is given below.

Measured section in excavation for railroad bridge footing 

on south bank of the old channel of Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal 1.3 miles northeast of Summit, Del.

[Elevation of top of cut about 70 feet]

Wicomico (?) Formation:

Sand, yellow-brown, very gravelly ................... ..

Mount Laurel Sand:

Sand, yellowish- to reddish-brown, somewhat 

clayey and silty; massive but extensively penetrated by cylindrical borings commonly etched 

out by wind on dry surfaces. White to buff 

soft irregular masses of apatite as much as 

3 in. in diameter abundant in the lower 5 ft. 

Quartz, feldspar, and glauconite the major 

sand constituents (table 3); mica and apatite 

also present in significant concentrations. Detrital heavy minerals abundant and chiefly of 

metamorphic origin (table 3). Sand moderately to well sorted and mostly fine to medium 

(Groot, 1955, p. 147). Unit grades down into 

the Marshalltown, the transition taking place

Thickness 

(feet)

0-10
ROCK STKATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 13

Wicomico(?) 

Formation

Mount Laurel 

Sand

Marshalltown 

Formation

Merchantville 

Formation

IKEXPLANATION

o . " . ° . 

.o .o . o

O ' . ' o ' ' ° .

Gravel

Glauconite sand

Quartz sand

Silt

///'.

Crossbedding

Fossils

Borings

Wood

rO

~~ 5

-10'

FIGURE 8. Columnar section at the new railroad 

bridge excavation near Summit Bridge, Del., shown 

in figure 7.

Mount Laurel Sand Continued

in a 1-ft interval. Borings filled with quartz 

sand. They project downward from Mount 

Laurel into underlying Marshalltown ............

Total measured Mount Laurel Sand ....

Thickness 

(feet)

15.0

15.0

Thickness 

(feet)

Marshalltown Formation:

Sand, clayey, silty, grayish-green; at top grades 

downward into greenish-black, massive. Borings similar to those in Mount Laurel, but 

filled with glauconite sand, common. White 

masses of apatite similar to those in overlying 

formation also occur in upper few feet of this 

unit. Phosphatized internal molds of shells in 

upper few feet, and a layer containing fairly 

well preserved thick calcareous shells of 

Exogyra ponderosa Roemer in the middle. 

Microfossils locally abundant in shell layer 

and associated with numerous broken translucent dark-brown bone fragments, fine quartz 

gravel (maximum diameter Vz in.), and fragments of black carbonized wood.

Glauconite is major sand constituent (table 

3), although quartz and feldspar abundant in 

lower few feet of this formation. Mica common throughout. Many glauconite grains have 

accordian shapes similar to those described by 

Galliher (1935). Heavy minerals common; the 

assemblage and distribution virtually same as 

in Mount Laurel Sand.

Contact with Englishtown sharp (fig. 9). 

Numerous borings filled with glauconite, project below contact into underlying quartz sand. 

Gravel (as much as 2 in.) and large pieces 

of carbonized wood (as much as 8 in. long) 

occur locally along this boundary .................... 14.0

Total measured Marshalltown 14.0 

Formation.

Englishtown Formation:

Sand, white to pale buff; upper part pale gray in 

lower few feet; extensively stained orange 

brown by iron oxides along the bedding planes. 

Many of beds less than 1 in. thick (fig. 10). 

Small-scale crossbedding thicker in lower few 

feet. Entire formation penetrated by excellently preserved borings (Halymenites major 

of other authors). These borings differ from 

those in overlying beds both in size and complexity of surface ornamentation.

Formation primarily a silty sand, fine to 

very fine and well sorted (Groot, 1955, p. 

149). Quartz, feldspar, and mica are the 

primary constituents (table 3); glauconite 

generally a minor constituent but locally 

abundant. Heavy minerals abundant and 

chiefly metamorphic types (table 3). Contact with underlying Merchantville Formation 

sharp and most evident on weathered surfaces 

where dark carbonaceous matter leached from 

Merchantville. A zone of reworked sediment 

as much as 2 ft thick occurs locally along 

this boundary. Fine gravel, carbonaceous matter, rounded black to reddish-brown iron oxide 

fragments and less commonly small to large 

broken calcareous and phosphatic shell fragments distributed in this zone ............................ 14.0

Total measured Englishtown Formation 14.0
14 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

FIGURE 9. Contact between the Marshalltown (dark) and underlying English town (light). Note thin zone of reworked 

sediment along boundary and the numerous glauconite-filled borings in upper part of the Englishtown quartz sand.

Merchantville Formation:

Sand, very fine to fine, very silty and clayey, 

poorly to well-sorted; pale gray in the upper 

8 ft, remainder dark grayish black; thick 

bedded, but this feature is most evident on 

weathered surfaces. Quartz, glauconite, feldspar, chlorite, and muscovite the major minerals. Glauconite grains have accordion shapes 

similar to those in Marshalltown Formation. 

Pyrite and siderite important accessory minerals, particularly in upper beds. Siderite occurs in irregularly shaped gray masses. Heavy 

minerals abundant and similar to those found 

in overlying Englishtown (table 3). Fossils 

abundant. Most only imprints, shell material 

leached. A thin zone containing abundant crab 

claws near top of formation ................................

Total measured Merchantville 

Formation.

Thickness 

(feet)

23.0

23^0

Carter (1937, p. 271) and Groot, Organist, and 

Richards (1954, p. 33-34) have also made studies at 

or near this locality. All reports agree on the placement of formational boundaries within a few feet. 

Except for the lower unit (Merchantville) for which 

Carter used the collective name, Crosswicks Clay, 

his stratigraphic assignments and those of this paper 

are mainly the same, whereas those of Groot, Organist, and Richards are most like those of Spangler 

and Peterson (1950).

No lower Merchantville beds were observed in this 

excavation, but the engineer in charge reports an 

additional 24 feet of the Merchantville lithology beFIGURE 10. Sharp contact between Merchantville and overlying Englishtown Formations. Thin bedding in the Englishtown is emphasized by the iron oxide staining.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 15

low the 23 feet exposed in this cut. The total Merchantville, therefore, is about 50 feet at this site. 

A small section of the basal beds was temporarily 

exposed on the south shore of the canal 1.4 miles to 

the west. There, about 9 feet of Merchantville and 

its contact with the underlying Magothy was exposed in a long cutbank bench that was subsequently 

removed during widening of the canal. The contact 

is sharp and slightly irregular and has a 2- to 3-foot 

zone of reworked sediment along the boundary. The 

reworked zone is a dark-gray very silty and clayey 

very fine to fine sand. Granules and small pebbles 

of quartz are concentrated in this interval, as are 

reworked pieces of carbonized wood and large discoidal brown siderite concretions. Borings, generally filled with glauconite and quartz sand that are 

coarser than the surrounding very micaceous matrix, 

are abundant even in the wood and siderite concretions. Above this lower bed, the amount of fine gravel 

diminishes, and the sediment is much finer. Glauconite-filled borings are abundant even above the 

basal zone.

In general, the lower Merchantville beds appear to 

be more clayey and less micaceous and to have a 

higher glauconite content than the upper beds observed at the bridge pier.

SECTION 1.1 MILES WEST OF ST. GEORGES TO 1.3 MILES EAST 

OF ST. GEORGES AT BIGGS FARM

The Englishtown and Marshalltown Formations 

and the Mount Laurel Sand can be traced almost 

continuously along the north side of the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal from the railroad bridge eastward to St. Georges. The regional dip of the formations in this area is southeast, so that younger strata 

are found to the east. Unfortunately, the ground 

there is lower than at the railroad pier, and the outcrops are smaller. Only short sections of the younger 

Upper Cretaceous strata are exposed. Most of the 

exposures are low cutbanks at water level along the 

canal and are usually only a few feet high at low 

tide. The sharp contact between the Marshalltown 

and Englishtown is exposed at a few points on the 

north bank between 0.3 and 1.1 miles west of the St. 

Georges Bridge. The long distance over which this 

contact is exposed suggests either a more easterly 

strike of the Marshalltown than usual or local gentle 

warping of the beds. Others (Groot, 1955, p. 14, for 

example) have observed small folds in other beds 

along the canal. The undulatory contact between the 

two formations can be seen at low-tide level in this 

general region.

The Englishtown in this area is typically orange 

brown and semi-indurated by secondary iron oxide.

Its general lithology is similar to that of the beds 

near the railroad pier except that it locally has small 

concentrations of pebbles as much as one-fourth of 

an inch in diameter. The Ophiomorpha borings are 

large and very abundant in this formation. Because 

they are better indurated than the surrounding sand, 

they are etched out where the beds are exposed in 

the intertidal zone (fig. 11). At a few localities, other 

fossil impressions have been exposed on the washed 

surfaces.

The basal beds of the overlying Marshalltown are 

similar to those at the railroad pier except that they 

are less weathered and much more fossiliferous. 

Well-preserved shells of Exogyra ponderosa and 

Ostrea falcata commonly litter the outcrop along the 

shores of the canal.

At St. Georges Bridge, the dark-gray Marshalltown is capped by a thin bed of orange-brown glauconite quartz sand identified by us as the basal 

Mount Laurel. The weathered condition.of the upper 

bed makes it difficult, however, to be certain of this 

identification. If this represents the contact between 

the two formations, the Marshalltown is less than 10 

feet thick at this locality.

The basal unit of the Mount Laurel is exposed on 

the south bank of the canal east of the St. Georges 

Bridge. About 2.5 feet of unweathered pale-gray 

very clayey glauconite quartz sand having composition apparently similar to that of the weathered bed 

just mentioned crops out for a distance of about 100 

yards. In general appearance this bed resembles the 

Marshalltown because of its very clayey nature, but 

it is lighter in color. This similarity is deceptive bePlGURE 11. Large Ophiomorphia nodusa borings in the Englishtown Formation exposed at water level along the north 

side of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal east of the St. 

Georges Bridge. Borings of this type are present in other 

sandy formations but these are unusually large and well 

preserved.
16 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

cause the cement in this unit of the Mount Laurel is 

mostly clay-sized calcite rather than a complex assemblage of clay minerals as in the Marshalltown 

(table 4). Therefore, the basal Mount Laurel at this 

locality is an arenaceous calcilutite or a very calcareous glauconite quartz sand, a lithology not observed 

in the formation elsewhere. Lithologically, the Mount 

Laurel exposed at the railroad pier could have been 

the same as at this locality, except for leaching of 

the fossils and calcareous cement. Fossils are abundant along this south-bank exposure, but Exogyra 

cancellata occurs here rather than E. ponderosa. As 

noted earlier, to the northeast in New Jersey, E. 

cancellata is restricted to the Mount Laurel Sand. 

Locally, small dark-brown phosphatized fossils of the 

same types as the calcareous shells are present. The 

origin of these phosphatic fossils is not known, but 

they appear to be derived from a different source 

than the larger calcitic shells.

Glauconite from the Exogyra ponderosa bed of the 

Marshalltown and the E. cancellata bed of the Mount 

Laurel was dated by the potassium-argon method. 

Glauconite from the Mount Laurel Sand yielded an 

age of 70.3±2.5 m.y. (million years) ; that from the 

underlying Marshalltown, 68.2±2.4 m.y. (J. P. 

Obradovich, written commun., 1967). Although the 

reported age of the glauconite in the Marshalltown 

is younger than that from the overlying Mount 

Laurel, both are virtually the same if the analytical 

error is considered. Both determinations, however, 

indicate a Late Cretaceous age for these beds.

Sporadic exposures of this lower Mount Laurel 

calcareous bed were found along the south bank of 

the canal from the St. Georges Bridge to the Biggs 

Farm locality (fig. 6) about 1 mile to the east. A 

hole augered at this locality penetrated approximately 16 feet of the light-gray fossiliferous calcareous Mount Laurel. The lower contact with the 

Marshalltown was difficult to establish precisely because of contamination from above. Unequivocal 

Marshalltown was obtained 10 feet below the 16 feet 

of basal Mount Laurel, so that the thickness assigned 

to the calcareous part of the Mount Laurel is a 

minimum.

The Biggs Farm locality is a favorite fossilcollecting site. It is also of special interest because 

it is there that Groot, Organist, and Richards (1954, 

p. 37) described a section of what they termed "Red 

Bank and Navesink-Mount Laurel undifferentiated." 

The fauna from this locality was described by Richards and Shapiro (1963) and is discussed later in 

this report in the section "Biostratigraphic analysis." This is probably the locality referred to by

Spangler and Peterson (1950, p. 47) in which the 

Vincentown and Navesink are in contact.

The authors disagree with these formation designations and suggest instead that this entire outcrop 

is Mount Laurel. At this locality, the basal 2.5 feet of 

the cut is the same calcareous bed described at St. 

Georges Bridge. This calcareous bed is in sharp contact with the overlying yellowish-brown medium 

somewhat glauconitic quartz sand (fig. 12). The contact is highly irregular, apparently a reflection of 

the uneven leaching of the underlying calcareous 

bed.

To test our interpretation, three samples were 

collected, one from the basal shell zone (NavesinkMount Laurel as used by Groot, Organist, and 

Richards (1954)) and two approximately 6 feet 

apart above this bed (Red Bank as used by Groot 

and others). These were compared with each other 

and with a sample from the basal Mount Laurel 

exposed at the railroad excavation near Summit 

Bridge.

The detrital components of the three samples were 

concentrated and compared petrographically. It was 

assumed that these detrital components would be 

more likely to resist the effects of subaerial oxidation 

than would the authigenic constituents. No significant differences were found in these samples either 

in the light fractions (less than 2.80 sp gr) or in the 

heavy fractions (greater than 2.80 sp gr, table 3). 

No significant difference in size, shape, or total glauconite percentage was found between the sands. 

These sands were then compared with the lower 

Mount Laurel from the railroad bridge, and, except

FIGURE 12. Contact between the lower light-colored very 

clayey calcareous beds and the upper darker very sandy 

beds of the Mount Laurel at the Biggs Farm locality. 

Leaching of the calcareous beds has produced an irregular 

contact.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 17

for minor variations in the percentages of the heavy 

and light minerals, the samples were nearly identical. 

The major difference is in the quartz-glauconite 

ratio, but the sample from the railroad bridge is 

from the base of the unit, and concentrations of reworked glauconite might be expected in this basal 

interval.

Because of similarities in lithology and regional 

stratigraphic position, we conclude that these localities are part of a single lithologic entity, the Mount 

Laurel Sand.

SECTION NEAR ODESSA

In the two previously described sections, the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary was not exposed nor was 

it seen anywhere eastward along the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal. As already indicated, the section at 

the Biggs Farm locality probably is basal Mount 

Laurel. In southern New Jersey, the Mount Laurel is 

80 feet thick, and it is reasonable to assume an equal 

or greater thickness of this unit in northern Delaware. In addition, in southern New Jersey, the uppermost Cretaceous bed is the Navesink Formation, 

but here it is very thin or absent in the updip areas. 

The problems, therefore, in northern Delaware, are 

to determine: (1) the thickness of the Mount Laurel, 

(2) the presence or absence of the Navesink, (3) the 

top of the Cretaceous section, and (4) the character 

of the lowest Tertiary formation. As indicated previously, some older publications reported the occurrence in a greensand of a characteristic Paleocene 

fossil, Oleneothyris harlani (Morton), in the vicinity 

of Odessa. This fossil is commonly found along or 

above the Hornerstown-Vincentown contact in New 

Jersey. The presence of the highly glauconitic Hornerstown Sand or its lateral equivalent in Delaware 

is, therefore, strongly suggested.

Groot, Jordan, and Richards (1961, p. 24), in their 

guidebook to the geology of the area, described an 

outcrop at the western edge of Odessa, whose stratigraphic placement was uncertain because of its unfossiliferous nature. At this locality, about 4 feet of 

glauconite sand with a lithology similar to that of the 

Hornerstown Sand of New Jersey overlies a pebbly 

glauconite quartz sand that is similar to the upper 

beds of the Mount Laurel. (See descriptions accompanying fig. 3.) Because of the thinness and 

weathered nature of the upper glauconite sand at 

this locality, a series of holes was augered east and 

north of Odessa to ascertain the thickness and trend 

of this unit and to obtain less weathered samples. 

The thickness, about 20 feet, and lithology are nearly 

identical to the Hornerstown Sand of New Jersey 

(Minard and others, 1969). In New Jersey, the

Hornerstown Sand consistently has a very diagnostic 

green glauconite clay matrix. The green clay matrix 

of the sand at Odessa is identical. Another uniaue 

feature of the Hornerstown in New Jersey is the 

abnormally high potassium oxide content of the glauconite grains as compared with Cretaceous glauconite 

pellets. The grains from the Odessa sample were 

analyzed and have a potassium oxide content of 8.1 

percent (H. J. Rose, written comtnun., 1963). Such 

high values are typical of the Hornerstown rather 

than of the Cretaceous glauconite (Owens and 

Minard, 1960, p. B431). Subsequent radiogenic age 

determinations (potassium-argon method) of the 

glauconite sand yielded an age of G3.8±2.1 ri.y. 

(J. P. Obradovich, written conimun., 1967). This 

date is compatible with a very early Tertiary age 

(Kulp, 1961).

In summary, in the vicinity of Odessa the spatial 

and lithologic relationships indi ate that the Fornerstown Sand rests directly on the Mount Laurel 

Sand and that the Navesink Formation, which is 

only 4-5 feet thick updip at Woodstown, is completely absent at Odessa and in the nearby shallow 

subsurface. Certainly, if this interpretation is correct, then the quartz sand at the Biggs Farm locality 

could not be the Red Bank but is the Mount Laurel. 

The stripping of the upper beds of the Upper Cretaceous sequence and the onlap of the basal Paleocene 

beds onto progressively older beds toward the southwest has continued. If the Mount Laurel has the 

same rate of dip here as at the canal, then it is 

calculated that the unit is about 170 feet thick in this 

part of Delaware. This is a reasonable estimate if 

the regional trend of southward thickening of the 

Mount Laurel continues into northern Delaware.

Figure 13 is a composite section showing our interpretation of the stratigraphic sequence in the 

northern Delaware coastal plain.

COMPARISON OF THE UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS 

IN NORTHERN DELAWARE AND SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY

The foregoing descriptions permit a comparison of 

the stratigraphic sequences of the two regions. mhe 

stratigraphic sequence near and along the canal is as 

follows:

Formation Age

Hornerstown .......................................................... Paleocene

Mount Laurel ........................................................Late Cretaceous

Marshalltown ........................................................ Do.

Englishtown .......................................................... Do.

Merchantville ..................................................... Do.

The above sequence has a distinct cyclic sedimentation pattern (fig. 14A). Cycle one consists of a
18 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

glauconite sand (basal Merchantville) overlain by a 

silt (upper Merchantville) which grades up into a 

quartz sand (Englishtown). Then the pattern is repeated and another cycle completed: glauconite sand 

(Marshalltown), grading up into a calcareous silt 

(basal Mount Laurel), which is overlain by a quartz 

sand (upper Mount Laurel). The glauconite sands 

are interpreted as representing transgressive beds, 

and the quartz silts and sands are interpreted as 

representing the regressive facies of the cycles. Two 

cycles occur in the Upper Cretaceous sediments at 

the canal; 3Va cycles occur in the Upper Cretaceous 

sediments of New Jersey (fig. 14). The fewer cycles 

in Delaware are most likely the result of a more 

intense early Tertiary period of erosion than occurred in northern New Jersey. The uppermost beds,

Hornerstown

Sand 

TERTIARY

CRETACEOUS

EXPLANATION

 ?' .' 0.v-&.'-Xo'-V-^ : .'v'-.

Gravel

Mount Laurel 

Sand

Marshalltown 

Formation

Glauconite sand

Quartz sand

Merchantville 

Formation ,'

Silt

Calcareous sandstone

A/W\AAA/\y\l 

Concealed |

, vvvv

Formation

Crossbedding

i-O

-20'

L-40'

FIGURE 13. Composite columnar section of Upper 

Cretaceous stratigraphic relations in the northern 

Delaware Coastal Plain. A, At Odessa. B, At new 

railroad bridge and east to Biggs Farm. C, On 

south bank of canal at the new Summit Bridge.

the Tinton, Red Bank, and Navesink, were stripped 

away during the erosional period. In addition, the 

deposits of a single cycle from New Jersey and Delaware are somewhat different. A complete sedimentation cycle in New Jersey (fig. 145) consists of an 

upper quartz sand, a middle very micaceous auartz 

sand or silt, and a lower glauconite sand. In Delaware, the middle clastic silt is present in the first 

cycle but is replaced by calcareous silt in the second 

cycle. An intermediate calcareous silt does not occur 

in the Upper Cretaceous beds of New Jersey but is 

present in the Paleocene Vincentown Formation.

Much of the confusion in correlations over long 

distances in the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain is 

due to the failure to recognize the cyclic nature of 

these sediments. The repetition of generally similar 

lithologies, coupled with poor formational descriptions and lack of good maps, left most stratigrg.phers 

dependent on biostratigraphic correlations. Unfortunately, most of the outcropping units are unfossiliferous or lack a diagnostic fauna. Frequently 

such correlations were based on widely spaced 

samples.

The quartz sand units, particularly beds in the Red 

Bank and Mount Laurel Sands, are most commonly 

confused by regional stratigraphers. Cook (IS68, p. 

268) and Clark, Bagg, and Shattuck (1897, p. 335) 

confused these two units in their early studies in 

New Jersey. Only through the precise tracing of the 

two units in the field, was Knapp (in Weller, 1907, 

p. 17-20) able to demonstrate the correct spatial 

distribution of the sands. The same misidentification 

of the Mount Laurel as the Red Bank appears to have 

been made by Groot, Organist, and Richards (1954) 

in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal section. Once 

they assumed that the Mount Laurel was the Red 

Bank, the underlying glauconite-rich unit (Marshalltown) was understandably misidentified as the Navesink. The same reasoning applied to the quarts sand 

beneath the Marshalltown. This sand was identified 

as the Wenonah rather than the Englishtown. (For 

details of the stratigraphic sequence, see fig. 3.) Further complicating the interpretation was the fact 

that the geologic map of New Jersey (Lewis and 

Kiimmel, 1912) shows the Englishtown pinching out 

near Swedesboro in the Woodstown quadrangle. 

However, mapping by Minard (1965) showed that 

the Englishtown continues southwest and the Woodbury Clay pinches out. This mapping also showed 

that the Mount Laurel thickens rapidly at the expense of the underlying Wenonah.

The interpretation of the canal section, hovever, 

was clearly predictable and was verified by lithol-
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 19

FIGURE 14. Schematic columnar sections showing differences between Upper 

Cretaceous cyclic deposits in Delaware (A) and New Jersey (B). Lithic 

symbols are the same as those in figure 13. Drilling by the U.S. Geological 

Survey during recent investigations in Delaware has now provided complete 

lithologic data for these units. (See fig. 13.)

ogies and faunal associations, the following facts 

being kept in mind:

1. Pinchout of the Red Bank in the central Coastal 

Plain in New Jersey.

2. Removal of the Navesink by a pre-Hornerstown 

erosion and deposition of the Hornerstown on

the Mount Laurel in updip sections in southern 

New Jersey.

3. Thinning of the Wenonah towards the southwest.

4. Continuation of the Englishtown southwestward 

from Woodstown.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 21

FIGURE 16. Cutbank along Chesapeake Bay at Grove Point 

exposing the light-colored Magothy at the base of the bluff 

in sharp, flat contact with the dark-colored Merchantville 

Formation. The Merchantville is unconformably overlain 

by sand and gravel of the Wicomico(?) Formation. Photograph by L. C. Conant.

siderite-cemented (?) platelets. In the upper part of 

the formation, intercalated thin (2-4 in.) beds of 

black clay and light fine to medium sand beds interfinger with the dark-gray silts.

The Merchantville grades upward into about 20 

feet of intercalated thin beds of black silty clay and 

white micaceous sand. Many of the sandy layers 

have small-scale trough cross-stratification. Most of 

the sand is fine to medium. Pebbles as large as onefourth of an inch in diameter are common in many 

of the sands. Large concentrations of coarse carbonaceous material commonly associated with coarse 

mica grains are common in the dark clay beds. The 

well-bedded character, lithology, and stratigraphic 

position of this unit indicate that it is unquestionably 

the Englishtown Formation. This formation is exposed along the south bank of the Sassafras at 

Betterton Beach.

The thin-bedded Englishtown is overlain by about 

15 feet of massive dark-gray glauconite quartz sand, 

which we have assigned to the Marshalltown. The 

lower 6-8 feet of the Marshalltown is dark-gray 

quartz glauconite sand that contains granules and 

some small pebbles in the base. The glauconite sand 

content decreases rapidly above this bed, and the 

upper part of the formation is largely a dark-gray 

quartz silt. Borings filled with light-gray more 

clayey sediment are extensive in the upper Marshalltown (fig. 17). Fossil casts also seen in this photograph are common in the middle of the formation. 

The entire thickness of the formation is well exposed 

at several localities along the north side of the 

Sassafras River. The formation is only exposed at 

one locality on the south side of the Sassafras River 

just east of Betterton.

The Marshalltown grades upward into the yellowish-brown to pale-yellow quartz sand of the 

Mount Laurel sand (fig. 18). The Mount Laurel is 

exceptionally well exposed in the bluffs along both 

banks of the Sassafras River between Betterton and 

Fredericktown (fig. 5). At some localities, more than 

60 feet of Mount Laurel is exposed in a single bank. 

The lower 20-25 feet of the formation is a massive 

fine quartz sand containing small amounts of 

glauconite sand. Thin discontinuous borings filled 

with glauconite sand are well developed in these beds. 

Overlying this basal massive sand is a series of thick 

horizontal beds (averaging 10-15 ft), which are 

commonly sharply differentiated from each other. 

The horizontal bedding is largely produced by variations in average grain size from bed to bed. Most of

FIGURE 17. Dark massive-bedded Marshalltown Formation, 

north bank of Sassafras River, 2 miles east of Grove Point. 

Borings filled with lighter colored clayey sediment are extensive. Photograph by L. C. Conant.
22 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

FIGURE 18. Gradational contact between the light-colored 

Mount Laurel Sand and dark-colored Marshalltown Formation exposed at the same locality as figure 17. Upper part 

of Marshalltown is weathered pale gray. Photograph by 

L. C. Conant.

the beds consist of pale-gray to brown medium sand, 

although beds of fine and coarse sand are common. 

Granules and pebbles are present in most of these 

upper beds. In general, the average grain size is 

coarser in the upper beds than in the base. Most of 

the beds are massive, although some, particularly in 

the middle of the formation, have large-scale crossstratification.

The mineralogy from bed to bed is similar 

quartz, glauconite, and feldspar are the major sand 

constituents. Sample Ea 4, table 2, has a typical 

composition for the upper Mount Laurel in this 

region. As can be seen, glauconite is abundant and 

is exceptionally coarse; some beds contain large concentrations of coarse to very coarse glauconite 

grains.

Large thick-shelled fossils replaced by iron oxides 

are common in the middle and upper parts of the 

Mount Laurel Sand particularly at Fredericktown 

along the north side of the Sassafras River and near 

Kentmore Beach along the south side of the river. 

Because of the poor state of preservation of these 

fossils, precise paleontologic identification is very 

difficult, but they establish the marine origin of these 

beds. Ophiomorphia borings are also widespread 

throughout this unit.

At Gregg Neck (fig. 5), a promontory on the south 

bank of the river east of Fredericktown, the 

Hornerstown-Mount Laurel contact is well exposed

in a borrow pit and a nearby roadcut. The sharp 

contact between the Hornerstown glauconite sand 

and the underlying quartz sand of the Mount Laurel 

is virtually the same here as at Odessa, Del. About 

15 feet of Mount Laurel is exposed beneath the 

Hornerstown at Gregg Neck. This relationship indicates that throughout the northern Delmarva 

Peninsula the Navesink Formation is absent and the 

Hornerstown in outcrop rests directly on the Mount 

Laurel. Along the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay, 

the Mount Laurel is a very thick unit, as much as 

170 feet thick. The best exposures of the Mount 

Laurel in the northern Delmarva Peninsula are along 

the Sassafras River where most of the formation 

can be seen.

SUMMARY OF ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES IN 

EASTERN MARYLAND

The section along the eastern shore of Chesapeake 

Bay is similar to that at the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal except that all units were apparently 

deposited nearer shore. Nearshore deposition is indicated by (1) decrease in the glauconite content in 

the Cretaceous units, particularly in the Merchantville Formation, (2) change in the bedding characteristics in most units from massive to thin through 

thick bedded (Merchantville, Englishtown, and 

Mount Laurel), or the development of cross-stratification (Mount Laurel), and (3) increase in general 

coarseness of clastic material (Merchantville, Marshalltown, and Mount Laurel) and abundance of 

carbonaceous matter, particularly large pieces of 

wood (Merchantville, Englishtown, and basal Marshalltown) .

In interpreting the stratigraphy of the eastern 

shore of Maryland, the terms Matawan and Monmouth Formations are no longer useful, and it is 

recommended that these terms be abandoned in eastern Maryland and that the New Jersey stratigraphic 

nomenclature be adopted, thereby eliminating the 

dual nomenclature that has prevailed for many 

years. The Matawan Formation of eastern Maryland 

would be replaced by (in ascending order) the Merchantville, Englishtown, and Marshalltown Formations, and the Monmouth would be replaced by the 

Mount Laurel Sand. The areal distribution of the 

beds in eastern Maryland is shown in figure 5.

PETROLOGIC STUDIES

A general survey of the petrologic characteristics 

of the Upper Cretaceous-lowermost Tertiary formations was made in order to compare the lithologies 

of all the formations from Woodstown, N.J., and 

the eastern shore of Maryland.
20 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

5. Pinchout of the Woodbury in the area northeast 

of Swedesboro.

EASTERN MARYLAND

The lower formations of Late Cretaceous age are 

well exposed along the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal in northern Delaware, but the uppermost formation, the Mount Laurel Sand, especially its middle 

and upper beds, is poorly exposed. To better examine 

the uppermost Cretaceous beds, a series of traverses 

was made along the Sassafras River in eastern 

Maryland.

Bluffs, some more than 60 feet high, occur along 

the east-west-oriented Sassafras River, from near 

Fredericktown, Md., westward to Chesapeake Bay 

(fig. 5). The stratigraphic sequence exposed in these 

bluffs ranges from the Vincentown Formation of 

Paleocene age to the Potomac Group of Early Cretaceous age. Locally, deep, wide channels filled by 

gravelly sand of Quaternary age have cut deeply into 

the older formations and interrupt the nearly continuous sequence of formations.

Iron oxide staining and cementation is common in 

many of the more sandy formations. Many of the 

more soluble constituents, such as calcareous shells, 

pyrite, siderite, and carbonaceous matter, have been 

selectively removed or converted to other mineral 

phases during weathering. In spite of these widespread weathering effects, the same units noted along 

the canal have retained sufficient lithologic identity 

to be recognized in these bluffs. Some lithic changes, 

like those in the area from Woodstown, N.J., to 

northern Delaware, have taken place in all the units 

in the area between the canal and eastern Maryland. 

Thus, the Upper Cretaceous sequence, the Merchantville, Englishtown, Marshalltown, and Mount Laurel 

can be traced as recognizable lithostratigraphic units 

to the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay. Figure 15 is 

a composite stratigraphic section of the Upper Cretaceous-lower Tertiary sequence of this region.

The total calculated thickness of the Upper Cretaceous section in eastern Maryland is approximately 

240 feet. A southwestward thinning of this section 

from Delaware to eastern Maryland is not evident.

DISTRIBUTION OF FORMATIONS

The Merchantville is well exposed on the south 

bank of the Sassafras River, west of Betterton 

Beach, and also at Grove Point on Chesapeake Bay 

on the north side of the mouth of the Sassafras 

River. A typical section of the Merchantville Formation averages 40-60 feet in thickness in New Jersey, 

whereas it is approximately 40 feet thick along the 

Sassafras River. The formation overlies the Magothy

Hornerstown 

Sand

TERTIARY

CRETACEOUS

Mount Laurel 

Sand

Marshalltown 

Formation

Englishtown 

Formation

Merchantville 

Formation

o ' j 

. . .. O .'

 - * ' '"'.' ' °

o ' "o o . 

EXPLANATICN

Gravel

Glaucomte sand

Quartz sand

Silt

Clay

Crossbedding

Fossils

Wood

i-O

-20'

FIGURE 15. Composite columnar section showing 

Upper Cretaceous formations in eastern Maryland.

with a sharp but broadly undulatory contact in this 

area (fig. 16). The basal foot of the Merchantville is 

reworked sediment containing pieces of gtrvel as 

much as 1 inch in diameter, carbonized pieces of 

wood as much as several inches long and abundant 

coarse sand. Overlying this basal interval is a sequence of thick beds (averaging 10 ft) which are 

sharply differentiated from each other. These beds 

consist largely of dark very micaceous silt to very 

fine sand. Concentrations of very coarse sand and 

fine pebbles are abundant in some of the beds, and 

these tend to emphasize the bedding in this unit. 

Large to small woody pieces are abundant in the 

entire formation. An unusual feature in some of the 

lower beds is an abundance of thin indurated,
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 23

Groot (1955) and Groot and Glass (1960) examined some of the petrologic characteristics of the 

Coastal Plain formations in this general region. In 

the latter publication concerning the petrology of 

these formations, Groot and Glass (1960) discussed 

the clay minerals and heavy minerals in the formations. They noted that the marine sediments are 

primarily characterized by an illite-montmorillonite 

clay assemblage in association with a full suite of 

heavy minerals. A full suite is defined as a mineral 

assemblage that contains significant concentrations 

of any two of the following minerals: epidote, 

chloritoid, garnet, and hornblende. These minerals 

are presumed to be relatively susceptible to intensive 

weathering conditions. The nonmarine sediments 

characteristically contain kaolinite as the major clay 

mineral and have a limited heavy-mineral suite. A 

limited suite, therefore, is one that does not have 

significant concentrations of the relatively unstable 

minerals. Groot and Glass (1960) also observed that 

many formation assemblages varied along strike but 

that these differences could be explained by a change 

in provenance or preferential segregation in the clay 

fractions because of crystal-size sorting. Diagenetic 

effects were considered unimportant controls on 

these mineral assemblages.

In our petrologic studies of the Upper Cretaceous 

and lower Tertiary formations, the techniques of 

Groot and Glass were adopted and were supplemented by light-mineral studies and the determination of glauconite-clastic ratios.

HEAVY-MINERAL ANALYSES

Samples of all the formations of southern New 

Jersey, northern Delaware, and eastern Maryland 

were studied for their heavy-mineral content (tables 

2 and 3, and fig. 19). The results generally agree 

with those reported from northern Delaware by 

Groot (1955). Groot, however, subdivided many of 

the mineral groups (for example, the epidote 

group) ; we did not. All formations examined are 

characterized by full suites of heavy minerals, the 

terminology of Groot and Glass (1960) being used.

Variations in heavy-mineral types and concentrations, however, do occur between the formations in 

a single area and in the same formations from one 

area to another. In the Merchantville and Mount 

Laurel, the garnet and epidote content decreases 

from Woodstown to the eastern shore of Maryland 

(fig. 19). In the Englishtown, epidote content also 

decreases southwestward, but garnet decreases only 

southwest of Delaware. Epidote also shows the same 

general decrease to the southwest of Delaware in the 

Marshalltown, but garnet increases southwestward

from Woodstown, N.J. Chloritoid also appears to 

vary systematically from area to area, but the trend 

is the reverse from that noted for garnet and epidote. 

As can be seen in figure 19, chloritoid content increases toward the southwest. None of the ether 

minerals show any significant trends like those cited 

above.

Despite the limited number of samples studied 

from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area, it 

is apparent that detrital heavy-mineral assemblages 

have little value in stratigraphic correlations. Local 

source-rock variations, particularly within the metamorphic rocks of the nearby Piedmont province, 

apparently are significant enough to produce markedly different heavy-mineral assemblages in the same 

stratigraphic horizons within short distances. It can 

be stated, however, that the high percentages of 

metamorphic minerals in the Coastal Plain formations indicate that the Piedmont was a major sc\irce 

land during the Late Cretaceous.

LIGHT-MINERAL ANALYSES

Petrographic studies of the light-mineral fractions 

(tables 2 and 3 and fig. 20A) reveal that four 

major components are present: common quartz, 

feldspar, polycrystalline quartz and rock fragments.

Common quartz is the major sand-sized light 

mineral in these formations. Variations in the percentages within the formations are shown in tables 

2 and 3, and figure 20A shows the average for each 

of the formations. This mineral is at least 66 percent 

to as much as 93 percent of any light-mineral component of the sand fraction. No significant trends in 

the common quartz distribution, however, were discernible in the formations of a single region or 

within the regions.

Feldspar makes up 3-18 percent of the sand-sized 

light-mineral fraction in the formations and averages about 10 percent. Generally, the formatiors in 

eastern Maryland have less feldspar than the other 

regions. Most of the feldspar grains are badly 

altered in all formations from southern New Jersey 

to eastern Maryland. Typically, all grains have refractive indices of <1.54, and a large number have 

microcline twinning. The bulk of this fraction, therefore, is potassic feldspar. Some grains, however, are 

untwinned and have a cloudy appearance. The decree 

of alteration in association with the low indices 

tends to mask whether these are orthoclase or untwinned albite. An occasional grain with plagioclase 

twinning was observed, but these are not comnon. 

Although two major feldspar families are present, 

potassic feldspar is more abundant by far.
24 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 2. Heavy- and light-mineral content, in percent, and glauconite-clastic ratios from Woodstown quadrangle, New Jersey,

and from eastern Maryland

[Approximate sample localities are shown in fig. 5. Tr., trace; N.d., not determined. Glauconite not counted in mineral analyses. Number in parentheses

means that more than one sample was located at that locality]

Name of

formation and

field number

Specific gravity

Opaque 

minerals

c

|s

M C G & m i '5 S- g

g ! £ 3

5 " S 5

W M K)

>2.80; particle size < 0.177, > 0.074 mm

Nonopaque minerals

3 °

M "5

o ~ £

J! 3 §

N « EH

a

o

Epidote

c

Hornble

a

g

Garnet s

01

*o 2

3 -5

I w

 P H3

42 § | 

S "3 'S 

g -o S £ 5 " W < o

0)

2 S

3 s

S 03

-2= g .2 g

1 J$ 1 S

-C G S >> 

O W W Hi

Specific gravity

size < 0.149, 

> 0.074 mm

-S

N °" W

S ^ g

S < > M IS S .£ 2 o S o tu o

Glauconite -clastic

<0.42, >0 062mm

cu

G a>

O £ > 

o t£»

nJ 5j

3 5

Woodstown quadrangle, New Jersey

Hornerstown Sand: 

Wt 61A1 ............

Mount Laurel Sand : Wt 62 ................

Wt 92D ............

Marshalltown 

Formation : Wt 71D ............

Englishtown 

Formation: 

Wt 129 ..............

Wt 74 ................

Merchantville 

Formation: 

Wt 66 ................

MaH 3A ............

95

77

76

91 

48

86 

86

2 

6

10

2 

2

1 

3

3

17

14

7 

50

13 

11

30

2

12

25 

1

8 

6

10 

3

4

5 

2

7 

6

5 

6

7

9 

4

6 

10

2 .... 

10 3

12 ....

4 2 

12 ....

21 Tr. 

27 Tr.

2 

40

10

7 

10

20 

19

27 

20

29

21 

4

10 

9

12 

3

7

7 

Tr.

4 

4

2 

7 3

7 9

2 3

2 1

5 1 

2 ....

7 

3

2

1 

16

7 

5

6 

22

Tr.

1 1 .... ....

5 3 .... ....

4 9 .... 13

1 2 .... 8 

1 9 Tr. ....

1 85 

.... N.d.

85

81

83

93

.... N.d.

2 13 

N.d. N.d.

8

4 14 

5 12

2 4 

N.d. N.d.

N"d.

7

1 

Tr.

1 

N.d.

99

12 

N.d.

59

2 

N.d.

25 

16

1

88 

N.d.

41

98 

N.d.

75 

84

Eastern Maryland

Hornerstown Sand: 

Mil 1A ..............

Mount Laurel Sand:

Ea 5(1) ............

Bet 2(1) ..........

Marshalltown 

Formation: 

Bet 2 ..................

Sp 7 ....................

Englishtown 

Formation: 

Bet 1A ..............

Merchantville 

Formation : 

Bet 1 ..................

Sp 6(2) ............

80 

79

81 

89

77 

93

62

64 

71

6

10 

2

2 

1

8

3

5

14

21 

9 

9

21 

16

30

S3

24

9

6 

11 

21

20 

19

4

1 

49

11

5 

20 

12

5 

5

15

9 

6

6

6 

13 

12

5 

12

19

8 

8

24 4 

4 . ..

6 ....

4 .... 

3 ....

Tr. ....

5

1

20 

21

20 

6

26

36 

39 

22

17 

18

15

11 

9

Tr.

12 

7 

5

3

6

9 

1

3 3

6 9 

6 2 

2 2

3 2

1 Tr.

6 ....

1 Tr. 

1 ....

6

4

5

7

21

40 

11

6 

2

12 

1

7

7 

7

3 .... .... ....

6 .... .... ....

2 .... .... ....

6 .... 1 ....

1 1 .... ....

86

84

.... N.d.

.... N.d.

92

.... N.d.

84

87

.... N.d.

3 11

1 15 

N.d. N.d. 

N.d. N.d.

4 4 

N.d. N.d.

11 5

10 3

N.d. N.d.

N.d. 

N.d.

N.d. 

N.d.

70

34 

6

7

7

1 **

2

4 

N.d.

30

66 

94 

93

93

84

98

96 

N.d.

1Too small a sample to make an analysis.

Rock fragments and polycrystalline quartz are the 

other common light components. Their distribution 

is more erratic than the feldspar or common quartz. 

Rock fragments and polycrystalline quartz are more 

abundant in northern Delaware than in southern 

New Jersey or in eastern Maryland.

A plot of the data in figure 20A showed that, in 

the four categories counted, no definite trends were 

evident either within a group of formations in a 

single area or within a single formation from one 

area to another. The data, however, do indicate a 

probable metamorphic source for a large volume 

of these sediments.

Because these light minerals constitute the bulk 

sediment in the clastic sands (Englishtown and 

Mount Laurel), they determine the composition of 

the rock and hence their rock-type classification. The 

relatively feldspathic nature is apparent, and these 

sands can properly be classed as protoquartzites

(Pettijohn, 1957) or subgraywackes (Krynine, 

1948). Except for variations in glauconite sand content, the Englishtown and Mount Laurel maintain a 

uniform composition from southern New Jersey to 

eastern Maryland. In fact, the clastic light minerals 

are distributed throughout the silts and greensands 

in nearly the same proportions as in the clastic sands 

throughout this region.

GLAUCONITE-CLASTIC RATIOS

During field mapping a gradual decrease in glauconite sand content to the southwest was observed 

in nearly all formations, especially those of Late 

Cretaceous age. To quantify this observation, samples of the sands were electromagnetically processed 

to determine glauconite-clastic ratios (tables 2 and 3 

and fig. 20B).

The most obvious changes occur in the Merchantville, Marshalltown, and Hornerstown (fig. 20J5),
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 25

TABLE 3. Heavy- and light-mineral concentrations, in percent, and glauconite-clastic ratios from localities in the vicinity of

the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

[Sample localities are shown in figs. 1 and 6; number after railroad bridge pier indicates depth in feet below ground level. Samples from bridge pier are 

listed in distance from upper surface. Glauconite not counted in mineral analyses. Tr., trace]

Formation Locality

Specific gravity >2.80; particle size <0.177, >0.074 mm

Opaque 

minerals

1* M

S3

I s «. §§§

"* C.« 8

13 K o 5 f£^ «

a M- J

Nonopaque minerals

Pi

§ a § -3 § 5 »

to'rttu o ;3 ^ ^ S3 Q "5 ^fli^Sl fi G) S "*"* 2 in o ^"S»3"Ho5"^SS

s s | s ee3lg^ssls|ag £ a g a o!««s 5 £ « 3 a .2 3 a 5 £

N M H H B O 02 M W <3 u g M u ra M £

Specific gravity <2.80;

particle size < 0.149, 

> 0.074 mm

s

« 1 5

*C f* (j § 1 §

e p g <s

§ M ft 'H 1 £ I 3 5 o ^ o

0 PH fc «

Glauconite-cl "Jtic

ratio; partic'e siz< 

<0.42. >0.0f2mn

48

 5 n

8 -2

c 3

Hornerstown Sand .........

Mount Laurel Sand .......

Odessa .......................... 73 7 20 5 6 1 6

.... do .............._.............. 93 2 5 10 4 2 15

Biggs Farm, 6 feet 

above high tide. .... 84

Biggs Farm,

high-tide level. ........ 79

Bridge pier, 25 ............ 90

27 ............ 80

32 ............ 71

39 ............ 85

Englishtown Formation ....Bridge pier, 41............ 51

44 ............ 71

51 ............ 78

53 ............ 71

2 19 35 .... 786 .... 5 .... Tr..... ....

2 30 19 8424 .... .... .... .... .... ....

7 14 7 3 18 2 13 22 8 4 4 4 .... 1

Marshalltown Formation

Merchantville Formation ....Bridge pier, 55 ............ 52

62 ............ 81

70 ............ 77

76 ............ 60

10 11 4 4

1989

9 11 15 10

12 17 8 6

2 13 14 7

3 46 2 1

7 22 Tr. 9

5 17 10 3

8 21 6 7

20 28 5 2

2 17 23 Tr.

1 22 6 1

12 28 6 1

4 18

5 19

9 22

9 22

6 30

6 26

7 10

7 14

12 20

6 13

3 13

9 18

2 10

5 26 19 371531

2 17 17 9 5 2 4 .... 2

28 17 2335111

.... 15 19 1 3 Tr. 8 3 5 1

1 15 10 2115241

19 4 3 6 12 2 7 12

1188 122 28 545

1 26 8 1 1 1 7 8 2 11 Tr..... ....

1179 32274361 .... ....

.... 11 8 1 1 .... 8 17 7 15 1 5 ....

.... 13 8 Tr..... Tr. 4 6 2 6 Tr. 22 ....

.... 13 5 Tr. 1 Tr. 11 10 6 11 .... 9 Tr.

.... 11 5 .... 1 1 7 14 4 16 .... 22 ....

81

71

72

76

78

81

81

66

83

81

80

86

82

85

81

88

10

18

9

10

17 11

Tr. 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2

Tr. 

1 

1 

5 

4 

6 

4

11

16

12

10

13

8

6

8

9

10

8

11

8

13

5

6

8

18

7

13

11

4

3

3

2

89

45

4

15

60

58

15

6

8

11

20

10

22

25

11

11

55

93

96

85

40

42

85

94

92

89

80

90

78

75

89

the formations in which glauconite sand is a major 

constituent. In each of these formations glauconite 

content gradually decreases between Woodstown, 

N.J., and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and 

then there is a further abrupt decrease to the eastern 

shore of Chesapeake Bay. The glauconite depletion 

is less evident in the quartz sand units, the Englishtown and Mount Laurel. The overall trend, however, 

is toward glauconite depletion from northeast to 

southwest, which suggests a nearer shore depositional site for most of these formations in the southwest.

CLAY-MINERAL ANALYSES

Part of the study of the Coastal Plain sediments 

by Groot and Glass (1960) was an analysis of the 

clay minerals. In the marine Cretaceous section, to 

which our study was restricted, these units, according to Groot and Glass, should be characterized by an 

illite-montmorillonite assemblage in which kaolinite 

and chlorite are present, but as minor constituents.

Montmorillonite is present occasionally in the 

Merchantville Formation and Mount Laurel Sand, 

whereas it is common in the Marshalltown and 

Englishtown Formations (table 4). Elite and (or) 

muscovite are present in some but not all samples. 

Kaolinite is common in most samples, nearly in the 

same abundance as montmorillonite.

Groot and Glass (1960, p. 279) ascribed the lack

of kaolinite in the Marshalltown in the southwest to 

deeper water deposition. The present authors fo\md 

no such relationship; in fact, kaolinite was consistently present in higher concentrations than 

montmorillonite in the Marshalltown in the Delmarva Peninsula. The Marshalltown in the southwest is probably a shallower water facies than it is 

to the northeast, as shown by the general decrease in 

glauconite sand.

In addition to the major clay minerals, there are 

significant concentrations of clay-sized siderite in the 

Merchantville and Englishtown Formations at the 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Sepiolite is also 

present in some of the samples from the same r.rea 

but in much smaller amounts (table 4). Groot and 

Glass did not discuss these two minerals in their 

report.

From the analyses, it is evident that the clay-sized 

assemblages are complex mixtures of many clay and 

nonclay minerals. These complex clay mixtures 

characterize the marine formations in the northern 

Atlantic Coastal Plain. The characteristic illitemontmorillonite assemblage suggested by Groot and 

Glass for the marine formations is not consistently 

present. Our study was too restricted areally to 

answer the basic question whether differences in clay 

mineralogy and the abundances of the various clay 

minerals resulted from segregation because of crystal 

size or diagenesis or both.
26 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

EXPLANATION 40-1

Hornblende

Epidote

D'

Chloritoid

Sillimanite-kyanite

Garnet

Staurolite

Zircon-tourmalmerutile

O

40-

20-

Woodstown quadrangle. 

New Jersey

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 

Delaware

Eastern Maryland

J E

lift ^-

FIGURE 19. Histograms showing frequency distribution of some of the heavy minerals listed in tables 2 

and 3. Number above each histogram indicates the number of samples averaged to obtain percentage of 

each mineral.

CONCLUSIONS

The main points revealed by this rock stratigraphic analysis of the Upper Cretaceous Coastal 

Plain sequence of New Jersey, Delaware, and eastern 

Maryland are:

1. Lithostratigraphic comparison shows that four 

formations of Late Cretaceous age, the Merchantville, Englishtown, Marshalltown Formations, and the Mount Laurel Sand, can be 

recognized throughout the region.

2. The Upper Cretaceous section thins in outcrop

3.

from 500 feet in the northern Coastal Plain in 

New Jersey to 240 feet in the eastern shore of 

Maryland. The thinning was accomplished in 

two ways: (1) nondeposition and (2) erosion. 

Erosion is largely responsible for the removal 

of the Tinton, Red Bank, and Navesink Formations to the southwest.

Many stratigraphic misidentifications have resulted from failure to recognize the repetition 

of similar lithologies in cycles, especially the 

more sandy units such as the upper Red Bank
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIES 27

100

80

60

40

20

n

-

_

1

-

CD

Q.

E

re

o

~ Z

HL^

i

fimi^

2

nTrJlte?

1

rrmTf^b77

. .

Woodstown quadrangle 

New Jersey>y 

1

No sample

1 ]

I

1 2

100

80

60

40

20

n

- Chesape

and

-

-

-

-

HH

p

3

mull

3

imu

4

IMU

4

irmrfc

and Odessa, Delaware

100

80

60

40 

20 

n

-

-

1

-

1

it

1

 . Eastern Maryland

1 i i y$VYY

1 | 2

I

i 2 1

 1

-

-

1

m

EXPLANATION

Rock fragments

Feldspar

Polycrystalline quartz

D

Common quartz

EXPLANATION

D

Clastic Glauconite

FIGURE 20. Frequency distribution listed in tables 2 and 3 for (A), three light minerals and rock fragments (sp gr 

<2.80) and (B), glauconite-clastic ratios. Clastics include all nonmagnetic components mostly quartz, feldspar, 

and muscovite. Number above each histogram indicates the number of samples averaged to obtain percentage cf 

each mineral.

Sand and massive Mount Laurel Sand, or the 

silty beds of the lower Red Bank Sand and 

Wenonah Formation.

4. The dominantly authigenic glauconite-rich units 

show a more consistent thickness and lithology 

along outcrop than the dominantly allogenic 

quartz sand units. The consistency in thickness 

and lithology of the Marshalltown is especially 

noteworthy.

5. Borings crustacean, worm, and molluscan are 

common in all the more sandy and silty units. 

The dominant boring is Ophiomorpha (Haly7.

menites) major, of earlier authors, and the reported restriction of this form to the Wenonah 

Formation is not warranted. It is diagnostic 

of the sandier units (the nearer shore facies) 

such as the Mount Laurel Sand and the 

Englishtown and Wenonah Formations.

Changes of facies are gradual and for the most 

part are mappable.

The Upper Cretaceous section thins gradually 

southwestward. In the same general direction, 

there is a tendency to lose the deeper water or 

greensand facies.
28 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 4. Minerals in clay-silt range in the formations discussed in the text

[Determined by X-ray spectrometer. Numbers indicate peak-height ratios from X-ray traces. M, major. Tr., trace. Sample localities are shown in figs. 5 and

6. Number after railroad bridge pier indicates depth in feet below surface]

Oi

1

 p .rv,ot;«.. Field number or « "C Formation locality , *j 2 «

s do - ° 'C S ,2

3 c3 O ^* & £ s 6

Mil 1A ........

Mount Laurel Wt 62 ........ M 1 + 1 -

Sand. Biggs Farm, 6 M 24- Tr. 1-

feet above 

high tide.

high-tide level. 

Bridge pier, 25 M Tr.

Ea 4 .......... M 1 ... 1-

Wt 71D ....... M 1 1-

Marshalltown Bridge pier, 27 M 1 1- 1 

Formation. 39 M 1- 1- 1- 

"Rpf o "M ? Tr

Wt 129 ........ M 3 3 1 -

Englishtown Bridge pier, 41 M 2 2 

Formation. 44 M 1 ... ... 

51 M

53 M 

Bet 1A ........ M 1+ 1 +

Wt 66 ........ M 1 Tr. 1

Merchantville Bridge pier, 55 M 1- Tr. 1- 

Formation. 62 M 1 - 

70 M 1-

76 M Tr. ... 1 - 

Bet 1 ......... M 3 ... Tr.

BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

By NORMAN F. SOHL and JAMES F. MELLO

The prime objective of this section is to integrate 

the biostratigraphic interpretations with those derived from the rock stratigraphy. In order to do this 

it was necessary not only to evaluate the stratigraphic distribution of faunas along the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal but to attempt to relate them to 

other parts of the Coastal Plain. To understand the 

problems facing those attempting to use the available 

information for purposes of correlation, one must 

first realize the limitations imposed by the nature of 

the record. Therefore a critical analysis of the New 

Jersey Late Cretaceous larger invertebrate fauna 

has been given as a necessary prelude to rational 

application of the data. 

Primary responsibility for the opinions expressed 

in the sections dealing with the megapaleontology 

and for the correlation charts rests with Sohl. The 

interpretations presented in the micropaleontologic 

section are those of Mello.

MEGAPALEONTOLOGIC STUDIES

NORTHERN ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN 

PROBLEMS OF REGIONAL CORRELATION

Correlation of the Upper Cretaceous sequence of

0!

8 3 1 

3 _i £! S £ « S -P « S p, 1 ."M-a

1 i I 1 1 1 * B * a<2i£5£3£ii

5

Tr. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4

1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3

1 +

Tr. ... ... ... ... 24- Tr.

6 ... ... 1-

Tr. ... 1- 1- 1-

1- ... ... ... ... ... 1

1 ... ... 5 ... ... 1-

Tr. ... 1+ ... 1 

2 ... 1 ... ... 1- 

2 Tr.

1- ... ... ... ... ... 2

Tr. ... ... ... Tr. ... 1 

Tr. ... ... ... 1 

3 ... ... ... 1-

1 2 1- ... ... ... 1 + 

1- ... ... ... ... ... 1 +

1

Tr. 3 ... ... ... 1 

Tr. ... 4 ... ... ... 1- 

2 ... ... ... 1- Tr.

2 ... ... ... 1- 

Tr. 3

the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain with other areas 

has been based primarily upon the megafossils. The 

main basis for correlation has been the two broad 

zones of Exogyra costata, and Exogyra ponderosa, 

proposed by Stephenson in 1914, that are recognized 

along the Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Mexico. 

Stephenson later (1923, pi. 8) proposed another 

zone, that of Exogyra cancellata, which was included 

in the lower part of the E. costata zone (fig. 23), 

but it was not until 1933 that he recognized the 

E. cancellata zone in the Mount Laurel Sand of New 

Jersey. The confusion surrounding the relationships 

of the New Jersey Cretaceous sequence to others of 

the Coastal Plain was well expressed in the 1942 

correlation chart (Stephenson and others, 1942, p. 

436):

The absence of sharply defined faunal zones of regional extent in some parts of the series and lack of knowledge as to 

the number and vertical distribution of the diastems and 

unconformities have rendered difficult the accurate vertical 

placing of some of the recognized lithologic units; this difficulty has been experienced especially in the North Atlantic 

Coastal Plain***.

Recent summaries, such as that of Richards and 

others (1958, 1962), have done little to refine the 

correlation, offering only such broad and undocu-
Tinton Sand

Red Bank Sand

Navesink 

Formation

Mount Laurel 

Sand

Wenonah 

Formation

Marshalltown 

Formation

Englishtown 

Formation

Woodbury 

Clay

Merchantville 

Formation

Magothy 

Formation

Raritan 

Formation

FIGURE 21. Ranges of molluscan species from the Upper Cretaceous rocks of New Jersey. Each vertical line represents the strati

cies. (Data compiled from Richards and others, 1958, 1962.)
30 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

mented correlations as "the Monmouth group is 

roughly equivalent to the Peedee Formation of the 

Carolinas, the Navarro of Texas and part of the 

Maestrichtian of Europe" (Richards and others, 

1958, p. 17).

That this condition exists is superficially astounding. Perhaps because of the proximity of this area 

to eastern centers of research, the New Jersey 

Cretaceous sequence and its fauna, through the efforts of such men as Morton, Gabb, Conrad, Whitfield, Clark, and Weller was, at an early date, better 

known and more thoroughly investigated than any 

other area on the Coastal Plain. By 1907, Weller, in 

his exhaustive monograph on the New Jersey 

Cretaceous faunas, had seemingly set a firm foundation for future study of the Upper Cretaceous biostratigraphy of the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

According to the most recent summary by Richards 

and others (1958, 1962), there are 428 species of 

mollusks in the Upper Cretaceous sequence of New 

Jersey. Figure 21 is a plot of these species, each 

vertical line illustrating the total range of an individual species as cited in Richards and others (1962). 

With such a large fauna and the large number of 

supposed stratigraphically restricted species one 

might assume that zonation would be simple. Why 

then is this not so?

One reason why this seeming wealth of biostratigraphic information has not yielded more precise

correlation is that the majority of the described 

species have never been reported outside New 

Jersey and Delaware. For example, 99 of the 148 

species of gastropods and 173 of the 249 species of 

pelecypods (about 77 percent of the described 

species) were erected solely for New Jersey specimens. This endemic aspect is not so real as it is a 

reflection of taxonomic provinciality and poor state 

of preservation of the fauna.

The effect of state of preservation of the fauna is 

shown in figure 22 in which the number of species 

based upon internal molds or steinkerns is plotted 

against the number based on well-preserved material 

or mixed well-preserved and steinkern material. For 

example, about 80 percent of the gastropod species 

are based upon internal molds, many of which are 

not determinable even at the generic level. F irther 

critical analysis of the gastropod fauna shows that 

32 percent of the described species have been correctly identified to genus, 38 percent have be<m incorrectly identified generically, and the remaining 30 

percent are generically indeterminate. The bio^tratigraphic utility of the pelecypods is hampered, 

furthermore, by citation of an overlong range that 

comes from assignment of steinkerns to species 

based upon well-preserved specimens from a different stratigraphic level.

When species described from other areas are cited 

as occurring in New Jersey, it is difficult to reconcile

GOOD

MIXED

STEINKERNS

50

I

NUMBER OF SPECIES 

100 0 50

i

100

I

GASTROPODA PELECYPODA

NUMBER OF SPECIES

GOOD

MIXED

STEINKERNS

250

TOTAL

FIGURE 22. State of preservation of the described Late Cretaceous pelecypod and gastropod fauna of New Jersey. Good, 

species described from well-preserved specimens. Mixed, species description based on both well-preserved and poorly 

preserved specimens. Steinkerns, species descriptions based entirely upon internal molds.
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 31

their ranges in New Jersey with their stratigraphic 

ranges elsewhere in the Coastal Plain. History plays 

a part in this story. Most of the species in question 

were described in the mid-1800's by T. A. Conrad 

and W. M. Gabb from the Campanian and 

Maestrichtian of the Ripley, Owl Creek, and Prairie 

Bluff Formations of Alabama and Mississippi. The 

early paleontologists in New Jersey naturally looked 

to these descriptions for comparison with their material. Knowledge of the stratigraphy was scant, and 

they can be forgiven their misidentifications, but 

later workers with much more information available 

have done little to rectify the situation, treating these 

early identifications as inviolate.

These circumstances are sufficient to explain why 

correlation based upon megainvertebrates is imprecise for the Cretaceous formations of the northern 

Atlantic Coastal Plain, but to these impediments to 

the utilization of the available biostratigraphic information, we must add the common lack of precise 

geographic and stratigraphic information as to the 

source of the collections. For example, Weller and 

others believed that the Mount Laurel Sand and 

Navesink Formation could not be distinguished on 

either faunal or lithic grounds. This opinion has led 

to lumping of the faunas of the two formations and 

thus the unnecessary lengthening of the stated 

ranges of many of the species (fig. 21). Minard and 

Owens (1962) have amply demonstrated that the 

two units can be lithically differentiated and mapped, 

and, as discussed herein, the faunas differ as well.

The biostratigraphic problems outlined in the preceding discussion will obviously not be solved until 

there is a thorough and critical revision of the available information that involves extensive collecting of 

fossils from carefully measured and precisely located 

stratigraphic sections. Such investigations are in 

progress by the authors and others.

REVISED CORRELATIONS

Figure 23 is an attempt at a more refined correlation of the Upper Cretaceous formations of the 

northern Atlantic Coastal Plain. It is based upon 

reinterpretation of existing data coupled with preliminary results of investigations now in progress. 

As is obvious, much reliance is placed upon the use 

of ammonites as a biostratigraphic tool. Because of 

the general rarity of distinctive ammonites in the 

faunal assemblages of this region, other types of 

mollusks have previously been used (for example, 

Exogyra). However, from new finds, the literature, 

and information from older collections in such institutions as the Yale Peabody Museum, it was found

that more than 30 species of ammonites occur in 

the area. The inoceramids, another useful but neglected tool, are now under study, and it is hoped 

that they will eventually yield additional aid in zoning the stratigraphic sequence. At present, this information permits more detailed correlation than did 

the three broad zones based upon Exogyra. In addition, some correlations can be made between the 

Coastal Plain and the western interior.

The correlation chart includes only generalized 

stratigraphic columns for areas outside the northern 

Atlantic Coastal Plain. The numbers included with 

the formation names indicate the occurrence of certain species in that unit, the names of which are 

given at the left-hand margin along with the range 

of the species as represented by the vertical lines associated with the species.

Correlation of the Merchantville, Englishtown, 

and Marshalltown Formations and the Mount Laurel 

Sand is dealt with separately and in detail in other 

parts of this paper, but some departures from the 

correlation chart by Stephenson and others (1942) 

need clarification.

Considering first of all the stages (fig. 24), it has 

been common practice to equate the Monmouth 

Group (the Mount Laurel Sand and younger 

Cretaceous formations) with the Maestrichtian 

Stage, and the Matawan Group (Merchantville 

through the Wenonah Formations) with the 

Campanian. The Mount Laurel Sand and equivalent 

units of the Exogyra cancellata zone in the gulf coast 

have yielded ammonites (Anaklinoceras, Didy mocents, and baculites) of the Bacuities compressus 

zone fauna, which strongly suggest a mid-late 

Campanian age. Recent finds of scaphitid ammonites 

in the Monmouth Formation of the western shore 

of Maryland are, according to W. A. Cobban 

(written commun., January 1965), similar to those 

in the Baculites clinolobatus zone of the uppermost 

part of the Pierre Shale in the western interior, to 

which he assigns an early Maestrichtian age. On the 

Coastal Plain and the western interior, the widespread discoidal ammonite Sphenodiscus first appears in beds at about the same stratigraphic level 

as the Maryland ammonite. In terms of the New 

Jersey sequence, this would place the CampanianMaestrichtian boundary in the upper part of the 

Navesink Formation. The base of the Campanian lies 

somewhat below but close to the base of the Merchantville Formation where Scaphites hippocrepis 

(DeKay) occurs.

The Upper Cretaceous formations of the northern 

Atlantic Coastal Plain range in age from Ceno-
New Jersey

Maryland

Delaware vicinity of 

Eastern Shore Washington D. C. North Carolina

Eastern 

Alabama

and

western 

Georgia

Western 

Alabama

and

northeast 

Mississippi

Tennessee

and

northeast 

Mississippi Ar

FIGURE 23. Correlation of the Upper Cretaceous post-Raritan formations.
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 33

 5

Tinton Sand

Red Bank Sand

Navesink 

Formation

Mount Laurel 

Sand

Wenonah 

Formation

Marshal Itown 

Formation

Englishtown 

Formation

Woodbury 

Clay

Merchantville 

Formation

Magothy 

Formation

Raritan 

Formation

FIGURE 24. Comparison of stage nomenclature as it has 

been applied to the Upper Cretaceous sequence in New 

Jersey.
34 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-M AGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

manian to Maestrichtian. The Raritan Formation 

is the oldest of these. According to Stephenson 

(1954), the Woodbridge clay of Kiimmel and Knapp 

(1904) of the Raritan Formation contains a marine 

fauna of Cenomanian age and most probably would 

equate with the mid-Cenomanian-age faunas. The 

Amboy stoneware clay of Kummel and Knapp 

(1904), formerly considered as the uppermost unit 

of the Raritan Formation, contains pollen of Santonian age (J. A. Wolfe, oral commun., 1968; Doyle, 

1969, table 2), and is now considered the basal unit 

of the Magothy Formation. On the basis of field 

relationships, the Raritan appears restricted to the 

Raritan Bay area of New Jersey. The white clays 

exposed at the base of the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal section belong to the Potomac Group lithologically, but may, at least in part, be of Cenomanian 

age.

The next highest unit, the Magothy Formation, is 

of Santonian to early Campanian age. Marine faunas 

have been found only in the upper part of the formation, and these are restricted to the northernmost 

outcrops in the vicinity of Cliffwood, N.J. As indicated in figure 23, Baculites asper Morton ranges 

from the late Santonian into the early Campanian. 

Another significant species, Ostrea cretacea Morton, 

has been reported from the Magothy of the Cliffwood 

area by Richards and others (1958, p. 1040). This 

species is a common form in the Tombigbee Sand 

Member of the Eutaw Formation of the gulf coast in 

units considered of late Santonian to early Campanian age. On the basis of pollen and spore analysis, 

J. A. Wolfe (oral commun., 1968) has assigned the 

Amboy stoneware and Morgan beds to the late 

Santonian, but he states that the Cliffwood flora contains elements previously known only from the 

Campanian. Thus, there appears to be a significant 

time gap separating the Raritan and Magothy Formations. There are no dateable marine Turonian or 

Coniacian rocks cropping out in the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain or, for that matter, to the south, 

until the Alabama outcrops.

The age of the Merchantville Formation is discussed later, but it is a readily correlative early 

Campanian unit.

J. B. Reeside Jr. (in Richards and others, 1962, 

p. 126), reported that an ammonite closely akin to 

Scaphites leei Reeside occurs in the Woodbury Clay. 

The specimen more likely belongs to S. hippocrepis 

III of Cobban, a species that is a component of the 

early Campanian faunas of the western interior and 

the Coastal Plain.

The Englishtown Formation has a small fauna in

Delaware and virtually no fauna in New Jersey, so 

that at present little can be done in terms of precise 

correlation.

The Marshalltown Formation fauna is discussed in 

detail later. Its fauna is of late early or early late 

Campanian age.

The Wenonah Formation cannot be distinguished 

with ease at present on a faunal basis. The ammonite 

Placenticeras does occur in the formation, but its 

lineage on the Coastal Plain is too poorly understood 

to aid in correlation at present. Another ammonite, 

M entities'! aff. M. complexus (Hall and Me^k), is 

reported from the formation by Reeside (in Richards 

and others, 1962, p. 122). This species occurs in the 

early late Campanian Gregory Member of the Pierre 

Shale in the western interior; however, Reeside expressed the opinion that the New Jersey specimen 

probably represented a distinct but related species. 

The only other significant form reported from the 

Wenonah Formation in New Jersey is Flemingites 

subspatulata (Forbes) (see Richards and others, 

1958, p. 106). Sohl (1964a, fig. 12) has indicated 

that this species ranges through that part of the 

Exogyra costata zone above the zone of E. cancellata. 

Later studies in the Cretaceous rocks of the Chattahoochee River region of Georgia and Alabama 

have shown that F. subspatulata is part of an evolving lineage beginning with smaller and thinner early 

forms appearing in the Cusseta Sand Member of the 

Ripley Formation just below the first occurrence of 

E. cancellata. The normal large thick-shelled form 

ranges through the E. costata zone of the Ripley 

Formation and gives rise, in the basal part of the 

Providence Sand, to a large but more slender, less 

curved, and sharper beaked form. The specimens 

figured by Weller (1907) and by Richards and others 

(1958) are internal molds, but in size, shape, and 

the reflection of resilifer and muscle scar they are 

certainly suggestive of the early form of Flemingites 

subspatulata that occurs in the upper part of the 

Cusseta Sand Member. Thus, the Wenonah Formation appears to correlate with the uppermost part 

of the Exogyra ponderosa zone and perhaps the lowest part of the E. cancellata zone.

As discussed more fully later, the assemblage of 

ammonites and other mollusks in the Mount Laurel 

Sand is of mid-late Campanian age and can be correlated readily with units throughout the Atlantic 

and Gulf Coastal Plains.

The age limits of the Navesink Formation are at 

present a problem. The presence of Baculites claviformis Stephenson in the lower part of the formation and the one specimen of Sphenodiscus (Minard
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 35

and others, 1969, p. HIS), recovered supposedly 

from the upper part of the formation, suggests a 

close equivalency with the Nacatoch Sand of Texas. 

A recent collection of ammonites made by H. Mendrych of North Arlington, N.J., from the lower 

part of the Navesink Formation at the classic Atlantic Highlands section, has, according to W. A. 

Cobban (written commim., 1968), yielded specimens 

that are closely related to western interior and gulf 

coast species. Species of Exiteloceras, Nostoceras, 

and Scaphites (Hoploscaphites) are represented. In 

total, they are closely related to species from late 

Campanian Bacuities cuneatus and B. reesidei zones 

of the Pierre Shale. In summation, the Navesink 

Formation appears to range in age from late 

Campanian to earliest Maestrichtian.

The Tinton and Red Bank Sands of New Jersey 

contain a varied assemblage, including a number of 

stratigraphically restricted but widespread species 

such as Baculites columna Morton which occur in 

equivalent formations as far away as Texas and 

the western interior. Other species such as Trigonia 

cerulia Whitfield ( = T. haynesensis Stephenson) 

found in the Providence Sand of Georgia and in the 

highest beds of the Peedee Formation are restricted 

in distribution to the East Gulf and Atlantic Coastal 

Plains. These formations are definitely of Maestrichtian age but how much of this stage is represented 

is debatable. At present I (Sohl) feel that on the 

outcrop, the Tinton and Red Bank represent no more 

than the lower half of the Maestrichtian and that 

the overlying formations rest unconformably on the 

Cretaceous sequence throughout the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain (see also Minard and others, 

1969).

SUMMARY OF CRETACEOUS MEGAFAUNA

In the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain, precise 

correlation based on megafossils has been hindered 

by:

1. Dependence on comparison of poorly preserved 

New Jersey fossils with well-preserved fossils 

of other areas.

2. Misidentification of well-preserved material.

3. Taxonomic provinciality, which has erroneously 

lent the New Jersey fauna an endemic aspect.

4. Poor documentation as to source of collections.

5. Lumping together of assemblages from more 

than one formation.

6. Misidentification of formations.

Revised correlation based primarily on ammonite 

occurrence shows that: 

1. The Upper Cretaceous formations of northern

New Jersey range in age from the Cenomanian 

Raritan Formation at its base to the early 

Maestrichtian Tinton Sand at its top.

2. On the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the 

lowermost fossiliferous Upper Cretaceous unit, 

the Magothy, is of Santonian to early Campanian age, and the uppermost unit, the Me Tint 

Laurel Sand, is early late Campanian.

3. Nowhere in the region are there dateable marine 

beds of Turonian or Coniacian age.

CRETACEOUS MEGAFAUNA FOSSILS FROM THE 

CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL

The fossils from the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal section, like those from New Jersey, are commonly poorly preserved. Calcitic oyster shells are, 

however, well preserved in some places. Fortunately, 

sideritic concretions and phosphatic nodules are 

present in most rock units, and these afford external 

molds of sufficient quality to allow precise determination.

In tables 5, 7, and 8, those taxa marked by an 

asterisk are known only as internal molds. Except 

where distinctive characters are shown, no attempt 

has been made to perpetuate the illusion of certain 

identification by assigning such molds to a species. 

Some molds can be assigned to a group composed of 

similar species. For example, some molds of the 

pelecypod Nucula, can be placed in the percrassa 

lineage and others in the arnica lineage, but they 

cannot be assigned with certainty to an individual 

species. Many gastropods from the canal that are 

listed only as indeterminable internal molds could 

perhaps be assigned to species described from New 

Jersey, but as this would be only a comparison of 

similar internal molds of uncertain affinities, it 

seems more a semantic exercise than a taxonomic 

determination.

MERCHANTVILLE FORMATION 

FAUNAL CHARACTERISTICS

The Merchantville Formation contains the largest 

megainvertebrate fauna of any formation exposed 

along the canal. One hundred and three genera and 

subgenera of mollusks (see table 5) are represented 

(56 pelecypods, 40 gastropods, 5 ammonites, 2 

scaphopods). Seventy-six species are definitely assigned to or compared with previously described 

species. The remainder are represented by material 

sufficient only for generic placement.

Fossils occur mainly in concretions that are concentrated in zones in the lower and more coarsely 

clastic part of the Merchantville. Fossils are rarer
36 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 5. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Merchantville Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area and

New Jersey

[A. Occurrence of the species outside the Merchantville Formation of the canal area; X, rare occurrence (1-5 specimens); , common occurrence (5-15 

specimens); |, abundant occurrence (15+ specimens); *, known only as internal molds]

Pelecypoda:

Pteria, ci'. petrosa, Conrad ............................................. ...................

Gervilliopsis ensiformis (Conrad) ................................... ..........

*Ostrea sp .......................... ......................................................................

Anomia cf. A. argentaria Morton ..................................................

Anatymya sp . ....................................................................................

Pholadomya occidentalis (Morton) ................................................

Pholas ? sp .......... _ ..... _ .................. _ ........... _ ..

Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal

Englishtown

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Marshalltown

1

A

i

A

A

A

A

A

Mount Laurel

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

"a

S

3

Excavation for bridge a

X

X

X

X

In situ

Lower

10 

r~

X

X

tO

«

rX

X

X

X

X

tOin t-

\f

Middle and 

Upper

ttX

X

vx

X

«

Oi to

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 f

X

o f

X

OS 

00 

CD

X

t00

o

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Position uncertain

CO

o

X

in 

o> 

o

X

X

00

g

X

X

X

X

X

X

o>

iH

cX

o

0

X

X

X

X

X

o»

«

X

^

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

OS

o

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

o»

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

M

1

'3 

a 

w

X

V

^

v

^

v

v

^

X 

^

X

v

^f^

X

X

^

X 

X 

X

X

X

J^

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

New Jer.^y

Magothy

A

A

A

A

A

A

Merchantville

A

A

A

\

i

A

A

1

A

A

Woodbury

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

*A

A

A

A

A

Englishtown

A

Marshalltown

A

A

t

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

....

Wenonah

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Laurel-Navesink Mount 

A

A

A

A

A

i

A

A

A

A

A
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 37

TABLE 5. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Merchantville Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area and

New Jersey Continued

[A. Occurrence of the species outside the Merchantville Formation of the canal area; X, rare occurrence (1-5 specimens); 

specimens); , abundant occurrence (15+ specimens); *, known only as internal molds]

), common occurrence (5-15

Pelecypoda Continued

sp - -- -

Gastropoda:

Turritella merchantvillensis Weller ................................................

n. sp __ ____ , _ .... _

Arrhoges (Latiala) cf. A. (L.) lobata (Wade) ........................

*Anehura"i sp ......................................................................... . ..............

Pterocerella aff. P. poinsettifonnis Stephenson ............... ...........

Cantharulus ? sp .............................. ..............

Drilluta aff. D. distans (Conrad) .................................. ..............

Drillutal sp ....................................................... ...........

Hercorh'inchus n sp. ..... ....... .... .. ... .

Longoconcha sp ................................. ............

Caveola sp ...................... ..... ..

Acteon sp ........................................ .....

Cephalopoda:

Scaphopoda:

Chaetopoda:

Longitubus sp ................................

Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal

Englishtown

A

A

A

A

Marshalltown

A

A

A

A

Laurel Mount 

A

bridge abutment for Excavation 

X

In situ

Lower

1O 

trX

X

to 

« tX

X

v

to 

tX

Middle and 

Upper

t1OtX

t

X

X

X

X

«

GS

«o

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 ^ 

tX

X

X

X

X

X

o * 

tX

X

X

X

C5 

«3to

t00to

X

X

Position uncertain

« 

o t13m to

}£

X

X

00

wtrX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Oi

tX

X

o 

o i~

X

X

X

X

X

m 

w tX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

m to

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Oi *

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X

1 I

'8 

p. w

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

X 

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

New Jersey

Magothy

A

A

A

A

....

....

A

Merchantville

A

A

A

A

i

i

i

A

i

A

A

Woodbury

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

t

Englishtown

A

Marshalltown

A

....

Wenonah

A

A

A

A

A A

Laurel-Navesink Mt. 

A

A

A
38 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 5. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Merchantville Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal arva and

New Jersey Continued

Merchantville Formation

17715.

17736.

17756.

17757.

17693.

17754.

17740.

17689.

17687.

Material in place at water's edge on north side of Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal at station 56+500, Delaware. Collected by C. W. 

Carter, 1935-37. 17703.

North side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 53+500, Delaware. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

North side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 53+500, 17695. 

about 1,300 ft west of Summit Bridge, Del. Fossils taken from 

formation at water's edge and up to 6 ft above water in the bank. 

Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 17738.

South side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 53+200, 

Delaware. Material taken from concretions collected in place at 17719. 

water's edge. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

Clay lens in top of formation, south side of Chesapeake and Delaware

Canal, approx at station 65+000, Delaware. Collected by C. W. 17700. 

Carter, 1935-37.

South side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 62+550,

Delaware. Material from a dry lens in top of formation. Collected 17739. 

by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

From the fossiliferous clay lens at top of Crosswicks Clay (equiva- 17691. 

lent to Merchantville Formation and Woodbury Clay), north side 

of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, approx at station 61+000, 

Delaware. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 17749.

Upper Cretaceous. In sandy top of formation at water's edge on west 

side of Summit Bridge, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Del. 

Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 28824.

Friable material in a sandy lens about 3 ft thick and 300 ft long in 

top of Merchantville at the Penn Central Railroad's Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal bridge (formerly Pennsylvania, Baltimore,

and Washington bridge) on south side of the canal, Delaware. 

Collected by C. W. Carter. 1935-37.

At station 63+000 (south side) about 1 mile east of Maryland-Delaware line, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Del. Collected fcy C. W. 

Carter, 1935-37.

South side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (in place) at station 

62+500, Delaware, approx 1 mile east of Maryland-Delaware line. 

Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

South side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 62+OCO, Delaware. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

Station 59 + 850 (north side), 8,000 ft east of Maryland-IMaware 

line, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Del. Collected by C. W. 

Carter, 1935-37.

Material in place at station 59+850, north side of Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal, 1% miles west of Summit Bridge, Del. Collated by 

C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

North side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 57+OCO, Delaware. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

South side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (in place) at station 

62+, Delaware. Approx 1 mile east of Maryland-Delaware line. 

Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

South side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 55+500, Delaware. Material contained in concretions in place at water's edge. 

Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

Near base of excavation for abutments of new railroad (Penn Central) bridge over Chesapeake and Delaware Canal just v«st and 

approx 1,600 ft south of old bridge, New Castle County, Del. Collected by N. F. Sohl, R. W. Imlay, and Jack Wolfe, 1963.

Collections from spoil banks

17692. Old dump (1925 dredging) on road from Summit Bridge to Kirkwood, Del., 2% miles east of Summit Bridge. Collected by C. W. 

Carter, 1935-37.

17696. Old disposal area on north side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 

at station 53+500, Delaware. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

17698. Old dump (1925 dredging) on road from Summit Bridge to Kirkwood, Del., % mile east of Summit Bridge. Collected by C. W. 

Carter, 1935-37.

17688. Disposal area north side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at the Penn 

Central Railroad's Chesapeake and Delaware Canal bridge, Delaware. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 

16225. Dredgings from Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, north side, about a

mile east of Summit Bridge, New Castle County, Del. Collated by

L. W. Stephenson, Sept. 17, 1932. 

16579. Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Deep Cut, Del. Collected by L. W.

Stephenson. 

15896. Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, from dredgings thrown out of the

canal on the north side within 2,000 ft west of Summit Bridge,

New Castle County, Del. Collected by L. W. Stephenson, Sept 2,

1931.

in the upper part of the formation in the finer 

grained and more micaceous beds. For the most part, 

fossils in these micaceous clayey silts occur as poorly 

preserved impressions, but Carter, during his collecting from the canal section, made several collections from "clay lenses in the top of the formation" 

(see table 5, Iocs. 17693, 17754). No fossils from so 

high a position within the Merchantville were collected during this survey.

Though the specimens are devoid of shell material, 

when the sideritic concretions from the lower part of 

the formation are split, they yield excellent external 

molds associated with the internal molds. Latex 

rubber impressions of the external molds show all 

the characters of sculpture and form, and when 

combined with the characters of the columella and 

aperture that can be learned from examination of 

the internal molds, identification can be precise. In 

table 5, the first three columns from left to right 

list the species found in common in the Merchantville 

and the other fossiliferous formations of the canal 

section. In the next columns to the right, the collections from the Merchantville are arranged in 

stratigraphic order. The specimens in collections 

listed as "position uncertain" were found in place 

but are not assignable to a specific level; they most 

probably belong to the lower part of the formation.

In summary, the formation bears a larger and 

more diverse fauna in its lower than in its upper 

beds. Throughout the formation, gastropods are individually more abundant and diverse than the

pelecypods. In all other formations along the canal, 

pelecypods are more abundant. In addition, cephalopods, primarily Placenticeras and Menabites (Delaivarella), are more abundant here than in the 

overlying formations. In some places individual concretions may be composed almost wholly of a single 

species. The deposit-feeding aporrhaid and filterfeeding turritellid snails are the most abundant elements of the fauna. The algal or algal-detritus feeder 

Calliomphalus and possible mucous-string feeder 

Laxispira are also common snails that are abundant 

in some collections. No single pelecypod is aburdant, 

but Pinna, Legumen, Pholadomya, and Panopea are 

of common occurrence. This abundance of deeper 

burrowing types of clams and the general sparcfty of 

epifaunal pelecypods contrasts strongly with the 

faunas of the other formations along the canal in 

which epifaunal clams (oysters, pectens) and shallow burrowers such as the cardiids predominate.

COMPARISON WITH THE NEW JERSEY MOLLUSCAN FAUNA

The Merchantville fauna of the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal compares closely with that cf the 

Merchantville and Woodbury Formations of New 

Jersey. Species common to other formations ar? primarily those that, according to Richards and ethers 

(1962), range through most of the section. For 

instance, Gervilliopsis ensiformis (Conrad) and 

Pecten (Camptonectes) bellisculptus (Conrad) range 

from the Merchantville through the Mount Laurel 

Sand and Navesink Formation in New Jersey. Forty-
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 39

nine species present in the Merchantville Formation 

of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal also occur 

in New Jersey. These are distributed as follows:

Number of species

Mount Laurel Sand-Navesink Formation ........................19

Wenonah Formation ............................................................17

Marshalltown Formation ....................................................16

Englishtown Formation ........................................................ 2

Woodbury Clay ......................................................................26

Merchantville Formation ....................................................30

Magothy Formation ..............................................................13

The similarity of the Merchantville fauna of the 

canal section to that of the Woodbury in New Jersey 

is not surprising. In New Jersey, the Merchantville 

has yielded 118 species of mollusks, 66 of which, or 

more than 50 percent, also are reported from the 

Woodbury. The common occurrence of the stratigraphically restricted species Scaphites hippocrepis 

(DeKay) and Menabites (Delawarella) delaivarensis 

(Morton) in the Merchantville of both States, however, is strong evidence that the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal fauna correlates with the Merchantville fauna of New Jersey rather than with that of 

the Woodbury. (See fig. 23.)

AGE AND CORRELATION

The Merchantville Formation is accepted here as 

early Campanian in age (fig. 23), on the basis of 

the occurrence of the widespread ammonite species 

Scaphites hippocrepis (DeKay). This species occurs 

in rocks of this age from the western interior of 

the United States to Western Europe (Cobban, 

1969). Scaphites hippocrepis has long been used as 

a zonal index in the western interior. A recent study 

by Cobban (1969) on the Scaphites leei Reeside and 

Scaphites hippocrepis lineages in the western interior has special bearing on the age of the Merchantville Formation. Cobban (1969, p. 6) has divided 

each species into three stratigraphically restricted 

types. Scaphites leei forms I and II are of late Santonian age. S. leei form III is basal early Campanian 

and is followed in sequence by Scaphites hippocrepis 

forms I, II and III, all, however, being early Campanian. Cobban maintains that all forms illustrated 

from the Merchantville Formation by Reeside (in 

Richards and others, 1962, pi. 71, figs. 1-7), as well 

as those assigned by Reeside to S. aff. S. leei (Reeside, in Richards and others, 1962, pi. 71, figs. 

8-11) belong to S. hippocrepis form III. All the additional material in the Merchantville collections was 

submitted to him, and these specimens he also assigned to S. hippocrepis III.

Other stratigraphically important Merchantville 

species are listed on the correlation chart (fig. 23). 

In total, these ammonites afford strong evidence for

correlation with the sections in other arers. 

Scaphites hippocrepis III is present in the Matawan 

Group of Maryland (Gardner, 1916). This occurrence indicates an extension of Merchantville Formation equivalents to the western shores of Chesapeake 

Bay. Units equivalent to the Merchantville Formation may be represented by certain parts of the Black 

Creek Formation of North Carolina, but until more 

carefully collected and stratigraphically controlled 

material is available from that area, no refined 

correlation should be attempted. The Scaphites 

hippocrepis-Menabites (Delawarella) delawarensis 

fauna is represented in the medial part of the Blufftown Formation of Georgia and Alabama, in the 

lower part of the Coffee Sand of Mississippi (Sohl, 

1964b, p. 350), and in the Brownstown Marl of 

Arkansas. In Texas, the Dessau Formation of Durham (1955), the Gober Tongue of the Austin Chalk, 

and the Burditt Marl of Adkins (1933) contain this 

fauna plus Submortoniceras uddeni Young (1962), 

which occurs also in the Merchantville Formation of 

the canal section (table 5, USGS 16225). The specimen from the canal area is unfortunately from a 

Merchantville concretion from a spoil-pile collection 

and therefore cannot be precisely placed at a given 

level within the formation. However, along the canal, 

most of the sideritic concretions were observed to 

occur near the base of the formation.

In the western interior, the Eagle Sandstone, the 

Telegraph Creek Formation, and equivalent units 

contain Scaphites hippocrepis.

It is obvious in view of the above discussion that 

the Merchantville Formation is one of the mere 

easily correlated units in the Upper Cretaceous 

strata of the Coastal Plain and that it is virtually 

coordinate in a time sense to at least the upper pr.rt 

of the Scaphites hippocrepis range zone. Evidence 

that the formation may include equivalents of somewhat older units is the presence in a spoil-bank collection of Submortoniceras uddeni which should 

occur lower in the section than Scaphites hippocrepis 

III. In essence the evidence suggests that the Merchantville Formation is of early Campanian age I Tit 

that it does not include beds of earliest Campanian 

age. The missing interval of earliest Campanian time 

is equivalent to the ranges in the western interior of 

the chronologic subspecies Scaphites leei III and S. 

hippocrepis I and II of Cobban. This time interval 

may be represented by part of the Magothy Formation, as is suggested on the correlation chart (fig. 2?).

ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION

Throughout its extent in New Jersey, the Englirhtown Formation is virtually unfossiliferous. Fossils
40 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 6. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Englishtown Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area and

New Jersey

[A. Occurrence of the species outside the Englishtown Formation of the canal area; X, rare occurrence (1-5 specimens); , common occurrence (5-15

specimens); , abundant occurrence (15+ specimens)]

Pelecypoda : 

Nucula sp ....................................................................................................

Nuculana aff. N. marlboroensis (Weller) ..................... .......................

or»

Nemodon sp ................................................................................................

Volsella julia (Lea) ..................................................................................

Pinna sp ......................................................................................................

Pteria sp .............................................................................................. ...

Inoceramust sp ..........................................................................................

Lima reticulata Forbes .............................. .......... ....................................

Exogyra sp ..................................................................................................

Crassost-rea tecticosta (Gabb) ................................................................

Lopha falcata Morton? ............................................................................

Anomia argentaria Morton ....................................................................

Crassatellal sp .................... ......................................................................

Linearia metastriata Conrad ........................ ..........................................

Cymbophora sp ..........................................................................................

Cymella bella Conrad ................................................................................

Liopistha protexta Conrad? ....................................................................

Gastropoda : 

Pachymelania n. sp ..................................................................................

Haustator quadrilira (Johnson) ............................................................

Turritella cf. T. lorillardensis Weller ..................................................

Tuba aff. T. bella Conrad ........................................................................

Gyrodes sp ....................................... ..........................................................

Pseudomaura meekana (Whitfield) ? ................................... .................

Chaetopoda :

Echinodermata:

Vertebrata :

Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal

Merchantville

A

A

A 

A 

A

A

A

A

A 

A

A

A

Marshalltown

A

A 

A

A

....

....

A

A

Mount Laurel

A

A 

A

A

A

A

A

CO

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

00tOS

X 

X

0

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

OS tOS 

<M

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

00

OS

X

X 

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X

New Jersey

Magothy

....

A

A 

A

A

Merchantville

A 

A

A 

A

A

A 

A 

A

A

A

Woodbury

A

A

A

A

A 

A 

A

A 

A

A

Englishtown

....

....

A

{

A

A

A 

A

A

+

Wenonah

A

A 

A

A

A

A

A 

A

A 

A

A

A 

A

Laurel-Navesink Mount 

A

A

A

A

A

A

....

A 

A

A 

A
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 41

TABLE 6. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Marshalltown Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, area and

New Jersey Continued

Englishtown Formation

16224. Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, north side, at post 40 + 500, about 1 

mile east of the Penn Central Railroad's Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal bridge (formerly Pennsylvania, Baltimore, and Washington 

bridge), New Castle County, Del. Collected by L. W. Stephenson, 

Sept. 16, 1932.

29578. Reddish-brown sand at water level along north bank of Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal about one-fourth of a mile west of the St. 

Georges Bridge, Del. Collected by Arthur H. Hopkins, May 1967.

29579. Low-tide level beneath main Ophiomorpha level, north side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal about 0.4 mile west of the St. Georges 

Bridge, Del. Collected by N. F. Sohl and J. P. Owens, June 22, 1967.

29582. Low-tide level beneath Ophiomorpha bed in upper part of formation 

on north side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal about 0.6 mile 

west of the St. Georges Bridge, Del. Collected by N. F. Sohl and 

J. P. Owens, June 22, 1937.

have been recovered from few localities, and Richards and others (1962, p. 209-229) record only two 

species (Cardium tenuistriatum Whitfield and Turritella quadrilira Johnson) from all its outcrops. In 

addition, Cymella bella has been found by the author 

in the Allentown quadrangle of New Jersey. At most 

localities along the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 

the major organic remains are Ophiomoipha borings 

that form an interlocking network on weathered surfaces. However, locally in the area west of the St. 

Georges Bridge, the upper foot or so of the formation bears a dominantly molluscan fauna preserved 

as impressions in a case-hardened and concretionary 

sandstone. Several specimens have also been recovered from Ophiomorpha burrow fillings. The total 

fauna, listed in table 6, consists of representatives of 

33 genera and subgenera of pelecypods and 15 

genera of gastropods.

With the exception of the genus Pachymelania, 

this assemblage is consistent with a shallow-water 

sand-facies fauna. Pachymelania is a thiariid typical 

of the types that are of upper estuarine low-brackish 

to fresh-water tolerance. Because the Pachymelania 

specimens show little wear or other evidences of long 

transport, they further suggest that the fauna lived 

not only in shallow water but near shore. The great 

abundance of Ophiomorpha burrows is consistent 

with such shallow-water conditions.

Although burrows are abundant in the other formations along the canal, they appear to have been 

made by some other organism than Ophiomorpha. 

The longitudinal striations on the walls of many 

suggest some type of crab; others may well have 

been created by worms.

Many of the most common fossils in the Englishtown fauna such as Catdium (Trachycardium) and 

Tin} itella are also common elements in the faunas of 

other formations along the canal. Glycymeris, however, is rare in other formations but common in several collections from the Englishtown.

The lack of any significant fauna in the Englishtown Formation of New Jersey precludes comparison 

with the fauna along the canal. Similarly, the general 

lack of stratigraphically restricted species in the 

Englishtown fauna of the canal section does not 

allow for regional correlation.

MARSHALLTOWN FORMATION 

FAUNAL CHARACTERISTICS

The Marshalltown Formation of the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal section contains representatives 

of 72 genera of mollusks (39 pelecypods, 30 gast^opods, 3 cephalopods) (table 7). Many of these are 

represented only by internal molds and thus are not 

subject to precise specific determination. Fossils occur in great abundance and are generally concentrated in certain beds rather than scattered through 

the formation. The ostreids are generally abundant 

and occur both as well-preserved calcitic shells and 

as internal molds. In the excavation for the Penn 

Central Railroad's Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 

bridge abutments, the Marshalltown is exposed in its 

full thickness (see section, p. 13). Here, Exogyra 

ponderosa Roemer is especially abundant, well preserved, and concentrated in a single bed. Pyncnodonte mutabilis (Morton) is likewise very abundant 

and well preserved and is found with Exogyra along 

the canal at water level immediately west of St. 

Georges Bridge where the contact with the Mount 

Laurel Sand is seen. In these upper beds are kr.al 

concentrations of articulated valves of Lopha falcata 

(Morton) that form rounded patches as much as 10 

or 12 inches in diameter. The specimen orientation 

suggests that these concentrations may be derived 

from disintegration of a stalked plant to which the 

oysters were attached.

Shell material may adhere to some of the internal 

molds, or on some specimens the external molds may 

be impressed upon the internal molds. These circumstances give sufficient information about the external 

sculpture to indicate specific relationship.

The Marshalltown fauna of the canal section is 

distinctive, especially in its abundance of Exogyra 

pondeiosa, Lopha falcata, large Trigonia, Cardium, 

Cucullaea, and Cyprimeria. These genera occur in 

other rock units in the canal section, but not in the 

abundance seen in the Marshalltown.

This characteristic assemblage extends at least 25 

miles to the southwest where the Marshalltown 

Formation is well exposed and where its fauna can be 

collected on the north bank of the Sassafras River 

in Maryland.

Although borings are abundant in the Marshalltown, they are not of the Ophinomorpha type. This
-Fyropsis !sp ............................................................ Napulus cf. N.reesidei Sohl ................................ *Longoconcha sp ...................................................... * VoMtomorvha sp ......................................................

 x

XX

X

XX

XX

^ »

S2-S

 8 g-O

M s

S01

 x

XX

X

Bellifusus cf. 5curvicostasus (Wade) ............ *Bellifusus sp ............................................................ Ornopsis cf. O(Pornosis) digressa Wade........ 

Ripleyella sp ..............................................................

X

X

 >

XX XX)

Awauropsis meekana Whitfield .......................... Euspira sp ................................................................ Cypraea cf. Cmortoni .......................................... *Bussinid sp ................................................................ > 

x

Ss * 

t 

a %1 

£

3 

*

: 

*

i3 

-i

? 

3 

(jracitiala !sp ............................................................ *Arrhoges (Latiala) sp ............................................ Capulus n. sp............................................................

*>

XX

X

X

I x

< i x

< xx; 1 x>

+ ! >

**;

. . *" 

N

i >

Melanatriat cf. A/,cretacea Wade ...................... Tuba sp ...................................................................... *A«e/iwra ?sp ..............................................................

 x |

x x

Turrittlla cf. Ttippana Conrad ........................

!'Tilrritelln. sr>

 x

X

»

X

X

X

X

x B

< |;

»>

i >

i

i

i^

Turritella marshalltolvnensis Weller? .............. Haustator (juadrilira Johnson ............................ trilira Conrad .................................................... nf f/cn/,/0,,0,'0 Waller

+

+

+

XX X

X

X

X

^

^ ^«

>

*

>

^

Laxispira lumbricalis Gabb ....... ........................... *Laxispira sp .............................................................. ^

X

X

 »

Gastropoda: 

Patella tentorium Morton ......................................

\1n.rnn ntelln. sn

XX

».

r

la

« 

3

*

X

*Panopea decisaConrad ........... ............................... ^

X

X

X

*>

^

+

>

+

^

Caesticorbula crassaplica (Gabb) ........................

*

1

XX

X

*

*

*

».

s

» I a 1!

i

3

1

X

 (Jyprimeria excavata (Morton) ............................

)f

XX

X

X

xi

xi

»>

»

*£7tea sp ............................. ........................................ Veniella conradi Morton ofWeller .................... Aphrodina cf. Atippana Conrad ......................

+

+

XX

X

X

> XX

>xxx

- ^^

^

^

^

' 'Umbonicardiutn cf. U.umbonatum (Whitfield) 

Cardium (Granocardillm) dumosum Conrad .... 

*Cardium spp. ............................................................ Brevicardium parahillanum Wade ......................

**7,j»i»i/inJinwi. <= 

++

+ +

x Bx x

xi

xi x

 x«

 xx

^

0

X

X

X

xBBt

x BBI

»>»

+

+

>

>

Linearia cf. L.metastriata Conrad .................. (large) .......... .............. .................................... +

+

^

XX

1

*

> 

>

 > 

>

Lucina cf. L.parva Htepnenson ........................ *Lucina sp ...................... ............. ............................

X

X

»

Vetericardia sp ........................................................ X

 ^

2

I $

st 5"

K

X

X

X

X

 50 

33

K «

S> C"

3 '

r

a 

a

o

£ 

o

ro

3

X

X

X

X

*>

Paranomia scabra Morton ............... ......... ............

^1

^

X

+

^

Anomia argentaria Morton ..................................

+>

>

>

X

X

> 

*

+

>

>

>

>.

Lopha falcata (Morton) .................................... Ostrea mesentenca Morton ..................................

^

^

^^

<xx

X

xB

Xj

X

xB

(jryphaeostrea vomer Morton ........... ..................

>

9

x

x

X0XX

^^

+

»

»

> 

*Gryphaea sp ........ ............................................

X

X

X

5

s

0 S

s o 

~ o. 

 » o

11

£O1

S

S0

c

3

^

^>

X

*Lima cf. I/,kerri Stephenson ....................... ..Crenella sericu Conrad ........ ......... ....................... Exogyra ponderosa erratieostata Stephenson.... 

ponderosa Roemer ............................................ -sp ............................................ .......... ....... .............

+

B 1 x

x

XXJ

xxBi x

x

»>

>

. ^

x'-

xBx

xBxxx

>» ^

i >

»

Camptonectes bellisculptus (Conrad) .............. Chlamys n. spcf. C. cretosus DeFrance-. . ........ Neithea quinquecostata Sowerbyf Weller.. ...... *Pecten sp .................................................................... 

 'Spondylus sp ........... .................... ........

^ ^

i *

* :

XX XX

x i

X X

x x

X X XX

- » *

+ +i

>\

+ *\

+i

>->- > ;

' Cucullaea cf. Ctippana Conrad ofWeller........ 

Lithophaga sp ..........................................................

X

X

x

X

X

B

B

 »

*Trigonia thoracia Morton ofWeller ..................

X X

x

X

X

x

X

B

^

*

*

^

s;

s

1a>i 

3

1 

>

X

Pelecypoda:

X

X

X

*

*

*

+

+

M

E

M

28

17

16

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

29

29

D

M

M

W

En

M

W

M
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 43

TABLE 7. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Marshalltown Formation in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area and

Neiv Jersey Continued

[A> Occurrence of the species outside the Marshalltown Formation of the canal area; X, rare occurrence 1-5 specimens) ; , common occurrence (5-15 

specimens) ; |, abundant occurrence (15+ specimens) ; *, known only as internal molds]

Gastropoda Continued

'' 'Acteon cretacea Gabb ............................................

Cephalopoda:

Porifera:

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

V

3

"c

o

Qj

^4

a

o

G

V

!_4J C

%

A

o

03

5

o 

K

IN

oq

IX)

X

X

0

t-

^

COC-1

ee

r»j

t0

as

£;

COt1O

t00

o

t-

,_,

t-

^_t

0] tX

c-.

o

t- ^_t

!i'

C-J

0

CD

LO 

Ol c-1

X

s0<

 3

o

A

A

New Jersey

>>

o

*

^

V

 s

03

o

 u

<5

A

h

5j=

o

o

^

A

c

o

 ^

c

"3

a5

IH

03

P=i

C

b

^

*

01

9

03 

w

c

o

^

A

Marshalltown Formation

17727.

16223.

17702.

17718.

17730.

Excavation for abutments of new segment of Penn Central Rail- 17735. 

road's Chesapeake and Delaware Canal bridge (formerly Pennsylvania, Baltimore, and Washington bridge) just west and approx 17708. 

1.600 ft south of old bridge, New Castle County, Del. Collected 

by N. F. Sohl, R. W. Imlay, and Jack Wolfe, 1963. 17731.

Material in place 500 ft west of Penn Central Railroad's Chesapeake

and Delaware Canal bridge, south side of canal, Delaware. Col- 17721. 

lected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

Five to 10 ft above base of formation, Chesapeake and Delaware

Canal, south side, 600 ft west of the Penn Central Railroad's 17699.

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal bridge, opposite post 47, New

Castle County, Del. Collected by L. W. Stephenson, Sept. 15, 1932. 17717.

South side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 100 yd west of Penn 

Central Railroad's Chesapeake and Delaware Canal bridge, Del. 

Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 29511.

South side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 50-1,000 ft west of 

Penn Central Railroad's Chesapeake and Delaware Canal bridge, 

Del. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 29506.

South side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 46 + 700, 

Delaware. Material taken from near top of bank. Collected by 

C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

Station 46 + 500 on south side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,

Del. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37.

North side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 47 + 500, Delaware. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 

South side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 50, Delaware.

Collected by C. W. Carter. 1935-37. 

South side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at station 50 + 000, about

2,000 ft east of Summit Bridge, Del. Collected by C. W. Carter,

1935-37. 

Station 50, south side of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 2,400 ft

east of Summit Bridge, Del. Collected by C. W. Carter, 1935-37. 

Material in place in Marshalltown on south side of Chesapeake and

Delaware Canal, 100 ft east of Summit Bridge. Collected by C. W.

Carter, 1935-37. 

South side Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 0.8 mile west of Penn

Central Railroad bridge, 27 ft above water level. Collected by

N. F. Sohl and E. G Kauffman. 1966. 

Upper part of formation immediately below the Mount Laurel Sand

about 75-100 yds west of St. Georges Bridge, north bank of

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Collected by E. G. Kauffman and

N. F. Sohl. 1966.

fact, coupled with the greater diversity of the fauna 

and general lithic character, suggests that the 

Marshalltown was deposited in somewhat deeper 

water than the Englishtown Formation. The common concentration of fossils in beds suggests some 

transportation of the fauna, but the articulated 

nature of many of the bivalves would indicate that 

transportation was not far. Some parts of the fauna, 

for example the aforementioned concentrations of 

bivalved specimens of Lopha falcata, may represent 

in situ faunas.

Groot, Organist, and Richards (1954, p. 24) stated 

that the Marshalltown Formation does crop out along 

the canal but that,

In New Jersey the Marshalltown Formation contains the 

index fossil Exogyra ponderosa. Numerous specimens of this 

pelecypod were found in spoil banks and along the north shore 

of the canal between the railroad bridge and station 3. Presumably these were dredged from below sea level. Similar 

specimens of E. ponderosa were also found along the spoil 

bank of the canal between Lorwood Grove and St. George's.***

The authors then suggest that the Marshalltown 

Formation may be present and recognizable in the 

subsurface. Their interpretation that the Marshalltown is absent on the outcrop is predicated on the

belief that there are no beds of Marshalltown litv ology between the units they picked as Merchantville 

and those designated as Wenonah. They suggested 

that although Carter had called some beds Englishtown, the presence of "Hcdymenites major" indicated that these beds actually belonged to the 

Wenonah because the Englishtown of New Jersey 

lacked these supposed diagnostic borings. Ophiomorpha (=Halymenites of Groot and others) ghostshrimp borings, however, have little age significance, 

for they are common to beach or shallow near-shore 

sand deposits of Cretaceous to Holocene age. Thus, 

this is an ecologic and not a biostratigraphic correlation. Once these so-called Wenonah sands are 

accepted as Englishtown, one does not seek a 

Marshalltown equivalent below them but above th^m, 

and certainly it is there in the outcrop and not the 

subsurface as was proposed by Groot, Organist, and 

Richards (1954). Thus, at least the lower part of the 

Mount Laurel-Navesink section they give for their 

station 3 (Groot and others, 1954, p. 35) is actually 

Marshalltown. Evidence for this is amply shown by 

the specimen from this locality that they illustrate 

on their plate 4, figure 2, as an example of Exogyra 

cancellata Stephenson, a misidentification of a sp^ci-
44 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

men that the figure clearly shows to be an example 

of E. ponderosa.. In their interpretation, therefore, 

the Marshalltown Formation is included in their 

Mount Laurel-Navesink.

COMPARISON WITH THE NEW JERSEY MOLLUSCAN FAUNA

Approximately 35 species present in the Marshalltown Formation of the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal section also occur in New Jersey. These are 

distributed as follows:

Number of species

Mount Laurel Sand-Navesink Formation ........................14

Wenonah Formation ............................................................14

Marshalltown Formation ....................................................16

Englishtown Formation ...................................................... 1

Woodbury Clay ......................................................................13

Merchantville Formation ....................................................15

Magothy Formation .............................................................. 6

There is no clear-cut correlation here, as the higher 

values correspond closely to the formations containing the largest faunas. In addition, most of the 

species are those that are long ranging in New 

Jersey (table 7; fig. 21). Seventy percent of the 

genera also occur in the Merchantville Formation, 

but the Marshalltown fauna differs by being rich in 

ostreid elements and by the lack of any abundance of 

cephalopods and crustacean remains. Although 80 

percent of the genera of the Marshalltown fauna are 

also found in the Mount Laurel Sand and the fauna 

of both formations contain an abundance of oysters, 

the Marshalltown fauna is less diverse and lacks the 

belemnites common to the Mount Laurel. The best 

positive correlation of the Marshalltown fauna along 

the canal with that of the Marshalltown of New 

Jersey rests in the occurrence in both areas of abundant Exogyra ponderosa. Although this is a longer 

ranging species in the rest of the Coastal Plain, it is 

apparently abundant only in the Marshalltown Formation in the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain. In 

addition, Umbonicardium is restricted to the Marshalltown Formation in New Jersey, as are Turritella 

marshalltoivnensis Weller and Cyprimeria excavata 

(Morton).

The fauna of the Marshalltown Formation is distinctive in its composition, preservation, and in the 

abundance of certain species from the overlying and 

underlying units along the canal. Compared with 

the younger Wenonah faunas of New Jersey, there 

is little similarity, but a greater similarity with the 

older faunas of New Jersey is evident.

AGE AND CORRELATION

As indicated in figure 23, the Marshalltown Formation is in the upper part of the Exogyra ponderosa 

range zone. This is consistent with the fact that the

costations present on the early part of the shell of 

many specimens suggest the form called Exogyra 

ponderosa erraticostata Stephenson which is most 

common elsewhere in the upper part of the range 

zone of E. ponderosa. The general lack of knowledge 

of mollusks from this part of the section in other 

parts of the Coastal Plain, the lack of distinctive 

ammonites, and the fact that most of the well-preserved faunal elements present belong to longranging species makes precise correlation difficult. 

On the basis of the gross character of the representatives of such genera as Cyprimeria, Aphrodina, 

Crassatella, and Turritella, the Marshalltown fauna 

is certainly no older than the faunas to be found in 

the upper part of the Bluff town Formation of 

Georgia and Alabama, the upper part of the Coffee 

Sand of Mississippi, or the Wolfe City Sand and 

Pecan Gap Chalk Members of the Taylor Marl of 

Texas. The few heteromorph ammonites that have 

been collected from the formation are too poorly 

preserved to be of much aid other than to indicate 

a general Campanian age. The available information 

from the total fauna suggests a late but not latest 

Campanian age.

MOUNT LAUREL SAND 

FAUNAL CHARACTERISTICS

Along the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, fossiliferous exposures of the Mount Laurel Sand occur 

intermittently from immediately west of St. Georges 

Bridge, where the contact with the subjacent 

Marshalltown Formation is seen, to about iVa miles 

east of St. Georges Bridge at Biggs Farm.

Preservation of the fauna in the Mount Laurel 

Sand varies widely. The basal beds near St. Georges 

Bridge yield well-preserved specimens of ostreids, 

such as Pyncnodonte, Exogyra, Anomia, and Paranomia, and of the pecten Neithea; all have shells of 

calcite. The aragonitic-shelled clams and gastropods 

are preserved only as phosphatized internal molds. 

At Biggs Farm the calcitic-shelled forms are similarly well preserved, but the rest of the fauna is a 

mixture both of internal molds and aragonitic shells 

converted to phosphate, a most unusual occurrence. 

At both localities, it is common for the chambers of 

the sponge borings in the shells to be phosphr.tized, 

although the calcitic shell material is preserved.

Near the base of the formation immediately east 

of St. Georges Bridge is a bed of Pyncnodonte shells 

with almost no associated fauna except for a few 

specimens of Exogyra cancellata. Higher in the sequence, the fauna becomes more diverse. The patchy 

distribution of the phosphatic material, as pockets
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 45

of concentration, shows that some transportation if 

not reworking of the material is involved.

Richards and Shapiro (1963) have published on 

the fauna from the Biggs Farm locality. The following notes may help to clarify the nomenclatural differences between their list and that included in 

table 8.

Nuculana pittensis (Stephenson) : Here included under N.

longifrons (Conrad). 

Yoldia gabbana (Whitfield): This species appears to belong

in Nuculana and is based on indeterminate internal molds

from New Jersey. 

Nemodon grandis sohli Richards and Shapiro: Indeterminate

internal molds.

Cucullaea neglecta Gabb: Long-ranging composite New Jersey species known only from internal molds. (= Cucullaea

sp. herein.) 

Area rostellata Morton: Based on internal molds from an

unknown stratigraphic level in Alabama. This material is

better placed in Area n. sp. 

Area obesa (Whitfield): Based on poor material from the

Merchantville Formation of New Jersey: here included

with the preceding in Area n. sp. 

Glycymeris mortoni (Conrad) : A "wastebasket" term for

internal molds of Glycymeris from all formations in New

Jersey. 

Inoceramiis proximus Tuomey: Type specimen lost, unfigured

and inadequately described, probably from the Eutaw Formation of Mississippi. 

Ostrea monmouthensis Weller: A variant of O. mesenterica

Morton. 

Ostrea panda Morton: A good species, but I have not been

able to verify the report by Richards and Shapiro. 

Ostrea biggsi Richards and Shapiro, 1963: Appears to be

only a variety of O. mesenterica.

Gryphaea convexa (Say): Pyncnodonte mutabilis of my list. 

Trigonia mortoni Whitfield: Based on indeterminate internal

molds from the Marshalltown. Well-preserved specimens

from this locality are here placed in T. eufaulensis Gabb. 

Pecten whitfieldi Weller: Not found. 

Lima obliqua Gardner: A misidentification. The Richards and

Shapiro specimen is an internal mold belonging in Pteria. 

Corimya tenuis Whitfield: Internal molds of doubtful generic

affinities. 

Vetericardia crenalirata (Conrad) : Here termed V. aff. V.

subcircula Wade.

Cardium wenonah Weller: Internal molds of doubtful placement here placed in Cardium sp. 

Cardium whitfieldi Weller?: Same as preceding. 

Tellina gabbi Gardner: Internal molds, may belong in Aenona. 

Corbula crassiplica Gabb: Belongs in genus Caesticorbula. 

Weeksia deplanata (Johnson) : Based on internal molds from

the Prairie Bluff Chalk of Alabama = Weeksia sp. of this

report. 

Emarginula ladowae Eichman: Only Emarginula seen at this

locality; belongs to a new species. 

Margarites abyssina (Gabb) and M. depressa Gardner:

Based on internal molds here considered to be Calliomphalus

sp.

Margaritella pumila Stephenson to Margaritella sp. 

Polinices altispira (Gabb) : Based on internal molds, probably equivalent to Amaurellina stephensoni (Wade) of this

report.

Laxispira lumbricalis Richards and Shapiro [non Gabb]: Belongs in L. monilifera Sohl (1964b, p. 361).

Turritella encrinoides Morton: Based on internal molds here 

treated as Turritella sp.

Anchura rostrata (Gabb): Indeterminable molds probably in 

wrong order.

Anchura pennata (Morton): Molds assignable to Arrhoyes 

(Latiala) sp. indet.

Cypraea grooti Richards and Shapiro, new species: An internal mold.

Napulus whitfieldi (Weller) : Probably equals N. reesidei 

Sohl of this report.

Pyropsis richardsoni (Tuomey)?: Based on unfigured, lost, 

internal molds from an unknown locality and stratigraphic 

level in Mississippi. Equal to Pyropsis sp. of this report.

Bellifusus medians (Whitfield)?: Based on indeterminate internal molds.

Turricula sp.: A Holocene and later Tertiary genus.

Cinulia naticoides (Gabb) : Indeterminate internal molds.

Cylichna recta (Gabb) : Species based on indeterminable internal molds from the Paleocene Hornerstown Formation.

Scaphites hippocrepis (DeKay) : Misidentified; belongs in 

Hoploscaphites sp.

Menabites delawarensis (Morton) : Misidentified; for if it 

had been identified correctly, like the preceding, its occurrence in the Mount Laurel Sand would be the only place 

between Mexico and New Jersey where this fossil occurs 

at this stratigraphic level.

COMPARISON WITH THE NEW JERSEY MOLLUSCAN FAUNAS

Of the 99 species (table 8) here listed from the 

Mount Laurel Sand of the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal area, 36 occur in New Jersey. They are distributed as follows:

Number of species

Mount Laurel Sand-Navesink Formation ........................27

Wenonah Formation ............................................................13

Marshalltown Formation ....................................................12

Englishtown Formation ........................................................ 0

Woodbury Clay ......................................................................11

Merchantville Formation ....................................................15

Magothy Formation .............................................................. 2

Comparison with the Mount Laurel-Navesink 

strata of New Jersey is obvious, but precise correlation is difficult because of the lack of differentiation 

of the faunas of the Mount Laurel Sand and the 

Navesink Formation in the literature. Weller (1907) 

and Richards and others (1958, 1962) have considered the formations inseparable and therefore hr.ve 

listed their faunas together. The fauna of the Mount 

Laurel Sand is, however, distinct from that of the 

Navesink. The common association of Exogyra cancellata, Stephenson, Anomia tellinoides Morton, and 

Belemnitella americana (Morton) characterizes the 

Mount Laurel fauna from New Jersey to Maryland. 

These species do not occur together in the Navesink 

Formation, which, in turn, characteristically bears a 

fauna with the brachiopod Chorystothyris and oth^r 

restricted species. The consistent composition of the
46 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-M AGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 8. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Mount Laurel Sand in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area and New Jersey

. Occurrence outside '-.he Mount Laurel Sand of the canal area; X, rare occurrence (1-5 specimens) ; , common occurrence (5-15 specimens) ;

dant occurrence (15+ specimens) ; *, known only as internal molds]

. abunPelecypoda :

qri

A^rcfi cf A. fi}iacnain/ensis ^Vade

Glycymeris sp ............. ....... ............. ............ ................ .................. .

Postiligata crenata Wade ............................................ ..... ......

SP .......................-........-.........--....--....-..-------..-

Exogyra cancellata Stephenson .......................................... ......

sp .............................................................................................

argentaria Morton ............. ..................................................

Vetericardia aff V siibcircula \Vade

SP ........................... . . . . ....... -.. . - - . 

Linearia metastriata Conrad ........................................... ....... 

n

<2Tl ( 1 *X VO*A ^

nff C1 id \ IfiivntnpH Wpllpr

Etea sp .............................................................................. ... .

~\7 QYL^C LLCL coYVTCLcLi IHortoii

Lionistha vrotexia fConradl .................................................. .

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

Merchantville

A

A

A

A 

A

A 

A

A

A 

A

A

I

Marshalltown

A

A

A 

A

A 

A

A

A

A

A

Englishtown

^

A

A

A

A

....

o

'5 

01

IS

§ 

 3

1

£

^

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A 

A

A

A

A

A

A 

A

^

^

^

A

IO 

GO

OS

»

01

o

0)

O 

W

X

^

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

OS

t- t-

"J

eo

tc

N

1

»

b« b»

CQ

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

0

X

X

X

X

X

0

0

X

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

co in

S

0)

£

W

X

X

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

26635 ggs upper - 

M

29510 ggs upper - 

M

X

X

X

0

X

X

X

X

X

X

float 29508 ggs - 

pa

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

float 29509 ggs - 

M

X

X

X

X

0

X

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

*

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

New Jersey

Magothy

Merchantville

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Woodbury

A

A

A

A

^

A

A

A

A

c

£ 

"3

w

c

£o

+2

1

A

A

A

A

^

4

A

A

A

Wenonah

A

A

A

A

A

A

A 

A

A

Mount Laurel

A 

A

A

A

A

A 

A

A

A 

A 

A 

A

A

A

....

A

A

A 

A

A
BIOSTRATIGRAPH1C ANALYSIS 47

TABLE 8. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Mount Laurel Sand in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal area

and New Jersey Continued

[±, Occurrence outside the Mount Laurel Sand of the canal area; X, rare occurrence (1-5 specimens); , common occurrence (5-15 specimens); B, abundant occurrence (15+ specimens); *, known only as internal molds]

Pelecypoda Continued

sp ..............................................................................................

Gastropoda : 

*Weeksia sp .....................................................................................

Emarginula n. sp ..........................................................................

cf. nudus Sohl ........................................................................

*Margaritella sp ............................................................. .............

Pseudomalaxis sp ..........................................................................

Mathilda n. sp ..............................................................................

CTl

Nudivagus sp ................................................................. .............

Turritella vertebroides Morton? .................. ............. ....

*Turritella sp ...................................... ..... ..... .. .... .....

*Cerithium sp .......................... ........... ....

Arrhoges sp .....................................

*Drepanochilus sp .............................. .......... .....

Pterocerella cf. P. poinsettiformis Stephenson............... ........

Xenophora cf. X. leprosa Morton .............................................

Euspira rectilabrum Conrad ......... ..

Amaurellina stephensoni (Wade) ............................ .. .........

Pseudomaura lirata (Wade) ........................ ............. ... ... ...

Gyrodes americanus Wade? ........... ............ ............ . . .....

*Gyrodes abyssimis (Morton) ......................... ............ . . ......

*Gyrodes sp ........................................... ............ ............ ....

Tintorium! sp ................................................... ............ . .....

Sargana sp .......................................... ........... ............ . .. .

Bellifusus curvico status (Wade) ..............................................

sp ..............................................................................................

Woodsella typica Wade ................................................ ............

Remeral sp .................................................................... . . .

Hercorhynchus sp ............................................ .......... . . .......

Anomalofusus substriatus Wade? ...........................................

Napulus reesidei Sohl .................................................................

Pyropsis cf. P. perlata Conrad ................................................

sp ..............................................................................................

*Longoconcha sp .................. ........... .

*Volutomorpha sp ............................................ ............ .. .. .

Beretra sp ........................................................ ............ . .

Caveola sp .......................................... ............ ... .. ..

Paladmete gardnerae Wade ............ . ........... ..... ...

Acteon sp ........................................................... ........... . .

Eoacteon percultus Sohl ................................ ............. .. . .

Parietiplicatum cf. P. conicum (Wade) .................. .. . .

*Avellana bullata (Morton) .......................... .........

*Ellipsoscapha sp .............................................. ............

Cylichna secalina Shumard ........................... ............ .

sp .............................................................................................

Anisomyonl jessupi Richards and Shapiro ............................

Scaphopoda: 

Dentalium intercalatum Wade ................................................

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

Merchantville Marshalltown

A

A

A

Englishtown

s 

I

w

t) 

§

V

3

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A 

A

A

A

A

A

10

CT>

eq

8Mh 

W

X

 

X

X

X

X

X 

X

Cl

steq

 «*

CO 

CD 

CD

eq

S 

*

_o

3

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 

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X

to in

3

tl1

3

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

Biggs 26635 upper - 

o 1-1 

us 

o 

cq

& 

ft

&

5

X

X

X

X

X

X

Biggs float 29508- 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

CT>

g 

01

cq

1

<§

m

X

X

 '

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

New Jersey

Magothy

Merchantville

A

A

>,

*§i

£

Englishtown Marshalltown

Wenonah

A

A

Mount Laurel

A

A

A

A

A
48 STRATIGRAPHY OP OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 8. Megainvertebrate distribution in the Mount Laurel Sand in the Chesapeake and Delaware Cam-l area

and New Jersey Continued

CAt Occurrence outside the Mount Laurel Sand of the canal area; X, rare occurrence (1-5 specimens); , common occurrence (5-15 specimens); B, abundant occurrence (15+ specimens); *, known only as internal molds]

Cephalopoda : 

Eutrephoceras dekayi (Morton) ..............................................

Baculites cf. B. undatus Stephenson ........................................

sp .............................................................................................

Hoploscaphites sp .........................................................................

Anaklinoceras sp ..........................................................................

Didymoceras sp ............................... ......... ... ..... ................

Didymocerasl sp ..........................................................................

Belemnitella americana (Morton) ............................................ 

Porifera: 

Clione sp ........................................................................................

Coelenterata : 

Micrabacia hilgardi Stephenson ................................................

Wadeopsameat sp .......................................................................

Bryozoa : 

Cheilostomata ................................................................................

Brachiopoda: 

Lingulal sp ....................................................................................

Echinodermata :

Comatulid crinoid ........................................................................

Chaetopoda : 

Hamulus onyx Morton ................................. .................. . ......

Serpula sp ......................................................................................

Arthropoda (Decapoda) : 

Crab claw ........................................................................................

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

Merchantville a

Englishtown

2 '1

£

1

J3 

o

«

A

A

A

29585 St. Georges 

X

oa

£ 

«

 * 

eo

CO

8

&

i

B

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

o> 

«

s

1

B

X

X

US

CO 

O)

h 111 

i

pa

X

....

29510 Biggs upper - 

X

X

oo

0

10 

o> 

«

i

B

X

X 

X

X

§U5

o> N

1 

1

B

X

X

X

X

X

New Jersey

Magothy

....

Merchantville

A

A

Woodbury

A

Englishtown Marshalltown

Wenonah

Mount Laurel

A

A

Mount Laurel Sand

29585. "Gryphaea" bed in bench 150-300 yd east of St. Georges Bridge, 

south bank Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware. Collected 

by Buddenhagen, Sohl, Kauffman, 1966.

26634. South bank of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, about 300 yd 

west of light 13 and 1.35 miles (airline) due east of St. George's 

Bridge, from 0 to 6.0 ft above low-tide line, New Castle County, 

Del. Collected by N. F. Sohl, 1957.

27749. South bank of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal about 300 yd 

west of light 13 and 1.35 miles east of St. Georges Bridge 0-6 ft 

above low tide. New Castle, Del. Collected by N. F. Sohl, 1960.

29507. Biggs Farm locality on the Chesapeake and Delaware Crnal, south 

bank, about 300 yds west of light 13 and 1.35 miles (airline) due 

east of St. Georges Bridge. Collection near water level in place, 

New Castle County, Del. Collected by Buddenhagen, Kaufman, and 

Sohl, 1966.

26635. Locality same as above but at from about 6 to 10 ft abo^e low-tide 

level. Collected by N. F. Sohl, Aug. 22, 1957.

29510. Locality same as for 29507 but from shell bed at base of bluff.

29508. Locality same as for 29507 but from float on beach.

29509. Locality same as for 29507 but from spoil pile along road.

Mount Laurel fauna in this northern part of the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain is not only significant but 

impressive.

The following fossils from the Mount Laurel Sand 

were collected along a tributary of Crosswicks Creek 

about 1.2 miles east-northeast of Arneytown, N.J. 

The forms marked by an asterisk are found in both 

New Jersey and Delaware. Plus marks indicate occurrence of the species in the Exogyra cancellata 

zone elsewhere in the Coastal Plain. 

Pelecypoda:

+ *Trigonia eufaulensis Gabb

Cucullaea sp.

Glycymeris sp.

Inoceramus sp.

Chlamys n. sp.

Pelecypoda Continued

+ *Radiopecten weeksi Stephenson 

+ *Syncyclonema simplicius (Conrad)

Crenella sp.

Lithophaga sp.

Plicatula mullicaensis Weller? 

+ *Lima reticulata Forbes

Li^na, whitfieldi Weller 

+ *Lima acutilineata Conrad 

+ *Exogyra cancellata Stephenson 

+ *0strea tecticosta Gabb 

+ *Anomia perlineata Wade 

+ *Crassatella vadosa Morton? 

+ *Vetericardia subcircula Wade 

+ *Lucina cf. L. mattiformis Stephenson 

+ *Linearia metastriata Conrad

Brevicardium sp. 

+ *Veniella conradi (Morton) 

+ *Panope decisa Conrad
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 49

Pelecypoda Continued

Parmicorbula sp. 

+ *Corbula cf. C. torta Stephenson 

+ *Caesticorbula crassiplica (Gabb)

Kummelia sp.

+ *Liopistha protexta Conrad 

Gastropoda:

Emarginula n. sp. 

+ *Calliomphahis (C.) americanus Wade

Calliomphalusl n. sp. 

+ *Margaritella pumila Stephenson? 

+ *Pseudomalaxis pilsbryi Harbison

Tintorium sp.

*Nudivagust! sp. 

+ *Laxispira monilifera Sohl 

+ Arrhoges (Latiala) cf. A. (L.) lobata (Wade) 

+ *Euspira rectilabrum (Conrad) 

+ Fusinus macnairyensis (Wade)

*Anomalofususl sp. 

Pyrifususl sp.

+ *Napulus cf. N. reesidei Sohl 

+ *Bellifusus curvicostatus (Wade) 

+ Paleopsephaea cf. P. mutabilis Wade 

+ Lupira variabilis (Wade) 

Eoacteon sp. 

Cylichna sp. 

Scaphopoda:

Dentalium sp. 

Cephalopoda:

+ *Eutrephoceras dekayi (Morton)

*Belemnitella americana (Morton) 

Porif era:

*Clione sp. 

Echinodermata:

Echinoid plates 

Coelenterata:

+ Micrabacea rotatalis Stephenson? 

Worms:

+ *Hamulus onyx Morton 

Arthropoda:

Crab claws 

Vertebrata:

Shark teeth 

Dermal scutes

This list indicates not only the close correspondence of the faunas of the Mount Laurel Sand of New 

Jersey and Delaware but an equally close correspondence to the faunas from equivalent units of the 

Exogyra cancellata zone in other parts of the Coastal 

Plain.

AGE AND CORRELATION

The age and correlation of the Mount Laurel Sand 

is well documented. The fauna is a part of the characteristic and widespread assemblage of the Exogyra 

cancellata zone that may be traced from New Jersey 

to Mexico. The correlation chart (fig. 23) indicates 

some of the more significant correlative fossils. As 

noted on the chart, the Mount Laurel Sand can be 

traced from New Jersey into Maryland, where at 

Bohemia Mills (Gardner, 1916) it still carries the 

same distinctive assemblage of Exogyra cancellata,

Anomia tellinoides, Belemnitella americana, and 

others.

At present, this assemblage has not been definitely 

identified on the western shore of Chesapeake Br.y. 

Farther south in North Carolina, the Mount Laurel 

is correlative with the lower part of the Peedee 

Formation. In the Gulf Coastal Plain, equivalents in 

age are the upper part of the Cusseta Sand Member 

and perhaps the lowest part of the unnamed middle 

part of the Ripley Formation of the Chattahoochee 

River region (Georgia-Alabama), the uppermost 

part of the Demopolis Chalk (Bluffport Marl Member) in Alabama and Mississippi, and the Coon Cre^k 

Tongue of the Ripley Formation in Tennessee, but 

not in Mississippi. In the western Gulf Coastal Plain, 

the Saratoga Chalk of Arkansas and the Neylandville Marl of Texas bear this same fauna. In Mexico, 

the same zone is recognizable in the lower, but rot 

lowest, part of the Cardenas Formation of San Luis 

Potosi. The presence in the Mount Laurel Sand and 

its equivalents of heteromorph ammonites like 

Didymoceras, Anaklinoceras, and Baculites of the 

Baculites compressus fauna suggests a correlation 

with medial parts of the Pierre Shale of the western 

interior. The assemblage is late Campanian in age.

NAVESINK AND YOUNGER FORMATIONS

There is no faunal evidence at the Biggs Farm 

locality (li/§ miles east of St. Georges, Del.) of any 

unit as young as the Navesink Formation. Chorystothyris and other characteristic species of the Navesink are absent and have not been found in collections 

from spoil banks near Reedy Point east of Biggs 

Farm. The citation by Groot, Organist, and Richards 

(1954, p. 43) of the presence of Exogyra cancellata 

in both the Mount Laurel Sand and Navesink Form ation along the canal is thus in error. Extensive 

collections made recently from their locality 3 where 

they list E. cancellata as occurring have yielded orly 

Exogyra ponderosa and E. ponderosa erraticostata, 

all derived from the Marshalltown Formation. More 

convincing, is that the specimen figured in Groot, 

Organist, and Richards (1954, pi. 4, fig. 2) as an 

example of Exogyra cancellata lacks obvious cancellations or costations and is in fact a young specimen of E. ponderosa. The same error was made by 

Richards and others (1958, pi. 21, fig. 1), whx> 

erroneously assigned to E. cancellata a specimen of 

E. ponderosa that had faint costations on the ear^y 

part of the shell (as is typical of the species high in 

its range zone). Similarly, there is no faunal evidence for the presence of the Red Bank Sand along 

the canal, as proposed by Groot, Organist, and Rich-
50 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

ards (1954). In New Jersey, the Red Bank carries a 

fauna with forms such as Sphenodiscus (fig. 23) 

that are diagnostic of an early Maestrichtian age. 

No such forms have been found along the canal. 

Recent excavations of the old Biggs Farm locality 

have provided fresh exposures, and fossils collected 

through the total sequence are assignable to the 

Exogyra ccmcellata range zone of late Campanian 

age.

SUMMARY OF MEGAPALEONTOLOGIC STUDIES

1. The Cretaceous section along the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal has yielded four distinct megafaunal assemblages assignable respectively to 

the Merchantville, Englishtown, and Marshalltown Formations and the Mount Laurel Sand.

2. Along the canal no invertebrates have been found 

in the basal unit the clays of the Potomac 

Group and the overlying Magothy Formation 

has produced only unidentified plants.

3. The presence of marine faunas equivalent to those 

of the Raritan, Woodbury, Wenonah, or Navesink Formations, or Red Bank Sand has not 

been demonstrated.

4. The faunas of the fossiliferous units are characterized as follows:

A. Merchantville Formation: Abundance of 

gastropods Graciliala (floods of immature forms), Arrhoges, Calliomphalus, Laxispira, and Palademete; the 

common occurrence of the ammonites 

Scaphites hippocrepis and Menabites 

(Delaivarella) delaivarensis; and an 

abundance of decapod crustacean remains.

B. Englishtown Formation: Abundance of 

Ophiomorpha burrows and a molluscan 

assemblage dominated by Cardium 

(Trachycatdium), Glycymeris, Lopha, 

and Turritella.

C. Marshalltown Formation: Abundance of 

Exogyra ponderosa, Trigonia, Cyprimeria excavata, Crassatella, Cucullaea, 

and Cardium.

D. Mount Laurel Sand: Association of Exogyia ccmcellata, Anomia tellenoides, and 

Belemnitella americana.

MICROPALEONTOLOGIC STUDIES

The status of the study of Foraminifera in the 

Cretaceous of the Atlantic Coastal Plain can be contrasted in several respects with the status of megainvertebrate studies. The most important difference is 

the scarcity of published data on the Foraminifera,

which is partly due to the belated appreciation of 

the value of Foraminifera in correlation anc1 paleoecologic interpretation. As a result, there are few 

localities in which Foraminifera have been described 

in the Coastal Plain; this makes it difficult to develop 

meaningful correlation within the region on th^ basis 

of the Foraminifera. On the other hand, when present, foraminiferal faunas are usually well preserved 

and quite diverse, often containing 50 or mc^e species. However, very few paleoecologic interpretations 

have been made on the basis of these faunas, and 

detailed morphologic and phylogenetic studies have 

been limited to the planktonic Foraminifera. At 

present, relatively little is known about Atlantic 

Coastal Plain Cretaceous benthonic Foraminifera.

The intensive study given the planktonic forms 

has resulted in their wide use in regional and especially interregional correlation. However, because of 

the detailed morphologic features used in species 

identification and because of the varying phylogenies 

and consequent ranges that have been proposed, 

there is diversity of opinion in the literature as to 

the definitive characteristics of subspecies, species, 

and genera, and their ranges. This increased refinement of diagnostic morphologic criteria has made 

many of the older generalized descriptions either 

unusable or equivocal.

A complete review of the study of Cretaceous 

Foraminifera reported from the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain is not warranted here, but the recent v<T ork of 

Olsson (1960, 1964), which is considered later, does 

have direct bearing on the faunal interpretations 

made.

SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS

Forty-two samples from the three Upper Cretaceous formations exposed in and near the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal were examined for Foraminifera. The samples were washed through a 200-mesh 

sieve, dried, and floated on carbon tetrachloride. 

Thirteen samples yielded Foraminifera, and nine 

contained identifiable specimens. Only one of the nine 

samples that contained identifiable specimen1?, sample U from the Englishtown Formation, failed to 

yield abundant well-preserved specimens. Only 30-35 

specimens, assignable to 10 species, were recovered 

from this sample. The very small size of the specimens, the presence of all species in the physically 

overlying Marshalltown Formation, and the incongruity of a predominantly planktonic assemblage in 

sediments deposited in a probable near-shore shallow-water environment combine to strongly suggest 

that the Foraminifera in this sample are contaminants from the Marshalltown Formation.
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

TABLE 9. Distribution of inicrofauna in the Englishtown and Marshalltown Formations arid Mount Laurel Sand in southern

New Jersey and northern Delaware

Globigerinelloides messinae Bronnimann ....

Neobulimina canadensis Cushman and 

Wickenden var. A.

Kugoglobigerina macrocephala Bronnimann

Astacolus cf. A. cretaceus (Cushman) ..........

Bolivina watersi Cushman ..............................

Bolivinitella eleyi (Cushman) ......................

Bolivinoides decoratus australis Edgell ........

rudita Cushman and Parker ..................

vitrea (Cushman and Parker) ....... ........

Citharina cf. C. multicostata (Cushman). 

Gyroidina globosa (Hagenow) of Cushman ..

canadensis Cushman and 

Wickenden var. B.

Pseudoguembelina excolata costulata 

Cushman. 

Pseudouvigerina sp. aff. P. seligi (Cushman)

Sigmomorphina semitecta terijuemiana 

(Fornasini) .

Hoeglundina cf. H. supracretacea (ten Dam)

Pseudonodosaria appressa (Loeblich 

and Tappan ) .

Globorotalites michelinianus (d'Orbigny) ....

Anomaliiia cf. A. pseudopapillosa Carsey ....

Bolivinopsis rosula ( Ehrenberg) . ..................

Clavulinoides trilatera trilatera (Cushman)

U

X 

X 

X

X 1. 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

V

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X

V

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

^

X

X

X

X

y^

X

X

X

w

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

y^

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 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X?

X 

X

X 

X

X

Y

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 

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

z

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

y

X

y^

X

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

y^

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

D

X 

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

C

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

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

B

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

X 

X

X

X 

X

X '

X '

A

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

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

Austin

X 

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X 

X

Taylor

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 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X 

X

Navarro

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

X 

X 

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X

X

Comments

Late Campanian and early and late Maestrichtian in 

New Jersey and Delaware. 

Late Campanian of New Jersey and Delaware 

( Marshalltown Formation ) .

Do.

Santonian and Coniacian of the western interior 

United States. 

Varietal form from the late Campanian Pierre Shale.

Early and late Maestrichtian of New Jersey (Bedbank Sand and Navesink Formation). Campanian 

of Colombia.

Maestrichtian of Europe.

Do. 

Upper Campanian or lower Maestrichtian of Australia.

Upper Cretaceous of Sweden.

Late Campanian of Delaware (Marshalltown Formation / . 

Late Campanian of Delaware and late Campanian 

and early Maestrichtian of New Jersey (Marshalltown Formation and Mount Laurel Sand ) . 

Do. 

Late Campanian and early and late Maestrichtiar of 

New Jersey and Delaware (Marshalltown Formation, Mount Laurel Sand, Navesink Format:on, 

and Redbank Sand). 

Late Campanian ? and early and late Maestrichtian of 

New Jersey and Delaware (Marshalltown? and 

Navesink Formations and Redbank Sand) .

Maestrichtian of New Jersey. 

Upper Campanian of Israel.

Varietal form also occurs in the late Campanian 

Pierre Shale.

Also occurs in the la^e Campanian Pierre Shale. 

Do.

Campanian of California and Tertiary of Trinic'ad.

Late Campanian of Delaware and late Campanian 

and early Maestrichtian of New Jersey (Marshalltown Formation and Mount Laurel Sand).

Upper Coniacian of Austria. 

Uppermost Campanian and Maestrichtian of New 

Jersey and Santonian to Maestrichtian in California.
52 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

TABLE 9. Distribution of microfauna in the Englishtown and Marshalltown Formations and Mount Laurel Sand in southern

New Jersey and northern Delaware Continued

Globotruncana ventricosa White ....................

substriata Williamson ..............................

sp. D ..............................................................

Pseudotextularia elegans elegans (Rzehak) 

Seabrookia stewarti Olsson ..............................

n. sp

Praeglobotruncana havanensis havanensis 

(Voorwijk). 

Schackoina multispinata Cushman and 

Wickenden.

Quadrimorphina allomorphinoides (Reuss)

U V W X Y

X?

X

X

X

X

X

X 

X

z

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

D c

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

B

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

A

X

X

X

X

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

Austin

X

X

X

X 

X

Taylor

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X

Navarrol Comments

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X 

X

Coniacian to Maestrichtian. 

Maestrichtian of Egypt. 

H. pulchra, to which this species is closely allied, also 

occurs in the Maestrichtian of New Jersey. 

This form also occurs in the late Campanlan Pierre 

Shale.

Uppermost Coniacian to Maestrichtian. 

Only previously reported occurrence is from the 

Maestrichtian of New Jersey.

Only previously reported occurrence is from the 

Maestrichtian Redbank Sand of New Jersey.

Senonian of Bulgaria. 

Santonian-Maestrichtian of New Jersey and elsewhere. 

Upper Campanian and Maestrichtian of N«?w Jersey 

and elsewhere. 

Maestrichtian of Trinidad.

Lower upper Campanian of Bavaria.

Mount Laurel Sand and Navesink Formation of NewJersey. 

Reported with question from the Campanian of California.

Santonian? and Campanian of Alaska.

A. Mount Laurel Sand, from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at 

Biggs Farm, 6-8 ft above the top of the Marshalltown Formation.

B. Mount Laurel Sand, from the same stratigraphic position and locality 

as sample A,

C. Mount Laurel Sand, south side of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 

about 100 yd east of the bridge on U.S. Route 13; from a conspicuous Pyncnodonte bed, about 3 ft above the top of the Marshalltown 

Formation.

D. Mount Laurel Sand, same locality as sample C, from inside a closed 

Pyncnodonte shell.

Z. Marshalltown Formation, north side of the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal, immediately west of the bridge on U.S. Route 13; within the 

upper 1-2 ft of the formation.

Faunas from the nine fossiliferous samples are 

compared with the fauna reported from a single 

sample of the Marshalltown Formation at Auburn, 

N.J. (Mello and others, 1964). From these 10 samples, a total of 111 species of Foraminifera were 

identified, of which 93 are positively or tentatively 

assigned to previously named species. Eight species 

are considered to be new or probably new, and 10 

are given temporary letter or number designations. 

Table 9 indicates the distribution of the species in 

the samples, and shows their Cretaceous ranges.

TAXONOMIC REVISIONS

Comparisons have been made between the specimens from the Marshalltown Formation at Auburn, 

NJ. (Mello and others, 1964, p. 63) and specimens 

from the nine Chesapeake and Delaware Canal samples included in this study. Many species are represented by better specimens in the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal samples than in the Auburn sample, 

and comparisons have shown that several species

Y. Marshalltown Formation, north side of the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal, 100 yd west of the U.S. Route 13 bridge at St. Georges, in 

the upper foot of the formation and associated with Exogyra 

ponderosa.

X. Marshalltown Formation, south side of the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal, 1.5 miles northeast of Summit Bridge, Del., from the upper 

part of the formation, in an excavation for a railroad bridge pier.

W. Marshalltown Formation, south bank of Oldmans Creek at Camp 

Kimble, near Auburn, southwest New Jersey (Mello ard others, 

1964, p. B61).

V. Marshalltown Formation, same locality data as for X, but from the 

middle part of the formation.

U. Englishtown Formation, same locality as for sample X, but from the 

base of the formation.

were incorrectly identified from the Auburn sample. 

Also, several species present in the Auburn sample 

but not identified previously could be identified after 

comparison with the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 

faunas. Modifications and additions to the Auburn 

species list are shown in the following summary.

AGE INTERPRETATIONS

Repetition of lithologies, thinness of the lithologic 

units, and scarcity of good exposures has severely 

hampered stratigraphic and biostratigraphic study 

of the Cretaceous deposits on the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain. Stratigraphic interpretations made earlier in 

this report are the framework within which the 

fossil evidence presented here is considered and 

against which other interpretations are compared.

Olsson (1960, 1964) was the first in more than 30 

years to systematically study Foraminifera from the 

Cretaceous rocks in this region, and his taxonomic 

work has been extensively used in this study, chiefly 

for the comparison of planktonic Foraminifera.
BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 53

Mello, Minard, and Owens, 1964 This report 

Not identified ..................................................................................................Anomalina nelsoni Berry

Do .............................................................................................................. Cibicides cf. C. harperi (Sandidge)

Do .............................................................................................................. Dorothia glabrella Cushman

Pseudogaudryinella capitosa (Cushman) ............................................. ...Gaudyrina stephensoni Cushman

Not identified ........ ............................................................................... ...... Gaudryina sp. A

Biglobigerinella biforaminata (Hofker) ..................................................Globigerinelloides messinae Bronnimann

Not identified .................................................................................................. Globotruncanal cretacea (d'Orbigny)

Globotruncana cretacea Cushman ..............................................................Globotruncana rosetta (Carsey)

Globigerina (Rugoglobigerina) rugosa Plummer? ................................Globotruncana! subrugosa Gandolfi

Globotruncana wilsoni Bolli ........................................................................Globotruncana subcircumnodifer (Gandolfi)

Lagena cf. L. acuticosta Reuss ....................................................................Lagena sulcata semiinterrupta Berry

Bolivina incrassata Reuss ............................................................................Loxostoma plaita plaita (Carsey)

Bulimina prolixa Cushman and Parker ....................................................Neobulimina canadensis Cushman and Wickenden var. A.

Pseudoglandulina cf. P. lagenoides (Olszewski) ....................................Pseudonodosaria appressa (Loeblich and Tappan)

Not identified ............................................................................................ ......Rugoglobigerina macrocephala Bronnimann

Olsson (1964, p. 160) reported on planktonic Foraminifera from one sample of the Mount Laurel Sand 

and two samples of the Marshalltown Formation in 

New Jersey, and on two samples of the Mount 

Laurel-Navesink Formations (undifferentiated) 

from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Del.

Of the planktonic species identified both in this 

study and by Olsson (1964), the following have 

ranges that include at least part of the late Campanian and at least part of the Maestrichtian: Hedbergella planispira, Globotruncana cretacea, G. 

subrugosa, G. linneiana, G. rosetta, G. fornicata, G. 

tricarinata, G. subcircumnodifer, Globigerinelloides 

messinae, and P rae glob otrunc ana havanensis 

(=petaloidea of Olsson).

The only two planktonic species recovered in this 

study which do not have ranges extending from the 

late Campanian into at least the earliest Maestrichtian are Rugoglobigerina macrocephala and Globotruncana area, both of which Olsson reported only 

from the Maestrichtian. Bandy (1967, p. 20) cited a 

Coniacian to Maestrichtian range for G. area. 

R. macrocephala, a rare species in seven samples 

from both the Marshalltown Formation and Mount 

Laurel Sand, was reported from the Campanian of 

Colombia by Gandolfi (1955, p. 46).

The balance of evidence from the planktonic Foraminifera, supported by several benthonic species 

with restricted ranges, indicates a late Campanian 

or earliest Maestrichtian age for both the Marshalltown and Mount Laurel samples studied. Table 9 lists 

the occurrences of the identified species in the samples and shows the ranges of many through the 

Austin, Taylor, and Navarro provincial stages of the 

Gulf Coastal Plain, as reported by Cushman (1946).

It is noteworthy that Olsson's (1964) usage of the 

term Mount Laurel-Navesink Formation in conjunction with his two samples from the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal is based exclusively on lithologic

character. He clearly points out the difference in age 

attributed to this unit along the canal with respect 

to the ages of the Mount Laurel Sand and Navesink 

Formation in New Jersey. The descriptions of collecting localities given by Olsson (1964, p. 160) indicate that his sample, DK5, from the Mount Laurel 

Sand-Navesink Formation, was taken at approximately the same stratigraphic level and within 200 

feet geographically of samples C and D of this stud^. 

His sample DK6, also from the Mount Laurel-Navesink Formation, is apparently from the same stratigraphic level and geographic position as samples A 

and B of this study. Within the stratigraphic framework developed in this paper, samples C and D are 

from the Mount Laurel Sand, within 3 feet of the 

top of the Marshalltown Formation; samples A and 

B are from the Mount Laurel Sand 6-8 feet above 

the top of the Marshalltown Formation.

The presence of each planktonic species in samples 

from both the Mount Laurel Sand and Marshalltovoi 

Formation makes it impossible to differentiate the?e 

formations, on this basis, as to age. In addition, 88 

out of the total of 111 species occur both in the 

Mount Laurel Sand and in the Marshalltown Formation. No species represented by a large number of 

specimens in any one sample fails to appear in both 

formations, and nearly all the species restricted to 

one or the other formation are represented by fewer 

than five specimens in any sample. The persistence 

of such a large percentage of species, including the 

supposedly rapidly evolving planktonic species, suggests that deposition of the Mount Laurel Sand 

followed close upon the cessation of deposition of 

the Marshalltown Formation. In light of this interpretation, it is possible that the absence of tl e 

Wenonah Formation between the Marshalltown and 

Mount Laurel is due to the loss of identity of the 

Wenonah by facies change within the lower part of 

the Mount Laurel in the sampled area.
54 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

Close faunal similarity, such as is found here between the Mount Laurel Sand and Marshalltown 

Formation, is suggestive of secondary faunal mixing, 

although this seems unlikely for these samples. 

Nearly all specimens from both formations show no 

abrasion or breakage which might be indicative of 

transportation, and faunas from both formations 

are large and diverse in addition to being largely 

composed of the same species. Also, samples 8 feet 

or more above and below the contact retain the same 

faunal character, further suggesting that mixing is 

not the cause for the similarities.

ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATIONS

Although it is dangerous to attempt close definition of depositional environment in the absence of 

specimen counts, sediment analysis, and complete 

faunal representation, it does seem quite evident 

that the faunas recovered from the Mount Laurel 

Sand and Marshalltown Formation were deposited 

under open marine conditions like those existing over 

the middle continental shelves during the Holocene. 

The chief factors favoring this interpretation are 

the generally very high diversity of Foraminifera 

and the frequency of occurrence of planktonic specimens in the samples. The faunal similarities discussed above strongly indicate that the depositional 

environments for the Marshalltown and Mount 

Laurel through the stratigraphic interval and in the 

area studied were identical or very closely similar. 

It should be emphasized here that these interpretations pertain only to the glauconite-bearing calcareous beds of the Mount Laurel and not to the medium 

to coarse quartz sand beds found in the upper part 

of the formation.

A simple clustering program was carried out in an 

attempt to determine what, if any, differences exist 

between the recovered faunas that might indicate 

consistent environmental differences between the two 

formations. The nature of the data itself put rigorous restrictions on the coefficients of correlation that 

could be used. Each of the samples was floated on 

carbon tetrachloride before picking. This procedure 

undoubtedly alters the faunal composition and 

largely invalidates the significance of specimen 

counts. The logic presented by Simpson (1960) concerning the selection of coefficients of correlation is 

applicable here, and Simi. son's index 2 is used. Comparability of samples is calculated as:

where C equals the number of species common to two 

samples, and Nl equals the total number of species

present in the smaller sample. For ease in v'sualization of relationships, the values thus calculated were 

clustered using the weighted pair-group metbod with 

arithmetic averages (Mello and Buzas, 1968). The 

calculated relationships between samples aro shown 

in figure 25. Sample U, from the Englishtown Formation, was deleted before clustering because of its 

probable contamination.

Examination of the clustering (fig. 25) shows no 

subdivision into separate Mount Laurel and Marshalltown clusters. Instead, the samples are grouped 

rather heterogeneously, and this indicates that, at 

least on the basis of presences and absences, the 

faunas from the two formations cannot be differentiated. The faunas from these samples are also 

similar with regard to relative abundances of species. Although no single species is consistently dominant, a small group of species is collectively dominant 

in all samples, and many species are consistently 

scarce in all samples. In view of these faunal similarities, it seems warranted to conclude that environmental factors necessary for the existence of the 

foraminiferal species found in the Marshalltown 

Formation persisted during the depositior of the 

Mount Laurel Sand.

SUMMARY OF MICROPALEONTOLOGIC STUDIES

Eight samples were examined from the Mount 

Laurel Sand and Marshalltown Formation along the 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Del., and one sample from the Marshalltown Formation at Auburn, 

N.J. Faunas from the two formations cannot be

w 1UU

£^90 i 2 ">

Z ^ n?

F- °- >

uj £ £ 80 

* .5?^

a ll

Q. m'H 5 j: ro

< *^ 00

w £.|= 70

Q -D = 

IJJ «JT3

co ° 2

o " 60 

50

-

-

L

1

-

-

FIGURE 25. Clustering of nine samples from the Mount 

Laurel Sand (italicized letters) and Marshalltown 

Formation.
SELECTED REFERENCES 55

distinguished from each other on the basis of species 

presences and absences; they are also generally alike 

with regard to commonness and scarcity of constituent species. The ubiquity of most planktonic 

species in the samples and the presence of all planktonic species in both formations indicate that 

through the intervals sampled the two formations 

are of late Campanian to earliest Maestrichtian age. 

The absence of the Wenonah Formation west of the 

Delaware River is possibly the result of facies change 

within the basal Mount Laurel Sand rather than of 

erosion or nondeposition. Comparisons of the total 

faunas from both formations strongly suggest a 

close similarity in living environments.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Adkins, W. S., 1933, The geology of Texas. Part 2, The 

Mesozoic systems in Texas: Texas Univ. Bull. 3232, 

p. 239-518.

Bandy, O. L., 1967, Cretaceous planktonic foraminiferal zonation: Micropaleontology, v. 13, no. 1, p. 1-31, figs. 1-13.

Bascom, F. L., and Miller, B. L., 1920, Description of the 

Elkton-Wilmington quadrangles [Md.-Del.-N.J.-Pa.]: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Folio 211, 22 p.

Booth, J. C., 1841, Memoir of the geological survey of the 

State of Delaware; including the application of the geological observations to agriculture: Dover, Del., 188 p.

Carter, C. W., 1937, The Upper Cretaceous deposits of the 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal of Maryland and Delaware: Maryland Geol. Survey [Kept.] v. 13, p. 237-281.

Clark, W. B., 1916, The Upper Cretaceous deposits of Maryland: Maryland Geol. Survey, Upper Cretaceous [Volume], p. 23-110.

Clark, W. B., Bagg, R. M., and Shattuck, C. R., 1897, Upper 

Cretaceous formations of New Jersey, Delaware, and 

Maryland: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 8, p. 315-358.

Cobban, W. A., 1969, The Late Cretaceous ammonites 

Scaphites leei Reeside and Scaphites liippocrepis (DeKay) in the western interior of the United States: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 619, 29 p., 5 pis.

Cook, G. H., 1868, Geology of New Jersey: Newark, New 

Jersey Geol. Survey, 900 p.

Cooke, C. W., and Stephenson, L. W., 1928, The Eocene age 

of the supposed late Upper Cretaceous greensand marls 

of New Jersey: Jour. Geology, v. 36, no. 2, p. 139-148.

Cushman, J. A., 1946, Upper Cretaceous Foraminifera of the 

Gulf Coastal region of the United States and adjacent 

areas: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 206, 241 p., 66 pis.

Dorf, Erling, 1952, Critical analysis of Cretaceous stratigraphy and paleobotany of Atlantic Coastal Plain: Am. 

Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 36, no. 11, p. 2161- 

2184.

Doyle, J. A., 1969, Cretaceous angiosperm pollen of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and its evolutionary significance: 

Harvard Univ., Arnold Arboretum Jour., v. 50, no. 1, 

p. 1-35.

Durham, C. O., Jr., 1955, Stratigraphic relations of Upper 

Cretaceous volcanics in Travis County, Texas, in Corpus 

Christi Geol'. Soc. Ann. Field Trip, Mar. 1955: 6 unnumbered pages following p. 55.

Gabb, W. M., 1877, Notes on American Cretaceous fossils w; th 

descriptions of some new species: Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia Proc., 1876, p. 276-324.

Galliher, E. W., 1935, Geology of glauconite: Am. Assoc, 

Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 19, no. 11, p. 1569-1601.

Gandolfi, Rolando, 1955, The genus Globotruncana in northeastern Colombia: Bulls. Am. Paleontology, v. 36, no. 

155, 109 p., 10 pis., 12 figs.

Gardner, J. A., 1916, Mollusca, in Berry, E. W., and others, 

Systematic paleontology, Upper Cretaceous: Maryland 

Geol. Survey, Upper Cretaceous [Volume], p. 371-733, 

pis. 12-45.

Greacen, K. F., 1941, The stratigraphy, fauna, and correlation of the Vincentown Formation: New Jersey Dept. 

Conserv. and Devel., Geol. Ser. Bull. 52, 83 p., 1 pi.

Groot, J. J., 1955, Sedimentary petrology of the Cretaceous 

sediments of northern Delaware in relation to pateogeographic problems: Delaware Geol. Survey Bull. 5, 

157 p.

Groot, J. J., and Glass, H. D., 1960, Some aspects of the 

mineralogy of the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain, in 

Swineford, Ada, ed., Clays and clay minerals Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Clays and Clay 

Minerals, Washington, D.C., Oct. 20-23, 1958: New York, 

Pergamon Press, p. 271-284.

Groot, J. J., Jordan, R. R., and Richards, H. G., 1961, Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association, 2d Field Conference, September, 1961: Newark, Del., Atlantic Coastal 

Plain Geol. Assoc., 41 p.

Groot, J. J., Organist, D. M., and Richards, H. G., 19 r 4, 

Marine Upper Cretaceous formations of the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal: Delaware Geol. Survey Bull. 3, 62 

p., 7 pis.

Johnson, M. E., and Richards, H. G., 1952, Stratigraphy of 

Coastal Plain of New Jersey: Am. Assoc. Petroleum 

Geologists Bull., v. 36, no. 11, p. 2150-2160.

Jordan, R. R., 1962, Stratigraphy of the sedimentary rocks 

of Delaware: Delaware Geol. Survey Bull. 9, 51 p.

Krynine, P. D., 1948, The megascopic study and field classification of sedimentary rocks: Jour. Geology, v. 56, no, 2, 

p. 130-165.

Kulp, J. L., 1961, Geologic time scale: Science, v. 133, no. 

3459, p. 1105-1114.

Kummel, H. B., and Knapp, G. N., 1904, The clays of the 

Cretaceous formation, in Ries, Heinrich, Kummel, H. B., 

and Knapp, G. N., The clays and clay industry of New 

Jersey: New Jersey Geol. Survey Final Rept., v. 6, 

p. 149-203.

Lewis, J. V., and Kummel, H. B., 1912, Geologic map of New 

Jersey, 1910-1912: New Jersey Geol. Survey, sc^le 

1:250,000 (revised 1931 by H. B. Kummel and 1950 by 

M. E. Johnson).

Mansfield, G. R., 1923, Potash in the greensands of New 

Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 727, 146 p., 10 pis.; reprinted as New Jersey Div. Geology and Waters, Geol. 

Ser. Bull. 23.

Mello, J. F., and Buzas, M. A., 1968, An application of cluster 

analysis as a method of determining biofacies: Jo'ir. 

Paleontology, v. 42, no. 3, p. 747-758.

Mello, J. F., Minard, J. P., and Owens, J. P., 1964, Foraminifera from the Exogyra ponderosa zone of the Marshalltown Formation at Auburn, New Jersey: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 501-B, p. B61-B63.

Minard, J. P., 1964, Geology of the Roosevelt quadrangle,
56 STRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING POST-MAGOTHY UPPER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS

New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ340.

 1965, Geological map of the Woodstown quadrangle, 

Gloucester and Salem Counties, New Jersey: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-404.

1963, Pre-Quaternary geology of the Browns Mills

quadrangle, New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. 

Map GQ-264.

Minard, J. P., and Owens, J. P., 1963, Pre-Quaternary geology of the Browns Mills quadrangle, New Jersey: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-264.

Minard, J. P., Owens, J. P., and Nichols, T. C., 1963, PreQuaternary geology of the Mount Holly quadrangle, New 

Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-272.

Minard, J. P., Owens, J. P., Sohl, N. F., Gill, H. E., and 

Mello, J. F., 1969, Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in New 

Jersey, Delaware, and eastern Maryland: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 1274-H, 33 p.

Minard, J. P., Owens, J. P., and Todd, Ruth, 1961, Redefinition of the Mount Laurel Sand (Upper Cretaceous) in 

New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 424-C, p. 

C64-C67.

Olsson, R. K., 1960, Foraminifera of latest Cretaceous and 

earliest Tertiary age in the New Jersey Coastal Plain: 

Jour. Paleontology, v. 34, no. 1, p. 1-58, pis. 1-12, figs. 

1, 2.

 1964, Late Cretaceous planktonic Foraminifera from 

New Jersey and Delaware: Micropaleontology, v. 10, 

no. 2, p. 157-188, 7 pis.

Overbeck, R. M., and Slaughter, T. H., 1958, The groundwater resources, in The water resouiees of Cecil, Kent, 

and Queen Annes Counties: Maryland Dept. Geology, 

Mines and Water Resources Bull. 21, p. 1-382.

Owens, J. P., and Minard, J. P., 1960, Some characteristics 

of glauconite from the Coastal Plain formations of New 

Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 400-B, p. B430- 

B432.

 1962, Pre-Quaternary geology of the Columbus quadrangle, New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map 

GQ-160.

 1964a, Pre-Quaternary geology of the Pemberton 

quadrangle, New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. 

Map GQ-262.

 1964b, Pre-Quaternary geology of the Trenton East 

quadrangle, New Jersey-Pennsylvania: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-341. 

-1964c, Pre-Quaternary geology of the Bristol quadrangle, New Jersey-Pennsylvania: U.S. Geol. Survey

Geol. Quad. Map GQ-342. 

Pettijohn, F. J., 1957, Sedimentary rocks: 2d ed., New York,

Harper & Bros., 718 p. 

Richards, H. G., and others, 1958, 1962, The Cretaceous fossils of New Jersey: New Jersey Bur. Geology and Topography Bull. 61, 2 v.: 266 p., 237 p.

Richards, H. G., and Shapiro, Earl, 1963, An invertebrate 

macrofauna from the Upper Cretaceous of Delaware: 

Delaware Geol. Survey Rept. Inv. 7, 37 p., 4 pis

Simpson, G. G., 1960, Notes on the measurement of faunal 

resemblance: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 258-A, p. 300-311.

Sohl, N. F., 1964a, Neogastropoda, OpisthobrancHa, and 

Basommatophora from the Ripley, Owl Cre?k, and 

Prairie Bluff Formations: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 331-B, p. 154-344, pis. 19-52.

 Gastropods from the Coffee Sand (Upper Cretaceous) 

of Mississippi: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 331-C, 

p. 345-394, pis. 53-57.

Spangler, W. B., and Peterson, J. J., 1950, Geology of the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists 

Bull., v. 34, no. 1, p. 1-99.

Stephenson, L. W., 1914, Cretaceous deposits of the eastern 

Gulf region and Species of Exogyra from the eastern 

Gulf region and the Carolinas: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 81, 77 p., 21 pis.

 1923, Cretaceous formations of North Carolina; Part

I, Invertebrate fossils of the Upper Cretaceous formations: North Carolina Geol. and Econ. Survey, v. 5, pt. 1, 

604 p., 102 pis.

 1933, The zone of Exogyra cancellata traced 2,500 

miles: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 17, no.

II, p. 1351-1361.

1954, Additions to the fauna of the Raritan formation

(Cenomanian) of New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 264-B, p. 25-43.

Stephenson, L. W., Cooke, C. W., and Mansfield, W. C., 1932, 

Chesapeake Bay region: Internat. Geol. Gong., 16th, 

Washington, D.C., 1933, Guidebook 5, Excursion A-5, 

49 p., 9 pis.

Stephenson, L. W., King, P. B., Monroe, W. H., anc1 Imlay, 

R. W., 1942, Correlations of the outcropping Cretaceous 

formations of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain and 

Trans-Pecos, Texas: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 53, 

no. 3, p. 435-448, chart.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1967, Engineering geology of the 

Northeast Corridor, Washington, D.C., to Bostor, Mass. 

 Coastal Plain and surficial deposits: U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol. Inv. Map I-514-B, 8 sheets.

Weller, Stuart, 1907, A report on the Cretaceous paleontology of New Jersey, based upon the stratigraphic studies 

of George N. Knapp: New Jersey Geol. Survey, Paleontology Ser., v. 4, 2 v.: 1107 p.

Young, Keith, 1963, Upper Cretaceous ammonites from the 

Gulf Coast of the United States: Texas Univ. Pub. 6304, 

373 p., 82 pis.
INDEX

[Italic page numbers indicate major references]

Page 

Acteon cretacea ......................................................43

sp ...................................................... ........37, 47

Aenona ..................................................................... AS

sp ........................................................................36

Age and correlation, Marshalltown Formation ................................................................44

Merchantville Formation ............................39

Amaurellina stephensoni ..............................45, 47

Amauropsis meekatia ....................................... .....42

Amboy stoneware clay ........................................34

Amuletum ................................................................37

Anaklinoceras ..................................................S I, 49

sp ........................................................................48

Analyses, clay-mineral ..........................................25

heavy-mineral ..................................................23

light-mineral ..................................................23

Anapachydiscus sp ................................................43

Anatymya sp ..........................................................36

Anchura pennata .................................................A5

rostrata ............................................................45

sp ................................................................37, 42

Anisoniyon borealis ......................................... .......37

jessupi ..............................................................47

AnontoJfna nelsoni ..........................................51, 53

pseudopapillosa ..............................................51

rubiginosa ........................................................51

Anomalinoides ........................................................52

2>tn0tti8 ..............................................................52

Anomalofusus substriatus .......................... ..........47

sp ................................................................37, 49

Anomfo argentaria ........................36, 40, 42, 46

perlineata ........................................................48

radiata ..............................................................36

tellinoides ..........................................45, 46, 49

Aphrodina ...............................................................A4:

eufaulensis ......................................................46

tippana ............................................................42

sp ......................................................................36

Area macnairyensis ..............................................46

obesa .............................................. ....................45

rostellata ..........................................................45

sp ......................................................... .... .........36

Architectonica voragiformis ..... ........................47

ArrTioflres (Latiala) lobata ........................37, 49

(Latiala) sp ............................37, 40, 42, 45

sp .......................................................................47

AstacoZws cretoceus ..............................................51

jarvisi ................................................................52

sp. 1 ..................................................................52

sp. 2 ..................................................................51

Astorte sp ................................................................36

Atlantic Coastal Plain, northern ......................25

Atlantic Highlands section ................................35

Avettana bullata ...........................................AZ, 47

B

Baculites ..................................................................49

asper ..................................................................34

claviformis ......................................................34

clinolobatus zone ............................................31

eohtwiwa ............................................................35

compressus ......................................................49

coinpressus zone fauna ................................31

cuneatus zone ................................................35

Page 

minerensis ........................................................37

reesidei zone ....................................................35

undafus ............................................................48

sp ................................................................37, 48

Barbatia carolinensis ............................................36

sp ......................................................................46

Belemnitella americana ....................7, 45, 48, 49

Bellifusus ........................................ .... ....................37

curvicostatus ...................................A2, 47, 49

medians ...................................................... ......45

sp ................................................................42, 47

Belliscala creideri ......... ........................ .............. 47

Beretra sp ................................. .............................47

Biggs Farm locality ................................11, 16, 44

Biglobigerinella biforaminata ......................... ...53

Biostratigraphic analysis ....................................2S

Biostratigraphic studies .. ................................. 1

Black Creek Formation of North Carolina ....39

Blufftown Formation of Georgia and

Alabama ................................................39, 44

Bolivina incrassata ..............................................53

watersi .................... .... ...................................51

Bolivinitella, eleyi . .... .............................................51

Bolivinoides decoratus australis ........................51

Bolivinopsis rosida .. .............................................51

Breviarca haddonfieldensis ................................36

richardsi ..................... ...................................46

sp .....................................................................36

Brevicardium parahillanum ........................42, 46

sp ......................................................................48

Brownstown Marl of Arkansas ........................39

Buccinid sp ............................................................42

Buccinopsis sp ........................................................42

Bulimina ..................................................................51

kickapooensis ..................................................51

prolixa ..............................................................53

reitssi ...................................... .........................51

rudita ................................................................?>\

Bulla macrostromata ............................................43

Burditt Marl of Adkins ......................................39

Cadulus obnatus ....................................................37

Caesticorbula ..........................................................45

crassiplica .......... ......................37, 42, 46, 49

Callianassa sp ........................................................ 7

Calliomphalus ..................................................38, 49

nudus ................................................................47

(Calliomaphalus) americawus ............47, 49

pOMCispir-t/us ................................ ......37

sp ................................................................47

(Planolateralis) ............................................37

sp ................................................................47

sp ......................................................................45

Campanian faunas ................................................34

Campanian Stage ..................................................31

Camptonectes belliscvlptus ....................36, 40, 42

burlingtonensis ..............................................40

Cantharulus sp ......................................................87

Capulus ....................................................................42

Cardium ....................................................................41

donohuensis ......................................................46

dumosum ..........................................................36

longstreeti ......................................................36

tenuistriatuni ..................................................41

Page 

wenonah ..........................................................45

whitfieldi ..........................................................45

(Criocardium) sp ........................................36

(Granocardium) dumosum ..................42, 46

kmnmeli ....................................................46

tenuistriatum ................................... .......36

sp ..............................................................40

(Pachycardium) spillmani ........................36

( Tracliycardium ) ..........................................41

eufaulensis ........................................36, 46

longstreeti ................................................40

uniformis ................................................36

sp ........................................................................45

Caryocorbula sp .............................................37, 42

Caucasina pusilla ..................................................51

vitrea ................................................................51

Caveola sp ................................................37, 40, 47

Cementation in sand formations ....................20

Cenomanian age fauna ......................................34

Cerithium weeksi ............................................37, 47

sp ......................................................................47

Chattahoochee River region of Georgia and

Alabama ......................................................34

Cheilostomata ........................................................48

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ................4, 35

section near Summit Bridge .............. ......11

Clilamys ....................................................................48

cretosus ............................................................42

Chlorite as minor constituent ............................25

Chloritoid ..................................................................23

Chorystothyris ..................................................45, 49

Cibicides beaumontianus ....................................51

harperi ......................................................51, 53

Cidaroid ....................................................................40

Cidaroidea ................................................................48

Cinulia naticoides .............................................. ..45

Citharina multicostata ........................................51

Clavagella armata ..................................................46

Clavulinoides insignis ..........................................52

trilatera trilatera ..........................................51

Clay-mineral analyses ..........................................25

Cliffwood flora ........................................................34

Clione sp ....................................................43, 48, 49

Coffee Sand of Mississippi ................................39

Comatulid crinoid ................................................48

Comparison with the New Jersey molluscan

fauna ...... ................... .................................SS

Conclusions on rock stratigraphic studies ......26

Coniacian rocks ....................................................34

Corbula crassiplica ................................................45

swedesboroensis ............................................37

torte ..................................................................49

sp ......................................................................37

Corimya tennis ........................................................45

Correlation, regional problems ..........................25

Correlation and age of Cretaceous

megafauna fossils ......................................59

Correlations of Upper Cretaceous formations 

revised ..........................................................Ji

Crab claw .......................................................48, 49

Crassatella ................................................................44

carolinensis ......................................................36

newkirkensis ..................................................36

roodsensis ........................................................SB

vadosa ........................................................42, 48

sp ..........................................................36, 40, 42

57
58 INDEX

Page

Crassostrea tecticosta ...........................................40

Crenella serica .. ......... .... .... ............................... .42

sp . .... ........ .... .... .... .....................................48

Cretaceous formations, comparison ..................1?

Cretaceous megafauna, summary ........ ............35

Cretaceous megafauna fossils from the

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ..........35

Crosswicks Clay ....................................................14

CucMaea ......................................................... .........41

neglecta ............... .......... ......... .... .... ........ ...45

tippana ............................................. ...............42

sp .. .............. ................................. ...45, 46, 48

Cusseta Sand Member of Ripley

Formation ....................................................34

Cylichna, recta, ........................................................45

secalina ............................................................47

sp ...... ............. ........................................47, 49

Cymbophora subtilis ........................................... A6

sp ........................................................36, 40, 42

Cymella bella ............................................37, 40, 41

iroiiensis .........................................................37

Cypraea grooti ......................................................45

mortoni ............................................................42

Cyprimeria .......................................................A\, 44

excavata ....................................................42, 44

sp .......... ...............................................36, 42, 46

D

Delaware, northern, rock stratigraphic

studies ..........................................................11

Dentalina aculeata ................................................52

basiplanata ......................................................5\

basitorta ..........................................................51

consobrina ......................................................51

gracilis ..............................................................51

legumen ............................................................51

Dentalium intercalation .............................. ........47

subarctuatum ..................................................37

sp ......................................................................49

Dermal scutes ........................................................49

Dessau Formation of Durham ..........................39

Didymoceras ........................ ................... .........31, 49

sp ...............................................................43, 48

Discorbis ..................................................................51

Distribution of formations, Delaware ............11

Maryland ......................................................... .20

New Jersey ...................................................... 7

Dorothia glabrella ..........................................51, 53

stephensoni ......................................................52

Drepanochilus sp ....................................................47

Drittuta, distans ....................................................37

sp ......................................................................37

E

Eagle Sandstone ....................................................39

Echinoid plates ......................................................49

Ecphora sp ..............................................................37

Ellipsoscapha sp ....................................................47

Emarginula ................................................45, 47, 49

ladoivae ...........................................................A5

Englishtown Formation ................6, 13, 15, 17,

24, 26, 34, 39, 44 

Eoacteon percultus ................................................47

sp ........................................................................49

Eouvigerina americana ........................................51

hispida ..................................... .........................51

Epidote content in Merchantville and

Mount Laurel ..............................................23

Eponides Jiaidingerii ............................................52

Etea carolinensis ............................................36, 40

sp ........................................................36, 42, 46

Euspira rectilabrum ........................37, 40, 47, 49

sp ................................................................37, 42

Eutaw Formation of gulf coast ........................34

Eutrephoceras dekayi ....................................48, 49

Exiteloceras ............................................................35

Exogyra ............................................................Zl, 41

cancellata ...... .....7, 16, 28, 34, 45, 46, 48, 49

Page 

bed ..............................................................16

zone ..... ..........................28, 31, 34, 48, 49

costata ..............................................................28

zone .. ................................................28, 34

ponderosa ........................6, 11, 15, 16, 28, 36,

41, 42, 44, 49 

erraticostata, ..............................42, 44, 49

zone .......... .... ............................................34

sp .. .............. .... ........ .............. .......................40

Fauna, Marshalltown Formation ....................41

Merchantville Formation ................. .........35

Mount Laurel Sand ............................... ....44

state of preservation . .... ............................30

Feldspar in light-mineral fraction ............. ....23

Fissurina marginata ............. ..............................51

orbignyana ......................................................51

Flemingites sithspatulata ..................... ..............34

Formations, distributions ........................?, 11, 20

Frondicularia archiaciana ..................................51

Fusinus niacnainjensis .......................................49

Garnet content in Merchantville Formation

and Mount Laurel Sand ...................... .23

Castroehaena sp .. .................................................42

Gaudryina bulloides . .... ............. ........................52

ellisorae .... ......... ......... .... ......... ...................52

stephensoni ........ .... .......................................51

sp. A ................................................. ......51, 53

Gennlliopsis ensiformis ................................36, 38

sp ............ .... .............. .... .............. .... .............46

Glauconite ............................. .............. .... .... .... ....11

age .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ................... ..............16

depletion ........ ................................................25

Glauconite-clastic ratios .....................................,34

Glauconite sand, major constituent ................25

Globigerina (Rugoglobigerina) rugosa ............53

Globigerinelloides messinae ..........................51, 53

Globorotalites michelinianus ..............................51

Globotruncana area ........................................51, 53

cretacea ................... .... .................. ......51, 53

fornicata, ....................................................51, 53

linneiana .... .... .... .-.. ...............................51, 53

rosetta ......................................................51, 53

subcircumnodifer ....................................5\, 53

subrugosa ..................................................51, 53

tricarinata .................. .............................51, 53

ventricosa ...... .................................................52

wilsoni ..............................................................53

Globulina lacrima ..................................................51

Glycymeris .................... ............................ ....41, 45

mortoni ......................................................40, 45

sp ..........................................................36, 46, 48

Gober Tongue of Austin Chalk ........................39

Graciliala johnsoni ................................................37

sp ........................................................37, 40, 42

Greensand ...............................................................24

Gregory Member of Pierre Shale ......................34

Gryphaea convexa ................................................45

sp ........................................................................42

Gryphaeostrea vomer ..................... ..............42, 46

sp ........................................................................42

Gyrodes abyssinus ............................................42, 47

ainericanus ......................................................47

major ................................................................SI

petrosus ..........................................................-42

spillmani .................................................... .. 37

sp .................. ........................ ......... .........40, 47

Gyroidina depressa ................................................51

globosa .............................................................. 51

H

Hamulus major ......................................................37

onyx .................................................... .....48, 49

sp ........................................................................40

Page 

Hardouinea sp ........................................................40

Haustator lenolensis ........................................... A2

quadrilira ............................... . . 37, 40, 42

trilira ........................................................42, 47

Heavy-mineral analyses ......................................S3

Hedbergella planispira ................................51, 53

Hercorhynchus .......................................................J&1

sp ....................................... . ................42, 47

Heterohelix globulosa ..........................................51

planata ..............................................................52

pulchra .... .. ......... . . ............51, 52

Hoeglundina supracretacea ........ ...................51

Hoploscaphites sp ..........................................45, 48

Hornerstown Formation ..........................8, 17, 24

Hornerstown glauconite sand ............................22

Idonearca vulgaris ................................... .. ...36

sp . .36

Illite-montmorillonite clay assemblage ....23, 25

Inoceramus proximus ...................................... ......45

sp .......................................36, 40, 42, 46, 48

Investigations, previous ...................................... 1

Iron oxide staining ... .................................20

Isocardia sp ............................................................36

Kaolinite occurrence ............................................ 25

Kummelia sp ............................................37, 46, 49

Lagena acuticosta ................................................ 53

quadralata ........................................................52,

substriata .................................................. 52

sulcata semiinterrupta ..... .... ...............51, 53

Laxispira ..................................................................BB

lumbricalis ............ .... ......................37, 42, 45

mo-nilifera .......................................A5, 47, 49

sp ........................................................................42

Legumen ................................................... ...............38

concentricitm ..................................................36

ellipticum .........................................................AQ

planulatum ......................................................36

sp .......................................... ..........46

Leptosolen biplicatus ...........................................AO

Light-mineral analyses ........................................2S

Lima aciitilineata .................................................A8

kerri ..................................................................42

lorillardensis ...................................................A2

obliqua ..............................................................45

reticidata ........................... ...40, 46, 48

whitfieldi .........................................................A8

sp ................................................................36, 46

Linearia magnoliense ..........................................36

metastriata ................................36, 42, 46, 48

Lingulina sp. A ....................................................51

sp. B .................................................................. 52

sp ........................................................................48

Liopeplum thoracicum ........................................37

Liopistha alternata ................................................37

protexto ........................................ 37, 40, 46, 49

Lithophaga sp ..................................36, 42, 46, 48

Loiigitubus sp .................................................... ..37

LongoconcJia sp ......................................37, 42, 47

Lopha falcata ....................................40, 41, 42, 46

mesenterica ..................................................... A&

Lower glauconite sand of Red Bank Sand .... 7

Lower silt of Red Bank Sand ............................ 7

Loxostoma gemma ................................................51

plaita plaita ............................................51, 53

Lucina mattiformis ............................ .. 48

 parva ................. ........................................42, 46

sp ................................ 36, 40, 42, 46

Lupira variabilis ................................................... AQ
INDEX 59

Page

M

Maestrichtian age of formations ......................35

Maestrichtian Stage ..............................................31

Magothy Formation ............................5, 34, 39, 44

Margaritella pumila ........................................45, 49

sp ..................................................42, 45, 47, 51

Margarites abyssina ......................................... .....45

depressa ............................................................45

Marginulina taylorana .............................. ..........51

sp. A ................................................................51

sp. B....................................................................52

sp. C ..................................................................52

sp. D ..................................................................52

Marshalltown Formation ............6, 10, 13, 15, 17,

24, 26, 34, 39, 41, 44 

Martesia sp ............................................................42

Maryland, eastern, rock stratigraphic

studies ..........................................................20

Matawan Formation ............................................ 2

Matawan Group ............................................31, 39

Mathilda ..................................................................47

Megafauna, summary of Cretaceous ................35

Megafauna fossils from the Chesapeake

and Delaware Canal ..................................35

Megainvertebrate fauna from Merchantville

Formation ....................................................35

Megapaleontologic studies ................................ ..28

Melanatria cretacea ............................................ ..42

Menabites delawarensis ...................................... ..45

(Delaivarella) ..................... ...........................38

delawarensis ....................................37, 39

Menuites complexus .... ............................. ...........34

Merchantville fauna, comparison ....................38

Merchantville Formation ............5, 11, 14, 17, 20,

24, 26, 35, 39, 44 

Micrabacia hilgardi ................................................48

rotatalis ............................................................49

Micropaleontology ...................................... ...........28

Mineral analyses, heavy ......................................23

light ......... ....................... ...............................33

Molluscan fauna, comparison .. ...................38, 44

Monmouth Group ......... .... ................ ............4, 31

Montmorillonite occurrence ................................25

Morea marylandica ................................................40

Morgan beds ............................................................34

Mount Laurel Sand .......................6, 12, 15, 17,

18, 24, 26, 31, 34, 39, 44 

Muscovite occurrence ............................................25

Nacatoch Sand of Texas ......................................35

Napulus ....................................................................37

reesidei ........................................42, 45, 47, 49

whitfieldi ..........................................................45

sp .......................................................... .............40

Navesink Formation ........7, 8, 11, 26, 31, 39, 44

age limits ................ ......................................34

Neithea quinquecostata ............. ...........36, 42, 46

Nemodan eufaulensis ............................................46

grandis sohli .................. .................................45

neusensis ..........................................................36

sp .......... .......................................36, 40, 42, 46

Neobulimina ............................................................51

canadensis ..................................................51, 53

spinosa ..............................................................51

Neocotiorbina .............. .............. .... ............._.... 51

New Jersey molluscan fauna,

comparison ............................................38, 44

New Jersey rock stratigraphic studies ........ 5

Nodosaria affinis ....................................................51

navarroana ......................................................52

obscura ..............................................................5\

Nonactaeonina sp .......................... .............37

Nonionella austinana ............................................51

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain .......... ..........28

Nostoceras ................................................................35

Nucula ..................................................................... A5

Page 

arnica ................................................................35

percrassa ................................................35, 42

slackiana .............................. ...........................36

ivhitfieldi ......... ...............................................36

sp ........................................................................40

Nuculana, .................................................................A5

compressifrons ........................ ......................36

longifrons ..................................................45, 46

marlboroensis ..................................................40

pittensis ............................... ..... ............45

Nuculana sp ..............................................36, 40, 42

Nudivagus sp ..................................................47, 49

Nuttallmella ............................................................51

O

Odessa, formations in Delaware ......................17

Oleneothyris harlani ......................................11, 17

Oolina ......... ..............................................................51

Ophiomorpha borings ............................15, 22, 41

Ornopsis (Pornosis) digressa ............................42

Ostrea biggsi ..........................................................45

cretacea .. .........................................................34

falcata ........................................................15, 36

mesenterica ............. ...........................36, 42, 45

monmouthensis ............................................. A5

panda ................. .........................................45

plumosa ........................................................... A6

tecticosta ..........................................................48

sp ........................................................36, 42, 46

Owl Creek Formation of Alabama and

Mississippi ..................................................31

Pachymelania ................................................... .40, 41

Paladmete cancellaria ............................37, 40, 43

gardnerae ........................................................47

Panopea ....................................................................ZS

decisa ..................................................37, 42, 48

Paranomia scabra ..................................36, 42, 46

Parapachydiscus sp ..............................................43

Parietiplicatum conicum ....................................47

Parmicorbula bisulcata .......................................AO

sp ................................................................37, 49

Patella tentorium ..................................................42

Pecten ivhitfieldi ....................................................45

(Camptonectes) bellisculptus ....................38

sp ........................................................................42

Peedee Formation ................................................35

Perissonata stephensoni ....................... ..............46

protexta ..........................................................46

Pernerina ...............................................................52

Petrographic studies .... ....................... .............23

Petrologic studies .............................. ...................22

Pholadomya ...........................................................38

occidentalis ............................................ .... ....36

Pholas citJiara ........................................................36

sp .......1...............................................................36

Pierre Shale of western interior ................31, 34

Pinita ........................................................................38

laqueata ............................................................36

sp ................................................................36, 40

Placenticeras ..................................................34, 38

placenta ...........................................................37

Planuliiia cor recta ..............................................52

spissocostata ....................................................51

taylorensis ........................................................51

Plectina ivatersi ....................................................52

Pleurostomella subnodosa ................. ................52

Plicatula ..................................................... ...........36

mullicatiensis ............................................46, 48

Polmifes altispira .............................................. ..45

Postiligata crenata ...............................................46

ivordeni ............. ............................................. A6

Potassium-argon dating method ........................16

Potomac Group ......................................................34

Praeglobotruncana havanensis ..........................53

havanensis havanensis ................................52

Pare 

Prairie Bluff Formation of Alabama and

Mississippi ......................................................31

Protoquartzites ......................................................24

Providence Sand of Georgia ........................34, 35

Pseudamaura lepta ................................................Z7

lirata ................................................................47

tneekana ......................................................... AO

Pseudogaudryinella capitosa . . ......................53

Pseudoglandulina lagenoides ..............................53

Pseudoguembelina excolata costulata ....51

Pseudomalaxis pilsbryi .....~................................ A9

sp ......................................................................47

Pseudonodosaria appressa ............................51, 53

Pseudotextularia elegans elegans ......................52

Pseudouvigerina seligi ..........................................51

Pteria ........................................................................45

petrosa ..............................................................36

sp ......................................................................40

Pterocerella poinsettiformis ..........................37, 47

Pullenia americana ................................................51

Pyncnodonte convexa ............................................ 42

mutabilis . ....................41, 42, 45, 46

Pyrifusus sinucostatus ........................................f7

sp ......................................................................49

Pyr&psis perlata ...................................................47

richardsoni ......................................................45

sp ..................................................37, 42, 45, 47

Pyrulina cylindroides ...................................... .....51

Q

Quadrimorphina allomorphinoides ....................52

Quartz, polycrystalline ........................................24

R

Radiopecten mississippiensis .............................A 6

weeksi .......... ...... . ..........................48

Ramulina arkadelphiana ....................................5 1

Raritan Formation ................................................34

Red Bank Sand ..........................6, 7, 8, 18, 26, 35

Regional correlation problems ......................~..Z8

Remera sp ...................................... .. .............47

Revised correlations of Upper Cretaceous

formations ..................................................31

Ringicula ..................................................................37

Ripleuella sp ............................................................42

Ripley Formation of Alabama and

Mississippi ..........................................31, 34

Rock fragments in light-mineral fraction ....24

Rock stratigraphic studies ..... ... .........I, 5

eastern Maryland, summary ......................22

New Jersey, summary ................................ 10

Rugoglobigerina macrocephala . .51, 53

S

St. Georges Bridge ..........................11, 15, 16, 41

Sandy Hook quadrangle ...................................... 1

Santonian age pollen ....................................31

Sargana stantoni ....................................................37

sp .......................................................................47

Scambula perplana .............................................A1}

Scaphites hippocrepis ....................31, 37, 39, 45

leei.... ......... .................................................34, Zl

(Hoploscaphites) ..........................................35

Schackoiiia multispinata ....................................5?

Seabrookia stewarti ..............................................52

Section 1.1 miles west of St. Georges to 

1.3 miles east of St. Georges at Biggs 

Farm ............................................................75

Sedimentation cycle in New Jersey ................18

Sepiolite occurrence .......................... .. ...............23

Serpula sp ................................................37, 40, 4^

Shark teeth ............................................................4?

Siderite occurrence .................. .... ............ 2o

Sigmomorphiiia semitecta terquemiana ..........5'

Solyma sp ................................................................31

Sphenodiscus ............................. 7, 31, 34

Spiroplectammitia mordensis ............................5.2

Spondylus sp ..........................................................42
60 INDEX

Page 

Steinkerns ................................................................30

Stilostomella stephetisoni ....................................51

Subgraywackes . .... .............. ................................24

Submortoniceras uddeni ........................ .....37, 39

Summary of Cretaceous megafauna ..............35

Summit Bridge ......................................................11

Syncyclonema conradi ............................... ...36, 40

simplicius ............................................36, 46, 48

Telegraph Creek Formation ..............................39

Tellina gabbi ....................................................... ...45

georgiana ......................................................... AG

sp .............................................................36, 46

Tenea sp ..................................................................42

Terebratulina cooperi ..........................................48

Textularia, ripleyensis ..........................................51

Tinton Sand ..........................................7, 8, 26, 35

Tvntorium sp ....................................................47, 49

Tombigbee Sand Member of Eutaw

Formation ....................................................34

Trask sorting coefficient .................................... 5

Trichotropis squamosus ........................................31

Trigonia ..................................................................41

cerulia ..............................................................35

eufaulensis ........................................45, 46, 48

haynesensis ......................................................Z5

Page 

mortoni ............................................................45

thoracia ............................................................42

(Pterotrigonia) bartrami ............................40

(Scabrotrigonia) sp ......................................40

sp ....................................................... ........36, 46

Tuba bella ......................................................40, 47

sp ................................................................42, 47

Tundora tuberculata . ........................................37

Turonian rocks ......................................................34

Turritella ..................................... .....................41, 44

encrinoides ..................................................... A5

lorttlardensis ................................................... AO

macnairyensis ...............................................47

marshalltownensis ...............................A2, 44

merchantvillensis ......................................... A1

quadrilira ..........................................................41

tippana ............................................................42

vertebroides ..................................................... A7

sp ........................................................42, 45, 47

Umbonicardium ......................................................44

umbonatum .....................................................A2

Unicardium umbonatum ............................ ..........36

sp .................................................................- -.46

Upper quartz sand of Red Bank Sand........7, 11

Urceolabrum mantachiensis ...............................37

Page

Vanikoropsis ambiqua ..........................................37

Veniella conradi ................ ................?6, 42, 46, 48

Vetericardia crenalirata ...................................A^

subcircula ..........................................45, 46, 48

sp ............-.....................................36, 40, 42

Volsella julia ..........................................................40

Volutomorpha sp ....................................40, 42, 47

W

Wadeopsamea sp . ...........,.............................48

Weeksia deplanata ...............................................A5

sp ................................................................45, 47

Wenonah Formation ..................6, 27, 34, 39, 44

Wicomico Formation ............................................12

Woodbridge clay .................................................34

Woodbury Clay ........................................6, 39, 44

Woodsella typica ...................................................A7

Woodstown quadrangle ...................................... 1

Xenophora leprosa ..............................................47

sp ................................................................37, 40

Yoldia gabbana, ......................................................45

papyria ............................................................36

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 197O O 388-364