Carbonate sedimentology and foraminiferal ecology of deep, current-swept platforms, northern Nicaraguan Rise, Caribbean Sea

Citation
Carbonate sedimentology and foraminiferal ecology of deep, current-swept platforms, northern Nicaraguan Rise, Caribbean Sea

Material Information

Title:
Carbonate sedimentology and foraminiferal ecology of deep, current-swept platforms, northern Nicaraguan Rise, Caribbean Sea
Creator:
Peebles, Mark Whitney 1962-
Place of Publication:
Tampa, FLorida
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 184 leaves : ill., maps ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Sedimentation and deposition -- Nicaragua -- Nicaraguan Rise ( lcsh )
Halimeda ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Marine Science -- Doctoral -- USF ( FTS )

Notes

General Note:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 1993. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 124-135).

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
029778324 ( ALEPH )
30692761 ( OCLC )
F51-00186 ( USFLDC DOI )
f51.186 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information

Format:
Book

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CARBONATE SEDIMENTOLOOY AND FORAMINIFERAL ECOLOOY OF DEEP,CURRENT-SWEPT PLATFORMS NORTHERN NICARAGUAN RISE, CARIBBEAN SEA by MARK WHITNEY PEEBLES A dissertation submitted to in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Marine Science University of South Florida December 1993 Major Professor: Pamela Hallock Muller, Ph D

PAGE 2

Graduate Council University of South Florida Tampa, Florida CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Ph. D. Dissertation This is to certify that the Ph D. Dissertation of MARK WHITNEY PEEBLES with a major in the Department of Marine Science has been approved by the Examining Committee on May 21, 1993 as satisfactory for the dissertation requirement for the Ph. D. Examining Committee: Major Professor: Dr. Pamela Hallock Muller Member: Dr. Albert C. Hine Member: Dr. John Compton Member: Dr. Lisa Robbins Member: Dr. Eu!!ene Shinn Chaii, Examining Committee: Dr. Terr e nce M. Quinn

PAGE 3

Mark Whitney Peebles 1993 ______________________________________ __ All Rights Reserved

PAGE 4

DEDICATION To my mother, Nina Elisebeth Peebles, and my father, Harold Thomas Peebles without whose love and support I could not have finished this dissertation.

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by U.S. National Science Foundation Grants OCE8613912, OCE-890040 awarded to Albert C. Hine and Pamela Hallock. I thank the donors of the Gulf Oceanographic Trust; who's Fellowship bought the computer and many of the programs that I used in my research and writing, paid for membership in several professional organizations and greatly expanded my scientific library. I also would like to thank all of my friends who have made my stay at the Marine Science Department both enjoyable and educational. I especially recognize the contributions of the following people. Tonya Clayton served as an editor for many of my class papers, projects and dissertation. She is the rock who helped me through many problems. Tonya, along with Bob Byrne, helped keep my sanity by making sure I took numerous canoe and camping trips. Lynn Leonard, Marc Frischer and Eric Wright provided a safe haven and a party house for those times when needed. Marc helped create new ideas and solve many problems in numerous late (late) night discussions. Tony Greco helped tremendously by giving me freedom on the SEM and by correcting all of the mistakes I made while using it; and by helping me get the best pictures out of the dark room. Finally I would like to recognize Pamela Hallock Muller, who served well above her responsibilities as my major advisor. She is a colleague and a friend, and has helped me to advance further than I thought possible I thank Albert Hine and Stan Locker for introducing me to Macintosh computers. Dr. Hine provided free and easy access to all of his equipment (and literature), and Dr. Locker answered many questions and problems while I was learning to use the Mac. John Compton provided a wonderfully new XRD and the best polarizing microscope in the department. Gene Shinn and Lisa Robbins provided many useful suggestions for my research and for the final manuscript.

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONfENTS LIST OFT ABLES tv LIST OF FIGURES v ABS1RACT Vlll CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Previous Work 6 A Brief Overview of Bahamian Sedimentation 8 CHAPTER2. CARBONATESEDllJENTOLOGY 11 Introduction 11 Methodology 11 Results 14 S e dimentary Facies 18 Surface Features and Sedimentary Cover 29 Data from Lithified Sediments 29 Discussion 29 Sedimentary Facies 29 Differences with other environments 38 Similar Deposits in the Fossil Record 40 CHAPTER 3. ENCRUSTED GRAINS AND FORAM-ALGAL NODULES 42 Introduction 42 Methodology 43 Results 45 Discussion 53 CHAPTER 4 DISTRIBUTION OF FORAMINIFERA 55 Introduction 55 Methodology 55 Results 57 Discussion 69 Assemblage Distributions 69 i

PAGE 7

Foraminiferal Assemblages of a CurrentDominated System 72 CHAPTER 5 TAPHONOMY OF FORAMINIFERA 76 Introduction 76 Taphonomy of Foraminifera 76 Methodology 78 Results 81 Nicaraguan Rise Taphofacies 98 Taphofacies Ia 93 Foraminifera 93 Taphonomic attributes 93 Sediments 94 Associated fauna 94 Taphofacies Ib 94 Foraminifera 94 Taphonomic attributes 95 Sediments 95 Associated fauna 95 Taphofacies II 95 Foraminifera 95 Taphonomic attributes 95 Sediments 96 Associated fauna 96 Taphofacies III 96 Foraminifera 96 Taphonomic attributes 96 Sediments 96 Associated fauna 96 Discussion Taphonomic Attributes 97 Comparison with Florida Keys Bahamas and Jamaica 99 CHAPTER 6. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION 105 Nicaraguan Rise Depositional Environments: a Synthesis 105 Similar Depositional Environments Modem Examples 111 Halimeda Biohenns 111 Foraminiferal algal Nodules 112 Mod e m Facies Trends 114 Ancient Examples 117 Paleozoic 117 Mesozoic 119 Cenozoic 121 Conclusion 122 Suggestions For Future Research 123 11

PAGE 8

REFERENCES 124 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER DATA 137 APPENDIX2. GRAIN SIZE INCLUDING GRAIN SIZE REPLICATES 144 APPENDIX 3 CONSTITUENTS 147 APPENDIX4. FACIES 164 APPENDIX 5. MUD MINERALOOY OF SELECTED SAMPLES 165 APPENDIX6. TOTAL TIIIN SECTION POINT-COUNT DATA 167 APPENDIX? FORAMINIFERA ALIVE AT TIME OF COLLECTION 168 APPENDIX 8 TOTAL (LIVE+ DEAD) FORAMINIFERA 170 APPENDIX9. REFERENCES ILLUSTRATING FORAMINIFERAL SPECIES NOT FIGURED 182 lll

PAGE 9

UST OF TABLES Table 1. Twenty most abundant species alive at time of collection and twenty most abundant of combined total living and dead benthic species excluding all benthic fragments, planktic species and planktic fragments 58 Table 2. Summary of sample data showing depth, diversity indicators, density percentage and grain size. density is calculated using the average weight from six samples and the measured volume from all samples 71 Table 3. Criteria used to taphonomically rank individual specimens 80 Table 4 Number of specimen s analyzed for each sample along with diversity (a-fischer index) and grain size. 92 lV

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of study area in the Caribbean Sea 2 Figure 2 Comparison of bank depths between Little Bahama Bank and several platfonns of the Nicaraguan Rise. 4 Figure 3 Platfonns of the Nicaraguan Rise. 5 F i gure 4 Lithofacie s dis tribution of Great Bahama Bank. 10 Figure 5. Ships lines used for bathymetry and isopach maps. 13 Figure 6. Location of surface sediment grab-samples. 15 Figur e 7. Bathymetric map of the study area, including CTD sampling stations and dominant wind and current directions. 16 Figure 8 Plots of fluor e scence (bold line), temperatu r e (dotted line) and salinity from CTD sampl e sites shown in Figure 2. 17 Figure 9 lllustration of common constituents 19 Figure 10. Average grain size and constituents of fine sand (FS) facies. 21 Figure 11. Grain size and constituents of medium sand (MS) facies 23 Figure 12. Grain size and constituents of coarse sand (CS) facies 24 Figure 13. Grain size and constituents of gravel (G) facies 25 Figure 14. Grain size and constituents of bimodal (B) facies. 26 Figure 15. Distribution of sedimentary facies. 27 Figure 16. Average mud min e ralogy from selected facies 28 Figure 17. Example of mud taken from a margin slope. 30 v

PAGE 11

Figure 18. 3.5 kHz seismic data used to construct surface sediment maps. 31 Figure 19. Surface sediment map of seaways and slopes. 33 Figure 20. Surface sediment map of banktops. 34 Figure 21. Point counts of Halimeda grainstones and chalks. 35 Figure 22 Examples of Halimeda grainstones and chalks. 36 Figure 23. Distribution of Halimeda bioherms and foraminiferal-algal nodules. 44 Figure 24. Typical nodules from Thunder and Lightning Knolls. 47 Figure 25. Thin-sections of nodule nuclei. 48 Figure 26. Example of a thrombolite (microbial cement). 49 Figure 27. Calcified microbial sheets 50 Figure 28. SEM photos of most common encrusters. 51 Figure 29. Encrusting organisms forming the outer layer of 100 nodules 52 Figure 30. Principle nodule formers 52 Figure 31. Shapes of nodules, by percent of total 53 Figure 32 Grab samples used for foraminiferal distribution study 59 Figure 33. A) Amphistegina gibbosa, apertural view. B) A. gibbosa, side view C) Asteregerina carinata, apertural view. D) Neoconorbina terquemi, spiral view E) N. terquemi, apertural view. F) Archaias angulatus. G) Comuspira antillarum. H) Planorbulina acervalis, attachment surface I) Caribienella polystoma, apertural view. J) C. polystoma, spiral view. K) Homotrema rubra. L) Cassidulina laevigata, apertural view. M) C. laevigata spiral view. N) Rosalinafloridana, spiral view. 0) R. jloridana apertural view 60 VI

PAGE 12

Figure 34. A) Triloculina tricarinata, side view B) T. carinata, apertural view C) Rosalina bradyi, spiral view D) R bradyi, spiral view. E) Discorbis rosea, apertural view. F) D. rosea, spiral view G) Placopsolina confusa. H) IAevipeneroplis proteus, side view n L. proteus, apertural view. J) Triloculina trigonula, side view. K) T. trigonula, apertural view. L) Siphonoperta sp .. M) Gypsina plana N) Cibicides refulgens, dorsal view. 0) C. refulgens spiral view. 0) Miliolinella subrotunda, side view. 62 Figure 35. Foraminiferal assemblages alive at time of collection. 64 Figure 36. Total foraminiferal assemblages. 66 Figure 37. Percentage, by life-habit morphotype, of twenty most abundant benthic species, by total cluster group 68 Figure 38 Ternary plot of porcelaneous, hyaline and agglutinate tests. 68 Figure 39 Summary diagram of criteria to differentiate temperate and subtropical benthic assemblages. 70 Figure 40. Specimens of Amphistegina gibbosa illustrating rank I up to rank IV corrasion 82 Figure 41. Illustration of foraminifera taphonomically ranked according to the criteria of Table 3. 83 Figure 42. Soritid fragments and encrustation. 84 Figure 43. Taphonomic attributes of taphofacies of planktic specimens. 85 Figure 44A. Taphonomic summary of all samples and subsamples. 86 Figure 44B. Taphonomic summary of common species. 88 Figure 45. Specimens illustrating taphonomic attributes of taphofacies I. 8 9 Figure 46. Specimens illustrating taphonomic attributes of taphofacies II 90 Figure 47 Repaired tests and signs of predation. 91 Figure 48. Idealized profile of Nicaraguan Rise banks showing distribution of taphofacies 93 Figure 49. Underwater photographs of Serranilla Bank. 106 vu

PAGE 13

Figure 50. Idealized stratigraphic column showing distribution of reef and bioherm builders through the Phanerozoic Figure 51. Complex nodules collected near Halimeda bioherms off of Rosalind Bank. V1ll 106 119

PAGE 14

CARBONATE SEDIMENTOLOGY AND FORAMINIFERAL ECOLOGY OF DEEP CURRENT-SWEPT PLATFORMS, NORTHERN NICARAGUAN RISE, CARIBBEAN SEA by MARK WHITNEY PEEBLES An Abstract A dissertati o n submitted to in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Marine Science University of South Florida December 1993 Maj o r Professor: Pamela Hallock Muller Ph. D ix

PAGE 15

The Northern Nicaraguan Rise is a structural high located between the Nicaraguan Honduran coast and Jamaica. Its location directly south of the Cayman Trough spreading center make this a tectonically active area as recorded by abundant mass gravity flows and meggabreccias from Bawihka Channel in the west to Walton Basin in the east The Caribbean Current, which accelerates as a western boundary current over the Nicaraguan Rise, influences both physical and biological aspects of the sedimentary regime on banktops, margins and seaways. Caribbean Current velocities often exceed one meter per second in the open seaways between banks. Current flow is predominantly to the northwest, with southward trending eddies both north and south of the study area Easterly trade winds blow year round but are interrupted by strong northerly fronts up to twenty times a year during winter and early spring, which can result in southeastward flow High current velocities promote topographic upwelling though surface salinities and temperatures are normal for tropical-subtropical oceanic waters. Previous studies have shown that surface waters in the vicinity and north of the banks carry consistently higher chlorophyl concentrations than in waters off northern Jamaica. Resultant trophic resources support sponge-algal dominated benthic communities with Halimeda bioherms. Halimeda bioherms sediments are primarily gravel-size, with most of the gravel consisting of individual and aggregated Halimeda segments Foraminiferal-algal nodules are associated with the Halimeda bioherms, as well as covering the interiors of Thunder and Lightning Knolls These carbonate nodules are formed by the foraminifer Gypsina plana along with numerous other organisms including coralline algae, bryozoans and other benthic foraminifera. Sediments covering the interior of the two largest banks consist primarily of sand, with little mud Constituents are dominated by worn and abraded Halimeda segments Accessory constituents are cryptocrystalline grains, benthic foraminifera and coralline algae with other less abundant constituents Non-skeletal grains are notably absent X

PAGE 16

The mix of sedimentologic and taphonomic features of Nicaraguan Rise sediments closely resemble certain fossil facies. Halimeda bioherm s are very similar to phylloid algal mounds of the Late Paleozoic. Abundant encrustation and l ac k of large frame builders are similar in many ways to sponge-algal reefs of the late Paleozoic Middle Jurassic and the Paleocene. Complex carbonate nodules may provide paleobathymetric indicators for depths greater than 20 m. Understanding the distiibution of Nicaraguan Rise sediments can aid in predicting sedimentologic tr e nds and structures in similar ancient sediments, and could possibly provide clues to the fluctuation of the nutiicline in ancient environments. Abstract Approved: Major Professor : Pamela Hallock Muller, Ph D Profes sor, Department of Marine Science Date Approved:-------------------Xl

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Much of what we know about carbonate platform sedimentation has been described from investigations in shallow, clear seas: To swim with snorkel or aqualung over the carbonate sediments of a shallow sea is to watch at first hand the process of sedimentation .... The general impression is, above all, one of vigorous life of corals, algae, sea-grasses, sponges, alcyonarians, bryozoans, echinoderms, tunicates, forarniniferids, diatoms, molluscs, burrowing decapods and fish and of the complex influence of these organisms on the formation and distribution of sediments (Bathurst, 1975, p. 94) 1 Indeed, the interpretation of ancient depositional environments and development of facies models relies strongly upon observations from recent carbonate shelves and banks (James, 1984) : those of the Bahamas are the best known (Bathurst, 1975). Although Bahamian environments have served as the principle model for many interpretations of ancient platform environments, all carbonate platform sediments are not deposited in Bahamian type settings To make accurate interpretations, it is desirable to have information from as many modern environments as possible. The focus of this dissertation is to describe carbonate sedimentation from an environment that is decidedly non-Bahamian-the relatively deep, current-swept platforms of the Northern Nicaraguan Rise. Northern Nicaraguan Rise is a large topographic and structural-tectonic feature (Arden, 1975) located in the northwestern portion of the Caribbean plate (Figure 1) It is bordered on the north by the active transform faultspreading center of the Cayman Trough (Mann and Burke 1984; Rosencrantz et al, 1988 ; Mann et al 1990) and on the south by a presently inactive transform fault, the Hess Escarpment (Burke et al, 1984) Location in an active tectonic environment may explain the abundance of large scale megabreccia sh e dding off platforms w i th very low relief (180 -250m, Hine et al, 1992),

PAGE 18

2 OEPTH IN METEAS Figure 1 Location of Study Area in the Caribbean Sea

PAGE 19

as well as provide a partial explanation for the overall greater depth of these platforms as compared to banktop depths of the Bahamas (Fig. 2). Perhaps the single most important environmental factor affecting carbonate sedimentation in this tropical environment (Roberts and Murray, 1983; Hallock et al .. 1988; Hine et al., 1988) is the strong, turbulent flow of the Caribbean Current, a portion of the North Atlantic western boundary current (Molinari et al., 1981). In addition to subjecting the banks to a persistent, strong northwestward flow, interaction of the current with the banks produces topographic upwelling visible in CZCS satellite images (Hallock and Elrod, 1988). Additional physical energy to the banktops comes from a persistent ocean swell arising from the dominant easterly Trade Winds (Dolan, 1972) The study area is concentrated on the banktops, slopes and seaways of four banks: Rosalind Bank, Diriangen Bank, Thunder and Lightning Knolls (Fig. 3) Rosalind and Diriangen Banks are relatively large linear banks defined by narrow seaways Thunder and Lightning Knolls are much smaller platforms located at the terminus of Diriangen Channel. The shallowest area lies along the southern margin of Rosalind Bank where depths as shallow as 17 m can be found. The rest of the banktops lie at depths from 30 to 60 m. A sharp shelf break occurs at approximately 60 m on all of the banks Tidal influence is unknown, but probably does not reverse the northwesterly flow as it does on Pedro Bank to the east (Hallock and Elrod, 1988) 3 The primary objective of this dissertation is to describe the sedimentary environments of these deep, possibly "drowning" platforms. Are there features caused by the strong currents or open ocean swell? According to James (1984 p 209), carbonate sediments are born, not made What organisms give birth to Nicaraguan Rise sediments? Are there distinctive assemblages of c e rtain characteristic fauna Are these assemblages different from assemblages typical of other carbonate depositional environments? What is the contribution by non-skeletal grains, which are common in other tropical areas? Finally,

PAGE 20

Little Bahama Bank Pedro Bank 0 0 20 20 . ...... : : . : .=: .. i .. ; .. .. ..... + .... .. 40 .. . -,.,: 40 Serranilla Bank 0 20 40 Rosalind Bank Bawihka Bank 0 0 20 40 60 Figure 2. Comparison of bank depths between Little Bahama Bank with several platforms of the Nicaraguan Rise Pedro Bank is closest to Jam aica, and has active coral algal sedimentation, each of the remaining platforms are respectively further west and each has less Bahamian" character. 4

PAGE 21

5 Nicaraguan Rise Study Area ...... ..... 40 20' 40 20 80 10 Fi g ur e 3 Pl a tform s of the Nicarag uan Ri se st ud y area

PAGE 22

are there any distinctive taphonomic signatures that can be used to differentiate these sediments? Previous Work 6 Hallock and Elrod (1988) investigated chlorophyll concentrations over Nicaraguan Rise platforms based on Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) images from the NIMBUS-7 satellite. Topographic upwelling was detected downstream from the platforms, as were regional blooms produced by frontal incursions. These strong northerly wind systems regularly reverse flow of surface waters over the banks between the months of October and April. Platforms of the Nicaraguan Rise cross a coral reef turn on turn off point (terminology of Buddemeier and Hopley, 1988) with coral reef development occurring on Pedro Bank to the east, but not on Serranilla Bank (Triffleman et al 1992) A gradient in benthic communities was noted, based on data from two cruises (May, 1987 and MarchApril, 1988, both aboard R.V. Cape Hatteras). The benthic community changes westward from the reefbuilding, mixed coral-algal community on Pedro Bank, to sponge algal dominated benthos on the westernmost platforms (the study area) This trend is due to the increase in inorganic and organic nutrient resources available to western banks as a result of topographic upwelling of relatively rich subsurface waters. By contrast, Pedro Bank is mostly influenced by North Atlantic surface water that has entered the Caribbean through the Windward Passage between Cuba and Hispaniola (Hallock et al., 1988a; Hallock and Elrod, 1988). Increase in nutrient resources causes a variation in benthic communities away from plant-animal symbioses dominated communities such as coral reefs to plant dominated communities, such as Halimeda bioherms (Birkeland, 1987).

PAGE 23

7 Halimeda bioherms along margins of the Nicaraguan Rise were the first to be described in the Caribbean (Hine et al., 1988). Many questions were posed based on these sedimentary features. Do they only occur in the western Caribbean and if so, why ? Are the mounds a thin veneer of sediment or do they represent vertical accretion? Were the bioherms a c tive during lowstands of sea level? The question of sea level influence was answered at least in part, by Glaser and Drexler (1991), who noted sizable rates of sediment production during highstands. They described periplatform wedges along the upper slopes of Pedro Bank, showing that deposition of the wedges correspond to periods of sea-level highstand They noted that though the platforms of the study area are not keeping pace with sea-level, they are producing significant amounts of sediment, which is transported to the deep, surrounding basins. Estimated carbonate sediment production of the Nicaraguan Rise platforms (49-56 million tonslkm) are of the same order of magnitude as fine sediment production of the Great Bahama Bank (Glaser and Droxler, 1991). Serranilla Bank located just to the east of the study area ( Fig. 1), was found to have a thin accumulation of Halimeda-molluscan dominated sediments (Triffleman et al, 1992) Mu c h of the sediment production is washed off of this small platform by the strong currents Sediment loss is facilitated by the lack of active frame-building communities. The foraminiferal assemblage in the thin sediment veneer is dominated by Discorbis rosea over much of the bank, although this type of assemblage is typically associated only with bank margins over the rest of the Caribbean and the Bahamas (Triffleman et al, 1991) Harris (1992) found that the margin sediments of Bawihka Bank are Halimeda dominated Seaway deposits are a complex mixture of bank-derived muds and coarse sediments from mass-flow deposits in the central areas of the seaway. Pteropods, planktic and deep water benthic foraminifera dominated the sediments at the mouth of Bawihka Channel. Hine et al. (submitted) documented that the present narrow channel (8 km)

PAGE 24

8 evolved from the infllling of a 50 km wide Eocene basin. Much of the more recent infilling has been by very coarse debris flows and turbidites. Megabreccia shedding from the platforms of the study area is described by Hine et al (1992). Composition of rocks from mass-flow deposits indicate that they are derived from shallow-water deposits This would imply that the megabreccias result from the collapse of the bank-margins This is an especially intriguing result, because the margins of the Nicaraguan Rise platforms have such low relief (180200m) when compared to similar deposits of the Florida Bahamas region (4500 m). It is speculated that these events must have been triggered by seismic activity in this tectonically active region. A Brief Overview of Bahamian Sedimentation It is recognized that the Bahamas are not the only example of a modem carbonate depositional system. South Florida (Vaughn, 1910; Enos and Perkins, 1977), the Great Barrier Reef (Maxwell, 1968), Campeche Bank (Logan, 1969), the Persian Gulf (Purser, 1973), Jamaica (Goreau and Land, 1974), just to name a few, are all excellent examples. However, the Bahama Banks have been the most studied carbonate system in the world, starting with Illing (1954) and continuing to the present (e.g. Wilbur et al., 1990). There is a complex variety of lithofacies on Great Bahama Bank with a number of important features to keep in mind for comparison with Nicaraguan Rise sediments Margins may or may not have rims. On rimmed margins, coral reefs occur both as scattered patch reefs and especially along the windward margins, (Fig. 4). Coral fragments, Halimeda, other calcareous algae, benthic foraminifera and molluscs.make up the bulk of sediments around the reefs Rapid vertical growth of the coral reefs provides a rim on windward margins which acts as an energy barrier to protect shallow-water (<10m) and island sediments. Sediments of the reef proper consist of in situ coral colonies with a thin veneer of coarse sand sediments between the colonies. The backreef, which may shoal

PAGE 25

9 during high tides, has abundant, large fragments of coral, which may be bound together by Millepora or red algae. Biological and physical degradation of sediment particles is rapid, leading to the production of fme sand and mud which is deposited in the lagoon and tidal flats around the islands Unrirnmed margins typically have gentle slopes leading to a sharp break at the edge of the platform. There may be scattered patch reefs or relict reefs from a a lower stand of sea level. Sand shoals and oolite shoals are commonly found on unrimmed margins Non-skeletal grains are an important component over much of the Great Bahama Bank (Fig. 4). Non-skeletal grains include ooids, which are found primarily near the margins but can be found in the interior. Grapestone and peloidal sands cover large portions of the interior, and can be found along the leeward margin. Mud is also an important sedimentary component, covering much of the interior platform leeward of Andros Island (Fig. 4). Much of the mud production of the Bahamas re s ults from the breakdown of calcareous algae. Mud is also produced by whitings, large areas of muddy water often visible in the spring and summer. (For more detailed descriptions there are numerous references, but especially refer to: Newell eta/, 1959 and Purdy, 1963-two of the classic references ; Bathurst, 1975-in depth description of sediments and d e positional environments; Scholle eta/, 1983-comprehensive and colorful; Scoffin, 1987 readable and concise with many h el pful diagrams.)

PAGE 26

... 0 0 Km 20 . 0 Skeletal sand I ' .. Oolitic sand Grape&tone and peloidal sand Mud (+pellet mud) <> 4 I ., I Figure 4. Lithofacies distribution of Great Bahama Bank (from Scoffin 1987). 10

PAGE 27

11 CHAPTER2. Introduction Several features indicative of strong currents are preserved in surface sediment samples taken from five banktops and three open seaways in the west-central portion of the Rise. Carbonate sediments from similar, recent, environments have not received extensive study, but this type of environment may provide useful comparisons for sponge-algal buildups, and/or hardgrounds, which occur sporadically throughout the Phanerozoic. Other well-known tropical carbonate sediments are typically chlorozoan, rich in muds and non-skeletal constituents (Lees and Buller, 1972) Examples include the Bahamas (Purdy, 1963), South Florida (Enos and Perkins, 1977) or Jamaica (Goreau and Land, 1974), which often have coral reefs along the margins. Nicaraguan Rise sediments lack coral reefs and are essentially chloralgal with a strong foramol component. This chapter examines facies distribution in this current-dominated environment. Methodology Field work was conducted in April, 1987 and May, 1988 from aboard the R. V Cape Hatteras. Current data was collected continuously by an acoustic doppler current profiler (ADCP) mounted on the ships hull. Temperature salinity and fluorometry data were collected using a Seabird CTD (conductivity, temperature, depth meter) equipped with a Neil Brown in situ fluorometer.

PAGE 28

12 Depths to seafloor were measured directly from 3 5 KHz seismic data (Fig. 5) using 1500 rn/s as the average speed of sound in seawater. Ship's location was detennined by global positioning Satellite (GPS) and Loran C. High resolution (3 5 Khz) seismic data was also used to calculate depths of surface sediments and to plot the location of other surface features such as sediment waves, biohenns and mass-flow deposits Thickness of surface sediments was calculated using a value of 1800 rn/s as the speed of s o und through unconsolidated marine sediments (Gregory, 1977) Surface sediment samples were collected using a Shipek grab sampler All bottom samples were frozen immediately after collection and kept frozen to preserve protoplasm and pigment color of any benthic foraminifera alive at time of collection One-quarter of each grab sample was used for grain size analysis. Salts were removed by adding deionized water, stirring and decanting off the clear salty water after settling of the fmes; this procedure was repeated three times for each sample. The samples were then dried at between 450 and 6QO C and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. Mter weighing, each s a mple was re-hydrated over a period of at least two days using deionized water, then carefully washed over a 0 063mm sieve, with th e muds saved for later analysis. The remaining sands were shaken for 5 minutes at medium speed on a standard sorting shaker, separating them into the following size fractions : 2mm, 1-2mm, 0.51mm, 0 25 0 5mm, 0.125-0 25mm, and 0 063-0 125mm, <0 063mm (pan) Each size fraction was visually inspected before weighing to judge the completeness of separation (volumetrically large samples were often not completed separated into the respective size fractions) Samples not completely separated were shaken for an additional 3 minutes. Constituent analysis of surface sediment grab samples consisted of randomly identifying 100 particles from each of the following size 2mm, 1-2mm, 0.51mm 0.25-0 5mm, 0 125-0 25mm, and 0.063-0.125mm using standard randomizing

PAGE 29

40' ,-....,.. 1988, sample track /"'-1988, seismic sampling ""'"'""'"' 1987, seismic sampling 0 10 71 -=:J Jan 20' 40' Figure 5. Ships tracks used for bathymetry and surface sediment maps 13 0' 20'

PAGE 30

14 technique (Dennison and Hay, 1967). Some fine-grained samples lacked the gravel size fraction. Rock and nodule samples were analyzed in thin-section by randomly counting 300 constituents, from each thin section Randomness was assured by counting in a line from corner to corner, each individual count was made after the slide was moved along the line without looking through the oculars. Identification was based on illustrations and descriptions from standard texts (Bathurst, 1975; Milliman, 1974; Scoffin, 1987; Scholle, 1978) Mineralogy of muds were identified using a Scintag X Ray Diffractometer. Percent calcite and aragonite were calculated using the peak-area method (Milliman, 1974). Results The locations of all grab samples and dredge sites used in this study are shown in Figure 6. Sediment sampling was concentrated on or near the banktops. The average direction of the Caribbean Current is to the northwest, however, velocities as measured from the ship varied over the study area. Open ocean swell, caused by easterly trade winds, trends to the west-northwest (Figure 7). Appendix 1 contains acoustic doppler current profiles (ADCP) from various locations around the study area Two CTD sampling sites are also shown in Figure 7. Depth profiles from these sites (Figure 8) illustrate salinity temperature and fluorescence changes with depth. Fluorescence changes are caused by varying amounts of chlorophyl i! and serve as an indicator of nutrient availability .. A typical deep-euphotic chlorophyll maximum (e.g. Hallock et al., 1991) is evident at 100 -140m at the open Caribbean location (Fig. 8A), indicating that phytoplankton densities are approximately 3 times higher than in surface waters ( < 40 m) Some stratification is evident at about 50 m. The Diriangen Channel profile (Fig. 8B) shows not o nly the deep euphotic chlorophyll maximum, but evidence of

PAGE 31

Surface Sediment Grab Samples 0 10 3 1 -==:J km ... ... .... .... .... ... ... A ... "'A A "" .a.."' .a.. 15 li' 40' A 20' 1&> 40 40 20' 40' 20' 80' Figur e 6 Locati o n or surfa c e sediment grab-sa mple s

PAGE 32

O cea no grap h y Cunent 74 ADCP ve locitie s (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler) ocean swell CTD sampling location 'ft. 16 1-f 40' 20' le> 40' 020' 20' 81 40' 20' 80 10' 40' Figur e 7. Current s and ope n ocean swell directions Not e that individua l cunent velocities vary in magnitude and directio n hut all generally tr e n ding in a no11hward direction Sites A and B m ark the locatio n of two CTD sampling sites.

PAGE 33

Fluorescence (mg Chi Mm ) 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 0 30 60 90 E' 120 -s 150 Q., Col Q 180 210 240 270 290 I II II I II ji I II phi i I Iii II iii Ji Iii II ill ji iii fi I II I I ---I I I I I r r r r r I 6 r r I I I 35.30 35.90 36.50 37.10 37.70 Salinity (ppt) ,.,.._ 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Fluorescence (mg Chi Mm ) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 I II I I II I II II I II II I I I II I II I II II II I II I II I I I II I I II I II Temperature (C) I .. .. tZ.JQ .r, r I r .r ... I I I II I I 6 ,. .Jl 6 r -r-.1' 0 2! 1211 I eo e e I e I It! 0 0 0 29o ... -......... 37.1o 37.70 Salinity (ppt) Figure 8. Plots of fluorescence (bold line), temperature (dotted line) and salinity (patterned line) from CTD sample sites shown in figure 2. A) Profile from the open Caribbean south of the Nicaraguan Rise showing a pronounced deep-euphotic chlorophyll maximum at approximately 100-140m depth. B) Profile from Diriangen Channel, note the change in the fluoresence scale and the substantially higher Chlorophyll a in the seaway water column between 35 and 90 m depth, indicating some mixing of chlorophyll and nutrient-rich subsurface water into shallower water. Temperature and salinity profiles reflect the mixing by smoothing of the profiles above 90 m as compared to the discernible stratification seen at 50 m in the open Caribbean site (A). ...... -...1

PAGE 34

mixing of deep euphotic chlorophyll into shallower waters (35 80 m depth) ; There is essentially no temperature stratification above 70 m in this profile Sedimentary Facies 18 Sediment textures, quantified as weight-percent grain size for all sediment samples are tabulated in Appendix 2. Samples were sorted according to grain size, based on weight p erce nt in the > 2 mm sieve. Samples which did not group into the very coarse group were then sorted based on the 0.500 mm sieve w eig ht-percent, and so on until all samples were grouped into five different facies based on similar textures (grain size) ; fine sand (FS ), medium sand (MS) coarse sand (CS), gravel (G) and bimodal (B). All of the samples in each facies were tabulated together to obtain an average grain size for each facies Total constituent data for all samples can be found in Appendix 3. Common constituents are illustrated in Figure 9 Sample constituents were grouped into the grain size defmed facies, and all constituents from each size fraction were averaged together to obtain a mean constituent value for eac h size fraction in th e five diff ere nt facies (Appendix 4). Average grain size and constituent values for sediments from th e FS facies are plotted in Figure 10. This faci es is dominated by sands captured on the 0.125mm sieve. Primary constituents are pteropods, planktic foraminifera, cryptocrystalline grains and Halimeda. Note the presence of tunicate spicules in the finest sand fraction. Sediments of the MS facies are relativ e ly well-sorted and centered in the 0 .2 50mm size fraction. Constituents are overwhelmingly dominated by Halimeda and cryptocrystalline grains, with accessory aggregate-grains, red algae and benthic foraminifera (Fig. 11) Sediments of the CS facies are al so well sorted, but are centered in the 0.500mm size fraction. Constituents are also similar to th ose of the MS facie s, but n ote that th ere are

PAGE 35

Figure 9. A) Halimeda segment encrusted by serpulid worm tubes, small patches of red algae, and the benthic foraminifer Homotrema rubra. In samples dominated by gravel size sediments Halimeda is the dominant constituent. Approximately 50% of all Halimeda segments are encrusted by one or more organisms. All scale bars are 0.5 mm. B) Example of an aggregate grain composed of several cryptocrystalline grains. Sediment counts were made with reflected light, although many grains appear e d skeletal in origin, they could not be identified to source. C) Crustose forms are the most common specimens of bryozoans. D) Pteropods are common in open seaway sediments. Common benthic and planktic foraminifera are illustrated in chapters 4 and 5

PAGE 37

2 1 100 90 80 70 60 '...) a 50 c.. -40 "@; 30 ;?; 20 1 0 0 6 'B 6 E E E N II") II") II") (-<) A 0 N N \0 0 0 0 0 .sieve s ize 45 40 35 30 E 25 C.) i:! 20 15 10 5 0 B F igur e I 0 A. Average grain of sand facies. Bars in center of columns n:prl.!sent standard ckv i atio n (n = 15). B Average constituents by sieve size (see Appendix 5 for st:.mdard

PAGE 38

higher percentages of benthic foraminifera in the MS facies (Fig. 12). Also note the presence of gorgonian spicules in the fmest sand fraction (0.063mm) in this and the MS facies. 22 The G facies has by far the coarsest grain size and poorest sorting. The dominant constituent is again Halimeda, which forms more than 70% (on average s d. 24, see Appendix 4) of the >2mm size fraction The accessory constituents are also red alga, benthic foraminifera, cryptocrystalline and aggregate grains (Fig. 13). Note that echinoderms, bryozoa and worm tubes are found more consistently than in either the MS or CS facies. The B facies has two dominant grain sizes, gravel and 0.125mm sands (Fig.14) Note that pteropods and planktic foraminifera are relatively common, along with the constituents of the coarser-grained facies. The distribution of the samples within each grain size is illustrated in Figure 15. Note that the G facies is found most commonly on the margins, and on Thunder and Lightning Knolls The F facies is confined to the seaways and the B facies is found either in the seaways or at the base of the margins. The MS and CS facies are found away from the margins on the two largest banks, Diriangen and Bawihka. Mud mineralogy (percent aragonite, percent low and high magnesium calcites) for selected samples is tabulated in Appendix 5. Figure 16 illustrates that there are only slight differences in the mineral percentages from the FS, CS, G, and B facies. The most apparent difference is that the percentage of low-magnesium calcite is higher in the FS and B facies than in the G or C facies. Muds from the banks all look similar (Fig. 17), composed primarily of broken down larger grains with few aragonite needles.

PAGE 39

100 23 90 80 70 i 60 () 50 .... 40 .::::: 30 20 10 0 E E E E V) E C"l E "0 N "' :::1 E E E E E 0 E E N V) V) 0 0 0 N 0 A. sieve s iz e 50 45 40 35 30 E
PAGE 40

24 100 90 80 .... 70 c:: 60 Q) 50 8. .... 40 -= 01) 30 "Q) 20 10 0 V) s e '8 ('ol ...... s e e ('ol ...... V) V) 0 0 0 ('ol 0 A sieve size 60 50 40 l 30 20 1 0 B. I Figure 12. 1A. Average g r ain size of coarse san d f a cies B ars i n cen ter of colum n s represent sta nd ar d d eviatio n ( n = 28) B. A verage constit u e n ts b y sieve size (see A ppendix 5 for standard deviatio n s)

PAGE 41

80 70 60 50 ... 5 & ... 'Q) A. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 e e C'l -\I") 0 25 e \I") (f'l e 1 C'l 8 e -e \I") 0 0 C'l 0 sieve size 1 40 B. 30 20 10 0 ..-;;&;;;;;;.JL:::J Figure 13. A Average grain size of gravel facies. Bars in center of columns represent standard deviation (n = 35). B. Average constituents by sieve size (see Appendix 5 for standard deviations)

PAGE 42

26 100 90 80 .... 70 = 60 50 & .... 40 a "Q) 30 20 10 0 s V) 'B N 8 s ..... s N ..... V) V) 0 0 0 N 0 A. sieve size 60 50 40 i 30 20 10 B. Figure 14 A Average grain size of bimodal facies Bars in center of columns represent standard deviation (n = 10). B. Average constituents by sieve size (see Appendix 5 for standard deviations).

PAGE 43

Sedimentary Facies Grain Size eGravel GCoarse sand Medium sand OFine sand $Bimodal: gravel and sand lll -=::J km 0 g 0 0 o o a c:>o % 27 l'fl 40' 20' 40' 40' 20' 40 20' 80' Figur e 15. Distribution of sedimentary facies. Note that the FS and B facies occur either in the seaways or on the slopes G facies are found only near the margins. MS and CS facies are found only on the large banktops.

PAGE 44

100 100 90 Bimodal Facies 90 Fine Sand Facies 80 80 70 70 60 60 C! C! 50 50 & & 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 B B 00 B B 00 a a -a A. 0 Cil B. 00 u u 100 100 90 Gravel Facies 90 Coarse Sand Facies 80 80 70 70 60 C! ..... 60 50 1: 50 & 40 & 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 B B 00 0 B 00 a a -a C 0 D. 8 c;; 00 u u Figure 16. Average mud mineralogy from selected facies; A) F facies, B) B facies, C) CS facies, D) G facies. In all cases % calcite equals percent low magnesium calcite and % Mg calcite equals percent high-magnesium calcite. Note that the two deeper water faces (A and B) have higher percentages of low-magnesium calcite 28

PAGE 45

29 Surface Features and Sedimentary Cover Examples of seismic profiles (3. 5kHz) used to construct the surface sediment map are illustrated in Figure 18. Sediment thicknesses and distribution of surface features on the seaways are illustrated in Figure 19 and on the banktops in Figure 20. Note the wide distribution of debris flows in the seaways (Fig. 19). Halimeda bioherms are only found only along margins (Figs. 18 and 20) and sediment waves are found only on the three largest banktops. Data from Lithified Sediments Appendix 6 contains the raw data from point counts of 10 samples. Average values from 8 Halimeda grainstones are shown in figure 21. Note the similarity in the constituents when compared to the G facies An average of 2 chalk samples (Fig 21) is similar to the F facies, with the glaring lack of Halimeda Photographs from both Halimeda grainstones and chalks are illustrated in Figure 22. Discussion Sedimentary Facies Evidence for the influence of physical energy on these facies is ubiquitous The prevalence of sands and gravels, scarcity of muds, and paucity of fragile sedimentary constituents like pellets are all indicative of the effects of trade wind swell and the Caribbean Current. The FS facies is one of two deepwater facies defmed in this study. All of the samples in this facies are confmed to the seaways (Fig 15). This facies has the smallest sand sizes and the largest percentage of mud of any of the facies (Figs. 10-14), an indication that virtually all of the muds are washed off of the banktops by the high energy regime.

PAGE 46

30 A B Figure 17. A) Mud taken from a margin slope shows banktop derived and planktic constituents, note Halimeda? fragments (H) and tunicate spicules (f). Scale= 50 B) High magnification view of A, note coccoliths (C), and relatively few carbonate spicules. Scale = 5

PAGE 47

a m .. : ,.. ; . .. _:_! ..... :... ---------------75m Lightning Knoll .. ----+---------------------._ __ ___ ___ __ :::s J:: !&. 1 I 0 1 lcm debris flo ws A. F ig ure 18. Examples of 3.5 kHz seismic data used to construct surface sediment maps A ) Channel between Thunder and Lightning Knolls showing bioherms at the top of the slope and debris flows at the bottom. B) Hemipelagic sediments north of Thunder Knoll C) Assymetrical sediment waves from Rosalind Bank

PAGE 48

32 75m--Thunder Knoll 0 lkm 150m--. -;.. -:-!-Jif-lf!-.-.;-P.J. --._J!:U&--4$-1-N-:B. a 11 . .... -----...... -... ,. .. ,. ... -"-' # -........... . --. -. .. . . . -. : !:::! sediment waves -c. 0 1 km

PAGE 49

Open Seaway and Slope Surface Sediments 5:'a debris now g::g < 2m (below seismic resolution) hemipelagic sediments interlayered rurbidites (> Sm) em 2-Sm .. >10m 33 6" Figure 19 Surface sediment map of seaways and slopes. Sediments ofBawihka channel are described in Harris (1992).

PAGE 50

Bankt op Surface Sediments bioherms waves (S-!Om thick) resolution(< 2m) seismic resolution. .. .. dominated by algal nodules 5-!0m i[(lj>lom 34 20 10 10' 81 40' 20' 20' Figure 20. Surface sedime nt map of banktops. Sediments of B awi hk a c hann el are d escri bed in Harris (1992).

PAGE 51

70 60 50 45 40 35 30 35 Figure 21. A. Point counts of Halimeda grainstones B. Point counts of seaway chalks C14 age obtained for Halimeda grainstones in 027 is 35,910 +1180 BP. Similar grainstones from near Thunder and Lightning Knolls have an age of 8100 + 100 BP, and off central Diriangen Bank 24, 040 + 260 BP). A Halimeda grainstone (018 9440 +90BP) and bulk sediments from northern Bawhika Channel had ages of 1590 + 80, 1030 + 60 BP)

PAGE 52

Figure 22. A) Weathered Halimeda (H) segment, Gypsina plana (GP) and serpulid worm tubes (S) in a lightly cemented grainstone. B) Benthic foraminifera (BF), and echonoderms (E) in a more heavily cemented specimen. Note cement in corticles of Halimeda segments. Field of view equals 4 mm.

PAGE 53

37 Pteropods and planktic foraminifera are the most abundant constituent but banktop derived constituents are also common (Fig. 1 0). Although not common tunicate and gorgonian spicules are found in the smallest size fraction at higher percentages than found on the banktops. The chalks examined in thin section are similar in both grain size and constituents, (Fig. 21). One constituent not found in the chalk samples is Halimeda The absence of Halimeda from the chalks could indicate deposition during a lowstand, when few to no banktop derived constituents are deposited in the basins (Glaser and Droxler (1992) Another possibility is the location of the chalk samples (Fig 6) on the up-current side of Bawhika bank. Shallow -wate r constituents could conceivably only reach the bottom as a result of a debris-flows (otherwise the fme sediments would be swept down-current). All of the FS facies samples were collected on the down-current sides of the platforms. Abundance of shallow-water constituents in chalks could aid in determining current directions in ancient d e posits The MS and CS facies are very similar in many ways except in average grain size. Both facies are found in the interiors (away from the margins ) of the larger platforms and both have similar constituents, primarily Halimeda, cryptocrystalline and aggregate grains. The percentages of bryozoans and worm tube s are almost identical, though low, in each facies. These figures are based on counts of individual grains and do not include organisms encrusting larger grains, thus the occurrences of these organisms is higher than the percentages indicate The surface sediment map (Fig. 19) indicates that the banktops of Rosalind and Diriangen are largely covered by sediment waves or have a seismically unresolveable sediment cover. The diff ere nc e in grain size could thus be a result of collection from either the sediment waves (MS) or th e lag depo si ts between the sediment waves (CS) There is a

PAGE 54

38 difference in the percentages of benthic foraminifera (Figs. 10, 11 ), especially in the larger size fractions This could result from the shapes of some larger benthic foraminifera, which are more prone to transport in sediment waves than other forms (Martin and Liddel, 1991) The gravel facies is found only on bank margins and is often associated with Halimeda bioherms (Fig. 18) or foram-algal nodules (Chapter 3). The most common constituent by far is Halimeda segments ; approximately half of the segments are encrusted by other organisms (Figs. 9, 13). Red algae and benthic foraminifera are more abundant in this facies than in the MS or CS facies Foraminifera alive at the time of collection (Chapter 4) and live Halimeda (bottom camera and ROV observations) were more common in this facies. This indicates that most of the sediment production is on the margins, with less production occurring on the banktop interiors The B facies is most likely the result of debris flows, which are common along all of the bank slopes (Fig 19) Gravel sized sediments dominate bank margins, where debris flows originate, and the 0 125 size fraction is the most abundant grain size of the FS facies Location in an active tectonic region could account for the widespread distribution of debris flows, some of which are composed of extremely large blocks (Hine et al., 1992). Abundant smaller scale debris flows could be a result of high productivity on the banktops, with subsequent transport to the surrounding basins (Glaser and Droxler 1992). Differences with other Carbonate Depositional Environments One group of constituents that is obviously missing in all of the banktop facies is non-skeletal grains (e.g. oolite pellets), which are much more common in other tropical carbonate environments (Purdy, 1963) Indeed the presence of non-skeletal grains is one criterion of tropical carbonate sedimentation (Lees and Buller, 1972) Oolite shoals are

PAGE 55

39 found in areas of the Bahamas with strong tidal currents (Hine, 1977). The absence of oolites from Nicaraguan Rise banktops is most likely the result of their depth along with their high current/open-ocean-swell energy regime Unlike the tidal current dominated regions of the Bahamas, the current regime of the Nicaraguan Rise is more constant and is dominantly in one direction There appears to have been some oolite production in the past, when sea-levels were lower, in the Bawhika channel area. However, no oolites have been detected in thin sections from other regions of the Nicaraguan Rise. The relatively constant high energy could also account for the lack of pellets. Any pellets that form probably disintegrate and are washed away before cementation. Another common constituent of tropical shelves and margins is the presence of coral, which is also notably absent in the sediments of the Nicaraguan Rise. Hallock and Schlager (1986) noted the relationship between nutrient level and the presence or absence of coral reefs. CTD data (Fig 4) and CZCS images (Hallock and Elrod (1988) indicate that there is topographic upwelling as the Caribbean current flows over the banktops. The intermediate nutrient levels of this region may promote growth of Halimeda bioherms and the abundant encrusting biota (Chapters 4 and 5) The lack of muds on the banktops is also a major difference between the Nicaraguan Rise banktops and the Bahamas The obvious reason for this is the high energy regime But there could also be a difference in the production of muds, which are found in only relatively small percentages in the seaways. The Bahamas and Florida are noted for the presence of whitings, which have not been seen to occur over the Nicaraguan Rise platforms Inspection of Nicaraguan Rise muds by SEM show that they are primarily breakdown products and coccoliths with fewer aragonite needles than are found in Bahamian or Floridian muds (e.g., Shinn et al., 1989)., Inspection of the banktop surface sediment maps (Fig 20) show that there are only a few, widespread facies on the banktops; only large-scale sandwaves in the interior and

PAGE 56

40 bioherms along the margin Compare this to the facies map of Purd y ( 1963) for the Bahamas, which has more numerous facies based on differences in grain size and on the presence of non-skeletal grains. Similar Deposits in the Geologic Record Although the sedimentary facies observed on the banks and seaways of the Nicaraguan Rise are not well known as an example of modem carbonate facies, similar kinds of deposits are widespread in the fossil record. Heavily encrusted Halimeda segments are similar in appearance to examples of heavily encrusted shells from the late Paleozoic illustrated in Henbest (1963). This impression was confmned in a discussion with Rachel Wood (pers com, 1993) who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoic sponge algal buildups. She noted that Nicaraguan Rise sediments strongly resemble those from Jurassic and Pennsylvanian sponge-algal buildups. Phylloid algal deposits of the late Paleozoic are also similar to Nicaraguan Rise sediments, particularly the Halimeda bioherms For example, Kirkland et al. (1993, p 119) noted that Halimeda bioherms" ... suggest striking similarities to ancient phylloid algal mounds Halimeda bioherms of the Nicaraguan Rise provide an important modem comparison (Chapter 6) due to their association with a strong current regime and topographic upwelling, a possible aid to hydrocarbon exploration (Kirkland et al., 1993) Similar deposits are not r estricted to the Paleozoic. ''Temperate type" Cretaceous carbonate platforms from Sardinia also have sedimentary deposits similar to Nicaraguan Rise Banks (Carannante and Simone, 1987; Simone and Carannante, 1988) These platforms had foramol (Lees and Buller, 1972) or rhodalgal sediments; constituents included foraminifera, bryozoans molluscs and red algae (Carannante e t al., 1988) and drowned in the Late Cretaceous. The drowning of these platforms was interpreted to result from either a climate-paleolatitudinal shift or a change in the current patterns resulting in

PAGE 57

41 increased nutrient levels which shifted sedimentation from chlorozoan to rhodalgal-foramol (Carannante and Simone 1987) Sponge-algal reefs are also found in southwestern Alabama in the Paleocene Salt Mountain Limestone (Bryan, 1991) Many of the sediments in this formation have a foram algal-bryozoan assemblage, along with locally abundant sponges, similar to the dominant encrusters of the Nicaraguan Rise The low diversity, heavily encrusted reefs of the Salt Mountain Formation are interpreted to reflect the response of opportunistic sponge algal communities to the late Cretaceous mass extinctions of reef communities (Bryan, 1991). Sections of the Bridgeboro Limestone an Oligocene rhodolith and coral bearing limestone strongly resemble some Nicaraguan Rise margin sediments, especially those from the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area (Bryan and Huddlestun, 1991). Similarities include deposits containing primarily rhodolith s with other sections of the Bridgeboro containing larger foraminifera Thunder and Lightning Knolls are dominated by foraminiferal algal nodules (Chapter 3 ) and Amphistegina gibbosa a common larger foraminifer. The Bridgeboro Limestone was deposited along the margins of the Suwanee Strait, through which flowed the Paleogene Florida current, which was also a western boundary current.

PAGE 58

42 CHAPTER 3 FORAMINIFERAL-ALGAL NODULES Introduction One of the most striking sedimentologic features of Nicaraguan Rise platforms is the abundance of encrusted grains and foraminiferal-algal nodules (carbonate nodules formed primarily by foraminifera). This abundance of encrustation is reminiscent of Paleozoic and-or Jurassic sponge algal facies assemblages (See Chapter 2) For example, the Pennsylvanian and Permian were periods where foraminiferal-algal colonies are commonly found (e.g Henbest, 1963) and the Jurassic is a period with abundant sponge-algal reefs (with abundant secondary encrusters, e.g., Baria, 1982). Encrustation is prevalent in certain areas of the Nicaraguan Rise, in many cases, sponges are overgrown by encrusting organisms (Hallock et al., 1988a) Earlier studies, based on nodules found at shallower depths ( < 10 m), reported a relationship between environment and growth form Spheroidal nodules with laminar growth occurred in turbulent areas Flattened forms, especially those that were columnar or branching, were found in areas of less water movement (Bosellini and Ginsburg, 1971). Glynn (1974) related growth form to bioturbation of underlying sediments Logan et al. (1969) reported that storms are responsible for shaping nodules in deeper-lying sediments Bosence (1983) reviewed the occurrence and ecology of shallow-water rhodoliths Foraminiferal-algal nodules have recently been described from other areas of the Caribbean. Prager and Ginsburg (1989) described "for-algaliths" collected from 30m to 60 m depth on the outer shelf of the Florida Keys They concluded that nodule growth is not limited to shallow or turbulent conditions Reid and Macintyre (1988) reached a similar conclusion for nodules from the Lesser Antillean Arc They noted that shape growth-

PAGE 59

43 form, biotic assemblage and diagenetic alteration gave little information relative to turbulent versus quiet water conditions. This study investigates the growth form and composition of foraminiferal-algal nodules and other encrusted grains from a deep-water setting (30 60 m) in an area of strong currents, the northwestern platforms of the Ni c araguan Rise Methodology Grab samples were coll ecte d from areas where abundant nodules occurred ( unpubli s h e d field notes CH0388), Thunder and Lightning Kn o lls and Northern Diriangen Bank. Other sam ple s were found to have scattered nodules, especially gravel samples collected from Halimeda bioherms, but the majority of the samples analyzed in this study came from th e Thunder and Lightning Knolls and North ern Diriangen Bank du e to th e abundance of nodules found in both grab and dredge samples. Due to greater accuracy when plotting sam pling location, grab s ample s from this area were used. Seven samples were collected from Thunder and Lightin g Kn o lls, three from locations n ot directly on th e margin s and four from the margin s one of the margin samples is from a Halim eda bioherm (Fig 23) Two samples were analyzed from Dirian ge n Bank on from directly on th e margin and one from further in th e int e rior (Fig. 23). All sedimentary particles referred to as nodules in this study are grains larger than 1 em in diameter with concentric layers formed completely ar ound an internal nucl eus or nuclei (each lay er is n o t nece ssa rily continuous) Encrusted grains are those grains larger than 1 mm in diam e t e r in which the encrusters do not form concentric lay e rs around the nucleu s (that i s, th e surface of th e original grain has n o t been completely covered). The focus of this chapter is the n o dule s, but in all samples, abundant encrusted grains are found along with the nodul es and they are encrusted by th e same organisms.

PAGE 60

Distribution of Halimeda Bioherms Foraminiferal-Algal Nodules and Sample Sites 40 grab sample dredge sample I ID Jl c:.=::J im 20 44 til 40' 20 40 20' Figur e 23 Distribution of Halimeda bioherms and foraminiferal-algal nodules over the study area and over the study area of Hanis (1992). Eight grab samples and two dredge samples wer e investigated

PAGE 61

45 One hundred nodules were examined and all of the surface encrusters identified, the results were totaled to obtain the average composition of the outermost layer. Each nodule was classified into one of three shapes; spherical, flat or irregular (Reid and Macintyre, 1988) All of the nodules collected from individual grab samples were analyzed, except for one sample from Thunder and Lightning Knolls, S15, which had numerous nodules smaller than those from the other sample sites (the sample was randomly split and-1/2 the nodules counted to reach a total count of 100 specimens analyzed). Composition of the outer layer was tabulated by recording presence-absence of the most common encrusters, which had been identified in preliminary scans of the nodules and encrusted grains The dominant kind of organisms that formed the outer layer was noted for each nodule. Ten nodules, 5 spherical, 3 irregular and 2 flat, were impregnated with resin, under a vacuum, and slabbed for examination of internal structure. Thin sections were made of the margins and centers for a closer examination. Two samples from southern Diriangen Bank were also examined to check for any obvious north-south differences. However, instead of being collected from the bank top, these two samples came from mass flow deposits at the base of the slope (Fig 23). These nodules were analyzed only in thin section. Identification of Gypsina plana is based on illustrations in Tresslar (1974) and Poag and Tresslar (1981). Gypsinaplana has been reported from the Flower Garden Banks (Poag and Tresslar, 1981) as living specimens and as dead specimens from the Campeche Shelf (Logan, et al. 1969) in the Gulf of Mexico. Results Examples of nodules from Thunder and Lightning Knolls and northern Diriangen Bank (Fig 24) illustrate the wide range of shapes present in the samples Nodules from

PAGE 62

46 Thunder and Lightning Knolls are formed primarily by the encrusting foraminifer Gypsina plana, and often form around s ponges or multiple Halimeda segments, producing irregular shapes (Fig. 24). Samples from northern Diriangen Bank contain the only nodules with coral as the nucleus, often have more red algae on the outer surface, and are less irregular in shape than the nodules of Thunder and Lightning Knolls Notice the extensive bioerosion visible on all of the samples (Fig. 24). Nodules that originally formed around sponges are often of lower density, due to the decay of the original sponge material, than nodules formed around a solid nucleus. Sponge spicules can be seen in the centers of many nodules, and in some cases, original sponge network was preserved (Fig. 25A). Micr o bial cements were found in four of the ten nodules examined in thin section. In each of these nodules the microbial cements were found in layers between and within chambers of Gypsina plana and in two samples formed thrombolitic masses (Fig. 26, see also Appendix 6). Structures that may be calcified microbial sheets can be seen on SEM images (Fig. 27). Fine-grained, peloidal cements wer e common in all of the nodules (Figs. 25, 26) There were fewer examples of bladed and fibrous cements, with fibers noted in only two samples, and blade s in four As noted in Chapter 3, approximately 50 % of all Halimeda segments collected were e ncrusted. Virtually all grains larger than 2 em in size show some d egree of encrustation, with the exce ption of fresh gastropod shells. A variety of encrusted grains are illustrated in Figur e 28 Scanning electron images of the common encrusters are shown in Figure 29. Gypsina plana was interpreted to be alive at the time of collection if specimens ex hibited a strong, br own-g reen color (Prager and Ginsburg, 1989). Specimens of this color were found on 10 % of the total nodules. Living specimens were also found on smaller sediment particl es (Chapter 4).

PAGE 63

47 1 2 3 4 5 e emm A 1 2 3 4 5 e emm B Figure 24. A. Typi cal nodule from Thunder and Lightning Knolls and n o rth ern Diriangen Bank. Note Bryo zoa n (Bz) and Gyps ina plana (Gp) B. Cross-section of nodule. Note areac; eroded by sponge (b).

PAGE 64

Figure 2 5 Thin-section s of nodule nu clei. A. N o dul e wit h wh ich initi a ll y formed around a s p o nge, n ote r e mnants o f spicules. B. Nodul e with H alim e da segment as a nucl e u s N ote Carpentaria sp. o n seg m e nt a nd Gypsina plana D ark areas arc micriti c cem e nt s, possih l y o f microbial orig in

PAGE 65

Figure 26. A. Mass of cement with thrombolitic s tructur e (microbial cem ent). B Thin sectio n v iew o f a n o dul e margin, sol e e ncru ster vis ibl e in thi s view i s C y psina plana. Note that the mi c r o bial cement occ ur s o n th e o u te r layer as well as within th e n o dul e

PAGE 66

50 Figure 27. SEM image of an encrusted grain. Note the abundant fine filaments. Scale bar equal 0.5 mm Similar filaments were classified as calcified microbial sheets in Jones and Hunter, (1990) Gyps ina plana was found on the outer surface of 97% of the nodules, and it was found in all of the slabbed specimens (Figure 29 and Appendix 6). Homotrema rubrum, serpulid worm tubes, coralline algae crusts, Comuspiramia antillarum, sponges and Carpentaria utricularis were also found on the majority of nodules (Fig. 29), along with a variety of other, less common constituents. Gypsina plana was visually the principle component of the outermost layers in slightly greater than 70 % of the samples, coralline algae was the dominant component in only 8% (Fig. 30) .. The remaining nodules had more than one dominant component; G. plana and coralline algae, G. plana and bryozoans, or G. plana and sponge. Only three nodules had no specimens of G. plana. Spherical nodules were the most common shape, but flat and irregular nodules are also common (Fig. 31 ). Thirty percent of the total nodules were very irregular in shape,

PAGE 67

A B Figure 28. SEM photos of most common encrusters. A) Halimeda segment with Placopsolina conjusa (Pc), Comuspiramia anti/arum (Ca), Nubeculina divaricata (Nd) and Gypsina plana (Gp), scale= 1 mm. B) Halimeda segment with Nubeculina divaricata (Nd), Nubecularia lucijiga (NI) and Carpentaria utricularis (Cu), scale= 0.5 mm. 51

PAGE 68

"11 ..... (1'Q c:: @ 9 "'0 .., ..... :::s (") .a (1) :::s percent 0 0. c:: (1) 0000 0 00 0' 3 Gypsina (1) .., (I) r edalgae ::;-> 0 3 Gypsinaand (") Red algae 0 c:: :::s Gyps i na and .... 3 Bryozoan p) Gyps ina and 0. (1) 0 Spo nge ........ 3 0 (I) .... (1) :::s .... p) '< (1) :"1 "11 ..... (1'Q c:: @ N :::sm 0 :::s O.n s a (1){1) {1),_ s ::r o (1) .., p)(J'Q (") ::r ..... ,_fl' '<3 "0{1) ..... 0 3 ..... :::s (1'Q ET (1) 0 c:: .., p) '< (1) .., 0 ........ ..... 8 :::s 0 0. c:: (1) .Y' cr '< 'R .., (") (1) :::s ,.... 0 ........ Gypsin a Homotrema red algae crust Com u spiramia bryozoan crust bryozoan branch red algae branc h percent of nodules VI 0 -.l 0 00 0 \0 0 .... 8 Ul N

PAGE 69

53 60 40 II) 8. 20 0 Q "' Figure 31. Shapes of nodules, by percent of total. most often due to formation around more than one nuclei, commonly multiple Halimeda segments (Fig. 25B) The shape appears to be strongly influenced by the nucleus Even classified as spherical or flat often had irregular outer surfaces due to the extensive bioerosion and interactions between the different kinds of encrusters. Disc u ssion Nicarag u an Rise foraminiferal n odules appear to be very similar to nodules described from other, relatively deep (>20m) occurrences (Prager and Ginsburg, 1988; Reid and Macintyre, 1987; Poag and Tresslar, 1981). In each case, the nodules are primarily formed by Gypsina spp., with contributions to nodule growth by numerous other organisms (by comparison nodules formed in shallow waters, are primarily composed of coralline algae, e.g. Bosellini and Gi n sburg 1972). As in other deeper water occurrences, s h apes of Nicarag u an Rise nodules d o n ot appear t6 be rel ated to water motion Altho u gh these are clearly high energy environments, as indicated by the very coarse texture and almost complete lack of mud, flat and irregularly shaped nodules are common (Fig.32). Although shape and taxonomic composition may not indicate relative water motion, accumulations of similar nodules could indicate deposition in carbonate environments where sporadic interaction with waters of the deep c h lorophyll maximum (see Fig. 8) provide relatively abundant nutrient resources. Prager and Ginsburg (1989) described

PAGE 70

54 nodules from the outer shelf of the Florida Keys which could occasionally be subject to topographic upwelling as the Florida Current meanders over the shelf. Similarly, foraminiferal-algal nodules from the eastern Caribbean (Reid and Macintyre, 1987) are located in an area where the Caribbean Current could induce topographic upwelling. We have evidence of topographic upwelling to a depth of 35 m for the Nicaraguan Rise platforms (Fig.8, see also Hallock and Elrod, 1988)), and the nodules are found at depths from 30m to 60 m, as in the two previous examples Obviously, this hypothesis needs to be tested further Do all of the areas of deeper nodule growth occur in relatively nutrient enriched waters fed by interaction with the chlorophyll maximum zone? Does there have to be enough water motion to prevent sediment accumulation, or slow enough sedimentation to allow nodule growth? But we can tentatively predict that this hypothesis may prove to be correct (Chapter 6). if so, what would we look for? The areas of the Nicaraguan Rise where the most abundant nodules are found are modem hardgrounds : there is little sediment accumulation, abundant encrustation by numerous organisms, and heavy bioerosion (Chapter 5). Nodules accumulating here are formed by numerous organisms and there is evidence of bioerosion on many of the nodules themselves. Accumulations such as this should be easy to differentiate from nodule growth at shallower depths that may result primarily from wave and current energy. Shallow-water, high-energy nodules appear to be formed primarily by coralline algae (as are the coralline algal ridges of Pacific Islands, another zone of high energy) Where are similar deposits found in the geologic record? In conclusion, accumulations of complex carbonate nodules formed by numerous organisms on hard grounds may represent areas of increased nutrient availability. In order to test this hypothesis, we need to collect more data from other areas of modem, deep water carbonate nodule growth. Plotting the occurrence of similar deposits in the geologic record could provide a method to track long term changes in the nutrient levels of ancient seas

PAGE 71

55 CHAPTER 4. DISTRIBUTION OF FORAMINIFERA Introduction Benthic foraminifera are typically abundant constituents of shallow-water carbonate sediments (Maxwell, 1968). Nicaraguan Rise sediments are no exception, foraminifera comprise approximately 6 % of banktop and margin sediments (Figs 11-13). Taxonomic distribution i s sensitive to environmental condition, which makes them particularly useful as environmental indicators (e .g. Murray, 1973). Banktops and bank margins of the northern Nicaraguan Rise platfonns represent an unusual carbonate province. This area was first r e cognized as anomalous by Lees (1975), who developed a model to predict carbonate sedimentary constituents based on sea-surface temperatures and salinity. According to this model, the banktops of the rise should contain coral reefs and sediments should be chlorozoan. Instead, reefs are lacking and coral debris is essentially absent from the sediments (Triffleman and others, 1992, Harris, 1992). The western banks are fringed by current-parallel Halimeda biohenns (Harris, 1992) and sediments are dominated by calcareous and coralline algae and reworked clasts. Thus the objective of this chapter is to explain how foraminiferal assemblages reflect this unusual current dominated system. Methodology Immediately after collection, samples were frozen without adding any preservatives, and kept frozen to preserve protoplasm and symbiont pigments until further analysis Fifty grab samples were chosen f or foraminiferal analysi s (Fig. 31) Approximately one quarter

PAGE 72

of each sample was washed with distilled water through a 63 Jlm sieve and dried at 45-5{)0 c. 56 Each subsample was then split into volumes containing approximately three hundred foraminifera and picked for total foraminiferal content (Murray, 1973) All of the larger sand and gravel-sized particles were carefully examined for encrusting foraminifera. Foraminifera alive at time of collection were identified by color in the case of those species with symbionts (e.g., Hallock and others, 1986) For example, individuals of Amphistegina gibbosa, which contain diatom symbionts, have a golden-brown to green color when collected live. Freezing at time of collection preserves symbiont color as well as buffered formalin, with no loss of shell microstructure In addition, many individual specimens without symbionts, such as specimens of Articulina carinata, could be identified by a plug of protoplasm in the aperture because freezing does not cause the protoplasm to shrink. Taxonomy of genera and suborders follows Loeblich and Tappan (1987). Foraminiferal counts were clustered based on the euclidean distance measured from the first three samples encountered in the analysis (Vellerman, 1988) Robustness of clusters was tested by scrambling the order of samples entered for analysis. Analysis of life-habit morphotypes is based on the technique of Langer (1988) and his analysis of Recent epiphytic foraminifera. The definition of larger foraminifera used in this paper is of ... forms normally larger than 2 mm in size", some of which contain algal symbionts (Murray, 1987, p 14) Representative specimens were photographed with an lSI 140 scanning electron microscope using Kodak Tmax 400 ASA film

PAGE 73

57 Results Figure 33 shows the location and depth of each sample Cryptocrystalline grains and Halimeda segments account for almost 70 % of the constituents from the study area (Appendices 3 and 4). Foraminifera comprise 6% (std. dev = 3) by count, of all constituents from the study area. Percentages of species represented by live specimens at collection are listed in Appendix 7 and total percent of each species for each sample is listed in Appendix 8. Figures 34 and 35 illustrate the twenty benthic species represented by the most abundant specimens (Table 1). Appendix 9 provides a list of the references that best describe and illustrate our concept of species not illustrated in this paper. Thirty of the fifty samples analyzed had foraminifera alive at time of collection Sixty out of 155 benthic species were represented by at least one live specimen, the twenty most common species represented by live specimens are listed in Table 1. Cluster analysis of these samples indicates thre e different live assemblages (Fig. 36), L-1, L-2 and L-3 Assemblage L-1 is composed of 20 samples with high percentages of Neoconorbina terquemi, P/anorbulina acervalis and Rosa/ina bradyi. These are attached species that are also common in the total assemblages Rosalina bradyi is commonly found encrusted on other foraminifera, especially soritids and soritid fragments, which are abundant on Diriangen and Rosalind Banks. L-1 samples average nine species (std dev. = 3), the fewest species of the three cluster groups, and include the banktop samples from Diriangen and Rosalind Banks Assemblage L-2 is a cluster of three essentially disparate samples (Fig. 36) having an average of ten species (std. dev = 3). One sample is overwhelmingly dominated by Acervulina inharens (76 % ), one sample has relatively low diversity without a clearly dominant species and the final sample is dominated by Rosa/ina globularis? (56 % ) This form is identical to Tre tomphalus atlanticus, which has been rejected from nomenclature,

PAGE 74

58 Table 1 Twenty most abundant species alive at time of collection and twenty most abundant of combined t otal living and dead benthic species, excluding all benthic fragments, planktic species and planktic fragments. If planktics and fragments are included, soritid fragments are second, Globigerina bulloides is ninth, Globigerinoid e s rube r is eleventh and Globorotalia menardii is fifteenth. Live order of abundance Total Amphistegina gibbosa 1 Amphistegina gibbosa Planorbulina acervalis 2 Neoconorbina terquemi Rosalina jloridana 3 Asterigerina carinata Neoconorbina terquemi 4 Archaias angulatus Rosalina brad yi 5 Planorbulina acervalis Cibicides refulgens 6 Comuspiramia antillarum Tretomphalus atlanticus 7 Cassidulina laevigata Acervulina inhaerens 8 Homotrema rubra Planorbulina mediterranensis 9 Caribeanella polystoma Asterig erina carinata 10 Rosalina jloridana Cibicidoides pseudounger i anus 11 Triloculina tricarinata Carib eane lla p olystoma 12 Placopsolina conjusa Dis corbis rosea 13 Rosalina brad y i Siphonina tubulosa 14 Discorbis rosea Planorbulina sp. 15 Laevipeneroplis proteus Gypsina globula 16 Siphonoperta sp. Placopsolina confusa 17 Triloculina trigonula Ga vel inopsi s praegori 18 G ypsina plana Bolivina pulchel/.a 19 Cibicides refulgens Poroepinoides latera/is 20 Miliolinella subrotunda

PAGE 75

.. Grab Samples used for Foraminiferal Investigations 40' 20' 59 40 20' 81 o 40' 20' soo 10' Figure 32. Grab samples used in both the d i stribut i on (this chapter) and taphonomic investigations of foraminifera (Chapter 5).

PAGE 76

Figure 33. A) Amphistegina gibbosa d'Orbigny apertural view. Scale= 100 All figures are SEM micrographs. B) A. gibbosa, side view. Amphistegina is a genus known to change shape according to physical conditions. A domal shape (opposed to l enticular) is indicative of higher energy conditions. Scale= 100 C) Asterigerina carinata, apertural view. Scale =50 D) Neoconorbina terqu emi (Rzehak:), spiral view. Scale= 50 E) N. terquemi, apertural view Scale = 50 F) Archaias angulatus (Fichtel and Moll). Scale= 100 Jlm. G) Comuspiramia antillarum Cushman, encrusting A. angulatus Scale= 500 Jlm. H) Planorbulina acervalis Brady, attachment surface Scale= 100 I) Caribienella polystoma B ermudez, apertural view. Scale = 50 J.l.m. J) C. polystoma, spiral view. Scale= 50 K) Homotr ema rubra (Lamark), e ncrusting Halim eda segment and serpulid worm tube (lower right comer). Scale = 500 Jlm. L ) Cassidulina laevigata d'Orbigny, apertural view. Scale= M) C. laevigata, spiral view. Scale= 50 Jlm. N) Rosalinajloridana (Cushman), spiral view. Scale= 50 Jlm. 0) R. jloridana, apertural view. Scale= 50 Jlm.

PAGE 78

Figure 34. A) Triloculina tricarinata d Orbigny, side view. Scale= 100 Jlm. B) T. tricarinata, close-up of apertural area Scale= 100 J.lm. C) Rosalina bradyi Cushman, spiral view, attached to a cryptocrystalline grain. Scale= 50 Jlm. D) R. bradyi, apertural view. Scale= 50 Jlm. E) Discorbis rosea (d'Orbigny), apertural view. Scale= 100 Jlm. F) D. rosea, spiral view. Scale= 100 Jlm. G) Placopsolina confusa Cushman, a highly variable encruster. Scale= 100 Jlm. H) Laevipeneroplis proteus (d Orbigny), side view. Scale = 50 Jlm. I) L proteus, apertural view. Scale= 50 Jlm. J) Triloculina trigonula (Lamark), side view. Scale= 50 Jlm. K) T. trigonula, apertural view This species is similar to T. tricarinata, but has a more pronounced, bifid tooth and a more rounded outline than T. tricarinata. Scale = 50 Jlm. L) Siphonoperta sp., side view, this species is similar to Quinqueloculina polygona, especially in reflected light. Scale =50 Jlm. M) Gypsina plana Carter, this is only a fragment of a much larger specimen that had completely encrusted a Halimeda segment. Scale= 500 Jlm. N) Cibicides refulgens Montfort, dorsal view. Scale= 50 Jlm. 0) C. refulgens, spiral view. Scal e = 50 Jlm. P) Miliolinella subrotunda (Montagu), side view. Scale= 100 Jlm.

PAGE 79

63

PAGE 80

Live Assemblages Group 1 .A Group 2 Group 3 64 Figure 35. Distribution of foraminiferal assemblages alive at time of collection. Group 1 is characterized by high percentages of Neoconorbina terquemi, Planorbulina acervalis and Rosa/ina bradyi. Group 3 is characterized by a high diversity assemblage and presence of Amphistegina gibbosa. Group 2 consists of samples which do not cluster into clear groups.

PAGE 81

65 as it is only a stage in the life-cycle of an unknown fonn, according to Hansen and Revets, 1992; in this case, the "unknown fonn" is identical with the Sliter s (1965) description of R. globularis (Appendix 1). Amphistegina gibbosa and the highest average number of species, 13 (std dev = 4), characterize the seven samples of assemblage L-3, all of which are located on bank margins (Fig. 36). Analysis of total assemblages includes all benthic and planktic species and all fragments with abundances greater than three percent. The twenty benthic species represented by the most abundant specimens are listed in Table 1. Cluster analysis resulted in three total groups (Fig. 37). Assemblage T-1 has abundantAmphistegina gibbosa, the highest diversity (62 species, std. dev. = 15, no samples=) and no planktics Assemblage T-2 includes most of the banktop samples with relatively low diversity (42 species, std. dev. = 9, no. samples=), with abundant attached spec i es; some planktic species are represented, along with abundant soritids (Seiglie and others 1976), soritid fragments (Appendix 7) and Discorbis rosea. Group T-3 includes all of the samples (no. samples = 9) which did not fall into a significant cluster and contains a mixture of planktic and smaller benthic species. Life habits of the twenty most common benthic foraminifera are interpreted based on Langer's (1988) epiphytic morphotypes, which indicate whether a species is pennanantly attached temporarily mobile, or pennanently mobile. Pennanently attached species have flat attachment surfaces (Lang er, 1988), which are diagnost i c even if they may fall off after death (e g Planorbulina acervalis ). Otherwise, pennanently attached species are cemented to sand grains or other organisms (e.g Gypsina plana commonly covers whole Halimeda segments) Specimens of temporarily mobile species have wide apertural faces, often with papillae. These fonns move by "swimming" on a pseudopodia! network and can be temporarily attached to the substrate Langer (1988) defined two categories of

PAGE 82

66 Total Assemblages
PAGE 83

67 permanantly mobile species. One category found commonly on the Nicaraguan Rise, has apertures which narrow on a bottle-like neck (e.g., Quinqueloculina), or has multiple apertures (e g Archaias angulatus), and motion is achieved by "striding" on the apertural face upright position. The other category of permanently mobile species extrudes rhizopods from canal openings covering the test and moves by "suspending" the test in a substrate framework (e g., Elphidium, Langer, 1988). Foraminifera of this type are rarely found in Nicaraguan Rise sediments, and are not among the twenty most commonly occurring species. However, Poag, et al (1980) have found some specimens of an Elphidium species that rigidly attach to the substrate by cement. Proportions of each morphotype found in the three major groups identified by cluster analysis (Fig. 37) are shown in Figure 38. In all cases, temporarily mobile species dominate the assemblages. The analysis of foraminiferal assemblages by percentage of the three suborders, Miliolina, Textulariina and Rotaliina (Murray, 1973), can be used to defme different environments. Because recent taxonomic revisions have expanded the number of suborders from five to twelve (Loeblich and Tappan, 1987), we have modified the ternary diagram using the informal categories: porcelaneous, agglutinate and hyaline (Fig. 39). Assemblages from Nicaraguan Rise samples are predominantly hyaline or hyaline and porcelaneous. Agglutinated taxa are uncommon. The samples are plotted by total assemblage clusters. Note that T2 (Fig. 37) plots in two distinctly different areas, porcelaneous species dominate Diriangen and Rosalind Banks, whereas hyaline species dominate Thunder and Lightning Knolls. Figure 40 compares Murray s (1987) subtropical-temperate diagnostic features with those of Nicaraguan Rise assemblages. Murray (1987) cautioned that assemblagesshould be classified as temperate or subtropical based on all of the categories present in the assemblages from any given study area (no assemblage should be classified by a single criterion) Average percentage of Miliolina in Nicaraguan Rise assemblages indicates a

PAGE 84

Permanantly Attatched Planorbulina acervalis Cornuspiramia antillarum Homotrema rubra Placopsolina confusa Cibicides refulgens Gypsina plana Rosa/ina bradyi Neoconorbina ter uemi Temporarily Mobile II Amphistegina gibbosa Asterigerina carinata Cassidulina /aevigata Discorbis rosea Lobatula lobatula Rosa/ina fforidana Permanantly Mobile Archaias angu/atus Laevipeneroplis proteus Miliciine/la subrotunda Siphonoperta sp Triloculina tricarinata Triloculina trigonula 15% 11% 51% group 1 group 2 group 3 Figure 37. Pie diagrams showing morphotype percentage of twenty benthic species with most abundant specimens (Table 1) by total cluster group (see Figure 36). Species used for each morphotype are listed (also see Figures 33 and 34) Morphotype definitions in text. Porcelaneous T 1 68 T -2 Diriangen and Rosalind T-2 Thunder and Lightning T-3 Hyalin e Figure 38. Ternary plot of total (live and dead) po.rce laneous, hyaline and tests. Trend is for higher percentages of hyaline tests than from other tropical and subtropical carbonate envi ronments (Murray, 1972, 1987) plotted by total assemblage group. Not e th e difference between th e eastern and western platforms within T-2.

PAGE 85

69 warm temperate to subtropical region. The characteristics of Quinqueloculina could indicate any of the three regions. Clavulina is a warm-temperate to subtropical indicator. A total of seventeen species of larger foraminifera (defmition of Murray, 1987, 8 of these species are attached) is a defmite tropical indicator. Based on Murray's (1987) criteria Nicaraguan Rise samples cannot be resolved into any one zoogeographic zone when all features are considered. Number of species, a-Fischer index, density(# specimens/g) and grain size are listed in Table 2. Overall species richness, one measure of which is indicated by the a-Fischer index (Murray, 1973), is very high. Discussion Assemblage Distributions Fewer than half the species found in the total assemblages are represented by living specimens (Appendices 6 and 7). Among the species with specimens alive at time of collection, all were also represented by dead tests as part of the total assemblage It is recognized that seasonal sampling is needed to fully describe the distribution of living foraminifera, but some important trends can be identified from these samples. The largest cluster is dominated by three species with permanently attached tests, Neoconorbina terquemi, Planorbulina acervalis and Rosalina bradyi. These species are also found in the other live cluster groups, and are also important constituents of the total cluster groups (Table 1). Members of these species are common in both the bank interior and along the bank margins, encrusting a wide variety of grains. They are especially common on soritids and soritid fragments on Diriangen and Rosalind Banks. L-2 samples are clustered on the basis of their disparity rather than any dominant species (Fig. 36). It is especially evident

PAGE 86

Quinqueloculin < 8 species > 15 species smooth/striate reticulate/undulo 2-80% avg. 33 s. d. 19 70 17 80% 2 40% avg 43 avg 22 s d 24 s. d. 12 11 species 7 species 7 species present present present Clavulina angularislpacijica mc. mexicana Cibicides <20% >20% Larger Forams > 10 species < 5 s ecies .. ...... Cibicides 3 species 0-10% 17 species 0-5% avg.= 1 s d. =1 0-6% avg = 2 s d =2 16 species 17 species present present Figure 39 Summary diagram of criteria to differentiate temperate and subtropical benthic assemblages (adapted from Murray, 1987, p. 17, fig. 1.7), with Nicaraguan Rise values shown for comparison Eastern platforms are Rosalind and Diriangen Banks, western platforms are Thunder and Lightning Knolls in these samples that the distribution of benthic foraminifera can change greatly in a short distance, even in areas that seem to have similar physical and chemical characteristics (Bock et al 1971) As can be seen by the distribution ofL-3, Amphistegina gibbosa is most commonly found alive along the bank margins Differences between the 20 species with most common living and total specimens (Table 1) are most often the result of numerous live specimens at only one or a few stations, but with few of the dead tests distributed elsewhere. Neither Acervulina inhaerens or Rosalina globularis? are among the 20 benthic species represented by the most abundant total specimens, and their high ranking among the live species is the result of th ei r overwhelming predominance in one station each. From this relationship it can be inferred that total counts represent thanatocoenoses. Amphistegina gibbosa is represented by the most abundant and common specimens found in the total assemblages However as in the live groups, the specimens are most abundant along bank: margins (Fig. 37, T 1) T-2 samples are clustered together because of

PAGE 87

71 Table 2. Summary of sample data (Figure 32) showing depth, diversity indicators, density and grain size Density is a calculated value made using an average weight from six samples and the measured volume from all samEles. Sample depth No. a. density gravel coarse fine mud No. (m) species (tests/g ) % sand% sand% % Sl 30 54 20 240 20 55 24 1 Sl 49 77 20 340 67 23 7 3 S3 26 41 11 50 84 12 0 4 S4 209 44 14 1390 0 9 87 4 ss 214 30 8 1210 1 9 87 3 S6 73 48 17 2990 27 32 41 0 S7 34 61 20 290 39 53 8 0 S8 38 41 14 80 62 37 1 0 S9 53 60 20 230 91 7 2 0 SlO 23 69 20 410 86 11 3 0 Sll 36 70 20 150 89 11 0 0 Sll 240 39 13 970 0 IO 89 1 S13 35 59 20 270 73 26 1 0 Sl4 30 35 IO 290 98 2 0 0 SlS 28 37 IO 60 93 7 0 0 Sl6 22I 22 5 2970 I 74 25 0 Sl7 228 41 I3 890 43 45 I2 0 Sl8 26 46 15 80 82 I8 0 0 Sl9 28 36 11 90 9I 9 0 0 SlO 208 34 9 IOO 42 55 3 0 Sll 78 50 I8 4720 36 39 25 0 Sll 35 37 13 60 99 1 0 0 S23 2IO 52 I9 5800 0 6 83 11 S24 163 41 13 3070 4 26 63 7 SlS 191 44 15 2970 0 11 84 5 S26 218 57 20 3070 0 14 80 6 S27 50 60 17 1160 80 13 6 1 S28 33 67 20 610 82 16 2 0 S29 28 40 13 100 95 5 0 0 S30 I98 55 20 1020 31 10 56 3 S31 28 38 11 140 99 1 0 0 S32 296 54 20 37IO 0 7 71 22 S33 30 45 16 240 22 70 5 3 S34 30 4I 12 60 59 39 1 1 S35 26 47 17 220 26 70 2 2 S36 26 50 17 670 8 81 10 I S37 26 39 13 350 4 86 9 1 S38 26 43 I3 210 9 79 10 2 S39 26 48 18 200 10 82 8 0 S40 25 35 IO 120 23 74 2 1 S41 33 54 20 1230 9 60 28 3 S42 2I 37 13 60 1I 73 14 2 S43 18 43 13 250 2 86 10 2 S44 20 35 11 400 2 76 20 2 S4S 24 4I I2 600 IO 85 3 2 S46 26 45 17 180 10 79 9 2 S47 22 35 10 11IO 4 60 35 1 S48 29 30 9 280 1 63 35 1 S49 28 36 10 370 15 81 2 2 sso 34 44 I4 2490 6 73 18 3

PAGE 88

72 their relatively low diversity and abundance of attached specimens The diversity patterns, and the species comprising this diversity are different across the banktops Species of Rosalind and Diriangen banks have numerous, small attached specimens (e g Rosalina bradyi) and in a number of samples, especially the interior samples of Rosalind, Discorbis rosea is common (Fig 35, Fig. 37 and Appendix 7). Soritids (porcelaneous) are also most abundant on Diriangen and Rosalind Banks (Fig. 37) T-2 samples of Thunder and Lightning Knolls and northern Diriangen, on the other hand have numerous large encrusters (e g ., G ypsina plana) and higher percentages of Amphistegina gibbosa. T-3 and T-4 are distinctly deeper water samples, with abundant planktic species. Dis corbis rose a was the dominant species of Serranilla Bank located just to the east of the study area. It is not a dominant species on these banks. Discorbis rosea is relatively common on Rosalind Bank, becomes less common on Dirian gen, and is not found on either Thunder or Lightning Knoll Foraminif e ral Assemblages of a Current-Dominate d S ystem Physical and biological sedimentation on th e carbonate banks of th e Nicaraguan Rise are dominated by the Caribbean Current (Hallock and others, 1988; Harris 1992; Triffleman and others, 1992) This dominance is reflected in th e coarse grain sizes and i n the sponge algal benthic community. Some features of th e foraminiferal assemblages may provide clues for recognition of such conditions in th e geologic record. Both shallow-water clusters (T-1 and T -2) have high percentages of species with permanently attached tests (Fig 38) and are dominated by temporarily mobile speci-es Most shallow-water assemblages from the Caribbean and Bahamas are dominated more by permanently mobile species, especially the soritid Archaias angulatus (Brasier 1975, Martin, 1986) The m issing permanently mobile m orp hotype is also important in its

PAGE 89

73 absence. Because this is a morphotype that "suspends" its test in order to move it is much more likely to be swept away in the. high energy conditions of the Nicaraguan Rise Overall, this is a simple, yet effective analysis that could be used as an indicator of high physical energy environments. However, it is important to recognize that the abundance of species with attached tests does not-necessarily imply high energy conditions Poag and Tresslar (1981) found abundant encrusters at the Flower Garden Banks in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Reid and Macintyre (1988) describe forarn-algal nodules from the eastern Caribbean, areas not influ e nced by high-energy conditions The common factor in these situations may be that these are areas of relatively abundant trophic resources, leading to an abundance of permanently attached su s p e nsion fe e ders and red algae, the same organisms that are also well adapted for higher en e rgy conditions. Other features of the assemblages also are a direct result of high energy conditions. Specimens of Amphistegina gibbosa, especially from the margins of Thunder and Lightning Knolls, have inflated dome-shaped tests (Fig 34 1b) Hallock and others (1986) have shown that this shape is caused by thick secondary lamellae, which are formed as a result of relatively strong water motion and/or bright light. Since these specimens are most common at depths of 40 m or greater, the domal shape is more likely the result of increased water motion Amphistegina gibbosa from 3m at Montego Bay, Jamaica and from 30m-10m at various Florida Keys sites are dominated by the thinner, lenticular form, (Hallock and Peebles, unpublished field observations) Discorbis rosea is a species whose representatives form large tubercles covering the spiral side when living in strong current environments (fig 35. 4b, also see Triffleman and others, 1991 for examples from Serranilla Bank). In contrast, D rosea from the Bahamas commonly has small tubercles, or none at all (e g. Peebles and Lewis, 1991). Taphonomic features of these assemblages are also strongly influenced by the

PAGE 90

74 current. One notable feature is the abundance of soritid fragments, which are the second most abundant constituent of the total assemblages (fable 1). Other taphonomic indicators of environmental conditions, including microbioerosion, abrasion and cementation ( Chapter 5). A higher percentage of hyaline species occurs in these samples (Fig. 39) than is common in other tropical carbonate assemblages (Murray, 1972, 1987), though this feature alone is not sufficient as a temperate/tropical indicator. There are other indicators, especially the abundance of larger species (Fig. 40), which is a strong indicator of subtropical to tropical environments (Murray, 1987). These mixed indicators in samples from a tropical area are most likely the result of elevated nutrient levels. Hallock and others (1991) present a physiological argument that a doubling of the food supply associated with upwelling would have a similar influence on the biota as a 100 drop in temperature If these authors are correct, pulses of trophic resources supplied as the Caribbean Current turbulently interacts with Nicaraguan Rise banktops, could support some "temperate" specimens, such as a higher abundance of small hyaline species and thereby impart a "mixed" signal to the thanatocoenoses. A spectrum of current-induced features can be seen between the larger platforms, Bawihka and Diriangen, and the smaller platforms, Thunder and Lightning Knolls, that are directly in the mouth of a strong, seaway contained current which acts like a "shotgun." Biotic evidence of the current on Bawihka and Diriangen Banks is subtle, resulting in strongly tubercled specimens of Discorbis rosea, and abundance of encrusters on sand grains and soritid fragments. Soritid abundance make these banks more similar to other tropical carbonate platforms, as they are the sites most dominated by porcelaneous tests (Fig. 37). Thunder and Lightning Knolls have the coarsest grain sizes, abundant and large encrusters, common dome-shaped Amphistegina gibbosa and the largest percentage of hyaline tests of all the banks. Recognition of current-dominated assemblages relies both on evidence of a benthic

PAGE 91

75 community indicative of elevated trophic resources, and on the presence of high-energy indicators Easily recognizable features, such as the abundance of attached specimens and the relative scarcity of permanantly mobile species; abundance of larger species; and dominance of hyaline species provide strong tools for the recognition of current-dominated carbonate systems in the fossil record

PAGE 92

76 CHAPTERS. Introduction Recent taphonomic investigations of carbonate sediments have shown that taphonomy is a powerful tool for reconstruction of ancient communities, especially when used to delineate taphofacies (Parsons and Brett, 1991; Speyer and Brett, 1986). A foraminiferal taphofacies model developed from Holocene sediments of Discovery Bay, Jamaica, is useful for delineating modem and ancient taphofacies in coral-algal dominated carbonate systems (Liddel and Martin, 1989; Martin and Liddel, 1991). However, not all carbonate systems are coral-algal dominated Carbonate banks of the Northern Nicaraguan Rise are relatively deep, sponge-algal dominated, current-swept platforms. Foraminiferal taphofacies present on Nicaraguan Rise banktops and seaways are different and distinctive from those of Jamaica Distinctive taphonomic signatures of Nicaraguan Rise Banktops provide easily d e tectabl e markers for the recognition of similar deposits in fossil carbonate communities. Taphonomy of Foraminifera Parson s and Brett (1991) present a review of taphonomic processes directed primarily towards invertebrates. There are few comparative taphonomic studies of benthic foraminifera (Martin and Lidd e l, 1991). Most of the benthic foraminiferal taphonomic studies to date have investigat e d differential preservation of assemblages or of individual species. Douglas eta/. (1980) r e ported the transition from living communities to sediment

PAGE 93

77 assemblages in the California Borderland and found changes in species proportion, composition, and distribution which could effect paleoecological interpretations Predation of small calcareous foraminifera was inferred to selectively remove them from sediments, biasing the fossil record toward agglutinated species, which are rare in Holocene sediments. Ancient specimens, not indicative of recent conditions, were also found reworked into some shelf deposits. However offshore bank, terrace and insular areas were found to have much closer resemblance between live and sediment assemblages. There was some bias toward thicker walled forms due to destruction of delicate tests by wave and current transport Transport of slope species to deeper basins was seen as a possible bias to interpretations of basinal environments. Smith (1987) reviewed the fossilization potential of shallow-water benthic foraminifera from a tropical lagoon, a temperate supratidal-intertidal environment and world-wide shallow, cold-water environments and formed four general conclusions: 1) preservation is related to both wall composition and structure, 2) loss of selected taxa alters patterns of species dominance, 3) species diversity and specimen number decrease through time, and 4) assemblages can be altered by import of specimens from a nearby environment. Other studies have been concerned with specific biases to the record and how they affect different foraminifera Dissolution textures were found to be a possible bias in distinguishing between fossilized milioline and rotaline foraminifera (Murray, 1967; Murray and Wright, 1970) Severely etched forms should be investigated with SEM to determine the true nature of the wall structure because extensive dissolution can make rotaliine forms appear porcelaneous in reflected light. Dissolution, overgrowth and recrystallization were investigated in the benthic foraminifer Notorotalia from New Zealand (Collen and Burgess, 1979). They discovered that dissolution was advantageous for taxonomic identification because it selectively accentuates sutures and ornamentation. Recrystallization and crystal overgrowth are more

PAGE 94

78 common in limestones than in clastic rocks. Overgrowth and neomorphism were found to be closely linked during diagenesis Recognition of overgrowth requires differentiation between diagentic change and secondary addition of calcite by the living foraminifer. Cottey and Hallock (1988) and Peebles and Lewis (1988) reported the results of laboratory experiments on the surface textures of foraminifera of several common shallow water foraminifera from the Florida Keys and San Salvador, Bahamas. Abrasion and dissolution leave distinctive signatures that can be seen on the tests. Kotler et al. (1992) looked at a greater variety of species and performed a different set of experiments on shallow water benthics from Discovery Bay, Jamaica. They noted a synergistic effect between dissolution and abrasion and provide a series of excellent figures illustrating abrasion, dissolution and combined abrasion-dissolution textures. Taphofacies characteristic of reefal areas were described using foraminifera from Discovery Bay, Jamaica (Liddel and Martin, 1989; Martin and Liddel, 1991). Six taphofacies were defmed that cover reef environments from the shallow back reef to the top of the island slope: I) a shallow, low energy facies with relatively high organic content; IT) high energy back reef; ill) high energy shallow terrace, and two similar but lower diversity high energy facies; IV) upper reef terrace; V) fore-reef slope and VI) Island slope. Methodology The same samples used for foraminiferal distribution (Fig. 31) were used for taphonomic analysis. All foraminifera dead at the time of collection were individually examined and ranked by defmed criteria to degree of damage in five different categqries: abrasion, breakage, corrasion, encrustation and recrystallization-cementation (Table 3 ). Each category (abrasion, breakage, corrasion, encrustation and cementation) is ranked by percentage of specimens in each of the grades IV of Table 3 The definitions of these

PAGE 95

ranks are arbitrary, but they were defmed such that they match a rapid qualitative assessment of the samples (i.e samples ranked as "extensive" have obvious and/or abundant damage in that category) 79 Abrasion is a measure of the degree of polishing and rounding and includes pits and scratches visible in reflected light (Table 3). Breakage is a measure of the proportion of wall area broken, as opposed to polished or rounded. Corrasion (sensu Parsons and Brett, 1991) is a measure of the degree of dissolution and/or bioerosion. It was ranked by either the area of dulled to chalky luster, or by visible microborings. Examination by SEM showed that the dull and chalky surfaces are primarily caused by microborings in the Nicaraguan Rise samples Encrustation criteria are based on the area of test covered by other organisms. Encrustat ion of foraminifera is not commonly investigated, but it is consistently found on Nicaraguan Rise samples. Recrystallization/cementation ranks the degree to which the tests appear to be recrystallized, if they have visible surface cement, or if they are part of an aggregate. What is referred to as recrystallization in this paper is most obvious in reflected light, where the tests normally seen as a white/cream color appear yellow This was most often seen in planktic tests, and was related to the tests being filled with fme sediment Those planktic tests ranked as a IV based on being solid yellow calcite are often steinkems (internal molds) instead of actual tests Five benthic species, Amphistegina gibbosa, Archaias angulatus, Asterigerina carinata, Planorbulina acervalis and Discorbis rosea, plus all planktics were also tabulated individually and totalled as a sub-sample. This separate tabulation utilizes benthic species that are common on the Nicaraguan Rise and elsewhere around the Caribbean thereby facilitating comparisons with data from other carbonate environments. All of the data were collected using reflected light at magnifications ranging from 40X to 65X. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was then used to examine selected tests at higher

PAGE 96

Table 3. Criteria used to taphonomically rank foraminiferal specimens Abrasion Breakage Corrasion Encrustation Recrystallization Cementation I No visible polishing or pitting. No loss of test surface features. No broken areas. None visible. None None. n High relief surface features polished or pitted. <20% of test affected < 20% of test wall broken. Isolated areas dull or individual rnicroborings. < 5%. Usually small foraminifera. < 20% of test coated with sugary texture, or spotted with"yellow calcite"(YC). lll 20% to 60% polished or pitted. May show deep scoring. 20%to 80% of wall broken. Up to 50% of test dull or shows multiple microborings 5% to20%. Worm tubes 20% to 50% coated, sugary texture, or 20% to 80% YC. IV > 60% of test polished. Loss of surface features Some rounding. > 80% of wall broken (margin) still recognizable to species Test appears micritized Microborings very numerous. Walls thinner easily broken. 20% to 50%. Red algae > 50% coated, or solid YC v Most surface features lost. Rounded and polished. > 80% broken, not recognizable to species Test chalky. Complete loss of chamberlet walls. >50%. Part of an aggregate. 00 0

PAGE 97

magnifications. Tests were photographed using a International Scientific Instruments lSI 130 SEM using Kodak Tmax 100 ASA film Results 81 Figures 41 -44 illustrate specimens ranked using the criteria from Table 3. All of the data from ranking individual specimens is summarized in Figure 45. Samples are graphically grouped into taphofacies based on this taphonomic summary plus grain size and dominant taxa Table 4 shows the number of specimens analyzed for each sample, along with diversity (a-Fischer index) and grain size Encrustation of foraminifera by other foraminifera or other organisms was found for 504 of 16025 (3%) specimens examined in 34 of 50 samples (Fig. 45) Figures 46 and 47 illustrate typical specimens from two of the taphofacies defmed for the Nicaraguan Rise. Several repaired tests and a specimen showing signs of predation are illustrated in figure 46. Repaired tests (Fig. 48E) comprise 1% of the tests from the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area (-50 of 4600 specimens, especially Amphistegina gibbosa) but are rare elsewhere. Signs of p r edation are negl i gible, only 3 tests of approximately 16000 were drilled. An idealized proflle of the distribution of taphofacies from Thunder Knoll to Diriangen Bank is illustrated in Figure 49. Nicaraguan Rise Taphofacies Based on the taphonomic attributes, grain size and dominant species data we can distinguish four Nicaraguan Rise taphofacies. All of the sediments are calcium carbonate primarily high Mg-calcite (Chapter 3, Appendix 3). Sponge spicule counts can be relatively high, but weight percent calcium carbonate is greater than 90% Cryptocrystalline grains often account for a large percentage of the constituents (Appendix 3).

PAGE 98

-Figure 40. A. Amphis tegi n a gibbosa, rank I in all categories. Scale = 100 J.lm. B. Closeup of ap e rtural re gio n. S c ale= 100 J.lm. C. C l oseup of wall struc tur e. Scale= 50 J.lm. D. A. g ibb osa rank III-abrasion, ill-breakage, IV-corros i on. Scale = 500 J.lm. E. Close up of apertural ar e a note th e tubercules have b een abraded almo s t smooth. Scale= 50 J.lm.F. Closeup of wall, n ote hi g h d ensity of micro borin gs. Scale = 50 J.lm.

PAGE 99

--Figure 41. A) Discorbis rosea, rank IV abrasion, breakage and corrosion, and I for both encrustation and recrystallization-cementation. Scale= 100 B) Arc haias angulatus, rank V abrasion, IV breakage and corrosion, and I for both encrustation and recrystallization-cementation. Scale= 100 J.lm.C) Amphistegina gibbosa rank IT-abrasion IV-brea.kage, IT-corrosion,! encrustation and ill-recrystallization-cementation. Scale= 100 D) A. angulatus, rank IT-encrustation. The small encrusting foraminifer in the upper right is Rosalina bradyi. Scale = 500 J.lm. 83

PAGE 100

Figure 42. A) Soritid fragment, rank III abrasion, V-breakage, V-corrosion, and I for both encrustation and recrystallization-cementation. Scale= 500 J..Uil. B) Close u p of A, showing microborings responsible for extensive corrasion. Scale = 50 C) Gypsina plana, rank IT-encrustation. Large encrusting foraminifer on right is Carpentaria proteiformis. Scale= 500 D) A. gibbosa rank IV for both encrustation and recrystallization-cementation. Encruster on upper left is red algae. Scale = 500 J..Uil. 84

PAGE 101

85 Figure 43. A) Orbulina universa rank IV-recrystallization cementation ( 100% of test is yellow in reflected light ,YC on Table 3). Scale= 100 J.lm. B) Closeup of A showing altered test wall on right and left and a portion of the cemented, [me sediment that fills the test. Scale = 5 J.lm. C) Globigerinoides ruber(?) rank IV recrystallization-cementation. Scale= 100 J.lm.D) Globigerinoides sp. rank V recrystallization-cementation (part of an aggragate grain, see Table 3). Scale= 100 J.lm.

PAGE 102

Figure 44. A) Taphonomic summary of all samples and subsamples based on the ranking of specimens in each category by the criteria of Table 3. Summaries of the species are based on the presence of at least 10 specimens, a dash represent s fewer than ten specimens in that sample and an empty category represents no specimens of that species were found. For number of specimens analyzed see Table 4. Total column graphically shows the taphonomic summary for all specimens examined from each grab sample. The samples in taphofacies I with heavy breakage, encrustation and corrasion are based in grain size and taxonomic composition (see Table 4). Likewise, Sl in taphofacies II is a part of that catagory due to grain size and taxonomic composition. Sub-Sample column shows the taphonomic summary based on: total planktic, Amphistegina gibbosa Asteregerina carinata, Archaias angulatus, Planorbulina acervalis and Discorbis rosea from each grab sample. The total planktic column shows the taphonomic summary based only on the planktic specimens.

PAGE 103

87 A TAPHONOMIC SUMMARY Not present ABR = Abrasion Present, but< 10 specimens BRK =Breakage None= 100%1 COR= Corrosion >I= 85%1 ENC =Encrustation >I= 15% ll or Ill or< 20 Hev CEM = Cementation (for definition of I-V see Table 1) taphofacies Ia taphofacies lb

PAGE 104

TAPHONOMIC SUMMARY Not present Present, but < 10 specim e n s = 100%1 ABR = Abrasion BRK =Breakage COR= Corrosion ENC = Encrustation tvt .... ,,t .. >I= 15% ll or Ill or< 20 Hev CEM =Cementation (for definition of 1-V see Table 1) 88 Figure 44. B) Taphonomic summary for Amphistegina gibbosa, Asteregerina carinata Archaias angulatus, Planorbulina acervalis

PAGE 105

c Figure 45. Specimens illustrating taphonomic attributes of taphofacies I. A) Amphistegina gibbosa rank II abrasion, IV breakage and I all other catagories Scale= 100 IJlil. D) Planktic steinkern (internal mold). Scale= 100 IJlil. C) A. gibbosa rank IV breakage and I all other catagories Scale= 500 H) Aggragate of A gibbosa and coarse, cemented sand Scale = 500 E) Aggragate of foraminifera, coralline algae and a gastropod. Scale = 1000 IJlil. 89

PAGE 106

-Figure 46. Specimen s illustrating taphonomic attributes of taphofacies II A) Extensively corraded Amphistegina gibbosa Scale= 500 jlm. B) Extensive corrasion and abrasion on a specimen of Archaias angulatus Scale = 1000 jlm. C) Extensively rounded abraded and corraded Aste regerina carinata. Scale= 100 90 jlm. D) Extensively rounded and abraded Discorbis rosea. Scale = 100 J..Ull. E) Extensively rounded, abrad e d and corraded A. angulatus. Scale= 100 jlm

PAGE 107

-Figure 47. A) Repaired test of Archaias angulatus. Scale = 500 J.Un. B) Closeup of repaired area. Scale= 100 IJ.Ill. C) Repaired Amphistegina gibbosa. Scale= 500 J..Lm. D ) A. gibbosa drilled by a predator. Scale= 100 J..Lm. 91

PAGE 108

Table 4. Taphofacies, number of specimens analyzed, diversity and grai n size. Sample total sub plank A mph Aster Taphofacies Ia Taphofacies lb Taphofacies II Taphofacies III No. n n n n S2 505 99 12 65 S3 304 140 31 100 S8 282 72 6 52 S9 269 56 16 27 S10 294 83 1 0 5 2 S11 340 68 17 42 S13 285 102 26 56 S14 210 56 3 26 S15 273 70 3 45 S18 265 125 34 81 S19 254 93 10 76 S22 129 13 0 10 S27 269 94 62 32 S28 247 114 49 56 S29 172 84 28 27 S31 248 68 5 26 S34 275 86 17 46 S4 347 67 57 8 S6 317 54 23 20 S12 395 229 209 6 S16 315 199 189 3 S17 359 275 264 10 S20 299 228 186 31 S21 318 109 62 36 S24 324 128 79 40 S25 315 89 85 4 S26 319 63 57 4 S30 330 74 53 2 S1 350 148 37 11 S7 314 125 10 62 S33 348 110 2 46 S35 399 115 6 13 S36 497 146 1 3 0 S37 3 7 1 93 7 0 S38 352 154 27 11 S39 308 107 22 25 S40 329 202 9 127 S41 345 83 35 S42 366 80 15 S43 348 186 9 S44 277 77 3 S45 284 62 1 3 S46 276 49 1 S47 333 152 3 S48 466 137 0 S49 334 157 5 S 5 0 424 131 12 S5 311 50 50 S23 3 5 2 76 7 1 S32 377 76 68 Amph = Amphistegina gibbosa Aster = Asterigerina c ar inata Arch = Arc haias angulatus Plan = Planorbulina acervalis 11 7 2 5 2 0 3 0 4 7 0 4 4 Arch Plan Disc a gravel coarse flne n n n n % sand% sand% 9 5 8 0 20 67 23 7 1 0 8 0 11 84 12 0 3 6 5 0 14 62 37 1 1 0 12 0 20 91 7 2 4 11 6 0 20 86 11 3 6 0 3 0 20 89 11 0 6 7 7 0 20 73 26 1 2 0 18 0 10 98 2 0 0 0 22 0 10 93 7 0 0 1 8 0 15 82 18 0 0 1 6 0 11 91 9 0 0 1 2 0 13 99 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 80 13 6 1 2 6 0 20 82 16 2 4 0 25 0 13 95 5 0 1 0 36 0 11 99 1 0 1 2 20 0 12 59 39 1 2 0 0 0 14 0 9 87 10 0 1 0 17 27 32 41 11 0 3 0 13 0 10 89 7 0 0 0 5 1 74 25 1 0 0 0 13 43 45 12 11 0 0 0 9 42 55 3 5 0 6 0 18 36 39 25 9 0 0 0 13 4 26 63 0 0 0 0 15 0 11 84 1 0 1 0 20 0 14 80 12 1 6 0 20 31 10 56 74 24 1 1 20 20 55 24 28 25 0 0 20 39 53 8 28 34 0 0 16 22 70 5 29 59 8 0 17 26 70 2 69 53 9 2 17 8 81 10 38 46 0 2 13 4 86 9 56 33 25 1 1 3 9 79 10 20 32 8 0 18 10 82 8 2 50 14 0 10 23 74 2 19 11 7 0 20 9 60 28 15 38 5 0 13 11 73 14 21 43 7 104 13 2 86 10 42 25 0 2 11 2 76 20 26 12 7 2 12 10 85 3 28 20 0 0 17 10 79 9 33 8 0 105 10 4 60 35 52 72 0 13 9 1 63 35 90 53 0 5 10 15 81 2 51 54 4 3 14 6 73 18 0 0 0 0 8 1 9 87 0 0 1 0 19 0 6 83 2 1 1 0 20 0 7 71 D1sc = DIScorbiS rosea 92 mud % 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 5 6 3 1 0 3 2 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 11 22

PAGE 109

. y y y y y y y v y y y y y y y y y y v v y y y v v v v v v v y v v v y y v y v y v v v v v v v v v v v II Ia Ia n Thunder Knoll Dirangen Bank lOOm VE= 10 : 1 0 5000m Figure 48. Idealized profile of the distribution of taphofacies from Thunder Knoll to Diriangen Bank. Taphofacies Ia. Foraminifera. Amphistegina gibbosa, and large attached and encrusting foraminifera such as Gyps ina plana and Carpentaria proteiformis are abundant 93 Taphonomic attributes. Abrasion is low to moderate. Breakage is moderate to extensive (Fig. 45) Breakage is especially noticeable in the larger specimens (Fig. 46A, 46B and 46C), and extensive breakage is often seen in specimens with little to no abrasion or corrasion (Fig. 41B and 41C; Fig 46C) Corrasion is moderate, and very few specimens are found with rank V corrasion. Encrustation is common, usually found on a low percentage of specimens, but can be moderate to extensive (Fig 45) Encrustation is often by other large foraminif e ra (Fig 42C) or red algae (Fig.42D), but can also be smaller

PAGE 110

94 foraminifera (Fig. 41F) and rarely bryozoans or serpulid worms Cementation recrystallization is moderate to low in the total assemblage. It also ranks moderate to low in the sub-sample, but these low to moderate rankings can include large aggregates of foraminifera and other particles (Fig. 46E, 46F, 460 and 46H). Taphofacies I (including a and b) is the only facies where yellow calcite (obviously altered test structure, possibly the beginning stages of replacement, see figure 43A, 43B and 43C) was commonly found and the only facies with planktic steinkerns (Fig. 46D). Repaired tests are rare (Fig. 48), but are found more often than in taphofacies II. Sediments Grain size is very coarse, greater than 50 weight % gravel, but can be over 90 weight % gravel (in large part Halimeda segments between 2 and 4 mm in diameter, Chapter 3). There is virtually no mud Associated fauna. Halim e da and red algae are the dominant constituents. Sponge spicules more abundant and common in these sediments than in other taphofacies. Bryozoans serpulids, echinoderms, m o lluscs and gastropods are also found but are much less common Tunicate spicules are present, though in relatively low abundance. Taphofacies Ia is a margin facies of the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area (Fig. 46), and has Halimeda bioherms and abundant foram algal nodules (Chapter 3; Hine et al., 1988, Peebles et al., 1989). Taphofacies lb. Foraminifera Amphistegina gibbosa is common, along with higher percentages of planktic foraminifera than found in Ia (Table 4).

PAGE 111

Taphonomic attributes. Similar to Ia, with virtually no encrustation. Planktics are often extensively broken (Fig. 45). Sediments. Grain size ranges from coarse to fine sands, mud content is also low (Table 4). 95 Associated fauna. Echinoderms are relatively common, especially when compared to other taphofacies. Tunicate spicules are present, though relatively in low abundance, as in Ia. Taphofacies Ib is primarily a result of downslope transport from taphofacies Ia (Fig. 49). Mass transport and meggabreccias are common on the Nicaraguan Rise (Hine et al., 1992, Glaser and Droxler, 1991). Taphofacies II. Foraminifera Archaias angulatus and Asteregerina carinata are abundant Discorbis rosea is present at 11 of 19localities, and is overwhelmingly dominant at two localities (Table 4). Amphistegina gibbosa is commonly found, but is not as abundant as in taphofacies Ia. Taphonomic attributes. Abrasion is moderate in rank, but much more evident than in Ia (Fig 47). Breakage is extensive. Soritid fragments (Chapter 4) are abundant and Archaias angulatus is commonly extensively broken Corrasion is moderate to high, and, like abrasion is much more evident than in taphofacies I (Fig. 45). Repaired tests are found (Fig.48), but they are relatively rare.

PAGE 112

96 Sediments Grain size is dominated by coarse sands. Whole Halimeda segments are rare and there are far fewer sponge spicules than in Ia. Associated flora and fauna Halimeda is common, with much less red algae than found in taphofacies I. Much like taphofacies Ia, bryozoans, serpulids, echinoderms, molluscs and gastropods occur, but are much less common than other fauna. Gorgonian spicules are present, though in relatively low abundance (Appendix 3) Taphofacies II is found primarily in the interior areas of the banks, though it is found on the margin of Rosalind and southern Diriangen Bank (Fig. 49). It was found in only one sample on Thunder Knoll. Taphofacies III. Foraminifera. Planktic foraminifera and small benthics are dominant. Taphonomic attributes. Has much less damage in all categories than the other taphofacies, although planktics can be extensively broken. No encrustation and virtually no cementation-recrystallization. Sediments. Grain size is primarily fme to medium fme sand with relatively high percentages of muds, especially in comparison to the other taphofacies Associated fauna. Pteropods and echinoderms are much more common than in the other taphofacies, but there are small percentages of most of the other constituents. Tunicate spicules, while still rare, occur in more abundance than in taphofacies I. Taphofacies III is f o und in the open seaways (Fig 49) away from m ost mass flow influence.

PAGE 113

Discussion Taphonomic Attributes Rankings 1-V for abrasion, breakage and corrasion are generally the same as those used by Cottey and Hallock (1988, however, they used dissolution instead of corrasion; see their Table 1 and Plate 5). "Corrasion" (sensu Parsons and Brett, 1991) is used, instead of dissolution or bioerosion (microborings), because the bulk of the analysis was first performed with reflected light at relatively low magnifications (40 to 64X). Microborings are commonly visible at these magnifications, but are not always visible in otherwise dulled areas of the tests. Closer examination using SEM confirms that the corrasion is almost exclusively caused by microboring organisms. There is an obvious synergistic effect between abrasion and corrasion (Fig. 41A, 41B) and to a lesser degree breakage (Cottey and Hallock, 1988). Specimens that were ranked IV or V -abrasion invariably ranked IV or Vco erasion. However, broken tests often showed little or no abrasion or corrasion (Fig. 41C-41E). 97 Amphistegina gibbosa is the most abundant benthic foraminifer of the Nicaraguan Rise banktops (Chapter 4 Table 1), examples of which are shown in figure 39. These figures illustrate a fresh specimen (I in all categories) and a highly altered specimen (Illabrasion, III-breakage and IV-corrasion) There is some disparity in the breakage rankings IV and V because one species, Amphistegina gibbosa, is never ranked as V, as it is always recognizable to species (compare Fig. 41E with Fig. 46C, both specimens areA. gibbosa ranked IV-breakage). Other species often could not be recognized to species after being extensively broken, providing examples of a V-breakage ranking (Fig. 42A, 42B) Amphistegina gibbosa is often extensively broken with few signs of abrasion or dissolution Archaias angulatus, while it is often extensively weathered in sediment samples is also a common Caribbean species (e g Boss and Liddel, 1987). There is a stronger link between corrasion and breakage in the soritids (Nicaraguan Rise soritids are

PAGE 114

primarily Archaias angulatus and Cyclorbiculina compressus; see Fig. 42A) than in other species such as A gibbosa and Asteregerina carinata. 98 Although the number of specimens encrusted per sample is low, encrustation is found in 34 of 50 samples (Fig. 43). Encrustation patterns are similar in some respects over all of the banktops. In other details, encrustation patterns are different in separate areas. Planorbulina acervalis bryozoans and serpulid wonn tubes did not have any patterns of occurrence when found encrusting foraminifer tests. The large platfonns, Rosalind, Diriangen and Bawihk:a Banks, often have soritids encrusted by Rosalina bradyi (Fig. 41F). The Thunder and Lightning Knolls area commonly has larger encrusters, such as Carpentaria proteiformis (Fig 41C) or red algae (Fig. 420) and also has occasional R. bradyi on Halimeda segments or the less common soritids. is widespread, although like encrustation, few specimens are affected (Figure 45). Recrystallization is most common in the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area, especially in planktics, which are often filled with fme sediment (Fig 44). In some cases the outer shell is absent, leaving a well cemented carbonate planktic steinkem (Fig. 460). Cementation is primarily seen in conjunction with aggregates, smaller aggregates of one or two grains are more common on the larger banktops, while larger accumulations are common from the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area (Fig 46E -46H). There are differences between the total taphonomic summary and the sub-sample summary (Fig. 45). Abrasion and breakage ranks often change from low to medium or from medium to high in the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area (top two groups of Fig. 45). This difference is caused primarily by the exclusion of the numerous, smaller benthics from the subsample data (Table 4). Most of these smaller species are represented by only a few specimens, and they commonly rank I in all taphonomic categories, leading to lower degrees of damage than in the sub-sample summary. Somewhat the opposite affect

PAGE 115

happens to samples from Rosalind and Diriangen Banks (Fig. 45 and Table 4) In these samples breakage can often be seen to go from extensive to moderate This decrease 99 occurs because soritid fragments, a common constituent (soritid fragments were defined as extens i vely broken tests missing juvenile chambers ; Chapter 4), were not counted as part of the subsample All of our samples are from a taphonomically active zone (T AZ--the sediment water interface and the bioturbated area below the interface; Davies et aL, 1989), based on the above observations we predict that accumulations below the T AZ will more closely resemble the subsample taphonomic summary than the total taphonomic summary and will be strongly biased towards large benthics, such as Amphistegina and Archaias on the banks, and planktics on the slopes and open seaways. Comparison With Bahamas, Aorida Keys and Jamaica Although no foraminiferal taphofacies have been described for the Bahamas, several aspects of foraminiferal taphonomy have been investigated from San Salvador : bioerosion (Peebles and Lewis, 1988 1989), surface textures caused by dissolution and abrasion (Peebles and Lewis, 1991) and predation (Peebles, 1988). One of the most striking differences is in the degree of bioerosion of Amphistegina gibbosa and Discorbis rosea Specimens of these two species from shallow depths (3m) around San Salvador island were never extensively bioeroded, especially when compared to specimens of other common species such asArchaias angulatus Martin and Liddel (1991) also noted that there were differences in the degrees of microboring damage between A. gibbosa and A. angulatus in samples they exposed above the sediment water interface in Discovery Bay, Jamaica. This difference in microboring infestation is not seen in Nicaraguan Rise samples, where all species appear equally susceptible to extensive microbial infestation A possible explanation to explain the dissimilarities in bioerosion damage could be related to changes in intensity of micro boring activity, or to differences in the specific algae

PAGE 116

100 and fungi responsible for the borings, as a result of changes in depth. However, Perkins and Halsey found that the most intensive zones of endolithic erosion occur at 25 m off the Carolinas coast, and Perkins and Tsentas (1976) reported no differences in degree of endolithic infestation from the intertidal to depths of 30 m on the St Croix shelf (they did differentiate two depth zones based on different types of microborings) These studies found that depth may account for differences between microborers, but not in differences in degree of infestation A better explanation to explain the differences in degree of endolithic infestation may lie in the higher nutrient levels of the Nicaraguan Rise compared to the waters off of northern Jamaica or the eastern Bahamas. The relationship between bioerosion and nutrients has been noted before; Moore and Shedd (1977) have shown that sponge bioerosion is proportional to nutrient levels and Hallock (1987) noted that increased bioerosion due to higher nutrient availability could lead to hard grounds or carbonate depositional hiatuses Hallock and Elrod (1988) noted plumes of moderately high chlorophyl concentration in waters over the Nicaraguan Rise area Oceanic waters flowing over the banks have chlorophyll concentrations that are detectably higher than in areas with active reef buildup such as Grand Cayman, or the north coast of Jamaica Low chlorophyl waters around Jamaica, Pedro Bank and the Caymans comes from the Atlantic Ocean entering the Caribbean through the Windward Passage. The San Salvador area lacks strong currents and is influenced by Atlantic water from the east. In addition, Perkins and Tsentas (1976) noted that there were no differences in degree of boring between differing shell architectures, but Perkins and Halsey (1971) did note differences in the degree of infestation between molluscs (extensively infiltrated by algae and fungi) and other organisms such as corals, echinoderms and foraminifera Published photographs of molluscan shell wall structure show relatively thick bands of interlamellar organic membranes (Bathurst, 1975, Fig1-18, 25, 26) that are described as "intimately

PAGE 117

101 dispersed among the mineralo gical un i ts in the various shell structures is a complex and variable organic material commonly called conchiolin." (Bathurst, 1975, p. 14) Although there may be organic material available in echinoderm and coral skeletons and foraminiferal tests, it is not so obviously evident or abundant as in the mollusca. It has also been established that crystalline calcium carbonate (iceland spar) is infested by endoliths at a lower rate than skeletal carbonates (Perkins and Tsentas, 1976) Thus there appears to be a relationship between degrees of infestation and organic content in carbonates This relationship should be investigated experimentally. Organic content of foraminiferal tests is lower than the organic content of mollusc she lls due to size, if for no other reason. There are also differences in the organic content of Amphistegina gibbosa and Discorbis rosea (ordered inner layer, no organic matrix, Brasier, 1980) when compared to Archaias angulatus (randomly oriented inner layer within an organic matrix, Brasier, 1980) The greater availability of trophic resources in the water column over the Nicaraguan Rise could allow endolithic organisms a better chance to "get a foothold" in the otherwise nutrient poor substrate of species such as A gibbosa and D. rose a (when compared to the slightly more fertile substrate of such species as A angulatus). Another observation that may be related to trophic resources is the differences between predation on foraminifera as indicated by borings (Fig. 48) They were described in detail by Sliter (1971) who attributed borings similar to those pictured in figure 48D to gastropod predation. Predation (with borings similar to the Nicaraguan Rise borings) was evident in 8% of approximately 3000 foraminifera collected from shallow patch reefs and sea grass beds around San Salvador. Predation on benthic foraminifera of the Nicaraguan Rise was negligible (3 specimens of 16,000). This could again be attributed to depth, but Arnold et al. (1985) found similar borings in 17% of the foraminifera collected from bottom sediments of the Galapagos hydrothermal mounds (2700m). Most specimens had multiple borings, as does the pictured specimen from the Nicaraguan Rise and a few of the

PAGE 118

samples from San Salvador (Peebles, 1988). Arnold et al (1985) attributed multiple borings to the chambered nature of the foraminifera and a lack of suitable prey for what they inferred to be naticid gastropods 102 Although this area of taphonomy needs more research, predation rates of benthic foraminifera could provide clues to the relative level of trophic resources in fossil depos i ts. Areas with abundant trophic resources, such as the Nicaraguan Rise, could have samples showing little evidence of predation Signs of predation could increase with a decrease in available trophic resources. Such a trend would be useful in deposits with low organic content in the sediments (e.g., carbonates compared to terrigenous muds), allowing the differentiation of trophic levels between deposits that might otherwise appear similar Again, like differential infestation by microboring organisms, this is a feature that should be investigated further, both in the laboratory and in the field Foraminiferal taphofacies I and II of the Nicaraguan Rise are in some respects similar in their components and descriptions of taphonomic attributes to foraminiferal taphofacies of Jamaica. Nicaraguan Rise taphofacies I is similar to the high energy Jamaican taphofacies III (shallow terrace) and IV (fore reef terrace) and V (fore reef slope) in that they are dominated by abrasion resistant species such as Archaias angu/atus (Liddel and Martin, 1989; Martin and Liddel, 1991) Nicaraguan Rise taphofacies II is different from these taphofacies in that bioerosion can be very extensive (Plate 1 Fig. 8a,b), much like in the Jamaican taphofacies I (low energy, high organic matter facies of Liddel and Martin, 1989 and Martin and Liddel, 1991) Abrasion in this taphofacies is described here as moderate to extensive, but many of the specimens from the Nicaraguan Rise are similar in appearance to specimens abraded for 1000 hours by Kottler et al. (1992, see their figures 4, 5, 6, 9) and for 2000 hours by Peebles and Lewis (1991, see their Plate 1, Figs 8, 9). The extensive abrasion signatures of tests from the Nicaraguan Rise are the result of abundant movement by current and swells but as noted by Kottler et al. (1992)

PAGE 119

dissolution aids in speeding abrasion of the tests. Highly corraded tests from the Nicaraguan Rise showed the highest degree of abrasive damage. Bahamian foraminiferal taphonomy is similar in that encrustation by Rosalina is also noted in 9 of 10 samples from Bahamian shallow-water deposits of San Salvador (Peebles, 1988, 1% of total assemblage was encrusted by Rosalina) Like Nicaraguan Rise samples, Rosalina was found on Halimeda segments, but unlike Nicaraguan Rise samples was only found on soritids and soritid fragments. Encrustation of foraminiferal tests by other organisms was not noticed in the Bahamian samples (Peebles 1988). A far greater number of samples were analyzed from the Nicaraguan Rise (16,025 as opposed to 2974 from the Bahamas; Peebles, 1988) where encrustation of 3% of the total dead assemblage is noted Encrustation rates of foraminifera on the Nicaraguan Rise is higher than shallow-water Bahamian samples (also see Chapter 3, if nodules had been included in the taphonomic study, encrustation rat es of foraminifera would b e even higher). It is difficult to compare encrustation with other areas because encrustation of foraminifera is not noted elsewhere. This is probably because foraminifera are not expected to be encrusted, which is probably tru e for most environments. Encrustation of foraminifera (not to mention overall high encrustation rates) appears to be another indicator for current influenced carbonate deposits. Nicaraguan Rise taphofacies I could be thought of as very high energy. Amphistegina gibbosa is a species that is relatively highly susceptible to abrasion (Kottler et al., 1992, see their Table 2; Peebles and Lewis, 1991, see their Table 2) ; yet many of the extensively broken tests (Figs. 40A, 40D, 45A ) of A. gibbosa show few signs of abrasion, indicating they w ere broken before they were moved to any great degree In any case the mix of taphonomic attributes of taphofacies I have not been described for other carbonate environments and appear to provide a fmal indicator for carbonate deposits in current dominated environments. Nicaraguan Rise taphonomic attributes are differe nt from those of other shallow-

PAGE 120

104 water carbonate environments These are principally the result of a system dominated by strong currents and topographic upwelling that promotes rapid physical and biological degradation Specific taphonomic attributes such as encrustation of foraminifera, extensive breakage without abrasion, and extensive bioerosion could aid in the recognition of similar paleoenvironments in the fossil record.

PAGE 121

105 CHAPTER 6. SYNTIIESIS AND CONCLUSION Bathurst's (1975) description of carbonate depositional environments quoted previously (p. 1) is not completely appropriate for depositional environments of the Nicaraguan Rise. One could not safely snorkel or SCUBA dive over any of the platforms of the study area, in most places the bottom is too deep to comfortably reach. If one could see the bottom, it would be rushing by at an uncomfortable clip, current velocities commonly exceed 100 crnls over the platforms, and velocities up to 250 cm/s were recorded in Bawihk:a Channel. SCUBA dives were made on Serranilla Bank during the 1987 cruise, and a general impression was one of ... boredom, especially when compared to the lush diving available in nearby Jamaica or the more distant Bahamas (Fig 51). However a closer look would show that this is also an environment of vigorous life: abundant Halimeda and fleshy algae, sponges on the sediment and in the limestone, foraminifera, serpulids, bryozoa and red algae encrusting any available surface Though different, and maybe not as visually spectacular as coralgal environments, platforms of the Nicaraguan Rise provide another useful example for use in interpreting ancient carbonate systems Sponge-algal buildups occur during several different intervals of the Phanerozoic (Fig 52, modified from James, 1984). Nicaraguan Rise Depositional Environments : A Synthesis A number of trends are evident in depositional patterns and surface features across banks of the Nicaraguan Rise Pedro and Serranilla Banks have small islands on their

PAGE 122

106 Figure 49. Underwater photographs of Serranilla Bank A. Hardground dominated by fleshy brown algae. B. Hardground dominated by fleshy sponge and brown algae Seafan, (F) is 30-50 em wide and high From Triffleman et al. (1992) PERIODS BIOHERMS MAJOR SKELETAL ELEMENTS 0 z 0 .J ..J zen -a: w
PAGE 123

107 southeastern margins. The shallowest areas of Rosalind Bank and Thunder and Lightning Knolls are also along their southern margins. Southern margins on Diriangen and Bawihka Banks do not have pronounced topographic highs (Fig. 2) However, on all banks, northern margins (-60 m) are deeper than southern margins (-40 m), an indication of possible upcurrent-downcurrent control of surface features. Banktop depths of the westernmost platforms range from 17 m (Rosalind Bank only) to 60 m; the vast majority of area is deeper than 20 m Although these platforms are deep and may be drowning (Triffleman et al., 1992), drowning is not due to a lack of production. Glaser and Droxler (1992) have shown that fme sediment transport off of Pedro Bank is of the same order of magnitude as that of Great Bahama Bank Halimeda bioherms are found on the margins of Serranilla, Rosalind, Diriangen, Bawihka and Thunder and Lightning Knolls at depths ranging from 30 60 m Bioherm concentration increases on the western banks; a line of continuous bioherms lies on the west-southwest margin ofBawihka Bank (Harris, 1992, Hine et al., 1988; see Fig 23). Bioherms are most commonly, but not exclusively, found on margins that run parallel to currents and open seaways (Fig. 23). Sediment transport on the banktops is strongly related to dominant wind direction. Large, asymmetric sand waves (810m in thickness) are found on Serranilla (Triffleman, 1992), Rosalind, Diriangen and Bawihka Banks (Chapter 2). Sand wave orientation indicates sediment transport is to the northwest-west due to oceanic swell generated by easterly trade winds. Sediment transport has been in the same direction since at least the Eocene, causing western progradation of Bawihka Bank into Bawihka Channel (Hine et al., submitted). The Caribbean Current may also exert some control on sand wave distribution, most of the sand waves are concentrated on the west-northwest regions of the platforms (Fig. 20). Coral gal sediments, dominant on eastern banks, diminish in importance to the east. Coral reefs thrive on the Jamaican coasts (Goreau and Land, 1974), and coralgal sediments

PAGE 124

108 are found on the margin of Pedro Bank, where there are also scattered reefs (Dolan, 1972). Isolated corals are found on Serranilla Bank, but there are no reefs and there is very little coral debris in the sediments (Triffleman et al., 1992). Halimeda, or sponge-algal bioherms occur along the SE to SW margins of Serranilla Sediments from the surface of the Halimeda bioherms consist primarily of Halimeda segments, of which approximately 50% are encrusted by foraminifera, bryozoans, red algae or worm tubes. The most abundant specimens of free-moving foraminifera from the bioherms are represented by Amphistegina gibbosa. Bank:top sediments consist primarily of gravel to coarse grained Halimeda-molluscan sands with less than 10 weight% mud. A small foraminifer, Discorbis rosea, dominates the bank:top foraminiferal assemblage (Triffleman et al 1991). Sediments are extensively microbored. Coral is even more scarce on Rosalind Bank than on Serranilla, as is mud with an average of less than 5 weight percent Halimeda remains the primary sediment constituent, but molluscan debris is much less important on the westernmost banks. These sediments are classified as chloralgal (Lees and Buller, 1975), but it is important to realize that the contribution by foraminifera, coralline algae, and bryozoa is substantial Margin sediments of Rosalind often have abundant, whole Halimeda segments and in some cases foraminiferal-algal nodules are found in association with Halimeda bioherms. The foraminiferal assemblage of Rosalind is very similar to that of other Caribbean and Bahamian shallow shelves ; the dominant species is Amphistegina gibbosa, and soritids (Archaias angulatu.s and Cyclorbiculina compressus) are abundant. Discorbis rosea, although not as dominant in the total assemblage as on Serranilla Bank, is also more commonly found on the banktops away from the margins (Chapter 4 ; Triffleman et al., 1991). The foraminiferal assemblage has some temperate zoogeographic features, especially the abundance of small rotaliines and species of Cibicides (Chapter 4). Although the sedimentary constituents are quite similar on the margin and in the interior

PAGE 125

(Chapter 2), there are distinctive taphonomic differences between marginal and interior sediments Marginal sediments (taphofacies I) are commonly broken, but abrasion and corrasion is much less apparent than in bank interior sediments (taphofacies II) Taphofacies II sediments are heavily broken and corraded (sensu Parsons and Brett, 1990), and have abundant soritid fragments, highly corraded Halimeda segments and cryptocrystalline grains. 109 Sediments of Diriangen Bank, and presumably most of Bawihka Bank, are similar Halimeda is the most common constituent, but bryozoa and serpulids become more common than on the eastern platforms However, specimens of Discorbis rosea are found in lower percentages on Diriangen Bank and virtually none are found on Thunder and Lightning Knolls There is a slightly stronger temperate signal in the total foraminiferal assemblage on Diriangen Bank when compared to Rosalind and Serranilla. A more distinctive difference in sedimentation patterns from south to north on the westernmost platforms is also apparent. Abundant foraminiferal-algal nodules are found on the northern margins of Diriangen and Bawihka ; and cover the interior banktops of Thunder and Lightning Knolls Gypsina plana is also more common on the northern margins than on the southern ones. Som e coral debris are found in the sediments along the far southern margin of Bawihka channel, but these disappear to the north, where bryozoa become mor e abundant (Harris, 1992; Hine et al., submitted) As stated above, foraminiferal-algal nodules are abundant on Thunder and Lightning Knolls. Sedimentation on these two very small banks is the most "nonBahamian" of all Nicaraguan Rise sediments Mud, at less than one weight percent, is virtually non existent. Taphofacies I covers all of the banktop area of the Knolls. Encrustation, on nodules or on any sediment particle larger than 1 mm is found everywhere -an indication that competition for space is intense For example, nodules in the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area (including northernmost Diriangen and Bawihka Banks) have been found forming around sponges (Hallock et al. 1988). Illustrations of encrustation show that,

PAGE 126

110 though Gypsina plana is dominant on many grains it shares space with several different species of foraminifera, bryozoa, red algae and sponges (Chapter 3). Cementation appears to be quite rapid, both in the Halimeda grainstones and in the foraminiferal algal nodules. Close examination of the foraminiferal nodules show that some of this cementation may be microbially mediated, as can be seen by the presence of "thrombolitic textures in the cements of several nodules from Thunder and Lightning Knolls. Much of this area is a modern hardground; there is little sediment accumulation and encrustation is pervasive, as is the destruction of substrate by macroand microboring organisms It is important to note, however, that Nicaraguan Rise platforms do not provide the only example of Halimeda bioherms or foraminiferal-algal nodules in Recent seas But before before moving on to comparisons with similar environments, the salient sedimentologic features of Nicaraguan Rise platforms should be emphasized once again. There is a decrease in Bahamian type shallow shelf sedimentation in an east to west transect from Jamaica to Miskito Bank This gradient is also evident in a south to north transect of the westernmost Nicaraguan Rise banks Thunder and Lightning Knolls are the least Bahamian in character A high-energy physical regime is reflected in the coarse textures with virtually no mud. There are no coral reefs, and there is a distinctive lack of non skeletal particles such as pellets and oolites. Halimeda bioherms are found along the margins at depths ranging from 30 to 60 m. Those areas of Thunder and Lightning Knolls not near Halimeda bioherms provide an example of modern hardgrounds, with pervasive encrustation and abundant signs of substrate destruction by macroboring and micro boring organisms These hardgrounds are covered with foraminiferal-algal nodules, which are formed primarily by Gypsina plana and red algae, but which also have a relatively diverse assemblage of associated encrusters, especially in comparison to nodules formed at shallower depths. Sedimentation in the Thunder and Lightning Knolls area of the northern Nicaraguan Rise provides the best example for comparison with other sponge-algal dominated systems in the geologic record.

PAGE 127

111 Similar Depositional Environments: Modem Examples Halimeda Bioherms. Significant accumulations of Halimeda were first encountered by Orme et aL (1978) in a survey of sedimentologic trends leeward of the Great Barrier Reef of Australia These mounded deposits were not described as biohermal unti11985 (Davies and Marshal, 1985), at which time they were recognized as fitting the original, geologic defmition of the term -" mounds which have relief above the seafloor, but which do not exhibit a clear framework, and which exist in a relatively low energy environment (Davies and Marshal, 1985, p. 6). Great Barrier Reef bioherms are growing at depths in excess of 30m, and are formed primarily by Halimeda segments, but may have significant percentages of foraminifera (Marginopora and Alveolinella) molluscs and bryozoa Encrustation of the Halimeda segments was not mentioned, and photographs of gravels from the bioherms illustrate clean Halimeda segments (Davies and Marshal, 1985, p 3), but bryozoan fronds and large foraminifera are noticeably abundant in the same photos Clay minerals, transported in suspension from the nearby mainland, can also be an important component (Orme, 1985). The deposits are found on the leeward side of the ribbon reefs, fertilized by nutrient rich uppermost thermocline water that enters the Great. Barrier Reef lagoon through narrow passages (Drew and Able, 1983). Halimeda bioherms of the Great Barrier Reef are low energy biologic buildups which have contributed significant amounts of sediment (26% of the total shelf area along the Northern Great Barrier Reef Province, Orme and Salama, 1988) to the backreef community during the Holocene. Roberts et al. (1987) described similar deposits from the Sunda Straits of the eastern Java Sea of Indonesia These Indonesian bioherms were also found to contain significant

PAGE 128

112 percentages of mud and foraminifera, at depths greater than 20m; but unlike the Australian bioherms, are found on exposed margins as well as behind reef-protected margins. Encrustation by other organisms was not mentioned, but photos of sediments from a piston core illustrate Halimeda segments that appear to be encrusted (Roberts et al. 1987, p. 374, Fig. 5B) A later study lists several encrusting genera of foraminifera (including Gypsina, Homotrema, Comuspiramia, Placopsolina and Nubecularia), specimens of which have been found to use Halimeda segments as a substrate (Roberts et al., 1988, see also Chapters 3 and 4, this manuscript). Brown algae was commonly noted on the surface of these bioherms, as well as on those from Australia In addition, highly bored surfaces and thick micritic rinds are associated with most of the Halimeda segments (Roberts et al., 1988). Nutrients that promotes growth of these bioherms comes from two different sources; a relatively constant north-south current which induces topographic upwelling, and seasonal changes in surface flow due to tropical monsoons Halimeda algal meadows (or bioherms, Freile, pers com., 1993) have recently been described from the western margin of Great Bahama Bank (Freile and Milliman, 1993; Freile et al., 1993). These Bahamian bioherms are found at depths from 20 to 40 m. Halimeda segments were often highly altered and sediments were bound at shallow depths by high Mg-calcite and aragonite cements. Although encrustation was not addressed in the report, Freile has seen encrustation on many of the segments (Freile, pers. com., 1993). Foraminiferal-Algal Nodules. Focke and Gebilein (1977) described rhodoliths from a fore-reef off of Bermuda at 50 m. Primary constructors of rhodoliths were found to be two different species of red algae. However, they do note that: On a millimeter scale foraminifera (mostly Homotrema rub rum), cheilostome bryozoans, small encrusting bivalves and vermitid gastropods be imp?rtant as primary or secondary frame builders. In one sample of the rhodolites a siliceous

PAGE 129

sponge was found to be a major framework element (Focke and Gebelein, 1977, p. 165). 113 Boring of the substrate, either by bivalves, sponges, algae, or fungi, was noted to be extensive. Lithification was pervasive, and could be detected only a few mm below the surface. It was concluded that rhodoliths of this type could serve as paleoenvirorunental indicators of relatively deep (>50 m) supersaturated tropical waters. Macintyre (1972) mapped the distribution of deep (30-80 m) reefal structures along islands of the eastern Caribbean. These structures were found to commonly occur on both the shelves and shelf breaks of eastern Caribbean islands. Macintyre ( 1972) concluded that the coral reefs which had originally formed these structures (all reefs except one off of Barbados were dead) had been limited in their framework construction by extensive boril)g and competition for space Sponges, coralline algae and Halimeda were noted to be abundant in surface sediments, and that some algal balls had been recovered from shelf submerged reefs Algal balls and fragments of coralline algae were the dominant constituents of the deeper, shelf-edge submerged reefs, along with "an agglomeration of encrusting biota" (Macintyre, 1972, p. 729). The algal balls, originally noted by Macintyre (1972) were studied in greater detail by Reid and Macintyre (1988) and found to consist of varying amounts of the foraminifer Gypsina and coralline algae. Secondary frame builders were squamacian algae, Honwtrema rubrum, serpulid worm tubes and various small corals. Proportions of Gyps ina and coralline algae varied on a north-south trend. Gypsina was predominate on the Montserrat shelf to the north, Gypsina and coralline algae commonly occurred together, while at the extreme southern end of the chain (the Grenadines) coralline algae was dominant The outermost envelopes of the nodules were usually found to be unaltered. Cements were found in the coralline algae and were also present in the commonly occurring borings. Although not specifically mentioned by the authors, this is the region where the north Atlantic western boundary current enters the Caribbean (Molinari et al., 1981).

PAGE 130

114 Very similar carbonate nodules, fonned primarily by Gypsina, several species of red algae and bryozoans were described from the south Aorida shelf off of the Aorida Keys (Prager and Ginsburg, 1989) Encrustation occurred on all exposed surfaces at depths from 35 to 60 m In addition, coarse sediment nuclei of the foraminiferal-algal nodules were commonly interwoven with sponge spicules, and though no nodules were seen forming around sponges at present, aggregates of similar composition were found in nearby sediments covered by orange sponge Seasonal changes in the volume transport of the Florida Current, and the seasonal appearance of a counter current west of the Pourtales Terrace, apparently promotes upwelling during spring and summer months along the Keys (Lapointe and Smi th 1987). Poag and Tresslar (1981) described a biostrome" on the Hower Garden Banks off of the coast of Texas consisting of foraminiferal-algal nodules fonned by several different species of coralline algae and Gypsina plana. Sessile and motile invertebrates, abundant sponges and fleshy algae, along with numerous other species of encrusting foraminifera, are associated with the nodules Modem Facies Trends. There are a number of important trends relating to the deposition of both Halimeda biohenns and the foraminiferal-algal nodules described in the preceding paragraphs One common factor is the occurrence of these sediments at depths ranging from 20 to 70 m (nodules are generally found below 50 m). Nodules are not described in association with Halimeda biohenns behind either the Great Barrier Reef or in the Sunda Straits, but nodules were commonly collected from the regions surrounding Nicaraguan Rise biohenns. Encrustation by numerous species of flora and fauna are a common theme in the descriptions of foraminiferal-algal nodules Several authors (e g., Macintyre, 1972; Focke and Gebelein 1977) mentioned intense competition for space by encrusting and-or attached organisms (including common observations of fleshy brown algae). Nodules are also often sites of early lithification Finally occurrence of Halimeda biohenns (along

PAGE 131

115 with a decrease in, or absence of, coral reefs) has been linked to increased depth and nutrients. Zones of abundant nodule growth on the Nicaraguan Rise also occur at depths influenced by increased nutrients. One important conclusion relating to paleoecologic interpretations was suggested by Focke and Gebelein (1977); nodules such as these could represent deposition below 50 m (p. 170). Based on data from all of the deeply formed carbonate nodules described above, the following criteria may serve as paleoecologic indicators to differentiate relatively deep nodule formation (>30m, referred to hereafter as "complex nodules") from shallow, surf zone or lagoonal nodules--1) formation by more than one taxonomic group of encrusters (e.g foraminifera and algae), 2) commonly have irregular and complex shapes, dependent largely on the nuclei, 3) encrustation over every available surface, including sponges, 4) common to pervasive evidence of macroboring and micro boring, 5) signs of early lithification 6) laminae are often discontinuous, due both to uneven growth (by different taxa, or preferential growth on one side) and disruption by bioerosion, 7) may have microbialites or microbially mediated cements and fmally, 8) often lack well defmed nuclei (due to formation around aggregates of sediment or sponges) Halimeda bioherms and deep nodules also may prove to be important for tracing nutrient levels of ancient seas Hallock and Schlager (1986) have shown that increased trophic resources or nutrients, can be one factor responsible for the demise of coral reef ecosystems in the geologic record. Hallock (1987, 1988) went on to point out other consequences of increased nutrients in carbonate depositional environments A gradient formed along increasing levels of trophic resources would change carbonate sedimentation from domination by plant-animal symbioses (e.g., coral reefs) in oligotrophic environments to a system dominated by benthic plants and heterotrophic filter feeders in mesotrophic to slightly eutrophic environments (Birkeland, 1987). Halimeda bioherms found at all of the present modern locations are examples of

PAGE 132

116 depositional systems from the mesotrophic part of the trophic resource gradient : a system dominated by benthic plants and heterotrophic filter feeders (most encrusters are suspension or fllter feeders) Topographic upwelling is responsible for delivering increased nutrients to the platforms of the Nicaraguan Rise (Fig 8). This upwelling shoals deep euphotic chlorophyl maximum and the uppermost thermocline to a depth of 35 m or less Encrustation becomes even more abundant on the nodules, which are usually found at greater depths than bioherms. Bioherms are shallow enough to receive sunlight, but are at deep enough depths to benefit from the increased inorganic and organic nutrients supplied by shoaling of the nutricline onto platform margins Abundant encrusters (and red algae) of the complex nodules are also taking advantage of these increased nutrients Complex nodules, however, can form at deeper depths than can Halimeda bioherms because coralline red algae requires less light than green Halimeda. This provides a possible explanation for the absence of biohermal accumulations at other increased nutrient availability sites (or they could also form in shallow, but more turbid waters than bioherms). Nutrient influx over shelf margin environments can arise from means other than upwelling. Internal waves, oscillations set up at the interface between water masses of different density (e.g. the thermocline), can be generated by tidal forces in areas where the shelf break is near the thermocline, creating a disturbance at the density interface, and are important in the process of vertical mixing in oceans (Pickard and Emery, 1990). It is thus possible that similar situations in the geologic record could document fluctuations of the nutricline or sedimentation near the deeper limits of the euphotic zone. If there is sufficient light, bioherms can be produced by calcareous algae and surrounded by complex nodules Complex nodules on hardgrounds might form at depths too deep for bioherms. The question then arises, are such situations found in the fossil record?

PAGE 133

117 Ancient Examples Paleozoic The best known examples of calcareous algal bioherms are the "phylloid algal" mounds, ranging from the Upper Pennsylvanian into the Triassic (Wilson, 1975) "Phylloid algae" is an artificial form group that includes leaf-shaped algal segments "irrespective of taxonomic identity or growth habit" (Pray and Wray, 1963) Although there is more than one type of phylloid algal form type, Kirkla.pd et al., (1993) describe extremely well preserved phylloid algal segments from a small biostromal buildup in the Pennsylvanian Holder Formation of New Mexico, placing them defmitively in the Udoteacea (same family as Halimeda). Phylloid algal mounds formed on numerous bank margins and shelf interiors on the southern extremity of the United States during the late Paleozoic A paleogeographic map of late Pennsylvanian time shows that many of these carbonate buildups are found along the margins of north-south trending tectonic blocks (Wilson, 1975). Terrigenous influx, caused by active tectonism, periodically shut off carbonate production. Carbonates from this region during the late Paleozoic are known for a lack of large, frame building organisms. An illustration of a typical late Paleozoic community is also illustrated in Figure 53. It shows a biohermal buildup of algal plates, surrounded at the base by a layer of "tubular foram" carbonate nodules (Wilson, 1975). Encrusting benthic foraminifera, Tubiphytes (a form genus of uncertain affmity), stromatoporoids and other creatures of unknown at:finity were found coating bioclastic debris on and around the mound (Wilson 1975, p 172-174) Encrusting foraminifera, including the ''tubular forams" mentioned above, also formed foraminiferal algal nodules, commonly referred to as "algal biscuits," in a zone surrounding the bioherm. A deposit of these algal biscuits" was described by Toomey et al. (1988) from Lower Permian limestones found in southern Kansas and Oklahoma. The nodules are found in a unit that is generally described as a molluscan-brachiopodal-algal limestones "Algal biscuits" have been studied for many years, and were assigned to form

PAGE 134

genera Osagia and Ottonosia (Twenhofel, 1919). At one time Osagia and Ottonosia were considered to represent a symbiosis between tubular foraminifera and blue-green algae, but Henbest (1963) preferred the term colony: 118 in the sense of an isolated or a segregated association of organisms that live together at the same time or in alternative succession and that produce a composite shell or structure with a specific form (Henbest, 1963, p. 36). A variety of different species of foraminifera and algae formed these nodules, a description that could easily apply to deep foraminiferal-algal nodules of modern seas. Indeed, illustrations of these form genera look remarkably similar to some of the nodules collected from the Nicaraguan Rise (Fig 51 compare to Toomey et al 1988, Fig. 4, p. 289) Although they are formed by completely different groups of foraminifera and algae than the present structures this appears to be an example of convergent evolution of a biogenic structure not of a skeletal element. Toomey et al. (1988) described the origin of the furrowed structure of the algal biscuits (Fig. 51) as a result of the destruction and modification of originally concentric laminae by boring organisms A close examination of the external surface of a modem nodule (Fig. 51) cannot prove originally concentric laminae, but does show extensive bioerosion and a complex, interlayered structure consisting of an older layer of Gypsina, overlain by a layer of coralline red algae with abundant P/anorbulina growing on, and being grown over by the coralline algae. A typical facies succession of the late Paleozoic starts with a phylloid algal mound surrounded with tubular foram" nodules (or algal biscuits or Otonosia, etc.) formed on terrigenous shales or sands (e.g., see Fig 51). This deposit can be overlain by a climax community (Toomey, 1983) of nodules and encrusting coralline algae, with virtually any bioclastic element including sponges, serving as nodule nuclei. This community was then overlain by a thin veneer of encrusting organisms which commonly silicified, and finally more terrigenous sediments (Wilson, 1975). Layers of carbonate nodules up to1m thick, not associated with algal mounds often extend for several miles.

PAGE 135

'"'.... .. 119 Figure 51 Complex nodules collected near Halimeda bioherms off of Rosalind bank from 25 m. Shown actual size. This is an example of a modern complex nodule that is very similar in appearence to complex nodules, "algal biscuits", of the Lower Permian Note complex structure due to overlapping encrusters and bioerosion Sequences similar to this were repeated many times on the American midcontinent and southwest. Active tectonism could have provided the means to repeatedly raise and lower carbonate producing areas through the paleo-nutricline However, deposits such as this do not have to occur as deeply as in the modern environments described above Many of the mounds lie under or over oolitic bed s, indicating deposition at shallower depths, probably less than 15m, up to within a meter of the sea surface (e g. Toomey et al., 1988 interpreted the Kansan "algal biscuit" deposits as forming in shallow grass beds ) This is a strong indication that these ancient seas were often subjected to intermediate nutrient levels at shallow depths. Mesozoic There are several periods of widespread carbonate deposition during the Mesozoic when large framework builde r s appeared to be absent or at least not dominant,

PAGE 136

120 in tropical carbonate buildups. The Oxfordian Smackover Formation of the Jurassic has abundant reefs of algae and scattered coral, with extensive bioerosion and encrustation (e.g., Baria et al 1982). Although these reefs may have been formed during periods of increased nutrient influence, neither abundant carbonate nodule growth nor calcareous algal bioherms appear to have been common, and may represent a portion of the trophic resource gradient slightly less mesotrophic than that of the western Nicaraguan Rise platforms Serranilla Bank and the south end of Bawihka Bank may be similar, as there scattered zones of coral growth and abundant bioerosion and encrustation by sponges and fleshy algae (Triffleman et al., 1992; Hine et al., submitted). C1rbonate nodule deposits are found on Late Cretaceous platforms of Sardinia (Carrannante and Simone, 1987). The facies development of these platforms is very interesting, starting with abundant chlorozoan sediments which are gradually replaced by finer grained bioclastic grainstones of a foramol nature, and as the deposits deepen (Carrannante and Simone, 1987), the grain size increases, and all non-skeletal grains disappear. Marginal deposits change from small rudistid buildups to large areas of rhodolith packstones and rudstones with abundant red algae, bryozoans, echinoderms and foraminifera. Regretably, Carannante and Simone (1987) do not describe the rhodolith constituents. Based on trends evident from similar modem deposits and the Paleozoic examples described above, it is predicted that the rhodoliths are indeed complex nodules Their illustration of a rhodolith packstone is at such low magnification that it is impossible to decifer the constituents, but irregular outlines, and lack of well defined nuclei are evident (Carrannante and Simone, 1987, p. 154, Fig 1D). This trend from chloralgal to foramol was described as a change from tropical" to "temperate" deposition. They contributed the change from a "tropical" to a "temperate" system to either 1) a change in paleolatitude and/or climate or 2) a change in the current structure which then changed complex hydrologic factors Based on the previously discussed modem and ancient trends, and on the fact that Cretaceous T e thyan carbonates were deposited in the tropics (e g Kauffman

PAGE 137

121 and Johnson, 1988) it is inferr e d that the chang e was caused by changes in "complex hydrologic factors," or more specifically, by a shoaling of th e nuUicline over these d epos its or subsidence of the platform into th e nuUicline. The lack of non-ske le tal grains further enforces this conclusion by indicating current flow over the platform. Cenozoic. A foram-bryozoan-algal facies of the Late Paleocen e Salt Mountain Limestone of southwestern Alabama (Bryan, 1991 ) may record a nuUicline-influenced d e posit down s lope from an active coral reef. There are abundant bry ozoa and red algae crusts in this facies as well as seve ral larg e r foraminif era that may hav e been attached to substrates. Alth o ugh ther e appear to be e n o ugh different enc ruster s presen t to form complex nodules, there are no nodules. This absence is ex plain ed by Bryan (1991) as due t o depth of formation of this faci es He u ses the Flower Garden Banks as a modern anal og, and points out that ther e is a sponge-algal zo n e below th e active reef. The Flower Garden banks was also one o f th e m odern, complex n o dul e dep osi tional environments. The sponge-algal zone m e ntion e d by Bryan (1991) lies from 38 t o -80 m, but it does have abundant complex n o dules. H o wev e r, Poag and Tresslar (1981) point out that n od ul es disap pear below -80 m, r e placed by scattered growths of coralline algae and sponges, which do es appear similar to th e Salt M ountain deposit. Lack of complex n odu l es when th e re are nodule forming organisms present could indi cate such deep depths (>80 m?) that algal growth rates w e r e n e ver sufficient to form nodul es. The Oligocene Bridgeboro Lim estone of so uthwestern Georgia provides another, more recent exam pl e of a d epos it with abundant carbonate nodules ( Bryan and Huddlestun 1991) that i s up t o 20 m thick in o utcr op. The Bridg eboro n odules however, are n o t compl ex, in stead th ey are si mil ar to the rho d o lith s originally described by Bosellini and Ginsburg (19 71). These nodules ar e consistently spherical, with only scattered flat and platy forms and a complete absence of irregular s hap es (Manker and Carter, 1987, 1989 ).

PAGE 138

122 The primary constituents consist of only two species of red algae which commonly display continuous, laminar growth. A few encrusters and larger foraminifera are associated with the nodules, but do not appear to have played a role in their formation (Manker and Carter, 1987, 1989). This author has seen two polished sections from the Bridgeboro Quarry (donated by Bryan, pers. com., 1990) and these are very similar to shallow rhodaliths described by Bosellini and Ginsburg (1971) The abundant nodules of the Brigeboro appear to have formed in high-energy environments at shallow depths Location of the deposits along the northwest margin of the Suwannee Strait (Bryan and Huddlestun, 1991) may have resulted in consistent, high-energy conditions. There are coral reefs stratigraphically below the Bridgeboro, but they are rare to non-existent above it, while terrigenous sediments become more abundant (Manker and Carter 1989). Conclusion Platforms of the northern Nicaraguan Rise provide an example of modern carbonate deposition that can be useful in interpretations of some ancient environments that do not fit the Bahamian pattern Nicaraguan Rise platforms may prove to be especially important in explaining deposits that have been influenced by fluctuations of the nutricline, as well as current-swept platforms. The strong physical energy, due both to the currents and to open ocean swell, are primarily responsible for the coarse grain size and lack of mud, as well as the absence of non-skeletal grains. The Caribbean Current's interaction with bank topography resulting in a shoaling of the nutricline, is significant, providing a depositional environment that can serve as an example of nutrient-influenced carbonate deposition in the past, regardless of physical energy Characteristics of nutrient-influence include 1) abundant encrustation and bioerosion, 2) formation of complex nodules and hardgrounds and may includ e 3) calcareous algal bioherms. The complex nodules may be especially useful due to their

PAGE 139

123 apparent widespread occurrence geographically and temporally. They are sufficiently distinctive from shallowly fanned rhodoliths, to easily distinguish in the fossil record, as illustrated Further research and synthesis from the Nicaraguan Rise platfonns and other similar deposits could make this example of carbonate deposition as useful for ancient interpretations as that of the Bahamas. Suggestions For Future Research The Thunder and Lightning Knolls area is the most complex, and the least "Bahamian" of any of the banks, and should be the focus of modern "mesotrophic" carbonate research. More detailed mapping, using side-scan sonar, of the bathymetry and surface features is especially needed. A high resolution surface sediment sampling scheme is needed to map the distribution of foraminiferal nodules and Halimeda biohenns to detect and quantify any ecologic and taphonomic trends. It would be very interesting to have any length of core from either Thunder or Lightning Knoll. This drilling would be very difficult to accomplish, due to both the strong currents and the welllithified surfaces, it would probably require a rotary rig. In addition to adding more data to the depositional model, if core were obtained, it could provide important paleoceanographic infonnation. Analysis of cements could be used to provide accurate dates of sea level rise and fall over these platfonns, and possibly show that the Nicaraguan Rise platfonns serve as an important gateway region for the western boundary current which presently passes over them.

PAGE 140

REFERENCES Arden, D D., 1975 Geology of Jamaica and Nicaraguan Rise, in, A.E.M. Nairn and F.G. Stehli (eds.): The Ocean Basins and Margins: The Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, Plenum Press, New York, p 617-661. 124 Arnold A. J Escrivan, F. D and Parker, W C., 1985. Predation and avoidance responses in the foraminifera of the Galopogos hydrothermal mounds: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 15, p 38 42. Baria, L.R., D.L. Stoudt, P.M.Harris, and P D. Crevello, 1982 Upper Jurassic reefs of the Smackover Formation, United States Gulf coast: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists bulletin, v. 66, p 1449-1482. Barker R. W., 1960, Taxonomic Notes on the Species Figured by H. B. Brady in His Report on the Foraminifera Dredged by H. M S Challenger During the Years 1873-1876: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 9, 238 pp ., 115 pl. Bathurst, R.G.C., 1975, Carbonate Sediments and Their Diagenesis, 2nd edition : Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 658 pp. Birkeland, C 1987 Nutrient availabilty as a magor determinant of differences among coastal hard-substratum communities in different regions of the tropics, in C Birkeland (ed.) Differences between Atlantic and Pacific tropical marine coastal ecosystems : community structure, ecological processes and productivity: UNESCO Reports in Marine Science, UNESCO, Paris, p 45-90. Bock, W. D., Lynts, G W Smith S Wright, R., Hay, W. W. and Jones, J 1., 1971, A Symposium of Recent South Florida Foraminifera : Memoir 1, Miami Geological Society, 245 pp Bosellini, A. and R. A. Ginsburg, 1971, Form and structure of Recent algal nodules (rhodolites) from Bermuda : Journal of Geology, v. 79: p.669-682 Bosence, D.W 1983. The occurence and ecology of recent rhodoliths --a review, in Peryt T. (ed.), Coated Grains: Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 225-242 Boss, S. K. and Liddel, W D ., 1987, Patterns of sediment composition of Jamaican fringing reefs facies : Sedimentology, v. 34 p 77-87.

PAGE 141

125 Brasier, M.D. 1975, Morphology and habitat of living benthonic foraminiferids from Caribbean carbonate environments: Revista Espanola de Micropaleontolog{a, v.7, p. 567-578. Brasier, M D., 1980, Microfossils: George Allen and Unwin, London, 193pp. Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C 1986. Comparative taphonomy : a key to paleoenvironmental interpretation based on fossil preservation: Palaios, v 1, p 207-227. Bryan, J., 1991. A Paleocene coral-algal-sponge reef from southwestern Alabama and the ecology of early Tertiary reefs: Lethaia, v 24, p 423-438. Bryan, J R. and P F. Huddlestun, 1991. Correlation and age of the Bridgeboro Limestone, a coralgallimestone from southwestern Georgia: Journal of Paleontology, v. 65, p. 864-868. Buddemeier, R .W. and D Hopley, 1988 Turn-ons and turn-offs : causes and mechanisms of the initiation and termination of coral reef growth: Proceedings of the Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium, Townsville, Australia, 1988, v. 1, p. 253-261. Burke, K., C. Cooper, J F. Dewey, P. Mann, and J.L. Pindell, 1984. Caribbean tectonics and relative plate motions, in W.E. Bonini, R.B. Hargraves and R. shagram (eds.), The Caribbean-South American Plate Boundary and Regional Tectonics: Geological Society of America Memoir162, p. 31-63 Carannante, G and Simone L., 1987. ''Temperate" versus "tropical" Cretaceous carbonate platforms in Italy: Rend. Soc Geol. It., v 9, p. 153-156. Carannante, G., M. Esteban, J D. Milliman and L. Simone, 1988. Carbonate facies as paleolatitude indicators : problems and limitations : Sedimentary Geology, v. 60, p. 333-346. Cimennan, F. and Langer, M., 1991, Mediterranean Foraminifera: Ljubluana : Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, 118 pp Collen, J. D and Burgess, C. J., 1979, Calcite dissolution, overgrowth and recrystallization in the benthic foraminiferal genus Notorotalia: Journal of Paleontology, v 53, P. 1343-1353. Cottey, T L., and Hallock, P ., 1988 Test surface degradation in Archaias angulatus: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 18, p 187-202 Culver, S J. and Buzas, M. A., 1982 Distribution of Recent benthic foraminifera in the Caribbean region: Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, No. 14, 389 pp.

PAGE 142

126 Davies, D.J., Powell, E N., and Stanton, R.J. Jr., 1989, Taphonomic signature as a function of the environmental process: shells and beds in a hurricane-influenced inlet on the Texas coast: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 72, p. 317-356. Davies, P.J., and J.F. Marshall, 1985. Halimeda bioherms-Loww enrgy reefs northern Great Barrier Reef: Coral Reef Congress, 5th, Tahiti, Proceedings, v. 5, p 1-7. Dennison, J.M. and W W Hay, 1967. Estimating the needed sampling area for subaquatic ecologic studies: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v 41, p 706-708. Dimego, G. J. Bosart, L. F., and Enderson, G. W., 1976, An examination of the frequency and mean conditions surrounding frontal into the Gulf of mexico and the Caribbean Sea: Monthly Weather Review, v 104, p. 709-718. Dolan, P., 1972. Genesis and distribuition of Recent sediments of Pedro Bank, south of Jamaica [Ph D. Thesis]: London, Univers i ty of London 232 pp Douglas, R. G., Liestman, J., Walch, C., Blake, G. and Cotton, M. L., 1980 The transition from live to sediment assemblages in benthic foraminifera from the southern California borderland, in Field, M. E., Bouma, A. H., Colburn, I.P., Douglas, R. G. and Ingle, J. C (eds ), Quaternary Environments of the Pacific Coast: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Pacific Section Symposium, v. 4, p. 257-280. Drew, E A. and K M Able, 1983. Growth of Halimeda in reefal and inter-reefal environments in: J Baker et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the Great Barrier Reef Symposium, p. 299-304 Enos, P and R D. Perkins, 1977 Quaternary Sedimentation in South Florida: Geological Society of America Memoir 147, Boulder, 198 pp Focke, J. W. and C. D Gebelein, 1978, Marine lithification of reef rock and rhodalites at a fore-reef slope locality (-50m) off Bermuda In: H.J Mac Gillavry and D.J Beets (eds.) : The 8th Caribbean Geologic Conference Willemsted, 1977, Geologie en Mijnbow, v. 57: p.163-171. Freile, D. and J.D. Milliman, 1993 Sedimentary facies of western Great Bahama Bank: bank-edge to slope transition : Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Southeastern Section Annual Meeting, v. 25, p 15. Freile, D., J.D. Milliman, and L. Hillis, 1993. Bank edge algal meadows --leeward bank margin sediment source and sink : western Great Bahama Bank: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Southeastern Section Annual Meeting, v. 25, p. 15

PAGE 143

127 Frost, 1977. Cenozoic reef systems of Caribbean prospects for paleoecologic synthesis in S.H. Frost et al (eds.) Reefs and Related Carbonates, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology No. 4, p 92-110. Glaser, K. S and A. Droxler, 1991, Highstand shedding off two "semi-drowned shallow carbonate systems, Pedro Bank and the southern shelf of Jamaica, northeastern Nicaraguan Rise: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v 61, p 128-142. Glynn, P W., 1974. Rolling stones among the scleractinia; mobile coraliths in the Gulf of Panama: Proceedings of the 2nd International Coral Reef Symposium 2, p.183-198. Goreau, T.F. and L.S Land, 1974. Fore-reef morphology and depositional processes, North Jamaica, i n L.F. Laporte (ed ), Reefs in Time and Space: SEPM Spec Pub. 18, p 77-89 Gregory, A.R. 1977. Aspects of rock physics from laboratory and log data that are important to seismic interpretation in C.E. Payton (ed.), Seismic Stratigraphy applications to hydrocarbon exploration, AAPG Memoir 26, p 15-46 Hallock and Peebles, 1992. Foraminifera with chlorophyte endosymbionts : Habitats of six species in the Florida Keys: Marine Micropaleontology v. 20, p. 277-292 Hallock, P., 1987, Fluctuations in the trophic resource continuum: a factor in global diversity cycles: Paleoceanography v.2, p 457-471. Hallock, P., 1988, The role of nutrient availability in bioerosion : consequences to carbonate buildups : Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v 6, p. 275-291. Hallock, P and Schlager, W 1986 Nutrient excess and the demise of coral reefs and carbonate platforms: Palaios, v. 1, p. 389-398. Hallock, P., Forward, L. B., and Hansen, J. H 1986, Influence of environment on the test shape of Amphistegina: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v 16, p 224-231. Hallock, P Hine, A C Vargo, G. A., Elrod, J. A. and Jaap, W. C., 1988a Platforms of the Nicaraguan Rise: examples of the sensitivity of carbonate sedimentation to excess trophic resources: Geology, v 16, p. 1104 1107. Hallock, P., A. C. Hine, et al., 1988b, Porifera : A substratum for the development of rhodoliths: Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado v. 20: p A339

PAGE 144

128 Hallock and Elrod, 1988 Oceanic chlorophyll around platfonns of the western Caribbean: observations from CZCS data: Proceedings of the Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium, 1988, v 2, p. 440-454. Hallock, P., and Hine, A. C 1990, Sponge-algal biohenns on the western platforms of the Nicaraguan Rise, Southwest Caribbean [abstract]: American Association of Petroleum Geologists 1990 Annual Convention, San Francisco Official Program and Abstracts, p. 97 Hallock, P., Silva, I. P. and Boersma, A., 1991, Similarities between planktonic and larger foraminiferal evolutionary trends through Paleogene paleoceanographic changes: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 83, p. 49-64 Hansen, H. J. and Revets, S. A., 1992, A revision and reclassification of the Discorbidae, Rosalinidae and Rotaliidae: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 22, p 166-180. Harris, M. W., 1992, Sedimentary products, processes and pathways of Bawhika Channel, a current-dominated open seaway of the Northern Nicaraguan Rise, Southwestern Caribbean Sea: Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of South Florida. Hastenroth, S. and Lamb, P. J., 1977, Climatic Atlas of the Tropical Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Oceans: University of Wisconsin Press, Madison WI. Henbest, L G 1963. Biology, Mineralogy and diagenesis of some typical, Late Paleozoic sedentary [foraminifera and algal-foraminiferal colonies : Cusman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Special Publication No. 6, 44 pp Hine, A. C. 1977, Lily bank, Bahamas; history of an active oolite sand shoal: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 47, p. 1554-1581. Hine, A. C., Hallock, P., Harris, M. W., Mullins, H T., Belknap, D. F. and Jaap, W. C., 1988a, Halimeda biohenns along an open seaway: Miskito Channel, Nicaraguan Rise, SW Caribbean Sea: Coral Reefs, v 6, p. 173-178. Hine, A. C., Locker, S D., Tedesco, L., Mullins; H T., Hallock, P. and Belknap, D., 1992, Multiple megabreccia shedding from low relief carbonate platfonns in an active tectonic setting : Nicaraguan Rise, Western Caribbean Sea: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, p .. Hine, A.C. M.W Harris, S.D Locker, P Hallock, M.W. Peebles, L.P. Tedesco H T. Mullins, S.W Snyder D .F. Belknap, J.L. Gonzales A.C. Neuman and J. Martinez, submitted Sedimentary infilling of an open seaway; Bawihka Channel, Nicaraguan Rise: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, submitted april, 1993. Tiling, L.V., 1954, Bahamian calcareous sands : American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v 38, p. 1-95

PAGE 145

129 James, N P, 1984. Introduction to carbonate facies models, in R.G. Walker, ed., Facies Models : Geoscience Canada Reprint Series 1, p 209-212 Jones, B. and I. G. Hunter, 1991, Corals to rhodolites to microbialitesa community replacement sequence indicative of regressive conditions: Palaios, v.6: p .54-66. Kauffman E.G. and C.C Johnson, 1988. The morphological and ecological evolution of Middle and Upper Cretaceous Reef-building rudistids: Palaios, v. 3, p. 194-216. Kennett J.P. and Srinivasan, S 1983, Neogene Planktonic Foraminifera : a Phylogenetic Atlas : Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, PA, 263 pp. Kirkland, B. L., C.H. Moore Jr. and J A. D. Dickson, 1993 Well preserved, aragonitic phylloid algae (Eugonophyllum, Udoteacea) from the Pennsylvanian Holder Formation, Sacremento Mountains New Mexico : Palaios, v 8, p 111-120 Kotler, E., Martin, R. E., and Liddel, W D., 1992 Experimental analysis of abrasion and dissolution resistance of modem reef-dwelling foraminifera : implications for the preservation of biogenic calcite : Palaios, v. 7, p. 244-276. Langer, M., 1988 Recent epiphyitic foraminifera from Vulcano (Mediterranean Sea): Revue de Paleobiologie, Vol. Spec No 2, Benthos'86, p. 827-832. Lapointe B.E. and N.P Smith, 1987. A preliminary investigation of upwelling as a source of nutrients to Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary : NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS MEMD 9, Washington, 53 pp Lees A. 1975, Possible influence of salinity and temperature on modem shelf carbonate sedimentation : Marine Geology v 19, p 59-60 Lees, A. and A.T. Buller, 1972 Modem temperate-water and warm-water shelf carbonate sediments contrasted: Marine Geology, v. 13, p M67-M73. Liddel, W. D. and Martin R. E 1989, Taphofacies in modem carbonate environments: implications for the formation of foraminiferal sediment assemblages: 28th International Geological Congress, Washington D C Abstracts v. 2, p. 299. Loeblich, A. R. Jr. and Tappan H., 1964, Sarcodina chiefly "Thecamoebians" and Foraminiferida, in Moore, R C. (ed ),Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part C, Protista 2 : Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 2 vol., 900 pp Loeblich, A. R. Jr. and Tappan, H 1987 Foraminiferal Genera and their Classification. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York 2 vol., 970 pp., 847 pl.

PAGE 146

130 Logan, B.W., J L. Harding, M. Ahr, J P. Williams and R.G. Sleep, 1969. Late Quaternary Carbonate sediments of the Yucatan shelf in Logan, Bet al eds., Carbonate sediments and reefs, Yucatan Shelf, Mexico AAPG Memoir11, p. 5-128 Macintyre, I. G., 1972. Submerged reefs of the eastern Caribbean: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 56, p.720-738 Manker, J.P. and B.D. Carter, 1987. Paleoecology and paleogeography of an extensive rhodalith facies from the Lower Oligocene of south Georgia and north Florida: Palaios, v 2, p. 181-188. Manker, J.P. and B.D. Carter, 1989. Late Eocene and Early Oligocene carbonate environments of central an southwestern Georgia in: W.J. Fritz (ed.) Excursions in Georgia Geology, Georgia geological Survey Guidebook 9, p. 119-147. Mann, P., Seubert, C and Burke, K 1990, Review of Caribbean neotectonics, in Dengo, G. and Case, J. E (eds.) The Geology of North America, Volume H, The Caribbean Region : The Geological Society of America, Boulder, p. 307-338. Mann, P. and Burke, K., 1984 Cenozoic rift formation in the northern Caribbean: Geology, v 12, p. 732-736. Martin, R. A. 1986, Habitat and distribution of the foraminifer Archaias angulatus (Fichtel and Moll) (Miliolina, Soritidae), northern Florida Keys: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v 16, p. 201-206. Martin, R. E. and Liddel, W. D 1991. The taphonomy of foraminifera in modem carbonate environments: implications for the formation of foraminiferal assemblages, in Donovan, S K ., ed., The Processes of Fossilization : Columbia University Press, New York, p 22-65 Maxwell, W.G.J. 1968. Atlas of the Great Barrier Reef. Elsevier, London, 258 pp. Milliman, J.D., 1974. Recent Sediemntary Carbonates, Part 1, Marine Carbonates: Springer-Verlag, New York, 375 pp Molinari, R. L., Spillane M., Brooks, 1., Atwood, D and Duckett, C 1981, Surface currents in the Caribbean Sea as deduced from Lagrangian observations : Journal of Geophysical Research, v 86, p. 6537-6542 Moore, C. H., and Shedd, W W 1977, Effective rates of sponge bioerosion as a function of carbonate production : Proceedings of the Third International Coral Reef Symposium Rosenstiel School of Marine Science, Miami, v 2, p 499-505 Murray, J W ., 1967, Transparent and opaque foraminiferid tests: Journal of Paleontology, v 41, p 791.

PAGE 147

131 Murray, J.W., and Wright, C.A., 1970, Surface textures of calcareous foraminiferids: Paleontology, v. 13, p. 184-187. Murray, 1973. Distributiof! and Ecology of living Benthic Foraminiferids: Heinmann Educational Books Limited, London, 274 pp. Murray, J.W., 1987, Benthic foraminiferal assemblages: criteria for the distinction of temperate and subtropical carbonate environments in, M B. Hart [ed ] Micropaleontology of Carbonate Environments : Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, p. 9-20 Newell, N.D., J. Imbrie, E.G. Purdy and D.L. Thurber, 1959. Organism communities and bottom facies, Great Bahama Bank: Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, v. 117, p. 177-228. Neumann, A. C. and I. G. Macintyre, 1986. Reef responce to sea level rise: keep-up, catch-up, or give-up: Proceedings Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti, 1985, V. 3, p 105-110 Orme, G.R., 1985 The sedimentologic importance of Halimeda in the developement of back-reef lithofacies, northern Great Barrier Reef (Australia): Coral Reef Congress, 5th, Tahiti, Proceedings, v. 5, p. 31-37. Orme, G.R. and M.S. Salama, 1988. Fonn and Stratigraphy of Halimeda banks in part of the northern Great Barrier Reef Province: Coral Reefs, v. 6, p. 131-137. Parsons, K. M. and Brett, C. E 1991, Taphonomic processes and biases in modem marine environments: an actualistic perspective on fossil assemblage preservation, in Donovan, S. K ed The Processes of Fossilization: Columbia University Press, New York, p. 22-65. Peebles, M. W., 1988, Taphonomy of common shallow-water foraminifera from San Salvador, Bahamas: Unpublished Masters Thesis, Auburn University, 120 pp. Peebles, M. W. and Lewis, R. D 1988, Differential infestation of shallow-water benthic foraminifera by microboring organisms: possible biases in preservation potential: Palaios v. 3, p. 345-351. Peebles, M W and Lewis, R D., 1989, Notes on the taphonomy of common shallow water benthic foraminifera from San Salvador, Bahamas: in Mylroie, ed. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium of the Geology of the Bahamas, p. 267274. Peebles, M. W., Hallock, P H and Hine, A. C., 1989, Sedimentology and taphonomy of Thunder and Lightning Knolls, two, small carbonate platforms, Nicaraguan Rise, southwest Caribbean Sea : Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, annual meeting, v. 21 p. A293.

PAGE 148

Peebles, M: W lf_allock, P. and A. C., 1990, Rhodolite and encrusted-grain sedunentat10n, Thunder and Lightning Knolls, Southwest Caribbean Sea: Association of Petroleum Geologists 1990 Annual Convention, San Francisco Official Program and Abstracts, p 150 132 Peebles, M. W., Hallock, P. and Hine, A. C., 1993. Carbonate sedimentology of currentswept, tropical platforms, Northern Nicaraguan Rise : Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Southeastern Section meeting, v. 25, p. 61. Peebles, M W., Hallock, P. and Hine, A. C 1991, Taphonomy of foraminifera from tropical, deep carbonate platforms, Nicaraguan Rise, SW Caribbean Sea [abstr ] : Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 23, p. A36. Peebles, M W., and Lewis, R. D 1991, Surface textures of benthic foraminifera from San Salvador Bahamas: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 21, p. 285-292. Perkins, R. D. and Halsey, S D 1971, Geological significance ofmicroboring fungi and algae in Carolina shelf sediments : Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 41, p. 252257. Perkins, R D. and Tsentas 1976, Microbial infestation of carbonate substrates planted on the St Croix shelf: Geological Society of America Bulletin, V 87, P. 1615-1625 Phipps, P.J., P.J. Davies, and D. Hopley, 1985. The morphology of Halimeda banks behind the Greta Barrier Reef east of Cooktown Qld.: Coral Reef Congress, 5th, Tahiti, Proceedings, v 5, p 27-30 Pickard, G.L. and W.J. Emery 1990 Descriptive Physical Oceanography, An Introduction (5th enlarged edition: Pergamon Press, New York, 320 pp Poag, C. W. and Tresslar, R C 1981, Living foraminifers of West Flower Garden Bank, northernmost coral reef in the Gulf of Mexico : Micropaleontology, v 27, p. 31-70. Poag, C.W., H.J Knebel and R. Todd, 1980. Distribution of modembenthic foraminifers on the New Jersey outer continental shelf: Marine Micropaleontology, v. 5, p 43-69. Prager E. J. and R N Ginsburg 1989 Carbonate nodule growth on Florida's outer shelf and its implications for the fossil interpretations: Palaios, v.4 : p.310-317. Pray, L.C. and J.L. Wray, 1963 Porous algal facies (Pennsylvanian), Honaker San Juan Canyon Utah : in R.O. Bass (ed.), Shelf Carbonates of the Paradox Basm, Four Comers Geological Society Symposium, Fourth Field Conference, p. 204234.

PAGE 149

133 Purdy, E. G., 1963. Recent calcium carbonate facies of the Great Bahama Bank petrography and reaction groups: Journal of Geology, v. 71, p. 334-355: 472-497. Purser, B.H., ed., 1973 The Persian Gulf. Springer-Verlag, New York, 471 pp. Reid, R. P and Macintyre, I. G 1988, Foraminiferal-algal nodules from the eastern Caribbean : growth history and implications of the nodules as paleoenvironmental indicators: Palaios, v 3, p 424-435. Roberts, H.H., and S.P. Murray, 1983 Controls on reef development and the terrigenous-carbonate interface on a shallow shelf, Nicaragua (Central America): Coral Reefs, v. 2, p. 71-80. Roberts, H.H. C.V. Phipps and L Effendi, 1987. Halimeda bioherms of the eastern Java Sea, Indonesia: Geology, v 15 p. 371-374. Roberts, H.H., P Aharon and C.V. Phipps, 1988 Morphology and sedimentology of Halimeda bioherms from the eastern Java Sea (Indonesia): Coral Reefs, v. 6, p. 161-172. Scholle, P. A., 1978. A Color lllustrated Guide to Carbonate Rock Constituents, Textures, Cements and Porosities: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 27 Tulsa, OK, 241 pp. Scholle, P .A., D.O. Bebout, and C.H. Moore, eds., 1983 Carbonate Depositional Environments : American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 33. Tulsa, OK, 708 pp. Scoffin, T P ., 1987. An Introduction to Carbonate Sediments and Rocks. Chapman and Hall, New York, 274 pp. Seiglie, G. A., Grove, K. and Rivera, J. A., 1976, Revision of some Caribbean Archaiasinae, new genera, species and subspecies : Ecologae et Geoloicae Helvetica, v 70, p. 855 883. Shinn, E .H., R.P. Steinen B.H Lidz,. and P K Swart 1989 Whitings, a sedimentolgoic dilemma: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 59, p 147-161. Simone, L. and Carannante, G 1988 The fate of foramol ("temperate type") carbonate platforms: Sedimentary Geology, v. 60, p. 347-354. Sliter, W. V., 1965, Laboratory experiments on the life cycle and ecologic controls of Rosalina globularis d'Orbigny: Journal of Protozoology, v 12, p 210-215. Sliter, W V., 1971, Predation on benthic foraminifera : Journal of Foraminiferal Research, V 1, p. 20-29.

PAGE 150

134 Smith, R. k., 1987, Fossilization potential in modem shallow-water benthic foraminiferal assemblages: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 17, p. 117-122. Speyer, S. E. and Brett, C. E 1986, Trilobite taphonomy and Middle Devonian taphofacies: Palaios, v. 1, p 312-327 Tresslar, R.C. 1974. Foraminif e rs, in T J. Bright and L.H. Pequ egna t, eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Banlc Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX, p. 68-91. Toomey, D .F., 1983. Early Permian coated grains from a lagoonal environment, Laborcita formation, Sacremento Mountains, Southcentral New Mexico, in T M Peryt (ed.), Coated Grains : Springer-Verlag, New York, p 548-560. Toomey, D.F. R.W. Mitchell, and T.K Lowenstein, 1988 "Algal biscuits" from the Lower Permian Herington Krider Limestones of southern Kansas-northern Oklahoma: Paleoecology and paleodepositional setting : Palaios, v 3, p. 285-297. Triffleman, N.J., Hallock, P Hine A. C. and Peebles, M., 1991, Distribution of foraminiferal tests in sediments of Serranilla Bank Nicaraguan Rise, Southwestern Caribbean : Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v 21, p. 39-47. Triffleman, N.J., Hallock, P and Hine, A. C., 1992, Morphology, sediments and depositional environments of a small carbonate platform: Serranilla Bank, Nicaraguan Rise, Southwest Caribbean Sea: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p 591-606 Vaughn, T W., 1915. The Geologi cal significance of the growth rate of Floridian and Bhamaian shoal water corals:Joumal of the Washington Academy of Science, v 5, p. 591-600. Vellerman, P F., 1988 Data Desk, Statistics Guide and Handbook Odesta Corporation (commercial software). Wantland, K. E., 1977, Distribution of Holocene benthonic foraminifera on the Belize shelf in S H. Frost et al. (eds ) Reefs and Related Carbonates, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology No.4, p. 332-399. Wetmore, K. L., 1988, Test strength, mobility and functional morphology of benthic foraminifera : Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 197pp. Wetmore, K. L. and Plotnick R. E 1992, Correlations between test morphology, crushing strength and habitat in Amphistegina gibbosa, Archaias angulatus and Laevipeneroplis prot e us from Bermuda: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 22, p 1-13.

PAGE 151

135 Wilbur R.J . J D. Milliman and R.B. Halley. 1990. Accumulation of Holocene banktop sediment on the western margin of Great Bahama Bank : Geology. v. 18. p. 970974. Wilson. J.L 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History: Springer. New York. 471 pp.

PAGE 152

136 APPENDICES

PAGE 153

APPENDIX 1 ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROHLER DATA I II :ll -=:J km 137 I'fl 20' 40' 20' 81 40 20' soo 1 0' Acoustic doppler current profiles were collected continuously during CH0388. Twenty-four sample sites are included in this appendix as a representation of the data collected. The collection sites shown above are illustrated in the profiles on the following pages. Each profile also includes information regarding where it is stored (Disk File, etc in the upper left comer), date and time collected and an approximate latitude and longitude The collection sites illustrated above were confirmed by ship's log, in some cases, the sample site will be different than the latflong included with each profile

PAGE 154

DISK filE: ENSEMBLE: 46 CRUISE ID: CH9388 1 UELOCITV (eM/sec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOH -199 Q lQil 81------j .. .... -i-. D E I . f 17 -----H U-ACC-Y.CD ...... A c DISK fiLE: ENSEMBLE: 132 CRUISE JD: 019388 3 UELOCITV (eM/sec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOH -199 i 199 D E p 25 T H 371---+--59 U-U-ACC-Y.CD""'' IIAY llililm 8: 7:28 HEADING: -43. 4 DEC PITCH: 9 3 DEC ROll: -9.2 DEC TEMP: 29.2 BOTTOM (eM/sec) SHIP UEL H -167.4 SHIP UEL [ -267.2 DPTH 32.9 M HAU DEUICE LAT 15.6182 LOH -81.6263 DIR 9 .9296 UEL 11245.9897 kts REF LYR (eM /sec) UEL H -89.35 UEL E -136.99 HAY 21, 1988 18:14:57 HEADIHC: 35. 9 DE PITCH: 8.2 DE ROLL: 8.11 DE TOO: 28.9 BOTTOM CeM/m) SHIP UEL H 61.9 SHIP UEL E -199.9 DPTH 47.9 HAU DEUICE lAT 16.2783 LOH -81.5155 DIR 138.6549 UEL 3 .8362 kts REf lYR CcMistcl UEL H 57.76 UEL E -64.U DISK FILE: C:P INCDATA.998 ENSEMBLE: 19 CRUIS JD: CH9388 HEADER: 1 D E VELOCITY (eM/sec> RELATIVE T O BOTTOH 9 175 p 75 T v:: J .. H 1121---. 15QI < U([)-U(N) - : ( ... :;---... I I ACC-Y.CD ...... B fiLE: C:PINCDATA.999 ENSEMBLE: 1 tRUISE ID: CH9388 HEADER: 2 VELOCITY (eM/sec> RELATIVE TO BOTTOM -199 Q 199 25111 _.---: I Um-U() 0 c en ::l () 0 0 '"0 '"0 r tT1 :;:o (') c tT1 PITCH: 9 2 DEC '"0 ROll: Q.9 DEC :;:o HHP: 28.7 CC> 0 BOTTOM (eM/sec) SHIP UEl H -347.8 SHIP UEl [ 356. 5 DPTK 243.9 NAU DEVICE LAT 16,3633 LON -'81.3852 DIR UEl 9 .9999 kts REf LYR Ce" / secl UEl N -334. UELE 396.71 p tT1 :;:o 0 )>w 00

PAGE 155

DISK fiLE: C :PINCDATA.9U9 ENSEMBLE: 5 :RUm ID: Cll9388 HEADER: 2 D E p T H VELOCITY (eM/sec) RELATIVE TO BOTTOM -159 9 1 5 9 91'\l \ '/1 12f--f-Utn-UIN)-Ar.r._ v.r.n ...... E G DISK fiLE: C:PIHCDATA.&a9 ENSEMBLE: 27 CIIIIISE JD: Cll9388 HEADER: 2 D E lSi VELOCITY (cMistcl RELATIUE TO BOTTOM 62 : F-1-+-_,-,.-:.'-:-: p 125 T H 1871-P..: 259 UlnU(H)At:r.-Y.C.I) ...... MAY 1988 l:a2:39 HEADING: 235.8 DEC Q 9 DEC ROll: 9.9 DH TOO: 28. 9 BOTTOM (cwserl SHIP VEL H -244.4 SHIP VEL E 239. 7 DPTH 33.9 HAV DEVICE LAT 16.39511 LOH -81.4292 DIR 264.8943 VEL 4.&453 kts REF LVR BOTTOM (eM/sec) SHIP UEL H -47. 5 SHIP UEL E 34.2 DPTN 299.9 HAU DEVICE LAT 16.4919 LOH -81.5192 DIR 179.9293 UEl 2.9165 kts REf LYR -ACC-XCD ...... fiLE: C:PINCDATA.999 ENSEMBLE: 62 :RUm ID: CH9388 HEADER: 2 VELOCITY (eM/sec) RELATIVE TO BOTTOM -159 9 159 9 -!.-.,--: : 1-j i. I p 125 ---t--;. _ :.; + -----T . H i ) . j -U([)-U CHl-AGC-Y.CD ...... H MAY 1988 2:a2:39 ?; ""0 tr1 HEADIHC: 216.9 DEC S PITCH: U DEC H ROLL: -9.2 DEC TOO: 28.9 ,.... B OTTOM (ell/sec) SHIP VEL N -3114.8 SHIP VEL 336. 7 DPTH 36. 9 HAU DEUICE lAT 16.4692 lOH -81.4857 DIR 326.8916 UEL 14.3269 kts REF L Y R (eM/sec) UEL N -212.21 UEL E 249.13 f) 0 c:: en ::i n 0 0 ""0 ""0 r tr1 :::0 n c:: tr1 HEADING: 255.2 DEC PITCH: 8.3 DEC :;a ROLL: U DEC O TOO: 28.8 (C) MAY 22 1988 6:J7:49 BOTTOM CcM/m) Fl SHIP UEL H 29.5 tr1 SHIP UEL E 41.9 :::0 DPTH 237. 9 0 HAU LAT 16.4552 L O H -81.5259 DIR 356.9975 UEL 57.4933 kts REf LYR CeMisecl UEL H 26.14 UEL E 26.17 )>-..... \,..,) \C)

PAGE 156

UISK till! C!fiHGDAIA.YY9 LHS[MBLE! CRUISE U: OIU388 HEADER: 2 I UELOCITY BOTTOM SHIP UEL N -73,, SHIP UEL E 454. 3 DPTH 185.8 M HAU DEUICE LAT 16.4m LOH -81.4195 DIR 237.11817 UEL 7.2712 kts REr LYR Cc.tsec> UEL H 16.12 UEL E 421.46 DISK FIL: -,-.. CRUISE 11: 018388 HEADER: 2 J D E p T H UELOCITY (c.tsec) IELATIUE TO BOTTOM -288 8 2118 8 751 : f i i / 1 \ . 7 Utrl-UCNl-AC:r.-'l.C:Il ...... I S K fiLE: C:PJHCDATA.889 ENSEMBLE: 192 RUISE ID: CH9388 HUDR: 2 D [ p T H UELOCITY C cMisec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOH m a 1sa 9 37-... SQ f I UCfl-UCHl -AC.f.-'l.C.D ...... L MQY22i 1988 2: 2:39 ?; "tl [T1 z HfADIHC: 219. 8 DEC g PITCH: 8.3 DEC R OLL: 8. 8 DEC -TOO: 28. 9 i BOTTON Cc.tm) SHIP UfL H -286.4 SHIP UEL E 391. 4 DPTH 28. 8 11 HAU DfUICE LAT 16.4122 LOH -81.4498 DIR 268.2438 UEL 3.9156 kts REF LYR Cc.tsec) UEL H -138.85 Ufl E 135.2' MAY 1988 9:J7:42 If; 0 c:: (/.) ::j () 0 0 "tl "tl r [T1 ;;o () c:: [TI HEADING: 217. 4 DEC "tl PITCH: 9.9 DEC ;;o ROLL: 9 .11 DEC 0 roo : 28.8 BOTTON Ccwm) tTl SHIP UEL H -67. 9 SHIP UEL 121.9 rw DPTH 31.9 11 0 NAU DEUICE LAT 16.7278 ;> LON -81.4615 DIR 357.4846 UEL 194.7499 kts REF LYR CcKisec) UEL N -24.68 UEL E 44.35

PAGE 157

DISK filE: C :PIHGDATA.999 ENSEMBLE: 199 CRUISE JD: CH9388 HEADER: 2 UELOCITY ( eM/s e c ) RELATIUE TO BOTTOM -m a m 9 591 t. I : !1119----' M UCl-UCH>-Ar.C:'/.r.D ...... OISK filE: C :PJHGDATA.999 ENSEMBLE: 387 :RillS ID: CH8388 HEADER: 2 D E UELOCITY (eM/sec> RELATIUE TO BOTTOM -175 i 175 : 3 7!-;r ------. ,_ : p 75 T H 0 15QL------,...:....+-----=----'---_.J UCD-UCNl-AGC-.Y.GD ...... IIAY 22 I 1988 111:32:38 HEADING: 232. 7 DEG PITCH: 9 2 DEC ROLL: -&.2 DEC TEMP: 28.8 -Ac:r.-Y.C:n ...... N fiLE: C : PIHGDATA .1189 ENSEMBLE: 344 rRUISE ID: CH9388 HEADER: 2 I UELOCITY (c.Vs e c > RELATIU TO BOTTOM I -159 II 1SIJ ; a D E p T H ; : 1511-211111 <"A;._,.. : U([) -U(H)....: AGC -Y.G D ...... p IIAY 23, 1988 '"0 2 :J2:38 HEADING: -15. 3 DEC 0 PITC H : 8 8 DEC H ROLL: & .It DEC ;x; HMP: 2U (C) -B OTTOII ( c .Vm) SHIP U E L H -48.3 S HIP UEL E 3 8 DPTH 2&4. & HAU DEVICE LAT 16.3642 LOti -81.2273 DIR 342.89211 UEL 3.8941 kts REf LYR ( c.Vsec) UEl N 2UB UEL E -21.56 IIAY 23,. 1988 6 :.7:39 > (") 0 c:: Cl:l 0 0 '"0 '"0 HEADIHC: 188. 6 D( ;g PITUI: 11.8 DEC O ROLL: -9.2 D< 100 : 28.4 UEl H 95.3 6 UEL E -223.&6 0 > ,__ -

PAGE 158

DISX FILE: C:PINCDATA.BQ9 ENSEMBLE: 414 CRUISE ID: CHH388 HEADER: Z D E p T H Q m UELOCITV {cMfsec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOH 31 '----------U' a I J L_J_ _ D E p T H : /._... : 2911 159'-----'l.-----4----'----.:....._-'----' U-ACC-:t.CD ...... R DISK FILE: C:PINCDATA.911 ENSEMBLE: CRIIISE ID: CH9388 HEADER: 4 2 I VELOCITY (cMisec) RELATIVE TO BOTTOH -m a 159 a 12 J) zs T . H 37 59 U< ,_... >(') 0 c C/) ::j (') 0 0 "0 "tt r [TI (') c tTl HEADING: 6.8 DEG "tt PITCH: 9.9 DEC ROll: 9.11 DEC 0 TOO: 28.9 BOTTOM (eM/sec) E SHIP UEL H -14.7 SHIP UEL E -172. 1 DPTN JU II 0 NAU DEVICE LAT 16.1158 ;J> LON -89.6183 DIR 45.1249 UEL 3 .7417 kts REf LYR (eM/sec) UEL H -119.47 VEL E -258.51 ,_... ts

PAGE 159

DISK fiLE: C :PINGDATA.911 ENSEMBLE: 198 CRUISE ID: CH9388 HEADER: 3 D [ p T H u UELOCITY (eM/sec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOM -159 9 159 I : SQ;'------l........:....., ____ UCD-UCN)-Ar.C-Y.C:D ...... DISK filE: C :PINCDATA.911 ENSEMBLE: 335 :RIJISE ID: CH9388 HEADER: 3 w D [ UELOCITY (eM/sec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOM -159 i 159 i 12 :l>... T H : 31 ----+--:------K 59 U(f)-UCN)-Ar.C-Y.C:D ...... MAY 261 ma 3: 1:41 HEADIHC: 296. 4 DE< PITCH: U DH ROll: 9.11 DEC TEMP: 39.9 CCl BOTTO M (eM/sec) SHIP UEL H -196.2 SHIP UEL E 158.1 DPTH 29.9 11 HAU DEUICE LAT 1U965 LOH -89.6659 DIR 318.7328 UEL 5 .5878 kts REf LYR (eM/sec) UEL H -97.95 UEL E -98.59 MAY 26, 1988 22:96:41 HEADIHC: -6.2 DEC PITCH:. 8.2 DEC ROll: 9.11 DEC TOO: 29.7 (C) BOTTOM (eM/sec) SHIP UEL H -26.2 SHIP UEL E -93.4 DPTH 29.8 11 HAU DEUICE LAT 16.7193 LOH -88.4738 DIR 35.2183 UEL 2.7996 kts REf LYR Cell/sec) UEL H -89.1U UH E 1 34.8' DISK fiLE: C :PINGDATA.911 ENSEMBLE: 134 CRUISE ID: CH9388 HEADER: 3 UELOCITY (eM/sec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOM -159 9 159 9 12 --+ --....... .;. .... ... D ; [ : p 25 ----..... ; ....... ...... ........... .... .. T H 59'-------'-----_..._...__ __ ---'----'-----" U([)-UCH)-AGC-Y.GD ...... v X DISK filE: C:PINGDATA.911 ENSEMBLE: 389 CRUISE ID: CH9388 HEADER: 3 D E p T H UELOCITY (eM/sec) RELATIUE TO BOTTOM -159 i 159 i U([)-U(Hl-AGC-Y.G O ...... MAY 1988 S:d:42 m HADIHG: -6. 9 DE< 6 PITCH: 9 2 DE< t'1 ROll: 9.8 DE( HHP: 29. 6 (CJ ,..... BOTTOM Cell/sec) SHIP UEL N -21.1 SHIP UEL [ -254. 6 DPTH 22. 9 11 HAU DEVICE LAT 16.5488 LOH -89. 7583 DIR 356.1999 UEl 114.252 5 kts REf LYR (eM/sec) m H -88.78 UEL E -164.65 > (') 0 c (/) ::j (') 0 0 '"t1 '"0 (') c MAY 1988 m t:a1:42 HEADIHC: 212.1 DEC '"0 PITCH: 9 8 DEC ROll: 9. i DEC 0 TOO: 29. 7 CC> BOTTOM Cc.Vm> E SHIP UEL H -11&.8 SHIP UEl E 455.7 ,v DPTN 32. 9 11 0 HAU DfUICE LAT 6 .8618 )LOH -89.5887 DIR 348.2936 UEL 121.6912 kts REf LYR . VJ

PAGE 160

APPENDIX 2. GRAIN SIZE 144 Medium Sands Coarse sands IU s Ei Ei e s e Ei 6 IU Q. Ei 8 0 1"1 -5 Q. s 8 -5 8 .,.., \0 "0 8 0 .,.., 1"1 "0 fr .,.., ('I :g c. .,.., ('I 0 ::l .,.., ('I ::l Cl) N 0 0 0 0 s N s IU "0 Cl) 0 0 0 0 "0 S73 2 5 12 58 23 0 1 33 S64 21 12 11 17 22 12 6 57 S77 8 7 23 46 14 1 2 30 S82 14 15 24 30 14 1 2 26 S81 2 3 11 50 33 0 1 26 S87 8 13 51 17 9 1 1 26 S88 1 5 20 41 31 1 1 26 S93 9 18 40 22 9 1 2 26 S89 4 16 41 29 9 0 1 26 S94 4 14 52 20 8 0 2 26 S90 8 19 34 23 14 1 2 26 S95 5 25 35 23 11 0 1 26 S107 3 1 2 30 34 19 0 1 38 S96 5 11 33 34 14 1 2 26 S108 9 4 19 38 25 3 3 33 S98 14 13 35 29 7 0 1 26 S110 2 1 32 40 23 0 2 21 S102 10 14 33 26 7 5 4 26 S113 2 5 30 44 18 0 1 1 9 S106 6 19 51 20 3 0 0 27 S114 2 5 30 46 14 0 1 18 S111 11 11 28 34 14 0 2 21 S118 2 7 33 46 10 0 1 18 S112 5 13 43 25 14 1 1 21 S119 2 5 22 4 9 20 0 2 20 S115 3 27 45 19 4 0 1 17 S121 2 11 39 28 1 9 0 1 21 Sl16 6 16 54 19 3 0 2 17 S125 4 4 19 47 25 1 1 24 S117 6 16 48 25 4 0 1 23 S131 1 5 30 44 1 8 1 1 19 S120 4 12 40 32 10 0 1 21 S132 2 6 24 44 22 1 2 19 S122 2 18 41 22 16 0 1 2 1 S133 6 7 18 43 23 1 2 1 9 S123 2 16 53 22 5 0 1 24 S134 9 3 14 38 32 3 0 19 S124 3 9 33 28 23 2 1 24 S135 6 4 21 45 21 2 0 18 S126 1 9 59 17 12 0 1 23 S141 6 9 15 27 38 3 2 30 S129 10 22 37 20 8 1 2 23 S142 5 7 24 41 21 2 0 18 S130 2 10 44 27 16 1 1 23 S145 4 3 19 39 32 3 1 22 S144 5 14 45 18 16 1 1 22 S146 0 1 4 36 54 2 2 25 S151 11 7 1 2 14 37 12 7 45 S147 0 1 6 32 58 1 1 26 S155 7 15 44 2 1 9 2 2 26 S148 1 8 43 33 12 1 2 26 S157 7 14 42 27 7 0 2 28 S149 1 5 28 30 34 1 1 29 S160 14 36 28 11 6 2 4 36 S150 1 6 34 32 1 8 5 3 34 S161 9 33 28 23 6 0 1 38 S153 0 2 1 2 23 5 7 4 1 34 avg 6 17 40 22 11 1 2 25 S154 3 6 25 41 22 1 1 28 std 4 8 11 6 8 3 2 7 S156 4 5 41 26 21 1 2 25 med 6 15 42 22 8 0 1 23 S159 6 22 28 23 15 3 3 34 avg 3 6 25 37 26 2 1 25 std 3 4 10 8 13 1 1 6 med 2 5 25 39 21 1 1 23

PAGE 161

APPENDIX 2. GRAIN SIZE (continued) 145 Gravel Fine sands s e e 6 e e 0 c. 8 0 "' ""' .g Q. 8 .g !ij 8 $ "' N \0 "0 !ij 8 0 ""' "0 c. $ "' ;g "' N ...... 0 = 0 "' N ...... = c. C'i 6 0 Vl ...... 0 0 0 0 "0 (/.) C'i ...... 0 0 0 0 6 "0 S15 84 6 7 3 0 0 0 26 S19 0 1 1 7 62 24 4 209 S17 84 6 4 2 1 1 4 35 S20 1 1 2 6 49 39 3 214 S22 39 16 21 15 7 1 0 34 S27 0 0 1 9 76 14 1 240 S23 62 23 11 3 1 0 0 38 S31 1 6 19 49 25 0 0 221 S24 91 4 2 1 1 1 0 53 S42 0 1 1 5 26 47 20 215 S25 92 3 2 1 1 1 0 33 S43 0 1 2 3 32 52 11 210 S26 89 6 3 1 0 0 0 36 S45 1 1 2 7 62 22 5 191 S28 73 13 9 4 1 0 0 35 S46 0 0 2 12 42 37 6 218 S29 98 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 S63 2 9 30 22 30 3 5 217 S30 93 5 2 0 0 0 0 28 S67 0 0 1 6 57 14 22 297 S33 82 7 8 3 0 0 0 26 S75 1 0 1 7 54 12 25 304 S34 91 4 3 I 0 0 0 28 SI40 0 0 1 9 47 14 29 247 S39 99 I 0 0 0 0 0 35 S152 0 0 1 3 47 19 29 168 S40 93 4 1 1 0 0 0 37 S166 0 0 73 7 I2 1 7 220 S41 71 14 6 4 3 1 1 59 avg 1 2 6 12 47 24 9 231 S48 82 9 4 3 2 I 0 33 std 1 3 10 13 17 17 9 36 S49 80 4 5 4 3 3 1 33 med 0 1 2 7 49 22 5 217 S50 82 9 4 3 1 I 0 33 Poorly-Sorted Sands S54 93 4 I 1 0 0 1 56 S21 27 8 6 18 36 5 0 73 S58 95 4 1 0 0 0 0 28 S32 44 20 15 10 8 4 0 228 S60 99 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 S36 42 11 19 25 3 0 0 208 S61 55 9 8 10 13 2 2 34 S38 36 11 11 17 19 5 0 78 S65 83 6 4 2 2 1 2 41 S47 11 3 5 25 53 3 0 255 S66 84 10 4 1 0 0 1 38 S44 12 19 18 22 25 4 0 163 S70 95 3 I 0 0 0 1 49 S59 31 2 2 6 36 20 3 198 S76 22 29 23 I7 5 0 3 30 S71 35 4 5 18 30 4 4 217 S78 83 8 5 2 0 0 1 26 S84 12 10 18 32 23 2 4 266 S80 59 27 9 3 1 0 1 30 S91 24 8 9 25 29 1 4 63 S83 26 28 30 12 2 0 2 26 S105 13 9 15 27 20 10 5 195 S85 34 23 26 9 4 1 2 33 avg 27 10 11 20 26 5 1 175 S86 41 20 23 11 3 0 1 30 std 12 6 6 8 14 5 2 77 S99 23 32 29 13 2 0 1 25 med 29 9 10 20 27 4 0 203 S104 66 13 12 6 1 0 1 37 S128 20 19 39 13 4 4 2 49 S158 32 13 25 19 9 0 1 36 avg 74 11 8 4 2 1 1 35 std 24 9 9 5 3 1 1 9 med 83 7 4 2 1 0 0 33

PAGE 162

APPENDIX 2. GRAIN SIZE (continued) 146 Duplicate s plits (weight) Duplicate splits (weight percent) s E s s 6 6 6 s Cl) @ 8 6 @ 8 -a @ V"l @ V"l V"l C"' 8 "0 s V"l C"' 8 "0 3 V"l C"' ::;, V"l C"' ::;, "' N ci ci ci ci 6 .9 N c) ci c) ci 6 .9 S25a 16 60 2.28 1.38 0 84 0 57 0 74 0 .13 22 54 74 10 6 4 3 3 1 100 S25b 77 .13 0 75 0.46 0 28 0 22 0.09 0 22 79 .15 97 1 1 0 0 0 0 100 avg S25 46. 87 1.52 0 92 0.56 0.40 0.42 0 .18 50.85 92 3 2 1 1 1 0 100 S44a 3.94 7.50 6 .75 8.80 10.21 1.40 0 .11 38 .71 10 19 17 23 26 4 0 100 S44b 7 .51 11.66 11.11 13.44 14.69 2 16 0 .21 60.78 12 19 18 22 24 4 0 100 avg S44 5 .73 9.58 8 .93 11.12 12.45 1.78 0 16 49.75 12 19 18 22 25 4 0 100 S45a 0 14 0 38 0 .67 2 57 17.85 10.29 1.81 33.71 0 1 2 8 53 31 5 100 S45b 0 .65 1.40 2.10 7 69 68.39 21.11 4 .71 106 05 1 1 2 7 64 20 4 100 avg S45 0.40 0 89 1.39 5 .13 43.12 15.70 3.26 69.88 1 1 2 7 62 22 5 100 S58a 38 56 2 .11 0 32 0 20 0 00 0 .01 0 00 41.20 94 5 1 0 0 0 0 100 S58b 115 05 3.68 1.00 0.26 0 08 0 .05 0 00 120 12 96 3 1 0 0 0 0 100 avg S58 76 .81 2 90 0 66 0 .23 0 04 0 .03 0 00 80 66 95 4 1 0 0 0 0 100 S83a 33 99 33 22 40.16 15. 76 2 .97 0.45 3 29 129.84 26 26 31 12 2 0 3 100 S83b 49 .77 56.22 57.21 23.12 4 .29 0.71 3.17 194.49 26 29 29 12 2 0 2 100 avg S83 41.88 44. 72 48.69 19 44 3 .63 0.58 3.23 162 .17 26 28 30 12 2 0 2 100 S98a 0.57 1.53 11.13 13. 00 3 00 0 03 0 02 29 28 2 5 38 44 10 0 0 100 S98b 16 77 13. 88 32 14 22.93 6 .03 0 .11 0 79 92.65 1 8 15 35 25 7 0 1 100 avg S98 8.67 7.71 21.64 17 97 4 52 0 07 0.41 60 97 14 13 35 29 7 0 1 100 S124a 2 14 10.61 45 38 39.76 25.49 1.10 2 12 126.60 2 8 36 31 20 1 2 100 S124b 5.16 12 20 36 70 30 .40 31.98 2 87 0 86 120 17 4 10 31 25 27 2 1 100 avg S124 3.65 11.41 41.04 35. 08 28 74 1.99 1.49 123.39 3 9 33 28 23 2 1 100 S145a 1.63 1.67 8 20 20 18 16 .11 1.45 0 97 50.21 3 3 16 40 32 3 2 100 S145b 1.95 1.85 10 50 19 50 15. 66 1.10 0.06 50 62 4 4 21 39 31 2 0 100 avg S145 1.79 1.76 9 35 19.84 15.89 1.28 0.52 50.42 4 3 19 39 32 3 1 100 S155a 6.40 7.19 29 88 19 06 8 .98 1.24 1.15 73.90 9 10 40 26 12 2 2 100 S155b 10 03 29.50 7 9. 04 32.72 13. 68 2 .91 3 34 171.22 6 17 46 19 8 2 2 100 avg S155 8 22 18. 35 54 46 25.89 11.33 2 08 2.25 122.56 7 15 44 21 9 2 2 100 S157a 8 03 16 .81 52 .20 32.45 9 .28 0 50 2.95 122 22 7 14 43 27 8 0 2 100 S157b 8.90 17.62 47 84 30 92 8.50 0.45 1.37 115 60 8 15 41 27 7 0 1 100 avg S157 8.47 17.22 50 02 31.69 8 89 0.48 2 16 118 .91 7 14 42 27 7 0 2 100

PAGE 163

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA 147 V> u .CJ 00 00 c. 0 S15 0 .06 6 4 11 3 0 6 4 0 0 12 3 2 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S15 0 .13 17 4 5 1 0 7 4 0 0 12 4 2 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 S15 0 .25 21 31 6 2 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S15 0 5 18 27 15 3 3 3 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 19 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 103 S15 1 49 18 2 0 0 1 1 3 4 0 4 0 0 2 8 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 100 S15 2 95 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S17 0 06 31 16 4 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 37 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 106 S17 0 .13 36 10 3 0 0 12 5 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 100 S17 0.25 40 1 8 5 3 6 8 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 S17 0 5 38 31 12 0 0 6 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S17 1 72 19 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S17 2 71 12 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S19 0.06 15 3 3 1 2 10 2 0 0 7 3 2 0 0 51 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 S19 0.13 2 4 8 4 0 1 7 5 1 0 6 3 2 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S19 0.25 4 9 10 15 0 3 7 7 1 0 2 4 2 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 S19 0.5 7 1 1 7 0 3 6 1 0 55 0 18 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S19 1 3 1 0 1 0 10 3 3 2 68 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 99 S19 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 S20 0 .06 13 1 10 4 0 8 0 0 0 23 3 4 0 0 26 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 100 S20 0 .13 10 2 13 7 3 11 1 0 0 12 2 6 0 0 31 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 100 S20 0.25 12 2 4 1 8 3 16 0 0 0 23 1 18 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S20 0 5 2 0 2 20 0 1 0 2 0 63 0 9 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 109 S 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 6 13 77 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 111 S20 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 S21 0.06 12 6 14 1 2 8 0 0 0 4 2 9 0 0 45 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 109 S 2 1 0.13 1 7 3 20 3 0 4 I 0 I 4 3 4 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S 2 I 0.25 26 8 18 2 1 2 0 0 0 6 10 3 0 0 22 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 S21 0.5 21 7 11 0 0 4 2 2 5 10 6 3 0 2 11 5 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 100 S21 1 22 IO 1 0 0 0 5 3 3 2 4 0 0 0 22 22 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 103 S21 2 66 9 0 0 0 0 6 8 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 116 S22 0 .06 41 0 11 0 2 11 5 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 S 2 2 0 .13 38 4 6 0 2 8 1 2 1 3 3 2 0 0 30 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 102 S22 0.25 48 12 15 0 0 4 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 S22 0.5 33 2 7 0 0 5 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 4I 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 101 S22 1 72 4 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 99 S22 2 90 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 97 S23 0 06 14 1 12 2 1 2 5 0 0 2 1 7 0 0 50 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 100 S23 0 .13 25 1 9 2 1 9 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 38 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 100 S23 0 .25 32 3 9 0 4 3 6 0 1 0 4 4 0 0 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S23 0.5 47 9 11 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 13 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 100 S23 1 56 2 3 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 2 0 0 3 7 12 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 101 S23 2 83 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 164

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITUENT DATA (continued) S24 0.06 24 2 10 0 1 S24 0 13 23 4 6 0 4 S24 0.25 17 9 10 1 8 S24 0.5 20 4 25 0 5 S24 1 38 7 11 0 0 S24 2 84 0 1 0 0 S25 0.06 25 0 12 2 4 S25 0.13 19 3 11 1 2 S25 0 .2 5 33 1 11 1 4 S25 0.5 41 0 24 0 0 S25 1 61 5 6 0 1 S25 2 77 0 1 0 0 S26 0 06 49 0 8 1 2 S26 0 .13 34 4 6 0 0 S26 0 .25 42 4 9 1 1 S26 0.5 40 3 16 0 5 S26 1 53 4 5 0 0 S26 2 61 0 1 0 0 S27 0 .06 12 4 8 1 1 S27 0.13 15 5 11 8 3 S27 0.25 20 3 14 30 4 S27 0.5 6 0 0 52 0 S27 1 3 0 4 0 0 S27 2 0 0 0 0 0 S28 0.06 23 2 8 0 0 S28 0.13 30 3 9 0 5 S28 0.25 26 11 12 0 2 S28 0 5 30 7 3 1 3 S28 1 39 20 6 0 0 S28 2 84 7 0 0 0 S29 0.06 26 1 10 1 0 S29 0.13 33 9 10 1 1 S29 0 .2 5 23 26 20 0 2 S29 0.5 27 4 19 1 4 S29 1 75 4 4 0 0 S29 2 87 0 1 0 0 S30 0 06 19 3 11 0 1 S30 0.13 26 14 3 2 2 S30 0.25 24 17 11 0 4 S30 0 5 24 1 13 0 3 S30 1 57 1 3 0 1 S30 2 91 1 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 8 11 0 1 4 6 11 0 2 3 7 6 4 5 3 3 5 3 4 1 0 4 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 8 7 7 0 0 6 4 11 1 1 2 0 5 1 4 2 2 3 3 3 1 0 5 4 1 0 2 2 0 0 10 15 5 0 1 4 15 7 0 1 2 0 4 5 2 0 4 2 3 4 1 4 2 6 1 0 1 5 0 0 7 7 4 1 0 5 5 6 0 1 13 2 0 0 0 31 6 0 2 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 2 13 5 0 0 6 15 4 0 0 4 15 4 2 3 2 4 4 4 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 6 6 0 0 6 14 2 0 0 9 7 7 0 0 3 2 5 2 3 0 2 6 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 12 5 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 5 17 4 3 6 1 3 2 2 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 9 4 5 0 3 10 11 9 5 1 5 2 0 2 1 2 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 2 0 1 2 4 9 1 0 4 2 6 4 2 0 0 :; (.) 0 oo ... c 8. 'ii 0
PAGE 165

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA (continued) S31 0.06 20 2 7 0 0 S31 0.13 10 3 4 4 0 S31 0.25 7 2 3 43 0 S31 0.5 2 1 2 43 0 S31 1 5 3 4 0 0 S31 2 8 1 0 0 0 S32 0.06 19 1 5 3 0 S32 0.13 25 9 6 8 3 S32 0.25 2 6 3 44 1 S32 0.5 8 6 1 38 1 S32 1 22 6 2 0 0 S32 2 55 3 0 0 0 S33 0.06 23 0 4 0 0 S33 0 .13 35 7 5 0 2 S33 0.25 6 46 4 5 1 S33 0.5 62 19 1 0 0 S33 1 61 28 0 0 0 S33 2 97 0 0 0 0 S34 0 06 23 2 8 0 0 S34 0 13 18 8 3 1 0 S34 0.25 11 33 3 0 0 S34 0 5 20 23 8 1 1 S34 1 45 19 4 0 0 S34 2 85 3 0 0 0 S36 0.06 24 4 1 3 1 S36 0.13 12 21 7 4 0 S36 0.25 15 15 8 18 0 S36 0.5 12 10 7 23 2 S36 1 28 7 3 2 0 S36 2 79 6 2 0 0 S44 0 06 20 8 2 2 3 S44 0.13 15 9 4 3 2 S44 0.25 18 14 6 8 1 S44 0.5 13 30 7 1 0 S44 1 31 15 7 0 0 S44 2 50 10 3 0 0 S45 0.06 29 4 6 1 3 S45 0.13 15 10 10 1 0 S45 0.25 18 6 7 16 4 S45 0 5 8 5 0 7 0 S45 1 3 7 7 0 0 S45 2 5 9 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 4 1 0 0 2 4 1 0 1 2 16 2 0 2 4 16 6 2 2 3 6 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 12 3 5 0 0 7 3 8 0 0 18 2 18 1 4 17 3 5 1 4 5 0 2 0 0 4 15 0 1 0 5 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 2 6 3 0 0 1 13 2 1 2 3 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 8 6 2 0 0 4 4 2 0 1 3 8 7 1 0 7 8 9 2 1 8 1 1 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 4 10 2 0 7 7 5 3 0 1 5 6 0 2 1 6 2 3 6 3 6 2 5 0 4 1 2 2 0 0 15 6 1 0 0 17 14 6 0 1 12 3 2 0 1 61 11 1 2 1 58 13 0 9 0 49 0 2 1 3 4 1 1 6 5 7 5 4 4 4 5 0 1 0 2 2 5 3 2 0 2 1 3 4 4 1 0 1 3 7 4 7 0 5 4 0 0 0 "3 u co ... = e 8.. q) 0 "' c. u 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 .... 69 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 108 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 7 3 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 103 9 2 0 0 42 0 0 0 1 102 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 36 63 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 102 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 106 23 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 101 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 102 4 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 101 5 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 102 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 11 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 101 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 46 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 100 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 18 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 102 8 2 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 100 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 51 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 103 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 10 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 101 10 4 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 101 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 100 49 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 100 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 23 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 17 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 1 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 25 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 100 19 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 5 100 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 94

PAGE 166

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA (continued) 150 -S46 0.06 21 5 13 4 1 2 2 0 1 12 2 5 0 0 38 0 14 0 2 0 0 1 0 123 S46 0.13 15 10 10 11 2 4 1 0 0 18 3 4 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S46 0.25 14 11 7 19 5 9 1 0 1 26 3 7 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 S46 0 5 7 5 0 21 2 9 0 0 0 39 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 S46 1 1 3 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 52 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 79 S46 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 S47 0.06 14 5 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 72 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 101 S47 0.13 17 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S47 0.25 16 4 12 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S47 0 5 12 1 15 19 0 4 3 1 1 6 1 1 0 2 32 8 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 113 S47 1 20 0 6 0 0 7 10 4 0 8 3 1 0 1 10 14 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 90 S47 2 7 0 2 0 0 4 1 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 26 S48 0 06 41 9 7 0 1 4 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 100 S48 0.13 34 2 13 1 1 1 7 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 S48 0 .2 5 46 4 16 0 2 6 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S48 0.5 41 18 17 0 3 4 7 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S48 1 74 15 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S48 2 94 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S49 0.06 24 4 4 1 0 7 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 47 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S49 0.13 24 0 10 1 2 14 10 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 101 S49 0 .25 24 11 7 1 2 13 13 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 96 S49 0.5 25 30 5 1 1 17 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 100 S49 1 23 17 5 0 1 16 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 15 3 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 100 S49 2 82 5 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 106 S50 0.06 18 8 8 0 2 3 3 0 0 5 4 2 0 0 42 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 100 S50 0.13 24 10 13 0 1 5 6 0 0 8 2 4 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S50 0 .25 22 13 13 10 4 3 12 0 1 3 2 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S50 0.5 58 12 14 0 3 8 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 115 S50 1 73 5 3 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 100 S50 2 87 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S54 0 .06 32 3 6 1 0 6 1 0 1 12 2 8 0 0 25 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 100 S54 0.13 33 5 11 1 4 11 5 0 0 6 4 6 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S54 0 .2 5 33 3 9 2 4 3 9 0 2 13 7 3 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S54 0.5 35 3 22 0 0 1 4 1 0 6 8 5 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S54 1 42 12 16 0 0 0 8 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S54 2 52 9 17 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S58 0 .06 23 15 9 0 1 7 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 34 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 100 S58 0.13 21 16 12 1 5 16 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 S58 0.25 19 32 10 0 2 14 8 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 100 S58 0.5 29 19 15 0 1 13 8 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S58 1 74 3 7 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S58 2 77 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103

PAGE 167

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA (continued) 151 "' S59 0.06 18 12 7 5 1 9 5 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 103 S59 0.13 22 4 16 4 1 6 9 1 0 11 8 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S59 0.25 18 11 11 9 5 7 0 0 7 7 7 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 S59 0 5 20 16 14 10 1 3 14 0 1 7 2 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 S59 1 48 11 11 0 0 1 8 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 S59 2 51 7 13 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 S60 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S60 0.13 28 13 9 2 1 11 8 0 0 5 9 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 S60 0.25 15 23 15 1 0 25 9 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S60 0.5 19 22 24 2 0 12 5 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 101 S60 1 50 19 11 0 0 4 5 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S60 2 78 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 112 S61 0.06 52 2 11 3 2 3 5 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S61 0.13 54 11 7 0 0 5 4 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S61 0.25 38 10 24 1 0 4 4 1 0 0 7 2 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S61 0.5 61 19 6 0 0 2 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S61 1 72 10 8 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S61 2 84 4 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S63 0.06 43 4 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 4 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S63 0.13 48 7 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S63 0.25 45 4 7 5 0 5 0 0 0 12 3 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S63 0.5 31 8 9 16 0 7 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 11 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S63 1 21 14 8 10 1 5 1 0 2 16 0 4 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 100 S63 2 28 6 2 0 0 9 1 2 1 27 4 7 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S64 0.06 47 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S64 0.13 48 1 9 2 1 6 2 0 0 19 0 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S64 0.25 44 4 8 2 1 6 1 0 0 17 9 2 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S64 0.5 47 3 10 0 0 3 4 0 1 16 4 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S64 1 54 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 2 11 1 0 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 S64 2 57 4 4 0 0 0 5 3 4 3 10 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S65 0.06 59 3 10 1 0 0 3 0 0 13 0 2 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S65 0.13 49 0 13 1 1 5 5 0 0 7 5 1 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S65 0 .25 63 0 7 1 0 8 2 0 2 3 2 0 1 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S65 0.5 67 5 6 0 1 3 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S65 1 83 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S65 2 77 2 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 S66 0 06 44 4 7 0 0 5 3 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 S66 0 13 49 6 9 1 1 11 1 0 0 6 4 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S66 0 .2 5 47 1 13 0 1 7 4 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S66 0 .5 62 5 5 0 I 3 3 0 3 4 1 1 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S66 1 68 5 4 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S66 2 65 4 9 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 168

APPENDIX 3 RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA (continued) 152 .... .... S67 0 .06 33 7 7 3 0 5 1 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 102 S67 0 .13 23 5 10 6 2 7 1 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S67 0 25 29 7 12 11 7 4 4 0 0 13 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S67 0.5 20 8 2 17 2 7 1 0 0 29 3 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S67 1 7 1 4 0 0 36 1 3 2 94 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 S67 2 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 S70 0.06 41 3 5 0 1 6 4 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 S70 0 .13 32 6 11 2 0 14 4 0 0 9 1 4 1 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S70 0 .2 5 31 6 14 0 2 9 12 0 0 8 5 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S70 0 .5 47 13 10 0 0 6 9 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S70 1 68 4 10 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S70 2 61 6 13 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S71 0 .06 45 4 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 6 1 5 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S71 0 13 58 2 7 1 0 1 0 0 1 8 7 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S71 0.25 33 3 7 8 3 11 6 0 2 11 5 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S71 0.5 27 5 16 15 1 2 8 2 2 9 1 1 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S71 1 47 7 4 0 0 1 4 2 2 8 6 0 0 0 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S71 2 57 13 7 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S73 0.06 32 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S73 0 13 35 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 43 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S73 0 25 36 3 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 34 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S73 0 .5 55 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 23 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S73 1 52 1 5 0 0 0 2 4 3 5 3 0 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S73 2 52 4 12 0 0 1 5 15 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S75 0 .06 50 4 6 0 2 1 2 0 0 20 1 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 100 S75 0 .13 45 2 10 1 1 6 1 0 0 20 2 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S75 0 .25 31 3 15 13 1 11 5 0 0 14 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S75 0.5 12 0 4 25 1 9 4 0 0 33 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S75 1 5 2 3 4 0 35 0 0 0 38 1 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S75 2 1 0 0 1 0 65 1 0 0 14 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 S76 0 06 39 10 9 0 1 9 4 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 101 S76 0 13 40 9 8 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S76 0.25 45 7 6 0 1 2 3 1 6 1 2 0 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S76 0 .5 35 14 10 0 0 1 4 2 4 0 7 0 0 0 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S76 1 50 19 6 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 S76 2 47 21 2 0 0 0 5 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S77 0 06 42 3 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S77 0 13 29 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 55 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S77 0 .2 5 54 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 26 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S77 0 .5 37 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 19 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S77 1 58 2 6 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S77 2 61 6 2 0 0 0 2 11 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 169

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITIJENT OAT A (continued) 153 "' -S78 0 .06 21 15 5 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 100 S78 0.13 23 19 8 1 4 8 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 29 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 101 S78 0.25 16 28 12 5 1 4 10 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S78 0 5 42 21 14 0 2 4 12 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 S78 1 78 11 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S78 2 74 6 4 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 S80 0.06 35 6 11 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 S80 0 13 39 10 11 3 2 8 3 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S80 0.25 29 10 13 3 4 10 9 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S80 0 .5 41 I8 19 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S80 1 71 19 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S80 2 88 3 3 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S81 0 .06 46 6 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S81 0 13 33 9 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 46 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S81 0.25 34 10 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 32 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S81 0 5 42 5 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 I5 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S81 1 42 2 4 0 0 1 7 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S81 2 60 I 18 0 0 1 4 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S82 0.06 25 11 I3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 0 0 4I 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S82 0.13 36 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 44 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S82 0.25 46 16 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S82 0.5 35 19 9 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 7 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S82 1 55 9 7 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S82 2 59 10 8 0 0 0 8 4 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S83 0.06 38 6 7 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S83 0.13 33 12 8 0 1 4 4 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S83 0.25 41 14 11 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S83 0 .5 43 13 10 0 I 1 4 0 I 0 3 0 0 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S83 1 63 I5 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 I IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO S83 2 61 5 4 0 0 0 3 2 4 0 4 0 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S84 0.06 38 2 4 I 0 3 1 0 0 10 0 5 0 0 34 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 S84 0 .13 50 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 36 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S84 0.25 56 I 11 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S84 0.5 33 4 13 4 0 2 3 1 1 9 6 2 0 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 S84 I 34 5 7 0 0 0 5 3 2 I 7 4 1 0 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 S84 2 36 7 0 0 0 3 9 IO 2 4 6 0 0 5 0 I8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S85 0.06 46 3 5 2 1 8 3 0 0 5 2 4 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 S85 0.13 43 9 14 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 S85 0.25 48 5 21 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S85 0.5 53 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 1 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S85 1 56 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S85 2 49 7 4 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 170

APPENDIX 3 RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA (continued) S86 0.06 49 5 5 0 1 4 S86 0 .13 53 8 9 0 0 3 S86 0.25 72 3 5 0 0 1 S86 0 5 53 4 12 0 1 1 S86 1 60 4 8 0 0 1 S86 2 52 23 4 0 0 0 S87 0 06 33 3 1 0 0 1 S87 0 .13 57 3 0 0 0 0 S87 0 .25 58 1 10 0 0 0 S87 0.5 54 4 5 0 0 1 S87 1 63 1 12 0 0 0 S87 2 58 6 10 0 0 0 S88 0 06 47 12 4 1 0 4 S88 0 .13 45 7 5 0 0 3 S88 0 .25 47 10 10 1 0 0 S88 0 5 47 8 8 0 1 1 S88 1 49 3 5 0 0 0 S 8 8 2 31 1 5 0 0 0 S89 0 06 4 8 1 3 0 0 0 S89 0 .13 38 2 4 0 0 1 S89 0.25 3 9 3 3 0 0 0 S89 0.5 55 1 7 0 0 0 S 8 9 1 60 0 4 0 0 0 S8 9 2 68 0 5 0 0 0 S90 0 06 33 5 4 0 1 2 S90 0 .13 32 4 3 0 0 1 S90 0 .25 52 3 6 1 0 2 S 9 0 0 5 54 1 3 0 0 0 S90 1 71 2 8 0 0 0 S 9 0 2 65 2 7 0 0 0 S 9 1 0.06 34 6 5 2 0 2 S91 0 .13 46 4 7 1 0 1 S91 0 .25 67 3 15 0 0 1 S91 0 5 5 9 6 12 3 0 3 S91 1 74 5 4 0 0 1 S91 2 74 9 2 0 0 0 S93 0 06 3 9 4 4 0 1 6 S93 0 .13 51 7 1 0 0 1 S 9 3 0 25 58 6 6 0 0 1 S93 0 5 63 9 3 0 1 1 S93 1 66 6 6 0 0 0 S 9 3 2 66 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 0 5 1 1 1 1 8 4 5 2 1 3 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 0 7 3 1 1 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 2 7 4 0 0 3 2 2 4 3 1 3 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 1 6 2 1 3 0 3 2 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 2 0 2 3 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 2 3 4 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 Cl) = u a. Cl) oo ... c ]! 8. 1:) 0 "' Q. u 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 .... -21 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 52 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 19 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 43 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 51 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 45 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 40 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 44 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 100 32 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 30 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 29 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 171

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITUENT DATA (continued) 155 .... S94 0 06 35 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 50 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 100 S94 0 .13 49 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S94 0.25 60 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S94 0.5 61 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 22 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S94 1 61 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 13 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S94 2 76 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S95 0 .06 40 8 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S95 0 .13 45 11 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S95 0 25 62 11 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S95 0 5 74 5 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S95 1 76 1 10 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S95 2 79 3 4 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S96 0 06 44 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S96 0 .13 55 6 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S96 0.25 64 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S96 0 5 65 3 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S96 1 70 1 8 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S96 2 69 4 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S98 0.06 51 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 27 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S98 0.13 59 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S98 0 .25 47 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 7 0 1 0 0 0 4 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S98 0.5 25 10 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 99 S98 1 37 7 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 49 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S98 2 49 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 32 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S99 0 06 39 1 14 0 1 6 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 100 S99 0.13 47 10 6 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S99 0 .25 41 15 6 0 3 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S99 0.5 46 15 8 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S99 1 46 15 8 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S99 2 59 7 5 0 0 1 2 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S102 0 06 27 3 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 57 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 S102 0.13 34 3 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S102 0.25 35 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S102 0.5 54 5 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 13 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 94 S102 1 44 7 1 0 1 3 2 7 1 4 7 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 86 S102 2 54 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 S104 0.06 23 20 7 0 2 2 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 34 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 100 S104 0 .13 35 33 2 0 0 4 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S104 0.25 40 32 4 0 2 3 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 S104 0.5 58 16 4 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 S104 1 71 13 1 0 0 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S104 2 86 5 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 172

APPENDIX 3 RAW CONST111JENT DATA (continued) I 56 SI05 0.06 I8 8 3 2 5 6 5 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 45 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I03 SI05 0.13 2I 4 6 8 2 2 5 0 0 8 7 I 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SI05 0 25 ll I7 6 2I I 2 3 0 I IO 0 0 0 0 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SI05 0 5 4 I 13 26 I I 2 0 0 57 8 4 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I25 SI05 I ll 2 IO 2 3 0 I 2 I40 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8I SI05 2 26 5 0 2 4 3 0 I I IO 5 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 64 SI06 0 06 24 4 4 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 64 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 IOI SI06 O I3 38 8 5 0 0 2 2 I 0 I 2 0 0 0 36 4 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 100 SI06 0 .25 44 I6 7 0 0 0 4 0 I I 3 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI06 0 5 52 10 I 0 0 I 5 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI06 I 48 1 2 0 0 0 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI06 2 47 5 2 0 0 5 1 4 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SI07 0 .06 40 4 2 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 47 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 IOO SI07 O I3 42 4 4 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 IOO SI07 0 .25 48 7 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 34 6 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I03 SI07 0 5 43 8 6 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 3I 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SI07 I 49 I 6 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 I 0 0 0 I5 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SI07 2 64 I 5 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 I 0 0 0 5 IO I 0 0 0 I 0 0 IOO SI08 0 06 30 I4 5 0 I 4 I 0 0 2 0 I 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 IOO S108 O I3 23 6 9 0 I 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 56 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 IOI SI08 0 .25 30 6 11 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 44 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SI08 0 5 2 2 3 I3 0 0 I 1 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 36 I6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI08 1 33 I 2 17 0 0 0 2 4 7 0 2 0 0 0 6 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOl SI08 2 56 18 I5 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SllO 0 .06 58 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 100 S110 0 .13 70 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 19 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S110 0 .25 78 4 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO S110 0 5 62 2 2 0 0 0 I I 0 4 I 0 0 0 11 I6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SllO I 50 I I 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 33 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO SllO 2 6I I 7 0 0 0 2 9 4 I I 0 0 0 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 Sill 0 .06 23 7 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 IOO Sill 0 .13 29 8 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 IS I 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO Sill 0 .25 33 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 14 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 IOO Sill 0.5 20 3 6 0 0 I 0 0 I 2 0 0 0 0 33 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sill I 32 I4 4 0 0 0 I I 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 Sill 2 40 8 7 0 0 0 1 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 IO I 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO S11 2 0 .06 31 10 3 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 100 S11 2 O I3 28 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 58 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S112 0 .25 2 5 Il 5 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 49 4 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S112 0 5 25 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 I I I 0 0 0 39 I4 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 100 S11 2 I 32 7 5 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 I 0 0 0 I6 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO S112 2 52 3 0 0 0 0 I 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 I 3 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO

PAGE 173

APPENDIX 3 RAW CONSTITUENT DATA (continued) 157 _. -S113 0 06 20 6 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 100 S113 0.13 38 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 46 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S113 0 25 44 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S113 0.5 46 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 23 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S113 1 42 1 7 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S113 2 73 1 4 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S114 0.06 36 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 100 S114 0.13 38 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 45 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S114 0.25 54 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 31 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 S114 0 5 61 3 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 S114 1 45 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 11 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S114 2 53 0 8 0 0 0 2 8 6 6 2 0 0 0 5 5 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 98 S115 0 06 38 12 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 100 S115 0 13 43 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 100 S115 0 25 57 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S115 0.5 57 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S115 1 69 8 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S115 2 69 1 3 0 0 0 2 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S116 0.06 53 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 5 1 0 21 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 100 S116 0 13 57 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 Sl16 0.25 62 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S116 0 5 65 5 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S116 1 52 3 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl16 2 41 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 8 1 1 0 0 0 13 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 S117 0 06 47 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 100 S117 0 13 52 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 35 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 S117 0 25 63 3 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S117 0.5 61 3 3 0 1 0 I 1 1 1 3 0 0 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S117 1 65 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S117 2 56 6 3 0 0 0 1 5 3 I 2 0 0 1 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S119 0.06 13 1 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 71 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 100 S119 0.13 5 7 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 79 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 101 S119 0 25 21 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S119 0 5 25 5 13 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 27 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S119 1 64 6 11 0 0 0 2 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 S119 2 74 4 9 0 0 I 1 5 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 S120 0 06 40 4 1 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S120 0.13 43 10 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S120 0.25 41 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 39 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S120 0.5 63 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S120 1 53 3 4 0 0 1 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S120 2 59 3 10 0 0 0 2 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100

PAGE 174

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITUENT DATA (continued) 158 .... S121 0 06 46 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S121 0 .13 33 6 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 49 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S121 0.25 31 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 25 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S121 0.5 39 4 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 16 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S121 1 44 0 8 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 8 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S121 2 52 0 22 0 0 0 1 13 2 4 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S122 0 06 23 9 6 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 22 29 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S122 0 .13 31 5 2 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 4 0 0 0 10 37 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S122 0.25 61 2 4 0 0 0 4 6 10 0 5 0 0 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S122 0.5 26 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 53 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 99 Sl22 1 18 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 62 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S122 2 26 13 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl23 0 06 10 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 63 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl23 0.13 16 7 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 51 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 Sl23 0.25 19 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 33 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 Sl23 0.5 17 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 33 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl23 1 26 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 12 43 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl23 2 35 1 1 0 0 0 2 11 26 0 1 0 0 0 6 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl24 0.06 17 3 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 67 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 99 Sl24 0.13 12 4 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 Sl24 0.25 12 8 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 43 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 Sl24 0.5 17 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 23 41 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 S124 1 23 9 4 0 0 0 2 5 9 1 2 0 0 0 11 29 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl24 2 37 4 12 0 0 0 4 6 17 0 4 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 S125 0.06 35 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 3 1 0 44 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 100 S125 0.13 48 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 35 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI25 0.25 58 5 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 10 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl25 0.5 49 1 5 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 12 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl25 1 61 0 5 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl25 2 84 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S126 0 06 33 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 52 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 Sl26 0 .13 34 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI26 0.25 48 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 17 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl26 0.5 40 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 Sl26 1 41 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 43 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl26 2 32 0 10 0 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S128 0 .06 28 4 9 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 Sl28 0 .13 2 4 7 9 0 2 4 4 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 29 11 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 Sl28 0.25 28 8 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 41 5 9 0 1 0 0 0 1 100 Sl28 0.5 24 12 4 0 0 1 1 1 7 1 2 0 0 0 29 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl28 1 24 12 7 0 0 0 3 4 4 2 3 1 0 1 16 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Sl28 2 41 8 3 0 0 0 5 19 7 0 3 0 0 0 2 10 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 100

PAGE 175

APPENDIX 3 RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA (continued) S129 0 06 20 2 12 1 0 S129 0.13 13 7 7 0 1 S129 0 .25 16 5 6 0 0 S129 0 5 22 4 6 0 0 S129 1 49 2 9 0 0 S129 2 47 2 10 0 0 S130 0 06 43 4 4 1 1 S130 0 .13 30 7 2 0 0 S130 0 .25 21 6 0 0 0 S130 0 5 26 5 2 0 0 S130 1 35 0 4 0 0 S130 2 50 0 5 0 0 S131 0 06 24 5 4 1 1 S131 0 .13 23 4 1 0 0 S131 0 .25 10 3 2 0 0 S131 0 5 20 3 2 0 0 S131 1 32 0 4 0 0 S131 2 51 0 5 0 0 S132 0 06 18 0 5 0 0 S132 0 .13 14 0 5 0 0 S132 0.25 9 3 5 0 0 S132 0 5 11 3 6 0 0 S132 1 20 2 7 0 0 S132 2 31 5 13 0 0 S133 0 06 40 11 0 0 0 S133 0 13 41 5 4 0 0 S133 0.25 56 3 8 0 1 S133 0.5 51 1 10 0 1 S133 1 67 1 5 0 0 S133 2 83 0 7 0 0 S134 0 06 44 6 7 0 0 S134 0.13 55 15 4 0 0 S134 0.25 58 2 17 0 3 S134 0 5 48 3 19 0 2 S134 1 40 5 21 0 0 S134 2 6 0 5 0 0 S135 0.06 44 9 3 0 0 S135 0.13 62 8 6 0 0 S135 0.25 68 3 11 0 0 S135 0 5 52 6 14 0 0 S135 1 42 6 9 0 0 S135 2 52 1 9 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 5 1 6 0 3 1 4 4 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 4 0 5 8 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 3 0 2 8 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 3 0 3 8 11 1 6 9 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 7 5 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 1 2 6 4 3 2 1 6 0 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 6 0 4 0 8 0 8 4 0 0 1 1 2 2 7 0 12 1 6 7 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 3 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 6 2 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 4 6 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 3 2 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 e co ... c iii 8. = 0 "' 8. () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 ... 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 60 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 102 43 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 23 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 36 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 39 18 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 32 36 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 27 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 6 31 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 45 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 100 51 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 42 38 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 18 49 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 44 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 63 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 100 66 10 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 100 40 32 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 100 30 40 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 13 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 102 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 39 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 100 44 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 16 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 9 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 4 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 30 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 100 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 176

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITUENT DATA (continued) 160 -S140 0.06 43 5 9 4 1 0 1 0 0 9 1 3 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 100 S140 0.13 30 4 16 2 2 6 2 1 0 10 5 8 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S140 0.25 28 2 13 7 5 0 6 1 0 12 2 20 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S140 0.5 23 5 9 13 1 1 3 0 2 19 6 8 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S140 1 25 6 10 0 0 6 3 1 2 26 4 1 0 1 1 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S140 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S141 0 06 36 12 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 100 S141 0.13 45 4 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 100 S141 0.25 51 11 14 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S141 0.5 47 5 19 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 16 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 S141 1 56 2 17 0 0 1 0 4 3 1 4 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S141 2 67 3 17 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S142 0.06 41 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 36 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 100 S142 0.13 46 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 98 S142 0.25 55 7 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 102 S142 0.5 52 8 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S142 1 51 3 4 0 0 0 5 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S142 2 21 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 S144 0.06 49 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 100 S144 0.13 62 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S144 0.25 75 0 5 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S144 0.5 67 4 7 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 3 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S144 1 48 4 6 0 0 0 2 9 7 0 1 0 0 0 6 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S144 2 42 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 8 13 0 4 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S145 0 06 38 5 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 33 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 100 S145 0 .13 63 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S145 0 .25 62 2 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S145 0.5 64 1 10 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 6 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S145 1 48 0 8 0 0 1 4 11 4 2 1 0 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S145 2 32 1 1 0 0 1 4 4 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 S146 0.06 17 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 68 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S146 0.13 21 4 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 47 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 S146 0.25 21 6 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 35 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 91 S146 0.5 10 18 8 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 13 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S146 1 13 15 27 0 0 0 3 16 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 S146 2 2 3 25 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 S147 0.06 30 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S147 0.13 34 5 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 47 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S147 0.25 30 12 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 30 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S147 0.5 39 5 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 7 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S147 1 26 1 27 0 0 1 1 3 6 3 4 0 0 0 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S147 2 12 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

PAGE 177

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITUENT DATA (continued) SI48 0.06 32 6 3 0 0 1 S148 0.13 26 13 1 0 0 0 S148 0 .25 30 3 5 0 0 0 S148 0.5 35 I 5 0 0 0 S148 1 27 0 5 0 0 0 S148 2 32 2 18 0 0 0 SI49 0.06 28 3 5 0 0 0 S149 0.13 17 11 3 0 0 0 S149 0.25 32 8 3 0 0 2 S149 0.5 29 8 11 0 0 0 S149 1 34 7 15 0 0 0 S149 2 26 0 26 0 0 0 S150 0 06 40 5 4 0 0 0 S150 0.13 36 3 12 0 2 2 S150 0.25 41 6 13 0 1 2 S150 0.5 42 3 14 0 0 0 S150 1 43 1 20 0 0 0 S150 2 57 3 11 0 0 0 S151 0.06 46 2 2 1 0 5 S151 0.13 47 5 13 1 1 3 SI5I 0.25 46 2 11 I 1 0 SI5I 0.5 23 3 21 I 1 7 SI5I 1 25 1 26 0 0 0 SI5I 2 32 3 8 0 0 0 SI52 0.06 34 3 11 I 5 IO SI52 0 .13 32 4 16 1 1 6 S152 0.25 21 3 14 14 1 3 S152 0.5 19 6 4 20 1 9 S152 1 35 5 1 0 0 9 S152 2 0 0 0 0 0 50 S153 0.06 22 8 5 0 0 0 S153 0 .13 26 10 9 0 0 2 S153 0 .25 18 6 15 0 1 1 S153 0.5 12 14 18 0 1 1 S153 1 4 11 34 0 0 1 S153 2 5 1 52 0 0 1 S154 0.06 32 1 3 0 0 0 S154 0.13 26 4 3 0 1 0 S154 0 .25 35 4 2 0 0 1 S154 0.5 32 4 0 0 0 0 S154 1 26 0 16 0 0 0 SI54 2 30 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 1 6 5 4 14 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 2 11 10 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 8 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 2 3 4 1 I 3 9 2 8 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 I4 I 0 0 15 2 2 2 I8 1 11 4 11 6 19 11 3 0 0 0 23 2 0 0 21 1 0 0 15 1 0 0 17 3 0 2 31 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 1 0 1 3 0 4 3 6 0 8 5 2 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 2 4 4 0 8 7 2 1 1 2 0 3 3 4 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 3 2 4 4 0 3 7 3 3 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 0 0 0 3 2 3 5 G) 8 G) co _. = "2 8.. "i> 0 "' Q, (.) 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 12 4 0 13 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 161 -43 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 47 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 38 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 34 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 17 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 5 9 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 59 IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 31 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 24 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 10 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 40 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 32 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 19 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 16 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 6 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 25 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 100 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO 15 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 12 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO 6 IO I 0 0 0 1 0 0 IOO 2 8 I 0 0 0 3 0 0 IOO 4 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 100 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 52 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 40 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 35 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 18 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 11 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IOO 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 55 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 64 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 42 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 35 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 23 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOO 7 8 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 IOO

PAGE 178

APPENDIX 3. RAW CONSTITIJENT DATA (continued) 162 "' .... S155 0.06 47 1 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 100 S155 0.13 60 6 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S155 0.25 77 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S155 0.5 70 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 13 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S155 1 69 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 1 0 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S155 2 47 0 17 0 0 0 0 8 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S156 0.06 38 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 3 7 1 0 35 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 100 S156 0.13 54 6 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 24 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S156 0.25 64 2 7 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S156 0.5 58 5 9 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S156 1 47 0 27 0 0 1 0 5 2 3 4 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 S156 2 34 1 59 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S157 0.06 34 6 9 0 0 4 7 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 30 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 99 S157 0.13 50 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S157 0.25 53 3 3 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 29 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 S157 0.5 70 2 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S157 1 48 2 10 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S157 2 40 6 1 2 0 0 1 17 7 5 0 4 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S158 0.06 44 5 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 100 S158 0.13 37 7 10 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S158 0.25 42 9 17 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 I 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI58 0.5 40 4 1 7 0 0 I 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S158 1 62 3 7 0 0 I 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S158 2 53 6 7 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 S159 0.06 32 8 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100 S159 0.13 31 10 11 0 2 2 I 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 36 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S159 0.25 39 9 I4 1 1 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 S159 0.5 53 17 17 0 1 I 0 I 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S159 I 62 9 6 0 0 0 4 I 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S159 2 56 6 11 0 0 1 I 3 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0.06 56 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 5 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 100 0.13 57 4 13 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 3 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 0.25 58 4 19 1 I 2 0 I 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 0.5 63 2 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 1 58 2 11 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 48 10 8 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 SI61 0.06 62 3 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 0 I4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S161 0.13 4I 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 I 0 0 48 3 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 100 S161 0.25 52 2 IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 23 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S161 0.5 57 3 9 0 I 2 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S161 1 63 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 3 0 0 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 S161 2 49 8 7 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

PAGE 179

Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl --.... -0 0 9 0' N v. iv VI Sample ?; rg Sieve Size >< 0 -0 w green algae w 0 0 0 N -0 w 00 red algae benthic foram 0 VI 0 VI 0 0 0 N 0 0\ VI -0 w ...... 0 0 0 0 planktic foram n 0 ostracod z Vl ..., echinod erm bryozoan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI \0 t w ...... w 00 ...... pe l ecepod ..., 0 gastropod > pteropod ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 worm tube n 0 :::s 0 0 0 0 spo nge spicule c ::s c 0 0 N 0 0 .... pellet (I> Q. '-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 coral 0 0 -0 VI cryptocrystalline 0 0 0 0 0 0 aggragate ...... 0 0 0 0 0 black grain 0 0 0 0 0 0 tunicat e s picule 0 0 0 0 0 0 grapestone 0 0 0 0 0 0 gorgon ian 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 crustacean 0 0 0 0 0 0 pterostein 0 0 0 0 0 0 other ...... t otal 0\ w

PAGE 180

APPENDIX 4. AVERAGE CONSTITUENTS BY FACIES 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2 .000 Q) Q) e ell 0 0 Q) ::: "' c Q) Q) B ca g '8 '8 Q) 8. a ell B C 'Ca l .!w: lE 0.._ S:: .!w: "0 c b :a Q) 8. l: c = .8 8.8 u a Average Percent Constituents for Fine Sand (FS) Facies 27 4 7 4 1 4 1 0 0 14 1 3 0 0 31 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 22 6 12 3 1 6 2 0 4 11 3 3 0 0 26 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 22 5 9 18 3 6 3 0 0 14 3 5 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 3 22 1 6 1 0 0 31 2 7 0 0 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 4 4 1 0 12 2 2 2 45 2 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 7 2 1 0 0 14 1 1 0 15 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average P e rcent Constituents for Medium Sand (MS) Facies 0.063 35 5 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 44 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0.125 36 7 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 43 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.250 42 5 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 28 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.500 42 5 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 18 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 44 3 11 0 0 0 2 4 3 2 3 0 0 0 7 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.000 47 2 14 0 0 0 2 6 4 1 2 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Percent Constituents for Coarse Sand (CS) Facie s 0 .063 37 5 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 3 0 1 38 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.125 42 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 35 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.250 48 5 6 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 24 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.500 4 7 6 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 20 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 4 9 4 6 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 12 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.000 51 4 6 0 0 0 2 6 6 0 3 0 0 0 5 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 Average Percent Constituents for Gravel (G) Facies 0.063 31 5 8 1 1 5 3 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 33 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.125 33 8 8 1 1 8 4 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.250 33 14 11 1 2 6 5 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.500 40 1 2 12 0 1 5 4 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 12 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.000 59 11 5 0 0 2 3 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 5 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 .000 74 5 4 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Percent Constituents for Bimodal (B) Facies 0 .06 3 25 5 5 2 1 4 2 0 0 5 2 3 0 4 42 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.125 30 6 8 3 1 3 2 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.250 27 8 10 11 1 4 2 0 1 6 4 1 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.500 22 6 11 15 1 3 5 1 1 14 4 1 0 1 11 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 1.000 34 6 5 0 0 2 7 2 2 12 4 0 0 1 8 8 0 0 3 0 0 0 2.000 50 7 3 0 0 2 3 3 1 3 5 0 0 1 1 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 164

PAGE 181

APPENDIX 5. MUD MINERALOOY 165 Peak Areas Percentages "' o o v = = = -a 0.. 0 0 0 u Ol) j o Oo Ol) o I -a ca Ol) u u S20 131.1728 419.75296 108.8342 254.8015 783.38866 53 .58 13.89 32.53 S60 47.4166 151.73312 24.7417 113 1972 289 67202 52.38 8.54 39.08 S26 61.6649 197 32768 29.5022 198.7899 425 61978 46.36 6.93 46.71 S28 88.09 281.888 37.2324 304.257 623.3774 45 .22 5 97 48.81 S59 127 997 409 5904 105.1494 286.6729 801.4127 51.11 13 12 35 77 S76 107.4588 343 86816 38.7001 312.7563 695.32456 49.45 5.57 44.98 S23 66.9793 214 33376 42.0152 190.8208 447.16976 47.93 9.40 42.67 S24 69.519 222.4608 69.9922 294.964 587.417 37.87 11.92 50 21 S29 89 .54 85 286 5552 50.0243 249 5795 586.159 48. 89 8.53 42.58 S31 85.0261 272.08352 231.6173 186.1104 689 81122 39 .44 33 58 26.98 S34 86.0898 275.48736 62.5494 343 521 681.55776 40.42 9.18 50.40 S29 92. 2173 295 09536 49.4252 259 3095 603.83006 48.87 8.19 42.94 SIS 80.7507 258.40224 39.278 369.7311 667.41134 38 .72 5.89 55.40 S30 65.1926 208.61632 27 3867 199.3079 435.31092 47.92 6.29 45.79 S36 93.0912 297.89184 91.1546 298 9345 687.98094 43.30 13.25 43.45 S38 70.1686 224.53952 66 7537 382.9422 674 23542 33. 30 9 .90 56.80 S39 41.4195 132.5424 23.7068 200.1596 356.4088 37.19 6 65 56. 16 S32 125 5175 401.656 93.5521 250.5789 745.787 53 .86 12 .54 33.60 S33 87.0142 278 44544 22.3743 410.007 4 710 82714 39 1 7 3 15 57 .68 S17 84.8731 271.59392 52.8353 416. 6243 741.05352 36 .65 7 13 56.22 S19 101.2016 323 84512 43.5561 337.8791 705 28032 45.92 6.18 47.91 S21 96.5145 308.8464 78.4523 170.7065 558.0052 55.35 14.06 30.59 S22 133.74 427.968 56.1969 284 4307 768.5956 55 .68 7.31 37.01 S25 58.1912 186 21184 38.0649 153 8195 378 09624 49.25 10 07 40. 68 S27 115.2863 368.91616 120 1212 207.0601 696.09746 53.00 17.26 29.75 S40 96.5196 308 86272 46.4654 316.3235 671.65162 45.99 6.92 47.10 S41 59.726 191.1232 42.8242 120.4513 354.3987 53.93 12.08 33.99 S42 131.2877 420.12064 99.3202 249.7295 769.17034 54 .62 12.91 32.47 S43 112.5043 360.01376 103.2896 261.7249 725.02826 49.66 14.25 36.10 S44 86.3884 276.44288 110.142 348 3181 734.90298 37.62 14.99 47.40 S45 132 9543 425.45376 52.0485 257 8859 735 38816 57 85 7.08 35 07 S46 137 1331 438 82592 68 1085 260.4823 767.41672 57 18 8 88 33.94 S49 66.7651 213 64832 34 587 464 7885 713 02382 29 .96 4.85 65.19 S50 94.3298 301.85536 42.2284 298.2183 642.30206 47.00 6.57 46.43 S48 102.1191 326.78112 51.1477 282.6685 660.59732 49.47 7 .74 42.79 S58 61.1478 195.67296 35.587 233.4447 464.70466 42.11 7.66 50.24 S67 133 9221 428.55072 82.6663 269 9395 781.15652 54 86 10 58 34.56 S67B 128.8332 412 26624 74 3101 257.2134 743.78974 55.43 9.99 34.58 S78 69.5448 222 54336 36. 8026 404 7683 664 11426 33.51 5 54 60.95 S83 152 8046 488 97472 34 28 7 3 237.704 9 760.96692 64 26 4.51 31.24

PAGE 182

APPEND IX 5. MUD MINERALOOY 166 Peak Areas Percentages "' = o o IU = = ";! -a 0 0 0 u co N o bo co o bo ell c;j ";! en l:a u ::E C"/.) u ::E S85 88.0536 281.77152 42.1852 214.7622 538.71892 52.30 7 83 39.87 S20 5833.75 1 8668 6166 .64 12032.98 36867 .62 50.64 16 7 3 32.64 S64 6302.41 20 1 67 712 2855.75 1 0246.08 33269.542 60.62 8 58 30.80 S75 5889 78 18847 .296 4445 93 1 2544.2 3583 7 .426 52.59 12.41 35 .00 S160 6352 8 20328.96 2292 29 9592.94 32214. 1 9 63.11 7 12 29 .78 S151 6039 05 19324 .9 6 2638.12 9438.9 3 1 401.98 61.54 8 .40 30.06 S140 6168 .71 19739.872 4796.73 1 4237 68 38774.282 50.91 12 37 36.72 S 1 9 6750 .81 2 1 602.592 5 1 80.81 1232.33 280 1 5 732 77 1 1 18.49 4.40 S 1 9B 805.81 2578 592 3382.32 4184.23 1 0 1 45 142 25.42 33.34 4 1.24 S71 7050.49 22561.568 3994 67 15761.59 423 1 7.8 2 8 53.31 9 .44 37.25 S71B 1137.23 3639.136 3227 .32 3516 38 1 0382.836 35.05 31.08 33.87 S21 4320.47 13825 504 3303.07 10697 1 3 27825 704 49.69 11. 87 38 44 S21B 912.9 2921.28 1475.45 3633.51 8030.24 36.38 18 37 45.25 S38 3664 .46 11726 .2 72 4434 .33 21348.36 37508 962 3 1 26 11.82 56.92 S38B 1208.68 3867 776 1695 6 9265 05 14828.426 26.08 1 1. 4 3 62.48 S59 5990 33 19169 056 3867.76 1 1302.37 34339 1 86 55 .82 1 1 26 32 9 1 S59B 542.5 1736 4121.13 3 1 26.59 8983.72 19.32 45.87 34.80 S44 4804.12 15373 184 3609.52 13443.62 32426.324 4 7 .4 1 11.13 41.46 S44B 1120.73 3586 336 1243.32 4296.49 9126 146 39 .30 13.62 4 7 .08 S64B 6074.54 19438 528 2029 .31 9517.67 30985 508 62. 73 6 55 30 .72 S64C 1 650.74 5282 368 4041.51 2459.32 11783 198 44 83 34.30 20.87 S75B 5635.19 18032.608 4584 12 12902 24 35518 968 50. 77 12.91 36.32 S75C 1 459.47 4670.304 4478.72 739 4 .76 16543.784 28 23 27.07 44 .70 S160B 6795 93 21746 976 3180 34 10570 .81 35498.126 61.26 8 96 29 .78 S160C 740.01 2368 032 3720.28 1645.27 7733 582 30.62 48 .11 21.27 S 1 5 1 B 6370.08 20384 256 2913 26 8575.63 3 1 873 146 63 95 9. 1 4 26 91 S15 1 C 1427 67 4568.544 1656.89 5089.33 11314 764 40.38 14 .64 44.98 S 1 40B 6096.54 1 9508.928 5713.18 14748 58 39970.688 48.8 1 14 29 36.90 S140C 2021.63 6469 .2 16 3 1 26.22 8 1 05 32 17700 756 36.55 17 .66 45.79

PAGE 183

APPENDIX 6. THIN SECTION POINT COUNT TOTALS 167 D39A D29A D36C D35B S40A S40B S24B S39 S18 S24 S42 S30 Green algae 1 2 2 3 11 2 8 9 4 15 Red algae 6 20 4 4 2 1 Benthicforams 2 23 49 18 38 50 56 33 56 29 23 25 Plankticforams 29 6 Ostracods Echinoderms 1 Bryozoans 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 6 Pelecepods 5 1 1 Gastropods 1 Pteropods 5 2 Serpulids 3 1 Spicules 2 1 2 13 19 coral 2 cryptoxtalline 1 Peloidal cement 53 63 18 37 2 8 7 10 3 4 6 22 needles 5 1 2 blades 6 0 1 1 BG 11 6 7 2 pellet pore 4 5 16 15 42 30 18 44 26 36 38 36 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 D26B D32B D26A D35A D27B D32C D32A D26C Green algae 22 41 36 39 35 45 25 29 Red algae 4 2 8 1 2 3 4 Benthicforam s 2 2 1 2 2 6 1 4 Plankticforam s 1 2 Ostracods 1 1 Echinoderms 1 1 1 2 1 Bryozoans 3 3 1 6 4 Pelecepod s 3 4 7 2 3 3 Gastropods 1 1 Pteropods 1 Serpulids 1 1 1 Spicules 3 1 1 coral cryptoxtalline 6 1 1 3 1 3 5 Peloidal 23 24 34 1 9 39 31 31 34 needles 11 1 1 2 2 1 blad es 2 1 17 1 BG pellet 2 pore 19 24 16 20 5 7 20 13 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

PAGE 184

APPENDIX 7. FORAMINIFERA AUVE AT TIME OF COLLECTION 168 Rotaliina Sl S2 S3 S7 S8 SlO Sll Sl3 Sl4 SIS Sl9 S22 S27 S28 S29 S31 S33 S34 S35 S36 S37 Acervulina inhaerans 7 2 I 76 4 Amphistegina gibbosa 4 27 1 9 45 45 43 13 49 7 36 13 25 10 31 6 Asterigerina carinaJa 7 4 3 5 9 Bolivina lanceolata 5 Bolivina pulchella Caribeanella polystoma 4 3 4 Carpentaria utricularis 2 9 3 5 5 Cassidulina laevigata 4 Cibicides cicatricosis 5 9 Cibicides refulgens 7 19 3 4 5 5 6 4 9 6 5 19 3 9 38 41 Cibicidoides pseudoungerianus 5 13 10 21 Discorbinella bertheloti 4 5 3 5 Discorbis aguayoi 9 Discorbis rosea 5 Elphidium advenum 4 Eponides repondus 6 Gavelinopsis praegori 15 4 8 Glabratella crassa 5 Glabratellina albida 3 Gypsina globula 3 10 4 3 7 2 4 Gyps ina plana 4 2 3 3 2 Heterostegina depressa 5 2 H oeglundina elegans 5 Homctrema rubra 2 Lobatula lobatula 3 5 10 Neoconorbina terquiemi 21 15 3 4 12 19 10 9 5 3 3 18 14 3 4 13 4 10 12 Haynesina depressula 4 Nonionoides gratoloupi Planorbulina acervalis 14 12 61 26 28 51 3 1 4 7 26 11 26 10 3 Planorbulina mediterensis 14 10 5 12 7 10 2 5 Planorbulina variablis 9 10 2 Planorbulina sp. 3 2 4 7 4 5 3 Poroepinoides latera/is 21 Reussella simplex 5 3 5 R osa/ina bradyi 12 1 6 9 2 3 5 2 10 6 4 6 10 5 13 4 15 R osa/ina florid ana 7 17 8 9 II 2 2 3 13 10 Rosa/ina floridensis 7 Siphonina tubulosa 9 5 9 9 2 Strebloides advenus 2 8 Tretomphalus atlanticus 8 5 5 3 20 56 2 9 Vonkleinsmidoides unicus 3 Spirillina sp .2 MUlollna Articulina c arinata 6 Cyclo rbi culina compressus 5 Hauerina speciosa 2 Laevipeneroplis bradyi 1 0 3 Laevipeneroplis protea 5 Mili olinella sub rotunda 2 Nubeculeria lucijiga Peneroplis carinaJus 5 2 Pyrgo denticulatum Pyrgo fomasinii 5 Quinqueloculina seminula 3 Quinqueloculina tricarinaJa 2 Triloculina tricarinata 2 Vertabralina atlantica 2 Textulariina Haplaphragmoides canarensis 3 2 5 Placopsolina confusa 4 7 4 5 3 Sagen ina frondescens Textularia agglutinans Totals 100100 100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100

PAGE 185

APPENDIX 7. FORAMINIFERA AUVE AT TIME OF COLLECTION 169 Rotaliina S38 S39 S43 S44 S4S S46 S47 S48 SSO Acervulina inhaerans 4 3 Amphistegina gibbosa 7 Asterigerina carina/a 4 15 9 14 Bolivina lanceolata Bolivina pulchella 1 3 5 Caribeanella polystoma 1 6 Carpenlaria utricularis Cassidulina laevigala Cibicides cica tric osis Cibicides refulgens 8 3 5 3 19 Cibicidoides pseudoungerianus 5 12 Discorbinella bertheloti Discorbis aguayoi Discorbis rosea 4 6 23 7 Elphidium advenum Eponides repondus Gavelinopsis praegori GlabraJe/la crassa GlabraJellina albida Gypsina globula Gyps ina plana Heterostegina depressa Hoeglundina elegans Honwtrema rubra Lobatula lobaJula 9 3 3 1 9 Neoconorbina terquiemi 1 6 21 12 1 3 14 9 15 17 19 H aynes ina depressula Nonionoides grotoloupi Planorbulina acervalis 16 4 15 Planorbulina mediterensis 4 9 Planorbulina variablis Planorbulina sp. 8 Poroepinoides latera/is Reussella simplex Rosa/ina bradyi 20 46 12 16 53 26 1 2 Rosa/ina floridana 28 18 31 28 36 24 26 59 12 Rosa/ina floridensis Siphonina tubulosa 3 Strebloides advenus Tretomphalus aJlanticus 4 II 9 3 Vonlcleinsmidoides unicus Spirillina sp.2 Millolina Arri c ulina carinala Cyclorbic ulina compressus Hau erina speciosa Loevipeneroplis bradyi 3 Loevipeneroplis protea M iliolinella s u brotunda 3 Nubeculeria lucifiga Peneroplis carinaJus Pyrgo denticulatum Pyrgo fomasinii Quinqueloculina s e mirwla Quinqueloculina tricarinala Triloculina tricarinala Vertabralina aJlantica Textularilna Haplaphragmoides canarensis 3 4 Placopsolina confusa Sagen ina frondescens 4 Textularia agglutinans Totals 100100100100100100100100100

PAGE 186

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA ( r eeresents Jess than 1%) 170 Rotaliina Sl S2 S3 S4 ss S6 S7 S8 S9 SlO Sll S12 S13 S14 S 1 5 S16 S17 S18 S19 Acervulina inhaerans 2 2 3 0 Amphicoryna scal.aris Amphistegina gibbosa 3 13 2 7 17 22 17 20 2 21 22 16 3 28 34 Asterigerina carinata 20 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 Astrononion sp 0 Biarritzina sp. 0 Bol ivina /anceolata 6 9 0 0 Bolivina /owmani 0 Bolivina paula 0 2 0 Bolivina pulchel/a 2 Bolivina spp. 0 BriztJ/ina sp. 0 Buliminoides cur1us 0 0 0 Caribeanella polystoma 2 2 3 0 0 0 Carpentaria proteifonnis 0 0 6 3 0 0 Carpentaria utricu/aris 0 4 0 3 0 I 4 6 I Cassidulina /aevigata 0 0 41 0 6 2 0 0 I 0 9 2 Cibicides cicatricosis 0 Cibicides refulgens 0 4 2 3 3 0 Cibicides robustus Cibicidoides mundulus Cibicidoides pseudoungerianus Cribroelphidium poeyanum 0 Discorbinel/a ber1heloti Discorbis aguayoi Discorbis rosea 0 0 Discorbis spp. 5 Elphidium advenum 0 2 Eponides punctulatus Eponides repondus 0 Gavelinopsis praegori 4 2 G/abratella crassa 20 Glabratel/ina a/bida Globocassidulina subglosa Gypsina globula 2 0 0 0 0 Gyps ina plana lJ 5 2 2 6 6 2 Haynesina depressu/a 0 3 4 Heterostegina depressa 2 0 0 5 0 Hoeglundia elegans 0 0 3 0 Homotrema rubrum 0 18 2 2 13 13 Lenticulina thalmanni l..obatula lobatu/a 2 I 4 7 2 Neoconorbina terquemi 2 7 9 2 0 2 3 4 4 2 3 I Neoeponides auberi 0 Nodosaria sp 0 Nonionoides grateloupi 0 6 4 0 Planorbulina acerva/is 2 22 0 3 2 15 17 3 9 Planorbulina mediterraensis 0 3 3 4 0 I Planorbulina variablis 0 0 0 0 0 Planorbulina sp. (red) 5 2 5 0 2 4 3 0 2 Poroeponides latera/is Reussel/a simplex 2 0 0 0 0

PAGE 187

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (continued) 171 Rotaliina S:W Sll Sll S23 Sl4 S25 Sl6 S27 Sl8 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S3S S36 Acervu/ina inhat:rans 30 0 0 0 0 Amphicory na scalaris 0 Amphistegina gibbosa II 12 13 12 25 14 12 1 3 18 3 13 Asterigerina carina/a 4 2 3 0 0 2 4 0 7 Astrononion sp Biarritzina sp. Bolivina lanceolata s 4 I 0 Bolivina lowmani I 3 Bolivina paula I 3 0 0 0 0 Bolivina pulchella 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 B olivina spp I Brizl;llina sp. 0 Buliminoides cu11us 0 0 0 Caribeanella polystoma 0 0 0 0 Carpentaria proteiformis I Carpentaria utricularis 3 0 2 4 Cassidulina laevigata 2 29 0 2 19 I 4 3 I 4 0 s 0 0 Cibicides cicatricosis 0 s 3 0 Cibicides refulgens 6 3 2 3 0 2 2 2 Cib i cides robustus Cibicidoides mundulus 2 I Cibi c idoides pseudoungerianus 0 0 6 0 2 0 Cribroelphidium poeyanum Discorbinella benheloti 3 Discorbis aguayoi Discorbis rosea 0 Discorbis spp 3 Elphidium advenum 0 0 0 Eponides punctulatus Eponides repondus 0 2 Gavelinopsis praegori 2 0 0 0 Glabratella crassa 0 0 Glabratel/ina a/bida Globocassidulina subglosa 2 2 Gypsina g l ob ula 0 I 0 I 0 Gypsina plana 3 2 6 8 Haynesina depressula 0 2 0 0 0 Heterostegina depressa 0 Hoeglundia e/egans 0 0 Homotrema rubrum 27 s 22 0 9 Lenticulina thalmanni 0 0 Lobatula lobatula 6 4 4 0 19 I 9 I I I Neoconorbina tt:rquemi 3 2 13 II 14 7 7 9 3 II 0 2 2 3 Neoeponides auberi 0 0 Nodosaria sp. 0 0 Nonionoides gmte/oupi 0 I 0 0 Planorbulina acerva/is 2 2 0 0 2 II 2 IS 0 7 3 2 Planorbu/ina mediterraensis 0 0 4 0 Planorbulina variablis 0 0 I 0 I I Planorbulina sp. (red) 0 2 0 6 2 0 Poroeponides latera/is 0 Reusse/la simplex 0 0

PAGE 188

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (continued) 172 R otaliina S37 S38 S39 S40 S41 S42 S43 S44 S4S S46 S47 S48 S49 SSO Acervulina inhaerans 0 0 0 Amphicoryna scalaris Amphistegina gibbosa 10 3 8 39 3 2 2 I I 12 I 2 Asterigerina carinaJa IS 6 I 10 s 7 14 9 10 9 16 II Asrroncnion sp 0 Biarritzina sp. Bolivina lanceolara 0 Bolivina lowmani 0 0 Bolivina paula Bolivina pulchella 0 0 0 Bolivina spp. Briza/ina sp. Buliminoides curt us 0 0 Caribeanella polysroma 0 0 2 0 0 0 Carpentaria proteifonnis Carpentaria urric ularis Cassidulina laevigara 0 Ci bicides cicatricosis Cibicides refulgens s 0 0 0 0 Cibicides robustus Cibicidoides mundulus 0 Cibicidoides pseudoungerianus 2 0 0 2 Cribroelphidium poeyanum Discorbinella bertheloti Discorbi s aguayoi Discorbis rosea 0 28 30 3 Discorbis spp Elphidium advenum 0 0 Epooides punctula t us Epooides rep o ndus 0 Gavelincpsis praegori Glabratella c rassa 0 0 Glabratellina albida Globocassidulina subglosa 0 0 Gypsinc g lobula 0 Gypsina plana I 2 H aynes ina depressula 0 0 0 0 Hererostegina depressa Hoeglundia elegans Homorremo rubrum 7 Lenticulina thalmanni Lobarula lobatula 3 2 0 s 0 II 8 4 s 3 Neocooorbina terquemi 6 3 8 2 9 9 8 3 4 4 Neoeponid es auberi 0 Nodosaria sp. Nonioncides groreloupi 0 0 0 0 Plancrbulina a ce rvalis 7 3 6 3 2 Planorbulina medirerraensis I Plancrbulina variablis 0 0 Planorbulina sp. (red) 2 0 Poroeponides latera/is Reuss e lla simplex 0

PAGE 189

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (oontinued) 173 G lobl&erinl n a Sl Sl S3 S4 ss S(j S 7 S8 S9 SlO Sll Sll Sl3 Sl4 SIS Sl6 Sl7 Sl8 S19 Rosalina bradyi s I 0 22 0 I 2 2 2 Rosalina floridana 0 7 2 0 0 0 Rosalina florid ens is Rot o r boides gran u losus 0 Sip h onina tubulosa 0 0 3 0 I 2 0 0 2 S t rebloides advenus 4 0 3 Tretomphal u s atlanlicus 0 0 Uvigerina sp. Valvulinaeria spp VonJcleinsmidoides unic u s 0 unidentified rotaliina 2 4 IS 2 0 2 0 0 Globigerina bulloides 0 8 s 16 3 1 4 16 3 G l obigerina rubscens 6 0 4 0 Globigerinoides conglobatus Globigerinoides ruber 6 2 3 3 3 2 4 0 I S 9 2 3 Globigerinoides sacculifer 0 3 4 0 Globigerino i des triloba 6 1 2 2 I Globo r otalia menardii 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 IS 3 2 Neogloboquadrina duetertrei 3 2 2 IS 8 O r bulina universa 0 I 0 0 I 3 planJctic debris 0 s 3 1 9 22 20 3 Lagenlna Fissurina weisneri 0 0 0 0 0 Fissurina submarginal a 0 0 Lagena globosa 0 Lagenasp.4 Lagenasp.S 0 0 Pa/liolalella orbignyana 0 0 0 Procolagena gracilis 0 Splrilllnlna Pattelina corrugata 0 0 Sej u nctel/a sp. 1 2 0 Sejunctel/a sp. 2 0 Spirillina denticu/ata 0 0 Spirillina obconica 0 0 Spirillina sp l 2 0 0 0 0 Spiri/lina sp.2 0 lnvol utinlna Conicospirillinoides semidecorata 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 8 2 Millol.lna Archaias angulatas 7 I 7 2 4 3 0 A rt ic u lina carinata 3 4 2 3 2 2 Articulina lineata 0 Articulina mayori 0 0 Articulina mexic ana 2 0 0 Arti c ul ina muc r onata 0 0 0 2 0 Articulina s p 0 0 Bor e/is p u lchra 0 Comuspira planarbis 3 0 Comuspiramia an t illarum 0 17 3 7 14 0 7 13 13 8 Cyclorb i cu/ina compressus 0 2 2 H auerina speciosa 0 0 0

PAGE 190

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (co ntinued) 174 G l obl&erinlna S20 S11 S21 S23 S 24 S25 S26 S17 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 SJS S36 Rosalina bradyi 2 3 2 0 3 0 Rosalina florid ana 2 I 3 8 4 Ros alina florid ens is 2 I 2 2 R oto rb oides granulosus Siphonina tubu/osa 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 Strebloides advenus 0 0 Tretomphalus aJlanti c us 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 18 0 Uvigerina sp. Va/vulinaeria spp Vonlcleinsmidoides uni cus unidentified r otaliina 3 3 2 0 G lobigerina bulloides 7 1 0 9 6 s 6 9 I 0 Globigerina rubs cens 2 0 6 2 3 3 Globigerinoides co n g l o batus 2 Globigerinoides ruber 24 2 3 14 2 s 0 0 2 G l obigerinoides sacculifer 6 Globige rin oides triloba 3 Globorotalia menardii 16 s 4 3 6 s 2 6 3 4 2 0 Neog l oboquadrina due t e n rei 13 2 2 2 2 4 2 Orb ulina univ ersa 0 I I planJaic debris s 7 10 8 s 3 0 Lagenina Fis surina w eimeri I 0 0 0 0 Fissurina submarginal a 2 0 0 LAgena globosa l.Agenasp.4 0 l.Agenasp.S 0 0 0 PalliolaJella orbignyana 0 0 I 2 Procolagena gracilis 0 0 Splrillinlna Pattelina corru gata 2 2 0 0 Sej u nctella sp I 3 s 2 3 0 2 Sejunctella sp. 2 0 0 Spirillina d enticulata 0 0 Spirillina obconica 2 0 0 0 0 Spirillina sp. l 0 2 0 3 0 0 2 0 Spiril/ina sp.2 0 0 lnvoluUnina Conicospirillinoides sernide cora ta 2 0 2 0 0 3 4 Millollna A rchaias angulatas 0 0 0 9 14 10 Articulina carinata 0 0 2 0 0 8 3 0 2 2 I 0 Aniculina lin eata 0 Aniculina mayori Aniculina mexicana 0 Articulina mu cronata 0 0 0 Anic ulina sp. B o r e/is pulchra 0 Comuspira plarwrbis 3 2 0 0 0 Comuspir amia antil/arum 1 3 s 1 5 17 2 Cyclorb i c ulin a compressus 2 I 2 0 Hauerina speciosa

PAGE 191

APPENDIX 8 TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (continued) 17 G lobl&erinln a S37 S38 S39 S40 S41 S42 S43 S44 S4S S46 S47 S48 S49 SSO Rosa/ina bradyi 2 I 4 I 2 7 3 0 I R osa/ina jloridaru:z 5 2 2 4 8 14 15 6 4 3 Rosa/ina florid ens is Rotorboides granulosus Siphonina tubulo s a 0 Strebwides advenus 0 0 Tretomphalus atlanlicus 0 4 0 0 Uvigerina sp. Valv u linaeria spp. VonJckinsmidoides unicus unidentified rotaliina 0 0 2 0 Globigerina bulloides 4 6 2 Globigerina rubscens 0 Globigerinoides conglobatus Globigerinoides ruber 6 0 2 0 2 Globigerinoides sacculifer Globigerinoides triloba Globorotalia menardii 0 Neogloboquadrina duetertrei 0 O r bulina universa p/ankJic debris Lage nln a Fissurina weisneri Fissurina subma r ginal a !Agerw globosa 1Agenasp.4 1Agenasp.5 0 Pallio/aJel/a orbignyana 0 0 Procolagena gra c ilis SpiriUinlna Pattelina corrugata Sejunctella sp. 1 Sejunctella sp. 2 Spiril/ina denti c ulata Spirillina obconi c a 0 0 Spiril/ina s p 1 0 Spirillina sp. 2 0 0 0 Involutinina Conicospirillinoides semidecorata Millollna Archaias angulatas 12 1 0 15 3 11 12 8 4 7 2 16 9 12 Arti c ulina carinata 0 4 3 1 0 Articulina lineata Arti c ulina mayori Arti c ulina maicana 0 0 Articulina mucronaJa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arti c ulina sp. Bore/is pulchra 0 0 0 Comuspira planorbis 0 0 0 0 0 Comuspiramia an til/arum 0 0 0 I Cyclorbiculina comp r essus 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 Hauerina specio s a 0 0 0

PAGE 192

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (continued) 176 Mlllollna Sl Sl S3 S4 ss S6 S7 S8 S9 SlO Sll Sll S13 S14 SIS S16 Sl7 S18 Sl9 lAevipeneroplis bradyi I 0 2 2 I 0 Laevipeneroplis protea 6 2 3 0 0 I Miliolinella jichteliana 0 0 0 Miliolinella subrotunda 4 0 Miliolinella sp Nodobacularia glomerosa 2 0 2 2 2 8 0 7 4 4 Nodobaculariella cassis I I Nube c ularia lucijiga 0 0 3 0 2 3 3 Nubeculina divaricata 0 0 0 2 Parasorites orbitolitoides 0 Peneroplis carinatus 2 2 2 2 I Pyrgo denticulata 0 0 0 0 0 Pyrgo elongata 0 0 Pyrgo fomasnii 0 0 Pyrgo murrhina Pyrgo subsphaerica 0 Quinqueloculina bicarinata Quinqueloculina bicostata Quinqueloculina bidentata 0 0 Quinqueloculina bosciana 7 Quinqueloculina bradyana Quinqueloculina horrida 2 0 Quinqueloculina lamarkiana Quinqueloculina seminula 4 Quinqueloculina tricarinata 2 0 Quinqueloculina fragments 2 0 2 3 0 Quinqueloculina spp 6 2 0 0 Signwilina sp. 1 2 Signwilina sp. 2 2 2 Sigmoilopsis schlumbegeri 0 Siphonoperta agglutinans 2 I 0 0 0 Siphonoperta sp. 2 2 2 3 0 2 0 3 0 Sorites orbiculus 0 0 0 Spiroloculina anti/arum 0 0 0 Spiroloculina caduca 2 0 0 Spiroloculina communis 0 0 0 2 Spiroloculina sp. 0 0 Spirophthalmidium sp. I Triloculina bassensis 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 Triloculina bicarinata 0 Triloculina carinata 0 0 Triloculina linneiana 0 0 Triloculina oblonga Triloculina planciana 0 Triloculina sidebottomi 3 Triloculina tricarinata 0 5 3 2 6 2 11 6 Triloculina trigonula 2 0 2 0 0 Triloculina spp. Tubinella funalis 3 4 0 I 3 I Vertabralina atlantica 2 2 I 0 3 Webbina rugosa 0 3 0 2 0

PAGE 193

APPENDIX 8 TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (oootioued) 177 MIUol.lna SlO Sll S22 S23 S24 S25 Sl6 Sl7 Sl8 S29 S30 S31 S3l S33 S34 S3S S36 Laevipeneroplis bradyi 0 I 2 I I 0 2 3 0 IAevipeneroplis protea 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 Miliolinella jichteliana 0 0 0 I 0 I Milio l inella s u b r otunda I 2 2 4 3 0 0 0 Miliolinella sp. 0 Nodobacularia g l omerosa 3 0 Nodobaculariella cassis 0 0 Nubecularia lucijiga 0 I 0 0 0 2 Nubecu l ina divaricata 0 0 Parasori t es orbitolitoides Pene r oplis carinatus 0 0 0 0 0 Pyrgo denti c ulata 0 0 0 0 Pyrgo elongata 0 0 Pyrgo fornasnii 2 0 0 0 Pyrgo murrhina Pyrgo subsphaerica Quinqueloculina bicarinata Quinqueloculina bicostala Quinqueloculina bidentata Quinqueloculina bosciana 0 0 Quinqueloculina bradyana Quinqueloculina horrida 0 0 Quinqueloculina lamarkiana 0 Quinque l oculina seminula Quinqueloculina tricarinata 0 Quinqueloculina fragment s 0 2 2 Quinqueloculina spp 2 0 Sigmoilino sp. 1 0 3 2 2 I 2 0 Sigmoilino sp. 2 2 6 0 0 0 Sigmoilopsis schlumbegeri Siphonoperta agglutinans 0 0 0 Siphonoperta sp. 0 2 2 0 5 I 0 2 Sorites orbiculus Spiroloculina anti/arum 0 0 0 0 Spiroloculina caduca 2 I 0 0 0 Spiroloculina communis 0 3 0 Spiroloculina sp 0 Spirophthalmidium sp. 0 0 Triloculina bassensis 4 2 0 0 I Triloculina bicarinata 0 0 Tri l oculina carinata 0 Triloculina linneiana 0 0 Triloculina oblonga Triloculina planciana 0 0 0 Triloculina sidebottomi 0 4 Triloculina tricarinata 4 2 2 2 0 0 2 Triloculina trigonula 2 Triloculina spp. 2 I Tubinella funalis 2 0 2 0 3 2 Vertabralina atlantica 0 0 10 0 4 Webbino rugosa 0

PAGE 194

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (co ntinued) 178 Mlllollna S37 S38 S39 S40 S41 S42 S.O S44 S4S S44> S47 S48 S49 SSO IAevipeneroplis bradyi 0 I 0 0 0 2 lAevipeneroplis protea 4 3 s s 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 Miliolinel/a fichteliana I 0 I 0 2 2 s 2 2 0 I Milioline//a s u brotunda s 0 3 I 2 4 2 4 I 3 Miliolinel/a sp. 0 0 2 0 0 0 Nodobacu/aria glome rosa 0 Nodobaculariella cassis 0 Nubecu/aria Jucijiga 2 Nubeculina divaricala 0 Parasorites orbitolitoides 0 0 0 0 Peteroplis carinatus 0 I Pyrgo denticulata 0 s Pyrgo e/angata 0 Pyrgo fomasnii 0 0 0 0 Pyrgo murrhina Pyrgo subsphaerica QuifUJueloculina bicarinata QuifUJueloculina bicostata QuifUJue/oculina bide ntata QuifUJue/oculina bosciana QuifUJue/oculina bradyana QuifUJuelocu/ina horrida 2 QuifUJueloculina /amarkiana QuifUJueloculina seminu/a 2 0 0 2 QuifUJul!loculina t ricarinata QuifUJueloculina fragments 0 2 0 3 QuifUJue/oculina spp. 0 0 0 0 Sigmoilina sp. 1 2 I 2 0 2 Sigmoilina sp. 2 2 3 0 2 Sigmoilopsis schlumbegeri Siphonoperta agglutinans 0 0 Siphonoperta sp. 2 2 2 4 3 4 I Sorites orb i culus 0 I 0 0 Spi roloculina anti/arum 0 0 Spiro/oc ulina caduca 0 0 0 Spiroloculina c ommun is 0 Spirolocu/ina sp. Spirophthalmidium sp. Trilocul i na bassensis 0 0 0 0 0 Triloculina bica rinata 0 0 Triloculina carinata 0 Triloc u lina linneiana 0 0 0 3 0 Triloculina oblonga Triloculina p/anciana Triloculina sidebottomi Tril ocul ina tricarinata 3 I 3 3 I 2 2 3 0 2 2 Triloculina trig onu/a 3 3 22 3 8 2 I Triloculina spp. 0 0 0 Tubinel/afunalis 0 0 0 Vertabralina aJ/antica 0 3 3 Webbina rugosa 0

PAGE 195

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORA M INIFERA (co n tin u ed) 179 Sl Sl S3 S4 ss S6 S7 S8 s' SlO Sll Sll S13 S14 SI S S16 S17 S18 Sl' Soritid fragments 12 4 I 7 5 3 2 0 0 UnidenJified milio/ina 2 0 2 0 Textulariina Clavulina diffonnis Clavulina muicana 0 Clavulina tricarinata 0 0 0 0 0 Haddonia t orresiensis 0 Haplaphragmoides canarensis 3 0 Hemisphaerammina bradyi 0 I 2 I Placopsolina confusa 2 2 6 4 9 24 0 3 3 4 I 3 Reophax nodulosus 2 2 0 0 0 Rhabdammina sp. Sagen ina frondescens 2 0 Spiroplectammina florid ana Textularia agglutinans 4 2 2 0 I 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Textularia candiena I I 0 0 Textularia conica 2 0 2 2 0 2 Textularia mayori Valvulina oviedoina 0 0 Totals 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

PAGE 196

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAM I NIFERA ( continued) 180 SW S21 S22 S 23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S 2 9 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S3S S36 Soritid fragmems 2 3 1 I 36 4 1 Unidentified tniliolina 0 Textulariina C/avulina diffo rmis 0 C/avulina 0 C/avulina tricarinata 0 Haddonia torresienris Haplophrogmoides canarenris 0 0 Hemisphaerammina brad y i 0 Placopsolina confusa 3 2 s 2 R e ophax nodulosus 0 2 0 Rhabdammina sp. 0 Sagenina frondescens Spiroplectammina flo ridana 0 Textularia agglutinans 0 0 0 2 2 Textularia candiena 0 0 Textularia conica 0 2 0 0 Textularia mayori 0 Val v ulina oviedoina Totals 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

PAGE 197

APPENDIX 8. TOTAL PERCENT FORAMINIFERA (continued) 181 SJ7 SJ8 SJ9 S40 S41 S42 S43 S44 S4S S46 S47 S48 S49 SSO Soritid fragments 33 21 21 s 22 38 17 18 8 s 19 40 46 26 Unidentified rniliolina 0 Textularlina Clavulina diffonnis Clavulina mexicana Clavu lina I rica rinata 0 Haddonia t orresiensis Hapl aphragmoides canarensis Hemisphaerammina bradyi Placopsolina confusa 0 0 0 3 I 0 Reophax nodu/osu s 0 0 0 0 Rhabdammina sp. Sagenina frondescens Spiroplectammina floridana Textularia agglutinans 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Textularia cand i ena Textularia conica 0 0 Textularia mayori Valvulina oviedoina 0 Totals 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

PAGE 198

APPENDIX 9. TAXONOMIC REFERENCES (continued) Rotaliina Reference Acervulina inhaerans Schultz Poag and Tresslar, 1981 Amphicoryna scalaris (Batsch) Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Bolivina lanceolata Parker Bock, et al., 1971 Bolivina lowmani Phleger and Parker Bock, et al., 1971 Bolivina paula Parker Bock, et al., 1971 Bolivina pulchella Parlcer Bock, et al., 1971 Buliminoides curtus Seiglie Poag and Tresslar, 1981. Carpentariaproteiformis (Goes) Bock, et al., 1971 Carpentaria utricularis (Carter) Poag and Tresslar, 1981. Cibicides cicatricosis (Schwager) Bock, et al., 1971 Cibicides robustus (Flint) Bock, et al., 1971 Cibicidoides mundulus (Brady, Parker and Jones) Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Cibicidoides pseudoungerianus (Cushman) Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Cribroelphidium poeyanum Cushman and Bronnimann Discorbinella bertheloti (d'Orbigny) Discorbis aguayoi Bermudez Elphidium advenum (Cushman) Eponides punctulatus (d'Orbigny) Gavelinopsis praegori (Heron Allen and Earland) Glabratella crassa Doreen Glabratellina albida (McCulloch) Globocassidulina subglosa (Brady) Sphaeroypsina globula (Reuss) Haynesina depressula (Walker and Jacob) Heterostegina antillarum d'Orbigny Hoeglundina elegans (d'Orbigny) Lenticulina thalmanni (Hessland) Neoeponides auberi (d'Orbigny) Nonionoides grateloupi (d'Orbigny) Planorbulina mediterraensis d'Orbigny Planorbulina variablis (d'Orbigny) Poroeponides lateralis (Terquem) Reussella simplex (Cushman)? Rosalina floridensis Cushman Rosalina globularis d'Orbigny Rotorboides granulosus (Heron-Allen and Earland) Siphonina tubulosa Cushman Strebloides advenus (Cushman) Vonkleinsmidoides unica McCulloch G lobigerinina Globigerina bulloides d'Orbigny Bock, et al., 1971 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Barker, 1960 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Bock, et al., 1971 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Barker, 1960 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Barker, 1960 Bock, et al., 1971 Sliter, 1965 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Poag and Tresslar, 1981. Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 182

PAGE 199

APPENDIX 9. TAXONOMIC REFERENCES (continued) Globigerina rubescens Hofker Globigerinoides conglobatus (Brady) Globigerinoides ruber (d'Orbigny) Globigerinoides sacculifer (d'Orbigny) Globigerinoides triloba (Reuss) Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones and Brady) Neogloboquadrina duetertrei ( d'Orbigny) Orbulina universa d'Orbigny Lagenina Fissurina submarginata (Boomgart) Fissurina weisneri (Walker and Boys) Lagena globosa (Montagu) Palliolatella orbignyana (Seguenza) Procerolagena gracilis (Williamson) Spirillinina Spirillina denticultata Brady Spirillina obconica Brady Pattelina corrugata Williamson Involutinina Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 Cimerman and Langer 1991 Kennet and Srinivasan, 1983 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Barker, 1960 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Conicospirillinoides semidecoratus (Heron-Allen and Earland) Miliolina Articulina carinata Weisner Articulina lineata Brady Articulina mayori Cushman Articulina mexicana Cushman Articulina mucronata d'Orbigny Borelis pulchra d'Orbigny Comuspira planorbis Schultz Cyclorbiculina compressus (d'Orbigny) Haurina speciosa (Karrer) Laevipeneroplis bradyi (Cushman) Miliolinella ficteliana (d'Orbigny) Nodobacularia glomerosa (Colom) Nodobaculariella cassis d'Orbigny Nubeculeria lucifiga Defrance Nubeculina divaricata (Brady) Parasorites orbitolitoides (Hofker) Peneroplis carinatus d'Orbigny Pyrgo denticulata (Brady) Pyrgo elongata (d'Orbigny) Pyrgo fomasinii Chapman and Parr Pyrgo murrhina (Schwager) Pyrgo subsphaerica (d'Orbigny) Quinqueloculina bicarinata d'Orbgny Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Bock, et al 1971 Bock, et al 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Hallock and Peebles 1992 Bock, et al. 1971 Hallock and Peebles, 1992 Bock, et al., 1971 Loeblich and Tappan, 1964 Bock, et al., 1971 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Sieglie et al 1977 Bock, et al. 1971 Bock, et al 1971 Cimerman and Langer, 1991 Bock et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al 1971 183

PAGE 200

APPENDIX 9. TAXONOMIC REFERENCES (continued) Quinqueloculina bicostata d'Orbigny Quinqueloculina bidentata d'Orbigny Quinqueloculina bosciana d'Orbigny Quinqueloculina bradyana Cushman Quinqueloculina horrida Cushman Quinqueloculina lamarkiana d'Orbigny Quinqueloculina seminula Linnaeus Quinqueloculina tricarinata d'Orbigny Sigmoilopsis schlumbegeri (Silvestri) Siphonoperta agglutinans (d'Orbigny) Sorites orbiculus (Ehrenberg) Spiroloculina antillarum d'Orbigy Spiroloculina caduca Cushman Spiroloculina communis Cushman Triloculina bassensis Parr Triloculina bicarinata d'Orbigny Triloculina carinata d'Orbigny Triloculina linneiana d'Orbigny Triloculina oblonga Montagu Triloculina planciana d'Orbigny Triloculina sidebottomi Martinotti Tubinellafunalis (Brady) Vertebralina atlantica Cushman and Hanzawa Webbina rugosa d'Orbigny Textulariina Clavulina difformis d'Orbigny Clavulina mexicana Cushman Clavulina tricarinata d'Orbigny Haddonia torrensiensis Chapman Haplophragmoides canarensis (d'Orbigny) Hemisphaerammina bradyi Loeblich and Tappan Reophax nodulosus Brady Sagenina frondescens (Brady) Spiroplectammina jloridana (Cushman) Textularia agglutinans d'Orbigny Textularia candiena d'Orbigny Textularia conica d'Orbigny Textularia mayori Cushman Valvulina oviedoiana d'Orbigny Bock, et al., 1971 Cimerrnan and Langer, 1991 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al ., 1971 Cimerrnan and Langer, 1991 Bock, et al., 1971 Cimerrnan and Langer, 1991 Cimerrnan and Langer, 1991 Cimerrnan and Langer, 1991 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al 1971 Bock, et al 1971 Bock, et al ., 1971 Poag and Tresslar, 1981. Wantland, 1975 Loeb1ich and Tappan, 1988 Reference Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 Bock, et al ., 1971 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Bock,etal., 1971 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Bock, et al ., 1971 Loeblich and Tappan, 1988 Bock, et al 1971 Cimerrnan and Langer 1991 Bock, et al., 1971 Cimerrnan and Langer, 1991 Bock, et al ., 1971 Bock, et al., 1971 184


printinsert_linkshareget_appmore_horiz

Download Options

close
No images are available for this item.
Cite this item close

APA

Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.

MLA

Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.

CHICAGO

Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.

WIKIPEDIA

Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.