O megasporach i lito stratygrafii pstrego piaskowca SW obszaru monokliny przedsudeckiej

Abstract

ON MEGASPORES AND LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE BUNTER IN THE SW PART OF THE FORESUDETIC MONOCLINE

SUMMARY

Some problems dealt with in a paper by Fuglewicz (1977) are here controversially discussed, stressing the lack of evidence supporting that author's theory that “the occurrence of some megaspore species is distinctly connected with facial development. In the marine (RØt) deposits the dominance is observed of the smooth megaspores..., while ornamented megaspores as a rule predominate in the limnic sediments”.
The present writers suppose the megaspores to represent a group of land lycopodia growing on inland or coastal swamps. Hence, the distribution of these spores, both smooth and ornamented, does not depend on facial conditions but on such ecological conditions their parent plants had vegetated under, and on the characteristics and length of their transport.
An attempt has also been made to clarify that the lack of megaspores cannot indicate the existence of a stratigraphic lacuna, as believed by Fuglewicz (1977 a).
The most questionable lithostratigraphic problem advanced by Fuglewicz is an endeavour to correlate his own stratigraphic classification with that of Sokołowski.
Fuglewicz believes that the lower oolitic layers “... correspond to complex 18 of the Bunter in Sokołowski's (1967) classification” while the intraoolitic layers “...most probably correspond to complexes 17 and 16 in Sokołowski's classification...”
After correlating a number of the Lower and Middle Bunter profiles (Fig. 1) it is shown that an identification of the lower oolitic layers with complex 18 and that of the intra-oolitic layers with complexes 17 and 16 of Sokołowski's classification is incorrect.
The lower oolitic and suboolitic layers observed in boreholes Czerńczyce IG-l and Stęszów 1G-l correspond to Sokolowski's complex 21, while the intraoolitic layers probably correspond to complexes 20 through 14.