IN THE ESNA-IDFU REGION, NILE VALLEY, EGYPT 37 



considered Units III and II as Lower Eocene, and added that although the age of 

 " Unit I " is open to question, he tentatively assigns it to the Lower Eocene as well. 



The same section was discussed by Nakkady (1957) .where he interpreted Le Roy's 

 Lower Tertiary units as representing the Danian, Montian, Thanetian and Ypresian, 

 advocating the conformity of the succession. On the other hand, Said & Kerdany 

 (1961) described the same succession, confirming Le Roy's previous statement of a 

 major palaeontologic hiatus between the Creataceous and the Tertiary, and assigning 

 Le Roy's Units IV, III and II to the Landenian and his Unit I to the Ypresian. 

 However, analysis of their recorded planktonic Foraminifera shows that their 

 Landenian includes both the uppermost Paleocene and the Lower Eocene. Globoro- 

 talia velascoensis which characterizes the Upper Paleocene and marks the Paleocene- 

 Lower Eocene boundary by the disappearance of its last survivors, was recorded by 

 Le Roy (1953) as characteristic of his Unit IV only, and its range was slightly 

 extended by Said & Kerdany (1961) to the basal part of Le Roy's Unit II. Never- 

 theless, they included the whole of Unit II which was stated by them to have a 

 thickness of between 120 and 160 metres, together with the underlying Units III and 

 IV within the Landenian. Correlation with the Esna-Idfu sequence, shows clearly 

 that the part of this succession between the upper limit of G. velascoensis and the 

 base of the hard crystalline limestone (Le Roy's Unit I) can be equated with the 

 ' Thebes calcareous shale member " of the Esna-Idfu region, which is here considered 

 to be of Lower Eocene age. 



Nakkady & Osman (1954) discussed the genus Globotruncana in Egypt and its 

 value in stratigraphical correlation, using Nakkady's previous sections and two other 

 sections in western Sinai, the Qabeliat and the Sudr sections. Nevertheless, in 

 correlating the Campanian-Maestrichtian succession of these two relatively close 

 sections, the authors could not establish the same zones. Moreover, the record by 

 Nakkady & Osman of forms such as Globigerina pseudotriloba, G. quadrata, G. 

 cretacea var. esnehensis in Cretaceous strata is definitely erroneous, as these forms are 

 only known from the Tertiary. Similarly, their records of Globotruncana contusa, 

 G. caliciformis, G. aegyptiaca var. duwi and G. esnehensis in the Campanian, and forms 

 such as Globigerina cretacea d'Orbigny [=Globotruncana cretacea (d'Orbigny)] and its 

 synonym G. globigerinoides Brotzen, and Globigerinella aspera, in the Maestrichtian, 

 are very much doubted. The former species are restricted to the Maestrichtian, 

 while the latter are not known from this stage. 



Youssef & Shinnawi (1954) described the succession in Wadi Sudr area, Western 

 Sinai, Egypt, where they showed the difficulty in sub-dividing the Senonian, the 

 Danian and the overlying Paleocene. Between the top of their Lower Senonian and 

 the base of their Lower Eocene, they described a succession (246-5 metres thick) of 

 limestones, chalky limestones and chalk with a thin shaly intercalation at its base 

 They regarded this succession as Campanian-Maestrichtian-Danian and partly 

 Paleocene, advocating the conformable relationship between the Cretaceous and the 

 Tertiary systems. They recorded some planktonic Foraminifera in their shaly bed 

 which they tentatively considered at the base of the Maestrichtian. Of particular 



