3S UPPER CRETACEOUS-LOWER TERTIARY FORAMINIFERA 



interest are Globotruncana area (Cushman) and G. area var. esnehensis Nakkady 

 ( =G. esnehensis) and G. aegyptiaca Nakkady, an assemblage which indicates a 

 Maestrichtian age (probably Middle to Upper Maestrichtian). However, their 

 records of Globigerina cretacea d'Orbigny, G. linaperta Finlay and G. quadrata White 

 are erroneous ; the first, (which is a true Globotruncana, not a Globigerina) does not 

 extend above the Upper Campanian, the second is known from the Lower Eocene and 

 the third is definitely Paleocene. These forms were probably confused with apparently 

 similar Rugoglobigerina and Hedbergella species, but nothing can be added until the 

 planktonic Foraminifera of the succession are examined in detail. 



Youssef (1954) described the succession in the Gebel Owaina section, as summarized 

 above, attributing it to the Maestrichtian, Danian, Paleocene and Lower Eocene, 

 and advocating the conformity of the succession. However, the present study 

 (see Text-fig. 4) shows that his Danian includes most of the Paleocene, and that his 

 Paleocene includes both the uppermost part of this series and the basal Eocene. 

 Moreover, it indicates a marked break between the Maestrichtian and the overlying 

 Paleocene, in spite of Youssef's statement that the succession is apparently conform- 

 able throughout. 



Said & Kenawy (1956) described the Foraminifera of the Upper Cretaceous-Lower 

 Tertiary succession of the Nekhl and the Giddi Sections, in northern Siani, Egypt. 

 Following Nakkady (1951a), they recognized in the two sections a lower unit of Maes- 

 trichtian age, characterized by the abundance of Globotruncana and Guembelina 

 species, a middle unit, of Danian age, characterized by the absence of Globotruncana 

 and by the presence of a flood of Globigerina together with certain other benthonic 

 forms, and an upper unit of Paleocene age, characterized, according to them, by the 

 appearance of various species of Truncorotalia and Globorotalia together with several 

 distinctive benthonic forms. They noted that the limits of these biozones are 

 independent of the lithological boundaries, a fact previously recognized by Nakkady 

 (1951a). They also followed Hume (1911) and Shukri (1954) in attributing the 

 varied nature of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in geologically adjacent areas in 

 northern Egypt, to deposition over anticlines and synclines which had previously 

 emerged from the bottom of the Upper Cretaceous sea. These folds were attributed 

 to the Syrian arc movement which began at least as early as the Turonian, and which 

 was intermittently active until late Oligocene time. While erosion took place on the 

 anticlines, deposition continued in the adjacent troughs. With this idea in mind, 

 they tried to analyse the stratigraphical succession in the two sections, believing that 

 one of them, the Nekhl section, lay in the heart of a trough in the late Cretaceous sea, 

 while the other, the Giddi section, lay on the flank of one of the main structural highs 

 of that time. However, when the accepted index fossils for this period, the plank- 

 tonic Foraminifera, showed the incorrectness of this imaginary position of the two 

 sections, they tried to deprive these forms of their value in stratigraphical zonation 

 and world-wide correlation stating that " . . . . in Egypt, where the bottom topography 

 of the Upper Cretaceous-Lower Tertiary sea was affected by great lateral folding 

 movements, environmental conditions may differ from one place to another rather 



