IN THE ESNA-IDFU REGION, NILE VALLEY, EGYPT 41 



Nakkady (1957) reviewed the biostratigraphy of the Upper Senonian and the 

 Paleocene of Egypt, which he tried to correlate with corresponding units in other 

 parts of the world. He considered the Senonian to include the Coniacian and the 

 Santonian as its lower part, and the Campanian and the Maestrichtian as its upper, 

 and divided the Paleocene into a lower part including the Danian and the Montian, 

 and an upper including the Thanetian and Sparnacian. However, although he 

 only discussed what he described as Campanian, Maestrichtian, Danian and Montian, 

 analysis of his faunal lists shows that his Montian actually represents the Lower 

 Eocene and his Danian, the whole Paleocene. Moreover, comparison of the eight 

 sections correlated by him (Text-fig. 2) with the succession in the Esna-Idfu region, 

 indicates a marked break between the Upper Cretaceous and the overlying Tertiary 

 rocks in each of the described sections, despite the fact that he strongly advocated 

 the conformity of the whole succession. 



Youssef (1957) described the Upper Cretaceous-Lower Tertiary succession in the 

 Kosseir area, recognizing the following four formations from the base upwards : 

 the Nubia sandstone, the Kosseir variegated shales, the Duwi formation and the 

 Esna shales. He included the first three formations within the Campanian (although 

 he considered the top part of the last formation to be of basal Maestrichtian age), and 

 regarded the Esna shales as representing most of the Maestrichtian, the Danian (or 

 Dano-Montian) and the Paleocene. He did not discuss the stratigraphical position 

 of the overlying limestone beds, but included them on his columnar section within 

 the Paleocene, and considered the succession to be conformable throughout. He 

 mentioned the difficulty in establishing the lower and upper limits of the Maestrich- 

 tian, but following Laffitte (1939) he considered the base of this stage to be marked 

 by the appearance of Libycoceras ismaeli Zittel and its associated fauna, which is here 

 considered to be of Upper Campanian age. The succession compares well with that 

 of the Esna-Idfu region, although the phosphate formation is much more developed 

 in the Kossier area. Correlation of the two sections shows that the base of Youssef's 

 Maestrichtian should be included in the Upper Campanian, and the Maestrichtian- 

 Danian boundary should cut somewhere through the 105 metres thick shale bed 

 considered by him to lie at the base of the Danian. This shale bed actually includes 

 the top of the Maestrichtian and most of the Paleocene. Moreover, it is felt, by 

 comparison with the succession in the Esna-Idfu region, that a careful examination 

 of the above-mentioned shale bed may prove the existence of a stratigraphical 

 break marking the Mesozoic-Cainozoic boundary, despite Youssef's emphasis on the 

 conformity of the succession. 



Faris & Hassan (1959) described the Upper Cretaceous-Lower Tertiary succession 

 of the Um-El-Huetat section, Safaga area, Red Sea coast, which they divided into 

 seven successive units. They considered the lowest two units (I and II) as Lower 

 Senonian and even older, Unit III as Santonian to Campanian, Units IV and V as 

 Lower and Upper Maestrichtian respectively, Unit VI as Danian to Paleocene and 

 Unit VII as Lower Libyan. However, analysis of the succession as summarized by 

 them shows that the upper part of their Unit VI which they collectively described as 

 " Danian to Paleocene ", is of Lower Eocene age. The " Eponides lotus fauna " 



