IN THE ESNA-IDFU REGION, NILE VALLEY, EGYPT 43 



regarded as of Lower Maestrichtian age), and classified the overlying strata as 

 Maestrichtian, Danian, Paleocene and Lower Eocene. Moreover, they divided both 

 their Maestrichtian and Danian into lower, middle and upper units, and their 

 Paleocene into Lower and Upper Paleocene. However, it is evident from their 

 description that their divisions were very tentative and hardly based on any correl- 

 ation with the type or corresponding sections in other parts of the world. Neverthe- 

 less, comparison with the succession in the Esna-Idfu region showed that : 



1. Their Lower Maestrichtian should be assigned to the Upper Campanian, as 



both the Bostrychoceras polyplocum and the Inoceramus regularis faunal 

 assemblages with which they tried to equate their Lower Maestrichtian, 

 are of Upper Campanian age (sse " General Discussion " above). 



2. Their Middle and Upper Maestrichtian, probably represent the most complete 



Maestrichtian section as yet known in southern Egypt. The upper zone 

 of their Upper Maestrichtian which they distinguished by the presence of 

 Trigonoarca gauldrina and Cardita dakhlensis, is missing in the Esna-Idfu 

 region and was reported by them to be missing from most of their measured 

 sections. 



3. In spite of the above-mentioned fact, their statement of a possible conformable 



relationship between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary systems in the western 

 part of the Oasis, still needs further support. Their only argument is the 

 existence of a zone with Globigerina spp. and no Globorotalia of the compressa 

 group on top of the Maestrichtian Globotrnncana zone. Yet, the same zone is 

 recorded at the base of the type Danian, where a physical break in the 

 succession and a major faunal break are documented. 



4. Both their Danian and Paleocene are extremely difficult to correlate, although 



their Ostrea hypoptera Zone which they regarded as Upper Danian, corresponds 

 in the present study to most of the G. velascoensis Zone which represents 

 the Upper Paleocene. If this is the case, their Danian should be regarded 

 as representing most of the Paleocene, and the Paleocene-Lower Eocene 

 boundary should cut through their Upper Paleocene. However, a 

 detailed study of the planktonic Foraminifera of this succession is needed to 

 establish a proper correlation, and to reveal the missing zones in the 

 previously described Cretaceous-Tertiary sections. 



This rapid review of the most important Upper Cretaceous-Lower Tertiary sections 

 in Egypt summarizes the nature, classification and distribution of these rocks and 

 their varied interpretation by different authors. It also shows the difficulties 

 encountered in the stratigraphical analysis of these strata, and the several problems 

 which were left unsolved. Comparison with the succession in the Esna-Idfu region 

 shows clearly that the boundary between the Campanian and the Maestrichtian 

 could not be decided, that the Maestrichtian could not be defined or classified, that 

 the Mesozoic-Cainozoic boundary could not be traced, that the Danian could not be 

 clearly defined, that the various divisions of the Paleocene were very much confused, 



