Bryozoan assemblages of the Gulpen Formation (upper Campanian – upper Maastrichtian) in the Liège-Limburg area (Belgium, the Netherlands)
Keywords:
Bryozoa, Cheilostomata, Cyclostomata, new recorded species, Maastrichtian type area
Abstract
Renewed interest in bryozoan assemblages from the various members of the Gulpen Formation (upper Campanian–upper Maastrichtian) in the Liège-Limburg area (southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium) during recent years has resulted in the discovery of a number of species previously unrecorded from the area. Nineteen species are here recorded from the Zeven Wegen, Vijlen, Lixhe and Lanaye members (Gulpen Formation) in the study area, occurring in three distinct assemblages. The vast majority of the bryozoan taxa belong to the order Cheilostomata; only two taxa are assigned to the order Cyclostomata. The species recorded here are Clinopora aff. costulata, Disporella obvallata, ‘Vincularia’ (sensu lato) marssoniana, Herpetopora laxata, Heteroconopeum ovatum, Wilbertopora aff. oxyteichos, Biaviculigera sacerdotalis, Semiflustrella britannica, Aechmellina anglica, Escharifora papyracea, Onychocella cyclostoma, Onychocella cylindrica, Onychocella matrona, Rhebasia disparilis, Stichomicropora sicksi, Coscinopleura elegans, Coscinopleura lamourouxi, Pachydermopora pachyderma and Beisselina aviculifera. While not previously recorded from the Liège-Limburg area, the bryozoan taxa identified from the Gulpen Formation are well known from coeval Cretaceous strata elsewhere in Europe, North America and Russia, highlighting their broad palaeobiogeographical distribution.
References
Beissel, I., 1865. Über die Bryozoen der Aachner Kreidebildung. Natuurkundige Verhandelingen van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem 22: 1–92, pls 1-10.Google Scholar
Berthelsen, O., 1962. Cheilostome Bryozoa in the Danian deposits of east Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse 83: 1–290.Google Scholar
Brood, K., 1972. Cyclostomatous Bryozoa from the Upper Cretaceous and Danian in Scandinavia. Stockholm Contributions in Geology 26: 1–464, pls 1-78.Google Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1906. I.—Further notes on the stratigraphy and fauna of the Trimmingham Chalk. Geological Magazine (3) 7: 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1909. I.—Notes on new or imperfectly known Chalk Polyzoa. Geological Magazine, new series, decade V VI: 337–339, 398–400.Google Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1910. Notes on new or imperfectly known Chalk Polyzoa. Geological Magazine New Series, Decade V: 4–5, 76–77, 145–147, 258–160, 390–142, 481–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1914. I. Notes on new or imperfectly known Chalk Polyzoa. Geological Magazine New Series, Decade VI I: 97–99, 345–347, 481–343.Google Scholar
Canu, F. & Bassler, R.S., 1926. Studies on the cyclostomatous Bryozoa. II. Lower Cretaceous cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 67(21): 1–94.31 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canu, F. & Bassler, R.S., 1933. The bryozoan fauna of the Vincentown Limesand. United States National Museum Bulletin 165: 1–108.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A.H., 1971. Functional morphology and biofacies distribution of cheilostome Bryozoa in the Danian stage (Paleocene) of southern Scandinavia. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 6: 1–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favorskaya, T.A., 1988. Maastrichtian bryozoans of western Uzbekistan. Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Department of Geology 63: 94–102 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Favorskaya, T.A., 1996. A practical handbook on the macrofauna of Russia and adjacent territories: bryozoans of the Mesocenozoic. Russian Geological Research Institute A.P. Karpinski, Saint Petersburg (in Russian), pp. 81 Google Scholar
Felder, P.J. & Bless, M.J.M., 1994. The Vijlen Chalk (early Early to early Late Maastrichtian) in its type area around Vijlen and Mamelis (southern Limburg, The Netherlands). Annales de la Société géologique de Belgique 116(1): 61–85.Google Scholar
Felder, W.M., 1975a. Lithostratigraphische Gliederung der Oberen Kreide in Süd-Limburg (Niederlande) und den Nachbargebieten. Erster Teil: Der Raum westlich der Maas, Typusgebiet des ‘Maastricht. Publicaties van het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg 24: 1–43.Google Scholar
Felder, W.M., 1975b. Lithostratigrafie van het Boven-Krijt en het Dano-Montien in Zuid-Limburg en het aangrenzende gebied. In: Zagwijn, W.H. & van Staalduinen, C.J. (eds): Toelichting bij geologische overzichtskaarten van Nederland. Rijks Geologische Dienst (Haarlem): pp. 63–72,Google Scholar
Felder, W.M. & Bosch, P.W., 2000. Geologie van Nederland, Deel 5: Krijt van Zuid-Limburg. Nederlands Instituut voor Toegepaste Geowetenschappen TNO, Delft/Utrecht: 192 pp.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, A., 1826-1833. Petrefacta Germaniae tam ea, quae in museo Universitatis Regiae Borussicae Fredericae Wilhelmiae Rhenanae servantur quam alia quaecunque in Museis Hoeninghausiano Muensteriano aliisque extant iconibus et descriptionibus illustrata. Erster Theil, Arnz und Co., Düsseldorf: 252 pp.Google Scholar
Gordon, D.P., 2002. Late Cretaceous-Paleocene ‘porinids’ – mixed frontal shields and evidence of polyphyly. In: Wyse Jackson, P.N., Buttler, C.J. & Spencer Jones, M.E. (eds): Bryozoan Studies. CRC Press (London): 113–124,Google Scholar
Gordon, D.P. & Taylor, P.D., 1997. The Cretaceous-Miocene genus Lichenopora (Bryozoa), with a description of a new species from New Zealand. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum London (Geology) 53: 71–78.Google Scholar
Gregory, J.W., 1899. Catalogue of the fossil Bryozoa in the Department of Geology. The Cretaceous Bryozoa 1: xiv+ 457 pp, 17 pls. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1839. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreideversteinerungen. Abtheilung I. Phytolithen und Polyparien. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1839: 252–296, 2 pls.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1840. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen. Abtheilung II. Radiarien und Annulaten. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1840: 631–672, 1 pl.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1851. Die Bryozoen der Maastrichter Kreidebildung. Druck & Verlag Theodor Fischer, Cassel: 111 pp, 12 pls.Google Scholar
Håkansson, E. & Thomsen, E., 2001. Macroevolutionary trends. Evolutionary trends in a major group of colonial animals. In: Jackson, J.B.C., Lidgard, S. & McKinney, F.K. (eds): Evolutionary patterns: growth, form, and tempo in the fossil record. University of Chicago Press (Chicago): 326–347.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 1999. Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene echinoderms and the K/T boundary in the southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium – Part 1: Introduction and stratigraphy. Scripta Geologica 116: 1–57.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., Deckers, M.J.M. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A., 2024. Changing of the guard’ amongst holasteroid echinoids in the upper Maastrichtian of the south-east Netherlands: exit Echinocorys, enter Hemipneustes . Cretaceous Research 158: 105850. DOI: 10.1016/j.cretres.2024.105850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A., 2012. Stratigraphy of the type Maastrichtian – a synthesis. In: Jagt, J.W.M., Donovan, S.K. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A. (eds): Fossils of the type Maastrichtian (Part 1). Scripta Geologica, Special Issue. vol. 8, pp. 5–32.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A., 2016. . In: European Association of Vertebrate Palaeontologists, 14th Annual Meeting – Teylers Museum, Haarlem (the Netherlands), 6-10 July 2016. Field guide. The Upper Cretaceous and lower Paleogene in the type area of the Maastrichtian Stage (72.1-66 Ma). Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht, Maastricht: 18 pp.Google Scholar
Jebram, D. & Voigt, E., 1977. Monsterzooide und Doppelpolypide bei fossilen und rezenten Cheilostomata Anasca (Bryozoa). Verhandlungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg, neue Folge 20: 151–183, 5 pls.Google Scholar
Koromyslova, A.V., Martha, S.O. & Pakhnevich, A.V., 2018. The internal morphology of Acoscinopleura Voigt, 1956 (Cheilostomata, Bryozoa) from the Campanian-Maastrichtian of central and eastern Europe. PalZ 92(2): 241–266. DOI: 10.1007/s12542-017-0385-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, W.D., 1914. On Herpetopora, a new genus containing three new species of Cretaceous cheilostome Polyzoa. Geological Magazine (6) 1: 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinsen, G.M.R., 1925. Undersøgelser over Bryozoerne i den danske Kridtformation. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter (8) 7: 283–445, pIs 1-8.Google Scholar
Macquart, P.J.M., 1835. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Diptères. Tome deuxième. Roret (Paris): pp. 703.Google Scholar
Marsson, T., 1887. Die Bryozoen der weißen Schreibkreide der Insel Rügen. Palaeontologische Abhandlungen 4(1): 1–122, 10 pls.Google Scholar
Martha, S.O., Matsuyama, K., Scholz, J., Taylor, P.D. & Hillmer, G., 2019a. The bryozoan collection of Prof. Dr. Ehrhard Voigt (1905-2004) at the Senckenberg Institute in Frankfurt. Part 2 - Ctenostomata and non-ascophoran Cheilostomata. Carnets de Géologie 19(15): 287–344. DOI: 10.4267/2042/70498.Google Scholar
Martha, S.O., Matsuyama, K., Scholz, J., Taylor, P.D. & Hillmer, G., 2019b. The bryozoan collection of Prof. Dr Ehrhard Voigt (1905-2004) at the Senckenberg Institute in Frankfurt. Part 3 - Ascophoran Cheilostomata and bibliography. Carnets de Géologie 19(17): 369–419. DOI: 10.4267/2042/70501.Google Scholar
Medd, A.W., 1979. Ellisina Norman and Periporosella Canu & Bassler (Superfamily Membraniporacea) from the Upper Cretaceous of Europe. Report of the Institute of Geological Sciences 78(25): 29 pp. 4 pls.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. d’, 1850-1854. Paléontologie française; description des animaux invertébrés. Terrain crétacé 5, Bryozoaires. Victor Masson (Paris) pp. 1192, pls 600-800.Google Scholar
Reuss, A.E., 1854. Beitrage zur Charakteristik der Kreideschichten in den Ostalpen, besonders im Gosauthale und am Wolfgangsee. Der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. Wien 7: 1–156, 31 pls.Google Scholar
Reuss, A.E., 1874. II. Die Bryozoen des oberen Pläners. In: Geinitz, H.B., 1872-1875. Das Elbthalgebirge in Sachsen. Zweiter Theil. Der mittlere und obere Quader. Die Foraminiferen, Bryozoen und Ostracoden des Pläners, Palaeontographica 20 (II), pp. II.127–II.138, pls II.24–II.26.Google Scholar
Schäfer, P., 1991. Brutkammern der Stenolaemata (Bryozoa): Konstruktionsmorphologie und phylogenetische Bedeutung. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 136: 1–263.Google Scholar
Schubert, T., 1986. Parallele Merkmalsentwicklung der Bryozoen-Arten von Woodipora Jullien 1888 im Coniacium bis Maastrichtium NW-Europas. Geologisches Jahrbuch A98: 3–83, 9 pls.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., 1988. Colony growth pattern and astogenetic gradients in the Cretaceous cheilostome bryozoan Herpetopora. Palaeontology 31: 519–549, pls 42-45.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., 2018. Bryozoans in the English Chalk. Deposits Magazine 55: 33–37.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Di Martino, E. & Martha, S.O., 2019. Colony growth strategies, dormancy and repair in some Late Cretaceous encrusting bryozoans: insights into the ecology of the Chalk seabed. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments 99(3): 425–446. DOI: 10.1007/s12549-018-0358-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Martha, S.O. & Gordon, D.P., 2018. Synopsis of ‘onychocellid’ cheilostome bryozoan genera. Journal of Natural History 52(25-26): 1657–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.D. & McKinney, F.K., 2006. Cretaceous Bryozoa from the Campanian and Maastrichtian of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains, United States. Scripta Geologica 132: 1–346, 141 pls.Google Scholar
Thomas, H.D. & Larwood, G.P., 1960. The Cretaceous species of Pyripora d’Orbigny and Rhammatopora Lang. Palaeontology 3: 370–386.Google Scholar
Thomsen, E., 1976. Depositional environment and development of Danian bryozoan biomicrite mounds (Karlby Klint, Denmark). Sedimentology 23: 485–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vancoppenolle, I., Vellekoop, J., Doubrawa, M., Kaskes, P., Sinnesael, M., Jagt, J.W.M., Claeys, P. & Speijer, R.P., 2022. The benthic foraminiferal response to the Mid-Maastrichtian Event in the NW-European chalk sea of the Maastrichtian type area. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 101: e12. DOI: 10.1017/njg.2022.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1924. Über neue Bryozoen aus Daniengeschieben Anhalts. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 6: 3–13, 1 pl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1930, Morphologische und stratigraphische Untersuchungen über die Bryozoenfauna der oberen Kreide. Leopoldina (Berichte der kaiserlichen Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher) 6 (Walther-Festschrift): 379–579, 39 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1949. Cheilostome Bryozoen aus der Quadratenkreide Nordwestdeutschlands. Mitteilungen des Geologischen Staatsinstitutes zu Hamburg 19: 1–49, 11 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1951. Das Maastricht-Vorkommen von Ilten bei Hannover und seine Fauna mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Großforaminiferen und Bryozoen. Mitteilungen des Geologischen Staatsinstitutes zu Hamburg 20: 15–109, 10 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1956. Untersuchungen über Coscinopleura Marss. (Bryoz. foss.) und verwandte Gattungen. Mitteilungen des Geologischen Staatsinstitutes zu Hamburg 25: 26–75, 12 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1959. Revision der von F. v. Hagenow 1838-1850 aus der Schreibkreide von Rügen veröffentlichten Bryozoen. Geologie, Beiheft 25: 1–80.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1962a. [Bryozoaires du Crétacé supérieur de la partie européenne de l’U.R.S.S. et des régions adjacentes]. Moscow University, Moscow (in Russian), pp. 126.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1962b. Neue Bryozoen aus Schreibkreide-Geschieben (Maastrichtium, Ob. Kreide) der Umgebung von Hamburg. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 36 (H. Schmidt Festband): 1–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1967. Oberkreide-Bryozoen aus den asiatischen Gebieten der UdSSR. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologischen Staatsinstitut in Hamburg 36: 5–95.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1979. Bryozoen der Kunrader Schichten in Süd-Limburg (Cheilostomata). Grondboor & Hamer 33(2): 33–88, 14 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1989. Beitrag zur Bryozoen-Fauna des sächsischen Cenomaniums. Revision von A.E. Reuss ‘Die Bryozoen des unteren Quaders’ in H.B. Geinitz ‘Das Elbthalgebirge in Sachsen’ (1872). Teil I: Cheilostomata. Abhandlungen des Staatlichen Museums für Mineralogie und Geologie zu Dresden, 36: 8–87, 189–208.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1991. Mono- or polyphyletic evolution of cheilostomatous bryozoan divisions?. In: Bigey, F.P. (ed): Bryozoaires actuels et fossiles (Bryozoa living and fossil). Société des Sciences naturelles de l’Ouest de la France (Nantes): 505–522.Google Scholar
Voigt, E. & Ernst, H, 1985. Regressive Astogenese bei Nudonychocella n.g.n.sp. und anderen Bryozoen aus der Tuffkreide von Maastricht. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 59: 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1975. Heteromorphy in Cretaceous Bryozoa. In: Pouyet, S. (ed): Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie, Faculté des Sciences de Lyon, Hors-séroe 3 (1), pp. 77–95, 10 pls.Google Scholar
Wiesemann, G., 1963. Untersuchungen an der Gattung Beisselina Canu 1913 und ähnlicher Bryozoen (Maastrichtien, Danien, Montien). Mitteilungen aus dem Geologischen Staatsinstitut zu Hamburg 32: 5–70, pls 1-12.Google Scholar
Zijlstra, J.J.P., 1994. Sedimentology of the Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary (tuffaceous) Chalk of northwest Europe. Geologica Ultraiectina 119: 1–192.Google Scholar
Berthelsen, O., 1962. Cheilostome Bryozoa in the Danian deposits of east Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse 83: 1–290.Google Scholar
Brood, K., 1972. Cyclostomatous Bryozoa from the Upper Cretaceous and Danian in Scandinavia. Stockholm Contributions in Geology 26: 1–464, pls 1-78.Google Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1906. I.—Further notes on the stratigraphy and fauna of the Trimmingham Chalk. Geological Magazine (3) 7: 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1909. I.—Notes on new or imperfectly known Chalk Polyzoa. Geological Magazine, new series, decade V VI: 337–339, 398–400.Google Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1910. Notes on new or imperfectly known Chalk Polyzoa. Geological Magazine New Series, Decade V: 4–5, 76–77, 145–147, 258–160, 390–142, 481–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brydone, R.M., 1914. I. Notes on new or imperfectly known Chalk Polyzoa. Geological Magazine New Series, Decade VI I: 97–99, 345–347, 481–343.Google Scholar
Canu, F. & Bassler, R.S., 1926. Studies on the cyclostomatous Bryozoa. II. Lower Cretaceous cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 67(21): 1–94.31 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canu, F. & Bassler, R.S., 1933. The bryozoan fauna of the Vincentown Limesand. United States National Museum Bulletin 165: 1–108.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A.H., 1971. Functional morphology and biofacies distribution of cheilostome Bryozoa in the Danian stage (Paleocene) of southern Scandinavia. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 6: 1–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favorskaya, T.A., 1988. Maastrichtian bryozoans of western Uzbekistan. Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Department of Geology 63: 94–102 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Favorskaya, T.A., 1996. A practical handbook on the macrofauna of Russia and adjacent territories: bryozoans of the Mesocenozoic. Russian Geological Research Institute A.P. Karpinski, Saint Petersburg (in Russian), pp. 81 Google Scholar
Felder, P.J. & Bless, M.J.M., 1994. The Vijlen Chalk (early Early to early Late Maastrichtian) in its type area around Vijlen and Mamelis (southern Limburg, The Netherlands). Annales de la Société géologique de Belgique 116(1): 61–85.Google Scholar
Felder, W.M., 1975a. Lithostratigraphische Gliederung der Oberen Kreide in Süd-Limburg (Niederlande) und den Nachbargebieten. Erster Teil: Der Raum westlich der Maas, Typusgebiet des ‘Maastricht. Publicaties van het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg 24: 1–43.Google Scholar
Felder, W.M., 1975b. Lithostratigrafie van het Boven-Krijt en het Dano-Montien in Zuid-Limburg en het aangrenzende gebied. In: Zagwijn, W.H. & van Staalduinen, C.J. (eds): Toelichting bij geologische overzichtskaarten van Nederland. Rijks Geologische Dienst (Haarlem): pp. 63–72,Google Scholar
Felder, W.M. & Bosch, P.W., 2000. Geologie van Nederland, Deel 5: Krijt van Zuid-Limburg. Nederlands Instituut voor Toegepaste Geowetenschappen TNO, Delft/Utrecht: 192 pp.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, A., 1826-1833. Petrefacta Germaniae tam ea, quae in museo Universitatis Regiae Borussicae Fredericae Wilhelmiae Rhenanae servantur quam alia quaecunque in Museis Hoeninghausiano Muensteriano aliisque extant iconibus et descriptionibus illustrata. Erster Theil, Arnz und Co., Düsseldorf: 252 pp.Google Scholar
Gordon, D.P., 2002. Late Cretaceous-Paleocene ‘porinids’ – mixed frontal shields and evidence of polyphyly. In: Wyse Jackson, P.N., Buttler, C.J. & Spencer Jones, M.E. (eds): Bryozoan Studies. CRC Press (London): 113–124,Google Scholar
Gordon, D.P. & Taylor, P.D., 1997. The Cretaceous-Miocene genus Lichenopora (Bryozoa), with a description of a new species from New Zealand. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum London (Geology) 53: 71–78.Google Scholar
Gregory, J.W., 1899. Catalogue of the fossil Bryozoa in the Department of Geology. The Cretaceous Bryozoa 1: xiv+ 457 pp, 17 pls. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1839. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreideversteinerungen. Abtheilung I. Phytolithen und Polyparien. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1839: 252–296, 2 pls.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1840. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen. Abtheilung II. Radiarien und Annulaten. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1840: 631–672, 1 pl.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1851. Die Bryozoen der Maastrichter Kreidebildung. Druck & Verlag Theodor Fischer, Cassel: 111 pp, 12 pls.Google Scholar
Håkansson, E. & Thomsen, E., 2001. Macroevolutionary trends. Evolutionary trends in a major group of colonial animals. In: Jackson, J.B.C., Lidgard, S. & McKinney, F.K. (eds): Evolutionary patterns: growth, form, and tempo in the fossil record. University of Chicago Press (Chicago): 326–347.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 1999. Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene echinoderms and the K/T boundary in the southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium – Part 1: Introduction and stratigraphy. Scripta Geologica 116: 1–57.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., Deckers, M.J.M. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A., 2024. Changing of the guard’ amongst holasteroid echinoids in the upper Maastrichtian of the south-east Netherlands: exit Echinocorys, enter Hemipneustes . Cretaceous Research 158: 105850. DOI: 10.1016/j.cretres.2024.105850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A., 2012. Stratigraphy of the type Maastrichtian – a synthesis. In: Jagt, J.W.M., Donovan, S.K. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A. (eds): Fossils of the type Maastrichtian (Part 1). Scripta Geologica, Special Issue. vol. 8, pp. 5–32.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M. & Jagt-Yazykova, E.A., 2016. . In: European Association of Vertebrate Palaeontologists, 14th Annual Meeting – Teylers Museum, Haarlem (the Netherlands), 6-10 July 2016. Field guide. The Upper Cretaceous and lower Paleogene in the type area of the Maastrichtian Stage (72.1-66 Ma). Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht, Maastricht: 18 pp.Google Scholar
Jebram, D. & Voigt, E., 1977. Monsterzooide und Doppelpolypide bei fossilen und rezenten Cheilostomata Anasca (Bryozoa). Verhandlungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg, neue Folge 20: 151–183, 5 pls.Google Scholar
Koromyslova, A.V., Martha, S.O. & Pakhnevich, A.V., 2018. The internal morphology of Acoscinopleura Voigt, 1956 (Cheilostomata, Bryozoa) from the Campanian-Maastrichtian of central and eastern Europe. PalZ 92(2): 241–266. DOI: 10.1007/s12542-017-0385-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, W.D., 1914. On Herpetopora, a new genus containing three new species of Cretaceous cheilostome Polyzoa. Geological Magazine (6) 1: 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinsen, G.M.R., 1925. Undersøgelser over Bryozoerne i den danske Kridtformation. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter (8) 7: 283–445, pIs 1-8.Google Scholar
Macquart, P.J.M., 1835. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Diptères. Tome deuxième. Roret (Paris): pp. 703.Google Scholar
Marsson, T., 1887. Die Bryozoen der weißen Schreibkreide der Insel Rügen. Palaeontologische Abhandlungen 4(1): 1–122, 10 pls.Google Scholar
Martha, S.O., Matsuyama, K., Scholz, J., Taylor, P.D. & Hillmer, G., 2019a. The bryozoan collection of Prof. Dr. Ehrhard Voigt (1905-2004) at the Senckenberg Institute in Frankfurt. Part 2 - Ctenostomata and non-ascophoran Cheilostomata. Carnets de Géologie 19(15): 287–344. DOI: 10.4267/2042/70498.Google Scholar
Martha, S.O., Matsuyama, K., Scholz, J., Taylor, P.D. & Hillmer, G., 2019b. The bryozoan collection of Prof. Dr Ehrhard Voigt (1905-2004) at the Senckenberg Institute in Frankfurt. Part 3 - Ascophoran Cheilostomata and bibliography. Carnets de Géologie 19(17): 369–419. DOI: 10.4267/2042/70501.Google Scholar
Medd, A.W., 1979. Ellisina Norman and Periporosella Canu & Bassler (Superfamily Membraniporacea) from the Upper Cretaceous of Europe. Report of the Institute of Geological Sciences 78(25): 29 pp. 4 pls.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. d’, 1850-1854. Paléontologie française; description des animaux invertébrés. Terrain crétacé 5, Bryozoaires. Victor Masson (Paris) pp. 1192, pls 600-800.Google Scholar
Reuss, A.E., 1854. Beitrage zur Charakteristik der Kreideschichten in den Ostalpen, besonders im Gosauthale und am Wolfgangsee. Der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. Wien 7: 1–156, 31 pls.Google Scholar
Reuss, A.E., 1874. II. Die Bryozoen des oberen Pläners. In: Geinitz, H.B., 1872-1875. Das Elbthalgebirge in Sachsen. Zweiter Theil. Der mittlere und obere Quader. Die Foraminiferen, Bryozoen und Ostracoden des Pläners, Palaeontographica 20 (II), pp. II.127–II.138, pls II.24–II.26.Google Scholar
Schäfer, P., 1991. Brutkammern der Stenolaemata (Bryozoa): Konstruktionsmorphologie und phylogenetische Bedeutung. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 136: 1–263.Google Scholar
Schubert, T., 1986. Parallele Merkmalsentwicklung der Bryozoen-Arten von Woodipora Jullien 1888 im Coniacium bis Maastrichtium NW-Europas. Geologisches Jahrbuch A98: 3–83, 9 pls.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., 1988. Colony growth pattern and astogenetic gradients in the Cretaceous cheilostome bryozoan Herpetopora. Palaeontology 31: 519–549, pls 42-45.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., 2018. Bryozoans in the English Chalk. Deposits Magazine 55: 33–37.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Di Martino, E. & Martha, S.O., 2019. Colony growth strategies, dormancy and repair in some Late Cretaceous encrusting bryozoans: insights into the ecology of the Chalk seabed. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments 99(3): 425–446. DOI: 10.1007/s12549-018-0358-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Martha, S.O. & Gordon, D.P., 2018. Synopsis of ‘onychocellid’ cheilostome bryozoan genera. Journal of Natural History 52(25-26): 1657–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.D. & McKinney, F.K., 2006. Cretaceous Bryozoa from the Campanian and Maastrichtian of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains, United States. Scripta Geologica 132: 1–346, 141 pls.Google Scholar
Thomas, H.D. & Larwood, G.P., 1960. The Cretaceous species of Pyripora d’Orbigny and Rhammatopora Lang. Palaeontology 3: 370–386.Google Scholar
Thomsen, E., 1976. Depositional environment and development of Danian bryozoan biomicrite mounds (Karlby Klint, Denmark). Sedimentology 23: 485–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vancoppenolle, I., Vellekoop, J., Doubrawa, M., Kaskes, P., Sinnesael, M., Jagt, J.W.M., Claeys, P. & Speijer, R.P., 2022. The benthic foraminiferal response to the Mid-Maastrichtian Event in the NW-European chalk sea of the Maastrichtian type area. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 101: e12. DOI: 10.1017/njg.2022.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1924. Über neue Bryozoen aus Daniengeschieben Anhalts. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 6: 3–13, 1 pl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1930, Morphologische und stratigraphische Untersuchungen über die Bryozoenfauna der oberen Kreide. Leopoldina (Berichte der kaiserlichen Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher) 6 (Walther-Festschrift): 379–579, 39 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1949. Cheilostome Bryozoen aus der Quadratenkreide Nordwestdeutschlands. Mitteilungen des Geologischen Staatsinstitutes zu Hamburg 19: 1–49, 11 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1951. Das Maastricht-Vorkommen von Ilten bei Hannover und seine Fauna mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Großforaminiferen und Bryozoen. Mitteilungen des Geologischen Staatsinstitutes zu Hamburg 20: 15–109, 10 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1956. Untersuchungen über Coscinopleura Marss. (Bryoz. foss.) und verwandte Gattungen. Mitteilungen des Geologischen Staatsinstitutes zu Hamburg 25: 26–75, 12 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1959. Revision der von F. v. Hagenow 1838-1850 aus der Schreibkreide von Rügen veröffentlichten Bryozoen. Geologie, Beiheft 25: 1–80.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1962a. [Bryozoaires du Crétacé supérieur de la partie européenne de l’U.R.S.S. et des régions adjacentes]. Moscow University, Moscow (in Russian), pp. 126.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1962b. Neue Bryozoen aus Schreibkreide-Geschieben (Maastrichtium, Ob. Kreide) der Umgebung von Hamburg. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 36 (H. Schmidt Festband): 1–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1967. Oberkreide-Bryozoen aus den asiatischen Gebieten der UdSSR. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologischen Staatsinstitut in Hamburg 36: 5–95.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1979. Bryozoen der Kunrader Schichten in Süd-Limburg (Cheilostomata). Grondboor & Hamer 33(2): 33–88, 14 pls.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1989. Beitrag zur Bryozoen-Fauna des sächsischen Cenomaniums. Revision von A.E. Reuss ‘Die Bryozoen des unteren Quaders’ in H.B. Geinitz ‘Das Elbthalgebirge in Sachsen’ (1872). Teil I: Cheilostomata. Abhandlungen des Staatlichen Museums für Mineralogie und Geologie zu Dresden, 36: 8–87, 189–208.Google Scholar
Voigt, E., 1991. Mono- or polyphyletic evolution of cheilostomatous bryozoan divisions?. In: Bigey, F.P. (ed): Bryozoaires actuels et fossiles (Bryozoa living and fossil). Société des Sciences naturelles de l’Ouest de la France (Nantes): 505–522.Google Scholar
Voigt, E. & Ernst, H, 1985. Regressive Astogenese bei Nudonychocella n.g.n.sp. und anderen Bryozoen aus der Tuffkreide von Maastricht. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 59: 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1975. Heteromorphy in Cretaceous Bryozoa. In: Pouyet, S. (ed): Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie, Faculté des Sciences de Lyon, Hors-séroe 3 (1), pp. 77–95, 10 pls.Google Scholar
Wiesemann, G., 1963. Untersuchungen an der Gattung Beisselina Canu 1913 und ähnlicher Bryozoen (Maastrichtien, Danien, Montien). Mitteilungen aus dem Geologischen Staatsinstitut zu Hamburg 32: 5–70, pls 1-12.Google Scholar
Zijlstra, J.J.P., 1994. Sedimentology of the Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary (tuffaceous) Chalk of northwest Europe. Geologica Ultraiectina 119: 1–192.Google Scholar
Published
2024-06-03
How to Cite
Kesselhut , O., Goffings , L., & Vellekoop , J. (2024). Bryozoan assemblages of the Gulpen Formation (upper Campanian – upper Maastrichtian) in the Liège-Limburg area (Belgium, the Netherlands). Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 103. https://doi.org/10.1017/njg.2024.14
Issue
Section
Geoperspective
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Netherlands Journal of Geosciences retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Netherlands
Journal of Geosciences Foundation. Read the journal's full Copyright- and Licensing Policy.
