Peristerite, from peristeria, a pigeon, the colours resembling a pigeon’s neck.
Specimens of Peristerite, a variety of plagioclase feldspar with a bluish opalescence, are on display in the mineral cabinets at the Matheson House Museum on Gore Street in Perth, Lanark County, Ontario. It is fitting that specimens of Peristerite should be on display in Perth, because the first specimens of Peristerite to be reported in the scientific literature were found about eleven kilometers from the Town of Perth.
Peristerite was named in a paper published in 1843 by Dr. Thomas Thomson, M.D., Regius Professor of Chemistry in the University of Glasgow. He named Peristerite after the Greek word ‘peristeria’ which means pigeon, from “the colours resembling a pigeons neck.”. Dr. Thomson named the new mineral based on specimens sent to him by two medical doctors and avid mineral collectors in Canada: Dr. James Wilson, who practiced in the Town of Perth in Upper Canada and Dr. A. F. Holmes, who practiced in Montreal in Lower Canada. Both were graduates of the University of Edinburgh. Dr. James Wilson collected his specimens from the nineteenth lot of the ninth Concession of Bathurst Township, in what is now Lanark County. I have not been able to determine where Dr. Holmes collected the specimens that he found and sent to Dr. Thomson.
I have previously commented on Dr. James Wilson’s life in my posting dated October 9, 2012 entitled New Display of Dr. James Wilson’s Mineral And Fossil Collection at the Perth Museum. Dr. James Wilson (1798-1881) emigrated to Canada and practiced as a physician in Perth, Ontario from 1821 to 1869, and then retired to Scotland. Dr. Wilson was an amateur mineralogist and geologist who is credited with being the first to find the trace fossil Climactichnites Wilsoni, and the minerals Perthite and Peristerite. In addition, he found outcrops that later became apatite (phosphate), mica or graphite mines, and found numerous mineral occurrences. He provided locations and specimens to the Geological Survey of Canada and was a friend of Sir William Logan. In October, 2012 the Perth Museum at Matheson House in Perth, Ontario opened to the public its new Geology Exhibition, which features a display of part of the mineral and fossil collection of Dr. James Wilson, including specimens of Climactichnites wilsoni .
Dr. Andrew Fernando Holmes (1797 -1860) had an even more interesting life. He was born at Cadiz, Spain because the vessel in which his British parents sailed had been captured by a French frigate and taken to Spain as a prize. He received his early education in Montreal and received his licence from the Montreal board of medical examiners. He later received a diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in 1818 and a Doctor of Medicine degree from University of Edinburgh in 1819. Returning to Canada, he practiced medicine. In 1823 with Dr John Stephenson he founded the first medical school in Canada , which later joined McGill College to become the McGill College Medical Faculty. He was a founding member of the Natural History Society of Montreal in 1827, catalogued the minerals and geological specimens in the society's cabinets, and was a curator of its museum. He was an avid collector of both plants and minerals, and later in life sold his collection of minerals to McGill (where today it forms part of the collection of the Redpath Museum at McGill University). In addition to collecting one of the first specimens of Peristerite, he is credited with collecting the first specimen of Bytownite.
Dr. Thomas Thomson (1773 - 1852), M.D., who named Peristerite, was a leading chemist of his day. Dr. Thomson announced Peristerite to the world in a paper read before the Glasgow Philosophical Society on November 2, 1842, and published in 1843 in Volume XXII of the Philosophical Magazine. Here is the first part of his report:
“Peristerite .–The next mineral which I have to mention was sent to me from Perth in Upper Canada, by Mr. Wilson, and also by Dr. Holmes of Montreal, under the name of Iridescent felspar; but neither its characters nor its composition correspond with that appellation.
The specimens were amorphous masses, and had the appearance of having constituted part of a rock blasted by gunpowder.
It is light brownish red, and exhibits a play of colours, chiefly blue, on the surface. It is translucent on the edges; the lustre is vitreous, and the texture imperfectly foliated: its hardness is only 3.75, which is a good deal less than felspar. Its specific gravity is 2.568.
Before the blowpipe it becomes white but does not melt. With carbonate of soda it melts into a green coloured bead, and on adding nitre the colour becomes red: with borax it fuse into a colourless bead.
Its constituents were found to be
Silica............................................ .72.35
Alumina....... ............................... 7.60
Potash.......................................... 15.06
Lime .............................................. 1.35
Magnesia...................................... 1.00
Oxides of iron and manganese 1.25
Moisture ...................................... 0.50
99.11
The silica is much greater than in felspar, and that alumina much less, while the proportion of potash is nearly the same.”
See: Thomson, T. (1843), Notice of Some New Minerals, Philosophical Magazine, New Series, Volume XXII, page 188 at pages 189-190.
Unfortunately, Dr. Thomas Thomson’s chemical analysis and much of his description contained significant errors.
Within a decade after Dr. Thomson’s paper was published, T. Sterry Hunt, Chemist and Mineralogist to Canada’s Geological Survey, in two nearly identical papers, provided a much more accurate analysis and description of peristerite, from specimens provided by Dr. Wilson of Perth, in part to correct Dr. Thomson’s “unfortunate want of precision in his mineralogical description” and the fact that Dr. Thomson’s chemical compositions “seemed but little accordant with their general physical characters” . T. S. Hunt commented:
“The second species to be noticed is that described by Dr. Thomson under the name of peristerite, in allusion to the beautiful play of colours analogous to that of Labradorite, which it exhibits. The specimens from Bathurst furnished to me by Dr. Wilson, as duplicates of those sent to Dr. Thomson, are composed of a mixture of quartz grains, readily distinguishable by their lustre, greater hardness and want of cleavage, disseminated through a felspar, which still so far predominates as to give distinct cleavages to the mass; such from his analysis, also would appear to be the substance examined by Dr. Thomson. Specimens of the substance furnished to me from the same locality exhibited the mineral in fine cleavable masses, free from quartz, and occasionally in consequence of an admixture of it, passing into the variety just described.
The crystalline form of the mineral shows it to belong to the triclinic system; the faces of cleavage give apparently the angles of albite, but do not admit to accurate measurement. ... The surface P shows a fine play of colours like Labradorite, in which a delicate cerulean blue predominates, occasionally passing into light green and yellow; the face M is often marked with striae parallel to P. The same play of colours and striation on alternate surfaces are distinguishable in the quartzose masses. The hardness of the mineral is 6 and the specific gravity 2.625 -2.627; lustre vitreous inclining to pearly on P; colour white, passing into pearl-gray, and reddish white or flesh-red in the quartzose specimens; translucent fracture uneven.... the analysis of the pure specimen gave:–
I. II.
Silica........................................... 66.80 ............................. 67.25
Alumina....... ............................... 21,80
Potash.......................................... .58
Soda ........................................ 7.00
Lime ........................................ 2.52 .............................. 2.03
Magnesia...................................... .20
Peroxides of iron ......................... .30
Loss on Ignition............................ .60 .................................. .66
99.80
The results of the analysis, conjoined with its physical characters, show this mineral to be albite. ... Thomson, in his analysis of the peristerite, gives a much larger proportion of silica, but as has been before observed, the specimens examined by him were the quartzose mechanical aggregate.”
[T. S. Hunt (1852), Report of T.S. Hunt, Esq., Chemist and Mineralogist to the Provincial Geological Survey, Addressed to W. E. Logan, Esq., Provincial Geologist, Geological Survey of Canada Report of Progress for the Year 1850 - 1851, at pages 37 -38;
T. S. Hunt (1851), Examinations of Some Canadian Minerals, Philosophical Magazine, Fourth Series, Volume 1, page 322, at pages 323-324; ]
For close to 100 years after T. Sterry Hunt’s paper there was debate in the scientific literature as to whether the “Peristerite of Thomson” was simply albite. Today Peristerite is known to represent a submicroscopically exsolved form of plagioclase feldspar in the range of about An2 to An17 (albite to oligoclase), where because of the submicroscopic intergrowths of two different plagioclase feldspars (one a sodium rich albite and the other a more calcium rich oligoclase), interference effects result in iridescence. Another way of saying this is that the original homogeneous plagioclase feldspar has submicroscopically unmixed into two plagioclase components, with one plagioclase component in the range of An0-5 and the other plagioclase component in the range of An20-35. The blue play of colours, the iridescence or schiller, results from the submicroscopic exsolution, and arises from diffusion of light through adjoining crystals of different optical properties, or from reflection and diffraction arising from diffusion of light through adjoining crystals of different optical properties. The exsolved microstructures can take the form of lamellae, tweeds and blebs, with lamellae in the range of 15 to 35 nm thick.
Last summer I attempted, without success, to locate the original type locality in the nineteenth lot of the ninth Concession of Bathurst Township, in Lanark County. I did find an outcrop displaying a graphic intergrowth of quartz with Perthite, and I located two of the abandoned feldspar mines in the ninth Concession (but on different lots than the nineteenth), but didn’t find what I was looking for.
Below is a photograph [Sam_0532] of Peristerite specimens that are on display in the mineral cabinets at the Matheson House Museum in the Town of Perth, Lanark County, Ontario.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
Monday, 28 April 2014
Friday, 7 March 2014
My Hunt for Sir William Logan’s Specimens of Protichnites
It is amazing how time flies by. Since September I’ve been meaning to visit the Canadian Museum of Nature’s Research and Collections Facility on Pink Road in Gatineau, Quebec (across the river from Ottawa) to look at a number of Sir William Logan’s specimens of Protichnites that were collected at Beauharnois, but I’ve not managed to make the time. Since September I’ve been meaning to visit the Redpath Museum at McGill University to look at a specimen that might be one of Logan’s, but again I’ve not managed to make the time. Since September, I’ve been meaning to follow up on a lead at the British Museum, but again I’ve not made the time. What can I say other than that it’s been a long, cold, bitter winter (possibly the coldest in twenty years).
My statement that a number of Logan’s specimens from Beauharnois are in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Nature will probably come as a surprise to most readers, as the specimens were thought to be missing. Mis-catalogued would be a more accurate description. That other of Logan’s specimens might be in the Redpath Museum and the British Museum, will also seem odd to certain readers. That I’ve not made time to drive to Gatineau or to Montreal over the past few months probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has spent this past winter in Eastern Ontario.
I had initially written this posting last September. I held off posting, waiting to include photos of the specimens from my visit to the Canadian Museum of Nature’s Research and Collections Facility. As it’s been six months, I’ve decided to report what I found, principally as a result of finding references to the specimens in the literature, and contacting various museums. I concentrated on the Canadian Museum of Nature, Logan Hall (the museum of the Geological Survey of Canada), the British Museum, and the Redpath Museum at McGill University. Surprisingly, most of Sir William Logan's ‘missing’ specimens could be in the collections of those museums.
Those that are interested in the trace fossil Protichnites will be aware that in 1851 and 1852 W. E. Logan took a number of specimens and casts to London, that lithographs of the six type trackways and an additional trackway appeared in Professor Owen’s 1852 paper, that a number of the type trackways were figured in Logan’s 1863 publication Geology of Canada, that the original specimens disappeared from the records of the Geological Survey of Canada and have not been seen for over a century, and that within the past decade Dr. MacNaughton and Dr. Hagadorn reported on the plaster casts in the collection of the Amherst Museum, compared them with Logan’s specimens that were figured in the Geology of Canada, and had duplicate casts made for the collection of the Geological Survey of Canada.
The original specimens that were thought to have gone missing are four specimens taken to London by Logan, the specimens for the six type trackways that appeared in Professor Owen’s 1852 paper, and the specimens from Beauharnois that were figured in the Geology of Canada. (There is some overlap in those specimens. For example, (a) one of the slabs taken to London is Professor Owen’s No. 3– Protichnites latus, (b) Professor Owen’s No. 4 – Protichnites multinotatus – is figure 14 in Logan’s Geology of Canada.)
The Specimens Taken To London, England by Logan
In 1851 Logan took to London a small slab and the plaster cast of a large specimen that were found in a quarry near the mill on the left bank of the St. Louis River, village of Beauharnois, south side of the St. Lawrence River. Logan described the specimens as follows:
"The specimens consist of a small slab of sandstone, showing foot-prints on one of its surfaces, and a plaster cast from a longer surface of a similar description. The original is in the museum at Montreal connected with the Geological Survey of Canada... [and] weighs more than a ton. ... The most western portion of what was exposed is that removed to Montreal, like the plaster-cast, measuring 12 ½ feet in length."
In 1852 Logan took to London three slabs and 100 casts. One of the slabs was the original of the cast he had taken in 1851. The three slabs were described by Logan as follows:
First slab, 12 ½ feet in length, No. 7 of Prof. Owen (likely shown in Plate XIV.A of Owen’s 1852 paper), from the quarry on the bank of the St. Louis River, village of Beauharnois;
Second slab, 8 feet in length, No. 3 of Prof. Owen– Protichnites latus, from Henault’s Field, near Beauharnois;
Third slab, with two tracks and ripple-mark upon it, from the Island of St. Généviève in the St. Lawrence River, south of Montreal Island.
A footnote at the bottom of page 212 of Logan’s 1852 paper states that the second slab was “temporarily placed in the Society’s Museum by Mr. Logan.” This was the Museum of the Geological Society of London.
A Specimen at the British Museum, London, England
Interestingly, the British Museum may have one of Logan’s specimen. The British Museum provides a service where it provides photographs of specimens in its collection. In answer to an emailed enquiry that I made in late June asking “Do you have photographs of the specimens of Protichnites that Sir William Logan deposited with the Geological Society in about 1852?” I was informed in July that:
“Our Trace fossil collection was moved off site and I don’t often get the opportunity to visit the store. However, without visiting it I have managed to find an electronic record – a specimen of Protichnites from the Cambrian of Canada, presented to us in 1911 by the Geological Society.
1911 is when the fossil collections of the Geological Society were divided between the Natural History Museum, who received all the foreign and colonial specimens, and the Geological Survey who received the material from the British Isles. I will be visiting the store in September and plan to look for this specimen to see if there is any further labels or information that would link it to Sir William Logan.”
While this could be any specimen of Protichnites from Canada, I am hoping that the specimen at the British Museum could be one of Logan’s. My best guess for the specimen at the British Museum is that it is the missing second slab.
Specimens at the Peter Redpath Museum at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec
I suspect that everyone with an interest in geology that has visited Montreal has visited the Peter Redpath Museum at McGill University, if for no other reason than to look at the specimen of Climactichnites and Protichnites from Perth, Ontario that hangs in the stairwell of the museum. While in Montreal a year ago I attended at the museum to look at the specimen, and was not disappointed. It’s a gorgeous specimen.
And I suspect that those that have been reading the papers on Climactichnites and Protichnites that have been published in the last ten years are aware that the Peter Redpath museum has in its collection other specimens of Climactichnites and Protichnites from Perth, Ontario.
Interestingly, the Peter Redpath museum has additional specimens of Protichnites in its collection. In my review of the literature I came across the following reference:
"In the year 1851, Logan exhibited before the Geological Society of London, a small slab of sandstone showing some footprints, and a plaster cast from a larger surface of the similar description. The original, weighing upwards of a ton, is in the Museum at Montreal connected with the McGill University."
Hutchinson, H.N. (1910), Extinct Monsters and Creatures of Other Days, Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London (New and Enlarged Edition).
At first I discounted that reference. However, as it is the most recent reference that I found to the largest missing specimen I followed up on it. In answer to an email that I sent to the Peter Redpath Museum I was informed that they had located two specimens in the basement and was provided with photographs of the specimens.
The first is a slab placed in a wood frame, roughly 24” x 5.5” x 43.5”.
The second is a larger piece that had been separated into four pieces due to its large size. From smallest to largest the pieces are:
18” x 13”, 41 lbs
28” x 26”, 220 lbs
34” x 31”, 325 lbs
43” x 24”, 175 lbs
The measurements are approximate, and the weight of each slab is taken from what is written across the back of the slab. The maximum length of the combined pieces is 123 inches (10 feet, 3 inches) with a total weight of 761 pounds.
The Acting Collections Manager who provided me with the above has told me that he can’t be certain that the larger slab is Protichnites, nor can he confirm that it is Sir William Logan’s specimen. He has promised to dig through the museum’s records to try and find a paper trail.
In the photographs of both slabs appear to be Protichnites. The larger one is too short and too light to be Logan’s 12 ½ feet specimen weighing upwards of a ton, but it is worth further investigation.
Sir William Logan’s Specimens of Protichnites from Beauharnois, Quebec -- Located in the Collection of the Geological Survey of Canada from 1875 to 1896
In his book the Geology of Canada, Logan (1863) provided figures 12 - 17 showing various samples of Protichnites from Beauharnois. It is those specimens, plus a few from Professor Owen’s 1852 paper, that I believe are in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Nature.
My research revealed that in the period from at least 1875 to 1886 the Museum of the Survey, first in Montreal and later in Ottawa, had in its collection specimens of Protichnites septem-notatus, Protichnites octonotatus, Protichnites latus, Protichnites multi-notatus, Protichnites lineatus, and Protichnites alternans that were identified as being from Beauharnois, and that the specimens were still in the collection of the Survey as late as 1896. The four key references that I found, arranged chronologically from oldest to most recent are set out below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Selwyn - 1875: The Specimens are in the GSC’s Museum in Montreal
First, in his Summary Report of Geological Investigations dated at Montreal on May 1, 1875, that appeared in the Geological Survey of Canada’s Report of Progress for 1874-75, Alfred R. C. Selwyn, Director, reported on Mr. Billings’ duties as Curator of the palaeontological branch of the museum. Selwyn commented on the improvements to the specimens exhibited at the Museum, including the addition of printed labels giving a descriptive notice of the specimen and meaning of its name. As part of his report Selwyn included the label for the Protichnites specimens, part of which follows:
“The tracks occur in the Potsdam Sandstone in several localities, but most abundantly near Beauharnois, about 20 miles from Montreal. There are six kinds of tracks which have been named by Professor Owen as follows:
Protichnites septem-notatus
Protichnites octonotatus,
Protichnites latus,
Protichnites multi-notatus,
Protichnites lineatus,
Protichnites alternans.
All of these are on exhibition in this Museum.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. Russell - 1877: The Specimens are in Montreal
Second, in a paper entitled “Concerning Foot-Prints” published in 1877, I. C. Russell mentioned:
“ Splendid specimens of Protichnites can be seen at Montreal, in the rooms of the Geological Survey of Canada, to whose director, Sir William Logan, we owe our knowledge of these interesting animals.”
(Russell, I. C. 1877, Concerning Foot-Prints, The American Naturalist, Volume XI, pages 406 -417 at 412)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. Walcott’s Visit in 1886: The specimens are in the Museum in Ottawa
Third, in a book published in 1998 Dr. Yochelson of the Smithsonian provides a newspaper description of Charles Doolittle Walcott’s 1886 visit to Beauharnois where Walcott collected Protichnites specimens, which mentions that Walcott attended at the Museum in Ottawa to take
casts of specimens. The newspaper account is:
“Mr. Walcott, of the United States Geological Survey, is at present in this town, examining specimens of rock. He has found several turtle tracks in the sandstone, and some shells of that in the limestone. Although not so good as those taken by Sir William Logan, some years ago, he says they are very good of their kind. He has visited the Museum at Ottawa, from which he intends taking plaster casts of those placed there by Sir William Logan. These, together with his own, he will deposit in the National Museum at Washington.”
(Yochelson, Ellis Leon 1998, Charles Doolittle Walcott, Paleontologist, Kent University Press)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Ami’s Report of 1896 - The specimens are in the Geological Survey’s Collection
“POTSDAM SANDSTONE
I. Beauharnois, Que., County of Beauharnois (Geological Survey collection):–
1. Protichnites septem-notatus, Owen
2. Protichnites octonotatus, Owen
3. Protichnites latus, Owen
4. Protichnites multi-notatus, Owen
5. Protichnites lineatus, Owen
6. Protichnites alternans, Owen”
[Ami, Henry. H., 1896, Preliminary Lists of Organic Remains Occurring in the various Geological Formations Comprised in the South-West Quarter-Sheet of the Eastern Townships of the Province of Quebec, Geological Survey of Canada, Annual Report (New Series), Volume VII, No. 579, Part J, page 8J, Appendix to the Report by R. W. Ells entitled Report on a Portion of the Province of Quebec Comprised in the South-west Sheet of the “Eastern Townships” Map (Montreal Sheet)]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I expect that most people with an interest in geology who have lived in Ottawa and visited the Canadian Museum of Nature are aware that Canada’s Museum of Nature traces its history back to the Geological Museum of Canada's Geological Survey that was started by Sir William Logan in Montreal. They will also be aware that after Confederation the Survey and its museum were moved to Ottawa from Montreal, and that the Victoria Museum (the original name of Canada’s Museum of Nature) was initially constructed to house the Geological Survey and its museum. Those same people will have visited the Geological Survey of Canada’s current museum, Logan Hall, at 601 Booth Street.
The Museum of Civilization’s web site lists the key dates in the history of Canada’s national museum, including the following:
1843 Following the GSC’s first field season, the Government asks Logan to establish a museum showcasing the Survey’s results. The first GSC museum opens on James Street in Montreal.
1852 Logan supplies casts of animal tracks for a display by London’s Geological Society, establishing the GSC’s interest in areas other than mineralogy. Logan also writes a paper recommending a permanent museum for the Province; the museum was expected to focus on geology but include some human history material.
1856 The Province of Canada passes an act which, among other things, enables the GSC to establish a Geological Museum open to the public.
1877 [By] Act of Parliament [the]... GSC’s official mandate is expanded to include the study of modern flora and fauna, as well as ancient human history, traditions, languages and current living conditions in undeveloped parts of the country.
1881 The GSC and its museum move to a former luxury hotel at the corner of Sussex and George streets in downtown Ottawa.
1910 The GSC and its museum occupy the new Victoria Memorial Museum Building (VMMB) on Metcalfe Street in Ottawa.
1959 The GSC leaves the VMMB for new facilities on Booth Street in Ottawa.
[ http://www.civilization.ca/about-us/about-the-museum/history-of-the-museum-of-civilization ]
Based on my research I believed that it was likely that the missing specimens of Protichnites could be in Ottawa, either in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Nature or in the collection kept for the Survey’s museum in Logan Hall. Based on that belief I sent emails to curators at both museums asking if they had specimens of Protichnites in their collections, and also sent an email to the person that I thought was responsible for the Survey’s type collection.
My enquiry to the Canadian Museum of Nature was answered by Margaret Currie, Collection Technician, who told me:
“ Regarding the trackways of Protichnites, we have one catalogued trackway in our database - a species called Protichnites multinotatus, which was collected in Quebec in the mid-1850's. We have a few other uncatalogued (and, I believe, unidentified) invertebrate trackways in the collection. But as far as I know, most of the specimens collected at that time are still
housed at the GSC.”
That was truly exciting news.
My enquiry sent to the person that I thought was curator of the GSC’s Logan Hall museum was answered by Michelle Coyne, Curator, Organic Materials Collections, Natural Resources Canada. (I later learned that she is the manager of the National Type Collection of Invertebrate and Plant Fossils as well as several other collections.) She told me that the material “is no longer here” but included valuable information from the GSC’s log books listing the missing specimens. Her reply shows that about 19 specimens of Protichnites and Diplichnites were missing, and fall within the range of specimens given the numbers 4700 to 4713 (including specimens 4703, a-c, 4707 a, b and 4708, a-d). Interestingly, her reply also settles whether Logan or Richardson collected a number of specimens from Beauharnois, identifies the Plesiotypes that are figured in Logan 1863, and identifies figure 15 from Logan 1863 as being from Papineauville, Quebec rather than Beauharnois.
My enquiry to the person that I thought was responsible for the type collection replied that I should be contacting Michelle Coyne.
In the course of the above my emails and the responses were copied to Dr. Robert MacNaughton, the Geological Survey of Canada’s expert on Protichnites. While I had not met Dr. MacNaughton, I had previously corresponded with him by email in my search for the quarry near Perth that was the first source for Climactichnites, and he has been good enough to correct my misidentification of a number of trace fossils, including one that I first thought was Climactichnites and he corrected to Protichnites. Dr. MacNaughton informed me that thanks to a bit of serendipity he had been able to identify the types based on material figured in an existing Canadian Museum of Nature publication and had passed this information on to Michelle Coyne's predecessor, but his other duties had prevented him from doing any further work at that time, or following up with the staff at Canadian Museum of Nature. While I am pleased that my efforts spurred him to communicate his identifications to Margaret Currie, it did ruin a good blog posting, and certainly took the excitement out of going to look at the specimens as they can be looked at in an online publication.
I've looked at Harington, Foster, Holmes & Currie's 2005 publication Photographic catalogue of trackways in the Canadian Museum of Nature. This is available free on the internet from http://archive.org/. I can see why Dr. MacNaughton came to the conclusion that at least some of the GSC's missing type specimens are in the Museum of Nature's collection. The photograph of CMN 34843 jumps off the page as being one of Logan's. It is figure 14 in Logan’s Geology of Canada – Protichnites multinotatus (Owen). And I note that specimen CMN 4702 has the same number as one of the other specimens that Michelle Coyne told me has gone missing.
The Photographic catalogue of trackways in the Canadian Museum of Nature misidentifies a number of specimens as Kouphichnium stating incorrectly that “Protichnites can be distinguished from Kouphichnium by the possession of a double median furrow.” A number of the specimens identified in the publication as Kouphichnium should have been identified as Protichnites and others as Diplichnites.
Michelle Coyne’s email suggests that there are nineteen missing specimens. Harington’s publication includes a specimen identified as P. Multinotatus and numerous specimens misidentified as Kouphichnium (where the locality is not known) that might be Logan’s missing specimens of Protichnites and Diplichnites. The following are worth a look:
Specimen Number Harington’s Identification My Identification
CMN 4702 Kouphichnium Diplichnites
CMN 34834 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34835 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34836 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34838 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34839 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34841 P. Multinotatus (Owen) Protichnites
CMN 34842 Kouphichnium - Diplichnites
“may actually be” Diplichnites
CMN 34843 Kouphichnium Logan’s specimen of Protichnites Multinotatus (Owen)
CMN 34844 Kouphichnium
“likely” Diplichnites Diplichnites
CMN 34848A Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34848B Kouphichnium Protichnites
Those are the specimens that I had intended to look at and photograph at the Museum of Nature.
I had hoped to meet Dr. MacNaughton in Gatineau last fall to look at the specimens at the Canadian Museum of Nature’s Research and Collections Facility in Gatineau. That hasn’t happened, and I’m not sure if he has had the chance to look at the specimens. Perhaps others will now take the time to visit and examine the specimens.
Below I’ve provided, for ease of reference, both (a) the page from Logan’s 1863 publication Geology of Canada with the trackways from Beauharnois, and (b) the six plates of the type specimens from Professor Owen’s 1852 paper.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
My statement that a number of Logan’s specimens from Beauharnois are in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Nature will probably come as a surprise to most readers, as the specimens were thought to be missing. Mis-catalogued would be a more accurate description. That other of Logan’s specimens might be in the Redpath Museum and the British Museum, will also seem odd to certain readers. That I’ve not made time to drive to Gatineau or to Montreal over the past few months probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has spent this past winter in Eastern Ontario.
I had initially written this posting last September. I held off posting, waiting to include photos of the specimens from my visit to the Canadian Museum of Nature’s Research and Collections Facility. As it’s been six months, I’ve decided to report what I found, principally as a result of finding references to the specimens in the literature, and contacting various museums. I concentrated on the Canadian Museum of Nature, Logan Hall (the museum of the Geological Survey of Canada), the British Museum, and the Redpath Museum at McGill University. Surprisingly, most of Sir William Logan's ‘missing’ specimens could be in the collections of those museums.
Those that are interested in the trace fossil Protichnites will be aware that in 1851 and 1852 W. E. Logan took a number of specimens and casts to London, that lithographs of the six type trackways and an additional trackway appeared in Professor Owen’s 1852 paper, that a number of the type trackways were figured in Logan’s 1863 publication Geology of Canada, that the original specimens disappeared from the records of the Geological Survey of Canada and have not been seen for over a century, and that within the past decade Dr. MacNaughton and Dr. Hagadorn reported on the plaster casts in the collection of the Amherst Museum, compared them with Logan’s specimens that were figured in the Geology of Canada, and had duplicate casts made for the collection of the Geological Survey of Canada.
The original specimens that were thought to have gone missing are four specimens taken to London by Logan, the specimens for the six type trackways that appeared in Professor Owen’s 1852 paper, and the specimens from Beauharnois that were figured in the Geology of Canada. (There is some overlap in those specimens. For example, (a) one of the slabs taken to London is Professor Owen’s No. 3– Protichnites latus, (b) Professor Owen’s No. 4 – Protichnites multinotatus – is figure 14 in Logan’s Geology of Canada.)
The Specimens Taken To London, England by Logan
In 1851 Logan took to London a small slab and the plaster cast of a large specimen that were found in a quarry near the mill on the left bank of the St. Louis River, village of Beauharnois, south side of the St. Lawrence River. Logan described the specimens as follows:
"The specimens consist of a small slab of sandstone, showing foot-prints on one of its surfaces, and a plaster cast from a longer surface of a similar description. The original is in the museum at Montreal connected with the Geological Survey of Canada... [and] weighs more than a ton. ... The most western portion of what was exposed is that removed to Montreal, like the plaster-cast, measuring 12 ½ feet in length."
In 1852 Logan took to London three slabs and 100 casts. One of the slabs was the original of the cast he had taken in 1851. The three slabs were described by Logan as follows:
First slab, 12 ½ feet in length, No. 7 of Prof. Owen (likely shown in Plate XIV.A of Owen’s 1852 paper), from the quarry on the bank of the St. Louis River, village of Beauharnois;
Second slab, 8 feet in length, No. 3 of Prof. Owen– Protichnites latus, from Henault’s Field, near Beauharnois;
Third slab, with two tracks and ripple-mark upon it, from the Island of St. Généviève in the St. Lawrence River, south of Montreal Island.
A footnote at the bottom of page 212 of Logan’s 1852 paper states that the second slab was “temporarily placed in the Society’s Museum by Mr. Logan.” This was the Museum of the Geological Society of London.
A Specimen at the British Museum, London, England
Interestingly, the British Museum may have one of Logan’s specimen. The British Museum provides a service where it provides photographs of specimens in its collection. In answer to an emailed enquiry that I made in late June asking “Do you have photographs of the specimens of Protichnites that Sir William Logan deposited with the Geological Society in about 1852?” I was informed in July that:
“Our Trace fossil collection was moved off site and I don’t often get the opportunity to visit the store. However, without visiting it I have managed to find an electronic record – a specimen of Protichnites from the Cambrian of Canada, presented to us in 1911 by the Geological Society.
1911 is when the fossil collections of the Geological Society were divided between the Natural History Museum, who received all the foreign and colonial specimens, and the Geological Survey who received the material from the British Isles. I will be visiting the store in September and plan to look for this specimen to see if there is any further labels or information that would link it to Sir William Logan.”
While this could be any specimen of Protichnites from Canada, I am hoping that the specimen at the British Museum could be one of Logan’s. My best guess for the specimen at the British Museum is that it is the missing second slab.
Specimens at the Peter Redpath Museum at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec
I suspect that everyone with an interest in geology that has visited Montreal has visited the Peter Redpath Museum at McGill University, if for no other reason than to look at the specimen of Climactichnites and Protichnites from Perth, Ontario that hangs in the stairwell of the museum. While in Montreal a year ago I attended at the museum to look at the specimen, and was not disappointed. It’s a gorgeous specimen.
And I suspect that those that have been reading the papers on Climactichnites and Protichnites that have been published in the last ten years are aware that the Peter Redpath museum has in its collection other specimens of Climactichnites and Protichnites from Perth, Ontario.
Interestingly, the Peter Redpath museum has additional specimens of Protichnites in its collection. In my review of the literature I came across the following reference:
"In the year 1851, Logan exhibited before the Geological Society of London, a small slab of sandstone showing some footprints, and a plaster cast from a larger surface of the similar description. The original, weighing upwards of a ton, is in the Museum at Montreal connected with the McGill University."
Hutchinson, H.N. (1910), Extinct Monsters and Creatures of Other Days, Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London (New and Enlarged Edition).
At first I discounted that reference. However, as it is the most recent reference that I found to the largest missing specimen I followed up on it. In answer to an email that I sent to the Peter Redpath Museum I was informed that they had located two specimens in the basement and was provided with photographs of the specimens.
The first is a slab placed in a wood frame, roughly 24” x 5.5” x 43.5”.
The second is a larger piece that had been separated into four pieces due to its large size. From smallest to largest the pieces are:
18” x 13”, 41 lbs
28” x 26”, 220 lbs
34” x 31”, 325 lbs
43” x 24”, 175 lbs
The measurements are approximate, and the weight of each slab is taken from what is written across the back of the slab. The maximum length of the combined pieces is 123 inches (10 feet, 3 inches) with a total weight of 761 pounds.
The Acting Collections Manager who provided me with the above has told me that he can’t be certain that the larger slab is Protichnites, nor can he confirm that it is Sir William Logan’s specimen. He has promised to dig through the museum’s records to try and find a paper trail.
In the photographs of both slabs appear to be Protichnites. The larger one is too short and too light to be Logan’s 12 ½ feet specimen weighing upwards of a ton, but it is worth further investigation.
Sir William Logan’s Specimens of Protichnites from Beauharnois, Quebec -- Located in the Collection of the Geological Survey of Canada from 1875 to 1896
In his book the Geology of Canada, Logan (1863) provided figures 12 - 17 showing various samples of Protichnites from Beauharnois. It is those specimens, plus a few from Professor Owen’s 1852 paper, that I believe are in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Nature.
My research revealed that in the period from at least 1875 to 1886 the Museum of the Survey, first in Montreal and later in Ottawa, had in its collection specimens of Protichnites septem-notatus, Protichnites octonotatus, Protichnites latus, Protichnites multi-notatus, Protichnites lineatus, and Protichnites alternans that were identified as being from Beauharnois, and that the specimens were still in the collection of the Survey as late as 1896. The four key references that I found, arranged chronologically from oldest to most recent are set out below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Selwyn - 1875: The Specimens are in the GSC’s Museum in Montreal
First, in his Summary Report of Geological Investigations dated at Montreal on May 1, 1875, that appeared in the Geological Survey of Canada’s Report of Progress for 1874-75, Alfred R. C. Selwyn, Director, reported on Mr. Billings’ duties as Curator of the palaeontological branch of the museum. Selwyn commented on the improvements to the specimens exhibited at the Museum, including the addition of printed labels giving a descriptive notice of the specimen and meaning of its name. As part of his report Selwyn included the label for the Protichnites specimens, part of which follows:
“The tracks occur in the Potsdam Sandstone in several localities, but most abundantly near Beauharnois, about 20 miles from Montreal. There are six kinds of tracks which have been named by Professor Owen as follows:
Protichnites septem-notatus
Protichnites octonotatus,
Protichnites latus,
Protichnites multi-notatus,
Protichnites lineatus,
Protichnites alternans.
All of these are on exhibition in this Museum.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. Russell - 1877: The Specimens are in Montreal
Second, in a paper entitled “Concerning Foot-Prints” published in 1877, I. C. Russell mentioned:
“ Splendid specimens of Protichnites can be seen at Montreal, in the rooms of the Geological Survey of Canada, to whose director, Sir William Logan, we owe our knowledge of these interesting animals.”
(Russell, I. C. 1877, Concerning Foot-Prints, The American Naturalist, Volume XI, pages 406 -417 at 412)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. Walcott’s Visit in 1886: The specimens are in the Museum in Ottawa
Third, in a book published in 1998 Dr. Yochelson of the Smithsonian provides a newspaper description of Charles Doolittle Walcott’s 1886 visit to Beauharnois where Walcott collected Protichnites specimens, which mentions that Walcott attended at the Museum in Ottawa to take
casts of specimens. The newspaper account is:
“Mr. Walcott, of the United States Geological Survey, is at present in this town, examining specimens of rock. He has found several turtle tracks in the sandstone, and some shells of that in the limestone. Although not so good as those taken by Sir William Logan, some years ago, he says they are very good of their kind. He has visited the Museum at Ottawa, from which he intends taking plaster casts of those placed there by Sir William Logan. These, together with his own, he will deposit in the National Museum at Washington.”
(Yochelson, Ellis Leon 1998, Charles Doolittle Walcott, Paleontologist, Kent University Press)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Ami’s Report of 1896 - The specimens are in the Geological Survey’s Collection
“POTSDAM SANDSTONE
I. Beauharnois, Que., County of Beauharnois (Geological Survey collection):–
1. Protichnites septem-notatus, Owen
2. Protichnites octonotatus, Owen
3. Protichnites latus, Owen
4. Protichnites multi-notatus, Owen
5. Protichnites lineatus, Owen
6. Protichnites alternans, Owen”
[Ami, Henry. H., 1896, Preliminary Lists of Organic Remains Occurring in the various Geological Formations Comprised in the South-West Quarter-Sheet of the Eastern Townships of the Province of Quebec, Geological Survey of Canada, Annual Report (New Series), Volume VII, No. 579, Part J, page 8J, Appendix to the Report by R. W. Ells entitled Report on a Portion of the Province of Quebec Comprised in the South-west Sheet of the “Eastern Townships” Map (Montreal Sheet)]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I expect that most people with an interest in geology who have lived in Ottawa and visited the Canadian Museum of Nature are aware that Canada’s Museum of Nature traces its history back to the Geological Museum of Canada's Geological Survey that was started by Sir William Logan in Montreal. They will also be aware that after Confederation the Survey and its museum were moved to Ottawa from Montreal, and that the Victoria Museum (the original name of Canada’s Museum of Nature) was initially constructed to house the Geological Survey and its museum. Those same people will have visited the Geological Survey of Canada’s current museum, Logan Hall, at 601 Booth Street.
The Museum of Civilization’s web site lists the key dates in the history of Canada’s national museum, including the following:
1843 Following the GSC’s first field season, the Government asks Logan to establish a museum showcasing the Survey’s results. The first GSC museum opens on James Street in Montreal.
1852 Logan supplies casts of animal tracks for a display by London’s Geological Society, establishing the GSC’s interest in areas other than mineralogy. Logan also writes a paper recommending a permanent museum for the Province; the museum was expected to focus on geology but include some human history material.
1856 The Province of Canada passes an act which, among other things, enables the GSC to establish a Geological Museum open to the public.
1877 [By] Act of Parliament [the]... GSC’s official mandate is expanded to include the study of modern flora and fauna, as well as ancient human history, traditions, languages and current living conditions in undeveloped parts of the country.
1881 The GSC and its museum move to a former luxury hotel at the corner of Sussex and George streets in downtown Ottawa.
1910 The GSC and its museum occupy the new Victoria Memorial Museum Building (VMMB) on Metcalfe Street in Ottawa.
1959 The GSC leaves the VMMB for new facilities on Booth Street in Ottawa.
[ http://www.civilization.ca/about-us/about-the-museum/history-of-the-museum-of-civilization ]
Based on my research I believed that it was likely that the missing specimens of Protichnites could be in Ottawa, either in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Nature or in the collection kept for the Survey’s museum in Logan Hall. Based on that belief I sent emails to curators at both museums asking if they had specimens of Protichnites in their collections, and also sent an email to the person that I thought was responsible for the Survey’s type collection.
My enquiry to the Canadian Museum of Nature was answered by Margaret Currie, Collection Technician, who told me:
“ Regarding the trackways of Protichnites, we have one catalogued trackway in our database - a species called Protichnites multinotatus, which was collected in Quebec in the mid-1850's. We have a few other uncatalogued (and, I believe, unidentified) invertebrate trackways in the collection. But as far as I know, most of the specimens collected at that time are still
housed at the GSC.”
That was truly exciting news.
My enquiry sent to the person that I thought was curator of the GSC’s Logan Hall museum was answered by Michelle Coyne, Curator, Organic Materials Collections, Natural Resources Canada. (I later learned that she is the manager of the National Type Collection of Invertebrate and Plant Fossils as well as several other collections.) She told me that the material “is no longer here” but included valuable information from the GSC’s log books listing the missing specimens. Her reply shows that about 19 specimens of Protichnites and Diplichnites were missing, and fall within the range of specimens given the numbers 4700 to 4713 (including specimens 4703, a-c, 4707 a, b and 4708, a-d). Interestingly, her reply also settles whether Logan or Richardson collected a number of specimens from Beauharnois, identifies the Plesiotypes that are figured in Logan 1863, and identifies figure 15 from Logan 1863 as being from Papineauville, Quebec rather than Beauharnois.
My enquiry to the person that I thought was responsible for the type collection replied that I should be contacting Michelle Coyne.
In the course of the above my emails and the responses were copied to Dr. Robert MacNaughton, the Geological Survey of Canada’s expert on Protichnites. While I had not met Dr. MacNaughton, I had previously corresponded with him by email in my search for the quarry near Perth that was the first source for Climactichnites, and he has been good enough to correct my misidentification of a number of trace fossils, including one that I first thought was Climactichnites and he corrected to Protichnites. Dr. MacNaughton informed me that thanks to a bit of serendipity he had been able to identify the types based on material figured in an existing Canadian Museum of Nature publication and had passed this information on to Michelle Coyne's predecessor, but his other duties had prevented him from doing any further work at that time, or following up with the staff at Canadian Museum of Nature. While I am pleased that my efforts spurred him to communicate his identifications to Margaret Currie, it did ruin a good blog posting, and certainly took the excitement out of going to look at the specimens as they can be looked at in an online publication.
I've looked at Harington, Foster, Holmes & Currie's 2005 publication Photographic catalogue of trackways in the Canadian Museum of Nature. This is available free on the internet from http://archive.org/. I can see why Dr. MacNaughton came to the conclusion that at least some of the GSC's missing type specimens are in the Museum of Nature's collection. The photograph of CMN 34843 jumps off the page as being one of Logan's. It is figure 14 in Logan’s Geology of Canada – Protichnites multinotatus (Owen). And I note that specimen CMN 4702 has the same number as one of the other specimens that Michelle Coyne told me has gone missing.
The Photographic catalogue of trackways in the Canadian Museum of Nature misidentifies a number of specimens as Kouphichnium stating incorrectly that “Protichnites can be distinguished from Kouphichnium by the possession of a double median furrow.” A number of the specimens identified in the publication as Kouphichnium should have been identified as Protichnites and others as Diplichnites.
Michelle Coyne’s email suggests that there are nineteen missing specimens. Harington’s publication includes a specimen identified as P. Multinotatus and numerous specimens misidentified as Kouphichnium (where the locality is not known) that might be Logan’s missing specimens of Protichnites and Diplichnites. The following are worth a look:
Specimen Number Harington’s Identification My Identification
CMN 4702 Kouphichnium Diplichnites
CMN 34834 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34835 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34836 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34838 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34839 Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34841 P. Multinotatus (Owen) Protichnites
CMN 34842 Kouphichnium - Diplichnites
“may actually be” Diplichnites
CMN 34843 Kouphichnium Logan’s specimen of Protichnites Multinotatus (Owen)
CMN 34844 Kouphichnium
“likely” Diplichnites Diplichnites
CMN 34848A Kouphichnium Protichnites
CMN 34848B Kouphichnium Protichnites
Those are the specimens that I had intended to look at and photograph at the Museum of Nature.
I had hoped to meet Dr. MacNaughton in Gatineau last fall to look at the specimens at the Canadian Museum of Nature’s Research and Collections Facility in Gatineau. That hasn’t happened, and I’m not sure if he has had the chance to look at the specimens. Perhaps others will now take the time to visit and examine the specimens.
Below I’ve provided, for ease of reference, both (a) the page from Logan’s 1863 publication Geology of Canada with the trackways from Beauharnois, and (b) the six plates of the type specimens from Professor Owen’s 1852 paper.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
Cylindrical Structures in Potsdam Group Sandstone in Eastern Ontario
Cylindrical sandstone structures that cut across the bedding in Potsdam Group sandstones in Eastern Ontario at locations north of Kingston have been written about by geologists for over one hundred years. Two of the earliest reports were written by T.C. Weston of the Geological Survey of Canada and report the results of his visit in 1888 to the locality, a quarry about twelve miles north of Kingston on the east bank of Cataraqui River four miles above the locks of the Rideau Canal at Kingston Mills. The two references are:
Weston, T.C. (1895), Notes on Concretionary Structure in Various Rock Formations in Canada, Transactions of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, Session of 1891-92, Volume VIII, Being Volume I of the Second Series, pages 137 - 142 (a paper read November 9th, 1891 before the Nova Scotian Institute)
Weston, T.C. (1899), Reminiscences Among The Rocks, Warwick Brothers & Rutter, Toronto, Ontario, at pages 247 -248 (an autobiography recording Weston’s employment with the Geological Survey of Canada).
This is how Weston (1899) described his visit:
“During this year, 1888, much discussion prevailed concerning the discovery of supposed fossil trees, many examples of which are seen in the Cambrian (Potsdam) formation on the banks of the Rideau Canal, Kingston, Ont. The attention of the director of the Canadian Geological Survey [Dr. Selwyn] was drawn to these singular forms; he visited the locality and caused a section of one measuring four feet in diameter to be sent to the museum in Ottawa.
On the director's return I was requested to visit the locality, and on the 16th of October, accompanied by Mr. Topley, the Government photographer, we started, and on arriving at Kingston found several people much interested in the discovery of these so called “fossil trees." In a shop window we saw a section of one labelled “Section of a stone tree." Hiring a team we drove through the historical city of Kingston. Our twelve mile drive to the celebrated quarry where these so-called fossil trees occur was a pleasant one.
We found quite a number of these cylindrical forms, some examples would weigh many tons; some of the weathered sections show irregular concentric rings which resemble somewhat the lines of growth in exogen plants. No fossil trees have yet been discovered in the Cambrian formation to which these deposits belong, and the conclusion arrived at was that these tree-like bodies are of concretionary structure, formed probably in geyser cavities. The "potato-stones" found in these sandstones are nodules, formed of the same material which composes these rocks. The photographs taken at this interesting locality are the property of the Geological Survey and can be seen at that institution.”
Two drawings of the cylindrical structures were provided in Weston (1895). The first is provided below.
Below is a photograph of the same outcrop provided in a guidebook published in 1913 that was prepared by M. B. Baker [Baker, M.B. (1913), Excursion A9 - Mineral Deposits Near Kingston, Excursions in the Eastern Townships of Quebec and the Eastern Part of Ontario, Guide Book No. 2, 12th International Geological Conference in Canada 1913]
When Weston visited the quarry it was known as the Gildersleeve quarry. In Baker’s guide it is called Blake’s quarry. It is now known as the Hughes quarry. Interestingly, that outcrop is still visible at the ‘Park of Pillars’ at the Hughes quarry, Lots 8 and 9, Concession V, Pittsburgh Township. See both:
(1) the photographs that are Figure 40 in B.V. Sanford and R.W.C. Arnott (2010), Stratigraphic and structural framework of the Potsdam Group in eastern Ontario, western Quebec and northern New York State, GSC Bulletin 597
(2) the photograph of Site E15 at Let’s Rock,
http://planetrocks.ca/e15-geologic-columns-tracking-weird-structures-in-the-potsdam-sandstone/
The second drawing of the cylindrical structures from Weston (1895) is a weathered cross-section showing well defined concentric rings.
William James Topley
William James Topley (1845 - 1930), the photographer that accompanied T.C. Weston to look at the “fossil trees”, was one of the most important photographers in Canada in the late 1800's. Over 150,000 of Topley’s negatives and photographs are in the collection of Archives Canada. Unfortunately, it is not presently possible to search the whole of the collection online, and I could not locate his original photographs of the cylindrical structures in the archives.
I may have found one of Topley’s photographs in the following publication of the New York State Museum: Cushing, H. P., Fairchild, H.L, Ruedemann, R. And Smyth, C.H. Jr. (1910), Geology of the Thousand Islands Region, New York State Museum Bulletin 145. Plate 13 of that publication contains two photographs from the Gildersleeve quarry. The right hand photograph was taken by Dr. H. M. Ami of the Geological Survey of Canada. The left hand photo is credited simply to the Geological Survey of Canada, and may be one of Topley’s. The photos of the cylindrical structures from Ontario were included “because, while corresponding precisely to the New York State examples, it furnishes a much better illustration than any there seen.”
Theories for The Origin of the Cylindrical Structures
There have been many theories proposed to explain the origin of the cylindrical structures. The weight of authority currently favours dewatering processes, but numerous other theories have been advanced over the years. Sixty-one years ago R. V. Dietrich, in a report on similar structures in the Potsdam Sandstone of New York State, summarized the prevailing views as follows:
“Similar structures in the Potsdam sandstone of this region have been previously described and interpreted to represent concretions, concretionary structures formed in geyser cavities, sediments deposited in whirlpools in potholes, and typical flat-lying Potsdam sandstone in which the original pigmentation was modified by the rising of springs through the unconsolidated Potsdam sand, the affected areas subsequently undergoing concretionary cementation.
...
[Sir William Dawson] (1889) suggested that the structures in the Potsdam sandstone in the Ontario-New York area represent concretions that formed around organic cores. Weston (1899) suggested that the structures are concretions formed in geyser cavities. Ells (1905) referred to the structures as cylindrical concretions, but offered no explanation for their shape or origin. W.G. Miller (1906) and Cushing (1910) concurred with the connotation, concretion, and also refrained from giving a generic discussion. Baker (1916) suggested that they represent sediments deposited by whirlpools or other edying water in potholes. Hawley and Hart (1934) ... concluded that they “...are considered to have formed during, or after, deposition of sand, but before final cementation. The concentric, cylindrical color banding is believed to be concretionary in nature, localized by the presence of vertical cylinders of uncemented and not excessively disturbed sand. The formation of these is attributed to the actions of currents of water, rising vertically through the strata from, possibly, a buried fault line or other controlling structure...”.”
[Dietrich, R.V. (1953), Conical and Cylindrical structures in the Potsdam Sandstone, Redwood, New York, New York State Museum Circular 34, at pages 5 & 9]
Interestingly, Dietrich favoured a “slumping” origin and concluded that “Field relationships suggest that the structures at the Redwood locality were formed by the movement of unconsolidated and/or partly consolidated sand into cavities developed in underlying sand by falling of that sand into cavities in the underlying marble of the Precambrian Grenville Series.”
A more recent summary of the differing views for their origin can be found in B.V. Sanford and R.W.C. Arnott (2010), Stratigraphic and structural framework of the Potsdam Group in eastern Ontario, western Quebec and northern New York State, GSC Bulletin 597, at page 41, where they comment:
“The origin of these structures has been the subject of speculation for a great many years, and the controversy likely will not be settled until such time as one of the columns can be dismantled at its base to determine whether it originated from the bottom or top. ... The origin of these structures... has been attributed to fossil tree trunks, potholes excavated and later infilled with sand, concretions, collapse or local slumping of sand into cavities in underlying Precambrian marble, and dewatering processes. As proposed by Sanford (2007), a logical explanation for the origin of the columns is that of potholes later infilled with sand, as a fair amount of evidence suggests that they were drilled from the top down by rotating quartzite cobbles caught up in vortices on the floor of high energy systems, much like the motion of a diamond bit drilling into bedrock.”
That suggestion notwithstanding, the majority of recent commentators favour dewatering processes.
Locations in Ontario Where the Cylindrical Structures Have Been Found
Cylindrical sandstone structures that cut across the bedding in Potsdam Group sandstones in Eastern Ontario have been found at three quarries to the north of Kingston and Gananoque, namely:
A) the Hughes quarry, Lots 8 and 9, Concession V, Pittsburgh Township, Frontenac County;
B) the Sloan quarry, Lot 11, Concession VI, Storrington Township, Frontenac County;
C) the Ellisville quarry at Ellisville, Ontario, Lots 19 and 20, Concession VII, Rear of Leeds and Lansdowne Township, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.
Similar structures have been reported in two cliffs in lots 21 and 22 , Concession X of Storrington Township, “on the sandstone tongue, along which the road runs, at the north side of Dog Lake” (Baker, M.B. (1916), The Geology of Kingston and Vicinity, Ontario Bureau of Mines, Vol. XXV., Part III, No. 4, page 19).
Cylindrical sandstone specimens were also collected from Potsdam sandstones near Almonte (See: Dawson, W. J. (1889), Remarks of the President on Certain Ancient Concretions, Canadian Record of Science, Volume 3, pages 293-294 (read November 26, 1888 before The Natural History Society, Montreal); Dawson, W. J. (1890) On Burrows and Tracks of Invertebrate Animals in Palaeozoic Rocks , and Other Markings, London Quart. Journal Geol. Soc. 46, pp. 595-617 at pages 609-610 (Read May 14, 1890).
Dawson (1890) also reports that “Many years ago specimens were obtained from the Potsdam Sandstone of Ontario, by the late Sir William Logan, which presented the aspect of large cylindrical trunks, a foot or more in diameter. ... showing obscure concentric lines on the ends. No opinion was, I believe hazarded at that time respecting their origin...” I have not been able to determine where in Ontario Logan obtained those specimens.
I’ve been told by two geologists that they are also present in the sandstone around Charleston Lake.
I have not yet found a similar structure in the Potsdam Group sandstones close to Perth, but I'll keep looking.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
[Added: September 30, 2015:
For cylindrical structures at Charleston Lake Provincial Park see:
Donaldson, J.A. and Chiarenzelli, J. R.,2004,
Pre-Cambrian Basement and Cambrian-Ordovician Strata, as Displayed in Three Provincial Parks in Canada, Trip A-1, New York Geological Association, 76th Annual Meeting Field Trip Guidebook, pages 63-78. Stop 6 - Charleston Lake Provincial Park, Giant Cylinder in Nepean Formation, at page 74. Figure 11 at page 76 has the caption “The cylindrical structure along Sandstone Island Trail, Charleston Lake Provincial Park.
Forsyth, D.A. and Forsyth, M.E., 2011,
Pillars in the Park,
GAC/AGC - MAC/AMC - SEG - SGA Joint Annual Meeting, Ottawa 2011, Abstracts Volume 34, at page 66
They report on “sandstone cylinders or pillars” in Charleston Lake Provincial, noting that “At least 8 cylinder sites are hosted by the sandstone plateau in the Provincial Park. These “water escape” features in the form of cylinders or pillars may be the lithified remains of water table spring conduits that developed in response to water flow through very clean and well sorted sand overlying undulating Precambrian surface topography. Various cylinder forms resemble active, lithified and unconsolidated structures reported from the USA and the Himalayas as well as some reported from more recent glacial sand deposits in Quebec.” ]
Weston, T.C. (1895), Notes on Concretionary Structure in Various Rock Formations in Canada, Transactions of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, Session of 1891-92, Volume VIII, Being Volume I of the Second Series, pages 137 - 142 (a paper read November 9th, 1891 before the Nova Scotian Institute)
Weston, T.C. (1899), Reminiscences Among The Rocks, Warwick Brothers & Rutter, Toronto, Ontario, at pages 247 -248 (an autobiography recording Weston’s employment with the Geological Survey of Canada).
This is how Weston (1899) described his visit:
“During this year, 1888, much discussion prevailed concerning the discovery of supposed fossil trees, many examples of which are seen in the Cambrian (Potsdam) formation on the banks of the Rideau Canal, Kingston, Ont. The attention of the director of the Canadian Geological Survey [Dr. Selwyn] was drawn to these singular forms; he visited the locality and caused a section of one measuring four feet in diameter to be sent to the museum in Ottawa.
On the director's return I was requested to visit the locality, and on the 16th of October, accompanied by Mr. Topley, the Government photographer, we started, and on arriving at Kingston found several people much interested in the discovery of these so called “fossil trees." In a shop window we saw a section of one labelled “Section of a stone tree." Hiring a team we drove through the historical city of Kingston. Our twelve mile drive to the celebrated quarry where these so-called fossil trees occur was a pleasant one.
We found quite a number of these cylindrical forms, some examples would weigh many tons; some of the weathered sections show irregular concentric rings which resemble somewhat the lines of growth in exogen plants. No fossil trees have yet been discovered in the Cambrian formation to which these deposits belong, and the conclusion arrived at was that these tree-like bodies are of concretionary structure, formed probably in geyser cavities. The "potato-stones" found in these sandstones are nodules, formed of the same material which composes these rocks. The photographs taken at this interesting locality are the property of the Geological Survey and can be seen at that institution.”
Two drawings of the cylindrical structures were provided in Weston (1895). The first is provided below.
Below is a photograph of the same outcrop provided in a guidebook published in 1913 that was prepared by M. B. Baker [Baker, M.B. (1913), Excursion A9 - Mineral Deposits Near Kingston, Excursions in the Eastern Townships of Quebec and the Eastern Part of Ontario, Guide Book No. 2, 12th International Geological Conference in Canada 1913]
When Weston visited the quarry it was known as the Gildersleeve quarry. In Baker’s guide it is called Blake’s quarry. It is now known as the Hughes quarry. Interestingly, that outcrop is still visible at the ‘Park of Pillars’ at the Hughes quarry, Lots 8 and 9, Concession V, Pittsburgh Township. See both:
(1) the photographs that are Figure 40 in B.V. Sanford and R.W.C. Arnott (2010), Stratigraphic and structural framework of the Potsdam Group in eastern Ontario, western Quebec and northern New York State, GSC Bulletin 597
(2) the photograph of Site E15 at Let’s Rock,
http://planetrocks.ca/e15-geologic-columns-tracking-weird-structures-in-the-potsdam-sandstone/
The second drawing of the cylindrical structures from Weston (1895) is a weathered cross-section showing well defined concentric rings.
William James Topley
William James Topley (1845 - 1930), the photographer that accompanied T.C. Weston to look at the “fossil trees”, was one of the most important photographers in Canada in the late 1800's. Over 150,000 of Topley’s negatives and photographs are in the collection of Archives Canada. Unfortunately, it is not presently possible to search the whole of the collection online, and I could not locate his original photographs of the cylindrical structures in the archives.
I may have found one of Topley’s photographs in the following publication of the New York State Museum: Cushing, H. P., Fairchild, H.L, Ruedemann, R. And Smyth, C.H. Jr. (1910), Geology of the Thousand Islands Region, New York State Museum Bulletin 145. Plate 13 of that publication contains two photographs from the Gildersleeve quarry. The right hand photograph was taken by Dr. H. M. Ami of the Geological Survey of Canada. The left hand photo is credited simply to the Geological Survey of Canada, and may be one of Topley’s. The photos of the cylindrical structures from Ontario were included “because, while corresponding precisely to the New York State examples, it furnishes a much better illustration than any there seen.”
Theories for The Origin of the Cylindrical Structures
There have been many theories proposed to explain the origin of the cylindrical structures. The weight of authority currently favours dewatering processes, but numerous other theories have been advanced over the years. Sixty-one years ago R. V. Dietrich, in a report on similar structures in the Potsdam Sandstone of New York State, summarized the prevailing views as follows:
“Similar structures in the Potsdam sandstone of this region have been previously described and interpreted to represent concretions, concretionary structures formed in geyser cavities, sediments deposited in whirlpools in potholes, and typical flat-lying Potsdam sandstone in which the original pigmentation was modified by the rising of springs through the unconsolidated Potsdam sand, the affected areas subsequently undergoing concretionary cementation.
...
[Sir William Dawson] (1889) suggested that the structures in the Potsdam sandstone in the Ontario-New York area represent concretions that formed around organic cores. Weston (1899) suggested that the structures are concretions formed in geyser cavities. Ells (1905) referred to the structures as cylindrical concretions, but offered no explanation for their shape or origin. W.G. Miller (1906) and Cushing (1910) concurred with the connotation, concretion, and also refrained from giving a generic discussion. Baker (1916) suggested that they represent sediments deposited by whirlpools or other edying water in potholes. Hawley and Hart (1934) ... concluded that they “...are considered to have formed during, or after, deposition of sand, but before final cementation. The concentric, cylindrical color banding is believed to be concretionary in nature, localized by the presence of vertical cylinders of uncemented and not excessively disturbed sand. The formation of these is attributed to the actions of currents of water, rising vertically through the strata from, possibly, a buried fault line or other controlling structure...”.”
[Dietrich, R.V. (1953), Conical and Cylindrical structures in the Potsdam Sandstone, Redwood, New York, New York State Museum Circular 34, at pages 5 & 9]
Interestingly, Dietrich favoured a “slumping” origin and concluded that “Field relationships suggest that the structures at the Redwood locality were formed by the movement of unconsolidated and/or partly consolidated sand into cavities developed in underlying sand by falling of that sand into cavities in the underlying marble of the Precambrian Grenville Series.”
A more recent summary of the differing views for their origin can be found in B.V. Sanford and R.W.C. Arnott (2010), Stratigraphic and structural framework of the Potsdam Group in eastern Ontario, western Quebec and northern New York State, GSC Bulletin 597, at page 41, where they comment:
“The origin of these structures has been the subject of speculation for a great many years, and the controversy likely will not be settled until such time as one of the columns can be dismantled at its base to determine whether it originated from the bottom or top. ... The origin of these structures... has been attributed to fossil tree trunks, potholes excavated and later infilled with sand, concretions, collapse or local slumping of sand into cavities in underlying Precambrian marble, and dewatering processes. As proposed by Sanford (2007), a logical explanation for the origin of the columns is that of potholes later infilled with sand, as a fair amount of evidence suggests that they were drilled from the top down by rotating quartzite cobbles caught up in vortices on the floor of high energy systems, much like the motion of a diamond bit drilling into bedrock.”
That suggestion notwithstanding, the majority of recent commentators favour dewatering processes.
Locations in Ontario Where the Cylindrical Structures Have Been Found
Cylindrical sandstone structures that cut across the bedding in Potsdam Group sandstones in Eastern Ontario have been found at three quarries to the north of Kingston and Gananoque, namely:
A) the Hughes quarry, Lots 8 and 9, Concession V, Pittsburgh Township, Frontenac County;
B) the Sloan quarry, Lot 11, Concession VI, Storrington Township, Frontenac County;
C) the Ellisville quarry at Ellisville, Ontario, Lots 19 and 20, Concession VII, Rear of Leeds and Lansdowne Township, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.
Similar structures have been reported in two cliffs in lots 21 and 22 , Concession X of Storrington Township, “on the sandstone tongue, along which the road runs, at the north side of Dog Lake” (Baker, M.B. (1916), The Geology of Kingston and Vicinity, Ontario Bureau of Mines, Vol. XXV., Part III, No. 4, page 19).
Cylindrical sandstone specimens were also collected from Potsdam sandstones near Almonte (See: Dawson, W. J. (1889), Remarks of the President on Certain Ancient Concretions, Canadian Record of Science, Volume 3, pages 293-294 (read November 26, 1888 before The Natural History Society, Montreal); Dawson, W. J. (1890) On Burrows and Tracks of Invertebrate Animals in Palaeozoic Rocks , and Other Markings, London Quart. Journal Geol. Soc. 46, pp. 595-617 at pages 609-610 (Read May 14, 1890).
Dawson (1890) also reports that “Many years ago specimens were obtained from the Potsdam Sandstone of Ontario, by the late Sir William Logan, which presented the aspect of large cylindrical trunks, a foot or more in diameter. ... showing obscure concentric lines on the ends. No opinion was, I believe hazarded at that time respecting their origin...” I have not been able to determine where in Ontario Logan obtained those specimens.
I’ve been told by two geologists that they are also present in the sandstone around Charleston Lake.
I have not yet found a similar structure in the Potsdam Group sandstones close to Perth, but I'll keep looking.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
[Added: September 30, 2015:
For cylindrical structures at Charleston Lake Provincial Park see:
Donaldson, J.A. and Chiarenzelli, J. R.,2004,
Pre-Cambrian Basement and Cambrian-Ordovician Strata, as Displayed in Three Provincial Parks in Canada, Trip A-1, New York Geological Association, 76th Annual Meeting Field Trip Guidebook, pages 63-78. Stop 6 - Charleston Lake Provincial Park, Giant Cylinder in Nepean Formation, at page 74. Figure 11 at page 76 has the caption “The cylindrical structure along Sandstone Island Trail, Charleston Lake Provincial Park.
Forsyth, D.A. and Forsyth, M.E., 2011,
Pillars in the Park,
GAC/AGC - MAC/AMC - SEG - SGA Joint Annual Meeting, Ottawa 2011, Abstracts Volume 34, at page 66
They report on “sandstone cylinders or pillars” in Charleston Lake Provincial, noting that “At least 8 cylinder sites are hosted by the sandstone plateau in the Provincial Park. These “water escape” features in the form of cylinders or pillars may be the lithified remains of water table spring conduits that developed in response to water flow through very clean and well sorted sand overlying undulating Precambrian surface topography. Various cylinder forms resemble active, lithified and unconsolidated structures reported from the USA and the Himalayas as well as some reported from more recent glacial sand deposits in Quebec.” ]
Friday, 29 November 2013
Additional Geological Field Trip Guides for Eastern Ontario That Are Available Online
My last blog posting reported on a new geological field trip guide that is a 40 kilometer bike tour that starts in Perth. There are a number of additional geological field trip guides for Eastern Ontario that are available online, including the ones mentioned below. The first two guides were posted to the internet this year, as was a guide to the Kingston area.
++++++++++++++++++++++
MADAWASKA TO MACNAMARA TRAIL AND MACNAMARA TRAIL GEOTOURS, ARNPRIOR
by Dave and Mary Forsyth, 2013. Macnamara Field Naturalists Club.
http://www.mfnc.ca/images/images_frontend/pdf/arnpriorgeotour.pdf
This provides two geological field trip guides: the first is along the Madawaska to the Macnamara Trail; the second is along the Macnamara Trail. Both trails are in Arnprior, Ontario and fall within the Nopiming Game Sanctuary, a Crown Game Preserve solely on private land.
The Macnamara Nature Trail is an interpretive trail that is maintained by the Macnamara Field Naturalists Club in Arnprior. The trail is approximately four kilometres long with an optional one kilometre branch. The main trail is marked with blue-and-white hiking symbols. A guide to the nature and features at the 19 numbered stops along the trail can be downloaded from:
http://www.mfnc.ca/images/images_frontend/pdf/macnamaratrailguide.pdf
Where to park your car is set out at http://www.mfnc.ca/macnamaratrail.html
Dave and Mary Forsyth’s geological guide supplements the nature guide.
++++++++++++++++++++++
A GEOLOGY PRIMER FOR THE MORRIS ISLAND CONSERVATION AREA
by Dave and Mary Forsyth, 2013. Macnamara Field Naturalists Club.
http://www.mfnc.ca/images/images_frontend/pdf/morrisislandconversationarea_geology.pdf
This guide has 11 stops along trails through the Morris Island Conservation Area
The Morris Island Conservation Area is located along the Ottawa River just west of the community of Fitzroy Harbour. This 47 hectare site consists of forested woodlands and wetlands. The Mississippi Valley Conservation manages this site for day-use recreational activities such as hiking, picnicking, canoeing, fishing and natural interpretation. Morris Island Conservation Area is open to the public year round and is jointly owned by Ontario Power Generation and the City of Ottawa. See:
http://ontarioconservationareas.ca/component/mtree/conservation-authorities-of-ontario/mississippi-valley/morris-island-conservation-area
++++++++++++++++++++++
OTTAWA-GATINEAU GEOLOGICAL FIELD TRIPS
From Professor Allan Donaldson's course in the Learning in Retirement Seminars at Carleton University.
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~jadonald/fieldtrips.html
This guide contains six trips, including to the outcrop of Stromatolites on the Quebec side of the Champlain Bridge (which are best viewed when the Ottawa River is low).
++++++++++++++++++++++
GEOLOGY OF THE OTTAWA AREA
Ottawa-Gatineau Geoheritage Project Field Trip
Compiled by Quentin Gall
November, 2010
http://www.ottawagatineaugeoheritage.ca/downloads/Geology%20Of%20The%20Ottawa%20Area.pdf
++++++++++++++++++++++
FIELD TRIPPING: GEOLOGY OF THE KINGSTON AREA
By H.H. Helmstaedt, W.A. Gorman & S.L. McBride, Department of Geological Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6,
1987
www.whaton.uwaterloo.ca/waton/s906.html
++++++++++++++++++++++
FIELD TRIP GUIDE: GEOLOGY OF THE KINGSTON AREA
80th Meeting of Eastern Section of the Seismological Society of America at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, October 5, 2008
Field Trip Leader: Laurent Godin
Field Trip Guide prepared by H. Helmstaedt and L. Godin
Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
http://geol.queensu.ca/ESSSA2008/field_trip_manual.pdf
Five stops, including the Holleford Crater.
++++++++++++++++++++++
GEOLOGY OF THE KINGSTON AREA: 1.1 BILLION YEARS OF EARTH HISTORY
GeoEngineering Centre Field Trip 2013
Miller Museum of Geology
Miller Hall, Queen’s University
http://www.geoeng.ca/GeoEngCentre_fieldtrip2013_fullDescription%5B1%5D.pdf
Six stops, including the Abbey Dawn roadcut (a good example of an unconformity).
++++++++++++++++++++++
GEOTOUR OF FRONTENAC ARCH BIOSPHERE RESERVE
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Geological Notes Prepared by Allan Donaldson & Chris Findlay,
Friends of Canadian Geoheritage
http://www.explorethearch.ca/sites/explorethearch.ca/files/GeoTour_Guidebook_2008_reduced_0.pdf
Ten Stops, starting at the Lyn Valley Conservation Part, and returning to Brockville. Aimed at field naturalists.
++++++++++++++++++++++
FALL GEOLOGY/ECOLOGY BOAT TOUR - ST LAWRENCE RIVER 1000 ISLANDS
October 17, 2010
Geology/Ecology Tour Guides: Al Donaldson, Dave Forsyth, Chris Findlay and Bud Andress,
http://www.frontenacarchbiosphere.ca/explore/fab-education/geology/st-lawrence-river-thousand-islands-geology-boat-tour
This tour starts at Mallorytown Landing and proceeds along the St. Lawrence River to Gananoque. It visits 8 sites that illustrate the major geological components of the region. At each stop the descriptions in the guide discuss the rock types and geological features. Looks to be a great tour for a summer’s day, if you have a boat.
++++++++++++++++++++++
DEGLACIATION OF THE CHAMPLAIN SEA BASIN, EASTERN ONTARIO
By Hazen A. J. Russell and Don I. Cummings (field-trip leaders)
Geological Survey of Canada
With contributions from Jan Aylsworth, Greg Brooks, Jean-Pierre Guilbault, Marc Hinton, André Pugin, Susan Pullan, and David Sharpe
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/friends/pdf/FOP2009Guide.pdf
Abstract: The Champlain Sea was an inland arm of the Atlantic Ocean that invaded the St. Lawrence Lowland following retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. This field trip reviews a number of aspects of the deglacial landforms and deposits of the area, discusses the Champlain Sea deposits and reviews the societal implications of the deposits from a geotechnical and hydrogeological perspective. Day one of the two day trip is spent on the Vars - Winchester esker which provides an opportunity to discuss esker and Champlain Sea deposits and to highlight the geotechnical and hydrogeological issues associated with these deposits. Day two of the trip visits the Cantley quarry and discusses the evidence for and against subglacial meltwater erosion for the sculpted forms at the site.
++++++++++++++++++++++
TECTONIC HISTORY OF THE GRENVILLE PROVINCE, ONTARIO
Field Trip Guidebook A5, Precambrian ‘95
Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3142
By A. Davidson, 1995
http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geott/ess_pubs/205/205286/of_3142.pdf
This six day field trip is for geologists with a serious interest in the Grenville Province of the Canadian Shield, rather than field naturalists, but does provide the location of some outcrops that will be of interest to field naturalists.
Day 5: Bancroft to Sharbot Lake. Stop 5-10 is a photogenic outcrop of pillowed basalts at the junction of County Roads 41 and 506 south of Bon Echo Provincial Park (see:
http://naturallyrichfrontenacs.com/bedrock.html )
Day 6: Sharbot Lake to Gananoque
++++++++++++++++++++++
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
++++++++++++++++++++++
MADAWASKA TO MACNAMARA TRAIL AND MACNAMARA TRAIL GEOTOURS, ARNPRIOR
by Dave and Mary Forsyth, 2013. Macnamara Field Naturalists Club.
http://www.mfnc.ca/images/images_frontend/pdf/arnpriorgeotour.pdf
This provides two geological field trip guides: the first is along the Madawaska to the Macnamara Trail; the second is along the Macnamara Trail. Both trails are in Arnprior, Ontario and fall within the Nopiming Game Sanctuary, a Crown Game Preserve solely on private land.
The Macnamara Nature Trail is an interpretive trail that is maintained by the Macnamara Field Naturalists Club in Arnprior. The trail is approximately four kilometres long with an optional one kilometre branch. The main trail is marked with blue-and-white hiking symbols. A guide to the nature and features at the 19 numbered stops along the trail can be downloaded from:
http://www.mfnc.ca/images/images_frontend/pdf/macnamaratrailguide.pdf
Where to park your car is set out at http://www.mfnc.ca/macnamaratrail.html
Dave and Mary Forsyth’s geological guide supplements the nature guide.
++++++++++++++++++++++
A GEOLOGY PRIMER FOR THE MORRIS ISLAND CONSERVATION AREA
by Dave and Mary Forsyth, 2013. Macnamara Field Naturalists Club.
http://www.mfnc.ca/images/images_frontend/pdf/morrisislandconversationarea_geology.pdf
This guide has 11 stops along trails through the Morris Island Conservation Area
The Morris Island Conservation Area is located along the Ottawa River just west of the community of Fitzroy Harbour. This 47 hectare site consists of forested woodlands and wetlands. The Mississippi Valley Conservation manages this site for day-use recreational activities such as hiking, picnicking, canoeing, fishing and natural interpretation. Morris Island Conservation Area is open to the public year round and is jointly owned by Ontario Power Generation and the City of Ottawa. See:
http://ontarioconservationareas.ca/component/mtree/conservation-authorities-of-ontario/mississippi-valley/morris-island-conservation-area
++++++++++++++++++++++
OTTAWA-GATINEAU GEOLOGICAL FIELD TRIPS
From Professor Allan Donaldson's course in the Learning in Retirement Seminars at Carleton University.
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~jadonald/fieldtrips.html
This guide contains six trips, including to the outcrop of Stromatolites on the Quebec side of the Champlain Bridge (which are best viewed when the Ottawa River is low).
++++++++++++++++++++++
GEOLOGY OF THE OTTAWA AREA
Ottawa-Gatineau Geoheritage Project Field Trip
Compiled by Quentin Gall
November, 2010
http://www.ottawagatineaugeoheritage.ca/downloads/Geology%20Of%20The%20Ottawa%20Area.pdf
++++++++++++++++++++++
FIELD TRIPPING: GEOLOGY OF THE KINGSTON AREA
By H.H. Helmstaedt, W.A. Gorman & S.L. McBride, Department of Geological Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6,
1987
www.whaton.uwaterloo.ca/waton/s906.html
++++++++++++++++++++++
FIELD TRIP GUIDE: GEOLOGY OF THE KINGSTON AREA
80th Meeting of Eastern Section of the Seismological Society of America at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, October 5, 2008
Field Trip Leader: Laurent Godin
Field Trip Guide prepared by H. Helmstaedt and L. Godin
Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
http://geol.queensu.ca/ESSSA2008/field_trip_manual.pdf
Five stops, including the Holleford Crater.
++++++++++++++++++++++
GEOLOGY OF THE KINGSTON AREA: 1.1 BILLION YEARS OF EARTH HISTORY
GeoEngineering Centre Field Trip 2013
Miller Museum of Geology
Miller Hall, Queen’s University
http://www.geoeng.ca/GeoEngCentre_fieldtrip2013_fullDescription%5B1%5D.pdf
Six stops, including the Abbey Dawn roadcut (a good example of an unconformity).
++++++++++++++++++++++
GEOTOUR OF FRONTENAC ARCH BIOSPHERE RESERVE
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Geological Notes Prepared by Allan Donaldson & Chris Findlay,
Friends of Canadian Geoheritage
http://www.explorethearch.ca/sites/explorethearch.ca/files/GeoTour_Guidebook_2008_reduced_0.pdf
Ten Stops, starting at the Lyn Valley Conservation Part, and returning to Brockville. Aimed at field naturalists.
++++++++++++++++++++++
FALL GEOLOGY/ECOLOGY BOAT TOUR - ST LAWRENCE RIVER 1000 ISLANDS
October 17, 2010
Geology/Ecology Tour Guides: Al Donaldson, Dave Forsyth, Chris Findlay and Bud Andress,
http://www.frontenacarchbiosphere.ca/explore/fab-education/geology/st-lawrence-river-thousand-islands-geology-boat-tour
This tour starts at Mallorytown Landing and proceeds along the St. Lawrence River to Gananoque. It visits 8 sites that illustrate the major geological components of the region. At each stop the descriptions in the guide discuss the rock types and geological features. Looks to be a great tour for a summer’s day, if you have a boat.
++++++++++++++++++++++
DEGLACIATION OF THE CHAMPLAIN SEA BASIN, EASTERN ONTARIO
By Hazen A. J. Russell and Don I. Cummings (field-trip leaders)
Geological Survey of Canada
With contributions from Jan Aylsworth, Greg Brooks, Jean-Pierre Guilbault, Marc Hinton, André Pugin, Susan Pullan, and David Sharpe
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/friends/pdf/FOP2009Guide.pdf
Abstract: The Champlain Sea was an inland arm of the Atlantic Ocean that invaded the St. Lawrence Lowland following retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. This field trip reviews a number of aspects of the deglacial landforms and deposits of the area, discusses the Champlain Sea deposits and reviews the societal implications of the deposits from a geotechnical and hydrogeological perspective. Day one of the two day trip is spent on the Vars - Winchester esker which provides an opportunity to discuss esker and Champlain Sea deposits and to highlight the geotechnical and hydrogeological issues associated with these deposits. Day two of the trip visits the Cantley quarry and discusses the evidence for and against subglacial meltwater erosion for the sculpted forms at the site.
++++++++++++++++++++++
TECTONIC HISTORY OF THE GRENVILLE PROVINCE, ONTARIO
Field Trip Guidebook A5, Precambrian ‘95
Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3142
By A. Davidson, 1995
http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geott/ess_pubs/205/205286/of_3142.pdf
This six day field trip is for geologists with a serious interest in the Grenville Province of the Canadian Shield, rather than field naturalists, but does provide the location of some outcrops that will be of interest to field naturalists.
Day 5: Bancroft to Sharbot Lake. Stop 5-10 is a photogenic outcrop of pillowed basalts at the junction of County Roads 41 and 506 south of Bon Echo Provincial Park (see:
http://naturallyrichfrontenacs.com/bedrock.html )
Day 6: Sharbot Lake to Gananoque
++++++++++++++++++++++
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
Murphys Point Bike Loop: A Geological Interpretation, by Bradley S. Wilson
This fall saw the release of a new geological field trip guide that covers part of Lanark County. Entitled Murphys Point Bike Loop: A Geological Interpretation, the twenty-four page brochure was written by Brad Wilson a consulting geologist based in Kingston, Ontario. It was prepared with the financial support of Ontario’s Highlands Tourism Organization Recreational Geology Project.
Free paper copies of the brochure can be obtained from the tourism office in the Perth Museum, Matheson House, at 11 Gore Street East in Perth, and from the tourism office in the Perth & District Chamber of Commerce office in the Old Fire Hall with Hose Tower, at 34 Herriott Street in Perth. A pdf copy of the brochure can be downloaded from:
http://sgraycomm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/murphys-point-bike-loop-aug5-13-final-download-small.pdf
The geological guide covers a 40 kilometer bike loop from Perth to Murphys Point Provincial Park and back along flat country roads. The author estimates this to be a three hour bike ride. The route starts in Perth, goes south-east along Rideau Ferry Road (County Road 1), south along Elm Grove Road (County Road 21) which becomes Lally Road, north along Narrows Lock Road (County Road 14 ) and north-east along Scotch Line (County Road 10), returning to Perth. Below is the map from the brochure.
The guide is clearly written and will likely be enjoyed by both those with a geological background and field naturalists. It contains numerous figures and colour photographs of outcrops, and the above map showing the location of all eighteen stops on the tour. The first five pages of the brochure provide an introduction to the geology of Lanark County. Highlights of the tour include outcrops where glacial striae are visible, an unconformity between rocks of the Precambrian Shield and overlying Paleozoic rocks, the type locality for Perthite, and a visit to the Silver Queen Mica Mine.
The best part of the brochure, besides the clear writing style of the author, is that it doesn’t try to cover all of the outcrops along the tour. It leaves many outcrops to be discovered and explored.
While written for a bike tour, it also works as a field trip guide for those that would rather drive. However, two points should be kept in mind if you drive. First, there are some deep ditches beside some of shoulders of the road, and care should be taken when parking. Second, the tour passes through Murphys Point Provincial Park, and one has to pay to park in the parking lots in the park (for example, the parking lot closest to the Silver Queen Mine, which is part of the park).
This is the second recent geological brochure for Lanark County that has been prepared with the support of Ontario’s Highlands Tourism Organization Recreational Geology Project. The first, released a little a year ago, is entitled Introduction to the Geodiversity of Perth: A Self-Guided Tour of Rocks on Display at the Crystal Palace, Tay Basin, Perth, Ontario and was written by Dr. Allan Donaldson, a retired professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. This fourteen page brochure is a walking tour. This is also a clearly written brochure with colour photographs. Paper copies of this brochure can also be obtained from the tourism office in the Matheson House Museum in Perth, and from the tourism office in the Chamber of Commerce in Perth. It can also be downloaded in pdf format from:
http://www.perthtourism.ca/uploads/1/6/1/3/16138712/perth_geohistory_booklet.pdf
If you stop at the Matheson House Museum in Perth to pick up copies of either brochure, be sure to look at the rocks, minerals and fossils on display on the top floor of the museum.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
Addendum (October 6, 2016)
Introduction to the Geodiversity of Perth: A Self-Guided Tour of Rocks on Display at the Crystal Palace, Tay Basin, Perth, Ontario, by Dr. J Allan Donaldson
This brochure can now be downloaded in pdf format from the Stephanie Gray’s web site at:
https://sgraycomm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/perth-geohistory-booklet-sept20-small.pdf
Friday, 13 September 2013
A Selection of Fossils from the March Formation in Lanark County, Ontario
A year ago I collected a number of specimens of fossils, and photographs of fossils, from a quarry in Lanark County about a five minute drive north of Perth. The quarry is in lot 10, concession IV of Drummond Township. The quarry falls in an area that has been mapped as the March Formation. It is a section of flat lying beds of sedimentary rock (primarily sandstone) that in an earlier posting I described as the Drummond Sequence as it falls in an area that was surveyed as Drummond Township. The Drummond Sequence is bounded by faults that separate it on the west from Nepean Formation (Potsdam Group) sandstones, on the southeast from March Formation, on the northeast from Nepean Formation sandstones, on the north from Precambrian Shield and on the northwest from Precambrian Shield. It has an irregular shape and covers over 100 square kilometers. It can be viewed on Ontario Geological Survey Maps P2724 and P 2725 that can be downloaded from:
P2724 - Paleozoic geology, Perth area, southern Ontario
http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/P2724/P2724.pdf
P2725 - Paleozoic geology, Carleton Place area, southern Ontario
http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/P2725/P2725.pdf
(The March Formation is unit “3" on the maps, while the Nepean Formation is unit “2".)
The March Formation is generally considered to be Lower Ordovician in age and is equivalent to the Theresa Formation in Quebec and New York State. As originally envisaged by Sir William Logan of the Geological Survey of Canada it was the passage or transition beds between the underlying Potsdam Sandstone and the overlying Calciferous formation. In 1937, 1938 & 1946 Alice E. Wilson of the Geological Survey of Canada renamed the Potsdam Sandstone as the Nepean Sandstone (overlooking the older portions of the Potsdam), renamed Logan’s passage beds as the March Formation, and renamed the Calciferous as the Oxford Formation.
Wilson (1937 & 1938), described the March Formation unit as being composed of "thick beds of interstratified grey sandstones with a calcareous cement and sandy blue-grey dolomites, both weathering a rusty brown". Her 1946 description was “The March formation consists of alternating grey sandstone and sandy dolomite or blue-grey dolomite, all weathering dark rusty brown. ... The formation represents a transition from the Nepean sandstone to the Oxford Dolomite, the sand content being most evident at the base..” She stated that “The lower contact [with the Nepean sandstone] is placed arbitrarily at the lowest dolomitic layer.”
In the quarry where I was collecting things are more complicated. Anything goes. While the predominant rock is sandstone, I’ve found dolostone, mudstone, siltstone, minor shale, and a bit of limestone. The sandstones, mudstones and siltstones can be just about any colour (reddish, brown, ochre, black, grey, tan, etc.). There are many examples of mud cracks and ripple marks, and possible microbial mat structures.
[2019: I have retracted a number of paragraphs from the original post. I did this because I failed to recognize that I had found Ediacaran fossils. The discs shown under number 7 below are Aspidella. Under number 4, the sixth and seventh photos show Ediacaran fronds. Most of the photos show Ediacaran fossils or microbial mat textures. See my March, 2019 postings for a better explanation.
At most only the top layers of the quarry are March Formation. ]
The Fossils
Below I’ve provided the photographs. I had hoped to go through and look up the scientific names for the fossils. As that hasn’t happened over the past year, I’ve decided to put a selection of photographs on my blog to stimulate interest in the Drummond Sequence.. I’ve grouped the fossils in a way that makes sense to me.
1. Bedding Parallel Burrows in a bed close to the top of this section of the quarry.
Sam_0180 and 182
2. Simple cylindrical, curving burrows roughly parallel to bedding plane
Sam_0037
3. Larger, rougher, cylindrical, curving burrows roughly parallel to bedding plane
Sam_0525
4 Branching, overlapping, possibly interpenetrating, roughly parallel to bedding plane
P820760, Sam_0016, Sam_0023, Sam_00 31, Sam_00 34, Sam_0102, Sam_0140
5 Faint Circles: Medusae or discoid holdfast?
P820758
6 Discs and concentric cylindrical features parallel to bedding plane: discoid holdfasts.
Sam_00 40, Sam_0138, Sam_0149
7 A Congestion/Colony of Multiple discoid holdfasts
Sam_0121 & 123 - same slab
8 Lindt Truffles (circular, about the size of the candy, with a thin 2-4 mm rim and a different coloured centre) -
Sam_0046 & 47
9 Thin Film, barely there
Sam_0053
10 Sam_0070, 71, 73, 75
11 Stromatolite (Dr. Al Donaldson's identification)
Sam_0129
I hope these photographs stimulate interest in these rocks.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
P2724 - Paleozoic geology, Perth area, southern Ontario
http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/P2724/P2724.pdf
P2725 - Paleozoic geology, Carleton Place area, southern Ontario
http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/P2725/P2725.pdf
(The March Formation is unit “3" on the maps, while the Nepean Formation is unit “2".)
The March Formation is generally considered to be Lower Ordovician in age and is equivalent to the Theresa Formation in Quebec and New York State. As originally envisaged by Sir William Logan of the Geological Survey of Canada it was the passage or transition beds between the underlying Potsdam Sandstone and the overlying Calciferous formation. In 1937, 1938 & 1946 Alice E. Wilson of the Geological Survey of Canada renamed the Potsdam Sandstone as the Nepean Sandstone (overlooking the older portions of the Potsdam), renamed Logan’s passage beds as the March Formation, and renamed the Calciferous as the Oxford Formation.
Wilson (1937 & 1938), described the March Formation unit as being composed of "thick beds of interstratified grey sandstones with a calcareous cement and sandy blue-grey dolomites, both weathering a rusty brown". Her 1946 description was “The March formation consists of alternating grey sandstone and sandy dolomite or blue-grey dolomite, all weathering dark rusty brown. ... The formation represents a transition from the Nepean sandstone to the Oxford Dolomite, the sand content being most evident at the base..” She stated that “The lower contact [with the Nepean sandstone] is placed arbitrarily at the lowest dolomitic layer.”
In the quarry where I was collecting things are more complicated. Anything goes. While the predominant rock is sandstone, I’ve found dolostone, mudstone, siltstone, minor shale, and a bit of limestone. The sandstones, mudstones and siltstones can be just about any colour (reddish, brown, ochre, black, grey, tan, etc.). There are many examples of mud cracks and ripple marks, and possible microbial mat structures.
[2019: I have retracted a number of paragraphs from the original post. I did this because I failed to recognize that I had found Ediacaran fossils. The discs shown under number 7 below are Aspidella. Under number 4, the sixth and seventh photos show Ediacaran fronds. Most of the photos show Ediacaran fossils or microbial mat textures. See my March, 2019 postings for a better explanation.
At most only the top layers of the quarry are March Formation. ]
The Fossils
Below I’ve provided the photographs. I had hoped to go through and look up the scientific names for the fossils. As that hasn’t happened over the past year, I’ve decided to put a selection of photographs on my blog to stimulate interest in the Drummond Sequence.. I’ve grouped the fossils in a way that makes sense to me.
1. Bedding Parallel Burrows in a bed close to the top of this section of the quarry.
Sam_0180 and 182
2. Simple cylindrical, curving burrows roughly parallel to bedding plane
Sam_0037
3. Larger, rougher, cylindrical, curving burrows roughly parallel to bedding plane
Sam_0525
4 Branching, overlapping, possibly interpenetrating, roughly parallel to bedding plane
P820760, Sam_0016, Sam_0023, Sam_00 31, Sam_00 34, Sam_0102, Sam_0140
5 Faint Circles: Medusae or discoid holdfast?
P820758
6 Discs and concentric cylindrical features parallel to bedding plane: discoid holdfasts.
Sam_00 40, Sam_0138, Sam_0149
7 A Congestion/Colony of Multiple discoid holdfasts
Sam_0121 & 123 - same slab
8 Lindt Truffles (circular, about the size of the candy, with a thin 2-4 mm rim and a different coloured centre) -
Sam_0046 & 47
9 Thin Film, barely there
Sam_0053
10 Sam_0070, 71, 73, 75
11 Stromatolite (Dr. Al Donaldson's identification)
Sam_0129
I hope these photographs stimulate interest in these rocks.
Christopher Brett
Perth, Ontario
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)