Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.

org on September 27, 2013

Geological Society of America Bulletin

The Caribbean Area: A Case of Destruction and Regeneration of a

Continent: Discussion
C. W HATTEN and A. A MEYERHOFF

Geological Society of America Bulletin 1970;81, no. 6;1855-1862

doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1970)81[1855:TCAACO]2.0.CO;2

Email alerting services click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail

alerts when new articles cite this article
Subscribe click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ to subscribe to
Geological Society of America Bulletin
Permission request click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to
contact GSA
Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees
within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission,
without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a
brief paragraph of text in subsequent works and to make unlimited copies of items in
GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science.
This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post the abstracts only of
their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting
includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for
the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless
of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in
this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.

Notes

Copyright © 1970, The Geological Society

of America, Inc. Copyright is not claimed
on any material prepared by U.S.
government employees within the scope of
their employment.
C. W. HATTEN Great Basins Petroleum Company, Los Angeles, California 90067
A. A. MEYERHOFF The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101
The Caribbean Area: A Case of Destruction
and Regeneration of a Continent: Discussion
INTRODUCTION
Vladimir Skvor's article on the Caribbean
that appeared in the GSA Bulletin (v. 80, no. 6,
p. 961-968) contains some interesting specula-
tions, but the author's apparent lack of familiar-
ity with both the literature and the field
geology of the area—particularly Cuba—is
reflected in the inclusion of much outdated and/
or inaccurate information. So much has been
published concerning Cuba during recent years
that it is difficult to understand why Skvor
did not utilize the publications available. The
purposes of our discussion, therefore, are to
point out factual errors in his paper and to
supplement Skvor's inadequate list of Cuban
references,
BASEMENT COMPLEX
Skvor implied (p. 961) that a regionally
metamorphosed "basal complex" underlies all
of the islands of the Greater Antilles. Meta-
morphic rocks are present in most of the
Greater Antillean islands, but their ages are not
known and, in some places, it can be shown that
the ages are very different. (The probable age
range of metamorphic rocks referred to "base-
ment" in the Greater Antilles is Paleozoic
through Early Cretaceous.) Possibly, the out-
crops of the "basal complex" in Cuba (Oriente
Province, Escambray Mountains-Sierra de
Trinidad, and Isla de Pinos) are of the same
age. However, no positive evidence is known
that would relate in time the metamorphic
rocks of Cuba to those of Hispanola (Butterlin,
1960; Weyl, 1966; Kudoley and Meyerhoff,
1968) and Puerto Rico (Mattson, 1964;
Tobisch, 1968). The Cuban "basal complex"
also is exposed along the intrageosynclinal welt
of Khudoley (1967a; "median welt" of Meyer-
hoff and Hatten, 1968; see Fig. 1) in central Las
Villas and Camagiiey Provinces, where several
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1855-1862, 1 fig., June 1970
1855
igneous and metamorphic rock types are ex-
posed. The greenschist and amphibolite meta-
morphic facies of the Escambray Mountains,
mentioned by Skvor (p. 964), are not part of
the "basal complex" as he contends, but are
Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous volcanic
suites which were metamorphosed during the
middle Cretaceous ("Subhercynian") bath-
olithic emplacement (Hatten, 1967).
ROCKS ABOVE "BASAL COMPLEX"
Skvor's Statements
Skvor wrote (p. 961) that the "basal com-
plex" is overlain unconformably by Upper
Cretaceous. This particular statement appears
in a passage whose clarity leaves something to
be desired—an almost classic sequence of non
sequiturs (p. 961):
Paleontological evidence of the age of this (basal)
complex is still not known. The complex is overlain
uncomformably (sic) by Upper Cretaceous. Part of
the paleontological evidence is the thick flysch
complex San Cayetano (sic), which rises in the
western part of the island. It is believed that the
fauna and flora gained from it is (sic) Lower to
Middle Jurassic in age.
Analysis of these statements leads the reader
to some bewilderment. The first statement in-
forms him that the age of the "basal complex"
is not known. The third and fourth statements
report that the San Cayetano Formation is of
Early to Middle Jurassic age. The second, or tie,
sentence between the first and third sentences is
that the "basal complex" is overlain by Upper
Cretaceous. (How did the San Cayetano Forma-
tion creep in?) Then, if this were not enough,
the very next statement on pages 961-962 of
Skvor's article deals with the Aptian and Albian
volcanic and associated rocks of the island.
Aptian and Albian are Early Cretaceous, or
middle Cretaceous, but not Late Cretaceous.
1856 HATTEN AND MEYERHOFF—THE CARIBBEAN AREA—DISCUSSION
SIERRA DE
PINAR DEL RIO TRINIDAD AREA
FAULT LA TROCHA FAULT TREND
>!*
/i CAUTO FAULT
>•;-, TREND
i_ i_
Figure 1. Relations between Bouguer gravity trends, ultramafic rock outcrops, major wrench fault trends, and
median welt. Bouguer trendsyrom Soloviev and others (1964a) ; ultramafic rock outcropsyrom Nunez-Jimenez and
others (1962), and Ducloz and Vuagnat (1962) ; median welt position from Meyerhoff and Hatten (1968).
At this point, we believe that almost any reader
would be hopelessly lost. The problem is
worsened on pages 963-964, where Skvor wrote:
The brief survey of the geological structure and
stratigraphical development of Cuba shows clearly
that we must distinguish here two different cycles
of geological development. The evidence of the
first cycle is furnished by the existence of the meta-
morphic complex ("basal complex"), which is over-
lain uncomformably (sic) by a paleontologically
proved Upper Cretaceous (italics ours).
In a subsequent passage, Skvor (p. 964)
wrote:
. . . we may distinguish two cycles: an older Paleo-
zoic cycle of geological development and a younger
Neoidic cycle. It is known that the Neoidic develop-
ment was characterized by a strong volcanic
activity, pyroclastic and organic sedimentation.
The former cycles of geological events cannot be
described in greater detail on the basis of the rock
outcrops in Cuba. It is possible to state that
lithologically the primary pelitic and psamitic (sic)
sedimentary rocks predominate. Some intercala-
tions of limestone and basic rocks or tuffs are
frequent.
The passages leave the reader with the under-
CUBA
0 SO 100 ISO
POSITION
WELT OF MEDIAN
^ BASIC AND ULTRA-
BASIC ROCKS
fO GRAVITY CONTOURS
IN MGALS
^i -ZO TO-4O MGAL
CUD +60 TO+160 MGAL
MGAL
„ AREA OF POSSIBLE
BASEMENT COMPLEX
EXPOSURES
j_ |_ __
standing that the presence of a Paleozoic —or
at least ancient — cycle is established, and that
the younger, Neoidic cycle, is Late Cretaceous
and younger. Nowhere does Skvor explain
where the Early to Middle Jurassic San
Cayetano Formation and the Aptian-Albian
volcanic rocks fit into the geologic history of
Cuba.
San Cayetano Formation
Skvor's manner of introducing this Early
and Middle Jurassic unit is not just unusual; it
leaves a great gap in the paper, for nowhere
does he mention the San Cayetano again, nor
does he relate it to either the "basal complex"
(Paleozoic cycle) or the late Cretaceous and
younger beds (Neoidic cycle).
Our first impression was that Skvor meant to
correlate the "basal complex" with the San
Cayetano, as numerous geologists do (Fur-
razola and others, 1964, 1965; Kuman and
Gavilan, 1965; Khudoley, 1967a; Khudoley, in
Khudoley and Meyerhoff, 1968). However,
he defined (p. 963-964) the "basal complex"
as a Paleozoic cycle. If Skvor meant to include
the San Cayetano with the Neoidic complex,
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS
he erred again, for he defined the Neoidic com-
plex as a development of ". . . strong volcanic
activity, pyroclastic and organic sedimentation"
(p. 964). The San Cayetano is a thick (1500 to
5000 m) unit of monotonous, alternate beds of
sandstone, siltstone, and shale. No volcanic
rocks are associated with the San Cayetano.
The San Cayetano's position in Cuban
geologic history has been controversial since it
was first named by DeGolyer (1918). It con-
tains a diagnostic Jurassic flora (Vachrameev,
1966) and a marine fauna of Bathonian to
Callovian age (Krommelbein, 1956; Imlay,
1964). The relations of the San Cayetano to the
"basal complex" are unknown. Khudoley
(1967a; also in Khudoley and Meyerhoff, 1968),
whose article is not cited by Skvor, believes
that the two are one and the same unit. Hatten
(1967), Tijomirov (1967), Meyerhoff and
Hatten (1968), and Meyerhoff (in Khudoley
and Meyerhoff, 1968)—none of whose works
are cited by Skvor—presented evidence for
believing that the San Cayetano is younger
than the "basal complex" (Trinidad Formation
and San Juan Marble). Hatten, Meyerhoff,
and Tijomirov agree with Skvor that the "basal
complex" is pre-Jurassic, probably Paleozoic,
although this age is not proved. Tijomirov
pointed out that the "basal complex" includes
large quantities of metamorphosed keratophyre,
tuffite, and related rocks of volcanic and
volcaniclastic origin—rocks totally unlike those
of the Early to Middle Jurassic pelitic and
psammitic San Cayetano Formation and the
younger Early to early Late Cretaceous vol-
canic rocks. Therefore, (1) Skvor's single men-
tion of the San Cayetano, and (2) his failure
to discuss this formation's possible significance
in the geologic history of Cuba comprise an
enigma. Certainly, Skvor contributed nothing
but confusion to this important problem in
Cuban geology.
Punta Alegre Formation
Nowhere did Skvor mention the Jurassic
Punta Alegre Formation—a thick halite-bear-
ing sequence which crops out in a few isolated
salt domes (Palmer, 1945; Ducloz, 1960; Mur-
ray, 1961; Meyerhoff, 1967; Meyerhoff and
Hatten, 1968).
Neoidic Cycle
The use of the term "Neoidic cycle" in
Cuban geology is new to us. Regardless, the
introduction of the term is less important than
1857
Skvor's assignment to it of a Late Cretaceous
and younger age.
Skvor wrote that the oldest dated rocks of
the Neoidic cycle above the "basal complex"
are Late Cretaceous. This is not correct. The
oldest paleontologically dated rocks above the
"basal complex" are Early Cretaceous (Wassail,
1956; Hatten, 1967; Meyerhoff, 1967; Meyer-
hoff, in Khudoley and Meyerhoff, 1968; Meyer-
hoff and Hatten, 1968).
For example, in the Quemadito area of Las
Villas Province, central Cuba, east of Jarahueca
(Fig. 1), a pre-Late Cretaceous arkosic sand-
stone does overlie the "basal complex." The
age of this arkosic sandstone is unknown, but it
grades upward into alternate beds of shale
(intercalated with spilite flows), tuffaceous
shale, and limestone; the limestones contain
planktonic Foraminifera and nannoplankton
of Neocomian, Aptian, and Albian ages (Meyer-
hoff and Hatten, 1968). Housa (1969), Skvor's
fellow countryman, has described Neocomian
fossils in rocks known to overlie the "basal
complex." On the Isla de Pinos, Early Creta-
ceous (Albian to early Cenomanian) volcanic
rocks overlie the "basal complex" (Kuman and
Gavilan 1965); in the Sierra de Trinidad
(Escambray Mountains), late Albian and early
Cenomanian volcanic rocks overlie the "basal
complex" (Rigassi, 1961).
In areas removed from exposures of the
"basal complex," 1000 to 3000 m of Port-
landian (latest Jurassic)-Early Cretaceous car-
bonate and evaporite is present in northern
Cuba, and 2500 to 4000 m of equivalent vol-
canic and pyroclastic rocks is in southern Cuba.
The age range of the north Cuban section is
well proved (Rutten, 1936; Imlay, 1942, 1952;
Bronnimann, 1953, 1955; Furrazola and others,
1964, 1965; Khudoley and Meyerhoff, 1968;
Kozary, 1968). The oldest proved strata in the
south Cuban volcanic sequence are Neocomian
(Quemadito area near Jarahueca, Las Villas
Province; see Fig. 1), and very possibly the age
of the oldest volcanic rocks is Late Jurassic
(Wassal, 1956; Meyerhoff, in Khudoley and
Meyerhoff, 1968; Meyerhoff and Hatten, 1968).
Early Cretaceous fossils have been known from
the volcanic sequence for many years (Thiadens,
1936a, 1936b, 1937; Rigassi, 1961; Meyerhoff
and Hatten, 1968).
Classic Late Jurassic ammonite localities
have been described in western Cuba for more
than 50 years (de la Torre, 1910, 1912; Brown
and O'Connell, 1919, 1922; Sanchez Roig,
1858 HATTEN AND MEYERHOFF—THE CARIBBEAN AREA—DISCUSSION
1919, 1920; O'Connell, 1920; Imlay, 1942,
1952; Arkell, 1956; Judoley and Furrazola-
Bermudez, 1965, 1968).
Exposures of Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous
rocks are widespread from the western to the
eastern ends of the island. Therefore, we do not
understand Skvor's reference to only a "Pale-
ozoic cycle" and a "Neoidic cycle" (Late
Cretaceous and younger), nor do we under-
stand in which cycle he might have placed the
San Cayetano Formation and the Aptian-
Albian rocks which he himself mentioned on
pages 961-962.
ULTRAMAFIC ROCKS
Skvor (p. 962-963) apparently accepted the
Cretaceous or Tertiary age generally assigned
to the serpentinite and serpentinized peridotite
belts of Cuba. He seems to have been unfamiliar
with Wassail's (1956) paper, in which the
original peridotitic intrusions are clearly shown
to be pre-Aptian. Meyerhoff and Hatten's
(1968) studies of the serpentinite and peridotite
bodies suggest that they are Late Jurassic.
Skvor also failed to mention the excellent
review of the problem published by Ducloz and
Vaugnat (1962), and did not consider the wide-
spread evidence for post-Late Jurassic remobil-
ization of the ultramafic bodies and "cold"
reintrusion.
An even older group of ultramafic rocks
intrudes the "basal complex." These intrusions
are few and small, but are known both from
the Sierra de Trinidad and the Isla de Pinos.
They have been described briefly by Thiadens
(1937), Hill (1959), Kumanand Gavilan (1965),
Tijomirov (1967), and Meyerhoff and Hatten
(1968). Khudoley (1967a; 1968, in Khudoley
and Meyerhoff) believes that the older ultra-
mafic rocks are Jurassic, but Tijomirov (1967)
and Meyerhoff (in Khudoley and Meyerhoff,
1968) assign to them a pre-Jurassic, probable
Paleozoic age.
ORIENTS PROVINCE
Skvor (p. 963) asserted that, during almost
all of Cretaceous time, Oriente Province was
dry land. This conclusion is difficult to accept
in view of the widespread presence of marine
Albian-Cenomanian, Turonian, Santonian-Con-
iacian, Campanian, and Maestrichtian volcanic
rocks and marine strata (Keijzer, 1945; Lewis
and Straczek, 1955; Nunez-Jimenez and others,
1962; Furrazola and others, 1964, 1965).
Easternmost Oriente Province may have been
exposed during much of Late Cretaceous time,
but large areas in the northwest, central, south-
ern, and southwestern parts of the province
were the sites of marine deposition and sub-
marine volcanism during Cretaceous time.
Skvor referred (p. 962) to the Paleogene
volcanic belt of the Sierra Maestra, easternmost
Cuba, and wrote that, "In petrographical and
geological composition, the belt is analogous
to the volcanic belt of Cretaceous age in cen-
tral Cuba." He failed to mention the fact that
the average composition of the Paleogene
volcanic rocks is notably more silicic than that
of the basic to andesitic rocks of the Early
Cretaceous volcanic belt of south-central Cuba.
Furthermore, Skvor did not mention that most
of the Paleogene "volcanic rocks" in reality are
tuff, agglomeratic beds, and numerous interbeds
of volcaniclastic sedimentary strata (Lewis and
Straczek, 1955; Furrazola and others, 1964,
1965). Flows comprise but a small part of the
total volume.
Skvor made no mention of the fact that some
of the volcanic-derived rocks of the Sierra
Maestra, formerly believed to be Paleogene,
are Campanian and/or Maestrichtian (Lewis
and Straczek, 1955). These overlie a thick, older
volcanic sequence in which Turonian limestone
tongues are interbedded (Khudoley and
Meyerhoff, 1968).
No mention was made by Skvor of the Cauto
fault zone which separates central Cuba from all
of Oriente Province except the northwestern
part (Kozary, 1956, 1968; Meyerhoff, 1966).
This complex fault zone had a profound effect
on the geologic history of Cuba after Early
Cretaceous time. The post-Early Cretaceous
history of Oriente Province south of the Cauto
fault zone was more like that of Hispanola.
GRANITIC PLUTONS
Skvor (p. 962-963) implied that there were
only two episodes of granitic intrusion:
one during Late Cretaceous time in central
Cuba; the other during Paleogene time in
eastern Cuba. Actually, in addition to the
Paleozoic (?) granitic bodies that intrude the
"basal complex," mid-Cretaceous (103 to 121
m.y.), Campanian-early Paleocene (61 to 78
m.y.), and late Paleocene to middle Eocene
(46 to 58 m.y.) granitic plutons and dikes have
been studied and dated by the K-Ar method
(Adamovich and Chejovich, 1964; Khudoley,
1967a, 1967b; Laverov and others, 1967;
Khudoley and Meyerhoff, 1968; Meyerhoff
and others, 1969). The first group of dates is
associated with mid-Cretaceous orogeny; the
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS
last two groups are the products of different
"Laramide" erogenic pulses. Most of the 46 to
58 m.y. dates are from the Sierra Maestra of
eastern Cuba.
STRUCTURAL FEATURES
Skvor discussed the west-northwest-east-
southeast and northeast-southwest structural
trends which dominate the island, but did not
give any hint of the extensive literature already
published on these trends. Suess (1908, p.
709-710) wrote of the two trends; Massip
and Ysalgue (1942) used the two trends as the
basis of their geographic subdivisions of Cuba;
Hess and Maxwell (1953), H. A. Meyerhoff
(1954), and many others recognized the two
dominant directions. Maps showing the fault
trends—constructed for many years by Cuban
and foreign geologists—were published by Nu-
nez-Jimenez and others (1962), Rigassi (1963),
Furrazola and others (1964), Judoley and others
(1965), Meyerhoff (1966), Hatten (1967),
Khudoley (1967a), Khudoley and Meyerhoff
(1968), and Meyerhoff and Hatten (1968).
Furrazola and others (1964) called them the
"Cuban" and "Cayman" trends, from an un-
published 1958 manuscript by Hatten and
others. Gravimetric and magnetometric maps
of the two structural grains were published by
Soloviev and others (1964a, 1964b). Evidence
for two of the northeast-southwest faults or
lineaments shown in Skvor's Figure 1 (the
second from the left and the second from the
right—the Cayo-Safinal [correct spelling: Cayo
Sabinal]—Camagiiey) has not been found in the
field. The westernmost northeast-southwest
transverse structural feature, the Pinar del
Rio fault zone of Wassail (1957, unpub.) and
Meyerhoff and Hatten (1968), does not follow
the line as shown by Skvor on page 962 but is
between Units 3 and 5 on his Figure 1; it is
shown correctly on Figure 1 of this discussion.
The so-called "deep-seated fault" (p. 962,
963) along which the serpentinites of Cuba were
emplaced is nonexistent in the area shown by
Skvor. There is a major fault in the general
vicinity of that shown by Skvor, but this is the
La Trocha wrench fault (not the Yatibonico
[correct spelling: JatibonicoJ-Tunas de Zora
[correct spelling: Zaza] trend, p. 963) (Fur-
razola and others, 1964; Hatten, 1967; Khud-
oley, 1967a); the La Trocha fault (Fig. 1) cuts
across the eugeosynclinal, miogeosynclinal, and
carbonate-evaporite platform facies of central
Cuba (Khudoley, 1967a; Meyerhoff and
Hatten, 1968). The Jatibonico fault (Furrazola
1859
and others, 1964) parallels the trend of the
island.
Skvor proposed that the gravimetric min-
imum trend associated with the serpentinite
belt is caused by the low serpentinite density;
he seemed to believe that the magnetic min-
imum trend also associated with the serpentinite
belt is the result of the following sequence of
events: (1) initial intrusion of peridotitic
rocks; (2) serpentinization; (3) exposure of
serpentinite; (4) erosion and redeposition of
the Serpentinite; (5) rotation and reorientation
of the magnetite grains during redeposition and
subsequent intrusion of new ultramafic rocks;
and (6) a net "cancelling" effect of the mag-
netic expression because of the many orienta-
tions of the magnetized particles. (He wrote
this despite the fact that, on page 962, he
described the serpentinite belt as follows:
"Peridotites, harzburgites, and other ultra basic
rock types are serpentinized to a various
degree." How could the magnetic particles be
reoriented if serpentinization is incomplete?
The writers' thin-section studies of these rocks
do not corroborate Skvor's ideas.)
Wassail (1956) and Rigassi (1961) suggested,
and Kozary (1956, 1968) and Hatten (1967; see
also Rigassi, 1963) proved, that the serpentinite
is thrust (or gravity glided) from south to
north—for distances up to 30 km from the
volcanic belt of southern Cuba (eugeosyncline)
onto the thick carbonate and evaporite rocks
of the north Cuban miogeosyncline and plat-
form sediments. Subsequently, Knipper and
Puig (1967) published additional evidence for
such thrusting and gravity gliding.
Actually, the north-coast gravity and mag-
netic anomaly trends coincide closely with the
maximum thickness of the Late Jurassic-middle
Eocene miogeosyncline-carbonate platform belt
of north-central Cuba, and therefore reflect
the presence of this thick sedimentary column.
Further evidence for the thrust or gravity-
glide interpretation is that ground surveys show
small, sharp gravity and magnetic anomalies
associated with the north-central Cuban
serpentinite belt. Such anomalies are not
visible on the aerial profiles. Further evidence
for this interpretation is the presence, in at
least one well drilled east of Habana, of
sedimentary rocks beneath the serpentinite
(Sass and Neff, 1965).
Skvor did not mention the fact that, south
of the main serpentinite belt in Matanzas and
Habana Provinces, the serpentinites have large,
pronounced, positive magnetic anomalies (Sol-
1860 HATTEN AND MEYERHOFF—THE CARIBBEAN AREA—DISCUSSION

oviev and others, 1964b). The same is true in is to record facts correctly. Cuba—not to men-
Oriente Province east and south of the Cauto tion the Caribbean—is an extremely complex
fault, a fact which Skvor did record. Thus, area—stratigraphically and tectonically. The
where aerial profiles show an absence of large two of us have done only 11 years of geological
gravity and magnetic anomalies above ultrama- work in Cuba; some geologists have spent life-
fic belts, the serpentinites probably are times and still the list of unsolved problems is
allochthonous; where large anomalies are pres- excessive. These problems will not be solved
ent, the ultramafic rocks presumably are au- unless all of the published work of those before
tochthonous. Complicated—even improbable— us is assimilated and understood. Only by com-
explanations such as that advanced by Skvor plete assimilation and understanding will (1)
do not seem to be required. the major problems be solved and (2) new, un-
necessary problems—created by publishing on
CONCLUSION the basis of very incomplete knowledge of the
We agree with Skvor's penultimate state- literature and the field of geology—be avoided.
ment (p. 966):
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The geological investigation of the Caribbean We thank Howard A. Meyerhoff for critical
region is not finished. A lot of work is left to be
done, and many problems remain to be solved. reading of this discussion and his valuable sug-
gestions for improving it. George V. Cohee
However, a prerequisite to solving problems checked capitalization.
REFERENCES CITED
Adamovich, A., and Chejovich, V., 1964, Prin- Habana, Minist. Industrias, Inst. Cubano
cipales caracteristicas de la geologia y de los Recursos Minerales, 239 p. + folio volume
minerales utiles de la region nordeste de la (in English trans.: Geology of Cuba, 1965
Provincia de Oriente: La Habana, Minist. [rev. 1968]: Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept.
Industrias, Inst. Cubano Recursos Minerales, Commerce, Joint Pub. Research Service,
Rev. Tecnologica, v. 2, no. 1, p. 14-20. Translations on Cuba no. 311, 207 p.).
Arkell, W. J., 1956, Jurassic geology of the world: Hatten, C. W., 1967, Principal features of Cuban
New York, Hafner Pub. Co., 806 p. geology: Discussion: Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Brbnnimann, P., 1953, On the occurrence of Geologists Bull., v. 51, no. 5, p. 780-789.
calpionellids in Cuba: Eclogae Geol. Helvetiae, Hess, H. H., and Maxwell, J. C., 1953, Caribbean
v. 46, no. 2, p. 263-268. research project: Geol. Soc. America Bull.,
1955, Microfossils incertae sedis from the Upper v. 64, no. 1, p. 1-6.
Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous of Cuba: Hill, P. A., 1959, Geology and structure of the
Micropaleontology, v. 1, no. 1, p. 28—49. northwest Trinidad Mountains, Las Villas
Brown, B., and O'Connell, M., 1919, Discovery Province: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 70,
of the Oxfordian in western Cuba (abs.): Geol. no. 11, p. 1459-1478.
Soc. America Bull., v. 30, p. 152. Housa, V. 1969, Neocomian rhyncolites from Cuba:
1922, Correlation of the Jurassic formations of Jour. Paleontology, v. 43, no. 1, p. 119-124.
western Cuba: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 33, Imlay, R. W., 1942, Late Jurassic fossils from Cuba
no. 3, p. 639-664. and their economic significance: Geol. Soc.
Butterlin, J., 1960, Geologic generale et regionale America Bull., v. 53, no. 10, p. 1417-1477.
de la Republique d'Haiti: Paris Univ. Inst. 1952, Correlation of the Jurassic formations of
Hautes Etudes Amerique Latine Traveaux et North America, exclusive of Canada: Geol.
Mem., v. 6, 194 p. Soc. America Bull., v. 63, no. 9, p. 953-992.
DeGolyer, E., 1918, The geology of Cuban petrole- 1964, in Meyerhoff, A. A., 1964 [A review of]
um deposits: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Las formaciones geologicas de Cuba, by P. J.
Bull., v. 2, p. 133-167. Bermudez: Internat. Geology Rev., v. 6, no. 1,
Ducloz, C., 1960, Apuntes sobre el yeso del Valle p. 152-153.
de Yumuri, Matanzas: La Habana, Soc. Judoley, C. M., and G. Furrazola-Bermudez, 1965,
Cubana Hist. Nat. Mem., v. 26, no. 1, p. 1-9. Estratigraffa del Jurasico superior de Cuba: La
Ducloz, C., and Vuagnat, M., 1962, A propos de Habana, Minist. Industrias, Inst. Cubano
Page des serpentinites de Cuba: Arch. Sci., Recursos Minerales, Pub. Esp. no. 3, 32 p.
Soc. Phys. et d'Hist. Nat. Geneve, v. 15, fasc. 1968 (pub. 1969), Estratigrafia y fauna del
2, p. 309-332. Jurasico de Cuba: La Habana, Acad. Ciencias
Furrazola-Bermudez, G., Judoley, C. M., Mijai- de Cuba, Dpto. Geol., and Inst. Cubano
lovskaya, M. S., Miroliubov, Yu. S., and Recursos Minerales, 126 p. plus 81 pis.
Solsona, J. B., 1964, Geologia de Cuba: La Judoley, C. M., Krasnov, V. I., Novojatsky, I. P.,
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS
and Skriabina, E., 1965, Mapa de yacimientos
minerales de Cuba: La Habana, Minist.
Industrias, Inst. Cubano Recursos Minerales,
4 sheets, scale, 1:500,000.
Kcijzer, F. C., 1945, Outline of the geology of the
eastern part of the Province of Oriente, Cuba
(E. of 76° W.L.) with notes on the geology of
other parts of the island: Utrecht, Geogr. en
Geol. Mededeel., Physiogr.-Geol. Reeks, ser.
2, no. 6, 239 p.
Khudoley, K. M., 1967a, Principal features of
Cuban geology: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol-
ogists Bull., v.' 51, no. 5, p. 668-677.
1967b, Principal features of Cuban geology:
Reply: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull.,
v. 5l', no. 5, p. 739-791.
Khudoley, K. M., and Meyerhoff, A. A., 1968,
Paleogeography and geological history of
Greater Antilles: Paper presented at 5th
Carib. Geol. Conf., Virgin Is., July 1968; full
text submitted to Geol. Soc. America in
September 1969.
Knipper, A. L., and Puig, M., 1967, Protrusiones
de las serpentinitas en el noroeste de Oriente:
La Habana, Acad. Ciencias Cuba, Rev. Geol-
ogi'a, Ano 1, no. 1, p. 122-137.
Kozary, M. T., 1956, Ultramafics in the thrustzones
in northwestern Oriente, Cuba (abs.): 20th
Internat. Geol. Cong., Mexico, Resiimenes, p.
138-139.
1968, Ultramafic rocks in thrust zones of
northwestern Oriente Province, Cuba: Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 52, no.
12, p. 2298-2317.
Krommelbein, K., 1956, Die ersten marinen Fos-
silien (Trigoniidae, Lamellibr.) aus der Caye-
tano-Formation West-Cubas: Senckenbergiana
Lethaea, Bd. 37, Hft. 3-4, p. 331-335.
1962, Beitrage zur geologischen Kenntnis der
Sierra de los Organos (Cuba): Deutsch. Geol.
Gesell. Zeitschr., Bd. 114, Hft. 1, p. 92-120.
Kuman, V. E., and Gavilan, R. R., 1965, Geologia
de Isla de Pinos: La Habana, Minist. Indus-
trias, Inst. Cubano Recursos Minerales, Rev.
Tecnologica, v. 3, no. 4, p. 20-38.
Laverov, N. P., Shanin, L. L., and Cabrera-Ortega,
R., 1967, Absolyutnyy vozrast nekotorykh
gornyykh porod Kuby, p. 188-190, in Push-
charovskiy, Yu. M., 1967, Geology and min-
eral resources of Cuba: Akad. Nauk SSSR
and Acad. Sci. Cuba, "Nauka," 190 p.
Lewis, G. E., and Straczek, J. A., 1955, Geology
of south-central Oriente, Cuba: U.S. Geol.
Survey Bull. 975-D,^ p. 171-336.
Massip, S., and Ysalgue de Massip, S. E., 1942,
Introduccion a la geografia de Cuba: La
Habana, Fiallo y Hermanos, 250 p.
Mattson, P. H., 1964, Petrography and structure of
serpentinite from Mayagiiez, Puerto Rico, in
A study of serpentinite, the AMSOC core
hole near Mayagiiez, Puerto Rico: Washing-
ton, D.C., Natl. Acad. Sci.—Natl. Research
1861
Council Pub. 1188, p. 7-24.
Meyerhoff, A. A., 1966, Bartlett fault system: age
and offset: Kingston, Jamaica, Geol. Survey
Dept., 3d Caribbean Geol. Conf. Trans., p.
1-9.
1967, Future hydrocarbon provinces of Gulf
of Mexico-Caribbean region: Gulf Coast
Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans., v. 17, p. 217-260.
Meyerhoff, A. A., and Hatten, C. W., 1968,
Diapiric structures in central Cuba: Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Mem. 8, p. 315-357.
Meyerhoff, A. A., Khudoley, K. M., and Hatten,
C. W., 1969, Geologic significance of radio-
metric dates from Cuba: Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull., v. 53, no. 12, p. 2494-2500.
Meyerhoff, H. A., 1954, Antillean tectonics:
New York Acad. Sci. Trans., Ser. 2, v. 16, no.
3, p. 149-155.
Murray, G. E., 1961, Geology of the Atlantic and
Gulf coastal plain province of North America:
New York, Harper and Bros., 692 p.
Nunez-Jimenez, A., Andreu, A., Bogatiriov, A. S.,
Novojatsky, I. P., and Judoley, C. M.,
Editors, 1962, Mapa geologico de Cuba: La
Habana, Minist. Industrias, Inst. Cubano
Recursos Minerales, scale, 1:1,000,000.
O'Connell, M., 1920, The Jurassic ammonite fauna
of Cuba: Am. Mus. Nat. History Bull., v. 42,
p. 643-692.
Palmer, R. H., 1945, Outline of the geology of
Cuba: Jour. Geology, v. 53, no. 1, p. 1-34.
Rigassi, D., 1961, Quelques vues nouvelles sur la
geologic cubaine: Chronique des Mines et
Recherche Miniere, Ann. 29, no. 302, p. 3-7.
1963, Sur la geologic de la Sierra do los Or-
ganos, Cuba: Archives Sci., v. 16, fasc. 2, p.
339-350.
Rutten, M. G., 1936, Geology of the northern part
of the Province of San ta Clara, Cuba: Utrecht
Geogr. en Geol. Mededeel., Physiogr.-Geol.
Reeks, ser. 2, no. 11, 59 p.
Sanchez Roig, M., 1919, Una excursion a Vinales:
La Habana, Rev. Agricultura, Comercio, y
Trabajo, Ano 2, no. 12, p. 588-591.
1920, La fauna Jurasica de Vinales: La Habana,
Secretaria Agricultura, Bol. Esp., 61 p.
Sass, L. C., andNeff, C. H., 1965, Review of 1964
petroleum developments in South America
and Caribbean area: Am. Assoc. Petroleum
v Geologists Bull., v. 49, no. 8, p. 1112-1175.
Skvor, V., 1969, The Caribbean area: A case of
destruction and regeneration of a continent:
Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 80, no. 6, p.
961-968.
Soloviev, O. N., Skidan, S. A., Skidan, I. K.,
Pankratov, A. P., and Judoley, C. M., 1964a,
Comentarios sobre el mapa gravimetrico de la
Isla de Cuba: La Habana, Minist. Industrias,
Inst. Cubano Recursos Minerales, Rev. Tec-
nologica, v. 2, no. 2, p. 8-19.
Soloviev, O. N., Skidan, S. A., Pankratov, A. P.,
and Skidan, I. K., 1964b, Comentarios sobre el
1862 HATTEN AND MEYERHOFF—THE CARIBBEAN AREA—DISCUSSION
mapa magnetometrico de Cuba: La Habana,
Minist. Industnas, Inst. Cubano Recursos
Minerales, Rev. Tecnologica, v. 2, no. 4, p.
5-23.
Suess, E., 1908, Das Antlitz der Erde, Bd. 1: Wien,
F. Tempsky, 779 p.
Thiadens, A. A., 1936a, Rudistids from southern
Santa Clara, Cuba: Kon. Akad. Wetensch.
Amsterdam Proc. Sec. Sci., v. 39, no. 8, p.
1011-1019.
1936b, On some caprinids and a monopleurid
from southern Santa Clara, Cuba: Kon. Akad.
Wetensch. Amsterdam Proc. Sec. Sci., v. 39,
no. 9. p. 1132-1141.
1937, Geology of the southern part of the
Province of Santa Clara (Las Villas), Cuba:
Utrecht, Geogr. en Geol. Mededeel., Physiogr.-
Geol. Reeks, ser. 2, no. 12, 69 p.
Tijomirov, I. N., 1967, Formaciones magmaticas
de Cuba y algunas particularidades de su
metalogenfa: La Habana, Minist. Industrias,
Inst. Cubano Recursos Minerales, Rev. Tec-
nologica, v. 5, no. 4, p. 13-22.
DISCUSSION RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY JANUARY
22, 1970
Tobisch, O. T., 1968, Gneissic amphibolite at Las
Palmas, Puerto Rico, and its significance in the
early history of the Greater Antilles island arc:
Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 79, no. 5, p.
557-574.
de la Torre, C., 1910, Excursion cientifica a
Vinales; descubrimiento de Ammonites del
periodo Jurasico en Cuba: La Habana, Acad.
Sci. Medicas, Rev. Cientifica, Ano 47, p.
187-191.
1912, Comprobation de 1'existence d'un
horizon jurassique dans la region occidentale
de Cuba: llth Internal. Geol. Cong., Stock-
holm, Compte Rendu, p. 1021-1022.
Vachrameev, V. A., 1966, Primer descubrimiento
de flora del Jurasico en Cuba: La Habana,
Minist. Industrias, Inst. Cubano Recursos
Minerales, Rev. Tecnologica, v. 4, no. 2, p.
22-25.
Wassail, H., 1956, The relationship of oil and
serpentine in Cuba: 20th Internal. Geol.
Congr., Mexico, Sec. 3, p. 66-77.
Weyl, R., 1966, Geologic der Antillen: Berlin,
Gebriider Borntraeger, 410 p.