Egyptian Journal of Petroleum (2011) 20, 89–96

Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute

Egyptian Journal of Petroleum

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyjpwww.sciencedirect.com

Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the uppercretaceous succession of Southeastern Sinai, Egypt

Medhat M.M. Mandur *

Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute, Nasser City, 11727 Cairo, Egypt

Received 22 July 2010; accepted 2 November 2010Available online 19 October 2011

*

E-

11

an

Pe

In

do

KEYWORDS

Cretaceous;

Calcareous nannofossils;

Lithostratigraphy;

Biostratigraphy

Tel.: +20 0126480669.

mail address: medhatmandu

10-0621 ª 2011 Egyptian Ped hosting by Elsevier B.V.

er review under responsibi

stitute.

i:10.1016/j.ejpe.2011.06.004

Production and h

O

r@yahoo

troleum R

lity of E

osting by E

pen access

Abstract The calcareous nannofossil of the Upper Cretaceous successions exposed at Taba and El

sheikh Attia sections at Southeastern Sinai in Egypt have been studied to contribute in the under-

standing of lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy. These sediments are subdivided into six rock

units (from older to younger): Raha, Abu Qada, Wata, Matulla, Thelmet and Sudr. According

to its calcareous nannofossil contents the succession is subdivided into 13 biozones and subzones.

They are from the base to top Microrhabdulus decoratus (CC10), Quadrum gartneri (CC11),

Lucianorhabdulus maleformis (CC12), Marthasterites furcatus (CC13), Micula decussata (CC14),

Reinhardtites anthophorus (CC15), Aspidlithus parcus (CC18), Calculites ovalis (CC19), Cerato-

lithoides aculeus (CC20), Reinhardtites levis (CC24) Zones, and Subzones Arkhangelskiella cymbi-

formis (CC25a), Lithraphidites quadratus (CC25b) and Micula murus (CC25c). By means of

calcareous nannofossil three stage boundaries are discussed they are: the Cenomanian/Turonian,

the Santonian/Campanian and the Campanian/Maastrichtian.ª 2011 Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

.com

esearch Institute. Production

gyptian Petroleum Research

lsevier

under CC BY-NC-ND license.

1. Introduction

The Upper Cretaceous rocks are well developed in Egypt.

These sediments have attracted the attention of many stratig-raphers and paleontologists because they are highly fossilifer-ous and well exposed.

This study deals with the lithostratigraphy and calcareousnannofossil biostratigraphy of Cenomanian–Maastrichtian ofthe Southeastern Sinai area.

Two stratigraphic successions have been measured andexamined in detail. Taba section (lat. 29� 300 N and long.34� 510 E) and El sheikh Attia section (lat. 29� 130 N and long.34� 260 E) (Fig. 1). This study has been achieved through 144samples (84 at Taba and 60 at El sheikh Attia) were collectedfrom the Upper Cretaceous of the studied area. These samples

mailto:medhatmandur@yahoo.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2011.06.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2011.06.004http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11100621http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Figure 1 Location map of the studied successtions.

90 M.M.M. Mandur

were treated to separate the calcareous nannofossil contents toget an idea about the widespread uniformity or disuniformity

of the faunal assemblage in Southeastern Sinai.An Olympus polarized microscope with 100· oil immersion

lens has been used to identify the calcareous nannofossils.

2. Lithostratigraphy

The Upper Cretaceous rocks of the study area were the subjectof several studies. The most important of which are those of[1–11].

Generally the sequence of the studied succession is subdi-vided into six formations from base to top as follows.

2.1. Raha Formation

The Raha Formation was first described by [12] in Raha scarpeand Raha plateau (West central Sinai). It is recorded in the two

studied sections with a thickness of 102 m at Taba section and73 m at El shiekh Attia section (Figs. 2 and 3).

The Raha Formation overlies without visible unconformity

the Malha Formation of Early Cretaceous age [6,9] and con-formably underlies the Abu Qada Formation. Lithologicallyit is composed mainly of yellowish white, massive fossiliferouslimestone and yellowish brown fine grained, non fossiliferous

sandstone. Its calcareous sediments are characterized by a veryrich macrofossil content which includes echinoids, gastrapodsand oysters. On other hand, its calcareous nannofossil content,

which is restricted to the upper part of the formation, is poor.The Raha Formation is characterized by the presence Micror-

habdulus decoratus Zone (CC10) and lower part of Quadrum

gartneri Zone (CC11). The age of this formation is Cenoma-nian [12,6,8,9].

2.2. Abu Qada Formation

The Abu Qada Formation was first described by [12] at WadiAbu Qada (West central Sinai). The Abu Qada Formation is

well represented in the area attaining a thickness of 27.5 m atWadi Taba and 43 m at El sheikh Attia (Figs. 2 and 3). The For-mation is represented by dark gray fossiliferous shale and yellow

fossiliferous limestone intercalations generally crowded withoyster, ammonites and gastropods. This formation conform-ably overlies the Raha Formation and conformably underlies

the Wata Formation. It is rich in calcareous nannofossil whichindicates the upper part of Q. gartneri Zone (CC11) and lowerpart ofLucianorhabdulus maleformisZone (CC12). It is assignedto the Late Cenomanian–Early Turonian age [8,9].

2.3. Wata Formation

This formation was first described by [12] at Wadi Wata (Westcentral Sinai). The Wata Formation is well developed in thestudy area measuring about 80 m in Taba and in El sheikh Attia

sections (Figs. 2 and 3). The Wata Formation consists essen-tially of a monotonous sequence of yellowish white fine grainedmassive fossiliferous limestone with minor bands of yellowishbrownmarly sandstone. This formation is conformably overlain

by the Matulla Formation and is underlain by the Abu QadaFormation. This formation is a highly fossiliferous unit yieldingmacrofossils (rudists). It is moderate in its calcareous nannofos-

sil which indicates the upper part ofL. maleformis Zone (CC12)and lower part ofMarthasterites furcatus Zone (CC13). It is as-signed to Middle – Late Turonian age [5,8,9].

2.4. Matulla Formation

The Matulla Formation was described by [12] at Wadi Matulla(West central Sinai). The Matulla Formation is well repre-sented in the area attaining a thickness of 35 m at Wadi Tabaand 65 m at El sheikh Attia (Figs. 2 and 3). This formation is

composed of green shales at the base followed by yellowishbrown sandstone, green to brown marls, fossiliferous yellowishwhite limestones and yellowish brown nonfossiliferous sand-

stone. It conformably overlies the Wata Formation and con-formably underlies the Thelmet Formation. This formationis characterized generally by a poor macrofossils (bivalves)

and microfossils (calcareous nannofossils). According to itsfossils content, of upper part of M. furcatus (CC13) Zone,Micula decussata Zone (CC14) and Reinhardtites anthophorusZone (CC15), this Zone is assigned to the Campanian–Maas-

trichtian age [12,6,8,9].

2.5. Thelmet Formation

The Thelmet Formation was described by [13–16]. This forma-tion is recorded from Taba section with thickness of 15 m and

25 m of El sheikh Attia (Figs. 2 and 3). This formation is con-formably underlain by the Matulla Formation and conform-ably overlain by the Sudr Formation. It is composed mainly

of yellowish brown sandy limestone, partially dolometic andphosphatic. According to its macrofossil content (gastopods

Figure 2 Range chart of calcareous nannofossil species recognized in Taba succession.

Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the upper cretaceous succession of Southeastern Sinai, Egypt 91

and bivalves) and its stratigraphic position, it was assigned tothe Early Campanian age.

2.6. Sudr Formation

The Sudr Formation was first described by [12] in Wadi Sudr,West central Sinai. It is recorded in the studied area with a

thickness of 140 m at Taba section and 35 m at El Shiekh Attiasection (Figs. 2 and 3). The Sudr Formation conformablyoverlies the Thelmet Formation and is unconformably overlain

by the Esna Formation of Paleocene age. This formation is

characterized by its snow white chalky limestones intercalatedwith very thin bands of gray and brown chert concentrationwith some marls and argillaceous limestone streaks it is highly

fossiliferous with macro- and micro-fossils. It is very rich in itscalcareous nannofossils which indicates Aspidolithus parcusZone (CC18), Calculites ovalis Zone (CC19), Ceratolithoidesaculeus Zone (CC20), Reinhardtites levis Zone (CC24), Arkh-

angelskiella cymbiformis subzone (CC25a), Lithraphiditesquadratus subzone (CC25b) and Micula murus subzone(CC25c). According to its fossil content, it is assigned to the

Campanian–Maastrichtain age [12,6,8,9].

Figure 3 Range chart of calcareous nannofossil species recognized in El sheikh Attia succession.

92 M.M.M. Mandur

Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the upper cretaceous succession of Southeastern Sinai, Egypt 93

3. Nannofossils biostratigraphy

The biostratigraphic units are mainly based on the distribution

of the calcareous nannofossils which are given in Figs. 2 and 3.Some representative nannofossil taxa are presented on Plate 1.

In the present work, 13 calcareous nannofossil biozones arerecognized on the basis of the zonal scheme of [15]. These bioz-

ones are discussed herein from base to top.

3.1. Microrhabdulus decoratus Zone (CC10)

Definition: interval from the first occurrence (FO) ofM. decoratus to the first occurrence (FO) of Q. gartneri.Author: Sissingh [15].

Occurrence: This zone is recorded in the Raha Formationat Taba section and El sheikh Attia section (Figs. 2 and 3).Remarks and common taxa: This zone is assigned to theCenomanian age [15–17,11,18–20]. The distinguishing cal-

careous nannofossil species of this zone, include besidethe index species: Eiffellithus turriseiffelii, Stradneria crenu-lata, Corollithion signum, Chiastozygus platyrthethus, Micr

orhabulus decoratus, Tranolithus phacelosus, Prediscosphaeraponticula, Watznaueria biporta, Eprolithus floralis, Zeugrh-abdotus diplogrammus, Manivitella pemmatoidea, Gatnerago

obliquum, Broinsonia enormis, Rhagodiscus angustus, Tetrap-odorhabdus decorus, Zeugrhabdotus erectus, Radiolithus pla-nus, Nannoconus truitti truitti, Calcicalathina alta, Nannoco

nus elongates and Nannoconus regularis (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.2. Q. gartneri Zone (CC11)

Definition: this zone includes the intervals from the FO ofQ. gartneri to FO of Lucianorhabdus maleformis.Author: Cepek and Hay [24] emended by Sissingh [15].

Occurrence: It is recoded from the top most of the RahaFormation and lower part of Abu Qada Formation at Tabasection and El sheikh Attia section (Figs. 2 and 3).

Remarks and common taxa: The age of this zone is Cenoma-nian–Turonian [21,17,22,23,19,20]. It is characterized bythe presence of Quadrum qartneri in addition to the assem-blage of the previous zone (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.3. L. maleformis Zone (CC12)

Definition: interval from the FO of L. maleformis and/or theFO Eiffellithus eximius to FO of M. furcatus.Author: Sissingh [15].

Occurrence: This zone is recorded from the topmost part ofthe Abu Qada Formation and Wata Formation at Tabasection and El Sheikh Attia section (Figs. 2 and 3).Remarks and common taxa: According to its calcareous nan

noplankton association, this zone was assigned to the Turo-nian age [15,16,19]. It is characterized by the followingcalcareous nannofossils assemblage: Eiffellithus turriseiffelii,

Stradneriacrenulata, Corollithionsignum,Chiastozygusplatyr-thethus,Microrhabulusdecoratus, Tranolithus phacelosus, Pre-discosphaera ponticula, Watznaueria biporta, Eprolithus

floralis, Zeugrhabdotus diplogrammus, Manivitella pemmatoi-dea, Gatnerago obliquum, Broinsonia enormis, Rhagodiscusangustus, Tetrapodorhabdus decorus, Zeugrhabdotus erectus,

Radiolithus planus, Nannoconus truitti truitti, Calcicalathina

alta, Q. gartneri, Prediscosphaera spinosa, Eiffellithus eximiusand Lucianorhabdus maleformis (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.4. M. furcatus Zone (CC13)

Definition: interval from the FO of M. furcatus to FO ofMicula decussate.

Author: Cepek and Hay [24]emended by Sissingh [15].Occurrence: TheM. furcatus Zone is recorded from the top-most part of the Wata Formation and lowermost part of

the Matulla Formation at Taba section and El sheikh Attiasection (Figs. 2 and 3).Remarks and common taxa: According to its association of

calcareous nannofossils, this zone is assigned to the Turo-nian–Coniacian age [15,16,25,11]. In the present work thiszone is characterized by the same taxa as the L. maleformis

Zone, in addition to M. furcatus and Zeugrhabdotusembergeri (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.5. M. decussata Zone (CC14)

Definition: interval from the FO of M. decussata to FO ofanthophorus.

Author: Manivit [26] emended by Sissingh [15].Occurrence: This zone is recorded from the Matulla Forma-tion at Taba section and El sheikh Attia section (Figs. 2 and

3).Remarks and common taxa: It is assigned to the late Conia-cian and early Santonian age according to its association ofcalcareous nannofossils [16]. The M. decussata Zone in the

investigated area is characterized by the following taxa inaddition to the assemblage of the previous zone: Miculadecussate, Zeugrhabdotus pseudanthophorus,C. ovalis, Tran-

olithus manifestus, Lithastrinus septenarius and Thiersteiniaecclesiastica (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.6. R. anthophorus Zone (CC15)

Definition: interval from the FO of the R. anthophorus toFO of Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii.

Author: Sissingh [15].Occurrence: It is recorded from the topmost part of theMatulla Formation at Taba section and El sheikh Attia sec-

tion (Figs. 2 and 3).Remarks and common taxa: The age of this zone isSantonian [27,28,20]. This zone is characterized by the same

assemblage of the previous zone in addition to: Miculaconcava, Zygolithus crux and R. anthophorus (Figs. 2 and3).

3.7. Aspidlithus parcus Zone (CC18)

Definition: interval from the FO of Aspidolithus ex.gr.parc

us to the Last occurrence (LO) of M. furcatus.Author: Sissingh [15].Occurrence: It is recorded from Sudr Formation (Markha

Member) at Taba section and El sheikh Attia section (Figs.2 and 3).

Plate 1 Explanation of plate 1 (All Figures X 2350). (1) Eiffellithus turriseiffelii (Deflandre in Deflandre and Fert, 1954). L. maleformis

Zone (CC12), sample No. 23, Taba section. (2) Eiffellithus Eximius (Stover, 1966). R. anthophorus Zone (CC15), sample No. 41, Taba

section. (3 and 4) Q. gartneri (Prins and Perch-Nielsen in Manivit et al., 1977). Q. gartneri Zone (CC11), sample No. 12, Taba and El

sheikh Attia section. (5) A. cymbiformis (Vekshina, 1959). A. cymbiformis subzone (CC25c), sample No. 79, Taba section. (6) Watznaueria

barnesae (Black in Black and Barnes, 1959; Perch-Nielsen, 1968). C. aculeus Zone (CC20), sample No. 54, El sheikh Attia section. (7)

Cribrosphaerella ehrenbergii (Arkhangelsky, 1912; Deflandre in Piveteau, 1952). A. parcus Zone (CC18), sample No. 45, El sheikh Attia

section. (8 and 9) Rhagodiscus angustus (Stradner, 1963; Reinhardt, 1971), M. decussata Zone (CC14), sample No. 47, Taba section,

sample No. 36, El sheikh Attia section. (10) Zeugrhabdotus pseudanthophorus (Bramlette and Martini, 1964), R. levis Zone (CC24), sample

No. 65, Taba section. (11) Zeugrhabdotus embergeri (Noël, 1959), M. furcatus Zone (CC13), sample No. 33, El sheikh Attia section. (12

and 13) Calculites obscurus (Deflandre, 1959), C. aculeus Zone (CC20), sample No. 58, El sheikh Attia section. (14) Thoracosphaera

operculata (Bramlette and Martini, 1964), M. murus subzone (CC25c), sample No. 78, Taba section. (15 and 16) L. quadratus (Bramlette

and Martini, 1964), L. quadratus subzone (CC25b), sample No. 75, Taba section. (17 and 18) Micula Concava (Stradner in Martini and

Stradner, 1960), R. anthophorus Zone (CC15), sample No. 48, Taba section. (19) M. murus (Martini, 1961), M. murus Zone (CC25c),

sample No. 83, Taba section. (20) M. decussata (Vekshina, 1959), M. decussata Zone (CC14), sample No. 44, El sheikh Attia section. (21)

Lucianorhabdus maleformis (Reinhardt, 1966), L. maleformis Zone (CC12), sample No. 22, El sheikh Attia section. (22) M. decoratus

(Defladre, 1959), M. decoratus Zone (CC10), sample No. 2, Taba section. Lucianorhabdulus cayeuxii (Deflandre, 1959), A. parcus Zone

(CC18), sample No. 46, El sheikh Attia section. (24) Braarudosphaera bigelowii (Gran and Braarud, 1935), C. aculeus Zone (CC20), sample

No. 59, Taba section.

94 M.M.M. Mandur

Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the upper cretaceous succession of Southeastern Sinai, Egypt 95

Remarks and common taxa: The association of calcareous

nannofossil suggests a campanian age [29,16]. TheA. parcusZone in the investigated area is characterized by the sameassemblage of the previous zone in addition to the marker

species (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.8. C. ovalis Zone (CC19)

Definition: interval from the LO ofM. furcatus to the FO ofC. aculeus.Author: Sissingh [15].

Occurrence: This zone is recorded from Sudr Formation(Markha Member) at Taba section and El sheikh Attia sec-tion (Figs. 2 and 3).

Remarks and common taxa: It is assigned to the Campanianage according its association of calcareous nannofossil [16].It is characterized by the same assemblage of the previous

zone in addition to R. levis (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.9. C. aculeus Zone (CC20)

Definition: interval from the FO of C. aculeus to the FO ofQuadrum sissinghii (Tetralithus nitidus and Quadrum nitidum).

Author: Cepek and Hay [24] emended by Martini [30].Occurrence: This zone is recorded from the Sudr Formation(Markha Member) at Taba section and El sheikh Attia sec-

tion (Figs. 2 and 3).Remarks and common taxa: It is assigned to the Campanianage according its association of calcareous nannofossil [25,31]. It is characterized by the presence of R. levis, Thorac-

osphaera operculata, Cyclagelosphaera reinhardtii, Braarudosphera bigelowii, Chiastozygus amphipons, C. aculeus and A.cymbiformis and others (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.10. R. levis Zone (CC24)

Definition: interval between the LO of Tranolithus phacelo-sus and the LO of R. levis.Author: Sissingh [15].Occurrence: It is recorded from Sudr Formation (Abu Zen-

ima Member) at Taba section (Fig. 2)Remarks and common taxa: It is assigned to the Maastrich-tian age according to its association of calcareous nanno-

fossils ([16,25,31]). The R. levis Zone in the investigatedarea is characterized by the presence of calcareous nanno-fossils: Eiffellithus turriseiffelii, Lithraphidites carniolensis,

Stradneria crenulata, Corollithion signum, Chiastozygusplatyrthethus, Microrhabulus decoratus, Micula decussate,Zeugrhabdotus pseudanthophorus, Micula concave, Watznae-

uria barnesae, Lucianorhabdus cayeuexii, Cribrosphaerellaehrenbergii, Prediscospaera cretacea, Braarudosphera bige-lowii, Calculitesobscurus, R. levis, C. aculeus, A. cymbiformisand Prediscosphaera grandis (Fig. 2).

3.11. A. cymbiformis subzone (CC25a)

Definition: interval from the LO of R. levis to the FO of L.quadratus.

Author: Perch-Nilsen [16,21] emended by Martini [30].

Occurrence: This zone is recorded from the Sudr Formation(Abu Zenima Member) at Taba section (Fig. 2).Remarks and common taxa: It is assigned to the early Maas-

trichtian age according its association of calcareous nanno-fossil [16,31]. For the calcareous nannofossil assemblage ofthis zone, see Fig. 2.

3.12. L. quadratus subzone (CC25b)

Definition: the interval from the FO of L. quadratus to FO

of M. murus.Author: Perch-Nilsen [16,21].Occurrence: It is defined as it is recorded from Sudr Forma-

tion (Abu Zenima Member) at Taba section (Fig. 2).Remarks and common taxa: It is assigned to the early lateMaastrichtian age according its association of calcareous

nannofossil [31,32]. The L. quadratus Zone in the investi-gated area is characterized by the same assemblage of theprevious zone in addition to: Lihraphidies quadratus(Fig. 2).

3.13. M. murus subzone (CC25c)

Definition: interval from the FO of M. murus to the FO ofNephrolihus frequens.Author: Perch-Nilsen [16,21].

Occurrence: It is recorded from Sudr Formation (Abu Zen-ima Member) at Taba section (Fig. 2).Remarks and common taxa: It is assigned to the late Maas-trichtian age according its association of calcareous nanno-

fossil [31,20]. This zone include the following calcareousnannofossil assemblage: Eiffellithus turriseiffelii, Lithraphi-dites carniolensis, Stradneria crenulata, Prediscosphaera spin-

osa, Micula decussate, Zeugrhabdotus pseudanthophorus,Micula concave, Watznaeuria barnesae, Lucianorhabdus cay-euexii, Cribrosphaerella ehrenbergii, Prediscospaera creta-

cea, Braarudosphera bigelowii, C. aculeus, A. cymbiformis,Prediscosphaera grandis, Thoracosphaera operculata, Lih-raphidies quadratus and M. murus (Fig. 2).

4. Stage boundaries

4.1. Cenomanian/Turonian boundary

The Cenomanian/Turonian boundary in this study is deter-mined accurately by means of the calcareous nannoplankton(CC11/CC12 boundary) at the top of Abu Qada Formation.

The first occurrence of Lucianorhabdus maleformis indicatesthe latest Cenomanian/earliest Turonian boundary [16]. Thisboundary is delineated by the appearance of Lucianorhabdus

maleformis and Eiffellithus eximus.

4.2. Santonian/Campanian boundary

In the present study the latest Santonian is missing due to theabsence of the calcareous nannofossil Lucianorhabdus cayeuxiiZone. Also the basal Campanian is missing due to the absence

of the calcareous nannofossil Calculites obscurus Zone. This

96 M.M.M. Mandur

suggested that the Campanian unconformably overlies Santo-

nian. The first occurrence of Aspidolithus parcus parcus inicatesthe Early Campanian [15,29].

4.3. Campanian/Maastrichtian boundary

In the present study, the Campanian /Maastrichtian boundarydelineated in basal part of Sudr Formation. The latest Camp-

anian is missing due to the absence of Quadrum Sissinghii Zoneand Quadrum trifidum Zone. The calcareous nannofossil Zoneof the Early Maastrichtian (Tranolithus phacelosus Zone) is ab-

sent. This indicated that Maastrichtian unconformably over-lies the Campanian. The appearance of R. levis Zoneindicates the Early Maastrichtian [15,29].

5. Conclusions

The Upper Cretaceous succession of Southeastern Sinai wasmeasured and studied in Taba and El sheikh Attia sections.Lithostratigraphically, the studied succession are subdividedinto the following formations from base to top: Raha, Abu

Qada, Wata, Matulla, Thelmet and Sudr. The biostratigraphicstudy in the present work was mainly established by means ofcalcareous nannofossils. This study mainly involves the identi-

fication of (57) calcareous nannofossil species. The intensivestudy of the vertical distribution of recognized calcareous nan-nofossils enables to subdivide of the Upper Cretaceous succes-

sion into 13 calcareous nannofossils biozones and subzones.These are from older to younger: M. decoratus Zone, Q. gart-neri Zone, L. maleformis Zone,M. furcatus Zone,M. decussataZone, R. anthophorus Zone, A. parcus Zone, C. ovalis Zone, C.

aculeus Zone, R. levis Zone, A. cymbiformis subzone, L. quad-ratus subzone and M. murus subzone. The Cenomanian/Turo-nian boundary in is determined coincides with CC11/CC12

zonal boundary of Calcareous nannofossil, the Campanian un-conformably overlies Santonian and the Maastrichtian uncon-formably overlies the Campanian.

References

[1] Z. Lewy, Israel J. Earth Sci. 24 (1975) 19–43.

[2] Y. Bartov, G. Steinitz, Israel J. Earth Sci. 26 (1977) 119–148.

[3] A. Flexer, A. Honigstein, Cretaceous Res. 5 (1984) 303–312.

[4] M. Shirav, Annual Meeting, Jerusalem, 1985, Abstracts 2.

[5] M. Kora, H. Hamama, Mansoura Univ. Bull. 14 (1987) 303–

314.

[6] M. Kora, M. El Sherbini, A. Genedi, Mansoura Univ. Bull. 15

(1988) 129–158.

[7] J. Kuss, NE – Egypt Sinai – Geol. Rdsch. 78 (2) (1989) 487–498.

[8] A.M. Shahin, M. Kora, Egypt. N. Jb. Geol. Palaeont. 11 (1991)

671–692.

[9] M. Kora, A. Genedi, Facies 32 (1995) 223–236.

[10] W. El-deeb, M. El baz, Journal of Faculty of Education 27

(2002) 1–16.

[11] J. Bauer, A.M. Marzouk, T. Steuber, J. Kuss, Cretaceous Res.

22 (2001) 497–526.

[12] Ghorab, M.A., Arab Petrol. Congr. (1961) 10, Alesandria.

[13] A.M. Abukhadra, M. Darwish, M.H. ElAzabi, M.A. Abdel

Fattah, Lithostratigray of the Upper Cretaceous – Tertiary

succession in the Gulf of Suez (Southern Galala plateau) Egypt,

in: G. Matheis, Schandel, H. Meier (Eds.), Current Research in

African Earth Sciences, Rotter-dam (Balkema), 1987, 171–176.

[14] M.T. Kerdany, O.H. Cherif, Mesozoic, in: R. Said (Ed.),

Geology of Egypt, A. A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brook field,

1990, 424.

[15] W. Sissingh, Geol. en Mijnbouw 56 (1) (1977) 37–65.

[16] K. Perch-Nielsen, Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils, in: H.M.

Bolli, J.B. Saunders, K. Perch-Nielsen (Eds.), Plankton

stratigraphy, planktonic foraminifera, calcareous nannofossils

and calpionellids, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1985, pp. 427–554.

[17] R.D. Norris, D. Kroon, A. Klaus, Shipboard Scientific party:

Explanatory notes, in: R.D. Norris, D. Kroon, D. kroon, A.

Klaus (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling program, Initial

Report 171B, 1998, pp. 11–44.

[18] M. Faris, A.M. Abu Shama, Third Intern. Confer. Geol. Africa

1 (2003) 707–732.

[19] A. Tantawy, Calcareous nannofossils biostratigraphy and

paleoecology of the Cenomanian Turonian transition in the

Tarfaya basin, Southern Morocco, Creta. Res. 29 (2008) 995–

1000.

[20] M. Mandur, A. Bayomi, J. Appl. Sci. Res. 5 (12) (2009) 2247–

2261.

[21] K. Perch-Nielsen, Recognition of cretaceous stage boundaries

by mean of calcareous nannofossils, in: T. Birkelund et al.

(Eds.), Symp. Cretaceous stage boundaries, Copenhagen (Abs.),

1983, pp. 152–156.

[22] F. Robaszynski, M. Caron, C. Dupuis, F. Amedro, J.-M.

Gonzalez Donoso, D. Linares, J. Hardenbol, S. Gartner, F.

Galandra, R. Deloffre, Production Elf Aquitaine 14 (1990) 214–

384.

[23] A.J. Nederbragt, A. Fiorentino, Cretaceous Res. 20 (1999) 47–

62.

[24] P. C‘epek, W.W. Hay, Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. 19

(1969) 213–336.

[25] J.A. Burnett, Upper cretaceous in calcareous nannofossil

biostratigraphy, in: P.R. Brown (Ed.), Chapman and Hall,

London, 1998, pp. 132–199.

[26] H. Manivit, Les nannofossiles calcaires du Cretace Francais (de

L Aptuen au Danien), Essai de biozonation appuyee sur les

stratotypes, These, Universite de Paris, 1971.

[27] S.F. Andrawis, M. Faris, H. El-Sheikh, Egypt. J. Geol. 30 (1986)

121–130.

[28] Reiss, A. Almogi-Labin, Z. Lewy, S. Moshkovitz, Proceedings

of the Koninklijke, Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen

B86 (1986) 95–104.

[29] K. Perch-Nielsen, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 39 (1977)

699–825.

[30] E. Martini, Initial Rep. Deep Sea Drill. Proj. 33 (1976) 383–423.

[31] M. Faris, A.M. Abu Shama, Egypt. J. Paleontol. 6 (2006) 251–

274.

[32] A. El-Dawoody, M. Marzouk, Egypt. J. Geol. 47 (2003) 511–

526.

Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the upper cretaceous succession of Southeastern Sinai, Egypt1 Introduction2 Lithostratigraphy2.1 Raha Formation2.2 Abu Qada Formation2.3 Wata Formation2.4 Matulla Formation2.5 Thelmet Formation2.6 Sudr Formation

3 Nannofossils biostratigraphy3.1 Microrhabdulus decoratus Zone (CC10)3.2 Q. gartneri Zone (CC11)3.3 L. maleformis Zone (CC12)3.4 M. furcatus Zone (CC13)3.5 M. decussata Zone (CC14)3.6 R. anthophorus Zone (CC15)3.7 Aspidlithus parcus Zone (CC18)3.8 C. ovalis Zone (CC19)3.9 C. aculeus Zone (CC20)3.10 R. levis Zone (CC24)3.11 A. cymbiformis subzone (CC25a)3.12 L. quadratus subzone (CC25b)3.13 M. murus subzone (CC25c)

4 Stage boundaries4.1 Cenomanian/Turonian boundary4.2 Santonian/Campanian boundary4.3 Campanian/Maastrichtian boundary

5 ConclusionsReferences