T., M, x'rsaxccro and 1%., KANMEICA (., 1949) published a preliminary report on the couxglornerate-'beaiing Permian Kuma formation in the upper valley of the I-Iikaja inn t)ae Kuma rnassif, southern Kyushu., The present paper is a report on the details of the stratigraphy izxcludingremarlcs on fusulinid fossils from the formation and discussion on the correlation abundantly with otlxer., eong1ornerate-bearing late Permian formations in the Japanese Islands., For a brief account of the stratigraphy and rock facies of the I{urna formation, the reader is requested 'to refer to the previously published paper and the columnar seat, Tons in the Japanese text of the present paper., Here I will present an outline of the fusulinid faunule., In the Kuma formation, lintestones occur at four horinzons and contain abundantly fusulinid'fossils as indicated in the columnar sections., In the faunale, the most diagnostic members, jlnich are predominant in every horizon, are five species of Yaoeina, and Lepidolina., All the species of Yabeina are of much more advanced type than Yabeina, globosa (YABE)(=Y., inouyei DEPRAT) and Y., katoi OZAWA., The last two are characteristic elements of the Yabeina globosa zone, which has hitherto been recognized as the youngest fuslinid zone in Japan., The assemblage of fusulinids from the Kuma formation represents a biologic group not previously recorded from Japan, and is markedly different from the faunule of the Yabeina globosa zone., The faunule of the Yabeina globosa zone is widespread in Japan and always contains certain species of Neoschwagerina, while in the Kuma formation neither remains of the Neoschwagerina nor species common to the faunule of the Yabeina globosa zone have been found., In the Kuma massif the Yabeina globosa zone is exposed in a locality somewhat separated from the area of the Kuma formation, and, accordingly, the stratigraphic relationship is hardly determine in the field., However, the faunule of the Kuma formation is entirely different from that of the zone of Yabeina globosa and is biologically more advanced than the latter., The late Permian formations which can be correlated with the Kuma formation are widely distributed in a number of separated areas in the Japanese Islands., For example, they are the Mizukoshi formation (T., MATUMOTO and H., HUZIMOTO) in central Kyushu, the Shiraiwa formation (R., T0RIYAMA, the upper part of the Tsunemori group of M., KATAYAMA) in Yamaguchi prefecture, the Nukada and Maizuru formations (K., NAKAZAWA) in Koyto prefecture, the Yasuba type limestone conglomerates (with fusulinids in the matrix) of the Yasuba and other areas (R., TORIYAMA) in Kochi prefecture and of Dodo (K., K0NISHI) in Okayama prefecture, and the Toyoma formation (M., MINATO) in the Kitakami massif., These formations generally consist chiefly of black shale, sandstone, remarkable conglomerate, and subordinataly intercalated small limestone, lenses., The conglomerate contains boulders, cobbles and pebbles of granitic and various other igneous rocks., In the limestones Yabeina shiraiwensis OZAWA, Y., yasubaensis, TORIYAMA, Lepidolina kumaensis KANMERA (MS) L., toriyamai KANMERA (MS) and other closely related forms are contained., From these facts I have arrived at the conclusion that the faunules of the Kuma formation and other conglomerate-bearing formations mentioned above constitute the zone of Lepidolina (or the upper zone of Yabeina), which is distinguished from the zone of Yabeina globosa., The faunule of the Kuma formation is closely related in specific composition to the faunule described by GUBLER (1935) from Cambodge of Indochina and to that described by THOMPSON and WHEELER (1942, 1948) from the Marble Canyon limestone of British Columbia., In these faunules representatives of Lepidolina and the advanced type of Yabeina are present and some of them are common to ours., Therefore these faunules are probably of the same age.,
View full abstract