Cretaceous Research (2002) 23, 409–438

doi:10.1006/cres.2002.1012, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower

Cretaceous strata, Mississippi Interior Salt
Basin area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico,
USA
Ernest A. Mancini and T. Markham Puckett
Center for Sedimentary Basin Studies and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama 35487, USA

Revised manuscript accepted 14 June 2002

Four transgressive-regressive (T-R) cycles and five T-R subcycles have been recognized in Lower Cretaceous strata of the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico. These T-R cycles are the LKEGR-TR 1 (Lower Cretaceous, Eastern Gulf Region) (upper
Valanginian–upper Aptian), the LKEGR-TR 2 (upper Aptian–middle Albian), the LKEGR-TR 3 (middle–upper Albian),
and the LKEGR-TR 4 (upper Albian–lower Cenomanian) cycles. The LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle consists of three subcycles:
LKEGR-TR 1–1 (upper Valanginian–lower Aptian), LKEGR-TR 1–2 (lower Aptian) and LKEGR-TR 1–3 (upper Aptian)
subcycles. The LKEGR-TR 2–1 (upper Aptian–lower Albian) and the LKEGR-TR 2–2 (lower–middle Albian) subcycles
constitute the LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle. The LKEGR-TR 3 and the LKEGR-TR 4 cycles consist of a single T-R cycle.
Recognition of these T-R cycles is based upon stratal geometries, nature of cycle boundaries, facies stacking patterns within
cycles, and large-scale shifts in major facies belts. The T-R subcycles are characterized by shifts in major facies belts that are
not of the magnitude of a T-R cycle. The cycle boundary may be marked by a subaerial unconformity, ravinement surface,
transgressive surface or surface of maximum regression. A single T-R cycle consists of an upward-deepening event
(transgressive aggrading and backstepping phases) and an upward-shallowing event (regressive infilling phase). These events
are separated by a surface of maximum transgression. The aggrading phase marks the change from base-level fall and erosion
to base-level rise and sediment accumulation; this phase signals the initiation of the creation of shelf-accommodation space.
The marine transgressive and flooding events of the backstepping phase are widespread and provide regional correlation
datums. Therefore, these T-R cycles and subcycles can be identified, mapped, and correlated in the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico area. The progradational events associated with the regressive infilling phase represent a major influx of siliciclastic
sediments into the basin, the development of major reef build-ups at the shelf margin, and a significant loss of
shelf-accommodation space. These T-R cycles are interpreted to be the result of the amount of and change in
shelf-accommodation due to a combination of post-rift tectonics, loading subsidence, variations in siliciclastic sediment
supply and dispersal systems, carbonate productivity and eustasy associated with a passive continental margin. The T-R
cycles, where integrated with biostratigraphic data, can be correlated throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico region and have
the potential for global correlation of Lower Cretaceous strata.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

K W: Lower Cretaceous; Gulf of Mexico; transgressive-regressive cycles.

1. Introduction tively. From these previous studies, it is clear that

The Cretaceous and Paleogene strata of the
Mississippi Interior Salt Basin (MISB) area, onshore
northeastern Gulf of Mexico, consist of evaporite,
carbonate, and nonmarine, marginal marine, and
marine terrigenous siliciclastic sediments. Strati-
graphic analysis of the Upper Cretaceous and
Paleogene deposits of the eastern Gulf Coastal Plain
were published by Mancini et al. (1996), and by Baum
& Vail (1988) and Mancini & Tew (1991), respec-
the establishment of a stratigraphic framework that
includes a biostratigraphic component is fundamental
to the correlation of these strata for the interpretation
of the geologic history of this region. Therefore, the
purpose of this paper is to provide a stratigraphic
framework that is integrated with biostratigraphy for
the Lower Cretaceous strata of the MISB area, north-
eastern Gulf of Mexico. The establishment of such a
stratigraphic framework facilitates the correlation of
key sedimentologic trends evident in these strata in

0195–6671/02/$35.00/0  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

410 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett
the Gulf of Mexico and is useful for the global
correlation of these events in the Lower Cretaceous
section.
The sequence stratigraphic relationships of the
Upper Cretaceous and Paleogene deposits in the
onshore area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico are
useful for establishing a stratigraphic framework
for this geologic time period. In this case, third-
order (1–10 myr in duration), unconformity-bounded
depositional sequences, as defined by Mitchum et al.
(1977), Van Wagoner et al. (1988), and Posamentier
et al. (1988) can be recognized in surface exposures
based on physical surfaces and stratal geometries, and
associated systems tracts can be traced regionally in
outcrop. However, in studying the Lower Cretaceous
shelf deposits in the subsurface of this region that are
characterized by mixed carbonate and siliciclastic
deposition and in which stratal patterns have been
driven by low-frequency tectonic and eustatic events
associated with post-rift, passive margin conditions, a
stratigraphic analysis based on the cyclicity of sedi-
mentation patterns within cycles recorded in these
strata (transgressive-regressive cycles) rather than
only an analysis based upon the characterization of
sequence boundaries has utility in establishing a strati-
graphic framework for correlation of diagnostic events
in the Lower Cretaceous strata.
Transgressive-regressive (T-R) cycles are of par-
ticular interest because the documentation of these
cycles in the rock record provides an approach for
intrabasin correlation and interbasin regional and
potential global correlation. T-R cycles or sequences
have been described by Johnson et al. (1985) for
Devonian strata, Steel (1993) for Triassic and Jurassic
strata, Embry (1993) for Jurassic strata, and Jacquin
et al. (1998) for Cretaceous strata. T-R cycles consist
of a transgressive phase that includes an upward
deepening event, and a regressive phase that includes
an upward shallowing event (Johnson et al., 1985).
The transgressive portion of T-R cycles consists of a
backstepping phase, but may also include an aggrad-
ing phase; the regressive portion of these cycles con-
sists of an infilling phase, but may also include a
forestepping phase (Jacquin & de Graciansky, 1998).
The events of the aggrading phase mark the change
from base level fall and erosion to base level rise and
sediment accumulation. This aggrading phase signals
the initiation of the creation of shelf-accommodation
space. T-R cycles and the associated phases have been
driven by the amount of and change in shelf-
accommodation space resulting from base-level
changes (eustasy and tectonic and loading subsidence)
and by sediment accumulation (amount and rate of
sediment supply to and/or on the shelf).
Recognition of T-R cycles is not independent
of cycle boundary identification. Embry (2002)
employed a subaerial unconformity or shoreface
ravinement unconformable surface to identify the
unconformable portion of the boundary of a T-R
sequence and a maximum regressive surface to recog-
nize the conformable portion of a sequence boundary.
He used a maximum flooding surface to divide a T-R
sequence into transgressive and regressive systems
tracts. In this paper, T-R cycles are defined by a
combination of factors including stratal geometries,
nature of cycle boundaries, facies stacking patterns
within cycles, and large-scale shifts in major facies
belts. The cycles are separated by discontinuities in
the sedimentary record as recognized by abrupt
changes or interruptions as observed in seismic reflec-
tion profiles, in well log signature patterns, and/or in
cored sections obtained from the drilling of wells. A
discontinuity may consist of an unconformable sur-
face, such as a subaerial unconformity, ravinement
surface, or transgressive surface at the cycle boundary.
In the marine system, the boundary of a T-R cycle
may be recognized by a conformable surface of maxi-
mum regression, which separates an upward shallow-
ing interval from an upward deepening interval. The
aggrading section of the transgressive phase rests on a
subaerial unconformity, and the top of this section is
delimited by an erosional ravinement surface or trans-
gressive surface. The top of the overlying backstep-
ping section of the transgressive phase is marked by a
surface of maximum transgression. The surface of
maximum transgression separates the upward deepen-
ing interval of the T-R cycle (transgressive phase)
from the upward shallowing interval of the cycle
(regressive phase). The regressive phase in shelf strata
consists of an infilling section. The forestepping sec-
tion of the regressive phase occurs in continental slope
deposits. The top of the regressive phase is delimited
by a surface of maximum regression.
A T-R cycle is composed of one or more cycles,
each of which consists of an upward-deepening event
and an upward-shallowing event. If the T-R cycle
consists of more than one cycle, the couplet of
upward-deepening and upward-shallowing is referred
to as a subcycle. A surface of marine flooding
separates the transgressive and regressive sections of a
subcycle. Generally, these subcycles occur in the
transgressive backstepping phase of a T-R cycle. The
marine transgressive and flooding events of the back-
stepping phase of a T-R cycle are widespread and
provide regional correlation datums. However, during
this transgressive event, a minor decrease in shelf-
accommodation may produce an upward-shallowing
event that results in a regressive-infilling section.
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata 411

Figure 1. Basins and uplifts in the onshore northern Gulf of Mexico area as modified from Pilger (1981), and structural
features of the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin area as modified from Mink et al. (1990).

Although this event defines a shift in facies belts, it is
not of the magnitude of the progradational event of
the regressive-infilling phase of a T-R cycle that rep-
resents a major influx of siliciclastic sediments into the
basin. The subcycle boundary generally consists of
an erosional transgressive surface landward and a
conformable surface of maximum regression seaward.
2. Geologic setting
The MISB (Figure 1) is one of a series of salt basins
formed by the initial rift configuration of alternating
crustal highs and lows resulting from translateral
movement along the original Pangean rift margin that
was initiated during the Late Triassic and Early
Jurassic (Winkler & Buffler, 1988; MacRae, 1994).
The northern and eastern margins of the basin are
defined by the limit of Jurassic salt and the Mobile
Graben (Figure 1). The distribution of salt structures
indicates that original salt thickness was moderate
along the northern and northeastern regions of the
basin, whereas salt thickness was greater in the central
and southwestern portions of the basin. The Jackson
Dome, which is a buried Late Cretaceous volcano and
associated atoll structure (Dockery, 1998), pro-
foundly modified the configuration of the MISB in
west-central Mississippi and also altered the distri-
bution of strata in this area. The southern margin of
the basin is defined by the northern margin of the
Wiggins Arch (Figure 1). The Wiggins Arch is a mass
of relict continental crust left behind during the rifting
between North America and South America. It is an
elongate structure oriented in a general west–east
direction that bifurcates to the west, with the south-
western flank forming the Hancock Ridge (Grazier,
1988). The southern margin of the arch is steeply
sloping and the northern margin is gently sloping. The
arch exerted strong influence on the sedimentation
patterns in the basin during the Mesozoic. The south-
western and western margins of the basin are not as
clearly defined as the other margins, but are recog-
nized on the basis of the distribution of salt-related
structures.
The depositional history of the strata of the MISB is
directly linked to the tectonic history of the basin,
which is closely related to the origin of the Gulf of
Mexico (Wood & Walper, 1974). The Gulf of Mexico
is a divergent margin basin characterized by exten-
sional rift tectonics and wrench faulting (Pilger, 1981;
Miller, 1982; Salvador, 1987; Winkler & Buffler,
412 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Figure 2. Absolute ages, chronostratigraphic units, and lithostratigraphic units of Lower Cretaceous strata in Texas,
Louisiana, Arkansas and the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin area.

1988). Its history includes a phase of crustal extension
and thinning, a phase of rifting and sea-floor spread-
ing and a phase of thermal subsidence (Nunn, 1984).
Based on the distribution of crust type, Sawyer et al.
(1991) proposed the following as a model for the
evolution of the Gulf of Mexico region and related
MISB. The Late Triassic–Early Jurassic early rifting
phase was characterized by large and small half-
grabens bounded by listric normal faults and filled
with nonmarine siliciclastic sediments (red-beds) and
volcanics. The Middle Jurassic phase of rifting, crustal
attenuation and formation of transitional crust was
characterized by the evolution of a pattern of alternat-
ing basement highs and lows and the accumulation of
thick salt deposits. The Late Jurassic phase of sea-
floor spreading and oceanic crust formation in the
deep central Gulf of Mexico was characterized by a
regional marine transgression as a result of crustal
cooling and subsidence. Subsidence continued into
the Early Cretaceous, and a carbonate shelf margin
developed along the tectonic hinge zone of differential
subsidence between thick and thin transitional
crust. During the Early to mid-Cretaceous, regional
erosional events are recognized to have occurred in
the Valanginian and Cenomanian (Figure 2) reflecting
times of sea-level fall in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
The Early Cretaceous depositional system in the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico was dominated by
fluvial-deltaic to coastal siliciclastic sedimentation
updip and the development of a broad carbonate shelf
with a low relief shelf margin downdip that approxi-
mates the boundary between thick transitional crust
and thin transitional crust (Winkler & Buffler, 1988;
Sawyer et al., 1991). The development of a carbonate
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
shelf margin during the Early Cretaceous is believed
to have resulted from a combination of a change in the
slope of the basement that is marked by a crustal hinge
zone and Jurassic sediment depositional patterns
(Dobson, 1990; Sawyer et al., 1991). Although
Jurassic depositional patterns were greatly affected by
basement topography, sediments deposited at the
close of the Jurassic reflect an infilling of the basement
low areas and a general progradation (Dobson, 1990;
Dobson & Buffler, 1997). This progradation was
interpreted by Dobson (1990) to have resulted in the
change from a carbonate ramp to a rimmed carbonate
platform margin. This platform margin was a charac-
teristic feature of the northern Gulf of Mexico region
throughout the Early Cretaceous.
The Lower Cretaceous shelf margin was exposed
during the early Late Cretaceous (mid-Cenomanian)
by a major lowering of sea level in the Gulf of Mexico.
This sea-level fall has been attributed to a combi-
nation of regional igneous activity (Jackson Dome)
and global sea-level fall during the mid-Cenomanian
(Salvador, 1991). A Late Cretaceous marine trans-
gression followed this regional erosional event, and
this, in combination with an increase in siliciclastic
sediment influx resulting from the Laramide orogeny,
affected deposition in the Late Cretaceous and into
the Cenozoic (Salvador, 1991).
3. Stratigraphy and paleontology
Detailed biostratigraphic studies of Lower Cretaceous
strata of the MISB are not available. There are,
however, regional lithostratigraphic correlations of
Lower Cretaceous strata of the surface and subsur-
face of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi
(Imlay, 1940; Forgotson, 1957; Stricklin et al., 1971;
Anderson, 1979; Pittman, 1984, 1985, 1989;
Yurewicz et al., 1993) that enable correlations with
the subsurface units in the MISB (Figure 2). The
detailed biostratigraphic information available from
surface exposures of these strata and from cores from
wells (Adkins, 1932; Hazzard, 1939; Imlay, 1945;
Douglass, 1960; Young, 1967, 1986) can then be
used to estimate the geologic ages of the Lower
Cretaceous units in the MISB.
3.1. Hosston Formation
In the subsurface of the MISB, the Hosston
Formation (Figure 2) consists of sandstone, shale,
occasional limestone nodular beds, and thin lignite
beds (Nunnally & Fowler, 1954; Dinkins, 1969,
1971; Devery, 1982). The boundary between the
Cotton Valley Group and Hosston Formation is
413
unconformable (McFarlan, 1977). Throughout much
of the basin area, the formation is a fluvial-deltaic,
conglomeratic, medium- to coarse-grained sandstone
(Dinkins, 1971). However, in the mid- to downdip
areas of the basin the formation consists of coastal and
shallow marine interbedded sandstone and calcareous
shale (Applin & Applin, 1953), and in areas south of
the basin proper (south of the Wiggins Arch) it
includes interbedded limestone and shale (Warner,
1993).
The Hosston Formation is generally devoid of age-
diagnostic fossils; thus determining the age of the unit
is problematical. Petty et al. (1995) published micro-
fossil occurrences for three wells in the offshore con-
tinental shelf region of the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico. A sample from near the base of the Hosston
Formation in a well in Viosca Knoll Block 117 yielded
the dinoflagellate species Muderongia simplex, which
Lentin & Williams (1989) reported as ranging from
the Valanginian to lower Barremian stages. A sample
approximately one-quarter of the way up from the
base of the Hosston Formation in a well in Mobile
Block 991 contained the dinoflagellate species Drug-
gindium ‘A’ of unpublished taxonomic affinity, and
Phoberocysta neocomica s. l. (several subspecies were
described as belonging to this species) of Hauterivian
age. Calcareous nannofossil specimens of the species
Nannoconus steinmanni, which is a typical Tithonian to
latest Barremian microfossil, were observed approxi-
mately one-third of the way up from the base of
the Hosston Formation in Chevron MS 87 well in
Mississippi Sound Block 57 (well 4 on Figure 3).
McFarlan (1977) correlated the upper part of the
Cotton Valley Group with the top of the Berriasian
Stage and the lower part of the Hosston Formation to
the uppermost part of the Valanginian Stage; thus,
almost all of the Valanginian Stage is missing. These
observations indicate a late Valanginian–early Aptian
age for the Hosston Formation of the MISB area.
3.2. Sligo Formation
The Sligo Formation is a subsurface unit throughout
the Gulf of Mexico, and only occurs along the south-
ern margin of the MISB and south of the basin proper.
It consists predominantly of marine shelf, calcareous,
fossiliferous shale associated with thin shallow marine,
fine-grained sandstone beds in the area of the MISB
(Devery, 1982). South of the MISB and in Louisiana
and Texas, the formation is primarily marine shelf and
reef limestone (Anderson, 1979; Warner, 1993). The
Hosston Formation-Sligo Formation boundary is
characterized by a change in lithology and in well log
signature.
 414
E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Figure 3. Cross section of Lower Cretaceous strata from the updip area of the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin to the Lower Cretaceous shelf margin in the
offshore area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. T-R, transgressive-regressive; TA, transgressive aggrading phase; TB, transgressive backstepping
phase; RI, regressive infilling phase.
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
Biostratigraphic data (foraminifera) and strati-
graphic observations indicate an early Aptian age for
the Sligo Formation in the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico area (Petty et al., 1995). Specifically, the
benthic foraminifera Choffatella decipiens occurs at
the top of the Sligo Formation (Petty et al., 1995), and
the highest occurrence of this microfossil is in lower
Aptian strata (van Hinte, 1976).
3.3. Pine Island Shale
The Pine Island Shale, James Limestone, and Bexar
Formation of the MISB area are stratigraphically
equivalent to the Pearsall Formation of Texas,
Arkansas, and Louisiana (Forgotson, 1957). The Pine
Island Shale occurs in much of the onshore area
of the northern Gulf of Mexico area (Imlay, 1945;
Forgotson, 1957; Anderson, 1979). In the MISB, the
Pine Island Shale consists primarily of marine shelf,
dark gray to black, calcareous, fossiliferous shale
(Dinkins, 1969). These shale beds become micaceous
and silty updip and are interbedded with fine- to
medium-grained sandstone, whereas downdip the
shale beds are interbedded with fossiliferous limestone
(Dinkins, 1969). The Sligo Formation-Pine Island
Shale boundary is characterized as a discontinuity in
lithology and well log signature.
Biostratigraphic and stratigraphic data indicate that
the Pine Island Shale is equivalent to the Hammett
Shale Member of Texas. Young (1986) assigned the
Hammett Shale Member to the Dufrenoyia rebeccae
(ammonite) Zone of late Aptian age, and Hazzard
(1939), Imlay (1940), and Forgotson (1957) made a
similar age assignment for the Pine Island Shale
in the subsurface of Arkansas and Louisiana.
Hazzard (1939) reported the occurrence of the
ammonite genera, Dufrenoyia, Hypacanthoplites, and
Pseudosaynella in the Pine Island Shale of Arkansas.
These observations indicate a late Aptian age for the
Pine Island Shale of the MISB area.
3.4. James Limestone
The James Limestone occurs in the southern portion
of the MISB and south of the basin proper.
Lithofacies include low-energy marine shelf limestone
and shallow water high-energy grainstone and reefal
boundstone (Loucks et al., 1996). The Pine Island
Shale-James Limestone boundary is gradational as
observed from well log signatures and lithologic
descriptions.
Regional lithostratigraphic correlation indicates that
the James Limestone is equivalent to the Cow Creek
Limestone Member of Texas (Imlay, 1945;
Forgotson, 1957). Biostratigraphic data (ammonites,
415
foraminifera) indicate a late Aptian age for the Cow
Creek Limestone Member (Adkins, 1932; Imlay,
1945; Forgotson, 1957); specifically, the member
occurs in the Aptian Dufrenoyia justinae (ammonite)
Zone (Young, 1986). Also, species of Orbitolina have
not been recovered from the member or the James
Limestone (Imlay, 1945). These paleontologic data
and stratigraphic observations indicate a late Aptian
age for the James Limestone of the MISB area.
3.5. ‘Donovan’ Sandstone
The term ‘Donovan’ sandstone rather than Rodessa
Formation is used informally in this study to designate
the predominantly sandstone interval in the MISB
that occurs between the top of the Pine Island Shale
and the base of the shaly interval below the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite throughout most of the basin. The shaly
interval is assigned to the Bexar Formation–Rodessa
Formation interval. The term ‘Donovan’ has been
used for many years to refer to the hydrocarbon-
productive, fluvial, sandy interval between the top of
the Hosston Formation and the base of the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite in the Citronelle Field of Mobile County,
Alabama (Eaves, 1976). The ‘Donovan’ interval
has traditionally been referred to as the Rodessa
Formation in Mississippi and Alabama. In this study,
it was considered useful to differentiate the typical
Rodessa lithology (predominantly carbonate) that
occurs south of the MISB proper from the atypical
siliciclastic interval that occurs within the MISB. The
‘Donovan’ sandstone is also interpreted to occur
within a cycle separate and distinct from the Rodessa
carbonate beds.
Well log correlations indicate that the ‘Donovan’
interval grades from predominantly sandstone in the
updip portion of the MISB to a siltstone and shale
interval in the downdip portion of the basin. The
interval is interpreted to be equivalent to the James
Limestone based on lithostratigraphic correlation, and
thus is assigned to the upper part of the Aptian Stage.
The ‘Donovan’ sandstone beds represent the first
significant siliciclastic progradational unit above the
Hosston Formation.
3.6. Bexar Formation
The Bexar Formation is defined as the interval
between the base of the Rodessa Formation or the
Glen Rose Limestone undifferentiated, and the top of
the Cow Creek Limestone Member or James
Limestone (Forgotson, 1957). The type well of the
Bexar Formation is in Bexar County, Texas, where
the unit consists of marine shelf, black, calcareous
416 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett
shale and thin, dense, finely crystalline limestone beds
(Forgotson, 1957). The Bexar Formation is well
defined along the southern margin of the MISB and
south of the basin proper, where it consists of a thin
interval of marine shelf lime mudstone and shale
between the top of the James Limestone and the
carbonate rocks of the Rodessa Formation (Loucks
et al., 1996). It is more extensive in Louisiana
(Anderson, 1979) and Texas (Forgotson, 1957) than
in the MISB area. The James Limestone-Bexar
Formation boundary is disconformable as observed
from core studies (Loucks et al., 1996).
The Bexar Formation is of late Aptian age
(Forgotson, 1957) and was assigned to the late Aptian
Kasanskyella spathi (ammonite) Zone by Young
(1986) in Texas.
3.7. Rodessa Formation
The Rodessa Formation traditionally has been defined
as the stratigraphic interval between the top of the
Pearsall Formation and the base of the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite (Forgotson, 1957). In this paper, we assign
most of this interval to the ‘Donovan’ sandstone. The
Rodessa Formation as recognized herein is the marine
shelf and reef carbonate interval between the top of
the Bexar Formation and the base of the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite. The shale interval between the top of the
‘Donovan’ sandstone and the base of the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite is assigned to the Bexar Formation–
Rodessa Formation interval (Figure 3). The Rodessa
carbonate beds occur along the southern margin of the
MISB and south of the basin proper, and the Bexar
shale–Rodessa shale beds occur in the central and
northern parts of the MISB. The transition from
siliciclastic to carbonate sediments occurs in the
southern portion of the MISB (Figure 3). In the
southern portion of the MISB, the Bexar Formation
separates the carbonate beds of the James Limestone
from the carbonate beds of the lower part of the
Rodessa Formation. Several anhydrite beds in the
upper part of the Rodessa Formation are regionally
extensive, occurring from east Texas across Louisiana
to Mississippi, and in offshore areas correlate
stratigraphically with the lower portion of the Glen
Rose reef limestone (Pittman, 1985). Growth of the
Glen Rose reef kept pace with sea-level rise and
resulted in restricted circulation conditions in broad
lagoonal areas behind the reef. These dynamics are
widely acknowledged to have formed the subaqueous
anhydrite beds of the Rodessa Formation–Ferry
Lake Anhydrite–Mooringsport Formation interval
(Sarg, 2001). The contact of the Rodessa For-
mation with the Bexar Formation is gradational as
observed from well log signatures and lithologic
descriptions.
Regional stratigraphic correlation indicates that the
Rodessa Formation is equivalent to the ‘lower’ Glen
Rose Limestone of Texas (Imlay, 1940; Forgotson,
1957). The ‘lower’ Glen Rose Limestone (post-Bexar
Formation to Corbula bed, sensu Stricklin et al., 1971)
is richly fossiliferous in outcrop. Douglass (1960)
assigned the lower portion of the Glen Rose
Limestone to the benthic foraminiferal Orbitolina
texana Zone of earliest Albian age, and Young (1986)
placed the lower portion of the Glen Rose Limestone
in the Hypacanthoplites cragini and the Douvilleiceras
mammillatum ammonite zones of earliest Albian age.
Imlay (1940) reported an early Albian age for the
Rodessa Formation of Arkansas and Louisiana. These
paleontologic data and stratigraphic observations
indicate an earliest Albian age for the Rodessa
carbonate beds in the MISB area.
3.8. Ferry Lake Anhydrite
The Ferry Lake Anhydrite is one of the most distinc-
tive lithostratigraphic units in the Gulf Coastal Plain
and is used widely for regional correlation. Although it
is a subsurface term, equivalent strata crop out
in Arkansas in the lower part of the De Queen
Formation (Pittman, 1984) and in the middle of the
‘lower’ Glen Rose Limestone of Texas (Pittman,
1989). The Ferry Lake Anhydrite was deposited as
subaqueous lagoonal gypsum that was subsequently
neomorphosed to anhydrite (Lock et al., 1983; Loucks
& Longman, 1985). The build-up of the Lower
Cretaceous (Glen Rose) shelf margin reef restricted
circulation of marine waters to its greatest extent
during deposition of the Ferry Lake Anhydrite. In the
MISB, the Ferry Lake Anhydrite consists primarily of
massive anhydrite, shale, and limestone (Nunnally &
Fowler, 1954). The Rodessa Formation-Ferry Lake
Anhydrite boundary is sharp and is recognized at the
base of the first massive anhydrite as observed from
well log signatures and lithologic descriptions.
Scott (1939) assigned the Glen Rose Limestone
(with anhydrite in the basal part) to the Albian Stage,
based on the occurrence of the ammonite Knemiceras
roemeri. Imlay (1940) assigned the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite (Glen Rose anhydrite of Hazzard, 1939) to
the middle of the lower part of the Albian Stage,
based on stratigraphic relations with the Glen Rose
Limestone. Pittman (1989), studying the regional
stratigraphy of the Glen Rose beds, determined that
Ferry Lake Anhydrite equivalent strata occurred in the
‘lower’ Glen Rose Limestone, stratigraphically below
the regional marker Corbula bed, and Douglas (1960)
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
and Pittman (1989) reported that these strata are in
the Orbitolina texana Zone (below the lowest occur-
rence of O. minuta), indicating an early, but not
earliest, Albian age. Thus, an early Albian age is
concluded for the Ferry Lake Anhydrite of the MISB
area based on paleontologic data and stratigraphic
observations.
3.9. Mooringsport Formation
The Mooringsport Formation in the MISB is defined
as the interval between the top of the massive anhy-
drite beds of the Ferry Lake Anhydrite and the coarse
siliciclastic sediments of the Paluxy Formation. This
interval is equivalent to the middle portion of the Glen
Rose Limestone of Texas (Imlay, 1940). Strata
equivalent to the Mooringsport Formation crop out in
Arkansas within the upper portion of the De Queen
Formation. In this area, the De Queen Formation
consists of interbedded siliciclastic sediments, lime-
stone, and evaporite (gypsum and halite) (Lock et al.,
1983; Pittman, 1984). Dinosaur footprints also
occur in the De Queen Formation (Pittman, 1984).
Significantly, the marine invertebrate fauna associated
with this unit attains its highest diversity in the upper
portion of the De Queen Formation (Mooringsport
Formation). In Louisiana, the shallow marine carbon-
ate interval between the top of the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite and the base of the upper part of the Glen
Rose beds is the Mooringsport Formation, which is a
carbonate unit in downdip areas and a siliciclastic
unit in updip areas in the MISB (Yurewicz et al.,
1993). South of the MISB proper, the Mooringsport
Formation includes carbonate and calcareous shale
beds (Davis & Lambert, 1963).
In much of the MISB area, the Mooringsport
Formation consists of marine shelf, dark gray shale
and shallow marine, fine-grained sandstone. The shal-
low marine sandstone beds become more prominent
updip, and marine shelf and reef limestone beds occur
downdip (Dinkins, 1966; Baria, 1981). Generally, the
calcareous interval is higher stratigraphically in the
Mooringsport section in areas south of the MISB than
in the basin proper. The Ferry Lake Anhydrite-
Mooringsport Formation boundary is sharp but
conformable (Dinkins, 1969). Updip of the limit
of deposition of the Ferry Lake Anhydrite, the
Mooringsport Formation is recognized as a predomi-
nantly shaly interval between the sandstone beds of
the ‘Donovan’ interval and the sandstone beds of the
Paluxy Formation. This recognition of the unit is
significant because it results in the assignment of all
shale beds between the ‘Donovan’ interval and Paluxy
sandstone beds to the Mooringsport Formation,
417
including shale beds equivalent to those that occur
below the Ferry Lake Anhydrite, where the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite is present. These shale beds are assigned to
the Bexar Formation–Rodessa Formation interval in
the central and northern parts of the MISB.
Regional stratigraphic correlation indicates that the
Mooringsport Formation is equivalent to the middle
portion of the Glen Rose Limestone of central Texas
(Imlay, 1940). In Texas, the Corbula bed in the
middle of the Glen Rose Limestone, and Glen Rose
strata stratigraphically above this bed, contain ammo-
nites of the Douvilleiceras mammillatum Zone (Young,
1986) of middle early Albian age. Also, these strata
have been assigned to the lower part of the benthic
foraminiferal Orbitolina minuta Zone, indicating an
early Albian age (Douglass, 1960; Pittman, 1989).
Imlay (1940) reported an early Albian age for the
Mooringsport Formation of Arkansas and Louisiana.
These biostratigraphic data and stratigraphic obser-
vations indicate that the Mooringsport Formation of
the MISB area is of early Albian age.
3.10. Paluxy Formation
The Paluxy Formation in the MISB is the strati-
graphic interval between the top of the Mooringsport
Formation and either the base of the carbonate rocks
of the Andrew Formation (in the southern portion of
the basin) or the thickly bedded sandstone and shale
interval of the Dantzler Formation (in updip areas). In
Arkansas, the Paluxy Formation is the siliciclastic unit
that overlies the Mooringsport Formation (Imlay,
1940). In Texas, the Paluxy Formation, which is
overlain by the Walnut Formation, is considered to be
the basal unit of the Fredericksburg Group (Hayward
& Brown, 1967; Young, 1967). In Louisiana, the
Paluxy Formation is the unit that overlies the Glen
Rose beds and is overlain by the Fredericksburg
Group (Yurewicz et al., 1993). In the MISB, the
Paluxy Formation consists chiefly of fluvial, coastal,
and shallow marine fine- to coarse-grained micaceous
sandstone beds interbedded with carbonaceous shale
(Nunnally & Fowler, 1954). The lower and upper
portions of the formation often include thicker shale
units than the middle portion of the unit, which
is predominantly sandstone. The Mooringsport
Formation-Paluxy Formation boundary is gradational
as observed from well log signatures and lithologic
descriptions. Sandstone beds assigned to the Paluxy
Formation in updip areas grade into shale beds of the
Mooringsport Formation downdip.
Regional stratigraphic correlation indicates that the
lower portion of the Paluxy Formation is equivalent to
the upper portion of the ‘upper’ Glen Rose Limestone
418 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett
of southwestern Texas (Imlay, 1940). The upper
portion of the ‘upper’ Glen Rose Limestone of Texas
occurs within the Hypacanthoplites comalensis (ammo-
nite) Zone of latest early Albian age and the
Metengonoceras sp. (ammonite) Zone of early middle
Albian age (Young, 1986). This interval also corre-
sponds to the middle and upper parts of the Orbitolina
minuta (foraminiferal) Zone (Pittman, 1989), the
upper portion of which is within the middle part of the
Albian Stage (Douglass, 1960). The upper portion of
the Paluxy Formation in north Texas was assigned to
the middle Albian Oxytropidoceras salasi (ammonite)
Zone by Young (1967, 1986). The upper portion of
the Paluxy Formation in the MISB has been corre-
lated with the lower portion of the Walnut Formation
of Texas (Forgotson, 1957). The lower portion of the
Walnut Formation lies within the Metengonoceras hilli
(ammonite) Zone of middle Albian age (Young,
1986). Imlay (1940) reported a late early Albian age
for the Paluxy Formation of Arkansas and Louisiana.
These biostratigraphic data and stratigraphic obser-
vations indicate that the Paluxy Formation in the
MISB area ranges in age from late early to middle
Albian.
3.11. Andrew Formation
The Andrew Formation is the stratigraphic interval
between the sandstone beds of the Paluxy Formation
and the thickly bedded sandstone and shale beds of
the overlying Dantzler Formation (Eargle, 1964). The
stratigraphic relationships of the Andrew Formation
with the various formations of the Fredericksburg
Group of Texas are not well understood. It is possible
that it is equivalent to at least the upper portion of the
Walnut Formation, and may be equivalent to the
entire formation. This interpretation is based on simi-
lar stratigraphic relationships between the nonmarine
sandstone beds underlying both the Walnut and
Andrew formations and the transgressive nature of
these two formations. It seems clear, however, that
the Andrew Formation is equivalent, in part, to the
Fredericksburg Group in Louisiana.
The Andrew Formation is usually assigned to the
Washita-Fredericksburg Groups undifferentiated in
the MISB. This undifferentiated group assignment
also includes the overlying Dantzler Formation. The
Andrew Formation consists of marine shelf, fossilifer-
ous limestone and shale (Eargle, 1964). The lime-
stone beds of the Andrew Formation are prominent
downdip and along the southern margin of the MISB.
The Paluxy Formation-Andrew Formation boundary
is characterized by a discontinuity in lithology and in
well log signature.
The Fredericksburg Group in Texas (which
includes the Walnut Formation and the Edwards
Limestone) was assigned by Young (1967, 1986) to
the Metengonoceras hilli, Oxytropidoceras salasi, Manu-
aniceras carbonarium, and Manuaniceras powelli ammo-
nite zones of middle Albian–early late Albian age.
Regional lithostratigraphic correlation indicates that
the Andrew Formation is equivalent, in part, to the
Fredericksburg Group of Texas. These biostrati-
graphic data and stratigraphic observations indicate
that it is of middle–early late Albian in age.
3.12. Dantzler Formation
The Dantzler Formation is the stratigraphic interval
between either the top of the carbonate rocks of the
Andrew Formation or the sandstone beds of
the Paluxy Formation and the base of the Upper
Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Group. In the MISB, it is
usually referred to as the Washita-Fredericksburg
Groups undifferentiated. It includes fluvial, thick-
bedded, lignitic, fine- to medium-grained sandstone
and carbonaceous shale (Nunnally & Fowler, 1954)
that were interpreted by Chasteen (1983) to represent
a stacked series of braided stream deposits. Coastal
and marine shelf, calcareous sandstone that contains
limestone nodules is present in the lower Dantzler
Formation (Nunnally & Fowler, 1954). The Andrew
Formation-Dantzler Formation boundary is tran-
sitional as observed from well log signatures and
lithologic descriptions. In the southern portion of the
MISB, these transitional beds have been assigned to
the Fredericksburg Group. The boundary between
the Dantzler Formation and the Tuscaloosa Group is
unconformable (Dinkins, 1971).
The Andrew Formation–Dantzler Formation inter-
val in the MISB differs from the corresponding inter-
val in Louisiana. For example, although the Aptian
and early Albian units (Sligo Formation, Pine Island
Shale, James Limestone, Bexar Formation, Rodessa
Formation, and Mooringsport Formation) are of
comparable thicknesses in southern Mississippi and
in central Louisiana, as observed in the Southern
Minerals No. 1 well (well 3 on Figure 3) in the Sandy
Hook field of Pearl River County, Mississippi, and in
the Placid Louisiana Central 227 well in La Salle
Parish, Louisiana, the interval from the top of the
Mooringsport Formation to the top of the Dantzler
Formation in Mississippi is approximately 396 m
(1300 ft) thicker than the thickness of this interval in
Louisiana. In some areas of the MISB, the Dantzler
Formation is as much as 518 m (1700 ft) thicker than
this interval in central Louisiana. The location of both
of the wells discussed above was on the ancient
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
continental shelf area during the Early Cretaceous.
Similarly, the Fredericksburg and Washita groups
in north Texas are less than 152 m (500 ft) thick
(Kessinger, 1982) compared to a total thickness of
approximately 762 m (2500 ft) for these two groups in
southern Mississippi. Clearly, the MISB area exper-
ienced much greater accommodation and siliciclastic
sediment supply during the late Albian and early
Cenomanian than either Texas or Louisiana.
The biostratigraphy for the Washita formations in
Texas is well known, although various authors
have defined the group differently. Some have
included the Kiamichi Formation in the
Fredericksburg Group (Kessinger, 1982), whereas
others have placed the Kiamichi Formation in the
Washita Group (Young, 1967). Young (1967, 1986)
recognized numerous ammonite zones in the Washita
Group (including the Kiamichi Formation), which
range from early (but not earliest) late Albian to
early Cenomanian in age. Regional lithostratigraphic
correlation indicates that the Dantzler Formation is
equivalent, in part, to the Washita Group of Texas
and, in part, to the Fredericksburg Group of
Louisiana and the offshore northeastern Gulf of
Mexico. These biostratigraphic data and stratigraphic
observations indicate that the Dantzler Formation in
the MISB is of late Albian age.
4. Transgressive-regressive cycles
Lower Cretaceous transgressive-regressive (T-R)
cycles and subcycles are recognized based on an
integrated study of well log signatures, core analyses,
lithologic well log descriptions, and regional seismic
reflection profiles. Well log signatures provide the
primary means for the recognition and correlation of
the T-R cycles in the MISB area. Facies stacking
patterns within cycles, as recognized from well log
signatures, are used to characterize the T-R cycles and
subcycles. Abrupt changes or discontinuities in well
log records are utilized to delimit cycle boundaries
and phase changes within a cycle. Where available,
core and lithologic well log descriptions are used to
identify the lithologies and facies of the transgressive
and regressive phases. Interruptions in sedimentation
or discontinuities are recognized from core and litho-
logic well log data, and unconformities are observed
from the core data or inferred from changes in well
log patterns. Reflection configuration and termination
are recognized using seismic reflection profiles. The
characteristics of the seismic sections are used to
support the interpretations regarding the T-R cycles
based on well log signatures, core analyses, and litho-
logic well log descriptions. Biostratigraphic criteria are
419
the principal means for assigning the cycles to a
Cretaceous stage. The geochronology of Cretaceous
stages of Gradstein et al. (1995) is used to age-date the
cycles.
The T-R cycles are recognized on the basis of
large-scale landward or seaward shifts of major litho-
facies belts. The tops of these T-R cycles are identified
by the presence of major progradational sandstone
beds (‘Donovan’, Paluxy and Dantzler units), and the
bases of these cycles are recognized by the occurrence
of marine shale and argillaceous limestone (Sligo/Pine
Island, Bexar/Mooringsport, and Andrew units). The
tops of the T-R subcycles are recognized by the
presence of the development of reefs. Figure 3
presents a cross section from the updip area of the
MISB to the Lower Cretaceous shelf margin in the
offshore area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico
showing lithostratigraphic units, lithofacies changes
and T-R cycles.
In general, the following well log responses were
used to recognize the T-R cycles, subcycles and
associated transgressive/regressive phases. A change
from higher to lower gamma ray and/or from more to
less positive SP log responses identifies the disconti-
nuity in the log records used to recognize the surface
of maximum transgression, which separates the trans-
gressive from the regressive phase of a T-R cycle.
Higher gamma ray and/or positive spontaneous poten-
tial (SP) log signatures are interpreted as representing
shale, clay, and argillaceous limestone beds. Lower
gamma ray and/or negative SP responses are inter-
preted as sandstone beds. High resistivity and/or high
density log responses are interpreted as carbonate
rocks. Very high resistivity and/or very high density log
signatures are interpreted as anhydrite beds.
With respect to seismic reflection data, the follow-
ing generalizations were used to recognize the T-R
cycles. Thin (one or two seismic cycles), concordant,
parallel seismic reflection configurations are inter-
preted as marine strata of the transgressive backstep-
ping phase. These reflectors are characterized by
onlap reflection termination. Thick (several seismic
cycles), oblique, progradational seismic reflection
configurations are interpreted as prograding clino-
forms of the regressive infilling phase. These reflectors
are characterized by offlap (downlap) reflection
terminations.
Four transgressive-regressive (T-R) cycles have
been recognized in Lower Cretaceous strata of the
MISB area (Figure 4). These are the LKEGR-TR 1
(Lower Cretaceous, Eastern Gulf), the LKEGR-TR
2, the LKEGR-TR 3, and the LKEGR-TR 4 cycles.
Three T-R subcycles are recognized in the
LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle: the LKEGR-TR 1–1, the
420
Mid.
Ferry Lake Anhydrite
‘
‘
Figure 4. Absolute ages, chronostratigraphic units, lithostratigraphic units, and transgressive-regressive cycles and subcycles
for the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, and transgressive and regressive facies cycles for Western Europe.
LKEGR-TR 1–2, and the LKEGR-TR 1–3 subcycles.
The LKEGR-TR 1–1 Subcycle represents a transgres-
sive aggrading phase associated with the LKEGR-TR
1 Cycle. Two T-R subcycles are recognized in the
LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle: the LKEGR-TR 2–1 and the
LKEGR-TR 2–2 subcycles. The LKEGR-TR 3 and
the LKEGR-TR 4 cycles are each composed of a
single T-R cycle. The LKEGR-TR 4 Cycle is not well
developed in the MISB; however, this cycle occurs in
the offshore area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico
and in the onshore area of the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico (Texas). The duration of the LKEGR-TR 4
Cycle in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico and in
the MISB area is in question because the cycle is
truncated by the mid-Cretaceous (mid-Cenomanian)
unconformity.
4.1. LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle
The LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle (upper Valanginian–upper
Aptian) includes the Hosston Formation, Sligo
E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett
et al
Formation, Pine Island Shale, James Limestone, and
‘Donovan’ sandstone. The Hosston Formation un-
conformably overlies the Cotton Valley Group in the
northern Gulf of Mexico area (McFarlan, 1977), and
a significant hiatus of 4 myr is associated with this
subaerial unconformity. Based on core analysis and
well log lithologic descriptions, the Hosston For-
mation includes interbedded sandstone and calcare-
ous shale in downdip areas of the MISB, and consists
of conglomeratic, coarse-grained and medium-
grained sandstone in the remainder of the MISB area
(Figure 5A).
The LKEGR-TR 1–1 Subcycle (upper
Valanginian–lowermost Aptian) represents the early
stage or aggrading portion of the transgressive phase
of the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle. Jacquin & de Graciansky
(1998) reported that aggrading sequences can develop
in the early stage of the transgressive phase of a T-R
cycle. A siliciclastic aggrading sequence generally con-
sists of widespread and thick deposits that are a result
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata 421

Figure 5. Core photographs of Lower Cretaceous facies. A, Hosston medium-grained sandstone of the transgressive
aggrading phase of the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle, Reese No. 1–A well, Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi, 4836 m
(15,862 ft). B, Sligo fossiliferous wackestone of the transgressive backstepping phase of the LKEGR-TR 1–2 Subcycle,
Chandeleur Sound Block 61, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, 6092 m (19,981 ft). C, Sligo rudist boundstone of the
regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 1–2 Subcycle, 1654–6 well, Main Pass 253, 4759 m (15,610 ft). D, Pine
Island calcareous shale of the transgressive backstepping phase of the LKEGR-TR 1–3 Subcycle, Waveland Gas Unit
No. 1 well, Hancock County, Mississippi, 4780 m (15,679 ft). Diameter of coin is 18 mm.

of a high terrigenous sediment supply that keeps pace
with the creation of shelf-accommodation (Jacquin &
de Graciansky, 1998). Based on core analysis, well
log lithologic descriptions and well log signatures,
Hosston calcareous shale beds probably represent the
transgressive section (shallow marine deposits) of this
T-R subcycle, and the Hosston coarse- to medium-
grained sandstone is interpreted as the regressive
section (fluvial-deltaic deposits) of this subcycle.
Palynomorph, dinoflagellate, and calcareous nanno-
fossil data support this interpretation.
The late stage or backstepping portion of the
transgressive phase of the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle is
composed of the Sligo Formation and the lower beds of
the Pine Island Shale, and the regressive infilling phase
of this T-R cycle includes the upper silty beds of the
Pine Island Shale, the James Limestone, and the
‘Donovan’ sandstone. The contact of the Sligo For-
mation (backstepping phase) with the underlying
Hosston Formation (aggrading phase) is recognized by
a change in well log pattern and lithology. Throughout
much of the Gulf of Mexico, the Sligo Formation
consists of fossiliferous limestone beds as discerned
from core studies and well log lithologic descriptions.
The lithologic contrast or discontinuity between the
Sligo limestone beds and the underlying Hosston
422 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Figure 6. Well log pattern from the Simmons ‘A’ 1 well, Yazoo County, Mississippi, showing the well log signature
characteristics of the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle and associated transgressive-regressive subcycles from the updip area of the
Mississippi Interior Salt Basin; see Figure 3 for location of the well. SP, spontaneous potential; ILM, medium induction
(resistivity); TA, transgressive aggrading phase; TB, transgressive backstepping phase; RI, regressive infilling phase;
RS, inferred ravinement surface; TS, inferred transgressive surface; SMT, inferred surface of maximum transgression;
SMF, inferred surface of marine flooding; K1h, Hosston Formation; K1s, Sligo Formation; K1pi, Pine Island Shale;
K1‘d’, ‘Donovan’ sandstone.

sandstone beds is recorded in higher resistivity and erosional transgressive surface or ravinement surface
more positive SP log responses for the Sligo carbonate that marks the base of the LKEGR-TR 1–2 Subcycle.
beds as compared to the Hosston sandstone beds (Fig- The lower and middle beds of the Sligo Formation
ure 6). This discontinuity is interpreted to be an constitute the LKEGR-TR 1–2 Subcycle (lower
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
Aptian). Based on core studies and well log lithologic
descriptions, the lower Sligo beds in the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico include lime mudstone and fossilifer-
ous wackestone (Figure 5B), and the middle Sligo
beds are fossiliferous reef rudstone and boundstone
(Figure 5C). Based on core analysis, well log litho-
logic descriptions, well log signatures and paleonto-
logic (ammonite, bivalve, dinoflagellate, calcareous
nannofossil and foraminiferal) data, the Sligo fossil-
iferous lime mudstone and wackestone beds are inter-
preted as the transgressive section (marine shelf
deposits) and the Sligo fossiliferous rudstone and
boundstone beds represent the regressive section (reef
deposits) of this subcycle. The lower Sligo beds are
characterized by a more positive SP log reading com-
pared to the middle Sligo beds in the MISB area
(Figure 6). This change in log response is used to
recognize an inferred surface of marine flooding,
which separates the transgressive and regressive
sections in this subcycle.
The upper Sligo beds, Pine Island Shale, James
Limestone, and ‘Donovan’ sandstone comprise the
LKEGR-TR 1–3 Subcycle (upper Aptian). The Sligo
intraformational boundary between the middle and
upper Sligo beds is recognized by a discontinuity
(inferred transgressive surface) in well log pattern
consisting of a more positive SP log response for the
upper Sligo beds compared to the middle Sligo beds
(Figure 6). Seaward, this contact is inferred to be
conformable with the top of the Sligo reef beds
representing a surface of maximum regression, which
separates an upward-shallowing Sligo section from an
upward-deepening section. The lithologic contrast
between the Sligo limestone beds in the MISB area
and the overlying Pine Island calcareous shale beds
(Figure 5D) is recorded in higher gamma ray and
lower resistivity log responses for the Pine Island shale
beds compared to the Sligo limestone beds (Figure 7).
The ‘Donovan’ sandstone overlies the Pine Island
Shale in much of the MISB. Based on core analysis
and well log lithologic descriptions, the Pine Island
Shale is a black, calcareous, fossiliferous shale and
silty shale, and the ‘Donovan’ sandstone is a conglom-
eratic, fine- to medium-grained sandstone (Figure 8A)
interbedded with red shale. The lithologic contrast
between the Pine Island shale beds and the ‘Donovan’
sandstone beds is recorded in a more positive SP log
record for the Pine Island Shale compared to the
‘Donovan’ sandstone (Figure 6). The upper beds of
the Sligo Formation and the lower beds of the Pine
Island Shale are interpreted as the transgressive sec-
tion (marine shelf deposits) of the LKEGR-TR 1–3
Subcycle, and the upper silty beds (shallow marine
deposits) of the Pine Island Shale and the ‘Donovan’
423
sandstone (fluvial deposits) represent the regressive
section of this subcycle. In the southern portion of the
MISB and in much of the onshore area of the north-
ern Gulf of Mexico, the James Limestone overlies
the Pine Island Shale. The James Limestone and
‘Donovan’ sandstone are interpreted as coeval. Based
on core analysis, well log lithologic descriptions, and
paleontologic (ammonite and bivalve) data, the James
Limestone is a marine shelf, bioclastic grainstone
(Figure 8B) and reef rudstone (Figure 8C). The
lithologic contrast between the Pine Island Shale and
the James Limestone is recorded in a higher gamma
ray log response for the Pine Island shale beds
compared to the James packstone, grainstone, rud-
stone and boundstone beds (Figure 7). In the south-
ern portion of the MISB and in the offshore area of
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, the James Limestone
represents the regressive section (marine shelf and reef
deposits) of the LKEGR-TR 1–3 Subcycle.
The Sligo Formation (LKEGR-TR 1–2 Subcycle)
and the lower beds of the Pine Island Shale (trans-
gressive section of the LKEGR-TR 1–3 Subcycle) are
interpreted as the transgressive backstepping phase of
the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle, and the upper silty beds of
the Pine Island Shale and the ‘Donovan’ sandstone/
James Limestone interval (regressive section of the
LKEGR-TR 1–3 Subcycle) represents the regressive
infilling phase of this cycle. The facies transition in the
Pine Island Shale marks the change from an upward-
deepening section to an upward-shallowing section
and represents a surface of maximum transgression.
This surface is recognized by a change from higher
to lower gamma ray and from more to less positive
SP log responses. The seismic data for the upper
Sligo Formation/lower Pine Island Shale interval is
characterized as concordant, parallel reflection con-
figurations (Yurewicz et al., 1993). The seismic data
for the ‘Donovan’ sandstone/James Limestone interval
are characterized as oblique, progradational reflection
configurations with offlap (downlap) reflection termi-
nations (Figure 9). The ‘Donovan’ sandstone, which
caps this T-R cycle, is the first of three major pro-
gradational siliciclastic units in the MISB, and the
Sligo Formation and lower beds of the Pine Island
Shale mark the base of this cycle.
4.2. LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle
The Bexar Formation, Rodessa Formation, Ferry
Lake Anhydrite, Mooringsport Formation, and
Paluxy Formation constitute the LKEGR-TR 2
Cycle (uppermost Aptian–middle Albian). The Bexar
Formation boundary with the underlying James
424 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Figure 7. Well log patterns from the Southern Minerals No. 1 well, Pearl River County, Mississippi, showing the well log
signature characteristics of the LKEGR-TR 1, LKEGR-TR 2, and LKEGR-TR 3 cycles and associated transgressive-
regressive subcycles from the southern portion of the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin; see Figure 3 for location of the well.
GR, gamma ray; SP, spontaneous potential; ILD, deep induction (resistivity); TB, transgressive backstepping phase; RI,
regressive infilling phase; SA, inferred subaerial unconformity; TS, inferred transgressive surface; SMR, inferred surface
of maximum regression; SMT, inferred surface of maximum transgression; SMF, inferred surface of marine flooding;
MCU, mid-Cretaceous (mid-Cenomanian) unconformity; K1s, Sligo Formation; K1pi, Pine Island Shale; K1j, James
Limestone; K1b, Bexar Formation; K1r, Rodessa Formation; K1f1, Ferry Lake Anhydrite; K1m, Mooringsport
Formation; K1p, Paluxy Formation; K1a, Andrew Formation; K1d, Dantzler Formation.
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata 425

Figure 8. Core photographs of Lower Cretaceous strata. A, ‘Donovan’ conglomeratic, fine- to medium-grained sandstone
of the regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 1–3 Subcycle, Citronelle Unit 28 No. 1 well, Mobile County,
Alabama, 3383 m (11,097 ft). B, James bioclastic grainstone of the regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 1–3
Subcycle, Denmiss 24–8 well, Lawrence County, Mississippi, 4852 m (15,915 ft). C, James rudist rudstone of the
regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 1–3 Subcycle, Denmiss 24–8 well, Lawrence County, Mississippi, 4855 m
(15,925 ft). D, Bexar argillaceous lime mudstone of the transgressive backstepping phase of the LKEGR-TR 2–1
Subcycle, Chandeleur Sound Block 61, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, 5590 m (18,334 ft). Diameter of coin is 18 mm.

Limestone is disconformable (transgressive surface
documenting erosion in the marine system) as
observed from core study (Loucks et al., 1996). This
contact is also recognized by a discontinuity in well log
pattern and change in lithology. Throughout much of
the northern Gulf of Mexico, the Bexar Formation
consists of calcareous shale and argillaceous lime
mudstone (Figure 8D) as discerned from core studies
and well log lithologic descriptions. The lithologic
contrast between the Bexar shale beds and the under-
lying James Limestone beds is recorded in more
positive SP and lower resistivity log responses for the
426 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett
Bexar shale beds as compared to the James Limestone
beds (Figure 7).
The Bexar Formation, Rodessa Formation, and
Ferry Lake Anhydrite comprise the LKEGR-TR 2–1
Subcycle (uppermost Aptian–lower Albian) of the
LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle. Based on core analysis, well log
lithologic descriptions, and paleontologic (foramin-
iferal, ammonite and bivalve) data, the Bexar
Formation is a marine calcareous shale and argil-
laceous lime mudstone, the Rodessa Formation is a
fossiliferous, reef rudstone and boundstone (Figure
10A) and the Ferry Lake Anhydrite is a subaqueous
anhydrite. The lithologic contrast between the Bexar
Formation and the Rodessa Formation is recorded in
higher gamma ray and lower resistivity log responses
for the Bexar shale beds compared to the Rodessa
limestone beds (Figure 7). The lithologic contrast
between the Rodessa limestone beds and the an-
hydrite beds of the Ferry Lake Anhydrite is recorded
in a higher resistivity log response for the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite compared to the limestone beds of the
Rodessa Formation. The Bexar shale beds are inter-
preted as the transgressive section (marine shelf
deposits) of the LKEGR-TR 2–1 Subcycle, and the
Bexar argillaceous limestone beds (marine shelf
deposits), Rodessa rudstone and boundstone beds
(marine shelf and reef deposits) and Ferry Lake
Anhydrite beds (lagoonal deposits) represent the
regressive section of this subcycle. The lithologic
transition in the Bexar Formation, as recognized by a
change in the gamma ray log response, is marked by
an inferred surface of marine flooding, which sepa-
rates the transgressive and regressive sections in this
subcycle.
The Mooringsport Formation and Paluxy
Formation constitute the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle
(lower–middle Albian) of the LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle.
Based on core analysis and well log lithologic descrip-
tions, the Mooringsport Formation is a calcareous
shale (Figure 10B) in the MISB, and the Paluxy
Formation is a fine- to medium-grained sandstone
(Figure 10C) interbedded with carbonaceous shale
(Figure 10D). The Ferry Lake Anhydrite and
Mooringsport boundary is inferred to be conformable
with the top of the Ferry Lake Anhydrite, representing
a surface of maximum regression, which separates an
upward shallowing section from an upward deepening
section. This discontinuity between the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite and the Mooringsport Formation is recog-
nized by a higher resistivity log response for the Ferry
Lake Anhydrite compared to the Mooringsport beds
(Figure 7). This boundary marks the base of the
LKEGE-TR 2–2 Subcycle. In parts of the MISB, the
LKEGR-TR 2–1 Subcycle is not recognizable. In
these areas, the base of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle
and the LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle is recognized by a
discontinuity (inferred transgressive surface) in well
log pattern and change in lithology between the
Mooringsport Formation and the underlying
‘Donovan’ sandstone. In these cases, the lithologic
contrast between the ‘Donovan’ sandstone and the
overlying shale beds is recorded in lower resistivity
and more negative SP log responses for the ‘Donovan’
sandstone beds compared to the Mooringsport shale
beds (Figure 6). In much of the MISB, the calcareous
shale beds of the Mooringsport Formation are inter-
preted as the transgressive section (marine shelf shale
deposits) of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle, and the
sandstone beds of the Paluxy Formation represent
the regressive section (fluvial and coastal siliciclastic
deposits) of this subcycle. In the southern portion of
the MISB and in the offshore area of the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico, the Mooringsport Formation includes
lime mudstone, packstone, grainstone (Figure 11A),
rudstone and boundstone (Figure 11B). Based on
core analysis, well log descriptions, and paleontologic
(foraminifera, ammonite and bivalve) data, the pack-
stone, grainstone, rudstone and boundstone beds are
part of the regressive section (marine shelf and reef
deposits) of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle. These
carbonate beds are characterized by higher resistivity
and lower gamma ray log signatures than the
calcareous shale and lime mudstone beds of the
Mooringsport Formation (Figure 7). The lithologic
contrast between the Mooringsport beds and the
sandstone beds of the Paluxy Formation is recorded in
higher gamma ray and higher resistivity log responses
for the Mooringsport Formation compared to the
sandstone beds of the Paluxy Formation.
The Bexar Formation, Rodessa Formation and
Ferry Lake Anhydrite (LKEGR-TR 2–1 Subcycle)
and lower beds of the Mooringsport Formation
(transgressive section of the LKEGR-TR 2–2
Subcycle) are interpreted as the transgressive back-
stepping phase of the LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle. The upper
beds of the Mooringsport Formation and Paluxy
Formation comprise the regressive infilling phase of
this cycle. The facies transition in the Mooringsport
Formation marks the change from an upward-
deepening section to an upward-shallowing section
and is interpreted as a surface of maximum
transgression. This surface is recognized by a change
in gamma ray log response from higher to lower
values. The seismic data for the Bexar Formation
interval are characterized as concordant, parallel-
reflection configurations (Yurewicz et al., 1993). The
seismic data for the upper Mooringsport Formation/
Paluxy Formation interval are characterized as
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata

Figure 9. Representative seismic reflection profile from the offshore shelf area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico showing the seismic reflection
configuration and termination characteristics of the LKEGR-TR 1 (TR-1), LKEGR-TR 2 (TR-2), LKEGR-TR 3 (TR-3), and LKEGR-TR 4
(TR-4) cycles and the Valanginian (VU) and mid-Cretaceous (MCU) unconformities. TA, transgressive aggrading phase; TB, transgressive
427

backstepping phase; RI, regressive infilling phase. Seismic data are minimum phase and reverse polarity wavelet.
428 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Figure 10. Core photographs of Lower Cretaceous strata. A, Rodessa rudist boundstone of the regressive infilling phase of
the LKEGR-TR 2–1 Subcycle, Waveland Gas Unit No. 1 well, Hancock County, Mississippi, 4280 m (14,039 ft). B,
Mooringsport calcareous shale of the transgressive backstepping phase of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle, Gex No. 1 well,
Hancock County, Mississippi, 4105 m (13,466 ft). C, Paluxy fine- to medium-grained sandstone of the regressive
infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle, Pilgrim No. 1 well, Walthall County, Mississippi, 4022 m (13,193 ft).
D, Paluxy carbonaceous shale of the regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle, Pilgrim No. 1 well,
Walthall County, Mississippi, 4029 m (13,214 ft). Diameter of coin is 18 mm.

oblique, progradational, reflection configurations with
offlap (downlap) reflection terminations (Figure 9).
The Paluxy Formation, which caps this T-R cycle, is
the second and most areally extensive of three major
progradation siliciclastic units in the MISB, and the
Bexar Formation and lower Mooringsport Formation
mark the base of this cycle.
4.3. LKEGR-TR 3 Cycle
The LKEGR-TR 3 Cycle (middle Albian–upper
Albian) is composed of the Andrew Formation and
Dantzler Formation. The boundary between the
Andrew Formation and the underlying Paluxy
Formation is recognized by a discontinuity (inferred
transgressive surface) in well log pattern and change in
lithology. The lithologic contrast between the Andrew
limestone beds and the underlying Paluxy sandstone
beds is recorded in higher resistivity and lower gamma
ray log responses for the Andrew limestone beds as
compared to the Paluxy sandstone beds (Figure 7).
Based on core analysis and well log lithologic descrip-
tions, the Andrew Formation consists of lime
mudstone (Figure 11C), grainstone, rudstone and
boundstone (Figure 11D), and the Dantzler For-
mation includes fine- to medium-grained sandstone
(Figure 12A) interbedded with carbonaceous shale.
The Andrew limestone beds have higher resistivity
and more positive SP log responses compared to the
Dantzler sandstone beds (Figure 7). South of the
MISB proper, the Andrew limestone beds are overlain
by an interval of mixed siliciclastic and carbonate
beds referred to as the Fredericksburg Group (Figure
13). In the MISB, beds of the Tuscaloosa Group
(Cenomanian age, Mancini et al., 1980) unconform-
ably (subaerial unconformity) overlie sandstone
beds of the Dantzler Formation. The Dantzler
sandstone beds have higher gamma ray and higher
resistivity log readings and a more positive SP log
signature as compared to the Tuscaloosa sandstone
beds.
The Andrew argillaceous lime mudstone beds are
interpreted as the transgressive backstepping phase
(marine shelf deposits) of the LKEGR-TR 3 Cycle,
and the upper beds (grainstone, rudstone and bound-
stone) of the Andrew Formation (carbonate shoal and
reef deposits), Fredericksburg Group (marine shelf
deposits) and the Dantzler sandstone beds (fluvial
deposits) represent the regressive infilling phase of this
cycle. The facies transition in the Andrew Formation
marks the change from an upward-deepening section
to an upward-shallowing section and represents an
inferred surface of maximum transgression. This sur-
face is recognized by a change from higher to lower
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata 429

Figure 11. Core photographs of Lower Cretaceous strata. A, Mooringsport fossiliferous grainstone of the regressive infilling
phase of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle, Chandeleur Sound Block 61, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, 5072 m
(16,637 ft). B, Mooringsport rudist boundstone of the regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 2–2 Subcycle,
Chandeleur Sound Block 61, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, 5074 m (16,642 ft). C, Andrew lime mudstone of the
transgressive backstepping phase of the LKEGR-TR 3 Cycle, Chandeleur Sound Block 61, St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana, 4494 m (14,739 ft). D, Andrew rudist boundstone of the regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 3
Cycle, Chandeleur Sound Block 61, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, 4487 m (14,716 ft). Diameter of coin is 18 mm.
430 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Figure 12. Core photographs of Lower Cretaceous strata. A, Dantzler fine- to medium-grained sandstone of the regressive
infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 3 Cycle, Boteler 10–7 No. 1 well, Forrest County, Mississippi, 2970 m (9740 ft). B,
Washita bioclastic grainstone of the regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 4 Cycle, 1654–6 well, 2672 m (8763 ft).
C, Washita rudist boundstone of the regressive infilling phase of the LKEGR-TR 4 Cycle, 1654–6 well, 2681 m
(8,792.7 ft). D, mid-Cretaceous (mid-Cenomanian) unconformity, 1654–6 well, 2655 m (8708 ft). Diameter of coin is
18 mm.

gamma ray log values. The seismic data for the lower
Andrew Formation interval are characterized as con-
cordant, parallel-reflection configurations with onlap
reflection terminations, and the seismic data for the
upper Andrew Formation and Fredericksburg Group/
Dantzler Formation interval are characterized as
oblique, progradational reflection configurations with
offlap (downlap) reflection terminations (Figure 9).
The Dantzler Formation, which caps this T-R cycle, is
the third of three major progradation siliciclastic units
in the MISB, and the Andrew Formation marks the
base of this cycle.
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
4.4. LKEGR-TR 4 Cycle
The LKEGR-TR 4 Cycle (upper Albian–lower
Cenomanian), which is not well developed in the
MISB, includes the Washita Group. This T-R cycle is
recognized throughout much of the northern Gulf of
Mexico. The boundary between the Washita Group
with the underlying Fredericksburg Group is recog-
nized by a discontinuity (inferred transgressive sur-
face) in well log pattern and change in lithology. The
lithologic contrast between the Washita limestone
beds and the underlying Fredericksburg mixed silici-
clastic and carbonate beds or siliciclastic beds is
recorded in higher resistivity, higher gamma ray, and
more positive SP log responses for the Washita lime-
stone beds as compared to the Fredericksburg beds
(Figure 13). Based on core analysis, well log lithologic
descriptions, and paleontologic (foraminifera, ammo-
nite and bivalve) data, the lower beds of the Washita
Group include marine argillaceous lime mudstone,
and the upper beds consist of packstone, grainstone
(Figure 12B), rudstone, and boundstone (Figure
12C). The lower argillaceous lime mudstone beds are
characterized by higher resistivity and more positive
SP log readings than the upper Washita beds (Figure
13).
The lower Washita argillaceous lime mudstone beds
are interpreted as the transgressive backstepping
phase (marine shelf deposits) of this T-R cycle, and
the upper Washita packstone, grainstone, rudstone
and boundstone beds as the regressive infilling phase
(carbonate shoal and reef deposits) of this cycle. The
facies transition in the Washita Group marks the
change from an upward-deepening section to an
upward-shallowing section and represents an inferred
surface of maximum transgression. This surface is
recognized by a change from higher to lower
gamma ray log values. In the offshore area of the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico, as observed from
core studies and well log lithologic descriptions,
the Washita Group is unconformably overlain by
Maastrichtian chalks (Figure 12D) and a significant
hiatus of 20 myr or more is associated with this
subaerial unconformity. This determination is
based on the occurrence of age diagnostic
Maastrichtian planktonic foraminifera, including
Globotruncanita conica (White), in the chalks over-
lying the mid-Cretaceous (mid-Cenomanian) un-
conformity (Paleo-Data unpublished report, 2000).
The seismic data for the lower Washita Group are
characterized as concordant, parallel-reflection con-
figurations with onlap reflection terminations and the
seismic data for the upper Washita Group are charac-
terized as oblique, progradational reflection configu-
431
rations with offlap (downlap) reflection terminations
(Figure 9).
5. Stratigraphic analysis and comparison
Cyclic changes in global sea level and associ-
ated relative changes in coastal onlap during the
Early Cretaceous were recognized by Haq et al.
(1988). These authors described 18 third-order,
unconformity-bounded depositional sequences for
the late Valanginian–middle Cenomanian. For the
onshore Gulf Coast (East Texas, Louisiana and
Mississippi), McFarlan (1977) described four
sequences (Hosston–Sligo, James–Rodessa–Ferry
Lake, Mooringsport–Glen Rose–Paluxy, and
Fredericksburg–Washita) (Figure 14). Corso (1987)
recognized three Lower Cretaceous sequences
(Depositional Unit II, Hosston/Rodessa/Ferry Lake/
Mooringsport; Depositional Unit III; Paluxy/
Fredericksburg, and Depositional Unit IV, Washita)
from seismic data for the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico region. Goldhammer & Lehmann (1991)
described two-second order (10–100 myr in dur-
ation), unconformity-bounded depositional sequences
for the Valanginian–Albian for the Texas Gulf Coast
and Mexico areas. These sequences included the
Hosston–lower Sligo and the upper Sligo–Pearsall–
lower Glen Rose–upper Glen Rose–Fredericksburg
depositional sequences. Yurewicz et al. (1993)
described eight third order sequences from the
onshore area of Louisiana and Mississippi. These
sequences included the Sligo, James, Rodessa–
Ferry Lake, Mooringsport, lower Glen Rose, upper
Glen Rose, Paluxy–Fredericksburg, and Washita
sequences. Scott (1993) recognized five sequences
from outcrop and subsurface studies from the US
Gulf Coast. These sequences included the Sligo–
Cupido, James, Rodessa–Sunniland and upper
Glen Rose, Edwards–Stuart City, and Buda–El Abra–
Devils River sequences. Scott et al. (2002) described
three second-order depositional cycles (Twin
Mountains–Glen Rose–lower part of the Paluxy,
upper part of the Paluxy–Walnut–Goodland, and
Washita, including the Kiamichi–Duck Creek–
Fort Worth–Denton–Weno–Pawpaw–Main Street–
Grayson–Buda) from outcrop studies in north-central
Texas.
The Lower Cretaceous T-R cycles recognized in the
MISB area in this study correlate with the second-
order depositional cycles identified by Scott (2002)
for the Lower Cretaceous section of north Texas
(Figure 14). The LKEGR TR-2 Cycle corresponds
to the upper Aptian–lower Albian second-order
depositional sequence, and the LKEGR-TR 3 Cycle
432 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Figure 13. Well log pattern from the 1654–6 well from Block 253 of the Main Pass offshore area of the northeastern Gulf
of Mexico, showing the well log signature characteristics of the LKEGR-TR 4 Cycle near the Lower Cretaceous shelf
margin; see Figure 3 for location of the well. GR, gamma ray; SP, spontaneous potential; ILD, deep induction
(resistivity); TB, transgressive backstepping phase; RI, regressive infilling phase; SA, inferred subaerial unconformity;
TS, inferred transgressive surface; SMT, inferred surface of maximum transgression; MCU, mid-Cretaceous (mid-
Cenomanian) unconformity; K1a, Andrew Formation; K1f, Fredericksburg Group; K1w, Washita Group.

correlates with the lower Albian–upper Albian second-
order depositional sequence of Scott et al. (2002).
The LKEGR-TR 4 Cycle corresponds to the upper
Albian–lower Cenomanian second-order depositional
sequence of Scott et al. (2002). Such correspondence
of Lower Cretaceous cycles in the eastern Gulf
Coastal Plain with those of the western Gulf Coastal
Plain demonstrates the utility of T-R cycles for
regional correlation across the northern Gulf of
Mexico area.
The Lower Cretaceous T-R cycles recognized in
this area correlate with the Valanginian–Cenomanian
facies cycles reported by Jacquin et al. (1998) for the
Boreal areas of Western Europe (Figure 4). The upper
Valanginian–lower Aptian LKEGR-TR 1–1 Subcycle,
which represents the transgressive aggrading phase of
the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle of the MISB area, broadly
relates to the upper Valanginian–lower Aptian Cycle
12 of Jacquin et al. (1998). In Western Europe, the
basal unconformity of Cycle 12a is a major erosional
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
unconformity, and Cycle 12d is a highly aggradational
cycle (Jacquin et al., 1998). In the MISB area, the
lower boundary of the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle is defined
by the Cotton Valley Group–Hosston Formation
boundary. This cycle boundary is a major subaerial
unconformity, and aggradational processes dominated
during Hosston deposition.
The lower–upper Aptian LKEGR- TR 1–2 and
LKEGR-TR 1–3 subcycles, which represent the
transgressive backstepping and regressive infilling
phases of the LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle of the MISB area,
show correspondence to the lower–upper Aptian
Cycle 13 of Jacquin et al. (1998). This cycle represents
one of the most widespread and correlatable events in
the Mesozoic record (Jacquin et al., 1998). It has
excellent utility for correlation in the onshore area of
the northern Gulf of Mexico.
The upper Aptian–middle Albian LKEGR-TR 2
Cycle of the MISB area corresponds broadly to the
upper Aptian–lower Albian Cycle 14a of the Boreal
areas of Jacquin et al. (1998). Cycle 14a is a wide-
spread and correlatable event in Western Europe, and
in Tethyan areas it merges with Cycle 14b producing
Cycle 14, which is one of the major marine flooding
events in the Mesozoic record (Jacquin et al., 1998).
This T-R cycle is the best correlation marker in the
Lower Cretaceous section in the northern Gulf of
Mexico. This major transgression in the region
includes the development of the Glen Rose shelf-
margin reef (Rodessa, Ferry Lake and Mooringsport
formations). The maximum landward shift of Lower
Cretaceous carbonate rocks occurs within this upper
Aptian–middle Albian cycle in the MISB.
The middle–upper Albian LKEGR-TR 3 Cycle of
the MISB area correlates broadly with the lower–
upper Albian Cycle 14b of the Boreal areas of Jacquin
et al. (1998). This T-R cycle is useful for correlation in
the MISB area and the northern Gulf of Mexico.
The upper Albian–lower Cenomanian LKEGR-TR
4 Cycle of the northern Gulf of Mexico corresponds
broadly to upper Albian–lower Cenomanian Cycle 15
of Jacquin et al. (1998). Although this T-R cycle is not
well developed in the MISB, it is easily recognized in
the onshore area of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico
and the offshore area of the northern Gulf of Mexico.
This T-R cycle is highly useful in these areas for
correlation. In Western Europe, Cycle 15 may con-
tinue into the middle Cenomanian, which is a major
relative sea-level downward shift in this region
(Jacquin et al., 1998). The mid-Cenomanian was also
a time of major relative sea-level fall and erosion in
the northern Gulf of Mexico, producing the mid-
Cretaceous (mid-Cenomanian) unconformity of
Salvador (1991). The correspondence of these four
433
T-R cycles of the northern Gulf of Mexico to T-R
facies cycles 13, 14a, 14b and 15 of Western Europe
demonstrates the usefulness of the T-R cycles for
global correlation of Lower Cretaceous strata.
6. Depositional history
During the earliest Cretaceous (Berriasian), fluvial
and deltaic sediments of the Cotton Valley Group
prograded across the MISB area. As base level con-
tinued to fall a regional subaerial unconformity devel-
oped at the top of the Cotton Valley Group. The
hiatus between the Cotton Valley Group and the
Hosston Formation is represented by most of
the Valanginian Stage. This unconformity and hiatus
are recognized throughout the northern Gulf of
Mexico (McFarlan, 1977; McFarlan & Menes, 1991)
and in Western Europe (Jacquin et al., 1998).
Coastal sands of the Hosston Formation were
deposited during an initial rise in base level and
increase in shelf accommodation in the southern por-
tion of the MISB during the late Valanginian that
post-dated a fall in base level and regional unconform-
ity (Figure 15). Hosston fluvial–deltaic sediments
later aggraded and prograded across much of the
MISB area. In areas south of the MISB, where
siliciclastic sediment supply was diminished, coastal
fine-grained sands and shallow marine muds were
deposited concurrently with Hosston fluvial–deltaic
coarse-grained sands in updip areas during the late
Valanginian–earliest Aptian. This interval is a highly
aggradational to progradational section in the north-
ern Gulf of Mexico (McFarlan, 1977; Salvador,
1991) and in Western Europe (Jacquin et al.,
1998), indicating the creation of shelf accommodation
during a time characterized by high rates of sediment
supply.
During the early late Aptian, marine mud, silt, and
limestone beds of the Sligo Formation and Pine Island
Shale were deposited, representing a major rise in sea
level and significant marine flooding event. Downdip
in the MISB and south of the basin proper, marine
shelf and shelf margin reef limestone beds of the Sligo
Formation and James Limestone were deposited. This
Aptian interval represents a widespread transgression
in the northern Gulf of Mexico (McFarlan, 1977;
Salvador, 1991) and in Western Europe (Jacquin
et al., 1998). The Pine Island Formation, in particu-
lar, represents a significant regional transgression
observed even in updip areas of the MISB and across
Louisiana and Texas (Forgotson, 1957; Anderson,
1979; Yurewicz et al., 1993). With a reduction in
shelf accommodation and an increase in siliciclastic
sediment supply, fluvial deposits of the ‘Donovan’
434 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett

Lower Cretaceous Cycles and Depositional Sequences

Stages Stratigraphy

‘
‘

Figure 14. Stages, stratigraphy, and transgressive-regressive cycles and subcycles of the Lower Cretaceous strata in the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico and comparison of sequences and cycles recognized by other authors in the northern Gulf
of Mexico.

sandstone prograded across the MISB and capped this
Aptian interval.
A second base-level (sea-level) rise, which occurred
during the latest Aptian–early middle Albian in the
MISB area, began with the transgressive deposits of
the Bexar Formation, continued with the deposition
of the marine mud beds of the Mooringsport For-
mation, and resulted in the development of the Glen
Rose (Rodessa, Mooringsport) shelf margin reef. With
decreased shelf accommodation, cessation of silici-
clastic deposition, and periodic restriction of basin
circulation, the evaporite deposits of the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite accumulated during the early Albian. In
downdip areas of the MISB and south of the basin
area, Mooringsport sedimentation included marine
shelf-limestone deposition, which was part of the
development of the Glen Rose shelf-margin reef com-
plex. A decrease in shelf accommodation and a major
influx of siliciclastic sediments occurred during the
early middle Albian and resulted in fluvial and coastal
siliciclastic deposition of the Paluxy Formation, which
caps this cycle. This cycle represents a major trans-
gression and significant marine flooding event in the
northern Gulf of Mexico (McFarlan, 1977; Salvador,
1991) and in Western Europe (Jacquin et al., 1998).
During the late middle Albian, a third rise in
base-level (sea-level) and increase in shelf accommo-
dation occurred, resulting in deposition of the trans-
gressive fossiliferous limestone beds of the Andrew
Formation in downdip areas of the MISB. Fluvial
sandstone and shale deposits of the Dantzler
Formation cap this middle–upper Albian cycle, and
signal a major base-level (sea-level) fall represented by
the mid-Cretaceous (mid-Cenomanian) unconform-
ity. The regressive phase of this cycle represents a
significant aggrading and prograding interval in the
MISB.
A fourth base-level (sea-level) rise and increase
in shelf accommodation, which occurred during the
latest Albian–early Cenomanian, began with the trans-
gressive deposits of the Washita Group and culmi-
nated with exposure of the Lower Cretaceous shelf
during the mid-Cenomanian. This marine trans-
gression is recorded at the top of the Dantzler
Formation in the MISB. However, because the MISB
experienced considerably greater accommodation
 N S

Dantzler
Was
hit a
Fred
e rick
sbur
g
Andrew
Paluxy

'Don
ovan
'

Mooringsport

Hosston
Explanation
Ferry Lake

Sandstone
Rodessa

Sandstone and shale Bexar

James

Fine-grained siliciclastic sediments Pin

e Island

Sligo
Calcareous shale

Shelf limestone

Reef limestone
Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata

600 ft 200 m

Reef talus
0 32 000 ft 0 10 000 m
Anhydrite Scale Scale

Figure 15. Schematic cross section showing the distribution of Lower Cretaceous lithofacies from the updip area of the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin to the Lower
Cretaceous shelf margin and slope in the offshore area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico from the late Valanginian to the middle Cenomanian, as modified from
Yurewicz et al. (1993).
435
436 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett
primarily as a result of subsidence and because silici-
clastic sediment supply was substantially higher in the
MISB during the late Albian than in adjacent areas in
the northern Gulf of Mexico, the effects of this marine
transgression are limited in the MISB area. In both
Western Europe (Jacquin et al., 1998) and the north-
ern Gulf of Mexico (Salvador, 1991), the post mid-
Cenomanian was a time of major base-level (sea-level)
fall and erosion.
7. Conclusions
Four transgressive-regressive (T-R) cycles, the
LKEGR-TR 1 (upper Valanginian–upper Aptian),
LKEGR-TR 2 (upper Aptian–middle Albian),
LKEGR-TR 3 (middle–upper Albian), and LKEGR-
TR 4 (upper Albian–lower Cenomanian), are recog-
nized in Lower Cretaceous strata of the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico. Recognition of these T-R cycles
is based upon stratal geometries, nature of cycle
boundaries, facies stacking patterns within cycles,
and large-scale shifts in major facies belts. Five
transgressive-regressive (T-R) subcycles are recog-
nized in these strata in this region. These T-R sub-
cycles include the LKEGR-TR 1–1 (upper
Valanginian–lower Aptian), LKEGR-TR 1–2 (lower
Aptian), and LKEGR-TR 1–3 (upper Aptian) of the
LKEGR-TR 1 Cycle and the LKEGR-TR 2–1 (upper
Aptian–lower Albian) and LKEGR-TR 2–2 (lower–
middle Albian) of the LKEGR-TR 2 Cycle. The T-R
subcycles are characterized by shifts in major facies
belts that are not of the magnitude of a T-R cycle.
The LKEGR-TR 3 (middle–upper Albian) and
LKEGR-TR 4 (upper Albian–lower Cenomanian)
cycles consist of a single T-R cycle. The marine
transgressive and flooding events of the transgressive
phase of these cycles are widespread and provide
regional correlation datums. Therefore, these T-R
cycles have excellent potential for regional and global
correlation, and the T-R subcycles are useful for
regional correlation.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the US Department
of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy through
the National Petroleum Technology Office of the
National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the
US Department of Interior through the Minerals
Management Service (MMS). However, any opin-
ions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the DOE or MMS.
References
Adkins, W. S. 1932. The Mesozoic systems in Texas. In The geology
of Texas. University of Texas Bulletin 3232, 238–265.
Anderson, E. G. 1979. Basic Mesozoic study in Louisiana, the
northern coastal region and the Gulf Basin Province. Louisiana
Geological Survey, Folio Series 3, 1–58.
Applin, P. L. & Applin, E. R. 1953. The cored section in George
Vasen’s Fee well 1, Stone County, Mississippi. US Geological
Survey, Circular 298, 1–29.
Baria, L. R. 1981. Waveland field: analyses of facies, diagenesis,
and hydrodynamics in the Mooringsport reservoirs. Transactions
of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 31, 19–30.
Baum, G. R. & Vail, P. R. 1988. Sequence stratigraphic concepts
applied to Paleogene outcrops, Gulf and Atlantic basins. In Sea
level changes: an integrated approach (eds Wilgus, C., Hastings, B.
S., Posamentier, H., Wagoner, J. V., Ross, C. A. & Kendall, C.
G. S. C.), SEPM (Society of Sedimentary Geology), Special
Publication 42, 309–327.
Chasteen, H. R. 1983. Re-evaluation of the lower Tuscaloosa
and Dantzler formations (mid-Cretaceous) with emphasis on
depositional environments and time-stratigraphic relationships.
Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 33,
31–40.
Corso, W. 1987. Development of the Early Cretaceous northwest
Florida carbonate platform. PhD dissertation, The University of
Texas, Austin, 136 pp. [Unpublished]
Davis, D. C. & Lambert, E. H. Jr 1963. Mesozoic–Paleozoic
producing areas of Mississippi and Alabama. Mississippi Geological
Society 2, unpaginated.
Devery, D. M. 1982. Subsurface Cretaceous strata of Mississippi.
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology and
Energy Resources, Information Series 82–1, 1–24.
Dinkins, T. H. Jr 1966. Subsurface stratigraphy of George County.
In George County geology and mineral resources (ed. Williams, C. H.
Jr), Mississippi Geological, Economic and Topographical Survey
Bulletin 108, 191–227.
Dinkins, T. H. Jr 1969. Subsurface stratigraphy of Copiah County.
In Copiah County geology and mineral resources (eds Bicker, A. R.
Jr, Dinkins, T. H., McCutcheon, J. & McCutcheon, T. E.),
Mississippi Geological, Economic and Topographical Survey, Bulletin
110, 111–140.
Dinkins, T. H. Jr. 1971. Subsurface stratigraphy of Rankin County.
In Rankin County geology and mineral resources (eds Baughman, W.
T., Bicker, A. R., Dinkins, T. H. Jr & Shows, T. N.), Mississippi
Geological, Economic and Topographical Survey, Bulletin 115, 163–
194.
Dobson, L. M. 1990. Seismic stratigraphy and geologic history of
Jurassic rocks, northeastern Gulf of Mexico. MSc thesis, The
University of Texas, Austin. 165 pp. [Unpublished]
Dobson, L. M. & Buffler, R. T. 1997. Seismic stratigraphy and
geologic history of Jurassic rocks, northeastern Gulf of Mexico.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin 81, 100–120.
Dockery, D. T. III. 1998. Seismic stratigraphy of the Jackson
Dome. Mississippi Geology 19 (3), 29–43.
Douglass, R. C. 1960. The foraminiferal genus Orbitolina in North
America. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 333, 1–80.
Eargle, D. H. 1964. Surface and subsurface stratigraphic sequence
in southeastern Mississippi. US Geological Survey, Professional
Paper 475-D, D43–D48.
Eaves, E. 1976. Citronelle oil field, Mobile County, Alabama.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 24, 259–275.
Embry, A. F. 1993. Transgressive-regressive (T-R) sequence analy-
sis of the Jurassic succession of the Sverdrup Basin, Canadian
Arctic archipelago. Geological Survey of Canada, Contribution
46191, 301–320.
Embry, A. F. 2002. Transgressive-regressive (T-R) sequence
stratigraphy. In Sequence stratigraphic models for exploration and
production: emerging models and application of case histories (ed.
Armentrout, J. M.), Gulf Coast Section, Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Research Conference (in press).
 Transgressive-regressive cycles in Lower Cretaceous strata
Forgotson, J. M. Jr 1957. Stratigraphy of Comanchean Cretaceous
Trinity Group [Gulf Coastal Plain]. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin 41, 2328–2363.
Goldhammer, R. K. & Lehmann, P. J. 1991. Part 4 – Stratigraphic
framework. In Sequence stratigraphy and cyclostratigraphy of the
Mesozoic of the Sierra Madre Oriental, northeast Mexico (eds
Goldhammer, R. K., Lehmann, P. J., Todd, R. G., Wilson, J. L.,
Ward, W. C. & Johnson, C. R.), pp. 15–32 (Gulf Coast Section,
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists).
Gradstein, F. M., Agterberg, F. P., Ogg, J. G., Hardenbol, J., van
Veen, P., Thierry, J. & Huang, Z. 1995. A Triassic, Jurassic and
Cretaceous time scale. In Geochronology, time scales and global
stratigraphic correlation (eds Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Aubry,
M. P. & Hardenbol, J.), SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology),
Special Publication 54, 95–126.
Grazier, C. 1988. Structural features of Mississippi. (Mississippi
Office of Geology Map, Jackson).
Haq, B. U., Hardenbol, J. & Vail, P. R. 1988. Mesozoic and
Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and eustatic cycles. In Sea-level
changes: an integrated approach (eds Wilgus, C., Hastings, B. S.,
Posamentier, H., Wagoner, J. V., Ross, C. A. & Kendall,
C. G. S. C.), SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Special
Publication 42, 71–108.
Hayward, O. T. & Brown, L. F. Jr 1967. Comanchean
(Cretaceous) rocks of central Texas. In Comanchean (Lower
Cretaceous) stratigraphy and paleontology of Texas (ed. Hendricks,
L.), pp. 31–48 (Permian Basin Section, Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists).
Hazzard, R. T. 1939. Notes on the Comanche and pre-Comanche
(?) Mesozoic formations of the Ark-La-Tex area: and a suggested
correlation with northern Mexico: In Guidebook for the fourteenth
annual field trip, Shreveport Geological Society, June 2–4, 1939
(ed. Shreveport Geological Society), pp. 155–189 (Shreveport
Geological Society, Shreveport).
Imlay, R. W. 1940. Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic formations of
southern Arkansas and their oil and gas possibilities. Arkansas
Division of Geology, Information Circular 12, 1–64.
Imlay, R. W. 1945. Subsurface Lower Cretaceous formations of
south Texas. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin
29, 1416–1469.
Jacquin, T. & Graciansky, P.-C. de 1998. Major transgressive/
regressive (second order) facies cycles: the effects of tectono-
eustasy. In Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of European
basins (eds Graciansky, P.-C. de, Hardenbol, J., Jacquin, T. &
Vail, P. R.), SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Special
Publication 60, 31–42.
Jacquin, T., Rusciadelli, G., Amédro, F., Graciansky, P.-C. de &
Magniez-Jannin, F. 1998. The North Atlantic cycle: an overview
of 2nd-order transgressive/regressive facies cycles in the Lower
Cretaceous of western Europe. In Mesozoic and Cenozoic
sequence stratigraphy of European basins (eds Graciansky, P.-C. de,
Hardenbol, J., Jacquin, T. & Vail, P. R.), SEPM (Society for
Sedimentary Geology), Special Publication 60, 397–409.
Johnson, J. G., Klapper, G. & Sandberg, C. A. 1985. Devonian
eustatic fluctuations in Euramerica. Geological Society of America,
Bulletin 96, 567–587.
Kessinger, W. P. 1982. The biostratigraphy of the Ostracoda of
the Comanche (Cretaceous) Series of north Texas. In Texas
Ostracoda (ed. Maddocks, R. F.), pp. 127–142 (Department of
Geosciences, University of Houston, Houston).
Lentin, J. K. & Williams, G. L. 1989. Fossil dinoflagellates: index
to genera and species 1989 edition. American Association of
Stratigraphic Palynologists, Contributions Series 20, 473 pp.
Lock, B. E., Darling, B. K. & Roy, I. D. 1983. Marginal marine
evaporites, Lower Cretaceous of Arkansas. Transactions of the Gulf
Coast Association of Geological Societies 33, 145–152.
Loucks, R., Abel, C. & Ver Hoeve, M. 1996. Paleostructure
association, lithofacies architecture, and reservoir quality of
the upper James lime (Pearsall Fm, Lower Cretaceous) in the
Poplarville field, Pearl River Co., Mississippi. Transactions of the
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 46, 235–248.
437
Loucks, R. G. & Longman, M. W. 1985. Lower Cretaceous Ferry
Lake Anhydrite, Fairway field, east Texas: product of shallow-
subtidal deposition. In Depositional and diagenetic spectra of
evaporites – a core workshop (eds Handford, C. R., Loucks, R. G.
& Davies, G. R.), SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Core
Workshop 3, 130–173.
MacRae, G. 1994. Mesozoic development of the DeSoto Canyon Salt
Basin in the framework of the early evolution of the Gulf of Mexico.
PhD dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station,
80 pp. [Unpublished]
Mancini, E. A., Smith, C. C. & Payton, J. W. 1980. Geologic age
and depositional environment of the ‘‘Pilot sand’’ and ‘‘Marine
shale,’’ Tuscaloosa Group, South Carlton Field, south Alabama.
In Geology of the Woodbine and Tuscaloosa Formations, pp. 24–25.
(Gulf Coast Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Research Conference).
Mancini, E. A., Puckett, T. M. & Tew, B. H. 1996. Integrated
biostratigraphic and sequence stratigraphic framework for
Upper Cretaceous strata of the eastern Gulf Coastal Plain, USA.
Cretaceous Research 17, 645–669.
Mancini, E. A. & Tew, B. H. 1991. Relationships of Paleogene
stage and planktonic foraminiferal zone boundaries to lithostrati-
graphic and allostratigraphic contacts in the eastern Gulf Coastal
Plain. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 21, 48–66.
McFarlan, E. Jr 1977. Lower Cretaceous sedimentary facies and sea
level changes, U.S. Gulf Coast. In Cretaceous carbonates of Texas
& Mexico: applications to subsurface exploration (eds Bebout, D. G.
& Loucks, R. G.), Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of
Investigations 89, 5–30.
McFarlan, E. Jr & Menes, L. S. 1991. Lower Cretaceous. In The
Gulf of Mexico Basin (ed. Salvador, A.), pp. 181–204 (Decade of
North American Geology J, Geological Society of America,
Boulder).
Miller, J. A. 1982. Structural control of Jurassic sedimentation in
Alabama and Florida. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Bulletin 66, 1289–1301.
Mink, R. M., Tew, B. H., Mann, S. D., Bearden, B. L. & Mancini,
E. A. 1990. Norphlet and pre-Norphlet geologic framework of
Alabama and panhandle Florida coastal waters area and adjacent
federal waters area. Geological Survey of Alabama, Bulletin 140,
1–58.
Mitchum, R. M. Jr, Vail, P. R. & Thompson, S. III 1977. Seismic
stratigraphy and global changes in sea level, part two, the
depositional sequence as a basin unit for stratigraphic analysis.
In Seismic stratigraphy-applications to hydrocarbon exploration (ed
Payton, C. E.), American Association Petroleum Geologists, Memoir
26, 53–62.
Nunn, J. A. 1984. Subsidence histories for the Jurassic sediments of
the northern Gulf Coast: thermal-mechanical model. In The
Jurassic of the Gulf rim (eds Ventress, W. P. S., Bebout, D. G.,
Perkins, B. F. & Moore, C. H.), pp. 309–322 (Gulf Coast
Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
Research Conference).
Nunnally, J. D. & Fowler, H. F. 1954. Lower Cretaceous stratigra-
phy of Mississippi. Mississippi State Geological Survey, Bulletin 79,
1–54.
Paleo-Data, 2000. Chevron OCS-1654 #6 well report, pp. 1–23
(Paleo-Data, Inc., New Orleans). [Unpublished]
Petty, A. J., Thieling, S. & Friedman, T. 1995. Mesozoic stratigra-
phy of near shelf-edge deposits, southern Mississippi, adjacent
state and federal waters. Geologize 2, 9–10.
Pilger, R. H. Jr 1981. The opening of the Gulf of Mexico:
implications for the tectonic evolution of the northern Gulf
Coast. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies 31, 377–381.
Pittman, J. G. 1984. Geology of the De Queen Formation of
Arkansas. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies 34, 201–209.
Pittman, J. G. 1985. Correlation of beds within the Ferry Lake
Anhydrite of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Transactions of the Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies 35, 251–260.
438 E. A. Mancini and T. M. Puckett
Pittman, J. G. 1989. Stratigraphy of the Glen Rose Formation,
western Gulf Coastal Plain. Transactions of the Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies 49, 247–264.
Posamentier, H. W., Jervey, M. T. & Vail, P. R. 1988. Eustatic
controls on clastic deposition I – conceptual framework. In
Sea-level changes: an integrated approach (eds Wilgus, C.,
Hastings, B. S., Posamentier, H., Wagoner, J. V., Ross, C. A. &
Kendall, C. G. S. C.), SEPM (Society of Sedimentary Geology),
Special Publication 42, 109–124.
Salvador, A. 1987. Late Triassic–Jurassic paleogeography and ori-
gin of Gulf of Mexico Basin. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin 71, 419–451.
Salvador, A. 1991. Origin and development of the Gulf of Mexico
basin. In The Gulf of Mexico Basin (ed. Salvador, A.), pp. 389–
444 (Decade of North American Geology J, Geological Society of
America, Boulder).
Sarg, J. F. 2001. The sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, and
economic importance of evaporite-carbonate transitions: a
review. Sedimentary Geology 140, 9–42.
Sawyer, D. S., Buffler, R. T. & Pilger, R. H. Jr 1991. The crust
under the Gulf of Mexico. In The Gulf of Mexico Basin (ed
Salvador, A.), pp. 53–72 (Decade of North American Geology J,
Geological Society of America, Boulder).
Scott, G. 1939. Cephalopods from the Cretaceous Trinity Group of
the south-central United States. University of Texas, Publication
3945, 967–1107.
Scott, R. W. 1993. Cretaceous carbonate platform, U.S. Gulf
Coast. In Cretaceous carbonate platforms (eds Simo, J. A. T.,
Scott, R. W. & Masse, J.-P.), American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Memoir 56, 97–109.
Scott, R. W., Benson, D. G., Morin, R. W. & Shaffer, B. L. 2002.
Integrated Albian–Lower Cenomanian chronostratigraphy stan-
dard, Trinity River section, Texas. In U.S. Gulf Coast Cretaceous
stratigraphy and paleoecology (ed. Scott, R. W.), Gulf Coast Section,
SEPM Foundation, Special Publication (in press).
Steel, R. J. 1993. Triassic–Jurassic megasequence stratigraphy in
the northern North Sea: rift to post-rift evolution. In Petroleum
geology of northwest Europe (ed. Parker, J. R.), pp. 299–315.
(Proceedings of the Fourth Conference, Geological Society,
London).
Stricklin, F. L. Jr, Smith, C. I. & Lozo, F. E. 1971. Stratigraphy
of Lower Cretaceous Trinity deposits of central Texas. Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigations 71, 1–63.
van Hinte, J. E. 1976. A Cretaceous time scale. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 6, 269–287.
Van Wagoner, J. C., Posamentier, H. W., Mitchum, R. M. Jr, Sarg,
J. F., Loutit, T. S. & Hardenbol, J. 1988. An overview of
the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy and key definitions.
In Sea-level changes: an integrated approach (eds Wilgus, C.,
Hastings, B. S., Posamentier, H., Wagoner, J. V., Ross, C. A. &
Kendall, C. G. S. C.), SEPM (Society of Sedimentary Geology),
Special Publication 42, 39–45.
Warner, A. J. 1993. Regional geologic framework of the
Cretaceous, offshore Mississippi. Mississippi Office of Geology,
Open-File Report 21, 1–40.
Winkler, C. D. & Buffler, R. T. 1988. Paleogeographic evolution of
early deep-water Gulf of Mexico and margins, Jurassic to middle
Cretaceous (Cenomanian). American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin 72, 318–346.
Wood, M. L. & Walper, J. L. 1974. The evolution of the interior
Mesozoic basin and the Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the Gulf
Coast Association of Geological Societies 24, 31–41.
Young, K. 1967. Ammonite zonations, Texas Comanchean (Lower
Cretaceous). In Comanchean (Lower Cretaceous) stratigraphy and
paleontology of Texas (ed. Hendricks, L.), pp. 65–70 (Permian
Basin Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists).
Young, K. 1986. Cretaceous marine inundations of the San Marcos
Platform, Texas. Cretaceous Research 7, 117–140.
Yurewicz, D. A., Marler, T. B., Meyerholtz, K. A. & Siroky, F. X.
1993. Early Cretaceous carbonate platform, north rim of the Gulf
of Mexico, Mississippi and Louisiana. In Cretaceous carbonate
platforms (eds Simo, J. A. T., Scott, R. W. & Masse, J. P.),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 56, 81–96.