Age and paleogeographical origin of Dominican amber

Science

Volumn 273, Issue 5283, 1996, Pages 1850-1852

  Iturralde Vinent, Manuel A ^a,b   MacPhee, R D E ^b  

^a Museo Nacional de Historia Natural Cuba   (Cuba)

^b DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBER; RESIN;

ARTICLE; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; EVOLUTION; GEOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEDIMENT; TAXONOMY;

AMBER; DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY; MIOCENE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION;

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC;

EID: 0029664033     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.273.5283.1850     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Resinites derived from plants differ widely in their chemical composition and physical characteristics (2). Copal and amber are often difficult to distinguish by inspection, but differ in their resistance to heating and organic solvents. Less resistant copal is conventionally interpreted as an unfossilized version of amber, although the relation between age and the complex diagenetic changes that yield true amber is not well understood. Dominican copal from Cotuí, allegedly of Holocene age (9), is not discussed in this report because we were unable to examine its original depositional context. It is noteworthy that hard copal, sometimes with biological inclusions, can be recovered in the litter under Hymenaea trees today.
2. D. A. Grimaldi, Amber: Window to the Past (Abrams and American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1996).
3. _ , in Amber, Resinites and Fossil Resins, K. B. Anderson and J. C. Crelling, Eds. (ACS Symp. Ser. 617, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1995), p. 203.
4. G. O. Poinar and D. C. Cannatella, Science 237, 1215 (1987).
5. C. Baroni-Urbani and J. B. Saunders, Transactions of the 9th Caribbean Geology Conference, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, W. Snow et al., Eds. (1982), vol. 1, p. 213.
6. Mapa Geológico de la República Dominicana, Escala 1:250000, Dirección de Minería, Dominican Republic, and Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Germany (1991).
7. J. B. Lambert, J. S. Frye, G. O. Poinar, Archaeometry 27, 43 (1985).
8. S. B. Brouwer and P. A. Brouwer, in (5), p. 305.
9. D. Schlee, Stuttg. Beitr. Naturkd. 18, 63 (1984); R. Burleigh and P. J. Whalley, J. Nat. Hist. 17, 919 (1983).
10. D. Schlee, Stuttg. Beitr. Naturkd. 18, 63 (1984); R. Burleigh and P. J. Whalley, J. Nat. Hist. 17, 919 (1983).
11. W. Van den Bold, Bull. Am. Paleontol. 94, 1 (1988).
12. Amber-bearing sediments in the Dominican Republic usually contain lignites (Fig. 2) (8, 29), as do amberiferous localities elsewhere in the world (2). Cenozoic lignite deposits are not rare regionally (Figs. 1 and 2), being known from the Oligocene in Puerto Rico (30), Early to Late Miocene in Hispaniola (Fig. 2) (31), and Early to Middle Miocene in Cuba (13). Lithologically very similar to the amber-bearing Yanigua Fm in Hispaniola are the lignite-bearing Maissade Fm of central Haiti and the Arabos Fm of eastern Cuba (Figs. 1 and 2), which are composed of shales, marls, and sands, containing mixed marine and brackishwater faunas (13, 22). Their amber potential, if any, has never been tested.
13. The Yanigua Fm localities we investigated (Colonia San Rafael, Sierra del Agua, Bayaguana, and Yanigua) contain identical microfossil assemblages that correlate with the late Early Miocene Miogypsina-Soritlidae benthic foram zone (13) (M. antillea, Sorites marginalis, and Archaias angulatus) and other forams of Early Miocene through early Middle Miocene age (Ammonia beccarii partinsoniana, A. b. omata; Amphistegina sp.; Archaias angulatus; S. marginalis; Elphidium cf. E. advenum, E. cercadensis, E. lens, E. poeyanum, E. puertoricensis, E. sagra; and Quinqueloculina poligona). This correspondence is in agreement with the ostracod evidence (10) from mines at Bayaguana and Laguana (Aurila galerita; Bairdia spp.; Cativella sp. aff. C. moriahensis; Cushmanidea howei; Cytherella sp. aff. C. pulchra; Eucytherella sp.; Hemicyprideis agoiadiomensis; H. cubensis (sensu stricto) and H. stephensoni; Loxoconcha runa, L. spinoalata, and L. antillea; Paracypris sp. B and Paracytheridea sp. aff. P. hispida; Paranesidea antillea; Pelbcistoma sp.; Perissocytheridea alata; Procythereis? deformis; Pseudopsammocythere ex gr. vicksburgensis; and Uroleberis sp. 1).
14. M. A. Iturralde-Vinent, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 53, 1938 (1969).
15. R. de Zoeten and P. Mann, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 262, 265 (1991).
16. E. Calais, B. M. de Lepinay, P. Saint-Marc, J. Butterlin, A. Schaaf, Bull. Soc. Geol. Fr. 163, 309 (1992).
17. R. de Zoeten, thesis, University of Texas at Austin (1988).
18. B. Redmond, in (5), p. 199.
19. Microfossils are rare in the amber-bearing unit, but datable assemblages have been recovered from several samples. The rocks at the Palo Alto mine and a second locality nearby correspond to the Catapsydrax dissimilis zone, yielding C. dissimilis, C. unicavus, Globorotalia mayeri, Cassigerinella chipolensis, Globigerinoides trilobus trilobus, G. trilobus inmaturus, Globigerina Venezuelans, Siphonina pulchra, Gyroidina cf. G. soldani, and Cibicides mataensis [authors' samples and (5)]. At La Toca, two samples from the flysch underlying the stratigraphic level of the amber yielded the Early Miocene fossils Globigerinoides sp. and Globigerina cf. G. angustiumbilicata and Sphaenolithus heteromorphus. A sample from just above the mine itself (14, 19) yielded an early Middle Miocene assemblage (Discoaster exilis, D. variabilis, and Helicosphaera sellii) corresponding to the Sphaenolithus belemnos zone. Samples from the overlying Villa Trina Fm yielded Middle Miocene to Pliocene microfossils (16, 19).
20. J. Dolan et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 262, 21 (1991).
21. M. A. Iturralde-Vinent, unpublished experiments on fresh resin, copal, and a wide variety of Dominican ambers.
22. E. Garcia and F. Harms, Informe del Mapa Geológico de la República Dominicana escala 1:100 000: San Juan (Dirección General de Minería, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 1988); F. J. Harms, Stuttg. Beitr. Naturkd. B 63, 1 (1990).
23. E. Garcia and F. Harms, Informe del Mapa Geológico de la República Dominicana escala 1:100 000: San Juan (Dirección General de Minería, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 1988); F. J. Harms, Stuttg. Beitr. Naturkd. B 63, 1 (1990).
24. F. Maurrasse, Guide to Field Excursions in Haiti (Florida Geological Society, Miami, 1982); M. W. Sanderson and T. H. Farr, Science 131, 1313 (1960).
25. F. Maurrasse, Guide to Field Excursions in Haiti (Florida Geological Society, Miami, 1982); M. W. Sanderson and T. H. Farr, Science 131, 1313 (1960).
26. A. G. Kluge, Am, Mus. Novit. 3139, 1 (1995); R. D. E. MacPhee and D. A. Grimaldi, Nature 380, 489 (1996).
27. A. G. Kluge, Am, Mus. Novit. 3139, 1 (1995); R. D. E. MacPhee and D. A. Grimaldi, Nature 380, 489 (1996).
28. J. H. Langenheim, Am. Sci. 78, 16 (1990).
29. D. A. Grimaldi and A. Shedrinsky, unpublished study; pyrograms on file in Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History.
30. Prevailing winds, tropical storms, altitude, relative humidity, biological activity, and rapid burial have all been suggested as factors affecting resin production of Hymenaea and its preservation as amber (2, 8, 24). None of these explains why, in the Greater Antilles, large amounts of amber occur only in restricted Miocene deposits of Hispaniola. A possible explanation is that resins were preserved as a result of a favorable combination of factors in a unique paleogeographic scenario (Fig. 1). Rapid burial of resinite-bearing beds by > 1000 m of sediments (6,8, 19) over a period of several million years would surely have had some effect on the diagenetic processes involved in the transformation of copal into the different types of amber (including blue, red, yellow, and transparent). The surface or near-surface exposure of amber-bearing beds is a recent, perhaps Quaternary, phenomenon, because of uplift and exhumation of the Miocene rocks (19).
31. R. DeSalle, J. Gatesy, W. Wheeler, D. Grimaldi, Science 257, 1933 (1992); H. N. Poinar, M. Höss, J. L. Bada, S. Pääbo, ibid. 272, 864 (1996).
32. R. DeSalle, J. Gatesy, W. Wheeler, D. Grimaldi, Science 257, 1933 (1992); H. N. Poinar, M. Höss, J. L. Bada, S. Pääbo, ibid. 272, 864 (1996).
33. R. J. Cano and M. K. Borucki, ibid. 268, 1060 (1995).
34. Y. Champetier, M. Madre, J. C. Samama, I. Tabares, in (5), p. 277.
35. W. H. Monroe, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 953, 1 (1980).
36. J. B. Saunders, P. Jung, B. Biju-Duval, Bull. Am. Paleontol. 89, 1 (1986).
37. M. A. Iturralde-Vinent, J. Pet. Geol. 17, 243 (1994).
38. W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, C. C. Swisher, M.-P. Aubry, Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral. Spec. Publ. 54, 129 (1995).
39. We thank C. Díaz and G. Femández for microfossil identifications; O. Muñiz for information on the physiology of Hymenaea; S. Brouwer for field assistance and much other help; and P. Mann, V. MacPhee, D. Grimaldi, C. Flemming, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the draft version of this paper. This research was supported by grants from the RARE Center for Tropical Conservation (M.I.-V.), the Office of Grants and Fellowships of the American Museum of Natural History (M.I.-V.), and the National Science Foundation (R.D.E.M.).