Fómeque Formation Explained

Fómeque Formation
Period:Aptian
Age:Barremian-Late Aptian
~
Type:Geological formation
Prilithology:Organic shale
Otherlithology:Limestone, sandstone
Unitof:Villeta Group
Underlies:Une Formation
Overlies:Las Juntas Formation
Thickness:up to 1200m (3,900feet)
Map:Blakey 120Ma - COL.jpg
Coordinates:4.4519°N -74.0556°W
Region:Altiplano Cundiboyacense
Eastern Ranges, Andes
Namedfor:Fómeque
Namedby:Hubach
Year Ts:1957
Location Ts:Fómeque
Coordinates Ts:4.4519°N -74.0556°W
Region Ts:Cundinamarca, Boyacá

The Fómeque Formation (Spanish; Castilian: Formación Fómeque, Kif) is a geological formation of the Altiplano Cundiboyacense, Eastern Ranges of the Colombian Andes. The predominantly organic shale formation dates to the Early Cretaceous period; Barremian to Late Aptian epochs and has a maximum thickness of 1200m (3,900feet).

Etymology

The formation was defined and named in 1957 by Hubach after Fómeque, Cundinamarca.[1]

Description

Lithologies

The Fómeque Formation has a maximum thickness of 1200m (3,900feet), and is characterised by a sequence of pyritic organic shales, with limestones and sandstone banks intercalated in the formation. The Fómeque Formation contains high values of TOC.[2] Fossils of Acarthohoplites sp., Melchionites sp., Nicklesia sp., Olcostephanus sp., Pulchellia sp. have been found in the formation.[3]

Stratigraphy and depositional environment

The Fómeque Formation overlies the Las Juntas Formation and is overlain by the Une Formation. The age has been estimated to be Barremian to Late Aptian. Stratigraphically, the formation is time equivalent with the Mercedes Formation. The formation has been deposited in a shallow marine environment.[2]

Outcrops

The Fómeque Formation is apart from its type locality, found in other parts of the Eastern Ranges.

See also

Geology of the Eastern Hills

Geology of the Ocetá Páramo

Geology of the Altiplano Cundiboyacense

References

Bibliography

Maps

Notes and References

  1. Acosta & Ulloa, 2002, p.52
  2. Acosta & Ulloa, 2002, p.53
  3. Caicedo et al., 2002, p.29