Journal of Foraininiferal Research, v. 27, iio. 3, p. 209-231, July 1997 FORAMINIFERAL AND LITHOLOGIC INDICATORS OF DEPOSITIONAL PROCESSES IN WILMINGTON AND SOUTH HEYES SUBMARINE CANYONS, U.S. ATLANTIC CONTINENTAL SLOPE JASON J. LUNDQUIST,' STEPHEN J. CULVER,^ AND DANJEL JEAN STANLEY^ ABSTRACT Foraminiferal and lithologie characteristics of sedi- ments from 14 Deep Sea Research Vessel Alvin push cores have been used to investigate modern sedimentary processes in Wilmington and South Heyes submarine canyons. A nearly ubiquitous occurrence of abundant foraminiferal species is over-printed by depth-related variations in abundance. Most species are native to low- er bathyal and abyssal depths and are in situ. The oc- currence of neritic species is attributed to erosion of ma- terial from slump blocks of neritic origin which now comprise the steep and undercut walls of Wilmington Canyon. In Wilmington Canyon, the consistent distribution of foraminifera contrasts with marked variations in litho- logie characteristics observed at channel meanders. These variations are attributed to relatively minor mass- wasting processes and to effects of bottom (perhaps tid- al) and/or low density current action, more active at con- strictions and along the steep walls of meanders. These processes are less prevalent in South Heyes Canyon as indicated by markedly lower compositional variations, a low percent of clastic material, and a lower rate of sed- iment accumulation. This is. In part, a function of the linear morphology and less varied relief of South Heyes Canyon. There is no firm evidence for prevalent high energy downslope transportation events (i.e., erosive high-density turbidity currents) in either Wilmington and South Heyes Canyons during the past 200-400 years represented by the cored material. INTRODUCTION In this study, foraminiferal assemblages and quantitative lithologie data from short cores are used to investigate the mode and pattern of Recent sediment transport in Wilming- ton and South Heyes canyons off the coast of New Jersey, U.S.A. (Figs. 1, 2). South Heyes Canyon is a linear chute- like canyon confined to the continental slope. Wilmington Canyon is a larger feature that heads at a depth of approx- imately 90 m (Stanley and others, 1986) some 125 km from the Cape May shore (Uchupi, 1965), and from there sinu- ously traverses the shelf, slope and rise nearly to the Hat- teras Abyssal Plain. Its meandering "fluvial-like" shape (McGregor and others, 1982; Stubblefield and others, 1982), with relatively steep walls and low gradient, contrasts with ' Department of Geological Sciences, Old Donainion Universily, Norfolk, Virginia 23529. Now at Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texa.s at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A. ^ Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. England. ' Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. less Steep walls and a gradient that approximates the re- gional slope in South Hayes Canyon (Fig. 2). Stanley and others (1986) suggested that downslope sed- iment transport occurs in Wilmington Canyon via a "stop- and-go" mechanism, incorporating deep-water and shallow- er water foraminifera into sediments being moved down the slope. This idea, that gravity flow, bottom currents, and/or turbidity currents displaced material down the continental margin, was based on foraminiferal and lithologie variation in the hemipelagic cover observed in several 20-35 cm short cores collected by the Deep Sea Research Vessel (DSRV) Alvin, along a meandering part of the Wilmington Canyon. The cores were inferred to record Recent sedimen- tation ba.sed on rates of deposition >40 cm per 1,000 years (Stanley and others, 1984) for cores nearby on the upper rise. The stop-and-go downslope transport mechanism is based on the supposition that foraminiferal assemblages were not transported by a single event from the shelf to lower reach- es. Rather, the foraminiferal data indicate a mixing of as- semblages via step-wise downslope transport, allowing au- tochthonous deeper water benthic foraminifera and planktic foraminifera to be incorporated into the sediment at each pause. In contrast, sediment transported by one major event generally would be dominated by a shallow water assem- blage, with only minor additions of deeper water benthics and planktics (see Brunner and Culver, 1992). Sediment transported by the stop-and-go mechanism would have a mixture of several depth assemblages and a preponderance of planktics. Material moved down-canyon in this manner could incorporate material eroded from the canyon walls during its journey. This study utilizes a greater number of cores, also col- lected during a series of Alvin dives, which allow for a wider physiographic and geographic coverage (i.e., from meanders along the length of Wilmington Canyon and from the near- by, morphologically distinct South Heyes Canyon). To aid comparison, the approach adopted here is the same as that in Stanley and others (1986), and the new data are evaluated in light of several other studies of currently active processes in the Wilmington Canyon area. METHODS Between 22 September and 2 October 1986, push-cores were collected during the course of six dives taken by the DSRV Alvin within Wilmington and South Heyes subma- rine canyons (Fig. I). Sample locations were mapped on a SeaBEAM survey map (Fig. 2). Locations were determined using on-board sonar, depth, direction, and visual observa- tion, and they were verified by coordinates determined by the triangulation of sonar buoys transmitted to the Alvin by the mother-ship Atlantis IL Fourteen short cores containing 78 samples were ex- 209 210 LUNDQUIST. CULVER, AND STANLEY 38?20'- 38?10'- I 73?30 I Wilmington Canyon South Wilmington Canyon North Heyes Canyon South Heyes Canyon 38?00'. FIGURE 1, General bathymetry and location of Wilmington and South Heyes submarine canyons along the North American Atlantic continental margin. Boxes give the location of Figures 2A-C. amined. For most of the push-cores, every other 2-cm dovvincore segment was available for study; for some push-cores contiguous 2-cm samples were available. Ta- ble 1 summarizes the depth and location of each of the cores collected from this study, as well as the sampled intervals from each core. Sediment accumulation rates de- termined using -'"Pb/'^Cs geochronology (Nittrouer and others, 1979) vary within the canyons from 22 to >500 mg/cmVyr (Sanford and others, 1990) dependent on local processes, but background rates indicate that the ~25-cm cores of this study represent approximately 200 to 400 years of sediment accumulation. Approximately five grams of material were disaggregated for each sample and sieved on a 63 |jt,m mesh to remove silt and clay. The residue was dried, weighed, and the sand to silt plus clay ratio was calculated. Split fractions of each sample were spread evenly over a gridded picking tray. Ev- ery particle within randomly selected squares was counted and assigned to one of several compositional categories. Counting of benthic vs. planktic foraminifera continued un- til more than 300 planktics were recognized. Picking then continued until 300 benthic specimens had been counted, after which the relative proportions of species categories were determined. Following picking, the weight of sediment containing 300 benthic foraminifera was estimated by mul- tiplying the weight of the split by the proportion of squares picked to obtain 300 individuals. Species were identified initially using published figures and descriptions and by comparison to material previously identified by Brunner and Culver (1992). Identifications were checked by examination of material in the Cushman Collection of foraminifera in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. and in the collection in The Natural His- tory Museum, London. RESULTS LiTHOLOGic DATA The relative abundance of different grain types compos- ing the sand-sized fraction of each sample, as calculated directly from grain counts, is shown in Table 2. Grain count data have been organized into three groups; clastic grains (quartz, mica, glauconite, heavy minerals, sponge spicules, echinoderm spines), planktic microfossils (planktic forami- nifera, radiolaria, diatoms), and benthic foraminifera. Also given in Table 2 is weight percent of sand-sized material in each sample, calculated nuirtber of benthic foraminifera in one gram of unsieved sediment, and ratio of planktic to benthic foraminifera (P/B, given as percent planktics). Examination of lithologie characteristics reveals little sig- nificant downcore variation (Table 2). Thus, values are sum- marized as averages for each core (Fig. 3). However, in samples from core 1739-1, one of the few marked downcore changes is seen with variation between the top half and lower half of the core (Table 2). The 2-4 cm and 6-8 cm intervals have low percent benthic foraminifera, compara- tively low percent planktic microfossils, and a high sand fraction. The 10-12 cm and 14-16 cm intervals have ap- proximately seven times greater percent benthic foraminif- era, double the percent planktic microfossils (with a corre- sponding decrease in proportion of clastic material), and a diminution of the sand fraction by ?10%. An increase in clastic and sand-sized input in the upper core corresponds with a decrease in number of benthic foraminifera per gram, suggesting a higher rate of sediment accumulation. Not- withstanding this downcore variation, the generally high sand fraction in this core is unusual, from three to four times greater than any other sample in our study (Fig. 3). This is of interest because this core comes from a water depth of 2,483 m and its sand content contrasts with core 1739-5, ? i"?i 'JB^Mfc^ FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 211 FiGURJE 2. A?Location of sampling sites within a portion of Wilmington Canyon (map location given on Figure 1), B?Location of sampling sites within a portion of South Heyes Canyon (map location given on Figure 1). C?Location of sampling sites within a portion of Wilmington Canyon (map location given on Figure 1). relatively nearby on the opposite side of the canyon. Sam- ples from core 1739-5 are generally high in planktic micro- fossils and benthic foraminifera (relatively low in clastic material) and have a moderate percent sand fraction relative to other locations in Wilmington Canyon. Upcore variations include only a slightly decreased sand fraction. In core 1739-5 the percentage of planktic microfossils is high rel- ative to all other samples in this study. Three cores from location 1745 show an overall pattern in which cores 1745-6 and 1745-7 are quite similar, yet distinct from core 1745-9 (Table 2; Fig. 3). The percent sand-sized material in cores 1745-6 and 1745-7 varies little, with a slight decrease in values about mid-core. The percent planktic microfossil and benthic foraminifera also vary about similar values. Percentages of benthic foraminifera tend to be relatively low (Table 2). Samples from core 1745-9 record planktic microfossil values that vary little about the mean of ?34%. Values for percent benthic fora- minifera are slightly higher than in other cores and one in- terval (4-6 cm) has a high value of 6.8% benthic forami- nifera. The sand fraction in core 1745-9 varies little through- out, but decreases slightly upcore with a comparatively low mean of approximately 5%. Composition at location 1745 shows a clear but modest drop in sand fraction and an in- crease in benthic foraminifera and planktic microfossils (a decrease of clastic material) between the center to the out- side of a meander. The two cores on opposite sides of a meander at location 1741 also display modest between-core variation (Table 2; Fig. 3). The sand fraction in core 1741-7 along the outside 212 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY TABLE I. Sampled intervals and location and depth of cores in Wilmington and South Heyes canyons. Core Sampled intervals Deplh Wilmington Canyon 1739-1 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm, 14-16 cm 2,483 m 1739-5 2-4 cm, 4-6 cm, 6-8 cm, 8-10 cm, 10-12 2,503 m cm, 12-14 cm, 14-16 cm, 16-18 cm, 18-20 cm, 20-22 cm 1741-7 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm, 14-16 cm, 1,898 m 1 8-20 cm 1741-8 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm 1,897 m 1743-8 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm, 14-16 cm, 1,703 m 18-20 cm, 22-24 cm 1745-6 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm, 14-16 cm 2,076 m 1745-7 2-4 cm, 4-6 cm, 6-8 cm, 8-10 cm, 10-12 2,080 m cm, 12-14 cm, 14-16 cm, 16-18 cm, 18-20 cm, 20-22 cm 1745-9 2-4 cm, 4-6 cm, 6-8 cm, 8-10 cm, 10-12 2,080 m cm, 12-14 cm 1748-1 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm, 14-16 cm 1,600 m 1748-5 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 8-10 cm, 10-12 cm, 12- 1,540 m 14 cm, 14-15 cm South Heyes Canyon 1749-2 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, ) 0-12 cm, 14-16 cm, 18- 1,589 m 20 cm 1749-4 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm, 14-16 cm, 1,585 m 18-20 cm, 22-24 cm 1749_5 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm. 10-12 cm, 14-16 cm, 1,560 m 18-20 cm 1749-13 2-4 cm, 6-8 cm, 10-12 cm 1,501m Base of near-vertical north wall on canyon floor, on outside of meander. Base of sloping (?30?) south wall on canyon floor, on inside of meander. Base of sloping (-30-50?) north wall on canyon floor, on outside of meander Base of sloping (?10-15?) south wall on canyon floor, on inside of meander.. High on steep (45?) gully wall, 120 m above axis of gully; trend orthogonal to canyon. On floor of canyon, in naiddle of the channel. Immediately below northern upslope (1-2?) on canyon floor, towards outside of meander. Immediately below sloping (20?) north wall on canyon floor, on outside of meander. Base of west wall on canyon floor. On steep east wall. On canyon floor near south wall. On gently sloping north side of canyon floor. On sloping (15?) north wall. Base of south wall, at canyon floor. of the meander is relatively high, with values averaging ~12%. Other than extremely high values in core 1739-1, such proportions are consistently higher than at any other locations in this study. The percentage of planktic micro- fossils is nearly uniform, with values averaging ?7%. This, and a low percent benthic foraminifera, indicate a high clas- tic input. Samples from core 1741-8 are also fairly high for the sand fraction (averaging -9%) but are notably lower than those across the canyon in core 1741-7. The percent contribution of planktic microfossils, benthic foraminifera and clastic material in core 1741-8 is similar to that in 1741-7. Core 1743-8 from the gully in Wilmington Canyon's south wall has sand fraction percents that are similar (~9%) to values in locations nearby and down-canyon (cores 1741-8, 1745-6, and 1745-7). The clastic content in 1743-8 is also similar to that of location 1741 (Fig. 3). The two cores from opposite sides of the canyon at site 1748 are located where the channel takes on a north-south trend. Core 1748-5 is located high on the canyon wall. The shipboard description noted 3 to 4 cm, sharp-edged "out- crop blocks" down to 6 cm, with "greenish hemipelagic material in between blocks." Also noted were burrows with a blackish sandy infilling in samples from 6-8 cm and 8- 10 cm. The 14-15 cm interval was described as having a small burrow entering from the side filled with "wetter ma- terial" (S. J. Culver, field notes). However, during the course of sample preparation no obvious blocks of consolidated outcrop material were noted. Samples from core 1748-5 record an extremely high per- cent of clastic material (-99%) with very low values of planktic microfossils and benthic foraminifera (Table 2). The top intervals (2-4 cm and 6-8 cm) have a slightly high- er percent planktic microfossils, and percent benthic fora- minifera three times that of the lower intervals (8-10 cm, 10-12 cm, 12-14 cm, and 14-15 cm). Values for the sand fraction show a trend of lessening values downcore from 9.4% to 2.6% with an average of 5.1% (Table 2). Core 1748-1 did not encounter any similar consolidated outcrop material. The sand fraction percent is internally con- sistent, showing a rather low average of 2.6%. Percentages of planktic microfossils and benthic foraminifera are vari- able. Samples from South Heyes Canyon cores show a striking consistency, and differ in composition from those in Wil- mington Canyon (Table 2). Percentages of sand, elastics, planktic microfossils and benthic foraminifera vary slightly throughout the cores. Average values for the sand fraction in these cores (Fig. 3) are: 1.7% (1749-2), 2.4% (1749-4), 2.9% (1749-5), and 2.3% (1749-13). This demonstrates cross-canyon consistency not seen in Wilmington Canyon, but does resemble values in core 1748-1 (at a similar depth). Percentages of benthics are also consistent and high. With one exception (core 1749-4, 18-20 cm), benthic percentages are higher than in Wilmington Canyon, and the average per- cent from South Heyes (8.5%) is much higher than any- where in Wilmington Canyon. Planktic microfossil percent- ages are also noticeably higher (average ?20.5%) than in most cores from Wilmington Canyon, with the exception of cores 1739-5 and 1745-9. High planktic microfossil and benthic percentages are inversely proportional to the gen- erally low values of clastic material. The number of benthic foraminifera occurring in one FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 213 TABLE 2. Lithologie and foraminiferal characteristics for the 78 sam- ples (calculated number of benthics in 1 g rounded to nearest 100). 1 ? 1 1 :? 1 G .a CL 1 g. S .S a 1 'i u ? u * * !i ii Q- X z 1739-1 2-4cm 42.6 91.0 7.1 03 82.7 3.5 3.800 1,739-( 6-8cni 46.4 91.5 7.6 03 87.6 3.6 3.300 1739-1 10-I2cra 31.0 79.9 16.4 2.1 92.1 37 7.700 11739-1 14-16cm 35.0 81.3 14.4 2.2 89.1 37 8.700 1739-5 2-4cm 8.8 67.7 27.5 4.6 82.1 3.1 100.300 1739-5 4^6cm 4.4 56.9 39.4 3.1 86.0 2.8 362,100 1739-5 6-8cni 5.8 59.3 35.7 4.9 85.9 3.0 194,900 1739-5 8-lOcm 6.3 43.6 50.4 6.0 87.4 2.9 321.000 1739-5 10-12cro 7.1 47.9 47.4 4.7 88.1 2.9 232.300 1739-5 12-14cra 6.3 59.8 357 4.4 90.4 3.1 305.600 1739-5 14-16cm 7.0 40.9 54.0 5.2 90.0 3.0 147.600 1739-5 I6-I8cm 8.5 39.1 57.5 3.4 94.1 3.0 111.400 1739-5 l8-20cnl 8.8 55.8 39.1 5.0 88.4 3.0 100.300 1739-5 20-22cra 7.9 69.6 25.5 4.9 86.3 3.0 139.900 1741-7 2-4cm 11.9 91.7 6.2 1.8 72.4 3.0 58.900 1741-7 6-8cm 11.8 91.3 6.9 1.9 73.6 3.1 57.600 1741-7 10-12cm 10.8 90.5 6.9 2.6 73.4 3.2 81.000 1741-7 14-16cni 13.1 90.2 8.1 17 71.5 3.2 102.100 1741-7 18-20cm 12.0 91.1 7.7 0.9 801 32 66.900 1741-8 2-4cm 9.5 91.7 65 1.8 72.2 3. 129,300 1741-8 S-8cin 9.2 85.7 11.1 3.0 77.6 3.4 150,300 1741-8 10-12cm 8.6 89.6 9.( 0.8 787 3.1 130,800 1743-8 2-4cm 7.4 92.8 5.4 1.9 60.7 3.3 234,600 1743-8 6-8cm 9.9 85.3 10.9 3.8 76.8 3.3 110,100 1743-8 10-12cm 8.3 93.4 4.3 2.1 68.1 3.6 129,000 1743-8 14-16cm 8.2 89.9 7.8 2.2 74.1 3.6 186,600 1743-8 l8-20cm 7.6 81.9 15.0 3.2 76.8 3.6 196,100 1743-8 22-24cm 9.8 85.3 12.5 2.0 81.4 3.7 111,300 1745-6 2-4cm 8.2 77.4 18.4 4.2 79.1 3.2 147,300 1745-6 6-8cm 6.5 812 16.0 2.? 81.3 3.C 261,500 1745-6 I0-I2cm 8.0 79.4 17.5 2.9 88.2 3. 170.800 1745-6 14-I6cm 8.9 82.0 16.7 1.3 80.1 3.2 143.500 ' 1745-7 2-4cm 7.1 927 4.8 1.1 79.C 2.! 89.200 1745-7 4-6cm 10.3 81.4 14.8 3.3 787 3.C 76.800 ; 1745-7 5-Sera 7.7 79.9 17.4 2.3 85.4 32 131,200 17457 8-lOcm 7.2 81.0 15.2 2.3 80.4 32 247.900 1745-7 10-12cm 5.? 83. 11.9 4.2 83.4 3. 252,900 1745-7 12-14cra 7.C 77.C 20.8 2.2 85. 3. 138,500 1 1745-7 14-16cm 8.9 85.2 12.7 2.1 83.6 3. 109700 11745-7 16-I8cm 7.5 77.5 21.0 1.5 88.7 3, 132,100 17457 18-2?cm 7.9 76.3 20.6 3.C 87.2 3.2 159,000 17457 20-22cm 9.C 79.2 17.5 3.4 82.C 3. 141,100 17457 22-24cm 9.2 85.6 11.5 1.8 84.8 33 93,700 1745-9 2-4cm 4.3 65.C 31.8 3.2 84.4 3. 453.000 1745-9 4-6cm 4.C 54.9 38.4 6.? 86.3 3. 539.700 1745-9 6-8cm 4.6 62. 34.9 3.C 89.3 3.C 398.900 1745-9 8-10cm 5.6 60.8 35.6 3.3 86.4 3. 413.200 1745-9 I0-I2cm 5.3 59.3 37. 2.6 89.5 3. 274.900 1745-9 12-14cm 57 68.C 27.5 42 87.4 3. 282,300 1748-1 2-4cm 2.4 85.3 11.9 2.6 45.5 3.3 1,386,400 1748-1 6-8cm 2.7 85.C U.4 3.6 46.1 3. 1,207,900 1748-1 10-I2cm 2.6 89.9 7.3 2.6 54.C 3. 1.518.700 1748-1 14-16cm 2.3 79.8 14.2 6.C 54.6 3. 1,360,500 1748-5 2-4cm 9.4 97.8 0.6 1.6 377 3.3 51,600 1748-5 6-8cm 5.6 97.6 1. 1.3 44 .? 3.4 106,700 1748-5 8-10cm 4.7 99.7 0.2 0. 51.2 2.? 40,000 1748-5 10-12cm 4.C 98.8 0.6 0.5 59.8 2.? 54,500 1748-5 12-14cm 4.4 99.0 0.5 0.5 49.6 27 89,300 1748-5 14-lScm 2.6 99.2 0.4 0.4 522 2.- 111,300 1749-2 2.4cm 1.5 74.C 16.8 9.2 46. TiA 3,648,100 1749-2 6-8cm 1.2 70.4 21.8 7.7 52.6 3.2 5,145,800 1749-2 10-\2cm 1.5 74.C 16.2 97 58.2 3. 3717,000 1749-2 14-16cm 1.5 73.4 20.2 6.4 60.3 3.2 3,752,400 1749-2 18-20cm 2.6 58.8 32.3 8.? 69.3 3. 1,682.400 1749-4 2-4cm 2.2 75.3 16.C 8.3 47.? 3.3 1.626,400 1749-4 6-8cm 2.2 71.? 18.4 9.f 57.- 3.- 1,852.300 1749-4 10-12cm 2A 70.? 17.3 11.? 58.f 3.- 2.110.700 1749-1 14-16cm 3. 61.2 29.C 9.? 67.f 3.. 878.900 1749-4 18-20cm 2. 73.7 20.8 5.? 61.C 3. 2,151,600 1749-4 22-24cm 2.6 59.< 30.- 9.? 69. 3.2 1,518700| 1749-5 2-4cm 3.t 76.5 15.3 7.C 48.C 3. 1,432,800 1749-5 6-8cm 2.C 76.S 13.3 9.6 52.C 3. 2,578,900 1749-5 10-12cm 2.S 72.? 20.3 6.: 62.. 3.4 1,895,300| 1749-5 14-16cm 3.( 66.S 24.2 8.. 65. 3. 1.449,900 1749-5 18-20cm 3.' 70.C 20.S 9. 67.; 3. 1,210,600 1749-1 2-4cra 2.1 76.C 17.? M 55.f 3.2 2,085.5001 1749-1 6-8cm !.. 75.. 14.f 10.2 55.0 3.2 2,275.600| 1749-1 10-I2cm 2.: 69.. 23.- 6. 55. 3.2 2.896.2001 gram of the total weight of sediment (Fig, 3) can be roughly related to the rate of deposition (although this number must also be a function of food supply and other variables). A low number of benthic foraminifera per gram of sediment suggests that the sediment accumulation rate has been rel- atively rapid. For example, the number of benthic forami- nifera in core 1739-1 is low (Table 2), There is substantial reduction (by halO between the lower intervals and top two intervals, suggesting an increase in sedimentation rate in this area. Numbers of benthic foraminifera from core 1739-5 tend to be somewhat higher than in other cores from Wilmington Canyon (except cores 1745-9 and 1748-1), and there is a slight upcore increase that is the inverse of the sand fraction trend. The average number of benthic foraminifera present in core 1739-5 is 201,500 per gram (Fig, 3), suggesting a lower sedimentation rate than in most canyon locations, and, perhaps, many times lower than in samples across the can- yon in core 1739-1. Numbers of benthic foraminifera per gram of sediment in samples from location 1745 are inversely related to the per- centage of the sand-sized fraction. The average number present from core 1745-6 is 180,800 and that from core 1745-7 is 142,900 (relatively low because of uncharacter- istically low numbers in the top two intervals and in the lowest interval; Table 2), These two cores are similar to each other and distinctly different from samples that are nearby but on the outside of the meander Core 1745-9 has higher values, with an average of 472,400 foraminifera per gram. These values increase to some degree up the core, reflecting the decrease in sand fraction there. The substantially greater number of benthics per gram of sediment along the outside of the meander at location 1745 suggests that the sedimen- tation rate may have been considerably less on the outside of this meander The two cores at location 1741 show a small but notice- able cross-canyon change. Numbers of benthic foraminifera in core 1741-7 do not vary greatly, and average 73,300. The relatively low nuinbers suggest fairly rapid sedimentation. In core 1741-8 the sedimentation rate is lower, with an av- erage of 136,800 benthic foraminifera per gram of sediment. This value is similar to those in the middle of the canyon, at location 1745. Number of benthic foraminifera in samples from the gully site (core 1743-8) show little variation (Table 2). The av- erage number present (161,300) is intermediate between val- ues in cores from the inside of the meander at location 1741 and the middle of the canyon at location 1745 (Fig, 3). Similar numbers of benthic foraminifera suggest comparable rates of deposition in these morphologically dissimilar areas. The two cores from location 1748 show marked differ- ences. Samples from 1748-1 exhibit high numbers of ben- thic foraminifera per gram (average of 1,368,400 and a low value of 1,200,900), This would suggest a substantially low- er rate of sediment accumulation than at all other Wilming- ton Canyon core locations. The relatively low values at core 1748-5 indicate that benthic foraminifera make up an un- characteristically low proportion of these sediments com- pared to other samples at similar depths (Fig, 3). In South Heyes Canyon, the number of benthic forami- nifera per gram is markedly higher than in Wilmington Can- 214 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY 1749-13 S 1749-5 H ? 1749-4 1749-2 Percent planktics (P/B) Sand Fraction 1749-13 " S 1749-5- " 1749-4- 1749-2" Clastic Materie 1 )% 1 % 1749-13_ S 1749-5 " 1749-4_ 1749-2' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 % 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 t 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 . ^ . 1 1748-5 1748-l" 1743-8" 1747-7 W 1741-8 C 1745-6" 1745-7_ 1745-9" 1739-1_ 1739-5 0? 1748- 5 1748- 1 1743-8 1747-7' W 1741-8 '^ 1745-6 1745-7_ 1745-9 1739-1 ] 1739-5 1748-5 1748- 1 - 1743-3- 1741-8 *- 1745-6" 1745-7" 1745-9" 1739-1' 1739-5 0 1 1 r 1 , L , , , , 1 1 1, 1 1' ] r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 ) j ) j 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 * 20% 40% 60% 80% 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 4C ^ 20% 40% 60% 80% 10 1749- 13' S 1749-5" H 1749.4" 1749-2" # Benthics Per Gram Diversity - H(S) 1749-13 " S 1749-5 H C 1749-4 1749-2 Equitability 6 1' 1 1 000 1749-13 S 1749-5" H 1749.4 ? 1749-2" r 11 1 ' ' 1 1 , , 1, I 1 1748-5 1748-1" 1743-8" 1747-7" W 1741-8 C 1745-6" 1745-7" 1745-9" 1739- r 1739-5" C 1748-5 1748- 1 ' 1743-s" 1747-7" "1741-8- C 1745-6" 1745-7" 1745-9" 1739-1 " 1739-5" 1 1 f 1 1748-5 1748- 1 1743-B 1747-7 W 1741-8 C 1745-6 1745-7 1745-9 _ 1739-1 _ 1739-5 C 1 1' ' ' r ' ] . , , . ^ ... 1 , 1 Tj ,,,,,, , 111 1 1, , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 111 1 1 ), , , , .? . 1' ' ' ' I 2.000,000 4,000, 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 II 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1 0.5 0. FIGURE 3. Percent planktics (P/B), perceni sand sized material, percent clastic material, number of benihic foraminifera per gram of sediment, diversity, and equitabiliiy for each core. The top four cores in each plot are from South Heyes Canyon (SHC) and are listed by increasing depth. The lower ten cores are from Wilmington Canyon (WC) and are also listed by increasing depth. yon. Except for core 1748-1, values in South Heyes Canyon are an order of magnitude greater than those in Wilmington Canyon. The average value for core 1749-2 is 3,589,100 with a high of 5,145,800 and a low of 1,682,400. Cores 1749-4 and 1749-5 have comparable averages (1,689,800 and 1,713,500, respectively) but exhibit considerable be- tween-sample variability. Values in cores 1749-13 tend to be higher than in cores 1749-4 and 1749-5, with an average value of 2,419,000. This may indicate a slightly decreased sedimentation rate along the east side of South Heyes Can- yon. Based on number of benthic foraminifera per gram of sediment (Fig. 3), we suggest that South Heyes Canyon is characterized by much lower sedimentation rates than Wil- mington Canyon. FORAMINIFERAL DATA Planklic to Benthic Ratios The ratio of planktic to benthic foraminifera (P/B, often expressed at percent planktics as in this study) can be used as an indicator of water depth and as a measure of distance from shore (cf. Murray, 1976; Douglas, 1979; Gibson, 1989). This relationship was first described by Grimsdale and Morkhoven (1955), who observed an increase in the abundance of planktic foraminifera beyond the outer shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Samples from deep water with a low percentage of planktic foraminifera are thus suggestive of transport from shallower waters. Percent planktic foraminifera (P/B) in Wilmington Can- yon are generally high (P/B data in Table 2 and Fig. 3). At the deepest location (1739, at ~2,500 m depth), two cores show uniformly high values (average of 88%). There is no cross-canyon variation and values do not reflect the consid- erable lithologie variation between cores (Table 2, Fig. 3). Samples from cores taken at location 1745 (?2,080 m) show minor variation within and between cores. Values (av- erage of 84%) are slightly less than those at location 1739 (Fig. 3). Further up canyon (location 1741, at -1,900 m), the val- ue for percent planktics is lower than at location 1745. Cores 1741-7 and 1741-8 show a slight decrease in values upcore, and show average values of 74% and 76% respectively. Here, as at location 1739, no significant cross-canyon vari- ation is recorded. In slightly shallower water (?1,700 m), core J 743-8 has average values of percent planktics (73%) similar to those in cores from location 1741. This core also exhibits a trend toward lower values higher in the core. Cores from location 1748 (-1,570 m), which show marked variations in lithologie characteristics (Fig. 3), show FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 215 remarkably similar values of percent planktics (50% for core 1748-1, and 49% for core 1748-5). Both cores display the same slight trend toward decreased values upcore. Within South Heyes Canyon (location 1749), several trends are recorded: consistent values within cores, increas- ing values with increasing water depth, and low values rel- ative to Wilmington Canyon. Values of percent planktics are fairly consistent, and are somewhat higher than those of cores at similar depth in Wilmington Canyon (location 1748, 1,570 m). The consistent increase in percent planktics (P/B) with increased water depths (Fig. 3) is in accordance with what would be expected in relatively undisturbed pelagic sedi- ments. Accordingly, the absence of anomalously low per- cent planktic values indicates either that material transported to the study area arrived in amounts small enough such that values of percent planktics were not affected, or that the material was displaced from a location of similar depth char- acterized by comparable values. Species Diversity and Equitability Species diversity [H(S)] values (Table 2, Fig. 3) are slightly higher than values recorded at similar depths along the North Atlantic continental margin (Buzas and Gibson, 1969; Gibson and Buzas, 1973). These authors showed that diversity increases with depth in the North Atlantic and that it is generally the greatest in more stable deep-sea environ- ments (Douglas, 1979). Diversity values (Table 2) are generally consistent with expected trends, except for higher values recorded in cores 1739-1 and 1743-8 (Fig. 3). At location 1739 this results in a marked contrast between the high values in core 1739-1 (?3.5 in the upper core, and ?3.7 in the lower core), and lower values in core 1739-5 (?3.0). Samples in core 1743-8, recovered in a gully off Wil- mington Canyon, record a relatively diverse fauna (?3.5). Core 1748-5 is characterized by distinctly different upcore values as compared to other cores (Table 2). The top two samples (2-4 cm and 6-8 cm) have distinctly higher H(S) values (-3.4) than lower samples (8-10 cm, 10-12 cm, 12- 14 cm, and 14-15 cm, H(S) = -2.8). Indeed, the four lower samples record lower diversity than the majority of samples in this study (Fig. 3). Diversity values reveal no distinct water depth-related pattern in Wilmington Canyon. Diversity values in South Heyes Canyon (location 1749) show considerable cross-canyon and upcore consistency. Average values are slightly higher than most Wilmington Canyon sample sites, but, nevertheless, are lower than the two areas of high diversity (cores 1739-1, 1743-8) in Wil- mington Canyon. Values of equitability (E of Gibson and Buzas, 1969) in- dicate the degree to which species abundances are evenly distributed. Basic relationships observed for diversity values are similar to those of equitability (Fig. 3). Most cores from Wilmington Canyon are similar, with high values for cores 1739-1 and 1743-8, and with low values in the lower portion of core 1748-5. Values from South Heyes Canyon are con- sistently higher than those of most samples from Wilming- ton Canyon. Taxonomic Data Two hundred and forty-six species of benthic foraminifera have been recognized in Wilmington and South Heyes Can- yon cores. Of these, 145 species were identified to the spe- cies level (Appendix I), 30 were closely related to known species, 66 could not be assigned specific names, and five species were of uncertain generic placement. Census data (relative proportions of taxa in each sample) are given in Appendix 2. Several cluster analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between samples based on taxa within each sample. Results were similar, and thus we present here only the analysis (unweighted pair group, Q-mode analysis, av- erage distance method) using the 45 taxa composing at least 2% of the assemblage in any one sample (Fig. 4). Five major clusters were identified, with three divided into subclusters (Fig. 4). Location 1739 (Clu,ster 1) is clearly distinguished from any other location, and the cores from the opposite sides of the canyon (1739-1 and 1739-5) are clearly separated. Cores from the two locations midway down the canyon (1741 and 1745) form Cluster 2, which is composed of thi-ee subclusters. At location 1741 the two cores (1741-7 and 1741-8) on either side of the meander are distinguished; samples from core 1741-8 are similar to the samples at location 1745. Samples from the gully of Wil- mington Canyon (location 1743) form a distinct group (Cluster 3), but show similarity to samples from locations 1748 and 1749 (Cluster 4). Samples from South Heyes Can- yon (location 1749) cluster with one another and show sim- ilarity to core 1748-1. The top two intervals'(2-4 cm and 6-8 cm) in 1748-5 are grouped with samples from location 1749 and core 1748-1 at a lower level of similarity. How- ever, bottom samples from core 1748-5 (Cluster 5) are the most distinctive samples in the entire data set. A relationship of foraminiferal assemblages to water depth appears evident. Location 1739, which does not show a close relationship to other clusters, contains samples from a depth of -2,500 m, considerably deeper than any other samples. Locations 1741 and 1745, at water depths of ap- proximately 1,900-2,100 m, are distinguished from each other but are related (Fig. 4). Location 1743, from a depth of -1,700 m, shows a closer relation to samples from sites 1748 and 1749 (depths from -1,500-1,600 m) than to sam- ples from 1741 and 1745 (depths from 1,900-2,100 m). Samples from depths of -1,500-1,600 m in South Heyes Canyon (location 1749) are similar to those of core 1748-1, a core from a similar depth in Wilmington Canyon. The top of core 1748-5 is also similar to samples from comparable depths in South Heyes Canyon. To better understand which species contribute to the ob- served clusters, biofacies fidelity (BF) and constancy (C) (Hazel, 1977; Culver, 1988) have been calculated for each species within each subcluster depicted in Figure 4. Con- stancy is a measure of the relative contribution a particular species makes to a bioassociation. This value is given by a number from zero through ten representing the percentage of samples in a group in which a given species occurs. Bio- facies fidelity is, in essence, the chance that an investigator, having randomly sampled an individual of a particular spe- cies, would be sampling a particular biofacies. Thus, it is a 216 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STAMLEY Average Distance 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 Cluster 1 I 1739-1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 L Cluster 4 Cluster 5 El 1739-5 1741-7 1741-8 1745-6 1745-7 1745-9 1743-8 ^J- :> [ 1748-1 1749-2 1749-4 1749-5 1749-13 1 -1745-7 2-4cm -1739-1 14-16cm- 1748-5 Bottom > FIGURE 4. Dendrogram showing the results of a Q-mode, unweighted cluster analysis using the average distance method, for benthic foraminifera comprising >2% of the assemblage in any sample. measure of how indicative a species is of a particular bio- facies. Biofacies fidelity values in Table 3 illustrate the rather homogeneous nature of species distributions in this study. For example, Uvigerina peregrina, with all its values equal to one, occurs in every subcluster and so is not particularly characteristic of any one .site. The great dominance of values ranging from 1 to 2 shows that most species are widely distributed. The few slightly higher values are highlighted in Table 3. Only 8 of the 45 most abundant species in this study have biofacies fidelity values of 3 or more. Ammoglobigerina globigeriniformis, Cassidulina subcalifornica, Cibicides sp. A, and Eggerella bradyi have values of 3. However, each of these species does not particularly characterize any one group of samples. The four species having values of biofacies fidelity >4 each show fidelity to particular loca- tions. Eoeponidella pulchella is found almost exclusively in the bottom samples of core 1748-5. Location 1739 is characterized by Hoeglundina elegans and Oridorsalis um- bonatus. Cihicidoides kullenbergi is characteristic of cores 1743-8 and 1748-1. Only these few species contribute to the outcome of the cluster analysis based on occurrence alone. Obviously, abundance variation of taxa helps to define dis- crete clusters. Most species occur in many samples from each cluster, and thus notable variations in constancy are seen in only a few species. Of the species with the highest biofacies fidel- ity values, Ammoglobigerina globigeriniformis occurs in both samples from the top of core 1748-5, with greater per- sistence than elsewhere except South Heyes Canyon (loca- tion 1749). Cibicides sp. A is present in every sample from the two locations (cores 1739-1 and 1748-5) for which it demonstrates a relatively high biofacies fidelity. Cihicidoi- des kullenbergi occurs in many, but not all, samples from cores 1743-8 and 1748-1, and in only a few other samples. Eggerella bradyi occurs in nearly all samples from core 1743-8. Eoeponidella pulchella is present in all samples from the bottom section of core 1748-5 and is scarce else- where. Hoeglundina elegans and Oridorsalis umbonaius characterize location 1739, but have few occurrences else- where. Of the remaining species, Valvulineria laevigata, Bulimina exilis, Bolivina subspinescens, Globobulimina pacifica and Gyroidina quinqueloba are absent in the bot- FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARITs'E CANYONS 217 TABLE 3. Biofacies fidelity and constancy values for each subcluster in Figure 4. Notable biofacies fidelity values arc highlighted by boxes. II 1 III ^ O u Iss III M om al in oi de s p lil eg er i Ai io ni ai in oi de s sp . C Bo liv tri a o rd in ar ia 1 1 i 1 1 1 ;5 1 .1 ici 1 ,1 1 5 1 1 (J c 1 1 i I (J i 1 "a f 1 E < G I 1 ?5 1 .3 1 1 i 1 s .2 t 1 1 1 il i i j 1 1 a 1 0 1 1l t'i 1-^ ? t .1 (5 2 1 1 1 i-, ??? 1?1 2 -1 1 ? 1 1 2 1 1 i! s i .1 1 1 1 1 .s J BWades Rdelily 1 I 1 1^ ' r I, ' 1 t739-1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 l_l 1 2| 1 2I3 0,1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 ' 0 2 5 1 ! , i! 1 1 4 1 1 1 ! 1 ' 1 1739-5 0 1 2 1 0 o\T 1,0 \,0 2l ' 1 1 J)J_0 rr 011 i 11 _i 1 1 1 ''|2 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 4" 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1745 1 1 i,r li 1 1 1 1 l' 1 1 11 r 1 ' 1 ' 1)01 I lo 1 1, I 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 ^ TTo 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1741-7 0 _l.ll 1 1 , I 1 2 , 1 ? 1 ' 1 ' 'L' U-L 0, 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 >|2 |0_ n i 2 2 0 I 1 1 1 1 1741-8 1 2 TU^I j^ i^h" 1 l' 1 ?.'J^ 0 1 0 0,1,2,1 1 1 n 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 0 0 1 12 1 0 1 1 0 1 [ 1 1743 ^"0 1 1 1 IT 12.1 1 1 . 1 12 1.1 11 ' 2,r 5 Tj 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 01 2 1 1 11 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1748-1 ij, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '-111 1 ! ' 1 1 4 0110,1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 , 1 1 . 0 0 1 1 12 1 0 2 1 1 '1 ' n48-5Top \J\\ \'\ 1 i'2,i 11 1 1 i|! ' 1^ ' on 010 110 111,1 1 1 J. llliJ. 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 i 1 1748-5 Bollom '7]l|2lO|l llO|l Oji;0|l 01 1 f 3 ' 1 . 2 1 0 0 0 j 1 1 7 1 1 11 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1749 '^ 1 1 0 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 r 1 1 r 1J 1^1 1 ^ 1 ? 0 0_^0 1 2 jj 0 ' 1 1 1 ^ 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11 1 ? 1 1 1 Conslancy ' 1739-1 1 0 10 1(1 1 JOjlOjO 10 10 10 lOj 101 3 1 7 1 10| 3 10 3 10 0 3 j 10. 0, 7 101 10| 10 10 3 10 3 : ro 10 10 10 10 0 3 10 3 101 lOi 10 10 10 1739-5 1 1 10 8l 8 9 . 1(1, 2 2 5 7 3 > 1 4 ^ , 1 4 110 2 4 Oil 910 101 9 1 9 HI 10 9 10 8 10 10 8 1 5 , 10| 1 0 10 4 10 5 10 10 6 1745 3 1 211 10 101 7 4 7 10 loTs 5 9 1 8 2 TlO 2 i 2I 0 ' 3| 9 i ol 9 101 10 10 10 9 10 10 9 10 0 4 lOl 6 3 2 7 10' - 1(1 10 10 1741-7 j 0 , \0 1 5 ' ;fl 10 10 10^ 10 10 lUl ?I 5 8 5 10 loi 3 5 0 1 nj 10' 0 i\0\ lol 10 10 s^ ??') 10 'V+J?- 8 . 101 1(. 10' 0 5 10 ' 1(1 lO 8 1741-8 S 1 10 0 10 1(11 ?0 MO 9 10 10 ^1( 6 .> 1( 0 6 " 0 1 6 101 ioH 110 10 10 10'lOlip 3^^^ 4 lio lol 9 0 5 10' 3 10 10 10 1743 1 0 'i 10 3 ioj_iol 10 10 10 7 1 XlTli 8 5 7 2 " 3 5 7 B 10 2 101 K'j Id 10| K 8 | I0| 3 8 TOI 2 10' 10 5 i^ 10 10 8 ' 10 10 10 174?-1 5 10 ?? 10, 1(1 m 8 , 8 1 loTio 1011018 - 11 3 8 .1 , 3 5 0 101 0 , IP lol 10 lol lOi 10 lOl 5 3'5'o 5 ! 10 10 5 ' 0 10 10 10 10 10 8 1748-5Top l'","' 5 i l??io 101 ?(T?O 10 10 5 11 5 101 1( 0 101 0 10 0 0 , lOi 0 5 r flO ) 10 10 10 ll. u " 0 101 5 10 1 0 5 10 10 10 10 10 1748-5 Bollom 3 5 8 ' 3 1 lol 10, 0 10 0 10 3 8 13 10 8 5 1 8 5 0 0 0 I0| 10 5 , 1? 10 10 10 10 10 0( 0 8~n)~ 8:10 5 5 0 10 IT 8 5 8 0 1749 ! 9 , 101 2 1 1"! 101 l!i| 10, 9 8 1 10 9 10| 7 9 10 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 10. 1 10| 7 1 9 10 10 10 10 8 3 7 0 1 6 1 10 9 9 0 _6^ 10 4 10 _10 jj torn section of core 1748-5, the most distinct cluster. Clus- tering of samples from location 1743 can be related to low constancy values (compared to other cluster groups) for Bo- livina subspinescens, Nonionella t?rgida, Nuttallides um- bonifera and Rosalina squamata. In summary, cluster analysis indicates that: (1) major groups of samples show a depth-related pattern; (2) nearly all abundant species are ubiquitous throughout both can- yons; (3) species distributions are relatively constant upcore (the only exception being core 1748-5); and (4) depth-re- lated patterns are primarily a result of variation in relative abundances of the most abundant species, and are only sec- ondarily related to variation in the occun'ence of several less abundant species. Foraminiferal Depth Distribution The cluster analysis distinguished sample sites on the ba- sis of their depth below sea level. However, all sites, with the exception of the abyssal site 1739, are located in the lower bathyal (1,000-2,000 m) depth zone recognized by previous workers on the North American Atlantic continen- tal margin (e.g., Berggren and Miller, 1989; Brunner and Culver, 1992). Hence, samples are discriminated by varia- tion in abundance of species rather than by their presence or absence. In agreement with published depth zonations, abyssal site 1739 clustered separately from lower bathyal sites. The depth distributions of abundant species were com- pared with the published record (e.g., Brady, 1884; Cush- man, 1920, 1922b, 1923, 1930, 1931; Uchio, 1960; Barker, 1960; Culver and Buzas, 1980 and included sources, 1981b, 1983a, 1983b; Poag and others, 1980; Sejrup and Guilbault, 1980; Cole, 1981; Miller and Lohmann, 1982; Hermelin and Scott, 1985; Mead, 1985; Stanley and others, 1986; Her- melin, 1989; Berggren and Miller 1989; Corliss 1991; Brun- ner and Culver, 1992), and several significant bathym?trie extensions of presence or high abundance were identified. Trifarina fluens has been reported infrequently from the North American Atlantic continental margin but is present in all but two samples (core 1748-5, 10-12 cm and 12-14 cm). It occurs in considerable numbers at every location with the exception of the abyssal site 1739, where it is less abundant. Because of its high abundance, not only in Wil- mington and South Heyes canyons but also in a gully shield- ed from downslope transport, the known depth range of Tri- farina fluens can now be extended through the lower bathy- al zone into the abyssal zone where it begins to become less abundant around 2,500 m. Similarly, Bolivina ordinaria oc- curs consistently and with a relatively high abundance in nearly all samples. It has been recorded previously in the lower bathyal zone, but in low abundance (Brunner and Cul- ver, 1992). Bolivina ordinaria also occurs at the abyssal location 1739, but in low abundances. Epistominella san- diegoensis has a published depth range like that of Bolivina ordinaria and has been infrequently reported from the North American Atlantic continental margin (Brunner and Culver, 1992). It has a similar distribution in both canyons but is found in slightly higher abundances in core 1739-1 and in great abundance in core 1748-5 (10-15 cm, together with characteristically neritic forms) making up ?19-25% of the assemblage in the four samples. This form is identified as Epistominella takayangii Iwasa by D. B. Scott (personal 218 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY communication, 1990), who has recorded it in Recent sed- iments in the Arctic from outer shelf to middle bathyal depths (Schr?der-Adams and others, 1990), and from Pleis- tocene DSDP core material off New Jersey (Scott, 1987). Bolivina marginata has been recorded previously at lower bathyal depths, but normally in lower abundances than on the upper to mid-slope (although Cushman [1922] reported B. marginata as "common" at a station ?2,000 m deep). In this study it was abundant in South Heyes Canyon (lo- cation 1749), and in both the deepest (core 1739-1) and the shallowest (core 1748-1) locations in Wilmington Canyon. Bulimina mexicana, Cassidulina carinata, Cassidulina neocarinata, and Islandiella norcrossi have been recorded with high abundance at middle bathyal depths. In this study, these species occur in many samples throughout Wilmington Canyon, the gully of Wilmington Canyon (location 1743), and South Heyes Canyon where it composes 3% of assem- blages. The abyssal record of Bulimina mexicana is in ac- cordance with Corliss' (1991) record of living specimens in the northwest Atlantic Ocean off the Nova Scotian conti- nental margin. Several species previously recorded at neritic depths were recovered in this study. Thirty of a total of 34 specimens of Eoeponidella pulchella are in the lower four samples of core 1748-5. One specimen is found in both cores 1749-4 and 1745-7, and two individuals occur in core 1743-8. Rosa- Una squamata is relatively common only in core 1743-8 (-1-2%) and the lower samples of core 1748-5 (-2-3%), occurrences at other localities being rare and scattered. Bo- livina pseudoplicata has been considered a neritic species along the Atlantic coast of North America (Brunner and Culver, 1992). However, Hermelin and Scott (1985) de- scribed this species as quite common to a depth of 2,760 m in the central North Atlantic, and its widespread distribution in this study suggests that this species inhabits lower bathyal depths along the North Atlantic continental margin. Speci- mens of Hanzawaia strattoni in this study are smaller, less robust, and more fresh in appearence than specimens of this species identified by Brunner and Culver (1992) that were interpreted as neritic in origin. Although few in number, they display a wide distribution, and may represent in situ specimens. A widespread distribution for the supposed ne- ritic species abieldes fletcheri may be similarly interpreted. It was, in fact, reported at a depth of 650 fathoms by Uchio (1960). Bullminella elegantlssima and Eggerella advena, two classically neritic species, occur in small numbers in Wil- mington Canyon. Bulimlnella elegantlssima occurs in core 1748-5, II specimens throughout the lower four samples and one specimen in each of the top two samples. One spec- imen also occurs in core 1745-5 at 2-4 cm. Only three in- dividuals of Eggerella advena were found, two from core 1748-1 at 2-4 cm and one from core 1748-5 at 2-4 cm. In summary, the great majority of species in this study occupy their previously recorded depth ranges. Nearly all of those species that had not been recorded previously from the lower bathyal zone have a widespread distribution, sim- ilar to that of the known lower bathyal species that occur with them. Hence the dominant component of foraminiferal assemblages recorded in this study is lower bathyal in na- ture. Some downslope displacement of these specimens from outer neritic or upper to middle bathyal depths is not ruled out, but the data suggest such transport is not the dominant process. Exceptions include the lower part of core 1748-5, which contains an unusual assemblage with definite neritic input. DISCUSSION FORAMrNIFERAL AND LiTHOLOGIC DATA The lithologie and foraminiferal data are a function of sedimentary processes in Wilmington and South Heyes can- yons. Lithologie data show variation across all canyon me- anders, significant differences throughout Wilmington Can- yon, and consistent values in South Heyes Canyon which differ from those in Wilmington Canyon. In contrast, fora- miniferal data indicate general consistency (with few excep- tions) between and throughout the canyons, but demonstrate clear variations with water depth (Table 4). This contrast between variability in lithologie character- istics in Wilmington Canyon and generally uniform litho- logie attributes in South Heyes Canyon is shown in Figure 3, In locations 1739, 1745, and to a lesser degree at 1741, cross-canyon variability is recorded in clastic material, sand fraction, and number of benthic foraminifera per gram of sediment. In South Heyes Canyon, the lithology is less vari- able and, except for an increase along the south wall (core J 749-2), the number of benthic foraminifera per gram is generally uniform. Also notable at 1749 is the lower input of clastic material relative to a site at similar depth in Wil- mington Canyon (1748), and the possibly lower rate of de- position indicated by the high number of benthic foraminif- era per gram of sediment at 1749, The larger proportion of planktic foraminifera at similar depths in South Heyes than in Wilmington Canyon may suggest that there is an addi- tional source of benthic foraminifera supplied to Wilming- ton Canyon (it is difficult to enivsage the alternative, a greater source of planktic foraminifera to South Heyes Can- yon), Figure 3 and Table 4 show the general similarity in fo- raminiferal characteristics in Wilmington and South Heyes canyons, Planktic to benthic foraminiferal ratios (expressed as percent planktics) do not vary significantly across-can- yon, and values increase at greater depths. Species diversity values show no similar depth-related pattern, but exhibit great uniformity throughout nearly all cores. The only cross- canyon variability is seen at location 1739. The values for biofacies fidelity and constancy (Table 3) also show a lack of variability in the distribution of benthic foraminifera. Only a few species are characteristic of any one location (abyssal location 1739 is the exception); distinctions made by cluster analysis are based on variations in species abun- dance. Disparity between lithologie and foraminiferal patterns indicate that, within a background of hemipelagic rain, the canyons experience sedimentary processes in addition to turbidity currents. Processes such as small scale slumping and other mass wasting processes (including creep), tidal currents, down-canyon low-density current flows (some per- haps triggered by storms), and bioerosion (as evidenced by direct observation from Alvin of the steep walls of South Wilmington Canyon) need also to be considered. FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 219 ?? 3 ^ 3 O O Cd > ?o C3 5 cd 4J _o ? \q p (N (N (ri r*-i ? r? r*S f^ rS f^ ? > ^ ^ ? ^ O o t>5 ON 1- u ? cd ^ cd > 1 c 1 2 0- Z 00 M O > c cd O, o ITi --3 , ? D II 'c 0? cd 00 .i b? ^ O (N f*-) rn (N c n-i ? ?' f^ r^ iri f^ II OO 00 OO CO ?^ o ^ B H o cd t ?- E J ? 0- CU ^ ? 00 -^ ^^^?^ 1^^ M ^ r~ ? 0 ON 00 00 00 J:: 10 ^ ^ # ^ ^ -^ r- o o\ ?o a lyn vo "O ?n ^^ cd -0 ^ cd > "& ? ? 0 2 0 0 0 00 0 ?o 0 0 00 vn ?O u -is ^ oo_ wi ?' ^ il r^ ^D" 0 r- p-i E ? ^ r- 0 0 4J 0 c 0 "" ?0 0 r- 1^ .3 ?cd ^ ^ n t v ar ia ti de po sit io i f m ea n de 0 _3 Cd ci cd .2 ?a c 0 0 > 0 un 0 ^ 0 cd > "Jo 0 c 0 0 0 -o " rn 00 Tt "^ ^ 'Sa-S -2 -0 c Cd c 0 d" o? ri -a C Cd ?- vo B 00 Ti- !5 E 3 ji: ?^ S 8 CD >, ? t 1 00 ? > iri" ^ ?? 0 0 0 Cu yi 1 0 0 0 '^_^ 00 00^ 00 00' f^" r^r 00 ^ 3 ? o -c 000 0 s: 000 0 o? ? 00 10^ ^ oC ON rn ON" ON 00 " un NO r- ^ fl ? ? (N O S3 1- -n o\ r- ???e ^^ ??0 (N 0\ "5 o , VI C - -5 "^ ?d ^ ^ > -o r- 2i; os E- 3 ^ 00 oc in ai 8^ ? C4 "O S o t . 3 -a ? c a? ?- si Cd ? 2 ?^ ^ Si ^ r-; ^ o\ (^ ?^ ci r-i c^ D. ? O? ^ SO ^ 00 ?Ti 5 S ? *-* fyi ri ? ON J^ 0\ 00 > Sa .2 ^ E ? 0 -0 u c ?j ? ? 3 73 ?. ,? _cd (U .S ?i 0 1 0 J2 5 ?^ -s U5 "O ?5 ^ -0 C C cd Cd 'i cd Cd ? ^ ^ ^ 3 c Q. cd JZ 0 #1^ .? 3 ^ Xi 0 CN (N s in ON S 00 00 \D 00 Ov C S .^ .2 * * # * 0 ON 00 Xf 0 r^ ^ r^ t^ U ?'> < ? ? m m 00 o "=d- wn E ? ON ON 00 00 NO O O r^ 00 00 000 S ? o o o ^ vo in E ? ON in O ? 00 00 ^ O ?ri in un v-i CJ c ?H eu 0 m 00 ci ?' iT) c 1 ON ON m m r- r- O- ?' 00 -^ CL. 0-, CL -^ (^ ON ? ? 10 "n ?n ^ Ni Tj- r^ r- r^ 00 00 O eu eu 0. _ X CNI ^ t "n m ON ON ON ON ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r- r^ t^ t^ 0 220 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STAtsTLEY Tidal currents, with velocities usually <50 cm/sec, have been recorded in some submarine canyons along the United States Atlantic continental margin (Shepard, 1979). A few measurements have recorded currents of slightly greater ve- locity (50 to 75 cm/s) occurring during storms (Shepard and others, 1977). Direct measurements of tidal currents in Wil- mington Canyon collected at a maximum depth of 915 m (3 m above the canyon floor) during nineteen days of ob- servation indicated a maximum velocity of 22 cm/sec, with a mean of 8 cm/sec (Keller and Shepard, 1978). The currents at this station varied up- and down-canyon and showed a slight trend toward up-canyon flow. Currents generated by tides and density flow in submarine canyons have been known to stir silts and fine sands on canyon floors, and in some instances generate ripple marks (Shepard, 1979). Within Wilmington Canyon, at a location a short distance up-canyon from core 1739-1 and along the same bend in the canyon, ripple marks were observed (S. J. Culver, field notes; Sanford and others, 1990). The ori- entation of these ripple marks may indicate the presence of active tidal currents flowing up-canyon at this location. Weak up-canyon, down-canyon, or bidirectional tidal cur- rents, intensified at constrictions and the outside of meander bends, could gently but continuously winnow sediment on the canyon floor, and also disturb sediment along the canyon walls. Silt- and clay-sized material would be preferentially removed from these areas, leaving a sand-enriched lag and a correspondingly decreased sand-sized fraction in nearby less energetic areas (e.g., location 1739). The lower propor- tion of silt- and clay-sized material in Wilmington Canyon compared to South Heyes Canyon (Fig. 3) suggests that fines are being winnowed in Wilmington Canyon. The depth-related ratios of planktic to benthic foraminifera, and the generally uniform distribution of benthic foraminifera in Wilmington Canyon demonstrate that the main constituents of foraminiferal assemblages present in this canyon have been relatively unaffected by this process. Segall and others (1989) and Sanford and others (1990) have suggested that the dominant recently active sedimen- tary process in Wilmington and South Heyes canyons is mass wasting. Sanford and others (1990) found substantially higher rates of deposition at location 1745 than in most samples throughout Wilmington Canyon. They attributed this, and other areas of high deposition, to extensive bio- erosion (observed from DSRV Alvin; S. J. Culver, field notes) of canyon walls (steeper along the outside of mean- ders) and attendant redeposition at the base of walls. The variations in sedimentary data observed across me- anders in Wilmington Canyon may result in part from slumping of canyon walls. The consistency observed in fo- raminiferal data may be explained in part by movement of material down canyon walls by mass wasting and redepo- sition at only slightly greater depths in the nearby canyon. Subsequent transport of material somewhat farther down- canyon would not conspicuously alter foraminiferal assem- blages. Cross-canyon variations in lithologie characteristics in Wilmington Canyon are not evident in South Heyes Canyon. The low average gradient of the walls and the absence of steep walls in South Heyes Canyon help explain differences in sediment content of the two canyons. Steep canyon walls, such as those found at the outside of meander bends, would be more susceptible to sediment failure, slumping and bio- erosion. In comparison, the relative homogeneity in litho- logie attributes across South Heyes Canyon is lajgely a function of its morphology. In summary, sediment failure along steep and undercut canyon walls and the observation of rare ripple-marks ap- parently generated by bottom currents (perhaps tidal) indi- cate that several processes are currently active in Wilming- ton Canyon. The lower rate of deposition and low percent clastic input in South Heyes Canyon suggest that mass wast- ing, bottom current action and/or low-density flows are cur- rently less important, in terms of sediment displacement, than in Wilmington Canyon. FORAMINIFERAL IMPLICATIONS FOR SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Mass wasting, bottom current processes and low-density flows best explain the observed patterns of lithologie and foraminiferal data within Wilmington and South Heyes can- yons. This allows for a modification of the model of recent sediment transport in Wilmington Canyon that involves ero- sive gravity flows or turbidity currents, as proposed by Stan- ley and others (1986). These denser cuaents were believed responsible for the differences observed downcore and be- tween cores, and a discontinuous stop-and-go transport pro- cess was invoked. The basis for their model was observation of marked increases in "shallow" benthic foraminifera across-canyon and downcore in two cores along the steep walls of meanders, accompanied by marked discontinuities in sedimentary characteristics in the canyon sections. Sed- imentary variations observed by Stanley and others (1986) correspond to variations attributed in the present study to a combination of mass-wasting, low-density and perhaps tidal current action. Documentation of benthic foraminifera in this study indicates that some "shallow" species that Stan- ley and others (1986) considered to have been actively trans- ported down-canyon either lived and accumulated at lower bathyal depths or resulted from bioerosion and downslope failure of exposed canyon wall sections, including sections of slump blocks of neritic origin emplaced during a Pleis- tocene lowstand of sea-level (Brunner and Culver, 1992). Some of the abundant species observed in Wilmington Canyon were previously considered native to shallower wa- ter, and were thus interpreted as evidence of downslope transport (Stanley and others, 1986). It is of note, however, that these species are also found in similar abundances in South Heyes Canyon where turbidity currents do not prevail (Farre and others, 1983), where there is no direct connection with the outer shelf, and where the recent dominant active process is small-scale mass and down-wall wasting of hemi- pelagic material (Sanford and others, 1990). This indicates that many species within South Heyes Canyon (and, by comparison, the same species in Wilmington Canyon) lived and accumulated at the lower bathyal depths where they were sampled. This is supported by samples from core 1743-8, taken from the hemipelagic drape high on the south- eastern wall of a gully feeding into Wilmington Canyon (Fig. 2). This gully is orthogonal to the trend of the slope in this location and is directly downslope of another gully FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 221 of the same orientation. This location is, therefore, well- shielded from downslope transport of material in the chan- nel by bottom currents and density currents. Species found in this location likely live at lower bathyal depth. Forty- three of the 45 most abundant species in this study are found in this core, and nearly all are abundant. Evidence for bioerosion of Wilmington Canyon walls are recorded by differences in lithologie and foraminiferal char- acter between the top and bottom of core 1748-5. These three burrowed samples have low diversity and equitability values relative to other samples in this study (Fig. 3), cluster distinctly from all other samples (Fig. 4), and contain a few dominant species which are dominant nowhere else in Re- cent sediments in Wilmington Canyon but which are dom- inant in Pleistocene slump blocks of neritic origin that, in places, comprise the steep walls of Wilmington Canyon (Brunner and Culver, 1992). Episiominella sandiegoensis and Elphidium excavatum are very abundant. Cassidulina reniforme has greater abundance here than in other samples. Rosalina squamata is present in moderate numbers and there are occurrences of BuUminella elegantissima, Elphi- dium subarcticum, Elphidium sp. A and Elphidium sp. B. Most of these species have been used previously as shallow water indicators, although live specimens of Elphidium ex- cavatum have been recovered from lower bathyal and abys- sal depths (e.g., Miller and Lohmann, 1982; Corliss, 1991; see Brunner and Culver, 1992 for discussion). The occur- rence of E. excavatum in moderate abundances throughout this study also suggests a natural occurrence at these depths. However, high abundance of E. excavatum in the lower part of 1748-5, together with other anomalously abundant spe- cies, is suggestive of shallow water, and probably indicative of an allochthonous fauna derived from a Pleistocene slump block of neritic origin (Brunner and Culver, 1992). The presence in core 1739-1 of anomalously large num- bers of the species that dominate the lower portion of core 1748-5 indicate that bioerosion may have contributed ma- terial to core 1739-1. This is supported by the high diversity observed and by evidence for increased sand fraction and clastic deposition, as well as the possible higher rate of de- position in this location relative to samples across canyon, as indicated by benthic for?minifera per gram of sediment (Fig. 3). Core 1739-1 was collected along the outside of a meander beneath a nearly vertical wall, a location similar to those where Stanley and others (1986) observed downcore differences that they inferred to result from downslope transport. In this core, Episiominella sandiegoensis and El- phidium excavatum occur with slightly higher abundances than in most samples in this study. Relatively large numbers of Rosalina squamata occur in one sample. Proportions of these species, which are widespread in the cores of this study, are augmented by additional material derived via bioerosion and downslope transport from the canyon walls at this location. The action of gravity on downslope sediment transport cannot be discounted. Moreover, the scattered occurrences of neritic species within Wilmington Canyon indicate that some downslope transport is occurring. However, it appears from study of samples herein that gravity-driven transport is occurring at fairly low rates, and that high rates of fora- miniferal production in situ tend to overprint this displace- ment signal. Thus, only modest evidence for large-scale sediment transport has been recognized in this study; while clearly able to mold the surficial sediment drape, these processes cannot completely account for the gross morphology of the modern canyons. Major mass wasting and headward erosion in straight canyons and active scouring by major turbidity currents in meandering canyons have not been the major processes during the past 200-600-year period (cf. Sanford and others, 1990) represented by cores in this study. CONCLUSIONS Marked variations in lithologie characteristics observed across meanders throughout Wilmington Canyon contrast with the ubiquitous distribution of the abundant for?minif- era, which vary almost exclusively in relative abundance (not occurrence) and show a clear depth-related pattern. This indicates that relatively minor mass-wasting processes (in- cluding creep) and bottom low-density and/or tidal current action are altering the lithologie characteristics, particularly along the outside of meanders, while leaving the overall distribution of for?minifera relatively unaffected. South Heyes Canyon is more quiescent, with minor mass wasting interpreted to be the only process recently active. Samples from this canyon exhibit striking uniformity in nearly all foraminiferal and lithologie attributes measured. Thus, this contrast with Wilmington Canyon is most likely related to marked morphologic differences and slope settings of the two canyons. Several foraminiferal species in both canyons, previously considered to be characteristic of shallower waters, lived and accumulated at lower bathyal or abyssal depths. Some, if not most, species that Stanley and others (1986) inferred to be indicative of downslope transport (i.e., neritic species) were deposited in the Wilmington Canyon channel after be- ing eroded from the slumped blocks of neritic origin that now constitute the steep canyon walls. The observations of recent relative inactivity in South Heyes Canyon and of a moderately active Wilmington Can- yon during the past 200-400 years indicate that the major processes responsible for canyon erosion are not currently active to any significant degree, and occur at time scales much greater than those represented by the core material in this study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank E. Collins, M. Jones, J. Swallow, W. Stubble- field, B. McGregor, M. A. Buzas, C. F. Koch and M. Adam for their help in various phases of this study. We also ac- knowledge the support of the Department of Geological Sci- ences at Old Dominion University, the skill of the Alvin pilots J. Salzig, D. Foster, S. Gleason, G. Rajcula and the captain and crew of the Atlantis II. NOAA's Undersea Re- search Office supported the dive program and NSF Grant OCE 8610365 (to SJC) supported the research. REFERENCES ANDERSON, H. V., 1952, Buccetla, a new genus of the rotalid for?- minifera: Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, v. 42, p. 143-151. 222 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY APPLIN, E. R., 1925, Subsurface straligraphy of the coastal plain of Texas and Louisiana: Bulletin of the American Association of Pe- troleum Geologists, V. 9, p. 79-122. BAO-EY, J. W., 1851, Microscopical examination of soundings made by the U.S. Coast Survey off the Atlantic coast of the U.S.: Smith- sonion Contributions to Knowledge, v. 2, p. 4-15. BARICER, R. W., 1960, Taxonomic notes on the species figured by H. B. Brady in his report on the foraminifera dredged by H. M. S. Challenger ?u?ng the years 1873-1876: Society of Economic Pa- leontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication no. 9, p. 1- 238. BERGGREN, W. A., and MILLER, K. C, 1989, Cenozoic bathyal and abyssal calcareous benthic foraminiferal zonation: Micropaleon- tology, V. 35, p. 308-320. BERGEN, T. E W., SBENDORIO-LEVY, J., TWINING, J. X, and CASEY, R. E., 1986, Middle Miocene planktic microfossils and lower bathyal foraminifera from offshore Southern California: Journal of Paleontology, v. 60, p. 249-267. BOOMGAART, L., 1949, Smaller foraminifera from Bodjoneforo (Java): Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Utrecht, p. 1-175. Boi^NEMANN, J. G., 1855, Die mikroskopische Fauna des Septarien- thones von Hermsdorf bei Berlin: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geo- logischen Gesellschaft, v. 7, p. 307-371. BRADY, H. B., 1878, On the reticularian and radiolarian Rhizopoda (foraminifera and polycystina) of the North-Polar Expedition of 1875-1876: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 5, v. 1, p. 425-440. , 1879, Notes on some of the reticularian Rhizopoda of the "Challenger" Expedition: Part 0, Addition to the knowledge of porcellanous and hyaline types: Quarterly Journal of Microscop- ical Science, new series, v. 19, p. 261-299. , 1881, Notes on some of the reticularian Rhizopoda of the "Challenger" Expedition: Part HI, 1?classification, 2?Funher notes on new species, 3?Note on Biloculina mud: Quarteriy Jour- nal of Microscopical Science, new series, v. 21, p. 31-71. , 1884, Report on the foraminifera dredged by HMS Challenger, during the years 1873-1876: Report of Scientific Results of the Exploration Voyage of HMS Challenger, Zoology, v. 9 (2 vols), p. 1-814. , PARKER, W. K., and JONES, T. R., 1888, On some foraminifera from the Abrohlos Bank: Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, v. 12, pL 7, p. 211-239. BRUNNER, C. A., and CULVER, S. J., 1992, Quaternary foraminifera from the walls of Wilmington, South Wilmington, and North Heyes Canyons, U.S. East Coast: Implications for continental slope and rise evolution: Palaios, v. 7, p. 34-66. BUZAS, M. A., and GtBSON, T. G., 1969, Species diversity: benthonic foraminifera in western North Atlantic: Science, v. 163, p. 72-75. COLE, F. E., 1981, Taxonomic notes on the bathyal zone benthonic foraminiferal species off northeast Newfoundland: Bedford Insti- tute of Oceanography, Report Series, Br-R-81-7, p. 1-121. CORLISS, B. H., 1991, Morphology and microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera from the northwest Atlantic Ocean: Marine Micropaleontology, v. 17, p. 195-236. CULVER, S. J., 1988, New foraminiferal depth zonation of the north- western Gulf of Mexico: Palaios, v. 3, p. 69-85. , and BUZAS, M. A., 1980, Distribution of recent benthic fo- raminifera off the North American Atlantic Coast: Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, no. 6, p. 1-512. , and , 1981a, Distribution of recent benthic foraminifera in the Gulf of Mexico: Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, no. 8, p. 1-898. , and , 1981b, Recent benthic foraminiferal provinces on the Atlantic continental margin of North America: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 11, p. 217-240. , and , 1982, Distribution of recent benthic foraminifera in the Caribbean Region: Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, no. 14, p. 1-381. and , 1983, Benthic foraminifera at the shelfbreak: North American Atlantic and Gulf Margins, in Stanley, D. J., and Moore, G. T. (eds.), The Shelfbreak: Critical Interface on Conti- nental Margins: Society of Economie Paleontologists and Miner- alogists Special Publication no. 33, p. 359-371. CuSHMAN, J. A., 1910, A monograph of the foraminifera of the North Pacific Ocean, Part I. Astrorhizidea and Lituolidae: United States National Museum Bulletin 71, pt. 1, p. 1-134. , 1911, A monograph of the foraminifera of the North Pacific Ocean, Part II. Textulariidae: United States National Museum Bul- letin 71, pt. 2, p. 1-108. , 1913, A monograph of the foraminifera of the North Pacific Ocean, Part III. Lagenidae: United States National Museum Bul- letin 71, pt. 3, p. 1-125. , 1920, The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, Part 2, Litu- olidae: United States National Museum Bulletin 104, pt. 2, p. 1- 111. , 1922a, Results of the Hudson Bay Expedition, 1920. I. The foraminifera: Canadian Biological Board, Contributions to Cana- dian Biology, v. 9, p. 135-147. , 1922b, The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, Part 3, Tex- tulariidae: United States National Museum Bulletin 104, pt. 3, p. 1-149. , 1922c, The foraminifera of the Byram calcareous marl at By- ram, Mississippi: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, no. 129-E, p. 87-105. , 1923, The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, Part 4, Lagen- idae: United States National Museum Bulletin 104, pt. 4, p. 1- 228. -, 1927, Some new genera of the foraminifera: Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, v. 2, p. 77-81. , 1930, The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, Part 7, Non- ionidae, Camerinidae, and Fischerinidae: United States National Museum Bulletin 104, pt. 7, p. 1-79. , 1931, The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, Part 7, Rotahidae, Amphisteginidae, Calcarinidae, Cymbaloprettidae, Globoro- taliidae, Anomalinidae, Planorbulinidae, Rupertiidae, and Homo- tremidae: United States National Museum Bulletin 104, pt. 7, p. 1-79. , 1933, Some new Recent foraminifera from the tropical Pacific: Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Re- search, V. 9, p. 77-95. , 1941, Some fossil foraminifera from Alaska: Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, v. 17, pt. 2, p. 33-38. , 1944, Foraminifera from the shallow water of the New En- gland coast: Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication no. 12, p. 1-37. , 1947, New species and varieties of foraminifera from off the southeast coast of the United States: Contributions from the Cush- man Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, v. 23, p. 86-92. , and MCCULLOCH, I., 1940, Some Nonionidae in the collec- tions of the Allan Hancock Foundation: Southern California Uni- versity Publications, Allan Hancock Pacific Expedition, Los An- geles, CA, V. 6, no. 3, p. 145-178. , and PARKER, F L., 1940, The .species of the genus Bulimina having Recent types: Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, v. 16, p. 7-23. , and TODD, R., 1947, A foraminiferal fauna from Amchitka Island, Alaska: Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, v. 23, p. 60-72. , , and POST, R. J., 1954, Recent foraminifera from the Marshall Islands, Biidni and nearby atolls. Part 2. Oceanography (Biologic): United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 260-H, p. 319-384. , and WICKENDEN, R. T. D., 1929, Recent foranainifera from off Juan Fernandez Islands: Procedings of the United States Na- tional Museum, no. 2780, v. 75. C2J?EK, J., 1848, Beitrag zur Kenntniss der fossilen Foraminiferen des Wiener Beckens: Haidinger's Naturwissenschaftliche Abhandlun- gen, v. 2, pt. 1, p. 137-150. DAWSON, J. W., 1860, Notice of Tertiary fossils from Labrador, Maine, etc., and remarks on the climate of Canada in the newer Pliocene or Pleistocene period: Canadian Naturalist, v. 5, p. 188-200. DERVIEUX, E., 1894, Le Nodosarie terziare del Piemonte: Bollettino della Societ? Geol?gica Italiana, v. 3, p. 597-626. DOUGLAS, R. G., 1979, Benthic foraminiferal ecology and paleoecol- ogy: A review of concepts and methods, in Foraminiferal Ecology FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 223 and Paleoecology: Society of Economic Paleontologist and Min- eralogists, Short Course No. 6, p. 21-53. DROOGER, C. W., 1953, Miocene and Pleistocene foraminifera from Oranjestad, Aruba (Netherlands Antilles): Contributions from the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, v. 4, p. 116- 147. EGGER, }. G., 1893, Foraminiferen aus Meeresgrundproben, gclothet von 1874 bis 1876 von S. M. Sch. Gazelle: Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, M?nchen, Mathemat- ics-Physics. Cl., V. 18, no. 2, p. 193-458. EHRENBBRG, C. G., 1843, Einfluss der mikroskopischen Meeres-Or- ganismen auf den Boden des Eibbettes bis oberhalb Hamburg: K?niglichen Prcussischen Akademie der Wissen Sch?ften Zu Ber- lin, Deutschland, p. 166-167. , 1844, Untersuchungen ?ber die kleinsten Lebensfonnen iin Quellenlande des Euphrates und Araxes, so wie ?ber eine an neuen Formen sehr reiche marine Tripelbildung von den Bermuda- In.seln vor: Bericht ?ber die zu Bekanntmachung geeigneten Ver- handlungen der K?niglichen Prcussischen Akademie der Wissen Sch?ften zu Berlin, 1844, p. 253-275. FARRE, J. A., MCGF?GOR, B. A., RYAN, B. F., and ROBB, J. M., 1983, Breaching the shelfbreak: Passage from youthful to mature phase in submarine canyon evolution, in Stanley, D. J., and Moore, G. T. (eds.). The Shelfbreak: Critical Interface on Continental Mar- gins: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Spe- cial Publication no. 33, p. 25-39. FiCHTEL, L., VON, and MOLL, J. R C, VON, 1798, Testacea micro- sc?pica aliaque minuta et generibus Argonaula et Nautilus (Mi- croscopishe und andere kleine Schalthiere aus den Geschlechtern Argonaute und Schiffer): Camesina, Wien, vii + 123 p. (Reprinted 1803). GALLOWAY, J. J., and Wtsst.ER, S. G., 1927, Pleistocene foraminifera from the Lomila Quan'y, Palos Verdes Hills, California. Journal of Paleontology, v. 1, p. 35-81. GIBSON, T. G., 1989, Planktic-benthonic foraminiferal ratios: modern patterns and Tertiary applications: Marine Micropalaeontology, v. 15, p. 29-52. , and Bi ZAS, M. A., 1973, Species diversity: Patterns in mod- ern and Miocene foraminifera of the eastern margin of North America: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, p. 217- 238. GREEN, K. E., 1959, Ecology of some Arctic foraminifera, in Bushneil, V. (ed.). Scientific Studies at Fletcher's Ice Island, T-3 (1952- 1955). V. 1: United States Air Force, Cambridge Research Center, Geophysical Research Papers, no. 63, p. 59-81. GRIMSDALE, T., and MORKHOVEN, E, 1955, The ratio between pelagic and benthonic foraminifera as a means of estimating depth of de- position of sedimentary rocks: IV World Petrology Congress, Pre- ceedings. Sect. I/D. Rept. 4, p. 473-491. HAZEL, J. E., 1977, Use of certain multivariate and other techniques in assemblage zonal biostratigraphy: examples utilizing Cambrian, Cretaceous, and Tertiary benthic invertebrates, in Kauffman, E! G., and Hazel, J. E. (eds.). Concepts and Methods of Biostratig- raphy: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA, p. 187-212. HEDLEY, R. H., HURDLE, C. M., and BURDETT, I. D. J., 1964, Tro- chammina squamala Jones and Parker (Foraminifera) with obser- vations on some closely related species: New Zealand Journal of Science, v. 7, p. 417-426. HERMELIN, J. O. R., 1989, Pliocene benthic foraminifera from the On- tong-Java Plateau (western equatorial Pacific Ocean): faunal re- sponse to changing paleoenvironment: Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Special Publication no. 26, p. 1-143. , and SCOTT, D. B., 1985, Recent benthic foraminifera from the central North Atlantic: Micropaleontology, v. 31, p. 199-220. HERON-AJ-LEN, E., and EARLAND, A., 1930, The foraminifera of the Plymouth district; Part I: Journal of the Royal Microscopical So- ciety of London, ser 3, p. 46-84. , and , 1932, Foraminifera, Part I. The ice-free area of the Falkland Islands and adjacent seas: Discovery Reports, v. 4, p. 291-460. H?GLUND, H., 1947, Foraminifera in the Gullmar Fjord and Skagerak: Zoologiska Bidrag fr;in Uppsala Universitet, v. 276, p. 1-328. JONES, T. R., and PARKER, W. K., I860, On the rhizopodal fauna of the Mediterranean, compared with that of the Italian and some other Tertiary deposits: Quarteriy Journal of the Geological So- ciety of London, v. 16, p. 292-307. KARRER, F, 1868, Die Miocene Foraminiferenfauna von Kostej im Batat: Sizungsberichte der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, V. 58, p. 121-193. KELLER, G. H., and SHEPHARD, F P, 1978, Currents and sedimentary processes in submarine canyons of the northeast United States, in Stanley, D. J. and Kelling, G. (eds.), Sedimentation in Submarine Canyons, Fans and Trenches: Stroudsburg, PA, Dowden, Hutch- inson and Ross, Inc., p. 15-32. LoEBLicii, A. R., JR., and TAPPAN, H., 1953, Studies of Arctic fora- minifera: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, v. 121, p. 1- 150. , and , 1987. Foraminiferal genera and their classifica- tion: Van Nostrand Rcinhold Company, New York, 2 vols., 970 + 212 p. MCGREGOR, B. A., STUBBLEFILLD, W. L., RYAN, W. B. F, and TWICH- ELL, D. C, 1982, Wilmington Submarine Canyon: a marine flu- vial-like system: Geology, v. 10, p. 27-30. MEAD, G. A., 1985, Recent benthic foraminifera in the Polar Front region of the southwest Atlantic: Micropaleontology, v. 31, p. 221-248. MILLER, K. G., and LOHMANN, G. P., 1982, Environmental distribution of Recent benthic foraminifera on the northeast United States con- tinental slope: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, p. 200-206. MONTAGU, G., 1803, Testacea Britannica, or natural history of British shells, marine, land, and fresh water, including the most minute: J. S. Hollis, England, 606 p. MONTFORT, D., DE, 1808, Conchyliologie syst?matique et classifica- tion m?thodique des coquilles, v. 1: F Schoell, Paris, 409 p. MURRAY, J. W, 1976, A method of determining proximity of marginal seas to an ocean: Marine Geology, v. 22, p. 103-119. NAILAND, M. L., 1938, New species of foraminifera from off the west coast of North America and from the later Tertiary of the Los Angeles Basin: Bulletin of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Technical Series, v. 4, 137-164. NiTTROiJER, C. A., STERNBERG, R. W., CARPENTER, R., and BENNETT, J. T., 1979, The use of -'"Pb geochronology as a sedimentological tool: application to the Washington continental shelf: Marine Ge- ology, V. 31, p. 297-316. N0RVANG, A., 1945, The Zoology of Iceland, foraminifera: Munks- gaard, Copenhagen, pt. 2, no. 2, 79 p. D'ORBIGNY, A. D., 1826, Tableau m?thodique de la classe des C?- phalopodes: Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris, serie 1, v. 7, p. 245-314. , 1839a, Foraminif?res, in Sagra, R. de la. Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de File de Cuba: Arthus Bertrand, Paris, v. 8, p. 1-224. , 1839b, Voyage dans l'Am?rique M?ridionale-Foraminif?res. V. 5, pt. 5: V. Levrault, Strasbourg, 86 p. , 1839c, Foraminif?res des iles Canaries, in Barker-Webb, P., and Berthelot, S., Histoire naturelle des iles Canaries, v. 2: B?- thune, Paris, p. 119-146. , 1846, Foraminif?res fossiles du Bassin Tertiaire de Vienne (Autriche): Gide et Comp., Paris, 312 p. PARKER, F. L., 1954, Distribution of foraminifera in the northeast Gulf of Mexico: Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Har- vard, V. Ill, p. 453-588. , 1948, Foraminifera of the continental shelf from the Gulf of Maine to Maryland: Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zo- ology, Harvard, v. 100, p. 213-241. , 1952, Foraminifera species off Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, v. 106, p. 391-423. -, PHLEGER, F B, and PEIR,SON, J. F, 1953, Ecology of fora- minifera from San Antonio Bay and environs, southwest Texas: Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publi- cation no. 2, 75 p. PARKER, W. K., and JONES, T. R., 1865, On some foraminifera from the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, including Davis Straits and 224 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY Baffin's Bay: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, v. 155, p. 325-44L PARR, W. J., 1950, Foraminifera: British and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition, 1929-193), Reports?Serie B, (Zoology and Botany), v. 5, p. 233-392. PATTERSON, R. X, 1985, Abditodentrix, a new foraniiniferal genus in family Bolivinitidae: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 15, p. 138-140. PHLEGER, E B, and PAKKJER, E L., 1951, Ecology of foraminifera, northwest Gulf of Mexico. Part If, Foraminifera species: Geolog- ical Society of Ajnerica Memoir 46, pt. 2, p. 1-64. , , and PtERSON, J. E, 1953, North Atlantic foraminifera: Reports of the Swedish Deep Sea Expedition, v. 7, p. 3-122. POAG, C. W., KNEBEL, H. J., and TODD, R., 1980, Distribution of modern benthic foraminifers on the New Jersey outer continental shelf: Marine Micropaleontology, v. 5, p. 43-69. REUSS, A. E., 1850, Neue Foraminiferen aus dem ?sterreichischen Ter- ti?rbecken: Denkschriften der Mathematisch Naturwissen schaft- liche Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, V. 1, p. 365-390. , 1851, Ueber die fossilen Foraminiferen und Entomostraceen der Septarientone der Umgegend von Berlin: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, v. 3, p. 49-91. , 1861, Pal?ontologische Beitrage, l. ?ber eine neue Oligoc?ne Scalpellum?Art: Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Mathematisch?Naturwissenschaftliche Classe,'V. 44, p. 301-342. , 1863, Die Foraminiferen?Fanailie der Lagenideen: Sitzungs- berichte der Mathematisch?Naturwissenschaftlicfien Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, v. 46, pt. 1, p. 308-342. 1866, Die foraminiferen, Anthozoen und Bryozoen des deutschen Septarienthones: Denkschriften der Kaiseriichen Aka- demie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissen-schaft- liche, Wien, V. 25, p. 117-214. ROBERTSON, D., 1891, Trochammina bradyi, n.n.: Annais and Mag- azine of Natural History, London, series 6, v. 7, p. 388. SANFORD, M. W., KUEHL, S. A., and NTTTROUER, C. 1990, Modern sedimentary processes in the Wilmington Canyon area, U.S. east coast: Marine Geology, v. 92, p. 205-226. SARS, G. O., 1872, Unders0gelser over Hardangerfjordens Fauna: For- handlinger i Videnskasselskabet i Kristiania v. 1871, p. 246-255. SCHNITKER, D., 1971, Distribution of foraminifera on the North Car- olina continental shelf: Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontol- ogy, v. 8, p. 169-215. SCHR?DER-ADAMS, C. J., COLE, E E., MEDIOLL F. S., MUDIE, R J., SCOTT, D. B., and DOBBW, L., 1990, Recent Arctic shelf fora- n-unifera: seasonally ice covered vs. perenially ice covered areas: Journal of Foraminiferal Research, v. 20. p. 8-36. SCHWAGER, C, 1866, Fossile Foraminiferen von Kar-Nicobar: Reise der ?sterreichischen FregatteNovara um die Erde in Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859, Geologischer Teil, v. 2, pt. 2, p. 187-268. SCOTT, D. B., 1987, Quaternary benthic foraminifers from deep sea drilling project sites 612 and 613, Leg 95, New Jersey transect: Initial Reports of the deep Sea Drilling Project, v. 95, p. 313-337. SEGALL, M. R, KUEHL, S. A., and GIPSON, M., JR., 1989, Clay-size minerals as indicators of modern sedimentary processes in sub- marine canyons: application to the Wilmington Canyon system: Marine Geology, v. 90, p. 175-192. SEGUENZA, G., 1862, Dei terreni Terziarii del distretto di Messina: Parte II - Descrizione dei foraminiferi monotalamici delle mame mioceniche del distretto di Messina: T. Capra, Messina, p. 1-84. SEJRUP, H.-P., and GUILBALTLT, J.-R, 1980, Cassidulina reniforme and C. obtusa (Foraminifera), taxonomy, distribution and ecology: Sarsia, v. 65, p. 79-85. SHEPARD, F R, 1979, Currents in submarine canyons and other types of sea valleys, in Doyle, L. J., and Pilkey, O. H. (eds.). Geology of Continental Slopes: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication no. 27, p. 85-94. , McLouGHLtN, P A., MARSHALL, N. E, and SULLIVAN, G., 1977, Current-meter recordings of low-speed turbidity currents: Geology, v. 5, p. 297-301. SiDEBOTTOM, H., 1912, Lagenae of the southwest Pacific Ocean: Jour- nal of the Quekett Microscopical Club, series 2, v. 11 (1910- 1912), p. 375-434. SiLVESTRi, A., 1896, Foraminiferi Pliocenici della provincia di Siena, Parte 1: Accademia Pontifica dei Nuovi Lincei, Memorie, Roma, Italia, V. 12, p. 1-204. , 1898, Foraminiferi Pliocenici della provincia di Siena, Parte II: Accademia Pontifica dei Nuovi Lincei, Memorie, Roma, Italia, V. 12, p. 155-381. STANLEY, D. J., CULVER, S. J., and STUBBLEFIELD, W. L., 1986, Pet- rologic and foraminiferal evidence for active downslope transport in Wilmington Canyon: Marine Geology, v. 69, p. 207-218. , NELSEN, T. A., and STUCKENRATH, R., 1984, Recent sedi- mentation on the New Jersey slope and rise: Science, v. 226, p. 125-133. STEWART, R. E., and STEWART, K. C, 1930, Post-Miocene foraminif- era from the Ventura Quadrangle, Ventura County, California: Journal of Paleontology, v. 4, p. 60-72. STUBBLEFIELD, W. L., MCGREGOR, B. A., FORDE, E. B., LAMBERT, D. N., and MEiy?tLL, G. E, 1982, Reconnaissance in DSRV Alvin of a "fluvial-like" meander system in Wilmington Canyon and slump features in South Wilmington Canyon: Geology, v. 10, p. 31-36. TERQUEM, O., 1876, Essai sur le classement des animaux qui vivent sur la plage et dans les environs de Dunkerque, Fase. 1: Paris, p. 1-54. TODD, R., and BR?NNIMANN, P., 1957, Recent foraminifera and the- camoebina from the eastern Gulf of Paria: Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication, no. 3, p. 1-43. UcHio, T., 1960, Ecology of living benthonic foraminifera from the San Diego, California area: Cushman Foundation for Foraminif- eral Research, Special Publication no. 5, p. 1-72. UcHUPL E., 1965, Map showing relation of land and submarine to- pography. Nova Scotia to Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Mis- cellaneous Geologic Investigation Map 1-451. WALKER, G., and JACOB, E., 1798, in Kanmacher, E, Adams' essays on the microscope. Edition 2, with considerable additions and in- provements: Dillon and Keating, London, 712 p. WDESNER, H., 1931, Die Foraminiferen, in Drygalski, E., von: Deutsche S?dpolar Expedition 1901-1903, v. 20, Zoologische v. 12, p. 53- 165. WILLIAMSON, W. C, 1848, On the Recent British species of the genus Lagena: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 2, v. 1, p. U20. , 1858, On the Recent foraminifera of Great Britain: Ray So- ciety, London, p. 1-107. Received 15 November 1996 Accepted 24 February 1997 APPENDDi 1 Original references to benthic foraminifera taxa identified to the species level. Abditodentrix asketocompiella Patterson Abditodentrix asketocomptella Patterson, 1985, p. 140, pi. 1, figs. 1-9. AlUatina cf. A. primitiva (Cushman and McCulloch) Cushmanetla primitiva Cushman and McCulloch, 1940, p. 163, pi. 18, figs. 6-8, 10. Ammodiscus cf. A. tennis Brady Ammodiscus tenuis Brady, 1881, p. 51.?Brady, 1884, pi. 38, figs. 4-6. Ammoglobigerina globigeriniformis (Parker and Jones) Lituola nautiloidea Lamarck var. globigeriniformis Parker and Jones, 1865, p. 407, pi. 17, fig. 96. Anomcdinoides cf. A. lankfordi (Uchio) Nonion lankfordi Uchio, 1960, p. 60, pi. 4, figs. 5-8. Anomalinoides cf. A. mexicana Parker Anomalinoides mexicana Parker, 1954, p. 539, p. 11, figs. 21-23. Anomalinoides phlegeri (Uchio) Cibicides phlegeri Uchio, 1960, p. 69, pi. 10, figs. 7-10. Astrononion gallowayi Loeblich and Tappan Astrononion gallowayi Loeblich and Tappan, 1953, p. 90, pi. 17, figs. 4-7. FORAMINLFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 225 Bolivina cf. B. alata Seguenza Vulvulina alata Seguenza, 1862, p. 115, pi. 2, figs. 5, 5a. Bolivina barbota Phleger and'Parker Bolivina barbota Phleger and Parker, 1951, pt. 2, p. 13, pi. 6, figs. 12a, b, 13. Bolivina cf. B. globulosa Cushman Bolivina globulosa Cushman, 1933, p. 80, pi. 8, fig. 9. Bolivina lanceolata Parker Bolivina lanceolata Parker, 1954, p. 514, pi. 7, figs. 17-20. Bolivina lowmani Phleger and Parker Bolivina lowmani Phleger and Parker, 1951, pt. 2, p. 13, pi. 6, figs. 20a, b. Bolivina minima Phleger and Parker Bolivina minima Phleger and Parker, 1951, pt. 2, p. 14, pi. 6, figs. 22a, b, 25, pi. 7, figs. I, 2. Bolivina ordinaria (Phleger and Parker) Bolivina simplex Phleger and Parker, 1951, pt. 2, p. 14, pi. 7, figs. 4-6. Bolivina pseudoplicata Heron-Allen and Earland Bolivina pseudoplicata Heron-Allen and Earland, 1930, p. 81, pi. 3, figs. 36-40. Bolivina pseudopunctata H?glund Bolivina pseudopunctata H?glund, 1947, p. 273, pi. 24, fig. 5, pi. 32, figs. 23, 24. Bolivina subaenariensis Cushman Bolivina subaenariensis Cushman, 1922b, p. 46, pi. 7, fig. 6. Bolivina subspinescens Cushman Bolivina subspinescens Cushman, 1922b, p. 48, pi. 7, fig. 5. Bolivina translucens Phleger and Parker Bolivina translucens. Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 15, pi. 7, figs. 13, 14a, b. Bolivina cf. B. variabilis (Williamson) Textularia variabilis Williamson, 1858, p. 76, pi. 6, figs. 162, 163.21. Buccella fr?gida (Cushman) Pulvinulina frigida Cushman, 1922b, p. 12. Buccella inusitata Andersen Buccella inusitata Andersen, 1952, p. 148, pi. 1, figs. lOa-c, Ua-c. Bulimina aculeala d'Orbigny Bulimina aculeala d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 269, fig. 7. Bulimina exilis (Brady) Bulimina elegans d'Orbigny var exilis Brady, 1884, p. 339, pi. 50, figs. 5, 6. Bulimina cf. B. glabra (Cushman and Wickenden) Bulimina patagonia d'Orbigny var. glabra Cushman and Wicken- den, 1929, p. 9, pi. 4, fig. 1. Bulimina marg?nala d'Orbigny Bulimina marginata d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 269, pi. 12, figs. 10-12. Bulimina mexicana Cushman Bulimina ?nflala d'Orbigny var. mexicana Cushman in Cushman and Parker, 1940, p. 16, pi. 3, fig. 9. Bulimina rostrata Brady Bulimina rostrata Brady, 1884, p. 408, pi. 51, figs. 14, 15. Buliminella eleganlissima d'Orbigny Bulimina eleganlissima d'Orbigny, 1839b, p. 51, pi. 7, figs. 13, 14. Cassidulina carin?la (Silvestri) Cassidulina laevigala d'Orbigny var. carin?la Silvestri, 1896, p. 104, pi. 2, fig. 10. Cassidulina laevigala d'Orbigny Cossidulbia laevigala d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 282, pi. 15, figs. 4, 5. Cassidulina neocarinata Thalmann Cassidulina toevigaW'd'Orbigny var carinala Cushman, 1922b, p. 124, pi. 25, figs. 6, 7. Cassidulina obtuso Williamson Cassidulina obtusa Williamson, 1858, p. 69, pi. 6, figs. 143, 144. Cassidulina cf. C,reniforme (N0rvang) Cassidulina crassa d'Orbigny reniforme N0rvang, 1945, p. 41, figs. 6c-h. Cassidulina subcalifornica Drooger Cassidulina subglobosa Brady var. subcalifornica Drooger, 1953, p. 140, pi. 22, figs. 8, 9. Cassidulina subglobosa Brady Cassidulina subglobosa Brady, 1881, p. 60.?Parker, 1948, pi. 6, figs. 3a, b. Cassidulinoides bradyi (Norman) Cassidulina bradyi Norman, in Brady, 1881, p. 59.?Parker, 1948, pi. 3, fig, 12. Cibicides cf. C. flelcheri Galloway and Wissler abieldes flelcheri Galloway and Wissler, 1927, p. 64, pi. 10, figs. 8, 9. Cibicides flelcheri Galloway and Wissler Cibicides flelcheri Galloway and Wissler, 1927, p. 64, pi. 10, figs. 8, 9. Cibicides aff, C. lobuiulus (Walker and Jacob) Nautilus lobalula Walker and Jacob, 1798, p. 642, pi. 14, fig. 36. Cibicides lobatulus (Walker and Jacob) Nautilus lobatula Walker and Jacob, 1798, p. 642, pi. 14, fig. 36. Cibicides refulgens Montfort Cibicides refulgens Montfort, 1808, p. 122.?Cushman, 1931, p. 116, pi. 21, figs. 2a-<:. Cibicides wuellersiorfi (Schwager) Anomalina wucllerslorfl Schwager, 1866, p. 258, pi. 7, fig. 105, 107. Cibicides cf. C. wuellersiorfi (Schwager) Anomulina wuellersiorfi Schwager, 1866, p. 258, pi. 7, fig. 105, 107. Cibicidoides kullenbergi (Parker) Cibicides kullenbergi Parker, in Phleger and others, 1953, p. 49, pi. 11, figs. 7, 8. Cibicidoides mollis (PhJeger and Parker) Cibicides mollis Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 30, pi. 16, figs. 7a, b, 8a, b, 9a, b. Cibicidoides mundulus (Brady, Parker and Jones) Truncatulina mundula Brady and others, 1888, p. 228, pi. 45, figs. 25a-c. Cibicidoides robertsonianus (Brady) Truncatulina roberisoniuna Brady, 1881, p. 65.?Brady, 1884, p. 664, pi. 95, figs. 4a-c. Cibicidoides pseudoungerianus (Cushman) Trurwalulina pseudoungeriana Cushman, 1922c, p. 97, pi. 20, fig. 9. Conicospirillina atl?ntica Cushman Conicospirillina atl?ntica Cushman, 1947, p. 91, pi. 20, fig. 8. Cribrostomoides subglobosum (Sars) LituoLa subglobosa Sars, 1872, p. 253. Cribrostomoides wiesneri (Parr) Labrospiro wiesneri Parr, 1950, p. 272, pi. 4, fig. 25, 26. Cystammina pauciloculata (Brady) Trochammina pauciloculala Brady, 1879, p. 58, pi. 5, figs. 13, 14. Denialina communis (d'Orbigny) Nodosaria (Denialina) communis d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 254, no. 35.?Brady, 1884, p. 504-505, pi. 62, figs. 21, 22. Denialina flinlii Cushman Nodosaria flintii Cushman, 1923, p. 85, pi. 14, fig. 1. Eggerella advena (Cushman) Verneuilino adveno Cushman, 1922a, p. 141.?Cushman, 1922b, p. 57, pi. 9, figs. 7-9. Eggerella bradyi (Cushman) Verneuilino pygmaea Brady, 1884, p. 385, pi. 47, figs. 4-7. Elphidium excavatum (Terquem) Polyslomella exc?vala Terquem, 1876, p. 20, pi. 2, figs. 2a, b. Elphidium subarcticum Cushman Elphidium subarcticum Cushman, 1944, p. 27, pi. 3, figs. 34a, b, 35. Eoeponidella pulchella (Parker) Pninaella (?) pulchella. Parker, 1952, p. 420, pi. 6, figs. 18a, b, 19, 20. Epislominella dec?rala (Phleger and Parker) Pseudoparrella dec?rala Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 28, pi. 15, figs. 4a, b, 5a, b. Epislominella exigua (Brady) Pulvinulina exigua Brady, 1884, p. 696, pi. 103, figs. 13, 14. Epislominella cf. E. rugosa (Phleger and Parker) Pseudoparrella rugosa Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 28, pi. 15, figs. 8a, b, 9a, b. Epislominella sandiegoensis Uchio Epislominella sandiegoensis Uchio, 1960, p. 68, pi. 9, figs. 6, 7. Epislominella cf. E. sandiegoensis Uchio Epislominella sandiegoensis Uchio, 1960, p. 68, pi. 9, figs. 6, 7. Epislominella vitrea Parker 226 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY Epistominelta vitrea Parker, in Parker, Phleger and Peirson, 1953, p. 9, pi. 4, figs. 34-36, 40, 41. Eponides r?pandus (Pichel and Moll) Naulihis r?pandus Fichtel and jMoll, 1798, p. 35, pi. 3, figs. a-d. Eponides lumidulus (Brady) Truncamlina lumidula Brady, 1884, p. 666, pi. 95, figs. 8a-d. Eponides turgidus Phleger and Parker Eponides turgidus Phleger and Parker, 1951, pt. 2, p. 22, pi. 11, figs. 9a, d. lEponides .sp. A Eponides tumidulus Schnitker, 1971, p. 196, pi. 9, figs, la-c (not Tnincalulina lumidula Brady, 1884). Fissurina agassizi Todd and Br?nniman Fissurina agassizi Todd and Br?nniman, 1957, p. 36, pi. 9, figs. 14a, b. Fissurina aff. F. agassizi Todd and Br?nniman Fissurina agassizi Todd and Br?nniman, 1957, p. 36, pi. 9, figs. 14a, b. Fissurina circularis Todd Fissurina circularis Todd, in Cushman and others, 1954, p. 351, pi. 87, fig. 27.22. Fissurina fimbriata (Brady) Lagena fimbriata Brady, 1881, p. 61. -Brady, 1884, p. 486, pi. 60, figs. 26-28. Fissurina kerguelenensis Parr Fissurina kerguelenensis Parr, 1950, p. 305, pi, 8, figs. 7a, b. Fissurina laevigata (Reiiss) Fissurina laevigata Reuss, 1850, p. 366, pi. 46, fig. 1. Fissurina. marginata (Montagu) Vermiculum marginalum Montagu, 1803, p. 524. Lagena marginata (Montagu) Brady, 1884, p. 476, pi. 59, figs. 21. Fissurina ovum (Ehrenberg) Miliola ovum Ehrenberg, J843, p. 166. Lagena ovum (Ehrenberg) Brady, 1884, p. 454, pi. 56, fig. 5. Fissurina submarginata (Boomgaart) Entosolenia submarginata Boomgaart, 1949, p. 107, pi. 9, fig. 7. Fissurina cf. F. Iruncata (Brady) Lagena truncata Brady, 1884, p. 457, pi. 56, figs. 31. Frondicularia advena (Cushman) Frondicularia advena Cushman, 1923, p. 141, pi. 20, figs. I, 2. Fursenkoirm fusiformis (Wil jiamson) Bulimina pupoides d'Orbigny MUX. fusiformis Williamson, 1858, p. 63, pi. 5, figs. 129, 130. Gavelinopsis lobatulus (Parr) Discorbis lobatulus Parr, 1950, p. 354, pi. 13, fig.s. 23-25. Gavelinopsis translucens (Phleger and Parker) "Rotalia" translucens Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 24, pi. 12, figs. UA, B, 12a, b. Globobulimina af?nis d'Orbigny Bulimina affinis d'Orbigny, 1839a, p. 105 pi. 2, figs. 25, 26. Globobulimina auriculala (Bailey) Bulimina auriculata Bailey, 1851, p. 12, fig. 25-27. Globobulimina pacifica Galloway and Wissler Globobulimina pacifica Galloway and Wissler, 1927, p. 74.?Bar- ker, 1960, p. 102, pi. 50, figs. 7-10. Gyroidina altiformis (Stewart and Stewart) Gyroidina soldanii d'Orbigny var. altiformis Stewart and Stewart, 1930, p. 67, pi. 9, figs. 2a-c. Gyroidina orbicularis d'Orbigny Gyroidina orbicularis d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 278, mod?les, no. 13.? Cushman, 1931, p. 37, pi. 8, figs. 1, 2. Gyroidina quinqueloba Uchio Gyroidina quinqueloba Uchio, 1960, p. 66, pi. 8, figs. 22-27. Gyroidina umbonata (Silvestri) Rotalia soldanii d'Orbigny var umbonata Silvestri, 1898, p. 329, pi. 6, fig. 14. Hanzawaia strattoni (Applin) Truncatulina americana Cushman var strattoni Applin, 1925, p. 99, pi. 3, fig. 3. Haplophragmoides bradyi (Robertson) Trochammina bradyi Robertson, 1891, p. 388.?Cushman, 1920, p. 76, pi. 15, fig. 5. Haplophragmoides canariensis (d'Orbigny) Nonionina canariensis d'Orbigny, 1839a, p. 128, pi. 2, figs. 33, 34. H?eglundina elegans (d'Orbigny) Rotalina (Turbulina) elegans d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 276, no. 54. Islandiella norcrossi (Cushman) Cassidulina norcrossi Cushman, 1933, p. 7, pi. 2, fig. 7. Islandiella cf, /. norcrossi (Cushman) Cassidulina norcrossi Cushman, 1933, p. 7, pi. 2, fig. 7. Karreriella bradyi (Cushman) Gaudryina bradyi Cushman, 1911, p. 67, figs. 107a-c. Lagena acuticosta Reuss Lagena acuticosta Reuss, 1861, p. 305, pi. 1, fig. 4. Lagena distoma Parker and Jones Lagena distoma Parker and Jones, 1865, P. 467, pi. 48, fig. 6. Lagena elongata (Ehrenberg) Miliola elongata Ehrenberg, 1844, p. 274. Lagena elongata (Ehrenberg) Brady, 1884, p. 457, pi. 56, fig. 29. Lagena aff. L. favoso-punctata Brady Lagena favoso-punclata Brady, 1881, p. 62, Brady, 1884, p. 446, pi. 58, fig. 35, pi. 59, fig. 4, pi. 61, fig. 2. Lagena feildeniarm Brady Lagena feildeniana Brady, 1878, p. 434, pi. 20, fig. 4. Lagena gracilis Wilhamson Lagena gracilis Williamson, 1848, p. 13, pi. 1, fig. 3, 4. Lagena gracillima (Sequenza) Amphorina gracillima Sequenza, 1862, p. 51, pi. 1, fig. 37. Lagena hispida Reuss Lagena hispida Reuss, 1863, p. 335, pi. 6, figs. 77-79. Lagena hispidula Cushman Lagena hispidula Cushman, 1913, p. 14, pi. 5, figs. 2, 3. Lagena laevis (Montagu) Vermiculum laeve Montagu, 1803, p. 524. Lagena meridionalis (Wiesner) Lagena gracilis Williamson var. meridionalis Wiesner, 1931, p. 117, pi. 18, fig. 211. Lagena nebulosa (Cushman) Lagena laevis Montagu var nebulosa Cushman, 1923, p. 29, pi. 5, figs. 4, 5. Lagena paradoxa (Sidebottom) Lagena foleolaia Reuss var paradoxa Sidebottom, 1912, p. 395, pi. 16, figs. 22-23. Lagena cf. L. perlucida (Montagu) Vermiculum perlucidum Montagu, 1803, p. 525, pi. 14, fig. 3. Lagena semistriata (Williamson) Lagena striata d'Orbigny var semistriata Williamson, 1848, p. 14, pi. 1, figs. 9, 10. Lagena cf. L. stelligera Brady Lagena stelligera Brady, 1881, p. 60.?Brady, 1884, p. 466, pi. 57, figs. 35, 36. Lagena striala (d'Orbigny) Oolina striata d'Orbigny, 1839b, p. 21, pi. 5, fig. 12. Lenticulina angulata (Reuss) Robulina angulata Reuss, 1851, p. 154, pi. 8, fig. 6. Lenticulina atl?ntica (Barker) Robulus atl?ntica Barker, 1960, p. 144, pi. 69, figs. 10-12. Lenticulina convergens (Bornemann) Cristellaria convergens Bornemann, 1855, p. 327, pi. 13, figs. 16, 17. Loxostomum abruptum (Phleger and Parker) Loxoslomum truncatum Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 17, pi. 7, figs. 15-19. Marginulina glabra d'Orbigny Marginulina glabra d'Orbigny 1826, p. 259.?Cushman, 1923, p. 127, pi. 36, figs. 5, 6. Marginulina cf. M. obesa (Cusfiman) Marginulina glabra d'Orbigny var obesa Cushman, 1923, p. 128, pi. 37, fig. 1. Mariinottiella nodulosa (Cushman) Clavulina communis d'Orbigny van nodulosa Cushman, 1922b, p. 85, pi. 18, figs. 1-3. Martinottiella occidentalis (Cushman) Clavulina occidentalis Cushman, 1922b, p. 87, pi. 17, figs. 1, 2. Melonis pompilioides (Fichtel and Moll) Nautilus pompilioides Fichtel and Moll, 1798, p. 31, pi. 2, figs. A-C. Nodogenerina aff. N. bradyi Cushman FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 227 Nodogenerina bradyi Cushman, 1927, p. 79.?Loeblich and Tappan, 1987, p. 539, pi. 585, figs. 13, 15. Nodosaria calomorpha Reuss Nodosaria calomorpha Reuss, 1866, p. 129, pi. 1, figs. 15-19. Nodosaria glanduliniformis Dervieux Nodosaria rad?cula (Linnaeus) var. glanduliniformis Dervieux, 1894, p. 599, pi. 5, figs. 3-7. Nonionella fragilis Uchio Nonionella (?) fragilis Uchio, 1960, p. 62, pi. 4, figs. 19-21. Nonionella graleloupi (d'Orbigny) Nonionina graleloupi d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 294 Nonionella cf. A', iridea Heron-Allen and Earland Nonionella iridea Heron-Allen and Earland, 1932, p. 438, pi. 16, figs. 14-16. Nonionella opima Cushman Nonionella opima Cushman, 1947, p. 90, pi. 20, figs. 1-3. Nonionella t?rgida (Williamson) Rolalina t?rgida Williamson, 1858, p. 50, pi. 4, figs. 95-97. Nonionellina labradorica (Dawson) Nonionina labradorica Dawson, 1860, p. 191, fig. 4. Nuttallides umbonifera (Cushman) Pulvinulina umbonifera Cushman, 1933, p. 90, pi. 9, figs. 9a-c. Oolina apiculata (Reuss) Oolina apiculata Reuss, 1850, p. 22, pi. 1, fig. 1. Oolina globosa (Montagu) Vermiculum globosum Montagu, 1803, p. 523. Oolina hex?gono (Williamson) Entosolenia squamosa Montagu var. hexagona Williamson, 1848, p. 20, pi. 2, fig. 23. Oolina laevigaia d'Orbigny Oolina laevigaia d'Orbigny, 1839b, p. Oolina lineata (Williamson) Entosolenia lineata Williamson, 1848, Oolina cf. O. lineata (Williamson) Entosolenia lineata Williamson, 1848, Oridorsalis tener (Brady) Truncatulirm le?era Brady, 1884, p. 665, Oridorsalis umbonatus (Reuss) Rolalina umbonata Reuss, 1851, p. 75, pi. 5, fig. 35a-c. Osangularia culler (Parker and Jones) Planorbulina farda (Fichtel and Moll) van ungeriana (d'Orbigny) subvar. culler Parker and Jones, 1865, p. 421, pi. 19, figs, la?c. Parafissurina ?rctica Green Parafissurina ?rctica Green, 1959, p. 76, pi. I, figs. 2a, b. 14, figs. 17a-c. Parafissurina fusuliforniis Loeblich and Tappan Parafissurina fusuliformis Loeblich and Tappan, 1953, p. 79, pi. 14, figs. 18, 19. Parafissurina cf. P. fusuliformis Loeblich and Tappan Parafissurina fusuliformis Loeblich and Tappan, 1953, p. 79, pi. 14, figs. 18, 19. Parafissurina inornata Bergen Parafissurina inomala Bergen and others, 1986, p. 266, pi. 10, figs. 27-29. Parafissurina leclulosloma Loeblich and Tappan Parafissurina leclulosloma Loeblich and Tappan, 1953, p. 81, pi. Pseudolrochammina atl?ntica (Parker) Trochamminella atl?ntica Parker, 1952, p. 409, pi. 4, figs. 17-19. Pullenia bulloides (d'Orbigny) Nonionina bulloides d'Orbigny, 1826, p. 293, model no. 2.?d'Or- bigny, 1846, p. 107, pi. 5, 19, pi . 5, fig. 3. p. 18, pi- 2, fig. 18. p. 18, pi. 2, fig. 18. pi. 95 figs. la-c p. 147, pi. 2, fig. 6. 1881, p. 50.?1884, p. 308, pi. 52, pi. 4, figs. 7 pi. 6, figs. 10a, b, 11. 27, pi. 14, fig. Pullenia subcarinala (d'Orbigny) Nonionina subcarinala d'Orbigny, 1839a, p. 28, pi. 5, figs. 23, 24. figs. 9, 10. Quinqueloculina aff. Q. elongala Natland Quinqueloculina elongala Natland, 1938, p. 141, pi. 4, fig. 5. Quinqueloculina venusta Karrer Quinqueloculina venusta Karrer, \i Recurvoides scilulum (Brady) Haplophragmium scilulum Brady, 34, figs. U-13. Reophax nodulosus Brady Reophax nodulosus Brady, 1879, p. Rosalina squamala (Parker) Discorbis squamala Parker, 1952, p. 41? Rutherfordoides tenuis (Phleger and Parker) Cassidulinoides lenuis Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 14-17. Saccorhiza cf. S. ramosa (Brady) Hyperammina ramosa Brady, 1879, p. 33, pi. 3, figs. 14, 15. Saracenaria lalifrons (Brady) Crislellaria lalifrons Brady, 1884, p. 544, pi. 68, fig. 19, pi. 113, fig. 11a, b. Spirillina cf. S. denliculata (Brady) Spirillina limbala var. denliculata Brady, 1884, pi. 85, fig. 17. Slainforihia compl?nala (Egger) Virgulina schreibersiana Czjzek, var. compl?nala Egger, 1893, p. 292, pi. 8, figs. 91, 92. Slelsonia minula Parker Slelsonia minula Parker, 1954, p. Texlularia cf T. p?rvula Cushman Texlularia p?rvula Cushman, 1922b, p. Texlularia cf. T. porre?la (Brady) Texlularia agglulinans var porrecla, Brady, fig. 4. Thurammina papillala Brady Thurammina papillala Brady, 1879, p. 45, pi. Trifurina angulosa (Williamson) Uvigerina angulosa Williamson, 1858, p. 67, Trifarina fluens (Todd) Angulogerina ftuens Todd in Cushman and Todd, 1947, p. 67, pi. 16, figs. 6, 7. Trochammina cf. T. ?rctica (Parker and Jones) Trochammina squamala Parker and Jones, 1865, p. 407, pi. 15, figs. 30, 31. Trochammina cf. T. squamala Jones and Parker Trochammina squamala Jones and Parker, 1860, p. 304.?Hedley and others, 1964, p. 419, pi. 1, figs, la, b, pi. 3, figs, la, b, 3a-c. Uvigerina asperula Czjiek Uvigerina asperula Czjzek, 184 Uvigerina canariensis d'Orbigny Uvigerina canariensis d'Orbigny, Uvigerina flinlii Cushman Uvigerina flintii Cu?^man, 1923, p. Uvigerina peregrina Cushman Uvigerina peregrina Cushman, 1923, p. 166, pi. 42, figs. 7-10. Valvulineria laevigaia Phleger and Parker Valvulineria laevigaia Phleger and Parker, 1951, p. 25, pi. 13, figs. Ha, b, 12a, b. Taxa No Longer Regarded as Foraminifera Aschemonella scabra Brady Aschemonella scabra Brady, 1879, p. 44, pi. 3, figs. 12, 13. 534, pi. 10, figs. 27-29. 11, pi. 6, figs. 1, 2. 1884, p. 364, pl. 43 5, fig s. 4-8. pl. 5, fig. 140 p. 146, pl. 13, figs. 14, 15.13. 1839c, p. 138, pl. 1, figs. 25-27. 165, pl. 42, fig. 228 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY APPENDIX 2?Relative proportions (expressed as percents) for each species in each of the 78 samples in this study. Sample = I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ? ? ? Taxa Abdilodeixrix uk?lonxnimclli Alliui?u pnnvtin AmimtLicui cf. A, lenuU Aiiinici)|k)bt|t. A Aoonul?Doidci ^^? C AKxmliDoidei qv D AnomaliDoida i|i. E Ajchemoodli ictbn AATOoofllofl itilkmyl Aaioaoi?an tp. Bollvtiud. B.ilali BolivTubwbiU Bofrvlnicf. B. (lotn BoUvini lowmuil Bolitliu minima Bollv?na otdinirii BoKvfiu BotK?Bi DolWlu. Bdiviucf. B. vui?bllb Botivioiip. Bucee) li fr?ildi Buccclli InuiiUU Buccclli ipL A Biilmliu ?oikala Bulin^ni cxilii Bidlinlu cf. B. Klibn Bid i mini marginii? Bdimiiw meiicaiu Bidlmlna roairau BulLmindli ekguu?islm? CuiMu?Di cu lUU CuiHtuliiii laevitili CauHhil?ni neocui?Mti OnMulIu oUuu Cuaiduliu MDirotnie Cuidullu d. C reni?onoc Ct???uiia* nibca] If cenia Cuiidiiiliu nibstobon Oulduliu V. CuskkiiinoMu bcidyj CiUddei fiticher? CiUdiki cf. C rielchm ObicldCJ lotMIUllU Oblcldu tO. C. krfuiuhu aUddo rdulneni aUddu ?ueUmorfl Cblddei cf. C. wucUcmorfl Qbiciilci KL A QUdilc? V. OUcldluT ni. A Ohickia?a biilenbcil;! Qtiicidoiitei moflu QMcldoJtks minduliu OblckMctci pscudourrgeriiDui QUcidoldei ro6fTtKinUnu aMddoUu ^j. A GMddoidesip. Cook??rir?llliii uliMlca OibnMomoldu aibflobiwim C)>ummiu pauciloculiU DCDUIIM n?D?I DuilAJIai ip. A Doouliu ip. B l>:iUllaa ^>. C Deolillu ipL D DeBUilna^i. Enere 111 idvcni Encnlli txt?yi Elphldium eicivaium OphMJium subvcticun? ElphldKimv-A ElphMiumipLB Elc^ldiun? ip. EoTODUclUputchelU Efi^omlnclli deooiau Et^cnii ad li eiijttu Ef^omlndU cf, E ruiou EfuMxninclli undiegOeiBii I^fi?tomliuJU cf. E. undkgoeniu Ep?tomindli viiici Hp?iomiDelU sf>. A TEpiaomlBcIli ip. B Epoaidei repandui Epooldci cumkluliu Epooidcs lu|tk5ui TEpoc?dei ip. C Ruur?ru a(i?U Rsialai ilf. F. iguii^ Fimriu drculiiii RQUIIU nmbrim FLuuina keriueleneni? Buur?u lievigiu Ruunai muilnili I?uurlDi fubnurgluu FUnriiu cf. P. [nincMa FUiufiD? ip. A Rouriniip, B FlniaiiuiixC FlBUtiiuip. D riiiuriiuq). E Fluurini ip. f^ Fusuriiu ip. ){ riuu?lni ip. 1 FiMurini ip- K RBUI?U jp. L Fun^ai V. M PWuiini ip. N piuiB?Diip. o HHinini ^. froodlculirii iilveru Rncnldiai fuilfortn?i GivcKoopRi lobiluiui Civellnop?i tniutuloeni Gavelinopiii a>. A Gtobotulimioa ifTinii GlobotuliiniD? Nir?culiu ClobotndilT?M fxaf?a Gyroid?? liilfam? GyioldiDa o?Uailarii G)^dini quloqueiot)! C)TOJll?Dl ip. A GjToldiM luntnsiu }Unuwiii itmioal IUp(ophii(mcMei bndyi Iliploiitin][m>i(lc( cuuricofii IhwiluDdina elt^Mn? LAinltclli iKvcfoal b cf. 1. Dorcrauf 2.} ?.0 OJ a9 0.6 OA a3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.9 1. OA 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0,9 i J OA aj 0.3 0.3 OA tSm^ FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 229 APPENDIX 2?Continued. Ill ? I ? E ? ? I J I I I I ? THXH bJwdfdIi ip. A KUTCIKJU bn?yi Lageu acUlccMU L^eiu dutoow Lagtiit iff. L favoio-punaiU Ligeiu fclldcnluii Lvcai gr?cillim? I j]tciu hiip?di L>]teiu hbpldula L?groi mendioiujii Lijtcn? nf bulou Li(eBa cl. L. peiluciih Lifcru KinlariiU Liceo* rf'L-aelllc"! Li|;nuip. A Lagtiuip. B l.jigcaaii\ C LigcMip. D Lajten*?)' Lcnlioillru uiituliu Lai ijailin?*]lknlira LenuculiDi oonvcrgcni Ldnciitodum ?bnipnun MarSloulliiM gitbrt MiritlnuJini cf. M. cbaa MiritinuliDl ^1. MvtiDoaietli noifciku VUninodiclli occiderialU Mcknis pofDiillioldci NodogcrKniu ttf. N. btidx? Nodounj ciltxnon'u Nodouna slantuliaifcmib Nodcona ip. NonioocIU fritiilii NiMiioocIli Kmcloupl NcakwlU cf. N. ir?du Nonlooclli ofXira NoolOMJLi qx A Nonionclla ip. B NociiondU ip. C NonkNKiU spL ? NonKneJIiiu Utndorica Nul iJ I lides umbonifni OoJiu aptculua OoJi?u itlotiou OOI?M hciaiom Ociii? licviRiu OoliulinuU Ooliucf. O. Ilneila Od?naipA 0>liu ip. B Olida ul Li uiKr Ckktotul'ii umbounu Onngtuluii cultri PinTuaui?M uctica PMaTlBuriiu fuxulifixmi) [>aniriuw?u cf. P. fuiuCifaniii pinflBiM?ru inonuli Pmlluuriiu icciukMiomi Panhuuju sp. A PifiTujuniui m. B PnTuuhM ip. C Parafiuunni i[>. D PmTusJiiu >p. E PrnTumsini ^ F pM?UBinnaxp.G PUmliiu ip. A IVimoomelIi w, A PIcuroMamelli ip. B TPIeiuojdjmdl? jp C PDl>inai*ini ?. A PKuJouaduninuu aUiMka Pulknu bulkMdci Pullciu (UKMIIUU PullcnUiari. PyigoipB Pyi?DipC P>T?O?p. TQuklr?nKzrAlni ip A QuimiiKlDCiilini til, Q. tlcafia Quloqurluculina ^cmuU QutnquclOLiJlLiu ip. A QutnquckcuKu >p. D Quinqu?loculiu ^^, Reoivoidc-i .tdlulom Kio?tua Doduloiu] Rtoplui^i. A Rcophuxp- RlubiUminlu/Kypauninliu q>. Rou] I ni iquUTUli Roaliu ip A Ronliiu ip. D Rmhcifordoldei icnuLi ? Saccortilz* cf. S. rvn[>n Smoenuii luifrom Spitilllni cf. S. datiailBlx SuilDdxthU QompluvMi Teuulirii cf. T. pirvul* Tcin^aru cf. T. p?xiecti TcxluUn? V. A Tunilul* ip. TTunnimln papilUca TiUiriM ingtdou Trifuio? tlueiu Trodiimmiu cf. T. iquuniu Trochunmliu ip A Tnxiuininini ?p D Trodummini ?p. LMgcriiu upctub Uvigeiini cuiuiciuli Uvi?rtini niDli'i Uvige?n? pettjiin? VlIvull?Klll iKVigm l?HlMcnrilruIc Citcwcotu HyiJiDc laOetani?t?Ue Axj^ullailcd I I I I A -6 d, 't lilla A 4 -i ^ ? ^ ^ ?/, iK ^ .9 ?J 3J OJ 2.7 3.1 3. 5 7.6 i. 10,7 7.-1 9.1 OJ 0.S OJ 0.6 0.. ,9 lA AX3 3.2 9. 0.? 0. O* OA 0. i 0.6 03 0. .2 2.7 1.7 ?).6 3. 2.2 0.6 0.9 230 LUNDQUIST, CULVER, AND STANLEY SHinple J Taxa Abdilodeiitrix ukdocornpielli AlliaUiu prinulivi Aminod?au cf. A. Icnuli Ainnoglot>i|. Bdlviu cf. B. iliu BoUvini turbiu BoUvliucr. D.slobn Bolivini luKxoliu Ooliviu lowniMi [krilviu miiilaa BdlviDionlliuria DoDvioa poeudopBctu Bolivina pacuttopuiKUli BoJIviiu lubKimicaiu Dot [vina ubiplDMCciu BoUvlnt iruulu?ni Itolivina cf. B. vuiiMlu Bob vi HIV- Bullmina KUIUU Dullmliu cxllii DdiiranicT. B. xUbn Bidlmlni mantlniu BulimiM iTKikan Bullmlua racUaU BulimlndL* cIcguxlufiTH OiMulliu cvinila Cun iMvifUi Cauidulim oaxaiiailt OuMullai obniu OuaWullu rcnifoiiK Cuaktullo? d. C ta?lotmc I nibcaJifomla CauiduJiiu Hibflobow Cuilduliu ^^, CWHluliDohle* bndyi Obia?af?ttctKti Obk?deicf-COiieheri CSbicklei lit. C lobuului OMcMo lefulfteiu CiUdd?! Micllcnloii} aUdda d. C ?uelktJtcril GMcidC9 4i.A Oblcicleiip. Ob)cidiu7ip.A OMckkM?) kulkabcix' aUddotda atoflLi Obicidoido nuDdului CibiiMcida paeudouDlteriuiiu Gbkidoldcs ic^xnnaiiiui Gbkidc4dci v-A QNcidoMei ip. B abit??oi?a tp. Ccnloo^ilrilllni Hlmdca Ctibaatotau??a m?i^dbomim Ct^xncUMDoidei wicaDCti CyMHiunlni paucDoculiu [?Dlillna cixnmuitli D?K*llu niiHil DeoUlluip-A DenuJIni 4>. B rVDUlliu v>. C DcnUlu ip. D Ej;Ia|tiT?Kla caoaiknni lloefituailiu ?Icgana Utandidla norcnwil Ulandidl? cf. I. norctooi 0.) OJ 0.3 APPENDIX 2?Continued. I I M I I I I I I I J ? J I i ? ^ 5 5 S ?.i i? 0.9 3J ia9 7.1 I I ai a3 O? as ft3 FORAMINIFERA AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN SUBMARINE CANYONS 231 Sample I I ? ? i APPENDIX 2?Continued. I I I I I I I I I & i I I ? I I A -6 ? KuT?tieil? briilyi Lageu KUIkoila L?gcnmdino? Li)tcu eluiKiU Laitcni iff. L. Uvwa Ligrni fdUrnluu Lagciu itricjHlim t jjtcn* hupHhili Lweni nctutou Lifcna uniutriau Lifcni iiriiu Ijliai Jp. D L*gciu)p.C LcDlioiliu iDguJau L^nlxrulLiu o>nvciKciu I tUDSI iHKi ni ?bni p) urn MujgiouliM itUt?! MufiDuliiu (f. M. otwu MarginuIiM ifi. MMtinoQiclU nodulou MMUncii1oiiklu umboniliu (li.i?ului?aillM PKiTtminni iiaia PnTimiiM fiuuliftrmu PinTunxiDi cf. P. huulifcxmu PtnTimuini iii?inila PaiTiuuini ifctulouotru PirKTiuuina ip A PHiTiinniu^. B PuiTUiuriM ip. C pHifuainni ip. D PanTiuunru ip. H PvaTtnuiiu ip. F Pu ?nnurioi ipi G PtUUlHMip A PkutnslDiiiella ip. A PlcuotitmrlU ip. D TPIcunutomelli ip. C Potjiniaphina v A PieuloUDcluiivnini illaiMm Pulkn? bulladu Pulknu nAicviDili Puilcnli V. PyTlP>>P-? Pynoip-C Pyntoip- TQutdnmiXTliliia ip. A QuiDquckjculiru ilT. Q. clongiu Quingucloculiiut wnuu (^inquf kcuhna ip. A Quinqudoculiu Ip. Q QuiKfucloculina v- RccurvoHlri ?ciiuluin Reo(iui Dodukmu RcophaiifkA Rhabdamni i ni/l I ypcnmirl na ip. RouJina ujuajnau Riwili?)|hA Roulina ip. D RudieifonViktei lenuii Skxotiiu i-f. S. runua Saciccnaria latilroiu ap?iH?oa cf. S. dentimUia SlaiB?oilhii ajmplinau TeitulaiU ip. Thurammina paplllaU TrifMiDi angulosa Trifanna flue at Tiodiamrnu cf. T. iquamali Trochammiha ip. A TnxhannBi ip. B Tnxtummlna v>. Uvfftnna iipcmla Uvigiriaa amaricniii Uviicriaa mmll Uvii