Caballos Formation

The caballos formation in the Ouichita geosyncline in Western Texas is a very complex
formation with no known modern analogs which poses difficulties in interpreting its depositional
environment. The interpretation on its depositional environment is contentious and invites
considerable debates over its genesis. Two papers written by Robert L. Folk (RLF) and Earle F.
McBride (EFM) were reviewed by the author to discuss the origin of the formation. Both writers
came up with strong rigid ideas where, if one reads only one of the argument, one may
wholeheartedly accept the interpretation on the depositional environment given. In this case,
since both of the writers proposed rigids evidence and supporting ideas, equipping oneself with
the knowledge (and many other papers related to the formation) is the utmost importance to
avoid biased conclusion.
In these two papers, few differences were encountered by the author which may be
accounted for the different depositional environment proposed. For instance, RLF suggested
that the formation was deposited in a shallow marine environment whereas the other writer
suggested a deep marine environment. The latter basically emphasized on the faunas that were
found in the formation to come up with his interpretation whilst the former put less stress on the
subject but put more value on the structures formed. This will be discussed later in this section.
Other than that, RLF also relate the type of lithology to sea level changes in contrast with EFM
who didn't relate the formation with any sea level changes due to little to no disconformities or
unconformities found.
As suggested by both writers, the environment of deposition for the formation is a welloxygenated environment with low energy. Well-oxygenated environment contribute to the lack of
organic materials found in the white novaculite members where presence of abundant oxygen
allows for decaying of organic matters by aerobic bacteria inhibit the preservation of it in the
novaculite precursor. While low energy allows for nucleation of silicon dioxide to crystallize. This
low energy also did not however deposit any clay minerals which means that some entrapment
or restriction was given during the deposition; semi-restricted lagoon which restrict the in flux of
clay and radiolarian by RLF and entrapment of clay in some other places by EFM.
For the origin of the novacuite, RLF suggested that the protonovaculite is limestone with
spicules, pellets and trash of opaline before being silicified into novaculite during diagenesis
while EFM stated that the novaculite came from spicule sponges and some carbonate which
later altered. Here, the limestone origin is more favoured due to the structures and elements
found in the novaculite. Pellets which can be seen under microscope is usually used in the
classification of limestone in the group termed peloids and the abundance of spicules can be
explained by the sponges that thrived on the limestone surface. The spicules is the calcitic
skeletal organs of sponge.RLF interpreted that the salinity inhibits the preservation of
megafauna leaving only small faunas namely sponge to thrive. When the sponge is dead, its
siliceous remains; the spicules is preserved and incorporated in the limestone, hence explaining
the abundance of spicules.
Similar to RLF, I believe that sea level changes played major roles in shaping the type of
members deposited and structures formed. Although dissolution effects may not seem too

apparent if the limestone was the protonovaculite due to lack of karstification features (caverns,
stalactites and the likes) but it is mainly because of the extent of subaerial exposures. The
limestone is likely to be immature in terms of its chemical weathering. This led to formation of
small features of karstification as described by RLF, where upon exposure, dissolution of the
bed by atmospheric water took place resulting in the small scale features, the minutes crinkly
contact and corrosional contact providing higher porosity (for the flow of other fluids which may
or may not caused stylolites in the later diagenesis due to pressure dissolution) before
collapsing due to unsupported mass, forming sinkhole. The collapsed blocks give linear and
sharp contact with matrix because of the rapid events which break the slabs apart (like ripping a
paper) forming the breccia. The sea level changes event is more prominently recorded in the
Upper Novaculite member where the layer is more brecciated, which maybe the imprints of
higher altitude (more exposed) or longer exposure time on the surface. The presence of dark
layer which ultimately form the matrix in some locality but not in all may indicate the
heterogeneity of depositional environment where in some parts or the places where the
limestone is still partially submerged in low energy, reducing environment allowing for the
accumulation and preservation of organic matter; faecal pellets and sponge spicules. The fillings
or matrix between the breccia is also made up sand and silty quartz which is in contrast with the
mother novaculite; pyrite which indicates reducing environment and lutecite suggesting
evaporite. The sand and silty quartz dictating a very mature grains subjected to many erosional
process and came from the in flux of flowing water. Pyrite on the other hand usually found in
brackish water or swamp where concentration of sulphur, although this is superficial but it gives
some clue of near-shore environment. Evaporites is common in supratidal carbonates, where
high salinity and arid or hot climate allows for its formation. A texturally mature sand (described
as wind blown sand) infills are also said to be found in a pocket associated with the white-black
breccia. This is well documented in RLF interpretations.
On the other hand, as suggested by EFM, the fracturing and brecciating may caused by
the differential pressure introduced by the different rates of compaction by the overlying layer
(chert) to the layering but this may not be responsible for the greatest vertical trending breccia
that is more than 20 m high. His description on the dissolution of more soluble materials on
great depth producing up to tens of meters of fractures which later filled by internal and other
materials does not seem plausible. When considering the soluble minerals, the minerals usually
are sparsely or randomly distributed. The dissolution of soluble minerals subjected by fluids
producing large structures by EFM implying that the soluble minerals occur in one large
aggregates which may not (or may be) possible. For the occurence of black sediment, he stated
that it is the original material with high organic content but did not lithified with the supposedly
originally high content of organic matter due to it being oxidized by bacterial activity. However,
explaining occurence of the black infilling and the layer on top of the breccia is insulated or fall
below the high oxidation layer. This allows for the preservation of organic matter in contrast to
the white, low organic content novacular. However, the source rock for the sand pockets in the
white-black breccia is ambiguous. Although he proposed that it originated from some source
bed near the Horse Mountain where they share the same grain size but the composition was not
the same. His description of almost identical is not well elaborated.
After further submergence caused by further increase of sea level, the
protonovaculite/novaculite is covered with cherts with shale parting layer. Chert is believed to

have been form in deep water environment where planktonic organisms are abundant and
therefore provided silicon dioxide for the silica ooze. This is one of the main argument used by
EFM in giving the interpretation of deep-sea environment.However RLF disprove this where he
cited the work of others regarding the absence of compensation depth prior to Mid-mesozoic
carbonate explosion.The evolution of organism during geological time scale and therefore the
evolution of ocean (considering the relationship between them) indicate that radiolaria which
largely contribute to the chert layers is not necessarily confined to the deep water environment.
If it is true, this therefore can discredit many of the aspect of fauna explained by ELM.
The deposition of chert with shale partings can be discussed in a sense that it is
deposited when the underlying carbonate deposited in the greater depth than original due to
regression by increasing in level of seawater. Similar to the environment of deposition of
carbonates where low energy and reducing environment prevails. Due to karstification, the
carbonate might formed certain relief (This is writers personal opinion by looking from the
depositional pattern without scrutinizing the structures). In the vicinity of the relief, stratification
of seawater due to difference in salinity. However this may be confined to specific area only
where, it is sandwiched between less dense water layer. The bottomest water layer results in
growth of silica from siliceous skeletal remains and silt-sized particles, followed by green chert
which has higher organic content in the more reducing environment (the high salinity layer) and
the uppermost layer where some influx of sediment from flowing water deposit clay/shale.
Several minor changes in sea level may also occur during the deposition of both Upper and
Lower Chert with Shale partings member resulting n the interbedding between different colours
of cherts. This is accounted for the type of layer formed where in relatively deeper condition the
gray chert formed from the siliceous skeletal remains and graded to green chert slightly in
higher elevation in shallow marine environment where clay mineral and radiolaria scattered
within the beds (highly reducing) and later when there is deposition of silt.
The presence of conglomerate, clast-supported chert conglomerate with rounded edge
indicate that it is also deposited in shallow marine nevironment. Chert is very hard materials it
can only be shaped by current action which is absent in the deep water. Furthermore, the chert
should be suspended in matrix if the occurence in deep marine rather than forming orthoconglomerate since most of its transportation to deep water environment is attributed to glacial
deposition which causes poorly-sorted bedding. Some occurence of chert conglomerate in this
layer with sizes ranging from granules to pebbles also found where some, locally showing
imbrication pattern indicating the presence the paleocurrent (again absent in deep water
environment except for turbidity current; not strong enough to shape the chert that way). Wave
action is not a possible mechanism in deep water because of its location which is way below the
wave base. The chert conglomerate need to be shallow enough to be exposed to wave action
as evidence with present day. EFM suggest that the turbidity current contain the reworked clast
of chert conglomerate from slope but the zebraic chalcedony cement of the conglomerate is
caused by hypersaline condition in shallow marine as proposed by the RLF. Furthermore, EFM
continuously providing interpretation using turbidity example but no Bouma's sequence is found
within the layer which give less credit to his interpretation.
The jasper bed with its varying colour and grade from pyrite to haematite and limonite is
discussed by RLF as the changes from reducing to oxidation to surface weathering and
hydrolysis environmental products. This is again maybe caused by the changes in sea level.

This was not discussed in specific by ELF where he pointed out the occurrences of the several
beds with unusual composition underwent 'bizarre' diagenesis. Other features of the jasper bed
within the chert and shale member include contorted beds and presence of petrified logs. RLF
suggestion on its depositional environment may account for the occurrences of these features,
changing of environment causes changing in the minerals present; contorted beds and
manganese oxide is the results of soil weathering and maybe is contemporaneous with the
limonite stage of jasper beds. EFM came up with interpretation that contorted beds occurred
from turbidity current(again) which scavenge manganese oxide during its movement and he's
suggest that the petrified logs are not petrified logs but instead some features formed from
chemical reaction which will produce such form resembling or pseudo morphing the
morphology.The latter did not come up with evaporites derivation. In contradiction, the ability of
RLF to discuss the origin of evaporites in supratidal zones with arid or almost equatorial climate
of the area during the devonian time producing hypersaline environment which resulted in
evaporation is rather convincing. The paleolatitudes provided by RLF again is also in favour with
this.
In conclusion, I am in line with the depositional environment proposed by RLF from the
various features and structures evident in the outcrop. The depositional environment is therefore
in a shallow water environment; semi-restricted lagoon which prevent the influx of clay materials
and the high salinity that does not support megafauna but oxygenated enough to allow small
fauna to survive. It is hard to determine the depositional environment whether shallow or deep
without the presence of fossils of benthonic or planktonic organism in the novaculite layers, but
various possibilities can be accounted for this. For instance some fossils may be deposited
within the layers but due to its shell being composed by aragonite which is not stable,
calcification may destroy the shell completely. The deposition of the chert layers which are
complex maybe due to changing environment and can be attributed to sea level changes. Most
of the structures formed are also caused by the sea level changes. The sea level changes
control the morphology of earth and indirectly different processes which gives different
sedimetary layers and structures. EFMs argue that disconformities are nowhere to be found in
the formation which refutes the effect of sea level changes on it. Only the Upper Chert with
Shale parting was dated, the layers underlying were not dated and we cannot confirm this for
sure. Period of non-deposition may occur but is not apparent/discernable unless the whole
formation is dated. Nevertheless, the occurrence of this may coincide with the global sea level
changes as explained by RLF.