IPG document

WORKSHOP II: EAST GONDWANAN INTERIOR RIFT ASSOCIATION: GEOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Review comments by Tim Charlton, March 2023

Slide 11: I am not sure whether this slide is saying that the Babulu and Aitutu Formations should or
should not be formations. Regarding the Aitutu Formation, to me this is unquestionably a formation
because, although it shows considerable regional variability, the present level of mapping in Timor is
not sufficient to define any regionally mappable sub-elements (potential formations within a future
Aitutu Group). At this stage the Aitutu Formation is the only regionally mappable unit that we can
adequately define for these successions – essentially Audley-Charles’s (1968) original definition
without e.g. the more questionable Tallibelis Member, etc.

For the Babulu, I think we are making progress towards upgrading to a Babulu Group. In the Timor
GAP lithostratigraphy (Charlton et al., 2020 unpublished) we proposed a Babulu Group consisting of
at least two formations (a shale-dominated Fatoro Formation and a mixed sandstone-shale Lapunuf
Formation), with an additional sandstone-dominant Foura Member of the Lapunuf Formation. But
for areas with limited exposure we found that an undifferentiated Babulu Group and/or Babulu
broken formation proved useful mapping units.

Slide 12: The suggested name Hatu-Builiko Association is, in my opinion, preferable to either
Gondwana Sequence or East Gondwana Interior Rift Assocation because it is genetically neutral – i.e.
it does not rely on a preconceived interpretation. (The figure, top right on this slide nicely illustrates
why I object to preconceived interpretations in the naming system. The location of Timor on this map
would certainly be in East Gondwana, but it would not be located in an Interior Rift). The name Hatu-
Builiko is as good as any other for the association if a type area in Timor-Leste is required, but is IPG
happy with this spelling? Entering Hatu-Builiko in Google suggests that Hato-Builico is a more
generally accepted spelling for the village. However, this association (or very similar variants) has
previously been described as the Kekneno Sequence (Sawyer et al., 1993, figure 4) after the Kekneno
area of West Timor. So the name Kekneno Association would appear more appropriate on
precedence. Kekneno might be in West Timor rather than Timor-Leste, but I remind you of the
guidance note from the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS): ‘Stratigraphic units are not
limited by international boundaries and should not differ across them’. And employing the name
Kekneno Association avoids unnecessarily introducing yet another new name for something that
already exists with an entirely adequate definition.

Slide 13: A minor point: Grunau (1953) did not recognise the Atahoc and Cribas Formations. It was
Audley-Charles (1968) who subdivided Gageonnet & Lemoine’s (1958) Cribas Series into the Atahoc
and Cribas Formations.

I believe there is widespread agreement that a single stratigraphic name equivalent to Gageonnet &
Lemoine’s (1958) Cribas Series is required for the Permian succession in the Cribas Anticline and
equivalents regionally. But naming this the Cribas Group is going to cause enormous confusion in the
future literature as to whether we are talking about the entire Permian succession in the Cribas
Anticline, or only Audley-Charles’s Cribas Formation (which itself probably requires substantial re-
definition in order to remove Triassic elements). Furthermore the proposal on this slide to recognise
a Cribas Formation within a Cribas Group goes against ICS guidelines (‘If a unit is divided into two or
more formal component units, the geographic name of the original unit should not be employed for
any of the subdivisions’).

I can see arguments for and against recognising either a single formational-level lithostratigraphic
element for the entire Permian section in the Cribas Anticline, or recognising a group-level element
divided into four formations (Atahoc, Un-named, Cribas, Un-named) as suggested in Slide 13. I
suggest that a good test would be whether the ‘un-named unit of Cribas Group in Mausiga area’
(Slide 17) can be directly assigned to one of the four proposed new formations? If the Mausiga
(Mauchica) section can be directly correlated with one of the four suggested Cribas Anticline
formations, then that would support the validity of the four-fold formational division for future
regional mapping. But if the Mausiga section is lithologically distinct from age-equivalent section in
the Cribas area, that would favour a single Permian clastic mapping unit as a formation, subdivided
into members of only local mapping significance.

I have carried out some comparisons between the Permian Cribas successions and the equivalent
successions in the Kekneno area of West Timor (Bird & Cook, 1991), and although those authors
described Kekneno in terms of the Atahoc and Cribas Formations, it appears to me that the naming
of the formations is essentially chronostratigraphic, and that there is very little to justify the Kekneno
subdivisions in terms of lithostratigraphy.

I personally believe that at this early stage of investigation a single formation is sufficient to describe
the entire Permian section at the core of the Cribas Anticline and to form the basis for future
comparision with equivalent sections regionally (Mausiga, Bobonaro, Loiquero etc.). In the Timor
GAP lithostratigraphic scheme (Charlton et al., 2020 unpublished) we suggested the name Akraun
Formation for this unit in order to avoid confusion with previous definitions of a Cribas
Series/Formation/Group. (An alternative would be to adopt the West Timor name Bisane Formation
(Rosidi et al., 1981) which is the equivalent of Audley-Charles’s Atahoc and Cribas Formations and
might be preferable on precedence). However, I would have no objection to raising the Akraun
Formation to Akraun Group in the future, assuming that the four component lithological sub-
elements prove to be mappable regionally, justifying them as formations rather than as members.
From what I have seen of the Cribas Anticline, I would only subdivide the Permian section into a
lower sandy member (‘Akraun Sandstone Member’ – better name needed) succeeded by an ‘Akraun
Shale Member’ (these two members not corresponding to the former Atahoc and Cribas
Formations). It is clear from available palaeontological dating (e.g. Haig & McCartain, 2012) that
much of Audley-Charles’s Cribas Formation is in fact Triassic in age, and this needs to be excluded
from the reformulated Permian formation/group.

I also note that caution may be required over the ‘volcanics’ widely taken as the boundary between
Audley-Charles’s Atahoc and Cribas Formations. I have not viewed this boundary, but Escher (1948)
and Grunau interpreted the igneous rocks as an intrusive sill. If Escher’s interpretation is correct,
then the ‘volcanic horizon’ clearly has no stratigraphic significance.

Slide 16: This slide appears to indicate that the Cribas Anticline succession only extends as young as
Artinskian? If so, this is considerably older than the Permian section in Mota Belulic (McCartain et al.,
2006; Slide 17) and the equivalent latest Permian clastic successions dated by Timor GAP south of
Bobonaro.

Slides 19-23: To me, the observation by David Haig that limestone bodies within the Maubisse
Formation/Group such as the Kulau, Maubisse, Bua-Bai and Bissori elements only occur in isolated
areas rather than as sub-elements of more extensive limestone successions argues in favour of these
being considered as member- rather than formation-level stratigraphic units.

I note that there is no discussion of the volcanic successions within the Maubisse Group. The Timor
GAP lithostratigraphic scheme (Charlton et al., 2020) tentatively suggested a Ramelau (Volcanic)
Formation within the Maubisse Group, in parallel with a ‘Maubisse Limestone Formation’ (better
name required), which in turn is subdivided into a number of members including the Kulau, Rabi (for
the Maubisse type locality) and Bua-Bai Members.

Slide 24: A minor pedantic point: in this and later slides there is inconsistent usage of formation
names such as Babulo, Aituto and Wailuli. These are not the spellings as originally proposed by
(respectively) Giani (1971) and Audley-Charles (1968) – Babulu, Aitutu and Wai Luli. The ISC
guidelines state ‘the spelling of the geographic component, once established, should not be
changed’. Thus the original spelling of Aitutu rather than the more common present-day spelling of
Aituto (village) should be retained in formation names. A good example of this name retention is the
rock type trondhjemite, which retains the old spelling (Trondhjem) of the current Norwegian city of
Trondheim.

Slide 25: The slide states ‘In Timor-Leste we should confine this formation to the lower part of the
Niof Formation of Bird and Cook, 1991, described from West Timor’. I partly agree and partly
disagree with this statement. In Bird & Cook’s definition the Niof Formation comprises two members:
a lower Numfuamolo Member and an upper Niplelo Member. The dominantly grey shale
Numfuamolo Member is only a relatively minor part of the Niof succession (~100m of >400m total
section thickness) and is dated as Anisian with possibly reworked ‘Scythian’ (now Olenekian)
ammonoids, while multicoloured shales of the Niplelo Member, which are dominant in terms of
stratigraphic thickness, range in age from Ladinian-?Carnian. There do indeed appear to be grey
shale sections in Timor-Leste broadly equivalent in age and lithology to the Numfuamolo Member,
but there are also younger multicoloured shale sections equivalent to the Niplelo Member. In the
Timor GAP lithostratigraphic scheme (Charlton et al., 2020) we recommended abandoning usage of
the name Niof Formation in Timor-Leste, and raising the Niplelo Member to Niplelo Formation for
multicoloured shale successions of Ladinian-Carnian age, while transferring grey shales equivalent in
age to the Numfuamolo Member to our new Fatoro Formation (dominantly grey basinal shales
ranging in age throughout the Triassic). I do not think it is valid to ignore the Niplelo Member of the
Niof Formation in the way suggested by the quoted statement.
IPG document

WORKSHOP III: SEDIMENTARY COVER OF ALLOCHTHONE, BANDA TERRANE, BANDA COMPLEX,

OVER-THRUST, OVER-THRUST TERRANE ASSOCIATION, AND FATU.

Comments by Tim Charlton

Title: The Overthrust Terrane Association. In the First International Geological Congress on Timor
(2012) I requested the audience to document examples anywhere in Timor where the Lolotoi
Complex can be seen at outcrop thrust over cover sequence. I am still waiting! I may be wrong in my
interpretation that there is no significant thrusting beneath the Lolotoi Complex, but part of the
purpose of geological mapping is to test interpretations such as mine. This becomes much more
difficult to achieve if the names of stratigraphic units already incorporate an element of
interpretation such as implied by the designation Overthrust Terrane Association.

Slide 11: I am not sure to what report or publication ‘Charlton (2022)’ refers, but I don’t think I
claimed that the succession on the strat column including the Palelo Group is either
parautochthonous or allocthonous. A fundamental feature of the proposed Timor GAP
lithostratigraphic scheme (Charlton et al., 2020) is that it is observational, not interpretational. It
may be true that the Palelo Association (as I would call it) is stratigraphically linked to the Perdido
Formation/Group by reworking, and I may be right or wrong that the Perdido and Bandeira
geological units can be linked together in a Fatu Limestone Group. But these are interpretations that
should be kept separate from field geological mapping, which is essentially a data gathering exercise.
Please try to develop a stratigraphic nomenclature that is free from preconceptions as far as is
possible (while I readily admit that this is not always possible in reality).

Slide 13: The ‘Waibua Formation’ (correct name Wai Bua Formation: see comments on Slide 24,
Presentation II above) is not part of the ‘Palelo Group/OOBA’ (whatever OOBA is). The Wai Bua
Formation is an element of the Kolbano Association (or Kolbano Group/Megasequence), as is the
Nakfunu Formation in West Timor. The Early Cretaceous Wai Bua Formation has, for instance, clear
gradational stratigraphic relationships with latest Early Cretaceous (Aptian-Albian) and younger
limestone successions of the Kolbano Group in the Betano-2 petroleum exploration well. The Palelo
Group is stratigraphically distinct from the Kolbano Association, and includes the Noni Formation
which, like the Wai Bua and Nakfunu Formations, consists largely of Cretaceous radiolarites, but
(according to some geologists who favour an allochthonous origin for the Noni Formation, such as
Munasri & Harsolumakso, 2020) with a palaeogeographically distinct fauna from the Wai Bua and
Nakfunu Formations. Whether this palaeogeographic distinction is valid is an interesting area of
discussion and future research, but it should not be mixed up in the definition of geological mapping
units.

The ‘Noni Siliceous Argillite’, i.e. the radiolarian-bearing Middle Jurassic rocks from near Viqueque
described by Haig & Bandini (2013), is also stratigraphically related to the Kolbano Association in
West Timor rather than to the Noni Formation (Paleleo Group/Association), as was clearly indicated
by Munasri & Harsolumakso (2020).
Slides 17-19: I presume that these slides are suggesting the ‘Pelagite Complex’ is stratigraphically
distinct from the age- and environment-equivalent pelagic limestones of the Kolbano Group? On
what observational basis (independent of interpretational preconceptions) do you decide whether to
assign any particular outcrop to either the ‘Pelagite Complex’ or the Kolbano Group? A particularly
clear example of what seems to me highly questionable interpretation-driven formational
assignments is from Benincasa’s (2015) study of Mundo Perdido. On the northern slopes of the
mountain Benincasa recorded two samples of Eocene red mudstone/shale containing planktonic
foraminiferal faunas, and with both originating from bathyal or deeper environments of deposition.
One (sample AB236, located at 8.71073°S, 126.34083°E) was assigned to the Kolbano Group; the
second (AB234, at 8.71058°S, 126.34053°E) to the Barique Group, which is an element of the Palelo
Association. Assignment of the second sample to the Barique Group was probably based on the
occurrence of relatively fresh volcanic material within the sample, while the first I presume was
assigned to the Kolbano Group on the absence of volcanic material. These two similar rock types,
outcropping less than 40m from one another, were, according to the interpretations implicit in the
allochthonous model, derived from entirely distinct tectonostratigraphic terranes that may have
been separated by hundreds or thousands of kilometres during the Eocene, and were presumably
brought to their present close juxtapositions by pure structural chance. I would suggest it is more
likely that both rocks are from a common pelagic limestone sequence tied stratigraphically to the
Kolbano Group, and hence to the Australian continental margin.

If you want to define the ‘Pelagite Complex’ on some definite lithological criteria such as the
presence or absence of volcanic clasts (Benincasa’s sample AB236) or the occurrence of shallow
marine intraclasts (Slide 17) or even better on distinct faunas if such is the case, that is, at least, a
working definition (although good luck with applying it in regional geological mapping!). But bear in
mind that shallow marine bioclasts and reworked fragments of the Lolotoi Complex also occur locally
within the pelagites of the Kolbano Group (e.g. in sidewall cores 7 and 12 respectively from the
Betano-2 well).

Slide 29: Tappenbeck (1939) recorded the fauna in the Haulasi Formation. Boudagher-Fadel (2013)
wrote a text book on planktonic foraminifera which I used to suggest likely modern acceptable
names for Tappenbeck’s foram species.