/* DATA DESCRIPTION: Citation: Perch-Nielsen, Katharina; Supko, Peter R (2005): Smear slide analysis of Hole 39-359. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.230679 Related to: DSDP (1989): Data from the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Sediment, hard rock and reference files. National Geophysical Data Center, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1, CD-ROM Perch-Nielsen, Katharina; Supko, Peter R; Boersma, Anne; Bonatti, Enrico; Carlson, Richard L; McCoy, Floyd W; Neprochnov, Yuri P; Zimmerman, H B (1977): Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. U. S. Government Printing Office, XXXIX, 1139 pp, https://doi.org/10.2973/dsdp.proc.39.1977 Further details: Processed smear slide data base - background and methods (URI: hdl:10013/epic.32353.d001) Project(s): Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) (URI: http://www.deepseadrilling.org/) Coverage: LATITUDE: -34.985000 * LONGITUDE: -4.497200 DATE/TIME START: 1974-12-10T00:00:00 * DATE/TIME END: 1974-12-10T00:00:00 MINIMUM DEPTH, sediment/rock: 28.70 m * MAXIMUM DEPTH, sediment/rock: 86.87 m Event(s): 39-359 * LATITUDE: -34.985000 * LONGITUDE: -4.497200 * DATE/TIME: 1974-12-10T00:00:00 * ELEVATION: -1655.0 m * Penetration: 104 m * Recovery: 27.3 m * LOCATION: South Atlantic/SEAMOUNT * CAMPAIGN: Leg39 (URI: https://doi.org/10.2973/dsdp.proc.39.1977) * BASIS: Glomar Challenger (URI: http://www-odp.tamu.edu/glomar.html) * METHOD/DEVICE: Drilling/drill rig (DRILL) * COMMENT: 5 cores; 47 m cored; 0 m drilled; 58.1 % recovery Parameter(s): DEPTH, sediment/rock [m] (Depth sed) * GEOCODE Sample code/label (Sample label) * METHOD/DEVICE: DSDP/ODP/IODP sample designation (URI: hdl:10013/epic.27914.d001) Sand [%] (Sand) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Silt [%] (Silt) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Size fraction < 0.002 mm, clay [%] (<2 µm) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Stratigraphy (Stratigraphy) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Lithology/composition/facies (Lithology) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Comment (Comment) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Carbonates [%] (Carb) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Dolomite [%] (Dol) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Nannofossils [%] (Nannos) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Foraminifera [%] (Foram) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Radiolarians [%] (Rad) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Diatoms [%] (Diatoms) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Spiculae [%] (Spiculae) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Quartz [%] (Qz) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Feldspar [%] (Fsp) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Zeolite [%] (Zeo) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Mica [%] (Mica) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Biotite [%] (Bt) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Clay minerals [%] (Clay min) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Glauconite [%] (Glt) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Opaque minerals [%] (Opaque) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Iron [%] (Fe) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Limonite [%] (Lm) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis Volcanic glass [%] (Volc glass) * METHOD/DEVICE: Smear slide analysis License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-3.0) (URI: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) Size: 325 data points */ Depth sed [m] Sample label Sand [%] Silt [%] <2 µm [%] Stratigraphy Lithology Comment Carb [%] Dol [%] Nannos [%] Foram [%] Rad [%] Diatoms [%] Spiculae [%] Qz [%] Fsp [%] Zeo [%] Mica [%] Bt [%] Clay min [%] Glt [%] Opaque [%] Fe [%] Lm [%] Volc glass [%] 28.70 39-359-2-1,20 10 20 70 Miocene FORAM NANNO OOZE Dominat lithology; relative abundance 5 0 75 15 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 31.00 39-359-2-21,100 35 30 35 Miocene FORAM NANNO OOZE Dominat lithology; relative abundance 10 0 56 35 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.75 39-359-2-4,75 30 30 40 Miocene FORAM NANNO OOZE Dominat lithology; relative abundance 10 0 55 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 36.62 39-359-2-6,62 25 25 50 Upper eocene FORAM NANNO OOZE Dominat lithology; relative abundance 10 0 45 25 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 56.90 39-359-3-1,40 35 55 10 Upper eocene NANNO FORAM OOZE Dominat lithology; relative abundance 5 0 30 35 2 2 2 5 5 2 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 2 57.78 39-359-3-11,128 5 45 50 Upper eocene CALCAREOUS VOLCANIC MUD Dominat lithology; relative abundance 5 0 25 10 2 2 10 5 2 0 0 0 10 5 5 0 2 25 60.50 39-359-3-31,100 5 45 50 Upper eocene CALCAREOUS VOLCANIC MUD Dominat lithology; relative abundance 5 0 25 10 2 2 10 5 2 0 2 0 10 5 5 0 0 25 61.73 39-359-3-4,73 20 70 10 Upper eocene VOLCANIC ASH Dominat lithology; relative abundance 5 0 10 0 0 2 2 10 5 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 55 86.15 39-359-4-11,115 10 35 55 Upper eocene CALCAREOUS VOLCANIC MUD Dominat lithology; relative abundance 2 5 20 15 0 2 2 5 0 5 0 2 15 2 5 0 2 30 86.40 39-359-4-11,140 0 35 65 Upper eocene VOLCANIC MUD Dominat lithology; relative abundance 5 5 10 5 0 5 2 5 2 10 0 0 25 2 0 2 0 30 86.53 39-359-4-2,3 5 70 25 Upper eocene ASHY MUD Dominat lithology; numerical abundance 45 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 30 86.60 39-359-4-2,10 0 30 70 Upper eocene ASHY CHALK? Dominat lithology; relative abundance 40 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 30 0 5 0 2 20 86.87 39-359-4-2,37 0 20 80 Upper eocene ALTERED VOLCANIC ASH Dominat lithology; numerical abundance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 50