U.S. Geological Survey Home AASG Logo USGS HOME CONTACT USGS SEARCH USGS
National Geologic Map Database
Map showing publication footprint
  • Usage in publication:
    • Low Hollow limestone member*
  • Modifications:
    • Named
  • Dominant lithology:
    • Limestone
    • Dolomite
  • AAPG geologic province:
    • Appalachian basin
Publication:

Miller, R.L., and Fuller, J.O., 1947, Geology of the Rose Hill oil field, Lee County, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Oil and Gas Investigations Map, OM-20, scale 1:18,000


Summary:

Named the Low Hollow limestone member of the Maynardville limestone for Low Hollow, 4-1/2 miles south of Rose Hill, Lee Co., VA. Consists of gray cryptocrystalline ribbon limestone in lower part and mottled limestone in upper part; interbedded fine-grained dolomite occurs near top. Thickness is 160 to 206 feet. Unit overlies the Conasauga shale and underlies the Chances Branch dolomite member of the Maynardville. The Low Hollow is of Late Cambrian age.

Source: GNU records (USGS DDS-6; Reston GNULEX).


Map showing publication footprint
  • Usage in publication:
    • Low Hollow limestone member*
  • Modifications:
    • Principal reference
  • AAPG geologic province:
    • Appalachian basin
Publication:

Miller, R.L., and Fuller, J.O., 1954, Geology and oil resources of the Rose Hill district; the fenster area of the Cumberland overthrust block, Lee County, Virginia: Virginia Geological Survey Bulletin, no. 71, 383 p.


Summary:

The type locality of the Low Hollow limestone member of the Maynardville limestone is designated along Fourmile Creek and VA-TN State line. Unit is 142 feet thick at type locality. It is also well exposed along road in Low Hollow, 4-1/2 miles south of Rose Hill and 1 mile south of Deans Store, Lee Co., VA.

Source: GNU records (USGS DDS-6; Reston GNULEX).


Map showing publication footprint
  • Usage in publication:
    • Low Hollow Limestone Member*
  • Modifications:
    • Areal extent
  • AAPG geologic province:
    • Appalachian basin
Publication:

Harris, L.D., and Mixon, R.B., 1970, Geologic map of the Howard Quarter quadrangle, northeastern Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map, GQ-842, scale 1:24,000 [http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_2144.htm]


Summary:

Geographically extended the Low Hollow Limestone Member of the Maynardville Formation to northeastern TN. Consists of medium dark gray calcilutite with 1 in. thick ribbons of olive gray argillaceous very finely crystalline dolomite. The top of the unit is marked by a distinctive 15 foot sequence of paper-thin laminated limestone that grades upward into dolomite. Thickness is 60 to 100 feet. Unit overlies the Nolichucky Shale and underlies the Chances Branch Dolomite Member of the Maynardville Formation. The Low Hollow is of Late Cambrian age.

Source: GNU records (USGS DDS-6; Reston GNULEX).


Map showing publication footprint
  • Usage in publication:
    • Low Hollow Limestone Member
  • Modifications:
    • Overview
  • AAPG geologic province:
    • Appalachian basin
Publication:

Brent, W.B., 1985, Geologic map of the Tennessee part of the Looneys Gap quadrangle, Tennessee-Virginia: Tennessee Division of Geology Geologic Quadrangle Map, GM-179-SW, scale 1:24,000


Summary:

The Low Hollow Limestone Member of the Maynardville Formation in TN consists of bluish gray, laminated limestone and yellowish brown, fine- to very fine-grained limestone with thin shaly partings. Thickness is 125 feet. Unit overlies the Nolichucky Shale and underlies the Chances Branch Dolomite Member of the Maynardville Formation. The Low Hollow is of Late Cambrian age.

Source: GNU records (USGS DDS-6; Reston GNULEX).


Search archives

For more information, please contact Nancy Stamm, Geologic Names Committee Secretary.

Asterisk (*) indicates usage by the U.S. Geological Survey. Other usages by state geological surveys.

"No current usage" (†) implies that a name has been abandoned or has fallen into disuse. Former usage and, if known, replacement name given in parentheses ( ).

Slash (/) indicates name does not conform with nomenclatural guidelines (CSN, 1933; ACSN, 1961, 1970; NACSN, 1983, 2005). This may be explained within brackets ([ ]).