NEW DATA ON TOE LOWER CAMBRIAN TRILOBITES OF CORTIJOS DE MALAGON ( SPAIN )

Tbe Lower Cambrian Locality of Cortijos de Malagón is situated in the South east of the Toledo Mountains, within the Ciudad Real Province. Casiano de Prado found in 1855 the cal1ed «primordial Fauna» in the sandstone which namend Sandstone with ElJipsocepba/lus; Douville, in 1911 gave a section in the Cortijos with three term (figs. 1 and 2). 3. Quartzites with Bilobites and Cruziana dipping east. 2. Grey Sanstones with Fucoides. l. Stratigraphical gap. l. Samdstone with ElJipsocepbaJus pradoanus, AN-S stricke 40°_50° east dip. Casiano de Prado in 1934 gave outcrop in Porzuna; in 1955 Hans-K1aus Weggen in this Dissertation named «Stratigraphie und Tektonik der Südlichen Montes de Toledo» devotes in the II (second) chapter part A Cambrian and subpart A-b the Stratigraphy of Cortijos de Malagón. In this section there are five stratigrafhica\ units from top to bottom: 5. Fossiliferous sandstones. 4. Quartzite series. 3. Sandstone-shale altemation. 2. Green sandstone with plenty of shale. 1. Clear green bigth argillite. The unit 5 of weggen is what holds our interest as we found in it the Trilobite fauna object of this study. In figure 3 we point the levels where the fossil faune is found incIuded in the unit 5.

This could be correlated with Aquiliz in the Anit-Atlas of Marruecos and Lena in Siberia.In the lberian peninsula and within the pre-Ordovician succession of the Toledo Mountains, the trilobites fauna of Cortijos represent the highest Cambrian fossiliferois levels.

Systematic palaeontology
AlI fossils described below have undergone tectonic distortion.The terminology used herein with respect to distortion is the same as that used by Jago (1976) which is based on Henningsmoen (1960).With the exception of the specimen shown in pI. 2, fig.12, aH photographs are of latex or silicone rubber casts whitened with magnesium oxide.The specimen shown in pI. 2, fig.12 isa preserved in fine sandstone.The terminology used below is after Harrington el al (1959).
--------   Hupé (1953) erected two species which he placed in his new subgenus Kingaspidoides, i.e.K. (K.) armatus and K. (K.) trianguiaris.Of the three cranidia figured as k.(K.) armatus, that figured by Hupé as pI. 11,fig.13 seems to have a glabella which tapers evenly forwards rather than having an anterior expansion; if this is the case then this specimen does not belong in Kingaspis.Hupé (1953) erected a new subfamily, the Kingaspidinae which included the two subgenera of Kingaspis as well as Mesetaia, a move followed by Henningsmoen (1959) and Repina (1966).Sdzuy (1961) described Kingaspis velatus and K. cf.velatus from the Lower Cambrian of Spain.They are poorly preserved and do not add anything to the concept of the genus; however they are briefly discussed below in the discussion of Kingaspis (?) sp.Sdzuy (1961, p. 307) suggested that the species included by Hupé (1953) in Kingaspidoides might be better placed with Strenuella in the Ellipsocephalinae.Sdzuy included Kingaspis in the Palaelolininae.Orlowski (1964) described a new species of Kingaspis, K. henningsmoeni from the Middle Cambrian Paradoxises oelandicus Zone from Poland.Orlowski included the Kingaspidinae in the Ellipsocephalidae as did Bergstiom (1973).However, Bergstrom included the Ellipsoceepha1idae within the Ptychopariida, unlike previous authors such as Hupé (1953), Henningsmoen (1959), andRepina (1966) who placed the Kingaspidinae within the redlichiids.Ahlberg and Bergstiom (1978, p. 9) suggest that Kingaspis has a «primitive» appearancee because it has 4 to 5 glabellar furrows and eye ridges which merge with the glabella without being terminated by the dorsal furrows.However, an inspection of a rubber cast of the specimens of K. campbel1i, originally figured by King (1923, figs. 3, 4b) and of the holotype of K. brevifrons originally figured by Hupé (1953, pI. 11, fig. 8) suggests that the eye ridges may be terminated by the axial furrow.The rather effaced nature of the specimens does not allow certainty with regard to this point.However, the situation with respect to the ehe ridges merging with the glabellarl anterior is by no means as clear cut as woulld be suggested by the figures of Kingaspis given by Hupé (1953, fig.63A), Henningsmoen (1959, fig. 148, 12) and Ah1berg and Bergstrom (1978, fig. 3).
Kingaspis (?) sp.differs from both Pseudolenus weggeni and P. glaber of Sdzuy (1961) from los Cortijos in that the glabella of both weggeni and glaber are more tapered and the anterior of the glabella more sharply rounded thant that of Kingaspis (?) sp.The glabella of Kingaspis (?) is more effaced than that of P. weggeni.
ribotanus from the type locality, whieh were sent to JBJ by Prof. E. Liñan.However, because none of the specimens in question are partieularly well preserved there remains sorne doubt that all specimens lo indeed belong to L. ribotanus.Hence they are referred to Lusatiops er.ribotanus.Cranidia,gen. et sp. indet pI. 2, Material: Two poorIy preserved partial eranidia (C066, C089).
Remarks: Tbese two cranidia have shallow axial, occipital and lateral glabellar furrows.Tbere is a wide border.Tbe eye ridges meet the axiala furrows close to the glabellar anterior.Tbe preglabellar field is very sbort.Tbese eranidia are too poorIy preserved to warrant assignment lo an existing genus or species.

Age of faunas
Lorze (1961), Sdzuy (1961, 1971) and Gil Cid (1973) Sdzuy (1971).The problem of the position of the boundary between the Middle and Upper Cambrian on the Iberian Peninsula has been discussed by Liñan and Gozalo (1986, p. 85) who state that at Murero (Cordillera Iberica) the top of the Upper Cambrian sequence is characterized by the presence of several species of Hamote/enus incJuding H-ibericus, A/ueva and Perrector (?) a/tus.These species occur higher is the Lower Cambrian sequence than do those from Los Cortijos (see Sdzuy 1971, table 1, andLotze 1961, p. 186).
None of the species described herein can be assigned to a previously described species and hence an exact age can not be obtained from the present study.However, sorne remarks are worth making on the subject.Sdzuy (1961, p. 308) is found low in the Lower Cambrian of Spain as shown by Lotze 91961, p. 186) where it is recorded as Pa/aeo-/enus ve/atuso As noted aboye Kingaspis cf.ve/atus has previously been recorded from Los Cortijos.

Kingaspis ve/atus
The three species described by Hupé (1953) as Lusatiops ribotanus is found low in the Lower Cambrian along with Kingaspis ve/atus (see Lotze  1961, p. 186), but Lusatiops sp. of Sdzuy (1961) is found towards the top of the Lower Cambrian (Lotze 1961, p. 1816). In Morrocco, Hupé (1960, table 1) records Lusatiops from the upper part of the Early Cambrian (top of Tasousekhtien substage and Aguilizien substage) and the verry basal part of the Middle Cambrian.Hupé (1960, p. 81) lists an undescribed species of Lusatiops from the basal Middle Cambrian and records L. cf./usaticus from the very top of the Early Cambrian.Associated with Lusatiops er.lusaticus at this level in Morocco is Latoucheia /atouchei, which is recorded by Hupé (1960, p. 81) as Proto/enus /atouchei.
In conclusionit would appear that the combination of Kingaspis (?) sp., Lusiatops cf.ribotanus and cf.Latoucheia sp.suggests a Late Early Cambrian age for the Los Cortijos area.This supports the earlier conclusion of Sdzuy (1971) andof Gil Cid (1973, table 1).
Kingaspis cambelJi, K. brevifrons and K. a/atus all occur close to the top of the Early Cambrian In Morocco.Kingaspis campbe//i from the Dead Sea area is also of Late Early Cambrian age.Orlowski (1964) described K. henningsmoeni from the early Middle Cambrian Paradoxides oe/andicus Zone of Poland.
Sdzuy 1961, p. 254.pI.4, figs.1-34,text-fig.3.Diagnosis: The specimens included in this species are rather effaced as well as being considerably distorted.The considerable tectonic distortion undergone by the specimens can be seen by comparing the two specimens on C090 (PI. 1, figs. 1 and 2), which are oriented at right angles on the rock slab.Hence it is feh that they should not be definitely assigned to any previously described genus or species.However, they oould well belong in Kingaspis in which genus they are tentatively placed.Characters which suggest assignment to Kingaspis are the effaced nature of the cranidium and the slightly expanded nature of the anterior part of the glabella.The length and width of the glabella in relation to those of the cranidium are also similar to previously described species of Kingaspis such as K. campbelli and K. brevifrons.
Description: Length of gently oonvex glabella (including occipital ring) is about 0.75 that of cranidium.Between the palpebral lobes glabella has width abaout 0.5 that of cranidium.Glabella tapers slightly forwards to a slightly expanded bluntly rounded anterior.Axial and preg1abellar furrows very gently impressed.Pre-Discussion:Sdzuy (1961, p. 310) described Kingaspis cf.velatus from los Cortijos.It is not certain if the specimens described herein belong in the same species as Kingaspis cf.velatus of Sdzuy due to the poorly preserved nature of both Sdzuy's specimens and those figured here.Similarly it is difficult to make a meaningful comparison of Kingaspis (?) with Kingaspis velatus as described by .
Description: Allowing for distortion the cranidium is probably about as wide as is long.Length of moderately convex glabella (including occipital ring) Sdzuy (1971,sidered tbe Los Cortijos faunas to be of Late EarIy Cambrian age.However, as shown bySdzuy (1971,table 1) and Gil Cid (1973, table 1) the Los Cortijos faunas are not of latest Early Cam-brian age.They occur in the lower part of the Bilbiliense Stage, the highest stage of the Spanish Lower Cambrian proposed by