2020 | 73/3 | 177–195 | 13 Figs. | 1 Tab. | 1 suppl. | www.geologia-croatica.hr Journal of the Croatian Geological Survey and the Croatian Geological Society 1. INTRODUCTION The majority of upper Miocene to Pliocene (Pannonian in the Central Paratethyan regional stratigraphic terminology, see HIL- GEN et al., 2012) sediments of the Pannonian Basin System ­accumulated­in­the­brackish­Lake­Pannon­and­in­the­fluvial­feeder­ systems.­They­can­reach­a­thickness­of­over­6­km­and­represent­ the­time­interval­between­~11.6-2.6­Ma.­In­spite­of­their­substan- tial­volume,­their­stratigraphic­subdivision­has­been­problematic­ for a long time, mostly as a result of the laterally prograding ar- chitecture­ of­ the­ basin­ fill­ (MAGYAR,­ 2004;­MAGYAR­&­ GEARY,­2012).­Moreover,­the­subdivision­of­Lake­Pannon­sedi- ments­ evolved­ independently­ in­ the­ neighbouring­ countries­ within­the­Pannonian­Basin­System,­although­the­lithostrati- graphic­units­are­continuous­across­political­boundaries.­Signifi- cant progress in cross-boundary correlation of the stratigraphic schemes­has­been­achieved­in­some­parts­of­the­basin­(e.g.­PIG- Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary Krisztina Sebe1, Marijan Kovačić2, Imre Magyar3,4, Krešimir Krizmanić5, Marko Špelić6, Dijana Bigunac7, Mária Sütő-Szentai8, Ádám Kovács9, Andrea Szuromi-Korecz10, Koraljka Bakrač6, Valentina Hajek-Tadesse6, Tamara Troskot-Čorbić5 and Orsolya Sztanó9 1 University of Pécs, Department of Geology and Meteorology, 7624 Pécs, Ifjúság ú. 6, Hungary; (sebe@gamma.ttk.pte.hu) 2 University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of Geology, 10000 Zagreb, Horvatovac 95, Croatia; (mkovacic@geol.pmf.unizg.hr) 3 MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc., 1117 Budapest, Október huszonharmadika utca 18., Hungary; (immagyar@mol.hu) 4 MTA-MTM-ELTE Research Group for Paleontology, Budapest, Hungary 5 INA -Oil Company, Plc., Exploration & Production, Exploration & Upstream portfolio development, Lovinčićeva 4, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; (kresimir.krizmanic@ina.hr; tamara.troskot-corbic@ina.hr) 6 Croatian Geological Survey, Department of Geology, 10000 Zagreb, Sachsova 2, Croatia; (mspelic@hgi-cgs.hr; kbakrac@hgi-cgs.hr; tadesse@hgi-cgs.hr) 7 INA -Oil Company, Plc., Exploration & Production, Field Development, V. Holjevca 10, Zagreb, Croatia; (dijana.bigunac@ina.hr) 8 7300 Komló, Május 1 utca 7., Hungary; (szentai.maria@gmail.com) 9 Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Geology, 1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c; (konformista@caesar.elte.hu, sztano@caesar.elte.hu) 10 MOL Group E&P Laboratory, 1039 Budapest, Szent István út 14., Hungary; (kaszuro@mol.hu) doi: 10.4154/gc.2020.12 Abstract Upper Miocene to Pliocene (Pannonian) sediments of the Pannonian Basin System accumula- ted in the brackish Lake Pannon and the fluvial feeder systems, between 11.6-2.6 Ma. Their strati- graphic subdivision has been problematic for a long time due to the laterally prograding archi- tecture of the basin fill and the historically independently evolving stratigraphic schemes of the neighbouring countries. We correlated the lithostratigraphic units of the Lake Pannon deposits between Hungary and Croatia in the Drava Basin, using lithological, sedimentological and pa- laeontological data from boreholes and outcrops, and seismic correlation. The Croatica and Med- vedski breg formations in Croatia correspond to the Endrőd Fm. in Hungary, comprising shallow to deep water, open lacustrine, calcareous to argillaceous marls. The Andraševec fm. in Croatia corresponds to the Szolnok and Algyő Fms. in Hungary, consisting of sandstones and siltstones of turbidite systems and of clay marls deposited on the shelf-break slope. The Nova Gradiška fm. in Croatia is an equivalent of the Újfalu Fm. in Hungary, built up of a variety of lithologies, in- cluding sand, silt, clay and huminitic clay, deposited in deltaic environments. The Pluska fm. in Croatia corresponds to the Zagyva Fm. in Hungary, consisting of variegated clays, silts, sands and lignites, deposited in alluvial and fluvial environments. Coarse-grained (sand, gravel) basal layers are assigned to the Kálla and Békés Fms. and the Sveti Matej member of the Croatica fm. Coarse-grained intercalations within the deep-water marls belong to the Dorozsma Member of the Endrőd Fm. in Hungary, and to the Bačun member of the Medvedski breg fm. in Croatia. Sediment transport and lateral accretion of the shelf edge in the Drava Basin took place from the N, NW, and W, to the S, SE, and E, respectively. According to the biostratigraphic and chro- nostratigraphic analyses, the oldest shelf-break slopes in the Mura Basin are more than 8 Ma old, whereas the youngest ones in the southeasternmost part of the Drava Basin may be Plio- cene in age (younger than 5.3 Ma). Thus, the 180 km long and at least 700 m deep Drava Basin was transformed into a fluvial plain during the last 3.5 million years of the Miocene. OTT­&­RADIVOJEVIĆ,­2010;­SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2016),­but­con- siderable­further­work­is­needed­to­obtain­a­stratigraphic­system­ applicable to the entire Pannonian Basin System. In­the­past­decades­there­have­been­several­efforts­aimed­at­ correlating the Miocene sediments of Croatia and Hungary (SAFTIĆ­et­al.,­2003;­HEĆIMOVIĆ­et­al.,­2010;­MALVIĆ­&­ CVETKOVIĆ,­2013).­The­need­for­this­is­well­demonstrated­by­ MALVIĆ­&­CVETKOVIĆ­(2013),­who­called­attention­to­the­fact­ that­the­otherwise­lithologically­similar­upper­Miocene­forma- tions­appear­in­the­stratigraphic­charts­as­time-transgressive­units­ in­Hungary­but­as­units­with­synchronous­boundaries­in­Croatia.­ In­the­framework­of­the­recent­Hungarian-Croatian­bilateral­pro- ject „Stratigraphy and correlation of Upper Miocene – Pliocene sediments­along­the­Croatian-Hungarian­border”,­we­aimed­to­ correlate the lithostratigraphic scheme of Lake Pannon deposits between­Hungary­and­Croatia­in­the­Drava­Basin,­a­deep­sub- Article history: Manuscript received April 27, 2020 Revised manuscript accepted August 24, 2020 Available online October 26, 2020 Keywords: stratigraphy, correlation, upper Miocene, Pannonian, Drava Basin G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3178 basin in the SW part of the Pannonian Basin System. The fact that­the­Drava­Basin­covers­a­significant­proportion­of­the­distri- bution­area­of­Lake­Pannon­deposits­in­Croatia­and­that­several­ upper Miocene key sections are located in this region adds spe- cial­ importance­ to­ the­ area.­Here­we­ present­ the­ correlated­ scheme,­the­definitions­of­the­stratigraphic­units­harmonised­be- tween­the­two­countries­and­provide­field­and­borehole­examples­ of the typical appearance of the units. Using seismic correlation and­biostratigraphic­dating­from­organic-walled­microplankton­ and­molluscs,­we­offer­temporal­limits­to­the­deposition­of­the­ given­units. 2. GEOLOGICAL SETTING The­Drava­Basin­(Fig.­1)­formed­as­a­result­of­early­-­middle­Mi- ocene­extension­(PRELOGOVIĆ­et­al.,­1998).­Above­the­Palaeo- Mesozoic­basement­the­basin­is­filled­by­nearly­7­km­of­Cenozoic­ sediments­(HORVÁTH­et­al.,­2006).­In­most­of­the­basin­and­its­ surroundings the syn-rift succession began in the Eggenburgian or­Ottnangian,­with­terrestrial,­fluvial­and­lacustrine­clastics­in­ the­lower­Miocene­and­continued­with­marine­deposits­in­the­ middle­Miocene,­both­intercalated­with­volcanics,­mostly­pyro- clastics­(HÁMOR,­1970;­CHIKÁN,­1991;­LUČIĆ­et­al.,­2001;­ SAFTIĆ­ et­ al.,­ 2003;­ NAGYMAROSY­&­ HÁMOR,­ 2012;­ MALVIĆ­&­CVETKOVIĆ,­2013;­PAVELIĆ­&­KOVAČIĆ,­2018).­ In­the­area­of­the­northwestern­Drava­Basin­and­in­the­Mura­Ba- sin, the oldest Cenozoic rocks are of Oligocene age and marine sedimentation persisted during the early and middle Miocene. Upper­Miocene­–­Quaternary­deposits­of­the­Drava­Basin­attain­ a­thickness­of­more­than­5­km­(Fig.­1).­They­accumulated­in­the­ brackish Lake Pannon, the related marshes, and in the Pliocene to­modern­fluvial­system­following­the­lake. Upper Miocene sediments crop out in the mountains border- ing­the­Drava­Basin:­in­Kalnik,­Bilogora,­Papuk­and­Krndija­in­ North Croatia on the southern and in the Mecsek Mts. on the northern­side­(Fig.­1).­These­mountains­represent­basement­highs­ and­in­contrast­with­continuous­sedimentation­in­the­basin,­they­ emerged­from­Lake­Pannon­during­one­or­more­time­intervals­in­ the late Miocene, thus their succession contains sedimentary gaps below,­within­and­above­the­Lake­Pannon­deposits­(KLEB,­1973;­ KOVAČIĆ­&­GRIZELJ,­2006;­KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2011;­SEBE­et­ al.,­2013;­SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2015).­No­upper­Miocene­outcrops­are­ known­in­the­Villány­Hills­in­Hungary.­However,­remnants­of­ most­probably­Lake­Pannon­sediments­preserved­in­the­shallow­ subsurface­in­intramountain­valleys­and­elevated­karstic­cavities­ (RAKUSZ­&­STRAUSZ,­1953;­DEZSŐ­et­al.,­2007)­suggest­that­ this­area­was­flooded­as­well­for­at­least­some­time­during­the­late­ Miocene. In­the­marginal­areas­surrounding­the­Drava­Basin,­sedimen- tation­across­the­Sarmatian-Pannonian­boundary­was­continuous­ in­the­deepest­part­of­small­sub-basins,­while­basement­highs­un- derwent­moderate­uplift­and­denudation­as­a­result­of­the­so- called­“post-Sarmatian­inversion­event”­(SAFTIĆ­et­al.,­2003;­ HORVÁTH­et­al.,­2006;­TOMLJENOVIĆ­&­CSONTOS,­2001).­ Within­the­Drava­Basin­itself,­the­existence­of­Sarmatian­sedi- ments­has­not­been­proven­with­fauna­yet,­only­in­the­NW­in­the­ Mura-Zala­basins­(KŐRÖSSY,­1989;­HORVÁTH­et­al.,­2018).­ Lake Pannon deposits of the study area accumulated during the post-rift­phase­of­basin­evolution­(PAVELIĆ,­2001;­HORVÁTH­ et­al.,­2006;­BALÁZS­et­al.,­2016).­After­this­subsidence-domi- nated­interval,­basin­inversion­started­in­the­latest­Miocene,­co- evally­with­the­still­ongoing­lacustrine­deposition,­and­is­still­ac- tive­today­(TOMLJENOVIĆ­&­CSONTOS,­2001;­CSONTOS­et­ al.,­2002;­KONRÁD­&­SEBE,­2010;­VAN­GELDER­et­al.,­2015). 3. METHODS The lithology, sedimentology and fossils of the target deposits were­investigated­in­the­field­and­in­cores­in­both­countries.­In­ order to identify and correlate lithostratigraphic and biostrati- graphic­units­over­the­entire­Drava­Basin,­a­181­km­long­compos- ite­seismic­section­was­constructed­parallel­to­the­NW-SE­trend- Figure 1. The Drava Basin and its surroundings, with the depth of upper Miocene - Pliocene lacustrine and fluvial sediments. Base Pannonian surface from HOR- VÁTH et al. (2012). EDB: Eastern Drava Basin; Mosl.: Moslavačka gora; PG: Požeška gora; SRB: Republic of Serbia; WDB: Western Drava Basin. G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 179 ing­axis­of­the­basin­(Fig.­1).­This­section­connects­the­key­wells­ Legrad­ (Leg)-1J,­Severovci­ (Sev)-1,­Ferdinandovac-1Duboka­ ­(F-1D),­Péterhida­(Phida)-1,­Terezino­Polje­(TP)-1,­Felsőszentmárton­ (Fel)-I,­Zaláta­(Zal)-1,­Dravica­(Dra)-1,­Krunoslavlje­(Kru)-2­and­ Sječe­(Sj)-2,­and­crosses­the­Drava­river­and­the­Croatian-Hun- garian­state­boundary­several­times.­In­addition­to­this­master­ profile­(Fig.­7),­four­N-S­directed­crosslines­with­lengths­of­55,­ 49,­41­and­31­km,­respectively,­were­also­compiled­(Figs.­1,­8).­ Key­wells­Iharosberény­(Ih)-I,­Vízvár-Észak­(Víz-É)-4,­Vízvár- S­(Víz-S)-1,­Potony-1,­and­Donja­Bukovica­(DB)-1­and­-2­were­ connected­into­the­network­through­these­sections.­Lithological­ and­biostratigraphic­data­from­the­key­wells­were­obtained­from­ well­logs­and­well­reports,­and­these­were­projected­into­the­seis- mic­network.­Time/depth­functions­for­well­to­seismic­tie­were­ taken­from­the­databases­of­MOL­and­INA.­Additional­scattered­ biostratigraphic­data­from­larger­distances­were­correlated­to­this­ seismic­network­via­seismic­correlation. 4. LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC SCHEMES IN CROATIA AND HUNGARY In Croatia three main lithostratigraphic schemes are in use today for upper Miocene deposits of the northern and eastern part of the country. Earlier­studies­divided­the­succession­into­the­‘Croatica’,­ ‘Banatica’,­‘Abichi’­and­‘Rhomboidea­beds’,­while­Pliocene­de- posits­were­described­as­belonging­to­the­‘Paludina­beds’­(CRO- ATIAN­GEOLOGICAL­SURVEY,­2009;­PIKIJA,­2009;­BASCH,­ 2009)­Fig.­2.­This­division,­ introduced­originally­by­JENKO­ (1944),­was­primarily­based­on­the­superposition­of­leading­mol- lusc­taxa,­where­the­‘Croatica’­and­‘Banatica­beds‘­were­tradi- tionally­attributed­to­the­“Lower­and­Upper­Pannonian”,­while­ the­‘Abichi’­and­‘Rhomboidea­beds’­represented­the­“Lower­and­ Upper­Pontian”,­respectively.­This­division­did­not­take­into­ac- count that the spatial and temporal distribution of molluscs is highly dependent­on­changes­of­the­depositional­environment­(MAGYAR­ &­GEARY,­2012).­Furthermore,­it­has­since­been­shown­that­the­ Pontian­stage,­originally­defined­in­the­Euxinian­(Black­Sea)­ba- sin,­was­erroneously­correlated­into­the­Pannonian­Basin­System­ (e.g.­MANDIC­et­al.,­2015).­Nevertheless,­this­scheme­is­still­in­ use­in­Croatia,­especially­in­petroleum­exploration­wells. The­two­other­systems­are­more­lithology-based.­They­have­ been­invented­for­the­entire­Neogene­succession,­separately­for­ subsurface­and­surface­sediments.­An­older­system­introduced­ by­ŠIMON­(1966,­1980)­and­updated­later­by­VELIĆ­(2007)­is­ used­for­subsurface­sediments­and­is­based­on­well­and­seismic­ data­(Fig.­2).­In­this­system­the­lithostratigraphic­units­still­have­ the­chronostratigraphic­meaning­as­well,­they­were­defined­as­ equivalents­of­ (sub)stages,­neglecting­ the­ time-transgressive­ character­of­the­units.­In­addition,­for­historical­reasons­different­ names­exist­for­concurrent­units­in­different­parts­of­the­basins.­ This­system­has­long­been­used­in­the­Drava­Basin,­with­separate­ lithostratigraphic­schemes­for­the­western­(WDB)­and­the­east- ern­(EDB)­parts­of­the­basin­(ŠIMON,­1966,­1980)­(Fig.­2).­Due­ to­the­aforementioned­weaknesses­of­the­first­division,­a­second­ system­has­been­created­in­the­past­thirty­years­during­surveying­ related­to­the­construction­of­the­Geological­Map­of­the­Republic­ Figure 2. Informal upper Miocene and Pliocene units and lithostratigraphic schemes used for subsurface rocks in the Eastern and Western Drava Basin and in the Mura Basin in Croatia. The concept behind these schemes does not distinguish between bio- and lithostratigraphy and geochronology, therefore it is recommend- ed that they are abandoned. (after RÖGL (1996) and MAGYAR et al. (1999)) (J EN KO (1 94 4) LU ČI Ć et a l. ( 20 01 )) (after ŠIMON (1980), SAFTIĆ et al. (2003) and MALVIĆ & CVETKOVIĆ (2013)) G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3180 of­Croatia.­New­lithostratigraphic­units­in­this­system­are­defined­ and named according to the International Stratigraphic Guide (MURPHY­&­SALVADOR,­1999).­The­names­of­these­units­rep- resent the recommendation of the National Committee for Stra- tigraphy and are used on recently published geological maps of the­Republic­of­Croatia­(map­sheets­for­the­Slavonia­area:­FI- LJAK­et­al.,­2016a,­2016b;­HALAMIĆ­et­al.,­2019).­The­unification­ of lithostratigraphic units for the territory of Croatia is currently in progress. Within this process, the names of certain Pannonian lithostratigraphic­units­described­from­other­parts­of­Croatia­have­ been­adopted­to­the­Drava­Basin­based­on­the­similar­lithology­ and related depositional setting. For­upper­Miocene­and­Pliocene­sediments­exposed­at­the­ surface,­the­scheme­contains­six­lithostratigraphic­units­of­for- mation­rank,­described­in­detail­below­(KOVAČIĆ,­2004;­FI- LJAK­ et­ al.,­ 2016a,­ 2016b;­ KOVAČIĆ­ &­ PAVELIĆ,­ 2017;­ HALAMIĆ­et­al.,­2019)­(Fig.­3).­In­addition,­locally­derived­clas- tic­sediments­are­classified­into­different­units­in­different­parts­ of the stratigraphic column. The surface distribution of these for- mations­was­outlined­by­mapping­in­the­Hrvatsko­zagorje­region­ and­the­Medvednica­Mts.­in­NW­Croatia,­and­along­the­northern­ margin­of­the­Sava­Basin­in­the­Požeška­gora­Mts.­and­Dilj­gora­ Mts.­in­the­eastern­Croatian­region­of­Slavonia.­Geological­map- ping of the mentioned deposits has not yet been carried out in the Krndija,­Papuk­and­Bilogora­Mts.­However,­as­a­result­of­terrain­ prospecting and recording of detailed geological sections, all the above­formations­have­been­identified­in­these­areas­(KOVAČIĆ,­ 2004;­KOVAČIĆ­&­PAVELIĆ,­2017). Similarly­to­Croatia,­various­stratigraphic­schemes­develo- ped­for­individual­basins­and­also­for­basin­margins­used­to­ex- ist­in­Hungary­as­well.­The­standardisation­of­the­system­began­ with­the­work­of­JUHÁSZ­(1994),­who­proposed­a­general,­ge- netically based scheme for all sedimentary basins of Hungary. This­became­widely­accepted­and­led­to­significant­harmonisa- tion,­but­basin­sediments­were­still­treated­separately­from­those­ cropping­out­ at­ the­present­margins­ (JUHÁSZ,­1998;­KOR- PÁSNÉ­HÓDI,­1998).­The­past­two­decades­have­brought­pro- gress­in­recognizing­that­except­for­the­oldest­formations­(Békés,­ Endrőd­and­Kálla­Fms.)­ indicating­ transgression­of­ the­ lake­ ­(SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2010),­all­other­deposits­uniformly­reflect­the­ in­filling­process.­Therefore­a­basin-wide­correlation­of­deep,­ open-water­mudstones,­turbidite­systems,­shelf­slope­mudstones­ and­deltaic­to­fluvial­successions­can­easily­be­carried­out­­(e.g.­ SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2013a,­2013b,­2016;­CSILLAG­&­SZTANÓ,­ 2015a, b), regardless of their present topographic position, i.e. buried­in­deep­basin­interiors­or­exposed­along­margins­of­the­ present­hills.­The­formations,­both­with­their­litho-­and­biofacies,­ follow­the­evolution­of­the­depositional­environments,­governed­ by­the­long-term­normal­regression­interrupted­by­minor­flood- ing­events­or­local­variations­in­sediment­input.­Official­forma- tion descriptions accepted by the Stratigraphic Commission of Hungary­were­published­in­CSÁSZÁR­(1997). 4.1. Lithostratigraphic units Our­investigations­of­both­surface­and­subsurface­sediments­and­ their­fossil­content­showed­that­formation­boundaries­are­time- transgressive­over­the­entire­Drava­Basin­and­its­surroundings,­ and­do­not­coincide­with­the­boundaries­of­either­dinocyst­or­mol- lusc biozones. Consequently, in our opinion a correlated lithostratigraphic scheme for the upper Miocene – Pliocene la- custrine­to­fluvial­succession­should­be­based­on­the­lithological­ and sedimentological – and corresponding seismic – characteri- stics­of­the­deposits.­Here­we­present­the­proposed­lithostrati- graphic­scheme­correlated­between­Croatia­and­Hungary­(Fig.­3)­ and the short description of the units. 4.1.1. Kálla Formation Sand,­gravelly­sand­and­gravel,­typically­limonitic,­often­with­ abundant­molds­and­imprints­of­littoral­molluscs­(Fig.­4)­(KLEB,­ 1973;­SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2010;­SEBE­et­al.,­2015).­It­occurs­around­ Figure 3. Correlation of the upper Miocene – Pliocene lithostratigraphic units in Croatia and Hungary. Preferred formation names are capitalized, abandoned or local names are in plain format. Age limits of the formations come from biostratigraphy discussed below. Note that the chart follows the axial sediment transport routes, either in deep basin centres or above sublacustrine highs. Marginal areas, which contain more locally-derived clastics and several unconformities, cannot be illustrated in the same figure. G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 181 the basement highs that emerged as islands from the lake. Con- sequently,­it­is­more­abundant­along­the­margins­of­the­Drava­ Basin.­Its­material­was­derived­from­local­sources,­from­the­denu- dation of the immediate background, and accumulated on the shoreface or on small locally fed deltas. Its thickness ranges from a­few­metres­to­a­few­tens­of­metres.­Being­sourced­from­older­ rocks,­it­sometimes­contains­vertebrate­and­subordinately­inver- tebrate­fossils­redeposited­from­lower­-­middle­Miocene­forma- tions­or­even­from­Mesozoic­rocks­(KLEB,­1973;­SEBE­et­al.,­ 2015).­In­most­places­it­is­a­transgressive­deposit­at­the­base­of­ the­Lake­Pannon­succession,­unconformably­overlying­older­ rocks,­thus­its­age­depends­on­the­time­of­flooding.­At­some­lo- cations­around­the­Mecsek­Mts.,­where­sediment­input­into­the­ lake­was­high,­it­overlies­offshore­calcareous­marls­and­prinches­ out,­quickly­away­from­the­mountains.­On­palaeohighs­flooded­ at­a­later­stage­it­interfingers­with,­or­it­is­overlain­by­the­Újfalu­ Formation­(e.g.­BUDAI­et­al.,­2019).­The­mollusc­fauna­of­the­ formation contains littoral forms of dreissenids, cardiids, and prosobranch­snails,­but­the­actual­species­composition­always­ depends­on­the­age­of­the­given­occurrence­(KLEB,­1973;­SEBE­ et­al.,­2015).­The­best­exposures­in­the­Mecsek­are­the­sand­pits­ of­Pécs-Danitzpuszta­(with­Congeria pancici, C. ungulacaprae, C. partschi, Lymnocardium schedelianum;­SEBE­et­al.,­2015),­ Pécsvárad­and­Himesháza­(with­Congeria balatonica, L. dumi­ cici, L. cf. proximum, „Protoplagiodacna” sp., Phyllocardium planum;­BUDAI­et­al.,­2019),­and­Cserdi­(with­Congeria trian­ gularis, Lymnocardium ferrugineum, L. pelzelni, L. schmidti, L. szaboi, Prosodacnomya dainellii).­For­the­location­of­sites­ment- ioned­in­the­text,­please­refer­to­Supplement­1. 4.1.2. Békés Conglomerate Formation, Sveti Matej member of Croatica formation Coarse clastics – conglomerates and breccias – occur in the region in­two­main­forms­at­the­base­of­the­calcareous­marls­(Fig.­5).­The­ sediment­is­similar­in­both­cases:­gravel­material­is­of­local­origin,­ while­sorting­and­rounding­is­variable,­depending­on­the­transport­ and­reworking­processes­and­–­in­the­case­of­the­Békés­Conglome- rate­–­on­water­depth,­i.e.­below­or­above­wave­base. The­Sveti­Matej­member­of­the­Croatica­formation­is­com- posed­of­unfossiliferous­gravel­deposited­unconformably­over­ pre-Pannonian­rocks­in­a­fluvial­environment.­It­is­maximum­a­ few­metres­thick­and­is­overlain­by­the­thin-bedded­limestones­ of­the­Croatica­fm.­(Fig.­5A).­It­is­only­known­in­the­Medvednica­ Mts.­As­a­fluvial­sediment,­it­represents­temporary­emergence­of­ the­area.­Terrestrial­deposits­predating­lacustrine­flooding­in­ Hungary­are­classified­into­the­Ősi­Variegated­Clay­Fm.,­though­ this­unit­has­not­yet­been­recorded­in­the­Mecsek-Drava­area. The­Békés­Conglomerate­(Fig.­5B)­comprises­gravels­re- worked­by­lacustrine­wave­action­and­is­conformably­overlain­by­ the­calcareous­marls­of­the­Endrőd­Fm.­Typical­grain­size­is­be- low­10­cm,­but­the­largest­clasts­can­exceed­1­m.­Matrix­material­ is­either­missing­or­is­identical­to­the­overlying­marls.­The­unit­ is typically unfossiliferous, its thickness ranges from 1-2 m to ~20­m.­The­wave-reworked­gravels­indicate­the­flooding­of­dry- lands,­therefore­the­unit­occurs­at­locations­where­open­lacustrine­ sediments­overlie­older­rocks­unconformably:­along­the­margins­ and­in­the­southern­foreland­of­the­Mecsek­Mts.­above­uplifted­ basement highs. The best outcrops are in the Monyoród and Versend­quarries. Figure 4. Kálla Formation. A) Tectonically tilted coarse, gravelly sands in the Pécs-Danitzpuszta sand pit; B) limonitic sand with mollusc molds and imprints (Lym- nocardium in the centre), Cserdi, W Mecsek Mts. Figure 5. Conglomerates overlying the pre-Pannonian sediments or the basement. A) Gravels of the Sveti Matej member in erosional contact with underlying lami- nated marls of Sarmatian Dolje formation (Sveti Matej, Medvednica Mts.) B) Békés Conglomerate in the southern foreland of the Mecsek Mts. (Monyoród quarry). G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3182 4.1.3. Endrőd Formation, Croatica and Medvedski breg formations The carbonate-dominated unit at the bottom of the Lake Pannon succession­is­treated­as­one­formation­in­Hungary­and­as­two­in­ Croatia. White and grey, thin-bedded limestones and calcareous marls­compose­the­lower­part­of­the­unit,­followed­by­light­grey- ish,­thick-bedded­to­massive­calcareous­marls,­topped­by­clay­ marls­and­silty­marls­(Fig.­6­A-C).­At­locations­close­to­basement­ highs, thin (<1 m thick) clastic intercalations (marl, clay, sand and gravel)­occur­in­the­lower­part­of­the­calcareous­marls.­Its­thick- ness­ranges­from­a­few­tens­of­metres­in­marginal­areas­to­50-200­ m­in­the­centre­of­the­Drava­Basin­(Fig.­7,­e.g.­well­Potony-1).­In­ Hungary­the­calcareous­marl­(with­>~70%­carbonate­content)­at­ the­lower­part­of­the­Endrőd­Fm.­is­separated­as­the­Tótkomlós­ Member in the Great Hungarian Plain and as the Belezna Mb. to the­west­of­the­Danube.­It­can­be­white­near­basement­highs­or­ black­in­the­deep­basin­interiors­(MAGYAR­et­al.,­2004)­and­con- tains­sufficient­amounts­of­TOC­to­be­a­source­rock­(BADICS­&­ VETŐ,­2012).­The­upper­part­comprising­clay­marls­is­distin- guished­as­the­Nagykörű­Mb.­in­the­Great­Hungarian­Plain­and­ as­the­Nagylengyel­Mb.­in­the­west­(JUHÁSZ,­1998),­and­it­oc- curs­mostly­in­deep­basins.­The­Endrőd­Fm.­corresponds­to­the­ Croatica­and­Medvedski­breg­fms.­in­Croatia,­which,­based­on­ their lithological composition and stratigraphic position, are fur- ther­an­equivalent­of­the­upper­part­of­the­Moslavačka­gora­Fm.­ (Križevci­Mb.)­and­the­lower­part­of­the­Ivanić-Grad­Fm.­(Lipo- vac­Mb.)­in­the­WDB­and­the­Valpovo­Fm.­and­of­the­lower­part­ of­ the­Vinkovci­Fm.­ (Laslovo­Mb.)­ in­ the­EDB­ (Fig.­2)­ (eg.­ MALVIĆ­&­CVETKOVIĆ,­2013).­The­unit­is­conformably­over- Figure 6. A-C: Endrőd Fm./Croatica and Medvedski breg fms. A) Thin-bedded limestones and calcareous marls with clay interbeds in the lower part of the unit (Pécs-Danitzpuszta sand pit, Mecsek Mts.; image width 2 m); B) Thin-bedded limestones of the Croatica fm. (Našice quarry, Krndija Mts.); C) Massive calcareous marls in the upper part of Medvedski breg fm. (Našice quarry). D-F: Andraševec fm./Szolnok and Algyő Fms. D) Thin- to medium-bedded graded, laminated turbidites alternate with siltstones at Mirti/Hruševec; E) A graded, structureless to planar and cross-laminated turbidite bed at the lower part of Petnja outcrop; F) Sandstone with imbricated rip-up mud clasts (well TP-1, 2564-2565 m) G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 183 lain­by­the­Szolnok/Andraševec­Fm.­in­the­deep­basin­interiors­ or­by­the­Algyő/Andraševec­Fms.­on­sublacustrine­basement­ highs. The­formation­contains­an­impoverished­sublittoral-profun- dal­mollusc­fauna­with­usually­thin-shelled­forms,­such­as­Con­ geria banatica, “Dreissenomya” digitifera, “Pontalmyra” otiophora,­various­Paradacna­species,­and­deep-water-adapted­ pulmonate molluscs, such as planorbids (Gyraulus) and lym- naeids (e.g. Velutinopsis, Undulotheca, Valenciennius),­as­well­as­ a rich ostracod assemblage­ (JUHÁSZ­&­MAGYAR,­ 1992;­ KOVAČIĆ,­2004;­VASILIEV­et­al.,­2007;­Magyar­in­SEBE­et­al.,­ 2015).­Littoral­fossils­occur­in­redeposited­interbeds.­A­diverse­ thermophilous­macroflora­was­recovered­in­the­Mecsek­Mts.­in­ the­uppermost­part­of­the­formation­(HABLY­&­SEBE,­2016).­ The­general­trend­of­the­unit­from­carbonate-dominated­to­clay/ silt-dominated rocks has been attributed primarily to the increas- ing amount of clastic input into the lake transported by the distal Alpine-Carpathian­feeder­system­approaching­the­area­from­the­ N­and­NW.­The­lower­boundary­of­the­formation­coincides­with­ the­Sarmatian/Pannonian­boundary­in­basins­with­continuous­ sedimentation­across­the­middle/late­Miocene­boundary,­while­it­ becomes­increasingly­unconformable­and­thus­younger­away­ from­the­basin­centres.­The­youngest­biozone­identified­in­the­ formation­within­the­Drava­Basin­is­the­Spiniferites validus di- noflagellate­zone (<9­Ma;­BAKRAČ­et­al.,­2012­and­Fig.­7). The­type­localities­in­Croatia­are­the­Kostanjek­and­Vrapče­ sections­(Croatica­fm.)­and­the­Medvedski­breg­section­(M.­b.­ fm.)­in­the­NW­part­of­the­Sava­Basin,­on­the­slopes­of­the­Med- vednica­Mts.­ (KOVAČIĆ­ et­ al.,­ 2016,­ 2017a;­ KOVAČIĆ­&­ PAVELIĆ,­2017).­At­present­the­most­representative­surface­oc- currences­are­the­Našice­quarry­on­the­northern­slopes­of­the­ Krndija­Mts.­(KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2017a)­and­the­Pécs-Danitzpuszta­ sand­pit­in­the­Mecsek­Mts.­(SEBE­et­al.,­2019). Croatica formation The­lower,­well-bedded,­hard,­carbonate-rich,­20–50­m­thick­part­ of­the­Endrőd­Fm.­occurring­in­the­vicinity­of­basement­highs­is­ distinguished as the Croatica fm. in Croatia. Most commonly it rests­conformably­over­sublittoral­Sarmatian­deposits,­rarely­over­ alluvial­sediments­which­unconformably­overlie­different­base- ment­rocks­(Fig­5A).­The­unit­is­identified­by­its­1-10­cm­thick,­ white­calcareous­marl­or­limestone­layers­(Fig.­6B).­Based­on­ their lithological features, thin-layered limestones of the Croatica fm.­in­the­marginal­parts­of­the­basin­are­clearly­different­from­ the­overlying­massive­marls­of­the­Medvedski­breg­fm.,­while­ these­differences­are­not­clearly­expressed­in­the­deeper­parts­of­ the­basin,­where­the­calcareous­marls­or­limestones­conformably­ overlying­Sarmatian­deposits­are­massive,­dark­grey,­and­repre- sent­source­rocks­(TROSKOT-ČORBIĆ­et­al.,­2009).­The­Cro- atica­fm.­is­the­equivalent­of­the­upper­part­of­the­Moslavačka­ gora­Fm.­(Križevci­Mb.)­in­the­WDB­and­of­the­Valpovo­Fm.­in­ the­EDB.­It­is­not­equivalent­to­the­Tótkomlós­Member­within­the­ Endrőd­Fm.,­but­can­be­correlated­only­with­its­lowermost­part.­ Laterally­and­upwards­it­gradually­passes­into­the­marls­of­the­ Medvedski­breg­fm.­It­is­widely­distributed­in­the­marginal­parts­ of depressions in the southern part of the Pannonian Basin Sys- tem. The­first­description­of­this­unit­under­the­name­„Pre-Pontian­ formation”­ (GORJANOVIĆ-KRAMBERGER,­1890)­already­ drew­attention­to­its­peculiar­mollusc­fauna,­consisting­of­pulmo- nate snails (e.g. Radix croatica, Gyraulus praeponticus, G. du­ bius) and small cardiids (e.g. “Lymnocardium” praeponticum). The ostracod assemblage contains brackish species (e.g. Herpe­ tocyprella auriculata), while­the­calcareous­nannoplankton­as- sociation is rich in the endemic species Isolithus semenenko and I. pavelici (ĆORIĆ in KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2015,­2017a). The palyno- logical­samples­contain­no­dinoflagellates­but­they­are­rich­in­the­ prasinophyte alga Mecsekia ultima (BAKRAČ,­2005).­Freshwa- ter algae representing Sigmopollis spp.­have­also­been­identified­ in­this­formation­(KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2015),­as­well­as­plant­remains­ (aquatic grasses). The­depositional­environment­of­this­unit­is­usually­inter- preted­as­a­stressed,­low-salinity,­shallow-water,­littoral-sublitto- ral­setting­(VRSALJKO,­1999;­KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2017a).­While­ marl­intercalations­are­inferred­to­indicate­water-level­oscillations­ that­temporarily­created­deeper­water,­the­sediments­of­the­Cro- atica­fm.­are­interpreted­to­reflect­lowstand­deposition­as­a­con- sequence­of­regression­at­the­end­of­the­Sarmatian­(PAVELIĆ­et­ al.,­2003).­The­arguments­in­favour­of­the­shallow,­littoral-sublit- toral­environment­include­the­abundance­of­pulmonate­snails­ (Planorbidae­and­Lymnaeidae),­which­are­mostly­known­today­ as­shallow-water­or­paludal­dwellers,­the­lack­of­dinoflagellate­ cysts,­the­presence­of­prasinophyte­algae­and­rooted­aquatic­vege- tation­(e.g.­VRSALJKO,­1999;­VASILIEV­et­al.,­2007).­The­over- all­position­of­the­Croatica­fm.,­lying­unconformably­above­allu- vial­sediments­of­the­Sveti­Matej­mb.­or­different­pre-Miocene­ basement­rocks,­or­conformably­overlying­shallow-water­Sarma- tian­deposits­(VRSALJKO,­1999;­KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2015),­also­ suggests­a­relatively­shallow­water­origin. The­typical­fauna­and­algal­flora­of­the­Croatica­fm.,­how- ever,­can­often­be­observed­in­lithologically­different­sediments,­ always­representing­the­earliest­Pannonian.­In­fact,­this­special­ fossil assemblage is apparently present in much of the Pannonian Basin­System,­in­places­where­the­Sarmatian/Pannonian­bound- ary is characterized by continuous sedimentation. It indicates a specific­environment,­which­was­obviously­widespread­in­the­ earliest­Pannonian,­but­did­not­last­very­long,­only­a­few­hundred­ thousand years at most. Therefore, this assemblage can be used as­a­biostratigraphic­marker,­upon­which­the­„Lymnocardium” praeponticum­Zone­(KORPÁS-HÓDI,­1987),­the­Radix croatica – Lymnocardium plicataeformis – Gyraulus praeponticus Ceno- zone­(VRSALJKO,­1999),­the­Mecsekia ultima­Zone­(SÜTŐ- SZENTAI,­1982),­and­the­Mecsekia ultima – Spiniferites bentorii pannonicus­Zone­(BAKRAČ­et­al.,­2012)­were­established.­The­ Mecsekia ultima and “Lymnocardium” praeponticum­zones­have­ also­ been­ reported­ from­ deep-water,­ clay-silt­ deposits­ (e.g.­ ­SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2005;­SÜTŐ-SZENTAI­&­SZEGŐ,­2008).­Gene- rally, the families of Lymnaeidae and Planorbidae are dominated by­littoral­and­sublittoral­taxa­indeed,­but­in­Lake­Pannon­some­ of­their­representatives­conquered­the­deep-water­environment­ (JUHÁSZ­&­MAGYAR,­1992;­GEARY­et­al.,­2000).­Even­within­ the­Drava­Basin,­such­species­of­Gyraulus, Velutinopsis and Va­ lenciennius­occur­in­core­samples­from­the­bottom­of­several­ hundred­metre­high­shelf-break­slopes­(Fig.­13),­indicating­a­very­ deep habitat for these animals. Thus, the original habitat of this earliest Pannonian peculiar fossil assemblage remains a puzzle. Dorozsma Marl Member of the Endrőd Formation, Bačun member of the Medvedski breg formation In­the­vicinity­of­basement­highs,­the­offshore­calcareous­marls­ and­marls­contain­clastic­intercalations­(gravel,­sand,­silt)­origi- nating from the erosion of the emergent blocks. These are classi- fied­under­the­name­Bačun­mb.­within­the­Croatica­and­Medved- ski­breg­fms.­in­Croatia­and­as­the­Dorozsma­Mb.­within­the­ G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3184 Fi gu re 7 . C om po si te se is m ic re fle ct io n pr ofi le 1 a lo ng th e ax is o f t he D ra va B as in a nd it s i nt er pr et at io n. F or p ro fil e lo ca tio n se e Fi g. 1 . F or d et ai ls o n E- lo g m ar ke rs u se d in th e hy dr oc ar bo n in du st ry se e VR BA N AC (2 00 2) . T he le ge nd fo r fi rs t oc cu rr en ce s s er ve s b ot h fo r t hi s fi gu re a nd fo r F ig . 8 . S ec tio ns 2 a nd 4 a re sh ow n in F ig . 8 . G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 185 Endrőd­Fm.­in­Hungary.­The­deep-water­redepositional­character­ of these conglomerates and sandstones by turbidity currents and debris­flows­is­unambiguously­shown­by­their­sedimentary­facies­ in the form of graded beds, complete and incomplete Bouma-se- quences­and­widespread­pebbly­mudstones­(BÉRCZI­&­PHIL- LIPS,­1985;­BÉRCZI­et­al.,­1987;­SZTANÓ­et­al,­2013b).­In­the­ deep­parts­of­the­SE­Drava­Basin­such­coarse-grained­material­ was­identified­in­wells­(e.g.­Sječe-2). 4.1.4. Szolnok and Algyő Formations, Andraševec formation Deep-water­sandstones­and­shales­are­classified­as­the­Andraševec­ fm.­in­Croatia­(KOVAČIĆ,­2004;­KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2004).­The­ same­deposits­are­assigned­to­the­Szolnok­and­Algyő­Fms.­in­ Hungary, representing basin-centered turbidite systems, and slope­shales­together­with­the­slope-related­turbidite­systems,­re- spectively­ (BÉRCZI,­1988;­ JUHÁSZ,­1994;­SZTANÓ­et­al.,­ 2013b).­These­deep-water­formations­conformably­overlie­the­ Endrőd/Medvedski­breg­Fm.,­and­they­are­conformably­overlain­ by­ the­Újfalu/Nova­Gradiška­Fm.­They­are­ the­approximate­ equivalents­of­the­middle­and­upper­parts­of­the­Ivanić-Grad­Fm.­ and­Kloštar­Ivanić­Fm.­in­the­WDB,­and­the­middle­and­upper­ parts­of­Vinkovci­Fm.­in­the­EDB.­ The­Szolnok­Fm.­and­the­lower­part­of­the­Algyő­Fm.­consist­ of­very­fine­to­medium-grained­sandstones­intercalated­with­silt- stones­(Fig.­6­D-F).­The­thickness­of­the­sandstone­beds­varies­ from­a­few­cm­to­several­metres.­Thin­sandstone­beds­commonly­ alternate­with­siltstones­a­few­centimetres­in­thickness.­As­the­ thickness of the sandstone beds increases, the frequency and thickness of silty interbeds decrease. Cm- to dm-thick sandstone beds­commonly­show­sedimentary­structures­including­plane­to­ cross-lamination,­convolution­and­normal­grading.­Bouma­se- quences­may­occur.­Thick­beds­are­usually­structureless­or­show­ faint­water­escape­dishes­or­pipes.­In­the­wells,­10-50­m­thick­ sand-prone­intervals­alternate­with­a­few­tens­of­metres­of­mud- prone­intervals.­Intervals­of­thick­stacked­sandstones­with­muddy­ intervals­less­­than­a­few­metres­thick,­occur­at­the­upper­part­of­ the sand-prone succession, i.e. in the upper part of the turbidite systems­(TP-1­and­Fel-I).­The­thin-bedded­heterolithic­part­of­the­ successions represents the lobe margins of deep lacustrine tur- bidite­systems,­while­thick-bedded­to­amalgamated­sandstones­ were­deposited­at­the­lobe­axis­and­off-axis­regions­(SZTANÓ­et­ al.,­2013b).­The­clastic­detritus­is­mineralogically­and­structur- ally­ relatively­mature­ and­had­been­produced­mostly­by­ the­ weathering­of­siliciclastic­sedimentary­and­metamorphic­rocks­ of­Alpine­provenance­(KOVAČIĆ­&­GRIZELJ,­2006). Figure 8. Composite seismic reflection profiles 2 and 4 from the margin to the centre of the Drava Basin and their interpretation. For profile locations see Fig. 1. For legend see Fig. 7. G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3186 In­the­Drava­Basin­it­is­difficult­to­distinguish­the­basin-cen- tre and the slope-related turbidite systems, i.e. to determine the boundary­between­the­Szolnok­and­Algyő­Formations.­In­many­ depressions­of­the­Pannonian­Basin­System,­turbidites­were­de- posited­at­several­tens­or­even­more­than­100­km­away­from­the­ feeding­slope,­where­the­source­areas­were­often­separated­from­ the­sink­areas­by­the­rough­relief­of­the­lake­floor­(cf.­SZTANÓ­ et­al.,­2013a,­b).­In­contrast,­“toe-of-slope”­turbidite­systems­of­ the­Algyő­Formation­accumulated­within­a­distance­of­10-20­km­ from­the­slope­(cf.­SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2013b).­The­latter­are­normally­ more­sensitive­to­interactions­between­lacustrine­base­level­and­ sedimentation­rates,­which­determine­the­aggradation/prograda- tion­rates­of­the­shelf-break­slope.­In­the­Drava­Basin,­however,­ the source of turbidites can be traced back to a distance of 100 km­(see­the­“8­Ma”­horizon­or­Galeacysta etrusca­horizon­in­Fig.­ 7),­as­most­of­the­system­was­not­influenced­by­confining­basin­ floor­topography,­at­least­not­in­the­NW-SE­axial­direction.­There- fore,­the­sand/shale­ratio,­or­the­stacking­pattern­of­deep-water­ lobes­might­have­been­controlled­by­these­allocyclic­processes­in­ addition­to­free­autocyclic­lobe­switching.­The­exact­linkage­be- tween­the­aforementioned­processes­needs­further­investigation.­ Seismically­the­Szolnok­Fm.­is­characterized­by­parallel,­low­to­ moderate amplitude, moderate to high continuity seismic facies. In­the­lower­part,­reflections­onlap­apparently­on­the­basement­or­ on­the­1-2­reflections­thick­Endrőd­Fm.­The­lower­part­of­the­ Algyő­Fm.­is­seismically­similar,­but­several­downlap­reflections­ occur. The­upper­part­of­the­Algyő­Fm.­is­composed­of­siltstone­and­ clay­marl­with­rare­and­thin­intercalations­of­sandstone.­Mud- stones can be structureless or laminated, chaotic beds and slump folds­are­common­(Ih-1).­This­part­of­the­Algyő­Formation­cor- responds to the inclined part of the clinoforms. The shelf-edge can­usually­be­identified­relatively­easily­(see­marks­in­Figs.­7­ and­8),­where­dipping­reflectors­deviate­from­overlying­parallel­ ones.­The­dip­of­the­clinoforms­gradually­decreases­towards­the­ bottomsets,­but­several­downlaps­help­to­distinguish­the­toe­of­ slope. The height of the clinoforms can be used to estimate pal- aeo-water­depth­(POGÁCSÁS­&­RÉVÉSZ,­1987;­BALÁZS­et­ al.,­2018),­which­could­reach­900-1300­m­in­the­centre­of­the­ Drava­Basin­(KOVÁCS­et­al.,­under­review). The thickness of deposits related to the turbidite systems is ~1000­m­at­Péterhida­but­exceeds­1300­m­in­the­deepest­part­of­ the­basin­(wells­TP­and­Fel).­The­uppermost­300-400­m­is­related­ directly­to­the­toe­of­slope.­On­the­Iharosberény­high­(Ih-1,­Fig.­ 8A)­a­100­m­thick­succession­of­toe-of-slope­turbidites­lies­un- conformably on Badenian limestones. The thickness of the mo- notonous­mudstones­(upper­part­of­Algyő­Fm.)­over­the­basement­ highs­can­be­as­little­as­300­m­(Ih),­while­it­attains­500-600­m­in­ the central part of the basin. The­Szolnok,­Algyő­and­Andraševec­Formations­contain­a­ profundal­mollusc­fauna­with­Congeria banatica, “Dreisseno­ mya” digitifera, Paradacna abichi, P. lenzi, “Pontalmyra” otiophora, Valenciennius reussi, accompanied by sublittoral spe- cies including C. czjzeki, C. zagrabiensis, C. croatica, and Lym­ nocardium majeri­ in­ the­ uppermost­ part­ of­ the­ Algyő­ and­ Andraševec­Formations. In the ostracod assemblage Amplocypris reticulata, Candona (Caspiolla) lobata, C. (Pontoniella) paracu­ minata, smooth Hemicytheria marginata, Cyprideis ex­ gr. macrostigma, Cy. obesa, and nodose forms of the genus Cypri­ deis dominate,­while­the­dinocyst­assemblage­consists­of­mainly­ endemic forms, such as S. bentorii “coniunctus”, S. virgulaefor­ mis, S. paradoxus, S. balcanicus, S. validus­etc.­The­vertical­ar- rangement­of­the­facies­within­the­Andraševec­fm.­and­the­ac- companying­fossil­communities­indicate­the­shallowing­of­the­ depositional­environment. The­ type­ areas­ where­ turbidite­ successions,­ i.e.­ the­ Andraševec­fm.­are­exposed­at­the­surface,­are­the­Hrvatsko­ zagorje­region­and­the­Medvednica­Mts.­in­NW­Croatia.­The­for- mation­is­named­after­the­Andraševec­sections­on­the­northern­ slopes­of­the­Medvednica­Mts.­Spectacular­outcrops­of­the­tur- bidite­ system­ exist­ in­ the­ N­Medvednica­ (Mirti/Hruševec;­ KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2004).­The­lower­part­of­the­Petnja­sand­pit­in­ the­Dilj­Mts.­exposes­a­turbidite­lobe­with­channels.­(This­out- crop­was­previously­interpreted­as­a­shallow­delta­and­thus­clas- sified­into­the­Nova­Gradiška­fm.­(PAVELIĆ,­2001;­KOVAČIĆ­ et­al.,­2017b)).­No­outcrops­of­the­typical­Algyő­or­Szolnok­Fm.­ exist­in­SW­Hungary.­Sediments­of­a­less­than­100­m­high­slope,­ transitional­in­size­between­shelf­break­and­and­delta­scale­slopes,­ are­exposed­at­the­village­of­Szulimán­(SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2015). 4.1.5. Újfalu Formation, Nova Gradiška formation The unit consists of an alternation of sand and calcareous silt lay- ers­with­intercalations­of­lignite,­variegated­clay­and­gravel­(Fig.­ 9).­The­sediments­display­a­coarsening­upward­trend­on­the­scale­ of­20-50­m­thick­intervals.­The­successions­begin­with­biotur- bated­or­laminated­siltstones,­overlain­by­thin-bedded­silt-sand­ heterolithics. Slump folds and other soft-sediment deformation structures are common. The sands are structurally and mineralo- gically­very­similar­to­the­sands­of­the­Andraševec­fm.,­indicat- ing a common source area. Tabular to trough cross-bedding, sym- metrical and asymmetrical cross-lamination, occasionally plane lamination­are­visible­in­the­sandy­units.­Erosional­surfaces­are­ occasionally marked by small pebbles, mollusc debris and mud intraclasts.­Cross-bedded­sets­may­be­stacked­or­alternate­with­ cross-laminated sands. They mostly originated from the migra- tion­of­dunes­towards­the­SE.­Rarely­observed­symmetrical­to­ slightly asymmetrical cross-lamination is the result of current and wave­action.­The­calcareous­silts­are­massive,­strongly­biotur- bated,­and­locally­contain­relics­of­horizontal­lamination.­Alter- nating­fine-grained­variegated­sediments­with­pedogenic­fea- tures,­ organic-rich­ sands-silts,­ gravels­ and­ lignite­ are­ characteristic of the upper part of the cycles and are more fre- quent in the upper parts of the formation. Subsurface data from both­wells­and­seismic­sections­indicate­that­this­unit­attains­a­ thickness­of­1500­m­in­the­NW­Drava­Basin,­while­it­is­only­ca.­ 300­m­thick­in­the­SE­(Fig.­7).­The­unit­conformably­overlies­the­ Algyő/Andraševec­Fm.­In­the­Hrvatsko­zagorje­region­and­in­the­ DB­it­is­overlain­by­the­Pluska­fm.,­while­in­the­Požega­and­Sava­ Basins­by­the­Vrbova­(Cernik)­fm.­(KOVAČIĆ,­2004;­HALAMIĆ­ et­al.,­2019).­Nova­Gradiška­fm.­is­the­approximate­equivalent­of­ the­Bilogora­Fm.­in­the­WDB­and­the­Vera­Fm.­in­the­EDB. The formation contains a littoral-sublittoral mollusc fauna with­Congeria rhomboidea, C. balatonica, C. triangularis, Dreissena auricularis, Lymnocardium majeri, L. diprosopum, L. arpadense, L. hungaricum, L. rogenhoferi, Phyllocardium pla­ num, Paradacna okrugici, various Prosodacnomya species, etc., as­well­as an­ostracod­assemblage­with Hungarocypris pannoni ca and Candona (Camptocypria) lobata (KOVAČIĆ,­2004).­The­di- nocyst assemblage is dominated by Impagidinium globosum, Ga­ leacysta etrusca, Pyxidinopsis psilata, Spiniferites virgulaefor­ mis and Spiniferites cruciformis­(BAKRAČ­et­al.,­2012).­The­ sediments­of­the­unit­were­deposited­during­the­late­late­Miocene­ and­in­the­eastern­part­of­the­Drava­Basin­(Fig.­7)­during­the­ G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 187 ­earliest­Pliocene,­based­on­the­well­to­seismic­correlation­of­the­ Miocene/Pliocene­boundary­(Fig.­7). The­formation­was­deposited­as­progradational­delta­lobes­ into­the­brackish­Lake­Pannon­(SZTANÓ­&­MAGYAR,­2007;­ SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2013a),­which­were­strongly­influenced­by­sedi- ment­input­from­the­NW.­The­siltstones­and­the­heterolithics­were­ deposited­on­the­prodelta­to­the­lower­delta­front.­Most­of­the­sand­ was­deposited­on­mouth­bars­in­the­upper­delta­front­environ- ment.­Sand­deposition­on­the­mouth­bars­was­related­to­pro- longed,­frequent­floods­under­humid­climate­conditions.­Proxi- mal bar sands continued distally and laterally to distal bar silts affected­by­strong­bioturbation.­Short-term­advance,­retreat­and­ lateral shifting of the distributary channels and related mouth bars­resulted­in­the­vertical­alternation­of­proximal­and­distal­ mouth­bar­deposits­(KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2004).­Alternating­fine- grained­sediments,­sands,­gravels­and­coals­from­the­upper­parts­ of­the­coarsening­upward­units­were­deposited­in­very­shallow­ brackish­interdistributary­bays,­in­brackish­wetlands­or­in­fresh- water­marshes­and­ponds­in­a­delta­plain­environment­(JUHÁSZ­ &­MAGYAR­1992;­JUHÁSZ,­1994;­KOVAČIĆ­et­al.,­2004). The­Nova­Gradiška­formation­is­named­after­sections­lo- cated­near­the­town­of­Nova­Gradiška­in­western­Slavonia.­Apart­ from­Slavonia,­the­type­localities­are­in­the­Hrvatsko­zagorje­re- gion­(Hum­Zabočki­and­Selnica­sections)­and­in­the­Žumberak­ Mt.­(Malunje­section).­The­most­representative­surface­occur- rence­in­the­Drava­Basin­is­in­the­Našice­quarry­(STEVANOVIĆ,­ 1961).­Some­small­occurrences­are­also­detected­in­the­northern­ Krndija,­Papuk­and­Bilogora­Mts.­In­Hungary­the­Újfalu­Fm.­is­ usually­exposed­at­some­distance­from­the­basement­outcrops­as­ a­result­of­tilting­and­erosion­caused­by­inversion-related­uplift­ (SZTANÓ­et­al.,­2015,­2016).­The­Mozsgó­(Fig.­9B)­and­Himesháza­ (BUDAI­et­al.,­2019)­sand­pits­exhibit­good­outcrops,­and­the­clas- sic­locality­of­Árpád­(now­Pécs-Nagyárpád;­SZÓNOKY­et­al.,­ 1999)­also­belongs­to­this­formation. 4.1.6. Zagyva Formation, Pluska formation The­unit­is­composed­of­alternating­packages­of­a­few­metres,­ occasionally­few­tens­of­metres­thick­cross-bedded,­fining-up- ward­sands­or­sandstones­and­a­few­metres­to­a­few­tens­of­me- tres thick successions of silt, clay and possibly lignite or huminitic clay­(Fig.­10).­Close­to­basement­highs,­gravels­may­also­occur.­ The­clays­are­often­variegated­and­show­signs­of­pedogenesis.­ Sands­represent­fluvial­channel­sediments,­the­major­ones­can­be­ visualized­on­seismic­images­(Fig.­11),­while­the­silt-clay­units­ can­be­interpreted­as­abandoned­channel-fills­and/or­floodplain­ fines.­Though­outcrops­usually­expose­channel­sands,­the­bulk­of­ the­formation­is­composed­of­fine-grained­floodplain­deposits­ (UHRIN­&­SZTANÓ,­2007;­NÁDOR­&­SZTANÓ,­2011;­UHRIN­ et­al.,­2011;­ŠUJAN­et­al.,­2020).­The­thickness­of­the­unit­could­ attain 1000 m in the central depression, e.g. near the borehole ­Fel-I­(Fig.­7).­In­Croatia,­in­the­Hrvatsko­zagorje­region,­fluvial­ channel­and­floodplain­sediments­have­been­described­as­the­ Pluska­fm.­(KOVAČIĆ,­2004). Figure 9. Újfalu Fm./Nova Gradiška fm. A) Sand with convolute bedding, silt, huminitic clay and lignite near Mučna Reka (Bilogora Hills, Croatia); B) Medium-grained cross-stratified sand to silt layers and channel forms west of the Mecsek Mts. (Mozsgó sand pit). Figure 10. Pluska fm. A) Erosional contact between well sorted fine-grained sands of the Nova Gradiška fm. and the overlying poorly sorted gravels, sands and silts of the Pluska fm. Pluska, Hrvatsko zagorje. B) Bioturbated, pedogenetically altered sandy silt of the Pluska fm. Dubravica, Hrvatsko zagorje. G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3188 The­formation­conformably­overlies­sediments­of­the­Újfalu/ Nova­Gradiška­Fm.­in­the­basin­centre­and­unconformably­in­ marginal­areas­(Figs.­7,­8).­We­do­not­possess­fossil­data­from­the­ formation­which­would­allow­us­to­constrain­the­age­of­the­fluvial­ deposits. Based on the interpreted seismic sections of this study, the­formation­started­to­accumulate­in­the­Pliocene­(Fig.­7).­In­ basinal­areas­it­is­difficult­to­separate­Pliocene­fluvial­sediments­ from­their­Quaternary­counterparts­(e.g.­NÁDOR­&­SZTANÓ,­ 2011).­The­latter­attain­a­thickness­of­nearly­300­m­in­the­north- ern­marginal­part­of­the­Drava­Basin­(e.g.­borehole­Görgeteg-I;­ KOLOSZÁR­et­al.,­2001;­KROLOPP,­2002),­so­they­can­be­even­ thicker­in­the­basin­centre.­Towards­the­basin­margin,­an­uncon- formity­separates­the­Zagyva­Fm.­from­the­Plio-Quaternary­suc- cession,­while­at­the­margins­the­formation­is­often­missing­due­ to pre-Quaternary denudation. The dating of the Plio-Quaternary fluvial­succession­and­thus­the­upper­age­limit­of­the­unconform- ity­is­uncertain:­based­on­malacostratigraphy,­magnetostratigra- phy­and­the­presence­of­a­possibly­volcanogenic­bentonite­layer,­ fluvial­sedimentation­has­been­ongoing­since­at­least­2-2.1­Ma,­ but­a­Pliocene­age­for­the­lowermost­part­of­the­succession­above­ the­unconformity­cannot­be­excluded­either­(KOLOSZÁR­et­al.,­ 2001;­KROLOPP,­2002). 5. BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATIONS 5.1. Dinoflagellates The­dinoflagellate­stratigraphy­of­the­Pannonian­Stage­(inter- preted­ in­ the­ wide­ sense)­ was­ first­ established­ by­ SÜTŐ- SZENTAI­(1982),­and­it­has­been­continuously­revised­and­im- proved­ since­ then­ (e.g.­SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­1988,­1990,­2000;­ SOLIMAN­&­RIDING,­2017).­This­system­was­applied­in­Croa- tia­with­some­modifications­(KRIZMANIĆ­in­LUČIĆ­et­al.,­ 2001;­BAKRAČ,­2007;­BAKRAČ­et­al.,­2012). The­dinoflagellate­zones­are­interval­zones­where­subsequent­ zone­boundaries­are­marked­by­the­first­appearance­of­novel­mor- Figure 11. Seismic geomorphology shows a set of minor and major meandering linear elements on time slices extracted from flattened variance attribute 3D da- ta, at a depth of approximately 650 m. These are interpreted as fluvial channels on the alluvial plain building up the Zagyva/Pluska Fm. G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 189 phologies (species). There is consensus that the oldest Pannonian deposits are characterized by Spiniferites pannonicus,­and,­where­ present, by the prasinophyte Mecsekia ultima,­which­always­oc- curs­immediately­above­the­Sarmatian­sediments.­The­first­ap- pearances of Spiniferites oblongus and Pontiadinium pecs­ varadense are both suitable for marking subsequent biozone boundaries.­The­following­significant­change­in­the­dinocyst­re- cord­is­benchmarked­with­the­more­or­less­coeval­first­appearance­ of­several­forms,­such­as­Spiniferites bentorii coniunctus, S. val­ idus, S. balcanicus, and S. paradoxus.­In­this­interval,­either­one­ (S. validus;­BAKRAČ­et­al.,­2012)­or­two­(S. paradoxus or S. co­ niunctus and S. validus;­SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­1991;­KRIZMANIĆ in­LUČIĆ­et­al.,­2001)­or­three­(S. paradoxus, S. validus, S. tih­ anyensis;­SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­2000)­biozones­are­distinguished.­ The­first­appearance­of­Galeacysta etrusca marks the base of a new­biozone,­and­the­subsequent­first­appearance­of­Spiniferites cruciformis is considered to be the youngest biostratigraphic marker­in­the­sedimentary­succession­of­Lake­Pannon­(BAKRAČ­ et­al.,­2012;­Fig.­3).­ Dinoflagellate­data­were­collected­from­several­wells­in­the­ Drava­Basin­(Fig.­12).­When­depicting­dinoflagellate­data­on­the­ seismic­profiles,­it­is­found­that­the­older­biozones­correspond­to­ relatively­thin­(a­few­tens­of­metres)­sediment­packages,­which­ were­deposited­in­deep­water;­these­cannot­be­correlated­along­ seismic­reflectors­between­the­wells­because­the­uncertainty­of­ the­correlation­and­of­the­time/depth­functions­of­wells­is­usually­ greater­than­the­thickness­of­the­individual­biozones.­The­occur- rences of Galeacysta etrusca and Spiniferites cruciformis,­how- ever,­can­be­correlated­between­the­wells.­These­two­species­were­ recovered­from­only­a­few­hydrocarbon­exploration­wells­(see­Ta- ble­1)­but­they­were­commonly­discovered­in­shallower­boreholes­ from­around­the­Villány­Hills­(SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­1994,­2011).­ Correlations­show­that­the­deepest­occurrences­of­these­species­ in­individual­wells­are­not­coeval,­i.e.­they­do­not­represent­the­ first­appearance­date­(FAD)­of­the­respective­forms­(Fig.­7).­The­ stratigraphically deepest occurrence of G. etrusca­was­recorded­ in­the­deep-water­deposits­of­the­Potony-1­well,­at­2780­m,­thus­ this­occurrence­approaches­the­best­the­real­FAD­of­G. etrusca. The­corresponding­shelf­edge­above­the­slope­is­located­some­65­ km­to­the­NW­of­the­well­along­our­Section­1­(Figs.­7,­1).­The­old- est occurrence of S. cruciformis,­however,­was­found­in­well­Sev- 1,­at­1370­m­depth,­in­shelf­deposits.­The­coeval­shelf­edge­is­iden- tified­at­about­15­km­to­the­SE­along­Section­1­(Fig.­7). 5.2. Molluscs In­the­littoral­deposits­of­Lake­Pannon,­a­series­of­taxon-range­ zones­(or­rather­lineage­zones)­were­established­on­the­basis­of­ subsequent­new­morphologies­within­the­supposedly­anagenetic­ evolutionary­lineage­that­starts­with­Lymnocardium edlaueri and ends­with­Prosodacnomya vodopici­(MÜLLER­&­MAGYAR,­ 1992;­MAGYAR­et­al.,­1999,­2000;­MAGYAR­&­GEARY,­2012).­ The­boundary­between­the­Lymnocardium decorum and Proso­ dacnomya carbonifera­zones,­defined­by­the­first­appearance­of­ the genus Prosodacnomya,­could­be­clearly­identified­on­seismic­ profiles­in­the­Budafa­area,­immediately­east­of­the­northwest- ernmost­tip­of­Section­1­(Fig.­7),­based­on­the­data­provided­by­ BARNABÁS­&­STRAUSZ­(1991)­on­the­occurrences­of­L. de­ corum and Prosodacnomya­in­this­region.­This­dataset­was­com- pleted­with­scattered­unpublished­information­on­the­presence­of­ these­forms­in­hydrocarbon­exploration­wells­from­the­northern­ side­of­the­Drava­Basin.­Based­on­the­above­data,­we­traced­this­ biozone­boundary­on­seismic­profiles­across­the­entire­study­area­ as­shown­in­Figs.­7­and­8.­This­seismic­horizon­turned­out­to­be­ only­very­slightly­older­than­the­oldest­occurrence­of­Galeacysta etrusca­in­the­Potony-1­well. The­profundal­deposits­of­Lake­Pannon­were­divided­into­ the older Congeria banatica zone, characterized by C. banatica and­various­members­of­the­evolutionary­lineage­from­Radix to Provalenciennesia, and the younger “Dreissenomya” digitifera zone, characterized by “D.” digitifera and Valenciennius­(MA- GYAR­et­al.,­1999;­MAGYAR­&­GEARY,­2012;­Fig.­3).­In­the­ Drava­Basin,­both­biozones­are­present.­The­shelf-break­slope,­ however,­belongs­to­the­younger­“D.” digitifera­zone­everywhere­ in­the­Drava­Basin­(Figs.­8,­13).­ 6. GEOCHRONOLOGY Our means to date the thick upper Neogene succession of the Drava­Basin­are­severely­limited.­Of­the­relevant­biostratigraphic­ boundaries,­only­the­FAD­of­Prosodacnomya was­reliably­dated.­ The­earliest­representative­of­this­genus,­P. carbonifera­was­re- covered­from­a­sedimentary­inclusion­embedded­into­volcanic­ material­in­the­Tihany­peninsula,­Lake­Balaton­(SZTANÓ­et­al.,­ 2013a).­The­Tihany­maar­volcano­is­known­to­have­started­its­ac- tivity­7.92±0.22­to­7.96±0.03­Ma­ago­(as­assessed­by­K/Ar­and­ Ar/Ar­analyses­by­BALOGH­&­NÉMETH­(2005)­and­WIJ- BRANS­et­al.­(2007),­respectively).­Therefore,­the­first­appear- ance datum of Prosodacnomya could­be­determined­as­ca.­8­Ma­ (Fig.­3).­This­interpretation­was­recently­confirmed­by­magneto- stratigraphic­investigations­in­central­Hungary­(KELDER­et­al.,­ 2018;­MAGYAR­et­al.,­2019).­The­FAD­of­Galeacysta etrusca has­long­been­supposed­to­be­very­close­to­that­of­Prosodac­ nomya (MAGYAR­&­GEARY,­2012),­although­the­two­fossils­ never­occur­in­the­same­layer­due­to­their­originally­highly­dif- ferent­environmental­requirements­(Fig.­3). The­biostratigraphic­boundary­between­the­Congeria bana­ tica and “Dreissenomya” digitifera­Zones­in­the­profundal­zone­ of­Lake­Pannon­was­tentatively­dated­as­ca.­9.6­Ma­(MAGYAR­ et­al.,­1999;­MAGYAR­&­GEARY,­2012;­Fig.­3).­In­the­Drava­ basin,­this­boundary­runs­within­the­Endrőd­Formation;­the­cor- responding­shelf-break­slope­is­located­in­NW­Hungary­(MA- GYAR­et­al.,­2013).­­ An­additional­chronological­tie­point­can­be­the­age­of­the­ significant­unconformity­that­is­observed­within­the­late­Neogene­ Table 1. First (lowest) recorded occurrences of the dinoflagellate species Gale- acysta etrusca and Spiniferites cruciformis in the Drava Basin boreholes. Galeacysta etrusca Well Core or cutting Two-Way-Time (ms) Measured Depth (m) Dra-1 cutting 1680 2005 F-1D core 1565 1942 Potony-1 cutting 2065 2780 Sev-1 cutting 1330 1550 Víz-S-1* core 1570 2174 *representing data from Víz-S-1, Víz-S-2, Víz-D-1, and Her-D-1 wells, which lie on the same seismic reflector Spiniferites cruciformis Well Core or cutting Two-Way-Time (ms) Measured Depth (m) Dra-1 cutting 1232 1310 Potony-1 cutting 1714 2065 Sev-1 cutting 1210 1370 G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3190 Figure 12. Dinoflagellates from wells in the Drava Basin. 1 Spiniferites pannonicus, Dravica-1 well, 2880–2885 m, 2 Spiniferites oblongus, Dravica-1, 2840–2845 m, 3 Pontiadinium pecsvaradensis, Dravica-1, 2820–2825 m, 4 Spiniferites bentorii coniunctus, Dravica-1, 2800–2805 m, 5 Spiniferites balcanica, Dravica-1, 2695–2700 m, 6 Spiniferites validus, Dravica-1, 2190–2195 m, 7 Galea- cysta etrusca, Dravica-1, 1300–1310 m, 8 Spiniferites cruciformis, Dravica-1, 1300–1310 m, 9 Spiniferites oblongus, Legrad-1J, 2076–2081 m, 10 Spiniferites balcanica, Legrad-1J, 1659–1665 m, 11 Spiniferites bentorii coniunctus, Legrad-1J, 1659–1665 m, 12 Spiniferites validus, Legrad-1J, interval 1659–1665 m, 13 Spiniferites pan- nonicus, Potony-1, 3260 m, 14 Spiniferites oblongus, Potony-1, 3204 m, 15 Pontiadinium pecsvaradensis, Potony-1, 3174 m, 16 Spiniferites bentorii coniunctus, Potony-1, 3040 m, 17 Galeacysta etrusca, Potony-1, 2780 m, 18 Achomosphaera andalusiensis, Severovci-1, 2750–2760 m, 19 Galeacysta etrusca, Severovci-1, 480–490 m, 20 Spiniferites cruciformis, Severovci-1, 920–930 m, 21 Spiniferites oblongus, Zalata-K-1, 2540 m, 22 Pontiadinium pecsvaradensis, Zalata-K-1, 2500 m, 23 Pontiadinium inequicornutum, Zalata-K-1, 2460 m, 24 Impagidinium globosum, Zalata-K-1, 1980 m, 25 Galeacysta etrusca, Zalata-K-1, 1640 m. G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 191 succession­of­the­Drava­Basin­in­its­northern­margin­(UJSZÁSZI­ &­VAKARCS,­1993;­SACCHI­et­al.,­1998,­1999).­This­uncon- formity­looks­very­similar­to,­and­seems­to­be­geographically­ connected­with­another­unconformity­in­the­sedimentary­succes- sion of the central Pannonian Basin System („Great Hungarian Plain”),­where­it­was­magnetostratigraphically­dated­between­4.6­ and­ 6.8­Ma­ (MAGYAR­&­ SZTANÓ,­ 2008­ and­ references­ therein).­As­the­vertebrate­fauna­was­Miocene­below­and­Plio- cene­above­the­unconformity­in­several­boreholes,­its­basinward­ conformity­was­considered­to­roughly­correspond­to­the­Mio- cene-Pliocene­boundary­(5.3­Ma;­MAGYAR­&­SZTANÓ,­2008).­ If­we­tentatively­accept­this­approach,­the­5.3­Ma­horizon­can­be­ traced­across­much­of­the­Drava­Basin­within­the­shelf­deposits,­ whereas­in­the­easternmost­part­of­the­basin­it­crosses­the­shelf­ edge­and­continues­in­the­deep-water­deposits­(Fig.­7). 7. CONCLUSIONS The­sedimentary­infill­of­the­Drava­Basin­is­composed­of­the­ same suite of sedimentary units both on the Hungarian and Cro- atian sides, similarly to other parts of the Pannonian Basin Sys- tem:­local­transgressive­coarse­clastics­around­emergent­base- ment­ highs,­ open-to-deep­water­ calcareous­marls,­ turbidite­ sandstones, slope mudstones, and sand to clay sequences depos- ited­in­delta­plain­and­alluvial­environments.­These­units­can­be­ well­correlated­across­the­basin. The­comparison­of­the­various­rock­units­in­boreholes­with­ seismic­profiles­evidenced­ that­ the­formation­boundaries­are­ time-transgressive­in­the­Drava­Basin,­similarly­to­other­studied­ regions of the Pannonian Basin System. At­present,­dinoflagellate­biostratigraphy­and­seismic­stra- tigraphy­are­the­only­tools­to­subdivide­and­chronostratigraphi- cally­correlate­the­deep-water­deposits­in­the­Drava­Basin.­When­ plotting­the­first­(lowest)­occurrences­of­individual­species­aga- inst­the­seismic­database,­however,­it­becomes­evident­that­inves- tigations from scattered drill cores and cuttings can easily fail to identify­the­first­appearance­datum­of­any­stratigraphic­marker­ species, therefore special attention is required for the interpreta- tion of biozone boundaries in such boreholes. According­ to­ the­ interpreted­ seismic­network,­ sediment­ transport­directions­in­the­study­area­varied­between­N­to­S­and­ W­to­E.­Seismic­correlation­of­the­biochronologically­first­ap- pearance­datum­of­the­bivalve­genus­Prosodacnomya from out- side the study area suggests that the oldest clinoform surfaces in the­Mura­Basin­are­more­than­8­Ma­old.­The­8­Ma­old­shelf­edge­ slope­(dated­by­the­FAD­of­Prosodacnomya) is located in the nort- hernmost­part­of­the­Drava­Basin,­between­the­wells­Leg-1J­and­ Sev-1­in­Croatia­and­between­wells­­Ib-I­and­Víz-É-4­in­Hungary.­ The youngest clinoforms detected in the southeasternmost part of­the­Drava­Basin­are­younger­than­the­–­supposedly­–­Miocene– Pliocene unconformity, thus they might be Pliocene in age. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Research­was­carried­out­within­the­framework­of­the­Hungarian- Croatian bilateral project „Stratigraphy and correlation of Upper Miocene – Pliocene sediments along the Croatian-Hungarian bor- der”­ (TÉT_16-1-2016-0004),­ and­was­ also­ supported­ by­ the­ OTKA/NKFIH­(Hungarian­National­Research,­Development­ and­Innovation­Office)­projects­PD104937­and­116618,­by­the­Cro- atian­Science­Fundation­under­the­project­IP-2019-04-7042,­and­ by­the­Bolyai­PD­fellowship­of­the­Hungarian­Academy­of­Sci- ences­for­KS.­Core­inspection­of­some­major­wells­was­financed­ by­the­Higher­Education­Institutional­Excellence­Programme­of­ the­Ministry­of­Human­Capacities­in­Hungary,­within­the­frame- work­of­the­3rd­thematic­programme­of­the­University­of­Pécs.­ Donation­of­the­academic­license­of­Schlumberger­Petrel­soft- ware,­and­data­usage­permission­assigned­by­Croatian­Hydrocar- bon­Agency­and­Ministry­of­Economy,­Entrepreneurship­and­ Crafts­for­PhD­research­(MŠ)­interconnected­to­this­scientific­ project­is­highly­appreciated.­The­aforementioned­PhD­research­ was­also­supported­by­intergovernmental­scholarships­of­ the­ Hungarian­Tempus­Public­Foundation,­part­of­these­results­are­ incorporated into this article. MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc. and­INA-Industrija­Nafte­d.d.­are­acknowledged­for­their­permis- sion­to­use­seismic­and­borehole­data­for­our­study.­This­is­MTA- MTM-ELTE­Paleo­contribution­No­328.­We­are­grateful­to­Oleg­ MANDIC­and­an­anonymous­reviewer­for­their­thorough­re- views,­which­greatly­improved­the­manuscript. REFERENCES BADICS,­B.­&­VETŐ,­I.­(2012):­Source­rocks­and­petroleum­systems­in­the­Hungarian­ part­of­the­Pannonian­Basin:­The­potential­for­shale­gas­and­shale­oil­plays.–­Ma- rine­and­Petroleum­Geology,­31,­53–69.­doi:­10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2011.08.015 BASCH,­O.­(2009):­Klastiti­i­ugljen­(pont­–­M7)­[Clastites and coal (Pontian – M7) –­in­Croatian].–­In:­VELIĆ,­I.­&­VLAHOVIĆ,­I.­(eds.):­Tumač­Geološke­karte­ Republike­Hrvatske­1:300.000­[Explanatory note of the Basic Geological Map of the Republic of Croatia 1:300000­–­in­Croatian].­Croatian­Geological­Survey,­ Zagreb,­141­p.­ Figure 13. “Dreissenomya” digitifera and Valenciennius reussi from the Víz-S-1 well, 2060 m MD. The sample is from the bottom part of the Algyő Formation (see Fig. 8), which belongs here to the Galeacysta etrusca biozone. The presently 500 m thickness of the Algyő clinoforms in this part of the basin indicates that these benthic animals lived in the profundal zone of Lake Pannon, at a water depth of 700-900 m (for clinoform decompactions see BALÁZS et al., 2018). G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3192 BAKRAČ,­K.­(2005):­Palinološka­karakterizacija­naslaga­srednjeg­i­gornjeg­miocena­ju- gozapadnog­dijela­Panonskog­bazena­[Palynology of the middle and upper Miocene deposits from the south-western parts of the Pannonian Basin­–­in­Croatian­with­ English­Summary].–­Unpubl.­PhD­Thesis,­University­of­Zagreb,­173­p. BAKRAČ,­K.­(2007):­Middle­and­Upper­Miocene­palynology­from­the­south-western­ parts­of­the­Pannonian­basin.–­Joannea­Geologie­und­Paläontologie,­9,­11–13. BAKRAČ,­K.,­KOCH,­G.­&­SREMAC,­J.­(2012):­Middle­and­Late­Miocene­palynologi- cal­biozonation­of­the­south-western­part­of­Central­Paratethys­(Croatia).–­Geologia­ Croatica,­65/2,­207–222.­doi:­10.4154/GC.2012.12 BALÁZS,­A.,­MATENCO,­L.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­HORVÁTH,­F.­&­CLOETINGH,­S.­(2016):­ The­link­between­tectonics­and­sedimentation­in­back-arc­basins:­new­genetic­con- straints­from­the­analysis­of­the­Pannonian­Basin.–­Tectonics,­35,­1526–1559.­­doi:­ 10.1002/2015TC004109 BALÁZS,­A.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­MATENCO,­L.,­SZTANÓ,­O.,­TŐKÉS,­L.­&­HORVÁTH,­ F.­(2018):­Morphology­of­a­large­paleo-lake:­Analysis­of­compaction­in­the­Mio- cene-Quaternary­Pannonian­Basin.–­Global­and­Planetary­Change,­171,­134–147.­ doi:­10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.10.012 BALOGH,­K.­&­NÉMETH,­K.­(2005):­Evidence­for­the­Neogene­small-volume­intrac- ontinental­volcanism­in­Western­Hungary:­K/Ar­geochronology­of­the­Tihany­Maar­ Volcanic­Complex.–­Geologica­Carpathica,­56,­91–99. BARNABÁS,­K.­&­STRAUSZ,­L.­(1991):­A­délnyugat-dunántúli­pannonikum­[The Pan­ nonian in SW Transdanubia –­in­Hungarian].–­Földtani­Közlöny,­119,­191–306. BÉRCZI,­I.­(1988):­Preliminary­sedimentological­investigation­of­a­Neogene­depression­ in­the­Great­Hungarian­Plain.–­In:­ROYDEN,­L.H.­&­HORVÁTH,­F.­(eds.):­The­ Pannonian­Basin.­AAPG­Memoir,­45,­107–116. BÉRCZI,­I.­&­PHILLIPS,­R.L.­(1985):­Process­and­depositional­environments­within­ Neogene deltaic-lacustrine sediments, Pannonian Basin, Southeast Hungary.– Geo- physical­Transactions,­31,­55–74. BÉRCZI,­I.,­DANK,­V.,­GAJDOS,­I.,­PAP,­S.,­RÉVÉSZ,­I.,­SZENTGYÖRGYI,­K.­&­ VÖLGYI,­L.­(1987):­Ablagerungen­der­Kunság-Stufe­(Pannonien­s.­str.)­auf­der­ Grossen­Ungarischen­Tiefebene.–­In:­JÁMBOR,­Á.­(ed.):­Geologische­Charakte- risierung­der­Ablagerungen­der­Kunság-Stufe­in­Ungarn.–­Annals­of­the­Hungarian­ Geological­Institute,­69,­179–198. BUDAI,­S.,­SEBE,­K.,­NAGY,­G.,­MAGYAR,­I.­&­SZTANÓ,­O.­(2019):­Interplay­of­ sediment­supply­and­lake-level­changes­on­the­margin­of­an­intrabasinal­basement­ high in the Late Miocene Lake Pannon (Mecsek Mts., Hungary).– International Journal­of­Earth­Sciences,­108,­2001–2019,­doi:­10.1007/s00531-019-01745-3 CHIKÁN,­G.­(1991):­Die­Känozoischen­Ablagerungen­des­westlichen­Mecsekgebirges.–­ Annals­of­the­Geological­Institute­of­Hungary,­LXXII,­Budapest,­281­p. CSÁSZÁR,­G.­(ed.)­(1997):­Basic­litostratigraphic­units­of­Hungary.–­Geological­Insti- tute­of­Hungary,­Budapest,­114­p. CSILLAG,­G.­&­SZTANÓ,­O.­(2015a):­Upper­Miocene.–­In:­KERCSMÁR,­ZS.­(ed.),­ BUDAI,­T.,­CSILLAG,­G.,­SELMECZI,­I.­&­SZTANÓ,­O.:­Surface­geology­of­ Hungary.­Explanatory­notes­to­the­Geological­map­of­Hungary­(1:500­000).­Geo- logical­and­Geophysical­Institute­of­Hungary,­Budapest,­45–50. CSILLAG,­G.­&­SZTANÓ,­O.­(2015b):­Miocene–Pliocene.–­In:­KERCSMÁR,­ZS.­(ed.),­ BUDAI,­T.,­CSILLAG,­G.,­SELMECZI,­I.­&­SZTANÓ,­O.:­Surface­geology­of­ Hungary.­Explanatory­notes­to­the­Geological­map­of­Hungary­(1:500­000).­Geo- logical and Geophysical Institute of Hungary, Budapest, 50–51. CSONTOS,­L.,­BENKOVICS,­L.,­BERGERAT,­F.,­MANSY,­J-L.­&­WÓRUM,­G.­(2002):­ Tertiary deformation history from seismic section study and fault analysis in a for- mer­European­Tethyan­margin­(the­Mecsek–Villány­area,­SW­Hungary).–­Tectono- physics,­357/1–4,­81–102.­doi:­10.1016/S0040-1951(02)00363-3 CROATIAN­GEOLOGICAL­SURVEY­(2009):­Geološka­karta­Republike­Hrvatske­M­ 1:300.000­[Basic Geological Map of the Republic of Croatia 1:300000 – in Croa- tian].–­Croatian­Geological­Survey,­Department­of­Geology,­Zagreb. DEZSŐ,­J.,­RAUCSIK,­B.­&­VICZIÁN,­I.­(2007):­Villányi-hegységi­karsztos­hasadék- kitöltések­szemcseösszetételi­és­ásványtani­vizsgálata­[Granulometric and miner­ alogical analysis of karstic fissure filling sediments in the Villány Mts. (S Hungary) –­in­Hungarian].–­Acta­GGM­Debrecina,­2,­151–180. FILJAK,­R.,­PIKIJA,­M.,­AVANIĆ,­R.,­BAKRAČ,­K.­&­MIKNIĆ,­M.,­PAVELIĆ,­D.,­ BRKIĆ,­M.­&­BELAK,­M.­(2016a):­Osnovna­geološka­karta­Republike­Hrvatske­ mjerila­1­:­50­000,­list­Slavonska­Požega­3­[Basic Geological Map of the Republic of Croatia 1:50000, Slavonska Požega 3 sheet – in Croatian].– Croatian Geologi- cal­Survey,­Department­of­Geology,­Zagreb. FILJAK,­R.,­PIKIJA,­M.,­AVANIĆ,­R.,­BAKRAČ,­K.­&­MIKNIĆ,­M.­(2016b):­Osnovna­ geološka­karta­Republike­Hrvatske­mjerila­1­:­50­000,­list­Slavonska­Požega­4­[Ba­ sic Geological Map of the Republic of Croatia 1:50000, Slavonska Požega 4 sheet –­in­Croatian].–­Croatian­Geological­Survey,­Department­of­Geology,­Zagreb. GEARY,­D.H.,­MAGYAR,­I.­&­MÜLLER,­P.­(2000):­Ancient­Lake­Pannon­and­its­En- demic­Molluscan­Fauna­(Central­Europe;­Mio-Pliocene).–­In:­ROSSITER,­A.­&­ KAWANABE,­H.­(eds.),­Ancient­Lakes:­Biodiversity,­Ecology,­and­Evolution.­Ad- vances­in­Ecological­Research,­3,­463–482.­doi:­10.1016/S0065-2504(00)31025-X GORJANOVIĆ-KRAMBERGER,­D.­(1890):­Die­Praepontischen­Bildungen­des­Agra- mer­Gebirges.–­Glasn.­Hrv.­Narv.­Društva,­5,­151–164. HABLY,­L.­&­SEBE,­K.­(2016):­A­late­Miocene­thermophilous­flora­from­Pécs-Da- nitzpuszta,­Mecsek­Mts.,­Hungary.­Neues­Jahrbuch­für­Geologie­und­Paläontologie,­ 279/3,­261–271.­doi:­10.1127/njgpa/2016/0554 HALAMIĆ,­J.,­BELAK,­M.,­PAVELIĆ,­D.,­AVANIĆ,­R.,­FILJAK,­R.,­ŠPARICA,­M.,­ BRKIĆ,­M.,­KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­VRSALJKO,­D.,­BANAK,­A.­&­CRNKO,­J.­(2019):­ Osnovna­geološka­karta­Republike­Hrvatske­mjerila­1­:­50­000­-­Požeška­gora­[Ba­ sic Geological Map of the Republic of Croatia 1:50000 - Požeška gora – in Croa- tian].–­Croatian­Geological­Survey,­Department­of­Geology,­Zagreb. HÁMOR,­G.­(1970):­Das­Miozän­des­östlichen­Mecsek-Gebirges.–­Annals­of­the­Geo- logical­Institute­of­Hungary,­53/1,­371­p. HEĆIMOVIĆ,­I.,­MARSI,­I.,­BANAK,­A.,­CHIKÁN­G.,­FERIĆ,­P.,­GRIZELJ,­A.,­HOR- VAT,­M.,­KOLOSZÁR,­L.­&­MAGYARI,­Á.­(2010):­Correlation­of­Quaternary­and­ Tertiary­sediments­of­Drava-valley­at­Sellye–Slatina­sheet,­scale­1:100­000.–­In:­ 4th­Croatian­Geological­Congress,­Sibenik,­14-15.­10.­2010.­Abstract­Book.­Croa- tian­Geological­Survey,­Zagreb,­369–370. HILGEN,­F­J.,­LOURENS,­L.J.,­VAN­DAM,­J.A.,­BEU,­A.G.,­BOYES,­A.F.,­COOPER,­ R.A.,­KRIJGSMAN,­W.,­OGG,­J.G.,­PILLER,­W.E.­&­WILSON,­D.S.­(2012):­The­ Neogene­Period.–­In:­GRADSTEIN,­F.­M.,­OGG,­J.G.,­SCHMITZ,­M.­&­OGG,­ G.­(eds.):­The­Geologic­Time­Scale.­Elsevier,­923–978.­doi:­10.1016/B978-0-444- 59425-9.00029-9 HORVÁTH,­F.,­BADA,­G.,­SZAFIÁN,­P.,­TARI,­G.,­ÁDÁM­A.­&­CLOETHING,­S.­ (2006):­Formation­and­deformation­of­the­Pannonian­basin:­Constraints­from­ob- servational­data.–­In:­GEE,­D.G.­&­STEPHENSON,­R.A.­(eds):­European­Litho- sphere­Dynamics,­Geological­Society,­London,­Memoirs,­32,­191–206.­ ­doi:­ 10.1144/GSL.MEM.2006.032.01.11 HORVÁTH,­F.,­PAP,­N.,­REMÉNYI,­P.­&­TÓTH,­T.­(2012):­Geothermal­Resource­As- sessment­of­the­Drava­Basin.­IDResearch­Kft.­/­Publikon­Publishers,­Pécs,­222­p.­ https://secco2.eu/sites/default/files/digital_library/2018-10/LBDB-GeothermalRe- sourceAssessmentoftheDravaBasin.pdf HORVÁTH,­F.,­DULIĆ,­I.,­VRANKOVIĆ,­A.,­KOROKNAI,­B.,­TÓTH­T.,­WÓRUM,­ G.­&­KOVÁCS,­G.­(2018):­Overview­of­geologic­evolution­and­hydrocarbon­gen- eration­of­the­Pannonian­Basin.–­Interpretation,­February­2018,­SB111–122.­doi:­ 10.1190/INT-2017-0100.1 JENKO,­K.­(1944).­Stratigrafski­i­tektonski­snošaj­Pliocena­južnog­pobočja­Požeške­gore­ i­Kasonje­brda.–­Vjestnik­Hrvatskog­državnog­geoložkog­zavoda­i­Hrvatskog­ državnog­geoložkog­muzeja,­2/3,­89–159. JUHÁSZ,­GY.­(1994):­Comparison­of­the­sedimentary­sequences­in­Late­Neogene­sub- basins­in­the­Pannonian­Basin,­Hungary.–­Földtani­Közlöny,­124,­341–365. JUHÁSZ,­ GY.­ (1998):­ A­ magyarországi­ neogén­ mélymedencék­ pannóniai­ képződményeinek­litosztratigráfiája.­[Lithostratigraphy of Pannonian formations of Neogene deep basins in Hungary­-­in­Hungarian].–­In:­BÉRCZI,­I.­&­JÁMBOR,­ Á.­(eds.):­Magyarország­képződményeinek­rétegtana­[Stratigraphy­of­geological­ formations­of­Hungary].­MOL­Rt.­– Geological Institute of Hungary, Budapest, 469–484. JUHÁSZ,­GY.­&­MAGYAR,­I.­(1992):­Review­and­correlation­of­the­Late­Neogene­(Pan- nonian s.l.) lithofacies and mollusc biofacies in the Great Plain, eastern Hungary.– Földtani­Közlöny,­122,­167–194. KELDER,­N.A.,­SANT,­K.,­DEKKERS,­M.­J.,­MAGYAR­I.,­VAN­DIJK,­G.A.,­LATHOU- WERS,­Y.Z.,­SZTANÓ,­O.­&­KRIJGSMAN,­W.­(2018):­Paleomagnetism­in­Lake­ Pannon:­problems,­pitfalls,­and­progress­in­using­iron­sulfides­for­magnetostratig- raphy.–­ Geochemistry,­ Geophysics,­ Geosystems,­ 19,­ 3405–3429.­ doi:­ 10.1029/2018GC007673 KLEB,­B.­(1973):­Geologie­des­Pannons­im­Mecsek.–­Annals­of­the­Geological­Institute­ of­Hungary,­LIII/3,­750–943. KOLOSZÁR,­L.,­LANTOS,­M.­&­CHIKÁN,­G.­(2001):­A­görgeteg­G–1­és­az­udvari­U– 2A­fúrások­fúrások­negyedidőszaki­képződményeinek­párhuzamosítása­[Correla­ tion of the Quaternary sediments in the Görgeteg G–1 and the Udvari U2A bore­ holes­-­in­Hungarian].–­Földtani­Közlöny,­131/3–4,­443–460. KONRÁD,­GY.­&­SEBE,­K.­(2010):­New­Records­of­Young­Tectonic­Phenomena­in­the­ Western­Mecsek­Mts.­and­their­Surroundings.–­Földtani­Közlöny,­140/2,­445–468. KŐRÖSSY,­L.­(1989):­A­Dráva-medencei­kőolaj-­és­földgázkutatás­földtani­eredményei­ [Hydrocarbon geology of the Drava Basin in Hungary­–­in­Hungarian].–­Általános­ Földtani­Szemle,­24,­3–121. KORPÁS-HÓDI,­M.­(1987):­Korrelationsmöglichkeit­der­jungen­Neogenbildungen­Un- garns.–­Annals­of­the­Geological­Institute­of­Hungary,­69,­435–452. KORPÁSNÉ­HÓDI,­M.­(1998):­Medenceperemi­pannóniai­s.l.­üledékes­formációk­ré- tegtana­[Stratigraphy of Pannonian s.l. sedimentary formations of the basin margins –­ in­ Hungarian].–­ In:­ BÉRCZI,­ I.­ &­ JÁMBOR,­ Á.­ (eds.):­ Magyarország­ képződményeinek­rétegtana­[Stratigraphy of geological formations of Hungary]. MOL­Rt.–­Geological­Institute­of­Hungary,­Budapest,­453–468. KOVAČIĆ,­M.­(2004):­Sedimentologija­gornjomiocenskih­naslaga­jugozapadnog­dijela­ Panonskog­bazena­[Sedimentology of the upper Miocene deposits from the south­ western part of Pannonian basin­−­in­Croatian­with­an­English­Summary].−­Un- publ.­PhD.­Thesis,­University­of­Zagreb,­203­p. G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 193 KOVAČIĆ,­M.­&­GRIZELJ,­A.­(2006):­Provenance­of­the­Upper­Miocene­clastic­mate- rial­in­the­southwestern­part­of­the­Pannonian­Basin.–­Geologica­Carpathica,­57/6,­ 495–510. KOVAČIĆ,­M.­&­PAVELIĆ,­D.­(2017):­Neogene­stratigraphy­of­the­Slavonian­Moun- tains.–­In:­KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­WACHA,­L.­&­HORVAT,­M.­(eds):­7th­International­ Workshop­Neogene­of­Central­and­South-Eastern­Europe,­28–31­5.­2017.­Field­Trip­ Guidebook,­Croatian­Geological­Society,­Zagreb,­5–9. KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­ZUPANIČ,­J.,­BABIĆ,­LJ.,­VRSALJKO,­D.,­MIKNIĆ,­M.,­BAKRAČ,­ K.,­HEČIMOVIĆ,­I.,­AVANIĆ,­R.­&­BRKIĆ,­M.­(2004):­Lacustrine­basin­to­delta­ evolution­in­the­Zagorje­Basin,­a­Pannonian­sub-basin­(Late­Miocene:­Pontian,­NW­ Croatia).–­Facies,­50/1,­19–33. KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­HORVAT,­M.,­PIKIJA,­M.­&­SLOVENEC,­D.­(2011):­Composition­and­ provenance­of­Neogene­sedimentary­rocks­of­Dilj­gora­Mt.­(south­Pannonian­Ba- sin,­Croatia).–­Geologia­Croatica,­64/2,­121–132.­doi:­10.4154/GC.2011.10 KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­ĆORIĆ,­S.,­MARKOVIĆ,­F.,­PEZELJ,­Đ.,­BAKRAČ,­K.,­HAJEK-TA- DESSE,­V.,­VRSALJKO,­D.,­BOŠNJAK­MAKOVEC,­M.,­KAMPIĆ,­Š.,­RITOS- SA,­A.­&­BORTEK,­Ž:­(2015):­Granica­srednjeg­i­gornjeg­miocena­(sarmat/panon)­ u­Središnjem­Paratetisu­(lokalitet­Vranović,­Slavonija)­(The­Middle/Upper­Miocene­ (Sarmatian/Pannonian)­Boundary­in­Central­Paratethys­(Vranović­locality,­Slavoni- ja).–­In:­HORVAT,­M.­&­WACHA,­L.­(eds.):­Abstract­book.­5th­Croatian­geologi- cal­congress­with­international­participation,­Osijek­23.–25.09.2015.­Croatian­Ge- ological­Survey,­136-137. KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­MANDIC,­O.­&­TOMLJENOVIC,­B.­(2016):­Miocene­paleo-lakes­of­ the­southwestern­Pannonian­Basin.–­In:­MANDIC,­O.,­PAVELIĆ,­D.,­KOVAČIĆ,­ M.,­SANT,­K.,­ANDRIC,­N.­&­HRVATOVIĆ,­H.­(eds):­Field­Trip­Guidebook.­Lake­ -­Basin­-­Evolution,­RCMNS­Interim­Colloquium­2016­&­Croatian­Geological­So- ciety­Limnogeology­Workshop,­Zagreb­(Croatian­Geological­Society),­11–31. KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­MARKOVIĆ,­F.,­ĆORIĆ,­S.,­PEZELJ,­Đ.,­VRSALJKO,­D.,­BAKRAČ,­ K.,­HAJEK-TADESSE,­V.,­RITOSSA,­A.­&­TARNAJ,­I.­(2017a):­Stop­4­Vranović.­ Disintegration­of­ the­Central­Paratethys­and­origin­of­ the­Lake­Pannon.–­ In:­ KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­WACHA,­L.­&­HORVAT,­M.­(eds.):­Neogene­of­the­Paratethyan­ region.­7th­International­Workshop­on­the­Neogene­from­the­Central­and­South- Eastern­Europe.­RCMNS­Interim­Colloquium.­Field­trip­guidebook. Croatian Geo- logical­Society,­Zagreb,­22–25. KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­MANDIC,­O.,­HORVAT,­M.­&­KUREČIĆ,­T.­(2017b):­Stop­6­Petnja.­ The­Termination­of­Lake­Pannon­and­the­Origin­of­Lake­Slavonija.–­In:­KOVAČIĆ,­ M.,­WACHA,­L.­&­HORVAT,­M.­(Eds.):­Neogene­of­the­Paratethyan­region.­7th­ International Workshop on the Neogene from the Central and South-Eastern Europe. RCMNS­Interim­Colloquium.­Field­trip­guidebook.­Croatian­Geological­Society,­ Zagreb,­pp.­22–25. KOVÁCS,­Á.,­BALÁZS,­A.,­ŠPELIĆ,­M.,­SZTANÓ,­O.­(under­review):­Forced­or­nor- mal­regression­signals­in­a­lacustrine­basin?­Insights­from­3D­stratigraphic­forward­ modelling in the SW Pannonian Basin.– Global and Planetary Change. KROLOPP,­E.­(2002):­Alsó-pleisztocén­Mollusca-fauna­a­Görgeteg-I­fúrásból­[Lower Pleistocene Mollusc fauna from the Borehole Görgeteg-I (SW Hungary) - in Hun- garian].–­Földtani­Közlöny,­132/1,­89–94. LUČIĆ,­D.,­SAFTIĆ,­B.,­KRIZMANIĆ,­K.,­PRELOGOVIĆ,­E.,­BRITVIĆ,­V.,­MESIĆ,­ I.­&­TADEJ,­J.­(2001):­The­Neogene­evolution­and­hydrocarbon­potential­of­the­ Pannonian­Basin­in­Croatia.–­Marine­and­Petroleum­Geology,­18,­133–147.­doi:­ 10.1016/S0264-8172(00)00038-6 MAGYAR,­I.­(2004):­Tanulságok­a­hazai­pannóniai­puhatestű-rétegtan­történetéből­[What lesson can we learn from the hundred­year history of the Lake Pannon mollusc bio­ stratigraphy in Hungary­–­in­Hungarian].–­Földtani­Közlöny,­134/3,­369–390. MAGYAR,­I.­&­GEARY,­D.H.­(2012):­Biostratigraphy­in­a­Late­Neogene­Caspian-type­ lacustrine­basin:­Lake­Pannon,­Hungary.–­In:­BAGANZ,­O.V.,­BARTOV,­Y.,­ BOHÁCS,­K.­&­NUMMEDAL,­D.­(eds.):­Lacustrine­sandstone­reservoirs­and­hy- drocarbon­systems.­AAPG­Memoir­95,­255–264.­doi:­10.1306/13291392M953142 MAGYAR,­I.­&­SZTANÓ,­O.­(2008):­Is­there­a­Messinian­unconformity­in­the­Central­ Paratethys?­–­Stratigraphy,­5,­247–257. MAGYAR,­I.,­GEARY,­D.H.,­SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.,­LANTOS,­M.­&­MÜLLER,­P.­ (1999):­Integrated­biostratigraphic,­magnetostratigraphic­and­chronostratigraphic­ correlations­of­the­Late­Miocene­Lake­Pannon­deposits.–­Acta­Geologica­Hunga- rica,­42,­5–31. MAGYAR,­I.,­MÜLLER,­P.,­GEARY,­D.H.,­SANDERS,­H.C.­&­TARI,­G.C.­(2000):­ Diachronous­deposits­of­Lake­Pannon­in­the­Kisalföld­basin­reflect­basin­and­mol- lusc­evolution.–­Abhandlungen­der­Geologischen­Bundesanstalt,­56,­669–678. MAGYAR,­I.,­JUHÁSZ,­GY.,­SZUROMI-KORECZ,­A.­&­SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(2004):­ A­pannóniai­Tótkomlósi­Mészmárga­Tagozat­kifejlődése­és­kora­a­Battonya-pusz- taföldvári-hátság­környezetében­[The Tótkomlós Calcareous Marl Member of the Lake Pannon sedimentary sequence in the Battonya-Pusztaföldvár region, SE Hun­ gary – in Hungarian].– Földtani­Közlöny,­133,­521–540. MAGYAR,­I.,­RADIVOJEVIĆ,­D.,­SZTANÓ­O.,­SYNAK,­R.,­UJSZÁSZI,­K.­&­PÓC- SIK,­M.­(2013):­Progradation­of­the­paleo-Danube­shelf­margin­across­the­Panno- nian Basin during the Late Miocene and Early Pliocene.– Global and Planetary Change,­103,­168–173.­doi:­10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.06.007 MAGYAR,­I.,­SZTANÓ,­O.,­SEBE,­K.,­KATONA,­T.L.,­CSOMA,­V.,­GÖRÖG,­Á.,­ TÓTH,­E.,­SZUROMI-KORECZ,­A.,­ŠUJAN,­M.,­BRAUCHER­R.,­RUSZKIC- ZAY-RÜDIGER­ZS.,­KOROKNAI­B.,­WÓRUM­G.,­SANT,­K.,­KELDER,­N.­&­ KRIJGSMAN,­W.­(2019):­Towards­a­high-resolution­chronostratigraphy­and­geo- chronology­for­the­Pannonian­Stage:­Significance­of­the­Paks­cores­(Central­Pan- nonian­ Basin).–­ Földtani­ Közlöny,­ 149,­ 351–370.­ doi:­ 10.23928/foldt.ko- zl.2019.149.4.351 MALVIĆ,­T.­&­CVETKOVIĆ,­M.­(2013):­Lithostratigraphic­units­in­the­Drava­Depres- sion­(Croatian­and­Hungarian­parts)­–­a­correlation.–­Nafta,­64/1,­27–33. MANDIC,­O.,­KUREČIĆ,­T.,­NEUBAUER,­T.A.­&­HARZHAUSER,­M.­(2015):­Strati- graphic­and­palaeogeographic­significance­of­lacustrine­molluscs­from­the­Pliocene­ Viviparus beds in­central­Croatia.–­Geologia­Croatica,­68/3,­179–207.­doi:­10.4154/ gc.2015.15 MÜLLER,­P.­&­MAGYAR,­I.­(1992):­Continuous­record­of­the­evolution­of­lacustrine­ cardiid­bivalves­in­the­late­Miocene­Pannonian­Lake.–­Acta­Palaeontologica­Po- lonica,­36,­353–372. MURPHY,­A.­&­SALVADOR,­A.­(1999):­International­Stratigraphic­Guide­–­An­abridged­ version.–­Episodes,­22/4,­255–271. NÁDOR,­A.­&­SZTANÓ,­O.­(2011):­Lateral­and­vertical­variability­of­channel­belt­stack- ing­density­as­a­function­of­subsidence­and­sediment­supply:­field­evidence­from­ the­intramountaine­Körös­Basin,­Hungary.– SEPM­Special­Publication,­97,­375– 392.­doi:­10.2110/sepmsp.097.375 NAGYMAROSY,­A.­&­HÁMOR,­G.­(2012):­Genesis­and­Evolution­of­the­Pannonian­ Basin.­In:­HAAS­J.­(ed.):­Geology­of­Hungary.–­Springer,­Heidelberg,­149–198.­ doi:­10.1007/978-3-642-21910-8 PAVELIĆ,­D.­(2001):­Tectonostratigraphic­model­for­the­North­Croatian­and­North­Bos- nian­sector­of­the­Miocene­Pannonian­Basin­System.–­Basin­Research,­12,­359–376.­ doi:­10.1046/j.0950-091x.2001.00155.x PAVELIĆ,­D.­&­KOVAČIĆ,­M.­(2018):­Sedimentology­and­stratigraphy­of­the­Neogene­ rift-type­North­Croatian­Basin­(Pannonian­Basin­System,­Croatia):­A­review.– Ma- rine­and­Petroleum­Geology,­91,­455-469.­doi:­10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2018.01.026 PAVELIĆ,­D.,­KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­MIKNIĆ,­M.,­AVANIĆ,­R.,­VRSALJKO,­D.,­BAKRAČ,­ K.,­TIŠLJAR,­J.­GALOVIĆ,­I.­&­BORTEK,­Ž.­(2003):­The­Evolution­of­the­Mio- cene­Environments­in­the­Slavonian­Mts.­Area­(Northern­Croatia).–­In:­VLAHOVIĆ,­ I.­&­TIŠLJAR,­J.­(eds.):­Evolution­of­Depositional­Environments­from­the­Paleo- zoic­to­the­Quaternary­in­the­Karst­Dinarides­and­the­Pannonian­Basin.­Field­Trip­ Guidebook,­22,­IAS,­173–181. PIGOTT,­J.D.­&­RADIVOJEVIĆ,­D.­(2010):­Seismic­Stratigraphy­Based­Chronostratig- raphy­(SSBC)­of­the­Serbian­Banat­Region­of­the­Pannonian­Basin.–­Central­Eu- ropean­Journal­of­Geosciences,­2/4,­481–500.­doi:­10.2478/v10085-010-0027-2 PIKIJA,­M.­(2009):­Vapnenačko-klastične­naslage­(sarmat,­panon­–­M5,6)­[Limestone – clastic deposits (Sarmatian, Pannonian –­M5,6)­–­in­Croatian].–­In:­VELIĆ,­I.­&­ VLAHOVIĆ,­I.­(eds.):­Tumač­Geološke­karte­Republike­Hrvatske­1:300.000­[Ex­ planatory note of the Basic Geological Map of the Republic of Croatia 1:300000 –­in­Croatian].­Croatian­Geological­Survey,­Zagreb,­141­p. POGÁCSÁS,­GY.­&­RÉVÉSZ,­I.­(1987):­Seismic­stratigraphic­and­sedimentological­ analysis­of­Neogene­delta­features­in­the­Pannonian­Basin.–­Annals­of­the­Geolog- ical­Institute­of­Hungary,­70,­267–273. PRELOGOVIĆ,­E.,­SAFTIĆ,­B.,­KUK,­V.,­VELIĆ,­J.,­DRAGAŠ,­M.­&­LUČIĆ,­D.­ (1998):­Tectonic­activity­in­the­Croatian­part­of­the­Pannonian­basin.–­Tectonophys- ics,­297,­283–293.­doi:­10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00173-5 RAKUSZ,­GY.­&­STRAUSZ,­L.­(1953):­A­Villányi-hegység­földtana­[Geology of the Villány Hills­­-­in­Hungarian].–­Annals­of­the­Geological­Institute­of­Hungary,­41/2,­ 27­p. RÖGL,­F.­(1996):­Stratigraphic­correlation­of­the­Paratethys­Oligocene­and­Miocene.–­ Mitt.­Gesell.­Geol.­Bergbaustud.­Österr.,­41,­65–73­. SACCHI,­M.,­TONIELLI,­R.,­CSERNY,­T.,­DÖVÉNYI,­P.,­HORVÁTH,­F.,­MAGYARI,­ O.,­MCGEE,­T.M.­&­MIRABILE,­L.­(1998):­Seismic­stratigraphy­of­the­Late­Mi- ocene­sequence­beneath­Lake­Balaton,­Pannonian­basin,­Hungary.–­Acta­Geologi- ca­Hungarica,­41,­63–88. SACCHI,­M.,­HORVÁTH,­F.­&­MAGYARI,­O.­(1999):­Role­of­unconformity-bounded­ units­in­the­stratigraphy­of­the­continental­record:­a­case­study­from­the­Late­Mio- cene­of­the­western­Pannonian­Basin,­Hungary.–­In:­DURAND,­B.,­JOLIVET,­L.,­ HORVÁTH,­F.­&­SÉRANNE,­M.­(eds.):­The­Mediterranean­basins:­Tertiary­exten- sion­within­the­Alpine­orogen.­Geological­Society,­London,­Special­Publications,­ 156,­357–390.­doi:­10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.156.01.17 SAFTIĆ,­B.,­VELIĆ,­J.,­SZTANÓ,­O.,­JUHÁSZ,­GY.­&­IVKOVIĆ,­Z.­(2003):­Tertiary­ Subsurface­Facies,­Source­Rocks­and­Hydrocarbon­Reservoirs­in­the­SW­Part­of­ the Pannonian Basin (Northern Croatia and South-Western Hungary).– Geologia Croatica,­56,­101–122.­ SEBE,­K.,­KONRÁD,­GY.­&­MAGYAR,­I.­(2013):­A­legmagasabban­fekvő­mecseki­ pannon-tavi­üledékek­helyzete­és­kora­[On the position and age of the highest­lying Lake Pannon deposits in the Mecsek Mts (SW Hungary) – in Hungarian].– Föld- tani­Közlöny,­143/1,­445–468. SEBE,­K.,­CSILLAG,­G.,­DULAI,­A.,­GASPARIK,­M.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­SELMECZI,­I.,­ SZABÓ,­M.,­SZTANÓ,­O.­&­SZUROMI-KORECZ,­A.­(2015):­Neogene­stratig- raphy­in­the­Mecsek­region.–­In:­BARTHA,­I-R.,­KRIVÁN,­Á.,­MAGYAR,­I.­&­ SEBE,­K.­(eds.):­Neogene­of­the­Paratethyan­Region.­6th­Workshop­on­the­Neogene­ G eo lo gi a C ro at ic a Geologia Croatica 73/3194 of­Central­and­South-Eastern­Europe.­An­RCMNS­Interim­Colloquium.­Pro- gramme,­Abstracts,­Field­Trip­Guidebook.­2015.05.31-06.03,­Orfű.­Hungarian­Ge- ological­Society,­Budapest,­102–124. SEBE,­K.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­SZTANÓ,­O.,­BOTKA,­D.,­CSOMA,­V.,­ SZUROMI-KORECZ,­A.,­KRIZMANIĆ,­K.­&­KOVÁCS,­Á.­(2019):­Lake­Pan- non­calcareous­marls­in­the­SW­Pannonian­Basin:­lithology,­stratigraphy­and­bound- ing­surfaces.–­In:­TARI­G.­&­SACHSENHOFER,­R.­(eds.):­Paratethys­Petroleum­ Systems­Between­Central­Europe­and­the­Caspian­Region.­AAPG,­Vienna,­P-50. STEVANOVIĆ,­P.M.­(1961):­Pontische­fauna­mit­Limnocardium petersi­bei­Kadar­an­der­ Save­(Nordbosnien).–­Annales­Géologiques­de­la­Péninsule­Balkanique,­28,­177– 216. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(1982):­Organic­microplanktonic­biozones­in­the­Pannonian­com- plex­of­Central­Transdanubia.–­Annual­Report­of­the­Hungarian­Geological­Institute­ of­1980,­309–344. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(1988):­Microplankton­zones­of­organic­skeleton­in­the­Pannonian­ s.l.­stratum­complex­and­in­the­upper­part­of­the­Sarmatian­strata.– Acta­Botanica­ Hungarica,­34/(3–4),­339–360. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(1990):­Mikroplanktonflora­der­pontischen­(oberpannonischen)­ Bildungen­Ungarns.–­In:­STEVANOVIĆ,­P.M.,­NEVESSKAJA,­L.A.,­MARINE- SCU,­F.L.,­SOKAĆ,­A.­&­JÁMBOR­Á.­(eds.):­Chronostratigraphie­und­Neostra- totypen.­Neogen­der­Westlichen­(„Zentrale“)­Paratethys­VIII,­Pl1,­Pontien.­JAZU­ and­SANU,­Zagreb-Beograd,­842–869. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(1991):­Szervesvázú­mikroplankton­zónák­Magyarország­pannó- niai­rétegösszletében.­Újabb­adatok­a­zónációról­és­a­dinoflagellaták­evolúciójáról­ [Organic-walled­microplankton­zones­of­the­Pannonian­in­Hungary.­New­data­on­ the­zonation­and­dinoflagellate­evolution.­–­in­Hungarian].–­Őslénytani­Viták­/­Dis- cussiones­Palaeontologicae,­36–37,­157–200. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(1994):­Microplankton­associations­of­organic­skeleton­in­the­sur- roundings­of­Villány­Mts.–­Földtani­Közlöny,­124,­451–478. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(2000):­Organic­walled­microplankton­zonation­of­the­Pannonian­ s.l.­in­the­surroundings­of­Kaskantyú,­Paks­and­Tengelic­(Hungary).–­Annual­Re- port­of­the­Geological­Institute­of­Hungary­of­1994–1995,­153–175. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­(2011):­Az­Egerág-7­és­Bosta-1.­számú­fúrások­pannóniai­dino- flagelláta­együttesei­(Dél-Dunántúl)­[Pannonian dinoflagellate associations from boreholes Egerág No. 7 and Bosta No. 1 (Southern Hungary) – in Hungarian].– e- Acta­Naturalia­Pannonica,­2,­111–113. SÜTŐ-SZENTAI,­M.­&­SZEGŐ,­É.­(2008):­Organic-walled­microplankton­studies­from­ beds of the Sarmatian-Pannonian stratotype section at Marosorbó (Oarba de Mures), Transylvanian­Basin.–­Földtani­Közlöny,­138,­279–296. SOLIMAN,­A.­&­RIDING,­J.B.­(2017):­Late­Miocene­(Tortonian)­gonyaulacacean­dino- flagellate­cysts­from­the­Vienna­Basin,­Austria.–­Review­of­Palaeobotany­and­Pa- lynology,­244,­325–346.­doi:­10.1016/j.revpalbo.2017.02.003 SZÓNOKY,­M.,­DOBOS-HORTOBÁGYI,­E.,­GULYÁS,­S.,­SZUROMI-KORECZ,­A.,­ MÜLLER,­P.,­GEARY,­D.H.­&­MAGYAR,­I.­(1999):­Árpád,­a­classic­locality­of­ Lake­Pannon­bivalves.–­Acta­Geologica­Hungarica,­42/1,­89–108. SZTANÓ,­O.­&­MAGYAR,­I.­(2007):­Deltaic­Parasequences­on­Gamma­Logs,­Ultra-high­ Resolution­Seismic­Images­and­Outcrops­of­Lake­Pannon­Deposits.– Joannea­Ge- ologie­und­Paläontologie,­9,­105–108. SZTANÓ,­O.,­KRÉZSEK,­CS.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­WANEK,­F.­&­JUHÁSZ,­GY.­(2005):­ Sedimentary cycles and rhythms in a Sarmatian to Pannonian (Late Miocene) tran- sitional­section­at­Oarba­de­Mures/Marosorbó,­Transylvanian­Basin.–­Acta­Geo- logica­Hungarica,­48,­235–257. SZTANÓ,­O.,­MAGYARI,­Á.­&­TÓTH,­P.­(2010):­Gilbert-típusú­delta­a­pannóniai­Kál- lai­Kavics­Tapolca­környéki­előfordulásaiban­[Gilbert­type delta in the Pannonian Kálla Gravel near Tapolca, Hungary­–­in­Hungarian].–­Földtani­Közlöny,­140/2,­ 167–182. SZTANÓ,­O.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­SZÓNOKY,­M.,­LANTOS,­M.,­MÜLLER,­P.,­LENKEY,­ L.,­KATONA,­L.­&­CSILLAG,­G.­ (2013a):­A­Tihanyi­ Formáció­ a­Balaton­ környékén:­típusszelvény,­képződési­körülmények,­rétegtani­jellemzés­[Tihany For­ mation in the surroundings of Lake Balaton: type locality, depositional setting and stratigraphy­–­in­Hungarian].–­Földtani­Közlöny,­143,­73–98. SZTANÓ,­O.,­SZAFIÁN,­P.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­HORÁNYI,­A.,­BADA,­G.,­HUGHES,­D.W.,­ HOYER,­D.L.­&­WALLIS,­R.J.­(2013b):­Aggradation­and­progradation­controlled­ clinothems­and­deep-water­sand­delivery­model­in­the­Neogene­Lake­Pannon,­Makó­ Trough,­Pannonian­Basin,­SE­Hungary.–­Global­and­Planetary­Change,­103,­ ­149–167.­doi:­10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.05.026 SZTANÓ,­O.,­SEBE,­K.,­MAGYAR,­I.­&­CSILLAG,­G.­(2015):­Turbidites­as­indicators­ of paleotopography, Late Miocene Lake Pannon, Western Mecsek (Hungary).– Ge- ologica­Carpathica,­66/4,­331–344.­doi:­10.1515/geoca-2015-0029 SZTANÓ,­O.,­KOVÁČ,­M.,­MAGYAR,­I.,­ŠUJAN,­M.,­FODOR,­L.,­UHRIN,­A.,­RY- BÁR,­S.,­CSILLAG,­G.­&­TŐKÉS,­L.­(2016):­Late­Miocene­sedimentary­record­ of­the­Danube­/­Kisalföld­Basin:­interregional­correlation­of­depositional­systems,­ stratigraphy­and­structural­evolution.–­Geologica­Carpathica,­67/6,­525–542.­doi:­ 10.1515/geoca-2016-0033 ŠIKIĆ,­K.,­BASCH,­O.­&­ŠIMUNIĆ,­An.­ (1979):­Osnovna­ geološka­ karta­ SFRJ­ 1:100000,­Tumač­za­list­Zagreb­[Basic Geological Map of SFRY 1:100000, Geolo- gy of the Zagreb sheet – in­Croatian].–­Croatian­Geological­Survey,­Department­of­ Geology,­Beograd,­1–81. ŠIMON,­J.­(1966):­Shematski­litostratigrafski­presjek.­Litostratigrafske­jedinice­tercijara­ područja­Savske­potolone,­istočnog­dijela­Dravske­potoline­i­istočne­Slavonije­ [translation­ in­English­ –­ in­Croatian].–­Fond­ stručne­ dokumentacije,­Služba­ istraživanja,­INA-Naftaplin.­ ŠIMON,­J.­(1980):­Prilog­stratigrafiji­u­taložnom­sustavu­pješčanih­rezervoara­Sava-grupe­ naslaga­mlađeg­tercijara­u­Panonskom­bazenu­sjeverne­Hrvatske­[-­in­Croatian].–­ Unpubl.­PhD.­Thesis,­University­of­Zagreb,­66­p. ŠUJAN,­M.,­BRAUCHER,­R.,­TIBENSKÝ,­M.,­FORDINÁL,­K.,­RYBÁR,­S.,­KOVÁČ,­ M.­&­ASTERTEAM­(2020):­Effects­of­spatially­variable­accommodation­rate­on­ channel­belt­distribution­ in­an­alluvial­sequence:­Authigenic­10Be/9Be-based­ Bayesian­age-depth­models­applied­to­the­upper­Miocene­Volkovce­Fm.­(northern­ Pannonian­Basin­System,­Slovakia).–­Sedimentary­Geology,­397.­doi:­10.1016/j. sedgeo.2019.105566 TOMLJENOVIĆ,­B.­&­CSONTOS,­­L.­(2001):­Neogene–Quaternary­structures­in­the­ border­zone­between­Alps,­Dinarides­and­Pannonian­basin­(Hrvatsko­zagorje­and­ Karlovac­basins,­Croatia).–­Int.­J.­Earth­Sciences­(Geol.­Rundschau),­90,­560–578.­ doi:­10.1007/s005310000176 TROSKOT-ČORBIĆ,­T.,­VELIĆ,­J.­&­MALVIĆ,­T.­(2009):­Comparison­of­the­Middle­ Miocene­and­the­Upper­Miocene­source­rock­formations­in­the­Sava­Depression­ (Pannonian Basin, Croatia).– Geologia Croatica, 62/2,­123–133.­doi:­10.4154/ GC.2009.11 UHRIN,­A.,­SZTANÓ,­O.,­CSILLAG,­G.,­HÁMORI,­Z.­(2011):­Késő-miocén–pliocén­ folyók­rekonstrukciója­a­Vértes­délkeleti­előterében­[Reconstruction of Late Mio­ cene – Pliocene rivers in south­eastern foreland of the Vértes Hills – in Hungari- an].–­Földtani­Közlöny,­141/4,­363–381. UJSZÁSZI,­K.­&­VAKARCS,­G.­(1993):­Sequence­stratigraphic­analysis­in­the­south­ Transdanubian­region,­Hungary.–­Geophysical­Transactions,­38,­69–87. VAN­GELDER,­I.E.,­MATENCO,­L.,­WILLINGSHOFER,­E.,­TOMLJENOVIĆ,­B.,­ ANDRIESSEN,­P.A.M.,­DUCEA,­M.N.,­BENIEST,­A.­&­GRUIĆ,­A.­(2015):­The­ tectonic­evolution­of­a­critical­segment­of­the­Dinarides-Alps­connection:­Kinemat- ic­and­geochronological­inferences­from­the­Medvednica­Mountains,­NE­Croatia.–­ Tectonics,­34,­1952–1978,­­doi:­10.1002/2015TC003937 VASILIEV,­I.,­BAKRAČ,­K.,­KOVAČIĆ,­M.,­ABDUL­AZIZ,­H.­&­KRIJGSMAN,­W.­ (2007):­Palaeomagnetic­results­from­the­Sarmatian/Pannonian­boundary­in­North- Eastern­Croatia­ (Vranović­section,­Našice­quarry).–­Geologia­Croatica,­60/2,­ ­151–163.­ VELIĆ,­J.­(2007):­Geologija­ležišta­nafte­i­plina.– University­of­Zagreb,­342­p. VRBANAC,­B.­(2002):­Chronohorizons­Based­on­Resistivity­Curve­Variations­-­Upper­ Miocene­Sediments­of­the­Ivanić­Grad­Formation­in­the­Sava­Depression­(NW­ Croatia).–­Geologia­Croatica,­55/1,­11–23. VRSALJKO,­D.­(1999):­The­Pannonian­palaeoecology­and­biostratigraphy­of­molluscs­ from­Kostanjek­-­Medvednica­Mt.,­Croatia.–­Geologia­Croatica,­52,­9–27.­ WIJBRANS,­J.,­NÉMETH,­K.,­MARTIN,­U.­&­BALOGH,­K.­(2007):­40Ar/39Ar­geo- chronology­of­Neogene­phreatomagmatic­volcanism­in­the­western­Pannonian­Ba- sin,­Hungary.–­Journal­of­Volcanology­and­Geothermal­Research,­164,­193–204.­ doi:­10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.05.009 G eologia C roatica Sebe et al.: Correlation of upper Miocene-Pliocene Lake Pannon deposits across the Drava Basin, Croatia and Hungary 195 Supplement 1. Location of outcrops mentioned in the text.