Newsletter of the Subcommission on Permian Stratigraphy Number ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

serrated as clearly seen in <strong>the</strong> illustration by Wang Zhi-hao. Kozur(1998) mentioned <strong>the</strong>se forms from Luodian as transitional formsbetween M. idahoensis and M. nankingensis. Exactly <strong>the</strong> sameforms occur in <strong>the</strong> lower Roadian at <strong>the</strong> roadcut <strong>of</strong> US Highway 62-180 in front <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Guadalupe Mountains in <strong>the</strong> Williams RanchMember <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cut<strong>of</strong>f Formation. In this outcrop numerous Roadianammonoids with Paraceltites are present and also Roadian radiolariansare common in some levels.A second anchor point was found in <strong>the</strong> upper Wordian <strong>of</strong>Oman (Kozur et al., this issue). The correlation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong>Kubergandinian with <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> Roadian convinced finally most<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tethyan workers to use <strong>the</strong> Guadalupian stages as worldstandard and after intensive discussions at <strong>the</strong> Guadalupian IISymposium, Alpine 1996, also Kotlyar and Leven agreed <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Guadalupian stages. This situation changed after <strong>the</strong> publication<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> papers by Mei and o<strong>the</strong>rs because it questioned <strong>the</strong>very foundations forged to make an international correlationscheme. Wardlaw strongly disagreed with <strong>the</strong> assignment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Wordian M. siciliensis fauna <strong>of</strong> Sosio (Rupe del Passo di Burgio)to <strong>the</strong> Kungurian because this would make <strong>the</strong> Wordian a part <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Kungurian (see above) and would make impossible <strong>the</strong> application<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Guadalupian stages as world standard. He ask Kozurto sample <strong>the</strong> Wordian ammonoid localities Rustaq and Wadi Wasit(and he and A. Baud, Lausanne, F. Béchennec, Nantes, and J.Marcoux, Paris, very much supported this sampling), from whereWordian ammonoid faunas determined by Furnish, Glenister andNassichuk were recently described (Blendinger et al., 1992, Pillevuit,1993). As shown in <strong>the</strong> following paper, <strong>the</strong> conodont studies <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>se localities have shown that <strong>the</strong> correlations by Mei andHenderson and <strong>the</strong>ir consequences for <strong>the</strong> conodont provincialismare incorrect.In regards to Luodian, <strong>the</strong>re a special situation is present whichis not representative for <strong>the</strong> Tethys. Already from <strong>the</strong> literature(Wang Yu-jin et al., 1994) indicates that a pelagic Lower Permian isoverlain by pelagic Roadian with <strong>the</strong> typical Tethyan smoothMesogondolella fauna which is to a large part incorrectly determined.From this level (beginning with Bed 22) Wang Zhi-hao (1994)described Mesogondolella parasiciliensis which is a junior synonym<strong>of</strong> M. saraciniensis. This fauna also contains M. slovenica,M. n. sp. <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> M. gracilis group (rare) which is also known from<strong>the</strong> lower Roadian <strong>of</strong> North America, Gullodus catalanoi which ispresent in <strong>the</strong> Roadian and Wordian <strong>of</strong> Sicily, and Hindeodusgulloides, which is also known from <strong>the</strong> Roadian <strong>of</strong> its type locality.In Bed 25 at first representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> M. phosphoriensisgroup and a little later M. siciliensis appears. In <strong>the</strong> beginning<strong>the</strong>se two species are still accompanied by M. saraciniensis whichlater disappeared. As in <strong>the</strong> Lower Permian, also in large part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Roadian <strong>the</strong> Luodian basin was close to a carbonate platform fromwhich fusulinids were transported into <strong>the</strong> basin. In <strong>the</strong> upperRoadian <strong>the</strong> Luodian basin shallowed to a level, in which onlyshallow-water conodonts (Sweetognathus) occurred andMesogondolella is missing. Still higher, in <strong>the</strong> upper Murgabianfusulinid faunas (Wordian) several levels with very thick massivebreccia appear which indicate strong reworking adjacent to <strong>the</strong>Luodian section. This is <strong>the</strong> level, where clearly reworked M.nankingensis is found in <strong>the</strong> Luodian section. In this level andslightly below it, Mei reported Mesogondolella praenankingensis.According to Wardlaw, who has seen this form, it is aJinogondolella aserrata. This would agree well with <strong>the</strong> upperPermophiles Issue #38 200118Murgabian (Wordian) age <strong>of</strong> this level.During <strong>the</strong> excursion, <strong>the</strong> correlation <strong>of</strong> Mei was rejected bymost participants, both by <strong>the</strong> Chinese and foreign fusulinid workers(among <strong>the</strong>m Leven) and by <strong>the</strong> present conodont workers(Kozur and Wardlaw). The photographed specimen <strong>of</strong> M.nankingensis presented at <strong>the</strong> excursion was a poorly preserved,corroded form that is according to Wardlaw heavily coated withphosphate. Kozur and Wardlaw regarded this form as a reworkedform. According to Wardlaw, <strong>the</strong> pattern <strong>of</strong> individual crystallitedissolution exhibited on this specimen indicates reaction with freshwater and subaerial exposure. The argument <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fusulinid workerswas that <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first appearance and range <strong>of</strong> M.nankingensis in <strong>the</strong> section cannot define <strong>the</strong> Roadian becausethis species was reported from <strong>the</strong> uppermost Murgabian toYabeina-bearing beds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Midian. Yabeina is <strong>the</strong> only Tethyanfusulinid which occurs in <strong>the</strong> type Guadalupian within <strong>the</strong>Capitanian, <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> which is two conodont zones higher than<strong>the</strong> M. nankingensis Zone <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Roadian. All present authorsagree with Leven (2001): When <strong>the</strong> ammonoids show a Roadianage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kubergandinian and M. nankingensis occurs in <strong>the</strong>Luodian section in <strong>the</strong> uppermost Murgabian and in Yabeina-bearingbeds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Midian, <strong>the</strong>n M. nankingensis is <strong>the</strong>re ei<strong>the</strong>r reworkedor it appears in <strong>the</strong> Tethys so late and ranges so high thatit cannot be used for definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Roadian and asconodont index species for <strong>the</strong> entire Roadian. As <strong>the</strong> reworking isquite obvious by <strong>the</strong> preservation, we regard M. nankingensis is agood guideform which is reworked into much younger beds <strong>of</strong>upper Wordian to Capitanian age in <strong>the</strong> Luodian section.As <strong>the</strong> lower Roadian (Kubergandinian) conodonts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Luodian section are smooth Mesogondolella <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cold bottomwaterfauna (Kozur, 1998, Leven 2001), which occur in Sicily toge<strong>the</strong>rwith palaeopsychrosphaeric ostracods without shallowwaterostracods, <strong>the</strong> water depth must be below 200 m. The adjacentshallow-water shelf with fusulinids was surely not deeperthan 50 m. The elevation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area during <strong>the</strong> late Roadian brought<strong>the</strong> former deep-pelagic depositional area in a level, in which onlySweetognathus, but no more gondolellids are present. This requiresan elevation <strong>of</strong> at least 200 m and this would bring <strong>the</strong>former shelf and <strong>the</strong> adjacent upper slope (<strong>the</strong> depth interval, whereadjacent to <strong>the</strong> South Chinese intraplatform basins serratedMesogondolella =Jinogondolella could have lived in <strong>the</strong> opensea Tethys) above <strong>the</strong> sea level. By <strong>the</strong> subaerial erosion massivebreccias were transported into <strong>the</strong> (in that time shallow) Luodianbasin. M. nankingensis was transported with this reworked materialduring <strong>the</strong> upper Wordian and Capitanian into <strong>the</strong> Luodianbasin. Also <strong>the</strong> reported M. aserrata (not <strong>the</strong> forms determined asM. prenankingensis) must be reworked because <strong>the</strong>y occur exclusivelyin faunas with Capitanian Yabeina. Nowhere in <strong>the</strong> worldYabeina is present before <strong>the</strong> Capitanian and it is <strong>the</strong> only Tethyanfusulinid which allow a direct correlation with <strong>the</strong> type Capitanianbecause it is present also in <strong>the</strong> Delaware Basin !Wardlaw (see this issue) does not recognize M. siciliensis inWest Texas, and he has worked <strong>the</strong>re for years (please view <strong>the</strong>figures <strong>of</strong> zsuzsannae in Wardlaw, this issue, which with <strong>the</strong>ir highposterior carina are clearly not siciliensis!). However, Mei andHenderson created <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensis assuming thatM. zsuzsannae reported by Wardlaw was a junior synonym <strong>of</strong> M.siciliensis (Mei et al., 1999b, Mei and Henderson, 2001), and bythis <strong>the</strong>y recognised automatically in West Texas a lineage <strong>of</strong> M.
zsuzsannae (<strong>the</strong>ir M. siciliensis) to J. nankingensis. The assumedsynonymy <strong>of</strong> M. zsuzsannae and M. siciliensis do not prevent Meiet al. (1999b) to put in South China <strong>the</strong> M. siciliensis-S. guizhouensisZone below <strong>the</strong> M. zsuzsannae-S. adjunctus Zone to “prove” better<strong>the</strong> Kungurian age <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensis. It also does not preventMei and Henderson (2001) fur<strong>the</strong>rmore to use a N. prayi-M.zsuzsannae Zone in <strong>the</strong> middle Kungurian <strong>of</strong> Texas despite <strong>the</strong> factthat <strong>the</strong>y write in <strong>the</strong> same paper that M. zsuzsannae is a juniorsynonym <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensis, and J. nankingensis evolved in a transitionalseries from this M. siciliensis. Seemingly, <strong>the</strong>y wanted toproduce too much evidence for <strong>the</strong> Kungurian age <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensisin one paper and thus <strong>the</strong> evidence is contradictory. Moreover,<strong>the</strong>y overlooked that Wardlaw (1996). which <strong>the</strong>y used as evidencefor <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensis in West Texas, has given a preciserange <strong>of</strong> his M. zsuzsannae in a short interval in <strong>the</strong> lowermiddleKungurian transition (uppermost part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Skinner RanchFormation and <strong>the</strong> lowermost part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ca<strong>the</strong>dral Mountain Formation),far below <strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Roadian (in between is <strong>the</strong> bulk<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ca<strong>the</strong>dral Mountain Formation and <strong>the</strong> lower part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Road Canyon Formation). How could <strong>the</strong>y find in this material <strong>the</strong>transitions between M. siciliensis (M. zsuzsannae) and M.nankingensis, reported in Mei and Henderson (2001)? Unprovenand surely incorrect hypo<strong>the</strong>ses, such as <strong>the</strong> derivation <strong>of</strong> M.nankingensis from M. siciliensis (Mei and Henderson, 2001) arereported as facts despite <strong>the</strong> situation that such a continuousmorphocline could nei<strong>the</strong>r be found in Texas nor in Luodian becausein both areas M. siciliensis (and M. zsuzannae respectively)and M. nankingensis are separated by a long interval without any<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se species. Lambert and Wardlaw (1996) have analyzed ingreat detail <strong>the</strong> transitional forms between M. idahoensis and M.nankingensis. Splitters may describe <strong>the</strong> transitional forms as anindependent species or subspecies, but surely not as M. siciliensisor M. zsuzsannae. M. nankingensis retains basic features <strong>of</strong> itsforerunner M. idahoensis, such as a low blade and laterally compressed,mostly small denticles on <strong>the</strong> posterior carina. Some specimensretain even a ra<strong>the</strong>r large cusp. M. siciliensis has a high,highly fused blade and large, laterally not compressed denticles on<strong>the</strong> posterior carina and <strong>the</strong> cusp is always very small. M.zsuzsannae has likewise a high, highly fused blade and very large,extremely broad laterally not compressed denticles on <strong>the</strong> posteriorcarina. Therefore, both species does not fit into <strong>the</strong> morphoclinebetween M. idahoensis and M. nankingensis which is well documentedby Lambert and Wardlaw (1996). Moreover, how can M.nankingensis evolve from two different species, M. idahoensisand M. zsuzsannae (M. siciliensis <strong>of</strong> Mei et al., 1999b, Mei andHenderson, 2001) ? Mei and Henderson (2001, p. 252) are seeminglynot too much disturbed by this possibility because <strong>the</strong>y wrote:“ The base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Guadalupian in South China, West Texas, andOman is defined with <strong>the</strong> lineage <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensis to J. nankingensis.The first appearance <strong>of</strong> serration was also documented in <strong>the</strong> GreatBasin, although it is represented by ano<strong>the</strong>r Mesogondolella speciesor a subspecies <strong>of</strong> Jinogondolella nankingensis....In this region<strong>the</strong> base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Guadalupian is defined within <strong>the</strong> lineage <strong>of</strong> M.idahoensis to serrated M. gracilis or Jinogondolellanankingensis”. This is <strong>the</strong> crux <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> matter; this singlemiscorrelation <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensis to <strong>the</strong> West Texas Kungurian, whereit does not exist nor anywhere in <strong>the</strong> West Texas section compromises<strong>the</strong>ir age correlations and <strong>the</strong>ir provincial interpretations.They make it support a wrong age, and put a form that is part <strong>of</strong> aPermophiles Issue #38 200119important Tethyan succession <strong>of</strong> M. saraciniensis-M. siciliensis-M. omanensis in <strong>the</strong> wrong province and <strong>the</strong>y come up with animpossible evolutionary scenario <strong>of</strong> M. siciliensis to M. (J.)nankingensis.Mei and Henderson (2001) recognized that <strong>the</strong>ir correlationsare basically different from that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ammonoids, fusulinids andconodont correlations <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r colleagues which are in agreement<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ammonoid and fusulinid correlations. From this, however,<strong>the</strong>y came not to <strong>the</strong> idea that <strong>the</strong>ir correlation may be wrong.They have believed for a long time (Jin et al., 1994a) that <strong>the</strong>largest part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Murgabian is Kungurian, but “associated ammonoids(Waagenoceras) at Rupe del Passo di Burgio were regardedas Wordian by Kozur (1996, 1998)” “indicating that <strong>the</strong>taxonomy <strong>of</strong> this group should be reviewed”. We would stronglysuggest that <strong>the</strong>ir taxonomy needs to be reviewed!In regards to provincial interpretations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pemian, <strong>the</strong>Eastern Gondwana Conodont Province is surely a cool water provinceand <strong>the</strong> Tethyan province surely a warm-water province, <strong>the</strong>Boreal Conodont province is not only a cool-water conodont province,but a conodont province which contain both cool-water andwarm water. Thus, <strong>the</strong> Zechstein Basin south <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn cancer<strong>of</strong> tropic had <strong>the</strong> hottest water temperature during <strong>the</strong> Permiantime as caused by its ra<strong>the</strong>r shallow-water, <strong>the</strong> nearly total restrictionwith a ra<strong>the</strong>r narrow opening to <strong>the</strong> Boreal sea and its geographicalposition. Despite <strong>of</strong> this, it belongs to <strong>the</strong> Boreal ConodontProvince by Kozur (1995) and to <strong>the</strong> synonymous Nor<strong>the</strong>rnCool Water Province by Mei and Henderson (2001). It is nei<strong>the</strong>rnor<strong>the</strong>rn nor cool-water. Regionally it lies as much south as <strong>the</strong>nor<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “equatorial” warm water province by Mei andHenderson (2001). Likewise, <strong>the</strong> Asselian to Kungurian <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cis-Urals is according to its accompanying o<strong>the</strong>r faunal elements notcool-water, but warm-water. For priority reasons and because <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> basically wrong definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kungurian and Guadalupianpart <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> equatorial warm water province we use <strong>the</strong> conodontprovinces discriminated or used by Kozur (1995), <strong>the</strong> TethyanConodont Province (TP), <strong>the</strong> Boreal Conodont Province (BP) and<strong>the</strong> Eastern Gondwana Conodont Province (EGP). The nameTethyan conodont province was already introduced by Matsuda(1985) for <strong>the</strong> uppermost Permian and lowermost Triassic. Theequatorial Panthalassa with dominating smooth Mesogondolellain <strong>the</strong> Guadalupian (same species as in <strong>the</strong> Tethys) belong to <strong>the</strong>TP. Considering <strong>the</strong> big difficulties which Mei and Henderson(2001) have caused for <strong>the</strong> Tethyan Kungurian and Guadalupianstratigraphy and correlation with <strong>the</strong> international scale as well asfor <strong>the</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> Kungurian and Guadalupian conodont provincialismin <strong>the</strong> low latitude areas, we separate <strong>the</strong> Ouachita-Cathaysia Conodont Province (OCP) during <strong>the</strong> Guadalupian despite<strong>the</strong> fact that total replacement <strong>of</strong> smooth Mesogondolellaby serrated Mesogondolella (Jinogondolella) is caused by ecologicreasons (no connection to <strong>the</strong> cold bottom-water currents in<strong>the</strong> intraplatform basins). To this province belong <strong>the</strong> basins at<strong>the</strong> margin <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ouachita orogenic belt (Delaware Basin in WestTexas and Coahuila in Mexico) and <strong>the</strong> South Chinese intraplatformbasins. This province is characterized by <strong>the</strong> abrupt and totalreplacement <strong>of</strong> smooth Mesogondolella by serratedMesogondolella (Jinogondolella) and <strong>the</strong> total absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>high latitude cool-water Mesogondolella species in water depthbelow 200-500m. It is interesting that elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cathaysiafloral province <strong>of</strong> South and North China can be also found in
Page 1 and 2: PermophilesInternational Commission
Page 3 and 4: Notes from the SPS
Page 5 and 6: key species occur close to
Page 7 and 8: is under investigation (coordinated
Page 9: Some Problems and New Achievements
Page 12 and 13: also deposited on lavas and croppin
Page 14 and 15: Phosphoria Basin of</strong
Page 16 and 17: Permophiles Issue #38 2001Figure 1.
Page 18 and 19: ably because the w
Page 22 and 23: southwestern North America.The Word
Page 24 and 25: very interested in collaboration wi
Page 26 and 27: Permophiles Issue #38 200124nated b
Page 28 and 29: laterally equivalent to the
Page 30 and 31: following.1. It is not clear what m
Page 32 and 33: conodont zones from the</st
Page 34 and 35: fossils are frequently present in <
Page 36 and 37: satisfy both of <s
Page 38 and 39: Permophiles Issue #38 2001fused tha
Page 40 and 41: Permophiles Issue #38 2001The Proce
Page 42 and 43: Permophiles Issue #38 2001Coming So

Newsletter of the Subcommission on Permian Stratigraphy Number ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?