Advertisement

Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 437–450 | Cite as

Maeotian mammalian localities of Eastern Paratethys: Magnetochronology and position in European continental scales

  • E. A. Vangengeim
  • A. S. TesakovEmail author
Article

Abstract

The Maeotian of Eastern Paratethys corresponds to the interval of the magnetochronological scale from the base of the subchron C4Ar2n to upper parts of the Chron C4n (9.6–7.5 Ma). Fission-track dates of Maeotian deposits are in general agreement with paleomagnetic chronology. In the continental stratigraphic scale of Western Europe this interval corresponds to zones MN10 (save the lowermost parts), MN11, and MN12 (upper part). Taking into account age estimates of MN zones boundaries established in Western Europe, the East European mammalian localities of Ukraine and Moldova can be stratified as follows: MN10, Raspopeni, Grebeniki, Novaya Emetovka 1, ?lower bed of Ciobruci; MN11, Novaya Emetovka 2; MN12, Cimislia, Ciobruci upper bed, Cherevichnoe, Tudorovo, Dzedzvtakhevi, and sites in the lower Pontian deposits. The faunal criteria used to distinguish MN zones in Western Europe cannot be completely applied to sites of the Eastern Paratethys because of paleozoogeographic distinctions between West and East European provinces. Specific criteria of zone boundaries definitions should be developed for the East European province.

Key words

MN zones mammalian biochronology magnetochronological scale Maeotian Late Miocene East Europe Caucasus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Agusti, “A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Miocene Mammal Units in Western Europe: Dispersal Events and Problems of Correlation,” in The Evolution of Neogene Terrestrial Ecosystems in Europe, Ed. by J. Agusti, L. Rook, and P. Andrews (Cambridge University Press, London, 1999), pp. 84–112.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Agusti, L. Cabrera, and M. Garcés, “A Calibrated Mammal Scale for the Neogene of Western Europe. State of the Art,” Earth Sci. Rev., No. 52, 247–260 (2001).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Agusti, L. Cabrera, M. Garcés, and J. M. Parés, “The Vallesian Mammal Succession in the Vallés-Penedés Basin (Northeast Spain): Paleomagnetic Calibration and Correlation with Global Events,” Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol. 133(3–4), 149–180 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Andreescu, “Controversal Approaches to Use of Middle-Upper Neogene Chronostratigraphic Units from the Tethys and the Paratethys,” Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung. 70, 343–349 (1987).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, C. C. Swisher, and M.-P. Aubry, “Revised Cenozoic Geochronology Time Scales and Global Stratigraphic Correlation,” SEPM Spec. Publ., No. 54, 129–212 (1995).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, P. Andrews, et al., “The evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas: a Chronologic, Systematic, Biogeographic, and Paleoenvironmental Synthesis,” in The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, Ed. by R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1996a), pp. 449–469.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. L. Bernor, G. D. Koufos, M. O. Woodburne, and M. Fortelius, “The Evolutionary History and Biochronology of European and Southwest Asian Late Miocene and Pliocene Hipparionine Horses,” in The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, Ed. by R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1996b), pp. 307–338.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. L. Bernor., N. Solounias, C. C. Swisher III, and J. A. van Couvering, “The Correlation of Three Classical ‘Pikermian’ Mammal Faunas—Maragheh, Samos, and Pikermi—with European MN Unit System,” in The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, Ed. by R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1996c), pp. 137–154.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. M. Bogdanovich and T. A. Ivanova, “On New Finding of Planktonic Organisms in the Maeotian of the Crimea,” Dok. Nat. Akad. Nauk Ukrainy, No. 6, 127–129 (1997).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. S. Chumakov, S. L. Byzova, and S. S. Ganzei, Late Cenozoic Geochronology and Correlation in the Paratethys (Nauka, Moscow, 1992) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Daxner-Höck, P. M. Miklas-Tempfer, U. B. Göhlich, et al., “Marine and Terrestrial Vertebrates from the Middle Miocene of Grund (Lower Austria),” Geol. Carpathica. 55(2), 191–197 (2004).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Forsten, “Hipparions of the Hipparion mediterraneum Group from South-Western USSR,” Ann. Zool. Fennici, No. 17, 27–38 (1980).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Forsten, “The Preorbital Fossa as a Taxonomic Character in Some Old World Hipparion,” J. Palaeontol. 57(4), 686–704 (1983).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Fortsten and T. Krakhmalnaya, “The Hipparions (Mammalia, Equidae) from the Late Miocene of Cherevichnoe on the Northern Black Sea Coast, Ukraina,” N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. Mh. 8, 489–499 (1997).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. K. Gabunia, On the History of Hipparions (Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 1959) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. K. Gabunia, “Land mammals,” in Stratigraphy of the USSR. Neogene System. Vol. 2, Ed. by M. V. Muratov and L. A. Nevesskaya (Nedra, Moscow, 1986), pp. 310–327 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Garcés, W. Krijgsman, and J. Agusti, “Chronology of the Late Turolian Deposits of Fortuna Basin (SE Spain): Implications for the Messinian Evolution of Eastern Betics,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. No. 163, 69–81 (1998).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. W. Gentry and E. P. J. Heizmann, “Miocene Ruminants of the Central and Eastern Tethys and Paratethys,” in The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, Ed. by R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1996), pp. 386–391.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Ya. Godina, Historical Development of Giraffids. Genus Palaeotragus (Nauka, Moscow, 1979) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Z. Gurarii, I. M. Kudasheva, V. M. Trubikhin, et al., “Age of the Natskhor and Shiraki Formations of Central and East Georgia and the Problem of Miocene-Pliocene Boundary: Paleomagnetism and Stratigraphy,” Stratigr. Geol. Korrelyatsiya 3(2), 62–72 (1995) [Stratigr. Geol. Correlation 3 (2), 156–167 (1995)].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. L. Korotkevich, History of the Hipparion Fauna Origin in Eastern Europe (Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1988) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. S. Kostopoulos, S. Sen, and G. D. Koufos, “Magnetostratigraphy and Revised Chronology of the Late Miocene Mammal Localities of Samos, Greece,” Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rundsch.), No. 92, 779–794 (2003).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. D. Koufos, D. S. Kostopoulos, Th. D. Vilochou, and I. A. Sylvestrou, “Reconsideration of the Mytilini Fossiliferous Basin, Samos, Greece,” in 5th Symposium on Eastern Mediterranean Geology (Thessaloniki, 2004), pp. 326–329.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. V. Krakhmalnaya, Hipparion Fauna of the Early Maeotian of Northern Black Sea Region (Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1996) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    T. V. Krakhmalnaya and A. Forsten, “The Hipparions (Mammalia, Equidae) from the Late Miocene of Novaya Emetovka-2, Odessa Region, Ukraine,” N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. Mh. 8, 449–462 (1998).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. Krijgsman, M. Garcés, C. G. Langereis, et al., “A New Chronology for the Middle to Late Miocene Continental Record in Spain,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 142, 367–380 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    V. I. Krokos, “Carnivores from Maeotian Deposits of the Grebenniki Village, MARSR,” Geol. Zh. 6(1–2), 129–183 (1939).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. N. Lungu, Extended Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation in Geology and Mineralogy (GIN AN GSSR, Tbilisi, 1990).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Mein, “Resultats du Groupe de Travail des Vertebres”, in Report on Activity of the RCMNS Working Groups (1971–1975) (Bratislava, 1975), pp. 78–81.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. Mein, “Updating of MN Zones,” in European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Ed. by E.H. Lindsay, V. Fahlbusch, and P. Mein (Plenum, New York, 1989), pp. 73–90.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    V. A. Nesin and V. A. Topachevsky, “The Late Miocene Small Mammals in Ukraine,” in The Evolution of Neogene Terrestrial Ecosystems in Europe, Ed. by J. Agusti, L. Rook, and P. Andrews (Cambridge University Press, London, 1999), pp. 265–272.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    N. Opdyke, P. Mein, E. Lindsay, et al., “Continental Deposits, Magnetostratigraphy and Vertebrate Palaeontology, Late Neogene of Eastern Spain,” Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol. 133(3–4), 129–148 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. A. Pevzner, Doctoral Dissertation in Geology and Mineralogy (GIN AN SSSR, Moscow, 1986).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. A. Pevzner, A. N. Lungu, E. A. Vangengeim, and A. E. Basilyan, “Position of the Vallesian Hipparion Faunas from Moldova in the Magnetochronological Scale,” Izv. AN SSSR. Ser. geol. No. 4, 50–59 (1987).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. A. Pevzner, V. N. Semenenko, and E. A. Vangengeim, “Position of the Pontian of the Eastern Paratethys in the Magnetochronological Scale,” Stratigr. Geol. Korrelyatsiya 11(5), 72–81 (2003) [Stratigr. Geol. Correlation 11 (5), 482–491 (2003)].Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    V. Kh. Roshka, Maeotian Mollusks of the Northwestern Black Sea Region (Shtiinca, Kishinev, 1973) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    V. N. Semenenko and M. A. Pevzner, “Correlation of the Upper Miocene and Pliocene of the Ponto-Caspian Based on Biostratigraphic and Paleomagnetic Data,” Izv. AN SSSR. Ser. geol., No. 1, 5–15 (1979).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu. A. Semenov, Ictitheres and Morphologically Similar Hyenas from the Neogene of the USSR (Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1989) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu. A. Semenov, “Stratigraphic Distribution of Terrestrial Carnivorous Mammals in the Late Miocene of Ukraine,” Tr. Nats. Nauch.-Prirodov. Muz. NAN Ukrainy, 52–67 (2002).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    S. Sen, “Present State of Magnetostratigraphic Studies in the Continental Neogene of Europe and Anatolia,” in The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, Ed. by R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1996), pp. 56–63.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. V. Sotnikova and N. G. Noskova, “The History of Machairodus in Eurasia,” in 18th International Senckenberg Conference in Weimar, Ed. by L. C. Maul and R.-D. Kahlke, Terra Nostra 2004/2, 238 (2004).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    F. F. Steininger, “Chronostratigraphy, Geochronology and Biochronology of the Miocene ‘European Land Mammal Mega-Zones’ (ELMMZ) and the Miocene ‘Mammal Zones’ (MN-Zones),” in The Miocene Land Mammals of Europe, Ed. by G. E. Rössner and K. Hessig (Friedrich Pfeil, München, 1999), pp. 9–24.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stratigraphy of the USSR. Neogene System. Vol. 1 (Nedra, Moscow, 1986) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    C. C. Swisher III, “New 40Ar/39Ar Dates and Their Contribution Toward a Revised Chronology for the Late Miocene of Europe and West Asia,” in The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, Ed. by R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1996), pp. 64–77.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    V. A. Topachevskii, V. A. Nesin, and I. V. Topachevskii, “Review of the History of Small Mammal Faunas (Insectivora, Lagomorpha, Rodentia) of Ukraine in the Time Interval from the Middle Sarmatian to the Akchagylian,” Vestn. Zoologii 31(5–6), 3–14 (1997).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    E. A. Vangengeim, A. N. Lungu, and A. S. Tesakov, “Age of the Vallesian Lower Boundary (Continental Miocene of Europe),” Stratigr. Geol. Korrelyatsiya 14(6), 81–93 (2006) [Stratigr. Geol. Correlation 14 (6), 655–667 (2006)].Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    E. A. Vangengeim and M.A. Pevzner, “Correlation of the Miocene Mammalian Reference Localities with the Magnetochronological Scale,” Stratigr. Geol. Korrelyatsiya 1 (1), 118–127 (1993) [Stratigr. Geol. Correlation 1 (1), 108–117 (1993)].Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    E. A. Vangengeim and A. S. Tesakov, “Late Sarmatian Mammal Localities of the Eastern Paratethys: Stratigraphic Position, Magnetochronology, and Correlation with the European Continental Scale,” Stratigr. Geol. Korrelyatsiya 16(1), 92–103 (2008) [Stratigr. Geol. Correlation 16 (1), 95–107 (2008)].Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    A. K. Vekua and V. M. Trubikhin, “New Locality of Fossil Mammals in East Georgia,” Soobshch. AN Gruz. SSR 132(1), 197–200 (1988).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    L. Werdelin and N. Solounias, “The Hyaenidae: Taxonomy, Systematics and Evolution,” Fossils and Strata, No. 30, 1–104 (1991).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    L. Werdelin L. and N. Solounias, “The Evolutionary History of Hyaenids in Europe and Western Asia During the Miocene,” in The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, Ed. by R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1996), pp. 290–306.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. Wolsan and Yu. A. Semenov, “A Revision of the Late Miocene Mustelid Carnivoran Eomellivora,” Acta Zool. Cracov. 39(1), 593–604 (1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations