Advertisement

European Neogene Marine/Continental Chronologic Correlations

  • Fritz F. Steininger
  • Raymond L. Bernor
  • Volker Fahlbusch
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 180)

Abstract

An updated correlation is given of the revised Neogene European mammal chronology with the Neogene marine chronology and the magnetic polarity time scale.

The boundary of the Agenian/Orleanian mammal-faunal units (boundary of MN2b/MN3 zones) correlates approximately with the Aquitanian/Burdigalian Stage (NN1/NN2) boundary. The Orleanian/Astaracian (MN5/MN6) boundary correlates approximately with the Burdigalian/Langhian Stage (NN4/NN5) boundary; the Astaracian/Vallesian (MN8/MN9) boundary correlates approximately with the Serravallian/Tortonian Stage boundary (within NN9); the Vallesian/Turolian (MN10/MN11) boundary occurs within the middle part of the Tortonian Stage (within NN10, resp. between CN8a and CN8b); the Turolian/Ruscinian (MN13/MN14) boundary coincides approximately with the Messinian/Zanclean Stage boundary and the upper boundary of the Ruscinian mammal faunal zones (MN15/MN16) correlate approximately within the Upper Pliocene (resp. the lower Piacenzian Stage). The upper limit of the MN17 mammal faunal zone occurs within the lowermost Pleistocene.

Keywords

Magnetic Anomaly Planktonic Foraminifera Pollen Zone Mammal Fauna Radiometric Date 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Zusammenfassung

Eine Korrelationstabelle für das Neogen zwischen Magnetostratigraphie und marinen Planktonzonierungen, den in Verwendung stehenden Mediterranen- und Zentralen Paratethys-Stufen, den Pollenzonierungen, aber vor allem den SäugetierFaunenzonen und Fauneneinheiten sowie neu vorgeschlagener kontinentaler chronostratigraphischer Stufen wird vorgelegt und im Text diskutiert. Eine Datenbank für die Korrelation der Säugetier-Zonierung ist angefügt. Die Grenzen der neogenen Säugetier-Faunen-Einheiten können nach dem derzeitigen Kenntnisstand wie folgt korreliert werden: Agenium/Orleanium (MN2b/MN3–Faunen-Zone) mit der Aquitan/ Burdigal-Grenze (NN1/NN2); Orleanium/Astaracium-Grenze (MN5/MN6) im Bereich der Burdigal/Langhe-Grenze (NN4/NN5); Astaracium/Vallesium-Grenze (MN8/MN9) im Bereich der Serravall/Torton-Grenze (in der NN9); Vallesium/Turolium-Grenze (MN10/MN11) im mittleren Torton (in der NN10); Turolium/Ruscinium-Grenze (MN13/MN14) mit der Messin/Zanclium-Grenze (in der NN12); Oberkante des Rusciniums (MN15/MN16) im Bereich des tieferen Piacenzium und die Oberkante der Säugetier-Faunenzone MN16 im Bereich des höheren Piacenzium, die SäugetierFaunenzone MN17 reicht in das tiefere Pleistozän.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aguilar, J.-P., 1982a. Stratigraphie - Biozonation du Miocène d’Europe occidentale à l’aide des Rongeurs et corrélations avec l’échelle stratigraphique marine. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, v. 294 (Série II), p. 49–54.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilar, J.-P., 1982b. Contributions â l’etude des micromammiferes du gisement Miocène superieur de Montredon (Herault). 2. Les rongeurs. Palaeovertebrata, v. 12 /3, p. 81–117.Google Scholar
  3. Aguilar, J.-P. and Michaux, J., 1984. Le Gisement a micromammiferes du Mont-Helene (Pyrenees-Orientales): Apports a la connaissance de l’Histoire des faunes et des environnements continentaux implications stratigraphiques pour le Pliocene du Sud de la France. Paléobiologie continentale, v. XIV /2, p. 19–31.Google Scholar
  4. Aguirre, E., Alberdi, M.T., and Pérez Gonzalez, A., 1975. Vallesian, in Steininger, F.F. and Nevesskaya, L.A. (eds.), “Comm. on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy,” Vol. 2, Bratislava, p. 153–157.Google Scholar
  5. Aguirre, E., Alberdi, M.T., and Pérez Gonzalez, A., 1975. Turolian, in Steininger, F.F. and Nevesskaya, L.A. (eds.), “Comm. on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy,” Vol. 2, Bratislava, p. 149–152.Google Scholar
  6. Agusti, J., Cabrera, L., Anad6n, P., and Arbiol, S., 1988. A Late Oligocene-Early Miocene rodent biozonation from the SE Ebro Basin (NE Spain): A potential mammal stage stratotype. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 18 (2), p. 81–97.Google Scholar
  7. Alberdi, M.T. and Aguirre, E., 1977. Round-table on Mastostratigraphy of the W. Mediterranean Neogene. Trab. Neogeno-Cuaternario 7, 47 p.Google Scholar
  8. Alberdi, M.T. and Bonadonna, F.P., 1987. Evaluation on Lower and Middle Villafranchian chronostratigraphy. Proceedings of the VIIIth RCMNS Congress, Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 85–91.Google Scholar
  9. Alberdi, M.T., Arias, C., Bigazzi, G., et al., 1982. Nuevo yacimiento de moluscos y vertebrados del Villafranguiense de la Cuenca del Jucar (Albacete, Espana). Coll. “Le Villafranchien mediterraneen,” 9.-10.12. 1982, p. 255–271.Google Scholar
  10. Alvinerie, J. and Gayet, J., 1971. Sur l’importance de la coupe de Balizac (Gironde) pour la compréhension du Miocène inférieur de la région de Villandraut (feuille d’Hostens au 1/50 000). Bulletin du B.R.G.M. (deuxième serie), v. 1, p. 47–51.Google Scholar
  11. Andreescu, I., 1981. Middle-Upper Neogene and Early Quaternary chronostratigraphy from the Dacic Basin and correlations with neighbouring areas, in Marinos, G. and Symeonidis, N. (eds.), “Proceedings of the VIIth International Congress on Mediterranean Neogene, Athens, September 27–October 2, 1979.” Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques, Hors Série, Fasc. IV, Lab. de Géologie de l’Université Athènes, p. 130–138.Google Scholar
  12. Andreescu, I., 1987. Controversial approaches to the use of Middle-Upper Neogene chronostratigraphic units from the Tethys and the Paratethys. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 344–349.Google Scholar
  13. Andreescu, I., Radan, S., and Radan, M., 1987. Magnetobiostratigraphy of the Middle-Upper Neogene and Pleistocene deposits of Romania. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 113–118.Google Scholar
  14. Antunes, M.T., 1988. The “proboscidean datum:” Evidence from the Miocene of Lisbon. Abstract NATO ARW, European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Reisensburg; also, see chapter in this volume with same title.Google Scholar
  15. Antunes, M.T. and Mein, P., 1977. Contributions à la paleontologie du Miocene moyen continental du bassin du Tage. III Mammiferes - P6voa de Santorém, Pero Filho et Chóes (Secorio). Conclusions générales: Ciencias da Tewa (UNL), Lisboa, no. 3, p. 143–165.Google Scholar
  16. Azzaroli, A., 1988. The genus Equus in Europe. This volume, p. 339–356Google Scholar
  17. Azzaroli, A., Giuli, C. de, Ficcarelli, G., and Torre, D., 1988. Late Pliocene to Early Mid-Pleistocene mammals in Eurasia: Faunal succession and dispersal events. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 66, p. 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Baldauf, J.G., Thomas, E., Clement, B., Takayama, T., Weaver, P.P.E., Backman, J., Jenkins, G., Mudie, P.J., and Westberg-Smith, M.J., 1987. Magnetostratigraphic and biostratigraphic synthesis. Deep See Drilling Project Leg 94, DSDP 94, p. 1159–1205.Google Scholar
  19. Bandet, Y., Donville, B., and Michaux, J., 1978. Etude géologique et géochronologique du site villafranchien de Vialette (Puy de Dôme). Bul. Soc. Gaol. Fr., v. 20, p. 245–251.Google Scholar
  20. Barron, J.A., Nigrini, C.A., Pugos, A., Saito, T., Theyer, F., Thomas, E., and Weinreich, N., 1985a. Synthesis of biostratigraphy, central equatorial Pacific, Deep See Drilling Project Leg 85: Refinement of Oligocene to Quaternary biochronology. DSDP, Washington, v. LXXXV, p. 905–934.Google Scholar
  21. Barron, J.A., Keller, G., and Dunn, D.A., 1985b. A Multiple Microfossil Biochronology for the Miocene. Geological Society of America Memoir 163, 15 p.Google Scholar
  22. Barry, J.C., Johnson, N.M., Raza, S.M., and Jacobs, L.L., 1985. Neogene mammalian faunal change in southern Asia: Correlations with climatic, tectonic, and eustatic events. Geology, v. 13, p. 637–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Barton, C.E. and Bloumendal, J., 1986. Paleomagnetism of sediments collected during Leg 90, southwest Pacific. DSDP, Washington, v. 90, p. 1273–1300.Google Scholar
  24. Becker-Platen, J.D., Sickenberg, O., and Tobien, H., 1975. Vertebraten-VertebratenLokalfaunen der Türkei und ihre Altersstellung, in Sickenberg, O., Becker-Platen, J.D., Benda, L., Berg, D., Engesser, B., Gaziry, W., Heissig, K., Hünermann, K.A., Sondaar, P.Y., Schmidt-Kittler, N., Staesche, K., Staesche, U., Steffens, P., and Tobien, H. (eds.), “Die Gliederung des höheren Jungterti rs und Altquartärs in der Türkei nach Vertebraten und ihre Bedeutung für die internationale Neogen-Stratigraphie.” Geol. Jb., B. 15, 9 p.Google Scholar
  25. Becker-Platen, J.D., Benda, L., and Steffens, P., 1977, Litho-und biostratigraphische Deutung radiometrischer Altersbestimmungen aus dem Jungtertiär der Türkei (Känozoikum und Braunkohlen der Türkei, 18). Geol. Jb., B. 25, p. 139–167.Google Scholar
  26. Benda, L. and Bruijn, de H., 1982. Biostratigraphic correlations in the eastern Mediterranean Neogene. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 11 (3), p. 128–135.Google Scholar
  27. Benda, L. and Meulenkamp, J.E., 1979. Biostratigraphic correlations in the eastern Mediterranean Neogene. Calibration of sporomorph associations, marine micro-fossil and mammal zones, marine and continental stages and the radiometric scale: Ann. Géol. Pays Hellén., n.s., v. 1, p. 61–70.Google Scholar
  28. Benda, L. and Meulenkamp, J.E., 1989. Biostratigraphic correlations in the eastern Mediterranean Neogene. 9. Integrated biostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic scales. Newsl. Stratigr., in press.Google Scholar
  29. Benda, L., Heissig, K., and Steffens, P., 1975. Die Stellung der VertebratenFaunengruppen der Türkei innerhalb der chronostratigraphischen Systeme von Tethys und Paratethys, in Sickenberg, O. (ed.), “Die Gliederung des höheren Jungtertiärs und Altquartärs in der Türkei nach Vertebraten und ihre Bedeutung für die internationale Neogen-Stratigraphie.” Geol. Jb., B. 15, p. 110–116.Google Scholar
  30. Benda, L., Meulenkamp, J.E., and Weerd, A. van de, 1977. Biostratigraphic correlations in the eastern Mediterranean Neogene. 3. Correlation between mammal, sporomorph and marine microfossil assemblages from the upper Cenozoic of Rhodos, Greece. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 6 (2), p. 117–130.Google Scholar
  31. Berggren, W.A., 1969. Rates of evolution of some Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera. Micropaleontology, v. 15 (3), p. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Berggren, W.A., 1984. Correlation of Altantic, Mediterranean, and Indo-Pacific Neogene stratigraphies: Geochronology and chronostratigraphy, in Ikebe, N. and Tsuchi, R. (eds.), “Pacific Neogene Datum Planes. Contributions to Biostratigraphy and Chronology.” University of Tokyo Press, p. 93–110.Google Scholar
  33. Berggren, W.A., 1987. Neogene chronology and chronostratigraphy - New data. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., Budapest, v. LX X, p. 19–41.Google Scholar
  34. Berggren, W.A. and Miller, K.G., 1988. Paleogene tropical planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and magnetobiochronology. Micropaleont., v. 34, p. 362–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Berggren, W.A., Kent, D.V., Flynn, J.F., and Couvering, J.A. van, 1985a. Cenozoic geochronology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 96, p. 1407–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Berggren, W.A., Kent, D.V., and Couvering, J.A. van, 1985b. The Neogene: Part 2 Neogene geochronology and chronostratigraphy, in Snelling, N.J. (ed.), “The Chronology of the Geological Record.” Memoir 10, Blackwell Sci. Publ., p. 211–260.Google Scholar
  37. Bernor, R.L., 1983. Geochronology and zoogeographic relationships of Miocene Hominoidea, in Ciochon, R.L. and Corruccini, R.S. (eds.), “New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry.” Plenum, New York, p. 21–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Bernor, R.L., 1984. A zoogeographic theater and biochronologic play: TheGoogle Scholar
  39. time/biofacies phenomena of Eurasian and African Miocene mammal province. Paleobio. continent., v. 14(2), p. 121–142.Google Scholar
  40. Bernor, R.L., 1985. Systematic and evolutionary relationships of the hipparionine horses from Maragheh, Iran (late Miocene, Turolian age). Palaeovert., v. 15 (4), p. 173–269.Google Scholar
  41. Bernor, R.L., 1986. Mammalian biostragiraphy, geochronology, and zoogeographic relationships of the late Miocene Maragheh fauna, Iran. Journ. Vertebr. Paleont., v. 6 (1), p. 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Bernor, R.L., Woodburne, M.O., and Couvering, J.A. van, 1980. A contribution to the chronology of some Old World faunas based on hipparionine horses. Geobios, v. 13 (5), p. 25–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Bernor, R.L., Brunet, M., Ginsburg, L., Mein, P., Pickford, M., Rögl, F., Sen, S., Steininger, F., and Thomas, H., 1987. A consideration of some major topics concerning Old World Miocene mammalian chronology, migrations and paleo-geography. Geobios, v. 20 (4), p. 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Bernor, R.L., Kovar-Eder, J., Lipscomb, D., Rögl, F., Sen, S., and Tobien, H., 1988a. Systematic, stratigraphic, and paleoenvironmental contexts of first-appearing Hipparion in the Vienna Basin, Austria. Journ. Vertebr. Paleont., v. 8 (4), p. 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Bernor, R.L., Flynn, L., Harrison, T., Hussain, T., and Kelley, J., 1988b. Dionysopithecus from southern Pakistan and the biochronology and biogeography of early Eurasian catarrhines. Jo. Hum. Evo., v. 17, p. 339–358.Google Scholar
  46. Blow, W.H., 1969. Late Middle Eocene to Recent planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy, in Bronnimann, R. and Renz, H.H. (eds.), “Proceedings of the First International Conference on Plantonic Microfossils.” Leiden, p. 199–421.Google Scholar
  47. Boeuf, O., 1983. Le site villafranchien de Chilhac (Haute-Loire), France. Etude paléontologique et biochronologique. Thesis, Univ. Paris VII, 253 p.Google Scholar
  48. Bruijn, H. de, Mein, P., Montenat, C., and Weerd, A. van de, 1975. Correlations entre les gisements de rongeurs et les formations marines du Miocène terminal d’Espagne méridionale, I: Provinces d’Alicante et de Murcia. K. Ned. Akad. Wet., Proc., Ser. B, v. 78, p; 1–32.Google Scholar
  49. Bruijn, H. de, Sümengen, M., Unay, E., Sarac, G., and Terlemez, I., 1988. New Neogene rodent-assemblages from Anatolia (Turkey). Abstract NATO ARW, European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Reisensburg.Google Scholar
  50. Bukry, D., 1973. Low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphic zonation. Initial Reports DSDP 15, p. 685–703.Google Scholar
  51. Campbell, B.G., Amini, M.H., Bernor, R.L., Dickenson, W., Drake, W., Morris, R., Couvering, J.A. van, and Couvering, J.A.H. van, 1980. Maragheh: A classical late Miocene vertebrate locality in northwestern Iran. Nature, v. 287, p. 837–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Cati, F., Steininger, F.F., Borsetti, A.M., and Gelati, R., 1981. In Search of the Palaeogene/Neogene Boundary Stratotype. Part 1 Potential Boundary Stratotype Sections in Italy and Greece and a Comparison with Results from the Deep-Sea. International Union of Geological Sciences, Comm. Stratigr., Bologna, 210 p.Google Scholar
  53. Channell, J.E.T., Rio, D., and Thunnell, R.C., 1988. Miocene/Pliocene boundary magnetostratigraphy at Capo Spartivento, Calabria, Italy. Geology, v. 16, p. 1096–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Chepalyga, A.L., Korotkevich, E.L., Trubikhin, V.M., and Svellitskaya, T.V., 1985. Chronology of the eastern Paratethys regional stages and hipparion faunas according to paleomagnetic data. Abstracts, VIIIth Congress of the Regional Committee on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy, Budapest, p. 137–139.Google Scholar
  55. Cicha, I., Fahlbusch, V., and Fejfar, 0., 1972. Die biostratigraphische Korrelation einiger jungtertiärer Wirbeltierfaunen Mitteleuropas. N. Jb. Geol. Palaont. Abh., v. 140 (2), p. 129–145.Google Scholar
  56. Clauzon, G., 1982. Excursionguide: Neogene of Durance, SW France. Marseilles, 25 p.Google Scholar
  57. Clauzon, G. and Aguilar, J.-P., 1982. Stratigraphy - Geodynamic evolution of the North Provence during the upper and terminal Miocene after the rodents faunas. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, v. 294, p. 915–920.Google Scholar
  58. Crusafont-Pairo, M., 1950. Ei Siistema miocenio en la depresión espanola del VallésPenédes. Proc. Internat. Geol. Congr., 18th Session, London, 1948, Part 11, p. 33–42.Google Scholar
  59. Crusafont-Pairo, M., 1965. Observations à un travail de M. Freudenthal et P.Y. Sondaar sur des nouveaux gisements à Hipparion d’Espagne. K. Ned. Acad. Wet. Amsterdam, v. 68, p. 121–126.Google Scholar
  60. Daams, R. and Freudenthal, M., 1981. Aragonian: The stage concept versus Neogene Mammal Zones. Scripta Geol., v. 62, p. 1–17.Google Scholar
  61. Daams, R. and Freudenthal, M., 1987. Synopsis of the Dutch-Spanish collaboration program in the Aragonian type area, 1975–1986. Scripta Geol., Special Issue No. 1, p. 3–18.Google Scholar
  62. Daams, R., Freudenthal, M., and Weerd, A. van de, 1977. Aragonian, a new stage for continental deposits of Miocene age. Newsl. Stratigr., y. 6 (1), p. 42–55.Google Scholar
  63. Daams, R., Freudenthal, M., and Alvarez, M.A., 1987. Ramblian, a new stage for continental deposits of early Miocene age. Geol. en Mijnb., v. 65, p. 297–308.Google Scholar
  64. Daxner-Höck, G., 1971. Vertebrata (excl. Pisces) der Eggenburger Schichtengruppe, in Steininger, F. and Senes, J. (eds.), “Ml Eggenburgien - Die Eggenburger Schichtengruppe und ihr Stratotypus.” Slov. Acad., Bratislava, 827 p.Google Scholar
  65. Falhbusch, V., 1976. Report on the international symposium on mammalian stratigraphy of the European Tertiary. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 5 (2/3), p. 160–167.Google Scholar
  66. Fejfar, O., 1988. The Neogene VP sites of Czechoslovakia: A contribution the Neogene terrestric biostratigraphy of Europe based on rodents. Abstract NATO ARW, European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Reisensburg; also, see chapter in this volume with same title.Google Scholar
  67. Feru, M., Radulesco, C., and Samson, P., 1980. La faune de Micromammiferes du Miocène de Comanesti (dép. d’Arad). Tray. Inst. Speol. “Emile Racovitza,” t. XIX, p. 171–190.Google Scholar
  68. Gelati, R. and Steininger, F.F., 1983. In search of the Palaeogene/Neogene boundary stratotype. Part 2. Potential boundary stratotype sections in Italy and Spain. A comparison with results from the deep sea and the environmental changes. Rivista Italiana Paleont. Stratigr., v. 89 (4), p. 451–564.Google Scholar
  69. Ginsburg, L., 1984. Précisions sur l’âge de la série Miocène du bassin de Lisbonne, “Volume d’hommage au géologue G. Zbyszewski,” Ed. Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, p. 325–331.Google Scholar
  70. Giuli, C. de and Vai, G.B., 1988. Fossil vertebrates in the Lamone Valley, Romagna, Appennines. Field Trip Guidebook, Univ. Firenze-Univ. Bologna, p. 1–76. Lithographica Faenza.Google Scholar
  71. Giuli, C. de, Ficcarelli, G., Mazza, P., and Torre, D., 1983. Confronto tra succession marine e continetali del Pliocene e Pleistocene inferiore in Italia e nell’area mediterranea. Boll. Soc. Palaeontol. Ital., v. 22, p. 323–328.Google Scholar
  72. Gourinard, Y., Magné, J., and Wallez, M.-J., 1987. Présence de la mer burdigalienne dans le centre de l’Aquitaine. Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat., v. 123, p. 147–150.Google Scholar
  73. Grill, R., 1962. Erläuterungen zur Geologischen Karte der Umgebung von Korneuburg und Stockerau. Wien, 52 p.Google Scholar
  74. Hailwood, E.A., 1989. The role of magnetostratigraphy in the development of geological time scales. Paleooceanography, v. 4, p. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hamor, G., Ravasz-Baranyai, L., Halmai, J., Balogh, K., and Arva-S6s, E., 1987. Dating of Miocene acid and intermediate volcanic activity in Hungary. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 149–154.Google Scholar
  76. Haq, B.U. and Takayama, T., 1984. Neogene calcareous nannoplankton datum planes and their calibration to magnetostratigraphy, in Ikebe, N. and Tsuchi, R. (eds.), “Pacific Neogene Datum Planes. Contributions to Biostratigraphy and Chronology.” University of Tokyo Press, p. 27–33.Google Scholar
  77. Haq, B.U., Hardenbol, J., and Vail, P.R., 1987. Chronology of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic. Science, v. 235, p. 1156–1167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Hedberg, H.D., 1976. International Stratigraphic Guide. A Guide to Stratigraphic Classification, Terminology, and Procedure. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 200 p.Google Scholar
  79. Heissig, K., 1988. The faunal succession in the Bavarian Molasse reconsidered - Correlation of the faunas of the MN5 and MN6 zones. Abstract NATO ARW, European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Reisensburg; also see chapter in this volume with same title.Google Scholar
  80. Heizmann, E.P.J. and Fahlbusch, V., 1983. Die mittelmiozäne Wirbeltierfauna vom Steinberg (Nördlinger Ries). Eine Ubersicht, Mitt. Bayer. Staatsslg. Palëont. hist. Geol., v. 23, p. 83–93.Google Scholar
  81. Hochuli, P., 1978. Palynologische Untersuchungen im Oligoz’ânn und Untermiozän der Zentralen und Westlichen Paratethys. Beitr. Paläont. Osterr., v. 4, p. 1–132.Google Scholar
  82. Hugueney, M. and Ringeade, M., 1988. Synthesis on the “Aquitanian” rodent faunas of the Aquitaine basin. Abstract NATO ARW, European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Reisensburg; also see chapter in this volume with same title.Google Scholar
  83. Iaccarino, S., 1985. Mediterranean Miocene and Pliocene planktic foraminifera, in Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B., and Perch-Nielsen, K. (eds.), “Plankton-Stratigraphie.” Cambridge University Press, p. 284–314.Google Scholar
  84. Jaeger, J.J., Michaux, J., and David, B., 1973. Biochronologie du Miocene moyen et superieur continental du Maghreb. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, v. 277, p. 2477–2480.Google Scholar
  85. Keller, G., 1983. The Palaeogene/Neogene boundary in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, in Gelati, R. and Steininger, F.F. (eds.), “In Search of the Palaeogene/Neogene Boundary Stratotype. Part 2. Potential Boundary Stratotype Sections in Italy and Spain. A Comparison with Results from the Deep Sea and the Environmental Changes.” Rivista Italiana Paleont. Stratigr., v. 89, p. 529–545.Google Scholar
  86. Kollmann, K., 1965. Jungtertiär im Steirischen Becken. Mitt. Geol. Ges. Wien, v. 57, p. 479–632.Google Scholar
  87. Kretzoi, M. and Pécsi, M., 1982. Pliocene and Quaternary chronostratigraphy and continental surface development of the Pannonian Basin. Quaternary Studies in Hungary, p. 11–42.Google Scholar
  88. LaBrecque, J.L., Hsü, K.J., Carman, M.F. Jr., Karpoff, A.-M., McKenzie, J.A., Percival, S.F. Jr., Petersen, N.P., Pisciotto, K.A., Schreiber, E., Tauxe, L., Tucker, P., Weissert, H.J., and Wright, R., 1983. DSDP Leg 73: Contributions to Paleogene stratigraphy in nomenclature, chronology and sedimentation rates. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 42, p. 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Leone, G., 1985. Paleoclimatology of the Casas del Rincon Villafranchian series (Spain) from stable isotope data. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 49, p. 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lindsay, E.H., 1985. European late Cenozoic biochronology and the magnetic polarity time scale: National Geographic Society Research Reports, v. 20, p. 449–456.Google Scholar
  91. Lindsay, E.H., Opdyke, N.D., and Johnson, N.M., 1980. Pliocene dispersal of horse Equus and late Cenozoic mammalian dispersal events. Nature, v. 287, p. 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ly Meng Hour, Cantagrel, J.M., De Geer De Herve, A., and Vincent, P.M., 1983. Revision tephrochronologiques es depots fossilifères Plio-Pleistocènes des -.nvirons de Perrier et Champeix (Puy-de-Dôme, France). Actes Colloq. Le ‘illafranchien méditerranéen, Lille, v. 2, p. 407–422.Google Scholar
  93. Marks, P., 1971. Turolian. Giornale di Geologia, (2) XXXVII, p. 209–213.Google Scholar
  94. Marks, P., 1971. Vallesian. Giornale di Geologia, (2) XXXVII, p. 215–219.Google Scholar
  95. Martini, E. and Müller, C., 1986. Current Tertiary and Quaternary calcareous nannoplankton stratigraphy and correlations. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 16 (2), p. 99–112.Google Scholar
  96. McKenzie, J.A., Hodell, D.A., Mueller, P.A., and Mueller, D.W., 1988. Application of strontium isotopes to late Miocene-early Pliocene stratigraphy. Geology, v. 16, p. 1022–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Mein, P., 1975. Résultats du Groupe de Travail des Vertébrés, in Senes, J. (ed.), “Report on Activity of R.C.M.N.S. Working Group.” Reg. Comm. Med. Neogene Stratigraphy, p. 78–81.Google Scholar
  98. Mein, P., 1981. Mammal zonations: Introduction, in Marinos, G. and Symeonidis (eds.), “Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques. Proceedings of the VIIth International Congress on Mediterranean Neogene, Athens, September 27–October 2, 1979.” Lab. de Géologie de l’Université Athènes, p. 83–88.Google Scholar
  99. Mein, P., 1989. Die Kleinsäugerfauna des Untermiozäns (Eggenburgien) von Maigen, Niederösterreich. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, v. 90 A, p. 49–58.Google Scholar
  100. Mein, P., 1989. Updating of MN zones. This volume, p. 73–90Google Scholar
  101. Mein, P., Bizon, G., Bizon, J.J., and Montenat, C., 1973. Le gisement de mammifères de La Alberca (Murica, Espagne méridionale), C.rrelations avec les formations marines du Miocene terminal. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. D, 276, p. 3077–3080.Google Scholar
  102. Miller, K.G., Aubry, M.-P., Khan, M.J., Melillo, A.J., Kent, D.V., and Berggren, W.A., 1985. Oligocene-Miocene biostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy and isotopic stratigraphy of the western North Atlantic. Geology, v. 13, p. 257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Montenat, C. and Bruijn, H. de,1976. The Ruscinian rodent faunule from La Juliana (Murcia): Its implication for the correlation of continental and marine bio-zones. Koninkl. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch., Ser. B 79(4), p. 245–255.Google Scholar
  104. Montenat, C., Thaler, L., and Couvering, J.A. van, 1975. La faune de Rongeurs de Librilla. C.rrelation avec les formations marines du Miocène terminal et les datations radiométriques du volcanisme de Barqueros (Province de Murcia, Espagne méridionale). C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, v. 281, p. 519–522.Google Scholar
  105. Moyà-Solâ, S. and Agusti, J., 1987. The Vallesian in the type area (Valles-Penedes, Barcelona, Spain). Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 93–99.Google Scholar
  106. Mottl, M., 1957. Bericht über die neuen Menschenaffenfunde aus Osterreich, von St. Stefan im Lavanttal, Kärnten, Carinthia II, 67, Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
  107. Motti, M., 1980. Die jungtertiären Säugetierfaunen der Steiermark, Südost-Google Scholar
  108. Osterreich. Mitt. Mus. Bergbau, Geol., Techn. Landesmus. Joanneum Graz, v. 31, p. 79–168.Google Scholar
  109. Okada, H. and Bukry, D., 1980. Supplementary modification and introduction of code numbers to the low-latitude coccolith biostratigrahic zonation (Bukry 1973, 1975). Marine Micropaleont., v. 4, p. 321–325.Google Scholar
  110. Opdyke, N.D., Mein, P., Moissenet, E., Perez-Gonzales, A., Lindsay, E., and Petko, M., 1988. Magnetostratigraphy of upper Neogene mammal bearing sequence of Spain. Abstract NATO ARW, European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Reisensburg; also, see chapter in this volume by same authors.Google Scholar
  111. Papp, A., 1981. Calibration of Mediterranean, Paratethys and continental stages. Ann. Geol. Pays Hellen., Hors Série 1981, Fasc. IV, p. 73–78.Google Scholar
  112. Papp, A., Marinescu, F., Senes, J., et al., 1974. Sarmatien, in Chronostrat. u. Neostratotypen, 4, 1–707, Edit. VEDA, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  113. Papp, A., Cicha, I., Senes, J., Steininger, F., et al., 1978. Badenien, in Chronostrat. u. Neostratotypen, 6, Edit. VEDA, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  114. Papp, A., Jambor, A., Steininger, F., et al., 1985. M6 Pannonien (Slavonien und Serbien). Chronostrat. u. Neostratotypen, 7, Akad“émia Kiad6”, Budapest.Google Scholar
  115. Pevzner, M.A., 1987. The Pontian of the eastern Paratethys: Its duration and position in the magnetochronological scale. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung, v. LXX, p. 169–171.Google Scholar
  116. Pevzner, M.A. and Vangenheim, E.A., 1985a. On understanding the range and strati-graphic position of the Pannonian, in Kretzoi, M. and Pecsi, M. (eds.), “Problems of the Neogene and Quaternary.” Akadémia Kiad6, Budapest, p. 65–88.Google Scholar
  117. Pevzner, M.A. and Vangenheim, E.A., 1985b. Magnetostratigraphy and correlation of biostratigraphic subdivisions of the Paratethyan and Mediterranean Neogene. Abstracts, VIIIth Congress of the Regional Committee on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy, Budapest, p. 461–462.Google Scholar
  118. Pevzner, M.A. and Vangenheim, E.A., 1987, in Steininger, F.F., Rögl, F., and Dermitzakis, M., “Report on the Round Table Discussion: ‘Mediterranean and Paratethys Correlations.”’ Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung, v. LXX, p. 418–419.Google Scholar
  119. Poignant, A. and Pujol, C., 1979. Les Stratotypes du Bordelais (Bassin d’Aquitaine, France): Aquitanien et Burdigalien le “Sallomacien.” Leur Microfaune et leur Position Biostratigraphique. Ann. Géol. Pays Hellen., Tome hors série 1979, fasc. II, p. 993–1001.Google Scholar
  120. Rabeder, G., 1981. Die Arvicoliden (Rodentia, Mammalia) aus dem Pliozân und dem âlteren Pleistozän von Niederösterreich. Beitr. Palaont. Osterr., 8, Wien.Google Scholar
  121. Rabeder, G., 1985. Die Säugetiere des Pannonien, in Papp, A., Jambor, A., and Steininger, F.F. (eds.), “Miozän M6 Pannonien.” Chronostrat. u. Neostratotypen, Akad. Kiado, Budapest, p. 440–463.Google Scholar
  122. Rabeder, G. and Steininger, F., 1975. Die direkten biostratigraphischen Korrelationsmöglichkeiten von Saugetierfaunen aus dem Oligo/Miozän der Zentralen Paratethys. Proceedings, VIth Congress Regional Committee on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy, Bratislava, p. 177–183.Google Scholar
  123. Ringeade, M., 1978. Micromammifères et biostratigraphie des horizons aquitaniens d’Aquitaine. Bull. Soc. géol. France, (7), t. XX, 6, p. 807–813.Google Scholar
  124. Rio, D., Sprovieri, R., Raffi, I., and Valleri, G., 1988. Biostratigrafia e paleoecologia della sezione stratotipica del Piacenziano. Boll. Soc. Paleont. Italiana, v. 27 (2), p. 213–238.Google Scholar
  125. Rögl, F., 1981. Plantonic foraminifera, in Cati, F. (ed.), “In Search of the Palaeogene/Neogene Boundary Stratotype. Part 1. Potential Boundary Stratotype Sections in Italy and Greece and a Comparison with Results from the Deep-Sea.” International Union of Geological Sciences, Comm. on Stratigraphy, Publ. 3, Working Group on the Palaeogene/Neogene Boundary, p. 43–45.Google Scholar
  126. Rögl, F. and Müller, C., 1976. Das Mittelmiozän und die Baden-Sarmat Grenze in Walbersdorf (Burgenland). Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, v. 80, p. 221–232.Google Scholar
  127. Rögl, F. and Steininger, F.F., 1983. Vom Zerfall der Tethys zu Mediterran and Paratethys. Die neogene Paläeogeographie und Palinspastik des zirkummediterranen Raumes. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, v. 85 A, p. 135–163.Google Scholar
  128. Rögl, F., Hochuli, P., and Müller, C., 1979. Oligocene-early Miocene stratigraphic correlations in the Molasse Basin of Austria. Ann. Geol. Pays Hellen., Tome hors série, 1979, fasc. III, p. 1045–1049.Google Scholar
  129. Ryan, W.B.F., Cita, M.B., Dreyfus Rawson, M., Burckle, L.H., and Saito, T., 1974. A paleomagnetic assigment of Neogene stage boundaries and the development of isochronous datum planes between the Mediterranean, the Pacific and Indian Oceans in order to investigate the response of the world ocean to the Mediterranean “salinity crises.” Rivista Italiana Paleont., v. 80(4),ßp. 631–688.Google Scholar
  130. Sen, S., 1986. Contribution a la magnétostratigraphie et a la paléontologie des formations continentales Néogênes du pourtour Mediterraneen. These d’Etat Univ. Paris 6 (86.19), 209 p.Google Scholar
  131. Sen, S., 1988. “Hipparion datum” and its chronologic evidence in the Mediterranean area. Abstract NATO ARW, European Neogene Mammal Chronology, Reisensburg; also see chapter in this volume by Sen.Google Scholar
  132. Sen, S. and Valet, J.-P., 1983. A preliminary magnetostatigraphic study of the Neogene of Samos, Greece. Terra Cognita, v. 3, p. 110.Google Scholar
  133. Sen, S. and Valet, J.-P., 1986. Magnetostratigraphy of late Miocene continental deposits in Samos, Greece. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 80, p. 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sen, S., Valet, J.-P., and Ioakim, C., 1986. Magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Neogene deposits of Kastellios Hill (central Crete, Greece). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 53, p. 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Sickenberg, O., Becker-Planten, J.D., Benda, L., Berg, D., Engesser, B., Gaziry, W., Heissig, H., Hünermann, K.A., Sondaar, P.Y., Schmidt-Kittler, N., Staesche, K., Staesche, U., Steffens, P., and Tobien, H., 1975. Die Gliederung des höheren Jungtertiärs und Altquartärs in der Türkei nach Vertebraten und ihre Bedeutung fur die internationale Neogen-Stratigraphie. Geol. Jb., v. 15, p. 167.Google Scholar
  136. Solounias, N., 1981. The Samos fauna. Contrib. Vert. Paleo., v. 6, p. 1–232.Google Scholar
  137. Sovis, W., 1987. Katalog zur Ausstellung: Projekt “Teiritzberg” Fossilien aus dem Karpat des Korneuburger Beckens, Stockerau.Google Scholar
  138. Srinivasan, M.S. and Kennett, J.P., 1983. The Oligocene-Miocene boundary in the South Pacific. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 94, p. 798–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Stevanoviç, P.M., 1987. Delimitation and correlation of the Pontian and the Messinian stages on the basis of malacofauna. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LX X, p. 363–370.Google Scholar
  140. Steininger, F., 1977. Integrated assemblage zone biostratigraphy at marine-nonmarine boundaries; an example from the Neogene of central Europe, in Kauffman, E.G. and Hazel, J.E. (eds.), “Concepts and Methods of Biostratigraphy.” Paleontological Society.Google Scholar
  141. Steininger, F.F., 1982. The Palaeogene-Neogene (Oligocene-Miocene) boundary, in Odin, G.S. (ed.), “Numeral Dating in Stratigraphy.”. J. Wiley, and Sons, Ltd., London, 2, p. 653–658.Google Scholar
  142. Steininger, F. and Papp, A., 1979. Current biostratigraphic and radiometric correlations of late Miocene Central Paratethys stages (Sarmatian s.str., Pannonian s.str., and Pontian) and Mediterranean stages (Tortonian and Messinian) and the Messinian Event in the Paratethys. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 8, p. 100–110.Google Scholar
  143. Steininger, F.F., Rabeder, G., and Rögl, F., 1985a. Land mammal distribution in the Mediterranean Neogene - A consequence of geokinematic and climatic events, in Stanley, D.J. and Wezel, F.C. (eds.), “Geological Evolution of the Mediterranean Basin.” Springer, New York, p. 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Steininger, F.F., Senes, J., Kleemann, K., and Rögl, F., 1985b. Neogene of the Mediterranean Tethys and Paratethys. Stratigraphic Correlation Tables and Sediment Distribution Maps. Inst. Paleontol., Vienne, Vol. 1: XN+189 p., Vol. 2: XXV+524 p.Google Scholar
  145. Steininger, F.F., Rögl, F., and Dermitzakis, M., 1987. Report on the Round Table Discussion: “Mediterranean and Paratethys Correlations.” Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 397–421.Google Scholar
  146. Suc, J.-P., 1980. Contribution à la connaissance du Pliocéne et du Pléistocene inférieur des régions méditerranéennes d’Europe occidentale par l’analyse palynologique des dépôts du Languedoc-Rousillon (sud de la France) et de la Catalogne (nord-est de l’Espagne). Thesis, Montpellier, 198 p.Google Scholar
  147. Suc, J.-P., 1982. Palynostratigraphie et paléoclimatologie du Pliocène et du Pleistocène inférieur en Mediterranee nord-occidentale. C. R. Acad. Sci., ser. 2, 294, p. 1003–1008.Google Scholar
  148. Suc, J.-P., 1987. Palynology as a stratigraphic tool: The western Mediterranean Neogene record: Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 65–69.Google Scholar
  149. Suc, J.-P. and Zagwijn, W.H., 1983. Plio-Pleistocene correlations between the northwestern Mediterranean region and northwestern Europe according to recent biostratigraphic and palaeoclimatic data. Boreas, v. 12, p. 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Thaler, L., 1966. Les rongeurs fossiles du Bas Languedoc dans leur rapports avec l’histoire des faunes et la stratigraphie du Tertiaire d’Europe. Mem. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat. Paris, ser. C 17, p. 1–296.Google Scholar
  151. Theyer, F. and Hammond, S.R., 1974. Paleomagnetic polarity sequence and radiolarian zones, Brunhes to Polarity Epoch 20. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 22, p. 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Theyer, F., Mato, C.Y., and Hammond, S.R., 1978. Paleomagnetic and geochronologic calibration of latest Oligocene to Pliocene radiolarian events, equatorial Pacific. Marine Micropaleontology, v. 3, p. 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Thomas, H., 1985. The lower and middle Miocene land connection of the Afro-Arabian plate and Asia: A major event for hominoid dispersal?, in Delson, E. (ed.), “Paleoanthropology: The Hard Evidence.” Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, p. 18.Google Scholar
  154. Torre, D., 1987. Pliocene and Pleistocene marine-continental correlations. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 71–77.Google Scholar
  155. Unay, E. and Bruijn, H. de, 1984. On some Neogene rodent assemblages from both sides of the Dardanelles, Turkey. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 13 (3), p. 119–132.Google Scholar
  156. Vass, D., Repok, I., Balogh, K., and Halmai, J., 1987. Revised radiometric time-scale for the Central Paratethyan Neogene. Ann. Inst. Geol. Publ. Hung., v. LXX, p. 423–434.Google Scholar
  157. Weidmann, M., Solounias, N., Drake, R.E., and Curtis, G.H., 1984. Neogene stratigraphy of the eastern basin, Samos Island, Greece. Geobios, v. 17 (4), p. 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Ziegler, R. and Fahlbusch, V., 1986. Kleinsäuger-Faunen aus der basalen OberenGoogle Scholar
  159. Süsswasser-Molasse Niederbayerns. Zitteliana, v. 14, p. 3–58.Google Scholar
  160. Zijderveld, J.D.A., Zachariasse, J.W., Verhallen, P.J.J.M., and Hilgen, F.J., 1986. The age of the Miocene-Pliocene boundary. Newsl. Stratigr., v. 16 (3), p. 169–181.Google Scholar
  161. Zöbelein, H.K., 1988. Die jungtertiären Hoewenegg-Schichen im Hegau (BadenWiirttemberg) und ihre Umgebung nach der Literatur. Mitt. Bayer. Staatsslg. Paläont. hist. Geol., v. 28, p. 173–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fritz F. Steininger
    • 1
  • Raymond L. Bernor
    • 2
  • Volker Fahlbusch
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für PälaontologieUniversität WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Laboratory of Paleobiology, Department of Anatomy College of MedicineHoward UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Institut für Paläontologie und historische GeologieUniversität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations