Fossil Mammals of Asia

Copyrighted Material

Introduction Toward a Continental Asian Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Framework XIAOMING WANG, LAWRENCE J. FLYNN, AND MIKAEL FORTELIUS

Strategically located between North America, Europe, and Africa, Asia is at the crossroads of intercontinental migrations of terrestrial mammals. Asia thus plays a crucial role in our understanding of mammalian evolution, zoogeography, and related questions about fi rst appearances of immigrant mammals in surrounding continents and their roles as major markers of biochronology. As the largest continent, Asia is the locus of origination for many groups of mammals and/or a site of significant subsequent evolution. The temporal and spatial distributions of these mammals in Asia thus provide a vital link to related clades in surrounding continents (figure I.1; see figure I.3). Such a strategic role is particularly apparent during the Neogene (~23–2.6 Ma) when Asia was intermittently connected to Africa and North America, and widely connected to Europe. Asia also occupies the greatest range of climates and habitats, from tropics to arctic and from rainforests to desert zones, often boasting the most fossiliferous regions with fantastic exposures and producing some of the richest fossil mammal localities in the world. It is therefore no exaggeration that Asia is central to a global understanding of mammalian history. Such importance and opportunity notwithstanding, with the exception of a few instances (such as northern Pakistan), Asian mammalian biostratigraphy lags behind that science in Europe and North America for historical reasons, and many unresolved issues become bottlenecks for a detailed understanding of mammalian evolution elsewhere. Despite a relatively late start, a tremendous surge has been seen in recent decades in indigenous re-

search, with international collaborations. Asian mammalian biostratigraphy is at a stage where local or regional frameworks are beginning to take shape, but there is no attempt at linking these regional syntheses to derive a continent-wide perspective. Asian vertebrate paleontologists are largely operating within the borders of their own countries, with infrequent communication across political boundaries. Th is is in contrast to situations in North America and Europe, where fluid exchange of information and ideas results in continuous refinement of continentwide chronological schemes that are widely accepted among practitioners (e.g., Woodburne 1987; Steininger et al. 1996; Steininger 1999; Woodburne 2004). During the last 30 years, an indigenous continental mammalian chronological system has been emerging, mostly based on existing, relatively well-studied faunas in China (Chiu et al. 1979; Li et al. 1984; Qiu 1989; Qiu and Qiu 1990, 1995; Tong et al. 1995; Qiu et al. 1999; Deng 2006). These compilations, however, suffer from some shortcomings. Foremost is constant looking to Europe as a reference for relative correlations. To a certain extent, this is inevitable as Asia and Eu rope constitute essentially a single continent during much of the Neogene and at any given time, the two “continents” share many faunal characteristics. However, this tendency of looking to the West for guidance also breeds a reluctance to build indigenous systems. As a result, discussions about chronology tend to make references to the European Neogene Mammal units (MN system), as if the latter’s “stamp of approval” would somehow make a more


Asiatic Russia

Ural M

European Russia

t.

38

46 47 37

Ural R

49

Kazakhstan

.

39

36

40

51

Georgia 53

Uz

2 1

3

Turkey

32

kis

tan

6

33

34

Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan

31 30

4

54 58 55

13 12

Afghanistan

11

Pa

Saudi Arabia

80

56 57

60

17 62 16 18 19 15 20 14 21

81

59

Japan

China

96

85 88

61

22

84

79 78 83 82 77 76 68 67 73 72 64 66 70 75 63 74 69 65 71

97

86 98 87

94 93

Nep

al

91

92

95

100

99

ma

r

10 9 8

42

7

U.A.E.

90

an

Egypt

kis

ta

n

Iran

Mongolia 43

35

be

5

52

50 44

41

India

My

Europe

48

45

24

89

23 25

28

27 26

Thailand

Africa

29

Figure I.1 Main Neogene vertebrate fossil-producing regions or localities in Asia discussed in this volume. A traditional definition of the continent of Asia is adopted here (areas without shade), even though such a definition is somewhat arbitrary and often does not represent natural boundaries of faunal provinces. The Aral Sea is currently much smaller than it is shown in this map. Afghanistan: (12) Khurdkabul Basin; (13) Kabul Basin. China: (51) Botamoyin (XJ99005) section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region; (52) Chibaerwoyi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region; (53) Dingshanyanchi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region; (54) Xishuigou section, Tabenbuluk (Danghe) Basin, Gansu Province; (55) Olongbuluk section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (56) Tuosu Nor section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (57) Shengou section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (58) Huaitoutala section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (59) Bulong Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region; (60) Kunlun Pass Basin, Qinghai Province; (61) Gyirong Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region; (62) Zanda Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region; (63) Guide Basin, Qinghai Province; (64) Xining Basin, Qinghai Province; (65) Linxia Basin, Gansu Province; (66) Zhangjiaping- Duitinggou section, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province; (67) Quantougou section, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province; (68) Tongxin Basin, Ningxia Autonomous Region; (69) Leijiahe, Lingtai area, Gansu Province; (70) Renjiagou, Lingtai area, Gansu Province; (71) Lantian area, Shaanxi Province; (72) Baode Basin, Shanxi Province; (73) Fugu area, Shaanxi Province; (74) Yushe Basin, Shanxi Province; (75) Jingle Basin, Shanxi Province; (76) Nihewan Basin, Hebei Province; (77) Damiao area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (78) Aoerban area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (79) Gashunyinadege area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (80) Tunggur Tableland, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (81) Baogeda Ula area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (82) Jurh area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (83) Huade area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (84) Gaotege area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (85) Shanwang area, Shandong Province; (86) Sihong area, Jiangsu Province; (87) Nanjing area, Jiangsu Province; (88) Huainan area, Anhui Province; (89) Xiaolongtan Basin, Yunnan Province; (90) Lufeng Basin, Yunnan Province; (91) Yuanmou Basin, Yunnan Province; (92) Zhaotong (Chaotung) Basin, Yunnan Province. Georgia: (5) Bazaleti; (6) Eldari. India: (17) Ramnagar; (18) Nurpur; (19) Haritalyangar; (20) Chandigarh and Haripur Khol areas; (21) Kalagarh. Iran: (4) Maragheh. Japan: (93) Kani Basin, Gifu Prefecture; (94) Mizunami Basin, Gifu Prefecture; (95) Sasebo area, Nagasaki Prefecture; (96) Sendai area, Miyagi Prefecture; (97) Tochio area, Niigata Prefecture; (98) Aikawa area, Kanagawa Prefecture; (99) Iga- Omi Basin, Mie Prefecture; (100) Awaji Island, Hyogo Prefecture. Kazakhstan: (35) Aktau Mountain area; (36) Kalmakpay; (37) Pavlodar; (39) North Aral region; (40) northern Ustyurt region. Kyrgyzstan: (33) Ortok; (34) Djilgyndykoo and Akterek. Mongolia: (41) Altan-Teli and Hyargas Nor; (42) Valley of Lakes; (43) Kholobolchi Nor and Hung Kureh; (44) Shamar. Myanmar: (23) Chaungtha; (24) Yenangyaung; (25) Magway. Nepal: (22) Dang Valley. Pakistan: (14) Bugti; (15) Zinda Pir; (16) Potwar Plateau. Russia: (38) Novaya Stanitsa and Isakovka; (45) Tuva; (46) Tagay and Sarayskoe; (47) Aya Cave; (48) Tologoi 1; (49) Udunga; (50) Beregovaya. Saudi Arabia: (8) Al Jadidah; (9) Jabal Midra ash-Shamali; (10) Ad Dabtiyah; (11) As Sarrar. Tajikistan: (30) Daraispon; (31) Magian and Pedjikent. Thailand: (26) Li Mae Long Basin; (27) Mae Moh Basin; (28) Chiang Muan Basin; (29) Mun River Sand Pits. Turkey: (1) Pas¸alar; (2) Sinap; (3) central and western Anatolia. United Arab Emirates: (7) Al Gharbia. Uzbekistan: (32) Kairakkum.


A CONTINENTAL ASIAN BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOCHRONOLOGIC FRAMEWORK

reliable age determination. Th is is unfortunate because many Asian faunas are derived from basins with long and continuous sections, which, with careful magnetic calibrations, can offer chronological control superior to the long-distance correlations that the MN system ever can achieve. Th is book is thus a coming-of-age attempt to synthesize the state of the art. By compiling mammal faunas from all major fossil-producing countries and regions in Asia, we hope to demonstrate that an Asian system can stand on its own, or at the very least be a starting point for further refi nements that can ultimately build a major continental system in its own right. Th is book is the result of a collaborative effort by leading mammalian paleontologists of the world, who gathered in Beijing in 2009 and 2010 for two international conferences for the purpose of formulating an initial framework of Asian continental biostratigraphy (see following section). The complex nature of such a task, which often has to contend with incomplete information, makes it necessarily an interim solution intended to encourage additional research and further debate. A timely publication of this volume, however incomplete it may be in par ticu lar areas, stands to gain the most by laying down the principles and practices of mammalian biostratigraphy and geochronology from all regions and countries. Toward this goal, we are confident that a well-established mammalian biostratigraphic framework in Asia will contribute to a global picture of mammalian evolution in a refi ned chronological context.

BACKGROUND FOR BEIJING WORKSHOPS AND GENESIS OF THIS VOLUME

The idea of an Asian Neogene biostratigraphic meeting in Beijing with Asia-wide participation came up in late June 2007, while the senior author (X. W.) was in Beijing. The main impetus was the recognition that there is, thus far, no Asia-wide forum to discuss the feasibility of an Asian land mammal age system. As an emerging leader, China seems a natural place to take the initiative, as the country embarks on an unprecedented economic development with attendant renaissance in basic research. China also happens to straddle the mid-latitude desert zones that are often the best hunting grounds for vertebrate fossils in the world. Its long history of “dragon bone” hunting, going back hundreds of years in traditional medicine, gives it a head start in vertebrate paleontology. Given these favorable conditions, a meeting proposal, with endorsements from Zhan-xiang Qiu, Zhu-ding Qiu, and Tao Deng, was submitted to the Institute of Verte-

3

brate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) in early July 2007. A symposium volume was also included in the proposal. However, organizational efforts did not begin in earnest until April 2008, when IVPP noted that such a meeting would be opportune as a celebration of its 80th anniversary. At this point, co-editors of this volume (LJF and MF) agreed to be involved in the meeting organization and editing of the symposium volume. The main challenge was to raise substantial funds to pay for participants who were otherwise unable to attend. Toward that end, we secured funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF, U.S.), National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC, China), and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, as well as institutional support from the IVPP. In par ticular, we adopted the Critical Transitions workshop (a NSF–NSFC cofunded workshop series on the critical transitions in the history of life) as a unifying theme for international collaborations. The “Neogene terrestrial mammalian biostratigraphy and chronology in Asia—a workshop and symposium toward the establishment of a continent-wide stratigraphic and chronologic framework” was convened at the IVPP over 3 days, June 8–10, 2009, followed by a 4-day postconference field trip to the Linxia Basin in Gansu Province. More than 70 scholars and graduate students participated in the workshop, with representation from 19 countries, including Austria, China, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iran, Japan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. It became apparent during the workshop that existing Chinese mammalian biostratigraphic divisions possess the best potential as the core of an Asian framework, as summarized by Woodburne: “The background of China’s long and fundamental role in developing a chronologic system was clearly recognized in this regard, and the array of approaches to developing chronological systems portrayed at this conference provided the Chinese organizers with considerable examples to draw upon in furthering their goals” (unpublished report to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology by M. O. Woodburne). As one of the chief architects of the Chinese system developed during the past 20 years, Zhan-xiang Qiu was tasked to form a working group for creating such a framework (Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume). However, it was clear from the beginning, as well as in reviews of various drafts of manuscripts circulated during the workshop, that serious disagreements exist regarding conceptual issues as well as practical problems. Another forum would thus be necessary to give a full airing of the controversies. Toward that end, a second workshop was organized, again funded


4

INTRODUCTION

by the NSF-NSFC critical transitions theme. Th is second workshop was held at IVPP, March 8–9, 2010, and attended by a small group of key participants from the United States, Finland, and China. Th is book, following a similar volume on North American mammals (Woodburne 2004), is the culmination of these efforts. It attempts to bring together state-of-the-art Asian biostratigraphy and geochronology with the widest representation possible.

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

One of the distinguishing features of the workshops is the open discussion about concepts and practices, as well as the diversity of opinions. Much reflection is given to practices elsewhere in the world. In par ticular, the European Neogene Mammal units (MN system) and North American Land Mammal Ages (NALMA) are closely scrutinized for strengths and weaknesses in the hope of building a better system. Many of the comments during the workshop are indicative of current sentiments regarding historic developments, and they are briefly summarized here as extractions from meeting minutes with original commentators cited in parentheses when appropriate. There is general recognition that the European MN system, although very practical and widely used, has some serious limitations, mostly out of necessity rather than by design. By its own nature and often for lack of long stratigraphic sections with unambiguous superpositional relationships, the MN system is a formulation of biozonation that cannot distinguish diachrony even in cases of precise correlation, and the system would not be able to distinguish time differences in correlative faunas (L. Werdelin). Furthermore, correlation errors can be as much as two MN units above and below (M. Fortelius). Whenever possible, therefore, an Asian system should avoid the deficiencies in the MN zonation, which is undergoing revision to improve the basis of those units. For example, current work by Spanish colleagues is recalibrating MN units to base them on a true biostratigraphic framework (J. Agustí), but where this is done, the Iberian equivalents are often younger than those in mainland Europe. Given the shortcomings of the MN system, the widely used chronostratigraphic stage (“golden spikes” and associated concepts) in the marine realm seems an attractive approach (M. Böhme). Furthermore, most of the marine Neogene stages have been ratified, and the All-China Stratigraphic Commission has been in full agreement with this approach and has attempted to set Chinese con-

tinental Neogene research in motion toward that goal (Z.-x. Qiu). However, there is strong opposition against a chronostratigraphic system by several participants, particularly those who champion an independent system as exemplified by the NALMA. The main problem with golden spikes is that, once nailed, they are no longer flexible, and an Asian system should be based on true biostratigraphy in multiple long sections that can be further refi ned and revised as new advancements come along (M. Woodburne; see further discussion in “Some Conceptual Issues”). Given the often messy developments of continental land mammal systems, some openly wonder if we should not simply do away with a land mammal age system and use numeric ages instead (F. Bibi). In fact, a biozonation has never been given a high priority in the Siwalik sequence (J. Barry), and people working in South Asia are generally content in talking about absolute ages rather than land mammal ages (L. Flynn). However, most seem to recognize that land mammal ages will always have a place in the formulation of a chronological system because the biological component can never be subjugated under isotopic dating or paleomagnetic dating (M. Woodburne). Another issue of major concern is the spatial distribution of mammal fossils. Geography is of paramount importance for a super-continent as Eurasia that spans great longitudes and latitudes and crosses many climatic zones. In South Asia and Southeast Asia, roughly the modern Oriental Zoogeographic Province, mammals share much greater similarities during much of the Neogene, whereas the low latitude faunas in southern China and southeastern Asia are generally unlike those from mid-latitudes in north China and the rest of central Asia (R. Hanta; L. Flynn). Nonetheless, mid-latitude faunas can often be recognized along great longitudinal spans, such as the Pikermian chronofauna originally recognized from late Miocene localities in Greece, which have comparable equivalents in north China (M. Fortelius). While conventional biostratigraphic approaches are perhaps best employed to generate regional stratifications, the rising field of computational ordering (seriation) of localities based on taxonomic presence/absence information (e.g., Alroy 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000; Fortelius et al. 2006; Puolamäki et al. 2006) may well offer more general systems. Ultimately based on the essentially irreversible evolution of lineages and communities (climate driven or intrinsic), computational approaches are especially attractive as a potential route toward a future, continent-wide mammal chronology. Indeed, a preliminary study by Alroy et al. (1998) already suggested that



the biochronological signal was stronger for Western Eurasia as a whole than for its western and eastern parts separated at 20 degrees eastern longitude. Such a result reflects well-known phenomena of the fossil record: regional persistence of core lineages and the connectedness of coeval communities through long-range dispersal of species. For the operational detection of both of these, two requirements are critical: standardized taxonomy and presence of exceptionally well-sampled “Rosetta localities” (Alroy 1992). Therefore, a key priority for computational as well as for conventional approaches to biostratigraphy is coming to grips with problems of synonymy and regional taxonomic “dialects.” For the time being, it is clear that an Asian land mammal system faces some challenges common to all continents (fossil mammals are rare; sampling errors are high; diachrony is common) as well as unique challenges in Asia (uneven studies in different countries; lack of marine interface; shortage of datable volcanic rocks interbedded in sediments; high degree of zoogeographic differentiation; some degree of endemism). Recognizing these challenges, the workshop participants adopted the following resolutions by unanimous consent: (1) an Asian chronologic system, independent from the European MN units, is needed; (2) such a system should be mainly based on biological events, associated with paleomagnetic and isotopic dates where available; (3) the existing Chinese system, imperfect as it is, can serve as a starting point that can evolve through time; (4) the benefit of such a system is a common framework in which hypotheses of biological events across the continent can be rigorously tested; (5) a committee headed by Zhan-xiang Qiu, Tao Deng, Zhuding Qiu, Chuan-kui Li, Zhao-qun Zhang, Ban-yue Wang, and Xiaoming Wang (additional expertise will be recruited as need arises) will work toward the above goal; and (6) additional subcommittees of relevant specialists to clean up taxonomies should be established.

SOME CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

Mammalian biostratigraphy has been and still is the primary means for Cenozoic terrestrial geochronology. Continental mammalian biostratigraphic frameworks are integral to related disciplines such as mammalian evolution, zoogeography, paleoecology, and paleoenvironment. Various chronologic frameworks have been established in all continents except Antarctica, but their qualities (precision and internal consistencies) vary greatly, with European and North American systems being the most

5

mature and those of other continents far less so. In developing an Asian land mammal system, much of the focus, both in workshop discussion and in subsequent manuscript development, has thus centered on the best practices in Europe and North America. Although the Chinese land mammal age system has implicitly or explicitly adopted certain aspects of the European or North American practices, past iterations have mostly been concerned with articulations of the empirical evidence instead of an examination of the methodologies (e.g., Qiu 1989; Qiu and Qiu 1990; Qiu et al. 1999). An introspective assessment of current practices in the world thus represents a welcomed fi rst step to construct a thoughtful system that is both methodologically defensible and practically useful. From the beginning of the fi rst workshop, it became clear that a European-style MN unit system has serious shortcomings because of its general lack of biostratigraphic underpinnings. The MN system, while widely practiced, offers little guidance as a model for Asia. Asia, like North America, possesses all the potential for developing a framework based on biostratigraphy in long stratigraphic sections. Nonetheless, the MN system is by far the most influential in Asian biochronologic developments due to the wide connections between the two continents and the large number of shared taxa in various ages. So pervasive are the MN units that it is not uncommon for Asian faunas to be directly compared to European ages/MN units or simply to be labeled with MN designation.

Unity with International Code vs. Regional Independence

One of the most controversial subjects during the two Beijing workshops is the desire to follow the International Stratigraphic Guide (ISG; Hedberg 1976; Salvador 1994). Intense debates center on the suitability of a chronostratigraphic system in continental settings with golden spikes (Global Stratotype Section and Point, or GSSP) nailed in a physical lithostratigraphic section. The debate is set against a background of recent trends in the Chinese stratigraphic community to adopt the ISG protocol, buoyed by the establishment of several Chinese GSSPs for the Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras (e.g., Yin et al. 2001; Chen et al. 2006). The All-China Stratigraphic Commission (2001) went as far as selecting many existing Chinese land mammal units as “stages” and briefly characterized each (within Neogene the following were included: Xiejian, Shanwangian, Tunggurian, Baodean, Gaozhuangian, and


6

INTRODUCTION

Mazegouan). To push these efforts further, the commission distributed grants to the IVPP to flesh out Cenozoic stages in China, which resulted in some preliminary boundary selections, mostly coinciding with those endorsed by the ISG (e.g., Deng et al. 2003; Deng et al. 2004; Deng et al. 2006; Meng et al. 2006; Deng et al. 2007). Whereas the GSSP standard promoted by the ISG is largely accepted in the marine stratigraphic community, it is far from certain how a continental system should proceed given its inherent problems in depositional gaps, rareness of fossils, patchiness in distribution, and insularity of paleoenvironments. While there is general agreement that such factors call for regionally limited chronological systems, commonly at the continental scale or smaller, opinions are deeply divided regarding how to construct such a system and whether such a system should be consistent with the ISG recommendations. A prominent example is the North American Land Mammal Age system, which enjoys wide acceptance among North American vertebrate paleontologists but is at variance from the recommendations of the ISG. Fundamental to the premise of the NALMA is the recognition that there is no inherent reason why events in land mammal evolution should coincide with those of marine organisms from half a world away. In fact, part of the initial impetus by the “Wood Committee” to establish the North American “provincial ages” is an attempt to avoid the “dangerous ambiguity, cumbersome circumlocution, or both” when trying to correlate to the European standard time scale (Wood et al. 1941:2). Following the recommendations by the All-China Stratigraphic Commission (2001), Qiu et al. (chapter 1, this volume) propose a Chinese Regional Land Mammal Stage/Age system that they envision will ultimately transition to one fully consistent with the ISG standards. Chronostratigraphic boundaries of such a system are based on multiple criteria of lithostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphic reversals, and mammalian fi rst appearances and faunal characterizations. In doing so, Qiu at al. point out that the NALMA also uses lithologic criteria, at least in the case of the lower boundary of the Arikareean. They further argue that land mammal ages cannot be equated to biochrons. In fact, in their opinion, biochrons have no place in a regional chronostratigraphic system. As a step further in making all land mammal stage/age systems conformable to the international standard, Qiu et al. propose that for those mammal ages whose lower boundaries are near the standard international boundaries of a higher rank, such as the Oligo-Miocene and Mio-Pliocene boundaries, the mammal age boundaries should coincide with the epoch boundaries.

Bringing their vast experience in the North American land mammal age system to bear, Woodburne, Tedford, and Lindsay (chapter 2, this volume) proposed a framework of an endemic North China mammalian biochronologic system as an evolving standard of temporal intervals that accounts for all of Neogene time without gaps or overlaps. They suggest that such a system represents informal biochronologic units, and until this system has been widely tested, formalized international chronostratigraphic standards should not be applied. Woodburne et al.’s premise is that a land mammal age system should always give fossil mammals prominent consideration. Methodologically, they strongly advocate for a single taxon definition of mammal age boundaries in order to minimize potential gaps and overlaps. In a compromise approach, Meng et al. (chapter 3, this volume) used the Xiejian as an example to illustrate their single-criterion, single-taxon defi nition, but largely within the chronostratigraphic framework recommended by the ISG. As such, Meng et al.’s scheme allows future adjustments of boundary defi nition but it must be tied to a specific stratotype section. Their Xiejian example also explores the case where a stage/age in question roughly coincides with a major international boundary of higher rank (in this case, Oligo–Miocene boundary). They treat these two boundaries as strictly separate entities and place the Xiejian lower boundary 0.5 myr above the international Oligo–Miocene boundary. Th is controversy pits chronostratigraphic boundary defi nition as a convention serving to standardize nomenclature against a more dynamic land mammal age scheme (as practiced by North American paleontologists), emphasizing empirical evidence and flexibility of shift ing boundaries. To a certain extent, the former seems to signal a desire to move toward an internationally accepted, marine invertebrate norm, whereas the latter represents a more self-confident approach to a regional, continental mammal-based system divorced from ISG standards.

CURRENT STATE OF ASIAN BIOCHRONOLOGY

Primarily as a working hypothesis and overview aid, we compile a generalized chart to summarize the state of continental Neogene mammalian biostratigraphy and chronology, usually based on the most recent published updates in the respective regions, including those in this volume (figure I.2). Not intended as an original synthesis, these diagrammatic summaries provide a mea sure of consistency in presentation of existing stratigraphic frameworks and thus serve as a quick index for existing

ALMA

Sinap Basin

Georgia

Iran Maragheh Basin

Anatolia

Eldari

U.A.E. Bazaleti

Saudi Arabia

Al Gharbia Ad Dabtiyah Region

Nihewanian

Europe (MN)

Turkey Gönen Basin

16 15 14

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


20

23

Early Miocene

4 3

2

Kaleköy/ Karaözü

3 -F -F

Dusheti Fm.

Shuwaihat Fm. Dam Fm.

6 Eldari bonebed

1 Pa alar Loc.

8 Al Jadidah

v-v-v-v-v Basalt 2

3

24,24A

-F

v-v-v-v-v Basalt

Pazar Fm.

Gemerek

Dam Fm.

De irmendere Fm.

Hofuf Fm.

v-v-v Basal Tuff Fm.

7 Baynunah F.

Hadrukh Fm.

5

Tunggurian

6

Shanwangian

7/8

L. Maragh. F.

5 Bazaleti loc.

10 11 As Sarrar + Ad Dabtiyah 9 Jabal Midra ash-Shamali

v-v-v-v Trachyte

Xiejian

Middle Miocene

9

U. Maragh. F.

Eldari Fm.

10

26,27,30,33,70 69 34 68 49 75, 83,84 11,12, OZ02 8A,B,114,108/8 72,91,108 106,113 87,89,93,94,121 4,88,107 64 104,65

Maragheh Fm.

11

4

-F

2

10

15

3 -F

Kemiklitepe

Baynunah Fm.

Sinap Fm.

12 Bahean

Late Miocene

13

Baodean

5

1

Figure I.2a Asian terrestrial Neogene vertebrate-producing strata, mammalian faunas, and faunistic complexes (abbreviated as “F” and “F C”) or fossil-producing horizons (placed within a box), and their chronologic relationships. Solid lines above and below a block of strata indicate approximate duration of the strata (often constrained by magnetostratigraphy), and absence of such lines indicates uncertainty of the duration of sedimentation. We adopt the Neogene- Quaternary (Pliocene/Pleistocene) boundary at 2.6 Ma, as formally defined by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (Mascarelli 2009), and many of the faunas falling within the 1.8–2.6 Ma interval and formerly considered late Pliocene are not treated here. Locality numbers correspond to those in figure I.1. Major Neogene faunas and strata of western Asia: (1) Pas¸alar, Gönen Basin, Turkey (Andrews and Alpagut 1990); (2) Sinap, Turkey (Kappelman et al. 2003; numbers indicate select fossil localities); (3) central and western Anatolia, Turkey (Sen 1996; “- F” indicates fossil horizons); (4) Maragheh, Iran (Mirzaie Ataabadi et al., chapter 25, this volume); (5) Bazaleti, Georgia (Vekua and Lordkipanidze 2008; Vangengeim and Tesakov, chapter 23, this volume); (6) Eldari, Georgia (Vangengeim, Lungu, and Tesakov 2006; Vekua and Lordkipanidze 2008); (7) Al Gharbia, United Arab Emirates (Bibi et al., chapter 27, this volume); (8) Al Jadidah (Hofuf Formation), Saudi Arabia (Thomas 1983; Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999; Flynn and Wessels, chapter 18, this volume); (9) Jabal Midra ash-Shamali (Hadrukh Formation), Saudi Arabia (Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999; Flynn and Wessels, chapter 18, this volume); (10) Ad Dabtiyah (Dam Formation), Saudi Arabia (Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999); (11) As Sarrar (Dam Formation), Saudi Arabia (Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999; Flynn and Wessels, chapter 18, this volume).

Chandigarh + Jammu fossil sects.

Upper Siwaliks

Tatrot Fm. Pinjor Fm.

Tha Chang Sand Pits

29

Megway fauna

21

23

1

Lower Siwaliks

17 Ramnagar assemblage

Small mammal assemblage in lignites

26

J Zone

27 K Zone Q Zone

Chiang Muan Fm.

Lower Siwaliks Chinji Fm.

Tunggurian

23

Chaungtha fauna

28 Upper Lignite

Lower Lignite

Kamlial Fm.

Huai King Fm.

Murree Fm.

Mammal Assemblage A

Murree Group

16

Mammal Assemblage B

3

2

22

24 25

Na Khaem Fm.

Kalagarh assemblage

Huai Luang Fm.

18 Nurpur assemb.

14 15

Chitarwata Fm. (upper memb.)

20

Early Miocene

4

Mammal Assemblage C Vihowa Fm.

5

Shanwangian

6

Xiejian

Middle Miocene

15

14 15

Yenangyaung fauna

19

Dang Valley assemblage

7/8

Somsak sand pit (pit No. 8)

Haritalyangar assemblage

Obogon Fm.

9

24

20

Mae Long Fm.

Tatrot Fm. Mammal Assemblage D

Mun River

Yenangyaung (top) fauna

Irrawaddy Fm.

- Molayan - Ghazgay - Taghar - Sherullah

14 15

fossil localities and their frequencies (longest bar = 67)

Upper Siwaliks 12

Thailand Chiang Li Mae Long Mae Moh Basin Basin Muan Basin

Central Basin

Boulder Congl.

Middle Siwaliks

10

10

Samwal Fm.

Middle Siwaliks Dhok Pathan Fm.

11

Bahean

12

Chaudhwan Fm.

Baodean

13

13

- Malang - Dawrankhel - Pul-e Charkhi

Litra Fm.

14

Boulder Conglomerate

- Hadji Rona

“Série de Lataband”

15

India/Nepal Myanmar

Potwar Siwalik Plateau Hills

BugtiZinda Pir

Nagri Fm.

ALMA

Europe (MN)

Khurdkabul + Kabul basins

Nihewanian

16

5

Late Miocene

Pakistan

Afghanistan

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


14 15

Figure I.2b Major Neogene faunas and strata of South and Southeast Asia: (12) Khurdkabul Basin, Afghanistan (Sen 2001); (13) Kabul Basin, Afghanistan (Brandy 1981; Sen 1983, 2001); (14) Bugti and (15) Zinda Pir, Pakistan (Antoine et al., chapter 16, this volume; Flynn et al., chapter 14, this volume); (16) Potwar Plateau (Siwaliks), Pakistan (Barry et al., chapter 15, this volume; Flynn et al., chapter 14, this volume); (17) Ramnagar, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (18) Nurpur, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (19) Haritalyangar, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (20) Chandigarh (including Patiali Rao, Ghaggar, and Nadah sections) and Haripur Khol areas, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (21) Kalagarh, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (22) Dang Valley, Nepal (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (23) Chaungtha, Myanmar (Chavasseau et al., chapter 19, this volume); (24) Yenangyaung, Myanmar (Chavasseau et al., chapter 19, this volume); (25) Magway, Myanmar (Chavasseau et al., chapter 19, this volume); (26) Li Mae Long Basin, Thailand (Mein and Ginsburg 1997; Ratanasthien 2002; Chaimanee et al. 2007); (27) Mae Moh Basin, Thailand (Chaimanee et al. 2007; Coster et al. 2010); (28) Chiang Muan Basin, Thailand (Coster et al. 2010); (29) Mun River Sand Pits, Thailand (Chaimanee et al. 2006; Hanta et al. 2008).

Irtysh Basin

Aral region

Esekartkan 35

36 Kalmakpay bone bed

(Omsk region)

Ilian Suite Santash Suite

Sokh Suite

Adyrgan 35

Pavlodarskaya S. Novaya Stanitsa(Pavlodar region) Isakovka-Biteke suites

Ortok

kalmakpay Fm. Karabulak Fm.

Daraispon 30

33

Baktrian Suite

Upper Issykkulian Suite Ulakhol Suite

Kairubak Suite 31 Pedjikent Magian

34 Djilgyndykoo Akterek

Khorgosian Suite 32 Kairakkum

38 Isakovka Novaya 38 Stanitsa

Pavlodar 2 37 Gusinyi Perelet 37

Kushuk Fauna

40

A1, A7 locs. A6 Loc.

Bishtyubya Fm.

A3 Loc.

North Aral area

Aral Fm. (sensu lato)

Fauna from m. member

Northern Ustyurt area Tarkhan Fm.

Tunggurian

3

35

35

2

1

39 Kintykche Fm.

23

Ili Basin

Aktau Fm.

20

Early Miocene

4

Zaysan Basin

Chuladyr Fm.

5

Shanwangian

6

Xiejian

15

Middle Miocene

9

7/8

Kazakhstan/Russia

Fergana Basin

Sarybulak Fm.

10

10

Issyk Kul Basin

Zaysan Fm.

11

Kuruksay Suite

ALMA

12 Bahean

Late Miocene

13

Baodean

5

Kuruksay Tutak Obigarm

Lower Djuukin Subsuite

14

Kochkor Basin

Uzbekistan

Djergalan Suite

Guzar Suite

15

Tajik Basin/ NW Tajik.

Karanak/Magian suites

Europe (MN)

Nihewanian

16

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


Aral Fauna

Figure I.2c Major Neogene faunas and strata of Central Asia: (30) Daraispon, Tajik Basin, Tajikistan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (31) Magian and Pedjikent, northwestern Tajikistan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (32) Kairakkum, Fergana Basin, Uzbekistan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (33) Ortok, Kochkor Basin, Kyrgyzstan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (34) Djilgyndykoo and Akterek, Issyk Kul Lake, Kyrgyzstan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (35) Aktau Mountain area (Kordikova and Mavrin 1996; Lucas et al. 1997; Kordikova, Heizmann, and Marvin 2000; stratigraphic nomenclature and faunal contents cannot be easily reconciled among cited authors), Esekartkan and Adyrgan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001), Ili Basin, Kazakhstan; (36) Kalmakpay, Zaysan Basin, Kazakhstan (Vangengeim et al. 1993; Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001; Lucas et al. 2009); (37) Pavlodar, Pavlodar region, Irtysh River, Kazakhstan (Gnibidenko 1990; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001; Zykin, Zykina, and Zazhigin 2007); (38) Novaya Stanitsa and Isakovka, Omsk region, Irtysh River, Russia (Zykin and Zazhigin 2004; Zykin, Zykina, and Zazhigin 2007); (39) North Aral regions, Kazakhstan (Lopatin 2004); (40) northern Ustyurt region, Kazakhstan (Lopatin 2004).

Lower Oshin Fm.

10

23

Early Miocene

4

Khunuk Fm.

Tuyn Gol Fm.

Tunggurian

Basalt III (13.0 Ma)

Loh Fm.

Shanwangian

5

43 Kholobolchi Nor + Hung Kureh

Odominskii F. C. (sect. 1, hor. 5)

45 TaralykCher F.

Sarayskii F. C. (sect. 1, hor. 3) 46

42

46 Tagay F. 47 Aya Cave F.

? ?

Biozone D1/2

42

46 Tagay F.

Biozone D1/1

3 42

2

Xiejian

Middle Miocene

6

49

46 Olkhonskii F. (sect. 1, hor. 6)

Biozone E 42

9

7/8

Transbaikal Region

Beregovaya F. 48 Tologoi 1 F. Udunga F. C.

46 Khuzirian F. (sect. 5, hor. 8)

Khalagay Fm.

11

Bahean

Altan-Teli Fm.

Baodean

~12 fossiliferous horizons throughout section

Aya Cave

50

44 Shamar F.

41 41

Olkhon Island

Tuva

Chonokhariakh-1 bone bed

12

10

20

Shamar

Huyn Gol Fm.

Hyargas Nor Fm.

14 13

15

Russia: Eastern Siberia

Edygei Fm.

ALMA

Europe (MN)

15

5

Late Miocene

Hyargas Nor

Mongolia Khunuk Valley Valley of Lakes

Nihewanian

16

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


Biozone D

1

Figure I.2d Major Neogene faunas and strata of Mongolia and eastern Russia: (41) Altan-Teli and Hyargas (Khyargas, Khirgis) Nor, Mongolia (Pevzner et al. 1982; but see Tedford et al. 1991 for an alternative interpretation; Sotnikova 2006); (42) Valley of Lakes, Mongolia (Höck et al. 1999; Daxner- Höck et al., chapter 20, this volume); (43) Kholobolchi Nor and Hung Kureh, Mongolia (Flynn and Bernor 1987); (44) Shamar, Mongolia (Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (45) Taralyk- Cher, Tuva, Russia (Vislobokova 2009); (46) Tagay (Tagai) and Sarayskoe (Saray), Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal, Russia (arrows indicate widely divergent interpretations of the Tagay Fauna) (Daxner- Höck et al., chapter 22, this volume; Erbajeva and Alexeeva, chapter 21, this volume); (47) Aya Cave, western shore of Lake Baikal, Russia (Erbajeva and Filippov 1997; Sen and Erbajeva 2011); (48) Tologoi 1, (49) Udunga, and (50) Beregovaya of Transbaikal area, east of Lake Baikal, Russia (Erbajeva and Alexeeva, chapter 21, this volume).

ALMA

23

1

Tuosu F.

Hewangjia Jishi Fm. Wucheng Fm. Loess Liushu Fm.

Shangtan Fm. Xiadongshan Fm.

65 Shilidun F.

65 Qingbushan F. 65 Yangjiashan F. 65 Dashengou F.

65 Guonigou F.

Hujialiang Fm. Lierbao F.

?

?

Laogou F. 65

65 Zengjia F. Dongxiang Fm.

55

L. Youshashan Fm.

65 Shinanu F.

64

Chetougou F.

Guide Group

52 Suosuoquan III F. (XJ200210, XJ200206, XJ200205, and other loc.)

Charang F.

Longdan F.

56

Unnamed F.

Xishuigou F.

Charang Fm.

Ashigong Fm.

Bulong F. 59

Xiadongshan F.

?

Garang Fm.

Guidemen Fm. ?

Shangzhuang Fm.

Halamagai Fm.

Halamagai F.

3

2

?

54

Suosuoquan Fm.

20

Early Miocene

4

?

Olongbuluk F. Tiejianggou Fm.

5

Tunggurian

6

53

Shanwangian

7/8

Xiejian

15

Middle Miocene

Kekemaideng F.

57 ? ? Shengou F.

Herjia Fm.

Shangtan F.

Xianshuihe Fm.

53

Zanda Fm.

?

Dingshanyanchi F. (XJ200613 + 17)

9

Qiangtang Fm.

61 Woma F.

Guide F.

Chetougou Fm.

?

?

63

Zanda F.

Xiejia Fm.

?

53

Kunlun Fm.

Guide Group

?

58 Huaitoutala F.

Ganjia Fm.

60 Yuzhu F. Woma Fm.

Unnamed F.

Upper Youshashan Fm.

Baodean

?

?

Kekemaideng Fm.

10

10

?

?

XJ200614 Loc.

Dingshanyanchi Fm.

11

Bahean

12

Linxia Basin

Amigang Fm.

62

Bulong Fm.

Top Gravel Bed

?

13

? Qigequan Fm.

Unnamed Fm.

14

?

Shizigou Fm.

Europe (MN)

15

Xining Basin

Wangkun Till

Nihewanian

16

Guide Basin

Tabenbuluk E. Qaidam Tibetan Central Western Basin hinterland Himalaya Himalaya Basin

Junggar Basin

5

Late Miocene

China: Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau

Xinjiang

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


65 Sigou F.

64 Xiejia F.

Suosuoquan II F. (XJ99005 loc.)

51 Paoniuquan Fm.

Figure I.2e Major Neogene faunas and strata of Xinjiang and the Tibetan Plateau: (51) Botamoyin (XJ99005) section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Meng et al. 2006; Meng et al., chapter 3, this volume); (52) Chibaerwoyi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Meng et al. 2006; Meng et al., chapter 3, this volume); (53) Dingshanyanchi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Meng et al. 2008); (54) Xishuigou Fauna, Tabenbuluk (Danghe) Basin, Gansu Province (Wang, Qiu, and Opdyke 2003; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (55) Olongbuluk Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (56) Tuosu Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (57) Shengou Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Qiu and Li 2008; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (58) Huaitoutala Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (59) Bulong (Biru) Fauna, Bulong Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region (Huang et al. 1980; Zheng 1980; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (60) Yuzhu Fauna, Kunlun Pass Basin, Qinghai Province (Song et al. 2005; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (61) Woma Fauna, Gyirong Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region (Huang et al. 1980; Yue et al. 2004; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (62) Zanda Fauna, Zanda Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region (Deng et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (63) Guide Fauna, Guide Basin, Qinghai Province (Zheng, Wu, and Li 1985; Fang et al. 2005; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (64) Xiejia and Chetougou faunas, Xining Basin, Qinghai Province (Li and Qiu 1980; Li, Qiu, and Wang 1981; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (65) Linxia Basin, Gansu Province (Deng et al., chapter 9, this volume; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume).

ALMA

Europe (MN)

China: Loess Plateau Lanzhou Basin

Lantian Basin

Fugu Area

Baode Basin

Yushe Basin

Jingle Basin

Nihewan Basin

71

10

Bahe Fm.

Bahean

10

BH2

Mazegou Fm.

Baode F.

73 Miaoliang F.

Mahui Fm.

72

Gaozhuang Fm.

Jingle Fm. 71 Lantian F.

12 11

74 Mazegou F.

74

75 Jingle Hefeng F. Fm.

Nihewan Fm.

Haiyan Fm. Haiyan F.

Laogaochuan section

69 Leijiahe I-II

Baodean

13

Baode Fm.

14

Renjiagou F 70 69 Leijiahe IV Leijiahe III Lantian Fm.

15

Wucheng Loess

69 Leijiahe V Leijiahe Fm.

16

74

Wucheng Loess

Wucheng Loess

classic Nihewan F. MJGIII F. Dongyaozitou F.

Yuxian/ Daodi Fm.

Nihewanian

Loess Wucheng Loess

5

Late Miocene

Lingtai Basin

Tongxin Basin

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


76 Daodi F.

Eolian Red Clay

Nanzhuanggou F.

74 Mahui F.

73 Lamagou F.

Bahe F. BH1

6

Koujiacun Fm.

Tunggurian

7/8

?

23

2

68 Dingjiaergou F.

66 Hongliugou Fm.

Duitinggou F.

Xianshuihe Fm.

3

66

Xiejian

Early Miocene

20

Shanwangian

67

4

?

Lengshuigou F.

Quantougou F.

5

Koujiacun F.

Lengshuigou Fm.

15

Middle Miocene

9

Zhangjiaping F.

1

Figure I.2f Major Neogene faunas and strata of the Loess Plateau: (66) Zhangjiaping and Duitinggou faunas, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province (Qiu et al. 2001; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (67) Quantougou Fauna, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province (Qiu 2001; Qiu et al., chapter 1 this volume); (68) Dingjiaergou Fauna, Tongxin Basin, Ningxia Autonomous Region (Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (69) Leijiahe biozones I–V, Lingtai, Gansu Province (Zheng and Zhang 2001; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (70) Renjiagou Fauna, Lingtai, Gansu Province (Zhang et al. 1999); (71) Bahe Fauna, Lantian Basin, Shaanxi Province (Zhang et al. 2002; Kaakinen and Lunkka 2003; Zhang et al., chapter 6, this volume); (72) Baode Fauna, Shanxi Province (Zhu et al. 2008; Kaakinen et al., chapter 7, this volume); (73) Laogaochuan section, Fugu area, Shaanxi Province (Xue, Zhang, and Yue 1995; Zhang et al. 1995; Xue, Zhang, and Yue 2006); (74) Mahui, Nanzhuanggou, and Mazegou faunas, Yushe Basin, Shanxi Province (Tedford et al. 1991; Flynn, Wu, and Downs 1997); (75) Hefeng Fauna, Jingle Basin, Shanxi Province (Chen 1994; Yue and Zhang 1998); (76) Daodi Fauna, Nihewan Basin, Hebei Province (Cai et al., chapter 8, this volume).

ALMA

Aoerban area

Gashunyin- Tunggur Baogeda Ula area adege area Tableland

Jurh area

Huade area

Gaotege area

Nihewanian

Europe (MN)

China: Inner Mongolia Damiao area

15 14

Gaotege bed 84 Gaotege F. Bilike bed

16

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


83 Bilike F.

?

?

77

23

Tunggurian

Moergen F.

Huitenghe b.

84 Huitenghe F.

Tuchen. Ertemte bed bed 82 Amuwusu F.

81 Ulan Hushuyin Nur F.

80 Tairum Nor F. 80

Aoerban Fm.

78

3 ?

?

77

DM16 Loc.

2

80 Tamuqin F.

Tuchengzi F.

?

Gashunyinadege bed 79

Middle Green Mudstone Mb. Gashunyinadege F.

L. Aoerban F.

20

Early Miocene

4

?

Damiao Fm.

5

Shanwangian

6

?

78

82 Shala F.

Harr 83 Obo Ert. F. F.

78

?

Xiejian

Middle Miocene

15

Baogeda Ula Fm.

Shala bed ?

DM01 Loc.

7/8

81 Baogeda Ula F.

Amuwusu bed

?

Tunggur Fm.

77

Tunggur Fm.

?

Balunhalagen F.

?

DM02 Loc.

9

Balunhalagen bed

10

Upper Red Mudstone Mb. U. Aoerban F.

10

Lower Red Mudst. Mb.

11

78

Bilutu F.

Bilutu bed

12 Bahean

Late Miocene

13

Baodean

5

1

Figure I.2g Major Neogene faunas and strata of Inner Mongolia: (77) Damiao section, Siziwang Qi, Inner Mongolia (Zhang et al. 2011); (78) upper and lower Aoerban, Balunhalagen, and Bilutu faunas, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (Wang et al. 2009; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (79) Gashunyinadege Fauna, Inner Mongolia (Meng, Wang, and Bai 1996; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (80) Tairum Nor, Moergen, and Tamuqin faunas, Inner Mongolia (Qiu 1996; Wang, Qiu, and Opdyke 2003; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (81) Ulan Hushuyin Nur and Baogeda Ula faunas, Inner Mongolia (Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (82) Shala and Amuwusu faunas, Inner Mongolia (Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (83) Bilike, Ertemte, Harr Obo, and Tuchengzi faunas, Inner Mongolia (Fahlbusch, Qiu, and Storch 1983; Qiu and Storch 2000; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (84) Gaotege and Huitenghe faunas, Inner Mongolia (Li, Wang, and Qiu 2003; Xu et al. 2007; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume).

Yuanmou Fm.

Hetou Fm

Zhaotong E. Pleistocene assemblage

Pingshan Basalt

Huanggang Fm.

Miaoshanpo Fauna

Shihuiba F.

90

Shagou F.

88 Laodong F.

87 Liuhe F.

Tuobuka Fm.

88 Xindong F.

92 Shuitangba F.

90

ALMA

Xiaohe Fm.

Xiaohe F. 91

Buzhaoba Marlite Fm.

Bahean

10

10

Hetou F

88

12 11

Zhaotong Basin

Tiesiju F.

Baodean

13

Yuanmou Basin

Shagou Fm.

14

Lufeng Basin

Miaoshanpo Fm.

15

Huainan Xiaolongtan Basin fissures

Shihuiba Fm.

16

5

Late Miocene

South China: Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau

Nanjing area

Nihewanian

Europe (MN)

Eastern China Shanwang Xiacaowan Basin area

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


9

6

23

3

2

Xiaolongtan Fm.

89

87 Fangshan F.

?

?

?

?

Dongshengqiao Fm.

Dongxuanguan Fm.

Sihong F.

Shanwang Fm.

85 Xiejiahe F.

Xiacaowan Fm.

Early Miocene

4

Shanwangian

Xiaopanshan Basalt

5

20

Tunggurian

7/8

86

Xiejian

15

Middle Miocene

Xiaolongtan F.

1

Figure I.2h Major Neogene faunas and strata of eastern China and Yunnan: (85) Xiejiahe Fauna, Shandong Province (Deng, Wang, and Yue 2008; Qiu and Qiu, chapter 4, this volume); (86) Xiacaowan Fauna, Jiangsu Province (Li et al. 1983; Qiu and Qiu, chapter 4, this volume); (87) Fangshan and Liuhe faunas, Jiangsu Province (Bi, Yu, and Qiu 1977; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (88) Laodong, Xindong, Tiesiju fissure faunas, Anhui Province (Jin, Kawamura, and Tatuno 1999; Jin 2004; Tomida and Jin 2009); (89) Xiaolongtan Fauna, Xiaolongtan Basin, Yunnan Province (Dong 2001; Dong and Qi, chapter 11, this volume); (90) Shihuiba and Miaoshanpo faunas, Lufeng Basin, Yunnan Province (Qi 1985; Chen 1986; Yue and Zhang 2006; Dong and Qi, chapter 11, this volume); (91) Xiaohe and Shagou faunas, Yuanmou Basin, Yunnan Province (Zhu et al. 2005; Dong and Qi, chapter 11, this volume); (92) Shihuiba Fauna, Zhaotong (Chaotung) Basin, Yunnan Province (Chow and Zhai 1962; Zhang et al. 1989; Denise Su, pers. comm.).

Sendai area

Sasebo area

15 14

Nakatsu Gr. 98 Shiroiwa Fm. 97

-F

Sendai Gr.

16

Baodean

13

Iga-Omi Basin

Aikawa area

Unnamed Fm.

5

Ushigakubi Fm.

-F

-F -F -F -F -F

Awaji Island

100

-F

99

Tatsunokuchi Fm.

96

-F Kameoka Fm.

Araya Fm.

12 11 10

10

Bahean

Late Miocene

Tochio area

Osaka Group

Mizunami Basin

Kobiwako Group

ALMA

Kani Basin

Nihewanian

Europe (MN)

Japan

Yushean

Time (Ma)

Pliocene

Pleistocene Epoch


15

7/8

6

Tunggurian

Middle Miocene

9

23

2

1

?

-F Dota Loc.

93

Hongo Fm.

-F -F

Toki Lignitebearing Fm.

-F

Akeyo Fm.

Nojima Group

-F

Mizunami Group

Mizunami Group Nakamu- Hiramaki Hachiya Fm. ra Fm. Fm.

3

Xiejian

20

Early Miocene

4

Shanwangian

Minamitabira Fm.

5

95 Fukazuki Fm.

-F

Oya Fm.

94

-F

?

Figure I.2i Major Neogene faunas and strata of Japan: (93) Dota locality and other fossil sites (marked with an “- F”), Kani Basin (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (94) terrestrial vertebrate fossil sites (marked with an “- F”), Mizunami Basin (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (95) Diatomys locality (“- F”), Sasebo area (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (96) Sendai area (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (97) Parailurus locality (“- F”), Tochio area (Sasagawa et al. 2003; Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume); (98) Dolichopithecus locality, Aikawa area (Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume); (99) Iga- Omi Basin (Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume); (100) Awaji Island, Hyogo Prefecture (Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume).


16

INTRODUCTION

works on fossil-producing basins. Efforts are made to preserve a sense of lithostratigraphic (formations, suites, etc.) and biostratigraphic relationships (fossil localities, faunas, faunistic complexes, etc.). Although we cite the original sources for individual columns, any errors or misinterpretations are entirely our own. Nor is this an exhaustive account of all Asian sites, although most of the well-known sites are included. Such an exercise invariably fails to capture the complexities and nuances of the regions being depicted, and readers are urged to examine the original sources (and citations within) for each locality or basin. In many basins, controversies exist for faunal interpretations, in some cases, with discrepancies of millions of years. In presenting individual stratigraphic columns, we did not attempt to analyze each regional scheme, although we did occasionally reinterpret magnetic correlations. The intention of this exercise is to put together, for the fi rst time, all major fossil-mammalproducing regions in a series of charts, to draw attention to the different conceptual frameworks and different constructions of faunal relationships. We hope this will serve as a starting point to integrate various stratigraphic schemes. It is also immediately clear that there is much unevenness in concepts and in practices. At the conceptual level, countries in the former Soviet Union (such as Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Russia) or those influenced by the Soviet Union (Mongolia, and China to a lesser extent) have used stratigraphic schemes combining various notions of litho- or biochronology. The stratigraphic term “svita” (here translated as “suite”), is not only defi ned by lithologic characteristics (as in “formations” in western countries), but is also laden with a connotation of time, often indicated by fossil content. When western concepts of separation of lithoand biostratigraphy are applied to some of the areas, major discrepancies can occur that are difficult to reconcile, such as in the Aktau Mountain area (Kordikova and Mavrin 1996; Lucas et al. 1997) and in the Zaysan Basin (Sotni kova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Lucas et al. 2000). As a result, our summaries for these countries are often not strictly comparable to those found elsewhere (see figure I.2c). These are areas that can benefit greatly by applications of consistent criteria to evaluate the stratigraphic schemes. In practical correlations, the European MN system continues to exert influences in many areas. In some cases, such as countries in the former Soviet Union and western Asian countries, the MN units sometimes have been directly projected to the local strata. The European influence can also be felt as far as Southeast Asia, some-

times with disparate results, such as in the Li Mae Long Basin in northern Thailand (Ginsburg 1984; Mein and Ginsburg 1997; Chaimanee et al. 2007). Th is basin was considered to have a late Early Miocene small mammal fauna or even as earlier Miocene (MN 4), but ongoing work has benefitted from paleomagnetic data (Chaimanee et al. 2007) that, together with continued systematic studies, place the assemblage in the Middle Miocene. Examples like these highlight the perilous nature of longdistance correlation to a European system that is itself full of uncertainties and ambiguities and the importance of establishment of an indigenous biostratigraphy. In stratigraphic resolution, existing Asian frameworks span a full spectrum of resolving power of continental biostratigraphy. At the fi nest scale, the Siwalik sequences in Pakistan, well constrained by 47 magnetic sections, boast consistent resolution of up to 200,000 years or less for 80% of the more than 1,000 fossil localities, and 100,000 years or less for 50% of the localities. Such a remarkable precision is pushing the resolving power in terrestrial sedimentation to the limits (Barry et al., chapter 15, this volume) and can rival the resolution of any basin of continental deposits in the world. At the other end of the spectrum, however, crude biochronologic characterizations, often without any independent calibrations, are still widely practiced, which is the norm in many Asian countries. Although a true sense of biostratigraphy for individual taxa within reasonably fossiliferous spans is emerging for a number of basins (e.g., Sinap, Maragheh, Siwalik, Junggar Basin, Valley of Lakes, Qaidam Basin, Lingtai, Bahe, Yushe Basin), in the majority of regions in Asia, nominal “local faunas” or “faunas” are still widely used as a traditional way to communicate an aggregate of taxa often spanning a certain stratigraphic thickness representing a certain amount of time. More inclusive terms, such as chronofauna (or faunistic complex) can be useful concepts to construct ideas of larger biota that span greater geographic and temporal ranges. From the perspective of geologic time represented in various Asian regions, our charts show that Early Miocene has the largest gaps in the fossil records of almost every region in Asia. Th is is especially true for the beginning of the Miocene (23–20 Ma), during which preciously few localities have any records and those that have some data are represented by mostly small mammals. Another conspicuous gap in the Chinese coverage has somewhat unexpectedly turned out to be the early part of the Late Miocene, the temporal equivalent of the European Vallesian (11.2–9.5 Ma). The reason why this was not at fi rst realized has to do in part with lack of stratigraphic control and in part with the monsoon-driven



climate history of East Asia. Recent fieldwork has revealed that several key Chinese Late Miocene localities are significantly younger than previously assumed (Zhang et al., chapter 6, this volume; Kaakinen et al., chapter 7, this volume), leaving the Vallesian time equivalent of China remarkably poorly sampled. Recent rediscovery and correlation of Bohlin’s Tsaidamotherium locality (now called Quanshuiliang section) in the Qaidam Basin reveal that much of the Quanshuiliang section corresponds to the magnetically calibrated Tuosu Fauna of the early Bahean (~11–10 Ma; Wang et al. 2011). However, while rich in large mammals, much of the fauna represents an endemic Tibetan Plateau assemblage that is not easily related to faunas elsewhere. It has also recently become clear that the general trend of climate change in China during the Late Miocene is the opposite of the global trend of increasing aridity seen in Europe and North America and that faunal evolution in China accordingly follows a different path (e.g., the reappearance in the record and survival of the anchitherine horse Sinohippus far into the Late Miocene). Evidence from multiple sources now shows that China instead became gradually more humid during this interval, most probably as a result of a strengthened summer monsoon (Fortelius et al. 2002; Passey et al. 2009). The Chinese mammal fauna of the early, dry part of the late Miocene is characterized by low diversity and endemism, and it is only the more humid part of the late Miocene, from about 8 Ma onward, that sees the proper, pancontinental “Hipparion fauna” established in China (Fortelius and Zhang 2006; Mirzaie Ataabadi et al., chapter 29, this volume). In this perspective, the potential for establishing a long stratigraphic sequence from Lingtai takes on a special importance, and it will therefore be of considerable interest and importance to see whether future fieldwork will verify the tentative Vallesian correlations suggested by Deng et al. (chapter 9, this volume).

ZOOGEOGRAPHIC COMPLEXITY

As the largest continent on Earth, Asia defies easy categorization. With vast latitudinal, longitudinal, and altitudinal spans, as well as the attendant climatic zonations, zoogeographic differentiations are profound (figure I.3). Indeed, in Alfred Russel Wallace’s (1876:map 1) classic map of zoogeographic provinces, the boundary between Palearctic and Oriental provinces was drawn within Asia, mostly along the southern slopes of the Himalaya Range and its lateral extensions. In other words, northern Asia and Europe are zoogeograph ically more similar to each

17

other than either is to southern Asia. Plate tectonics along the India-Asia collision zone and its resulting uplift of the Himalayan Range and Tibetan Plateau are thus critical factors imposing a fi rst-order organization of the Asian continent. Th is pattern of modern zoogeographic division can be traced back in deep time at least to the early Neogene, if not earlier, based on fossil mammals (Qiu and Li 2003, 2005; Flynn 2008), consistent with the early attainment of a high Tibet (e.g., Rowley and Currie 2006; Quade et al. 2011). Climatic differentiations are similarly recorded by Neogene mammal records (Fortelius et al. 2002; Fortelius et al. 2003; Fortelius et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2009). Given such complexity in geography and climate, questions naturally arose during the workshops as to the feasibility of devising an Asia-wide land mammal age system that can work across major zoogeographic boundaries. If Europe and East Asia within the Palearctic Province are to have a separate chronologic system, shouldn’t South Asia in the Oriental Province have its own?

The East–West Divide Between Europe and Asia

The Eurasian continent spans the entire eastern hemisphere and beyond. Since the disappearance of the epicontinental Turgai Sea by about early Oligocene, Europe and Asia have been a single connected landmass. Despite this continuity during the Neogene, however, distant faunas from the extreme ends in western Europe and eastern Asia show marked Early Miocene differences, although there is a tendency for increased similarity through time (Mirzaie Ataabadi et al., chapter 29, this volume). A climatic gradient is likely, since sheer distance alone probably cannot fully account for such faunal differences. Diamond (1997) advanced the thesis that organismic (including human) migrations are easily achieved along the east–west axis because Earth’s atmospheric variances are often organized latitudinally; that is, organisms can readily adapt to habitats of similar climatic zones of similar latitudes. Th is is in contrast to the north–south axis, which entails the crossing of climatic zones. By this argument, western Europe and eastern China, both of similar latitudes, should share more faunal similarities despite their vast geographic distance. Existence of distinct faunas from Europe and eastern Asia thus indicates climatic differentiations (wetter Europe vs. drier central and eastern Asia) or distinct environmental barriers, such as deserts in central Asia and the Tibetan Plateau. Faunal distinction through much of the Neogene (few species in common) is the strongest rationale for an Asian land


18

INTRODUCTION

Europe

As

Arctic Realm

con ne c t

West

A

(int fri e

rm

Central Asia faunal interchan ion dur ge ing

rm te

Neogene)

East Asia

Asia

ispersal sia dconnection) A ca ittent

(in

Eu rop (ful e-As ia l

persal . dis ) m A nection N. nt con ia itte

South Asia

vinc e P al e a rcti c P ro ce ovin O ri enta l P r

east South Asia

Shifting transitional zone between Palearctic/Oriental provinces in coastal China

Africa

Figure I.3 Schematics of inter- and intracontinental faunal interchanges and dispersals centered around Asia. Europe– East Asia faunal interchange entails largely the same latitudes in the east– west direction; the main barrier is the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent arid regions of Central Asia. Except for mammals adapted to Arctic regions, Asia– North America dispersals include a large “vertical axis” component along longitude, and mammals must cross different climate zones in order to reach to the other side. Thin air and high mountains present formidable barriers along the southern slopes of the Himalaya, which form a sharp zoogeographic boundary; to the east along the east coast of China, however, the boundary becomes fuzzy and a transitional zone shifts through time along with climate changes. Africa– Asia connection is intermittent during the Neogene. Gray tones in continents roughly reflect the amount of vegetation: white or light gray indicates desert or dry environments and darker gray indicates more vegetation coverage. Width of arrows is suggestive of magnitude of terrestrial dispersals.

mammal age system independent of the European MN units. Th is is in contrast to North America, which has a much narrower longitudinal span, and its paleofaunas have even narrower distributions within the western half of North America (eastern North America is poorly fossiliferous). As a result, faunal differences between Pacific coastal states and the Great Plains are small enough to be subsumed within a single NALMA system. Despite east–west faunal differentiations, however, broad faunal similarities can be recognized in much of western and Central Asia at select time periods. For example, the notion of a Pikermian paleobiome recognizes a wide swath of Eurasia during the late Miocene that is dominated by dry climate, increasingly open environments, and seasonally adapted mammals (Bernor et al.

1996). Such a widespread biome of long duration has been termed the Pikermian chronofauna (Eronen et al. 2009), which lends support for Asian land mammal ages spanning at least northern Asia. As demonstrated by Mirzaie Ataabadi et al. (chapter 29, this volume), such a concept may also be applicable in parts of Eurasia in the Middle Miocene, as represented by the Tunggurian chronofauna, although the evolving nature of this chronofauna from an earlier appearance in western Europe and migrating east to eastern China near the latest Middle Miocene implies diachrony. Such diachrony has obvious implications for correlation, a case in point being the carnivore genus Dinocrocuta, which in Europe and western Asia is a good indicator of early Late Miocene age and has been used to support a Vallesian correlation of Bahean



age localities in China. Recent studies suggest, however, that Dinocrocuta has a primarily (or even exclusively?) Turolian age range in China, with the best-dated records so far clustering around 8 Ma (Zhang et al., chapter 6, this volume).

19

and Wessels, chapter 18, this volume), featuring occasional dispersals in both directions, notably among rodents and primates.

Connection of North America and Asia The North–South Divide Between North and South Asia

A fi rst-order zoogeographic division between the Palearctic Province to the north and Oriental Province to the south was long recognized to be the result of Earth’s surface processes (Wallace 1876). Such a clear distinction is rooted in the following two interrelated processes: erection of a formidable geographic barrier in Tibet-Himalaya and its lateral extensions, and formation of summer monsoons in South and East Asia and winter westerlies and northwesterlies in northern China and central Asia. Th is factor, coupled with major west–east river systems, distinguishes much of China. A Palearctic/Oriental-style provinciality can be recognized since the early to middle Miocene based on small-mammal records in eastern China (Qiu and Li 2003, 2005), large mammals from the northern rim of the Tibetan Plateau (Qiu et al. 2001), and small mammals from South Asia (Flynn 2008). Furthermore, in contrast to increasing faunal homogeneity between east and west Eurasia during the Neogene, the north–south faunal division became progressively more clearly delineated through time as Tibet was being uplifted and its climatic effects became more pronounced. The above process thus presents the biggest obstacle in the establishment of a truly Asia-wide land mammal age system.

Intermittent Connections Between Africa and South Asia

Faunal exchanges between Africa and South Asia, either by direct migration through the Arabian Peninsula or by indirect routes of western Europe (across the Strait of Gibraltar), are evidenced by records from the Siwaliks and equivalent deposits of Dera Bugti and Sulaiman areas (Barry et al. 1991; Flynn et al. 1995; Antoine et al., chapter 16, this volume). Being in similar latitudes and warm climates, the main control of Africa–South Asia dispersal was by intermittent land corridors. It is thus not surprising that South Asia often has the largest number of African elements outside of Africa, and an EthiopianOriental connection seems to be recognizable (Flynn

Since the early Miocene, immigrants to North America from Asia seem to suggest a closed Bering Strait for much of the time (Woodburne and Swisher 1995). The Bering Land Bridge undoubtedly acts as a fi lter that allows faunas in the Arctic realm to pass freely but severely limits those from middle or lower latitudes. Because of this limited faunal exchange, correlations of Asian and North American land mammal ages, which are entirely based on mid-latitude faunas, are not easy, and the NALMA did not have much influence on the developments of the Asian mammal system. Contributions of Asia–North America faunal exchange are often asymmetrical; a large number of immigrant events have been recorded in North America, but far fewer mammals made it to Asia. Tedford et al. (2004:fig. 6.3) counted 88 allochthonous genera of Old World origin during the Miocene Epoch (Arikareean through Hemphillian); many of these became significant components of local communities in North America. With the exception of horses (Anchitherium, Hipparion, Equus), camels (Paracamelus), dogs (Eucyon, Nyctereutes, Vulpes), and several small mammals (the rabbit Alilepus, squirrels like Marmota, beavers, and birch mice [see Kimura, chapter 30, this volume]), mammals that dispersed from North America did not exert a corresponding presence in Asia. Although such a discrepancy potentially may be accounted for by sampling effects, at least in the Pliocene (Flynn et al. 1991), it is also possible that a larger Eurasian continent presented a more competitive environment for North American newcomers. One striking example is an early Pliocene Arctic North American fauna that shares close similarity with contemporaneous faunas from North China (Tedford and Harington 2003). Embedded within the overall balance of exchange favoring entry of Asian forms into North America is a striking, apparently climate-driven exception. The dispersal of Eurasian ungulates into North America was discontinuous, greatly declining during the later Miocene. Between 15 and 5 million years ago only four ungulate genera of Eurasian origin are known from North America: Pseudoceras, Neotragoceros, Platybelodon, and Tapirus (Tedford et al. 2004). In contrast to the successful dispersal of horses and camels in the opposite direction during this interval, none of the new arrivals diversified after


20

INTRODUCTION

dispersal, and, with the exception of Tapirus, all had a short duration in the fossil record. Eronen et al. (in press) attribute this imbalance to the fact that during this time North America was significantly more arid than Eurasia, creating a situation where North American ungulates were literally pre-adapted to the conditions yet to appear in Asia, while Asian ungulates correspondingly lagged behind the environmental conditions already in place in North America. That the result is not due to sampling error is testified by continued successful dispersal of Eurasian carnivores into North America during the same interval, and by the fact that ungulate dispersal into North America resumed when the climatic imbalance disappeared in the Plio-Pleistocene.

birds. Once again, fossil mammals offer direct evidence for this profound change. Furthermore, as consumers of vegetation, mammalian ungulates are also invaluable for assessing plant compositions. Isotope ratios of dental enamels, hypsodonty indices, microwear, and mesowear have become critical means to deduce plant coverage, paleotemperature, and precipitation. As the field matures, such “ecometrics” (Eronen et al. 2010) are likely to become welded into an increasingly quantitative paleoenvironmental framework that can be used in conjunction with paleoclimate modeling to constrain and refine reconstructions of past conditions and processes (Eronen et al. 2009).

AC KNOW LEDG MENTS CRITICAL TRANSITIONS

Th is book is the result of collaborative efforts in Beijing and a follow-up Los Angeles workshop, which are part of a Sino-U.S. collaborative research agenda on critical transitions in the history of life. The goal is to address critical transitions in geologic history that profoundly affect biological and environmental evolution on global scales. Once again, Asia, by its unique geographic position and geologic history, has much to offer in our understanding of global environmental changes. Mammal distributions in space (zoogeography) and time (biostratigraphy and geochronology) are two key components in any attempt to formulate ideas about paleoenvironmental change. In many ways, mammal biostratigraphy by itself offers evidences of critical transitions. In that sense, we hope this volume will provide the initial dataset and encouragement to stimulate further research on the various critical transitions. Looming large among Asian Cenozoic geologic events is the rise of the Himalayan and Tibetan highlands and effects on the initiation of Indian and East Asian monsoon climates. Without doubt, Himalaya-Tibet, as an imposing physical entity in central Asia, is a fi rst-order climate maker. Much debate, however, is centered on the timing and process of the coupling of mountain uplift and climate change and their feedback on erosion and weathering (e.g., Molnar 2005). From a paleontological perspective, mammals as a biological component and a chronological marker have much to offer in this debate. The emergence of Himalaya-Tibet and the ensuing zoogeographic division of Palearctic and Oriental provinces affects mammal distributions in two ways. The rising Himalaya coupled with drastic changes in climatic zonation form an effective barrier for all but high-flying

It goes without saying that a volume such as this is not possible without the contributions from all authors—we express our gratitude to all who took the time to undertake this worthy project. The Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology provided logistic support in the two Beijing workshops, and we thank the numerous graduate students from the IVPP for their help and participation. We thank our publisher Patrick Fitzgerald, senior manuscript editor Irene Pavitt, assistant editor Bridget Flannery-McCoy, copyeditors Karen Victoria Brown and Richard Camp, production editor Edward Wade, designer Milenda Lee, and indexer Maria Coughlin for their tireless work to ensure that this book will come to fruition. We also appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions by two anonymous volume reviewers. We are grateful to Alexey Tesakov for his review of a late draft of this chapter and for providing important Russian literature on several localities. Th is book and its companion workshops in Beijing and Los Angeles benefited from fi nancial support from the Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology program of the National Science Foundation (U.S.) and its counterpart in the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation. In connection to these financial assistances, we would like to acknowledge Raymond L. Bernor, H. Richard Lane, and Lisa Boush, whose sustained support are keys to our success in putting together the largest gathering of mammalian paleontologists working on Asian continental biostratigraphy. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology made it possible for three young scholars to attend. Finally, but certainly not least emphatically, we are greatly indebted to Zhan-xiang Qiu, who not only produced the key summary chapter on Chinese land mammal ages/stages but was more than generous in his fi nancial support of the production of this volume through his Special Researches Program of Basic



Science and Technology grant (No. 2006FY120400) from the Ministry of Science and Technology.

REFERENCES All- China Stratigraphic Commission. 2001. Regional Stratigraphic Guide of China and Its Explanation. Revised ed. Beijing: Geological Publishing House. Alroy, J. 1992. Conjunction among taxonomic distributions and the Miocene mammalian biochronology of the Great Plains. Paleobiology 18:326–343. Alroy, J. 1994. Appearance event ordination: A new biochronologic method. Paleobiology 20:191–207. Alroy, J. 1998. Diachrony of mammalian appearance events: Implications for biochronology. Geology 26:23–26. Alroy, J. 2000. New methods for quantifying macroevolutionary patterns and processes. Paleobiology 26:707–733. Alroy, J., R. L. Bernor, M. Fortelius, L. Werdelin. 1998. The MN System: Regional or Continental? Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammllung für Paläontologie und historische Geologie 38: 243–258. Andrews, P. and B. Alpagut. 1990. Description of the fossiliferous units at Paşalar, Turkey. Journal of Human Evolution 19:343–361. Barry, J. C., M. E. Morgan, A. J. Winkler, L. J. Flynn, E. H. Lindsay, L. L. Jacobs, and D. Pilbeam. 1991. Faunal interchange and Miocene terrestrial vertebrates of southern Asia. Paleobiology 17:231–245. Bernor, R. L., N. Solounias, C. C. Swisher III, and J. A. Van Couvering. 1996. The correlation of three classical “Pikermian” mammal faunas—Maragheh, Samos, and Pikermi—with the Eu ropean MN unit system. In The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, ed. R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann, pp. 137–154. New York: Columbia University Press. Bi, Z.-g., Z.-j. Yu, and Z.-x. Qiu. 1977. First discovery of mammal remains from upper Tertiary deposits near Nanking. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 15:126–138. Brandy, L. D. 1981. Rongeurs muroïdés du Néogène supérieur d’Afghan istan: Évolution, biogéographie, corrélations. Palaeovertebrata 25:133–149. Chaimanee, Y., C. Yamee, B. Marandat, and J.-J. Jaeger. 2007. First middle Miocene rodents from the Mae Moh Basin (Th ailand): Biochronological and paleoenvironmental implications. Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 39:157–163. Chaimanee, Y., C. Yamee, P. Tian, K. Khaowiset, B. Marandat, P. Tafforeau, C. Nemoz, and J.-J. Jaeger. 2006. Khoratpithecus piriyai, a Late Miocene hominoid of Th ailand. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131:311–323. Chen, W.-y. 1986. Preliminary studies of sedimental environment and taphonomy in the hominoid fossil site of Lufeng. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 5:89–100. Chen, X.-f. 1994. Stratigraphy and large mammals of the “Jinglean” Stage, Shanxi, China. Quaternary Science 1994:339–352. Chen, X., J.-y. Rong, J.-x. Fan, R.-b. Zhan, C. E. Mitchell, D. A. T. Harper, M. J. Melchin, P.-a. Peng, S. C. Finney, and X.-f. Wang. 2006. The Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the base of the Hirnantian Stage (the uppermost of the Ordovician System). Episodes 29:183–196.

21

Chiu, C.-s., C.-k. Li, and C.-t. Chiu. 1979. A preliminary review of the mammalian localities and faunas. Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques, non-ser. vol. 1:263–272. Chow, M.-c. and R.-j. Zhai. 1962. Early Pleistocene mammals of Chaotung, Yunnan, with notes on some Chinese stegodonts. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 6:138–147. Coster, P., M. Benammi, Y. Chaimanee, C. Yamee, O. Chavasseau, E.- G. Emonet, and J.-J. Jaeger. 2010. A complete magneticpolarity stratigraphy of the Miocene continental deposits of Mae Moh Basin, northern Th ailand, and a reassessment of the age of hominoid-bearing localities in northern Th ailand. Geological Society of America Bulletin 122:1180–1191. Deng, T. 2006. Chinese Neogene mammal biochronology. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 44:143–163. Deng, T., S. Hou, and H. Wang. 2007. The Tunggurian Stage of the continental Miocene in China. Acta Geologica Sinica 81:709–721. Deng, T., W.-m. Wang, and L.-p. Yue. 2003. Recent advances of the establishment of the Shanwang stage in the Chinese Neogene. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 41:314–323. Deng, T., W.-m. Wang, and L.-p. Yue. 2006. The Xiejian stage of the continental Miocene series in China. Journal of Stratigraphy 30:315–322. Deng, T., W.-m. Wang, and L.-p. Yue. 2008. Report on research of the Shanwangian and Baodean stages in the continental Neogene series of China. In Reports on Establishing the Major Stages in China, ed. Z.-j. Wang and Z.-g. Huang, pp. 13–31. Beijing: Geological Publishing House. Deng, T., W.-m. Wang, L.-p. Yue, and Y.-x. Zhang. 2004. New advances in the establishment of the Neogene Baode Stage. Journal of Stratigraphy 28:41– 47. Deng, T., X.-m. Wang, M. Fortelius, Q. Li, Y. Wang, Z. J. Tseng, G. T. Takeuchi, J. E. Saylor, L. K. Säilä, and G.-p. Xie. 2011. Out of Tibet: Pliocene woolly rhino suggests high-plateau origin of Ice Age megaherbivores. Science 333:1285–1288. Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton. Dong, W. 2001. Upper Cenozoic stratigraphy and paleoenvironment of Xiaolongtan Basin, Kaiyuan, Yunnan Province. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meetings of Chinese Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, ed. T. Deng and Y.-q. Wang, pp. 91–100. Beijing: China Ocean Press. Erbajeva, M. A. and A. G. Filippov. 1997. Miocene small mammalian faunas of the Baikalian region. In Actes du Congrès BiochroM’97, ed. J.-P. Aguilar, S. Legendre, and J. Michaux, pp. 249–259. Mémoires et Travaux E.P.H.E., Institut de Montpellier, 21. Eronen, J. T., M. Fortelius, A. Micheels, F. T. Portmann, K. Puolamäki and C. M. Janis. In press. Neogene aridification of the Northern Hemisphere. Geology. Eronen, J. T., M. Mirzaie Ataabadi, A. Micheels, A. Karme, R. L. Bernor, and M. Fortelius. 2009. Distribution history and climatic controls of the Late Miocene Pikermian chronofauna. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:11867–11871. Eronen, J. T., P. D. Polly, M. Fred, J. Damuth, D. C. Frank, V. Mosbrugger, C. Scheidegger, N. C. Stenseth, and M. Fortelius. 2010. Ecometrics: The traits that bind the past and present together. Integrative Zoology 5:88–101. Fahlbusch, V., Z.-d. Qiu, and G. Storch. 1983. Neogene mammalian faunas of Ertemte and Harr Obo in Nei Monggol, China. 1 Report


22

INTRODUCTION

on field work in 1980 and preliminary results. Scientia Sinica, ser. B, 26:205–224. Fang, X.-m., M.-d. Yan, R. Van der Voo, D. K. Rea, C.-h. Song, J. M. Parés, J.-p. Gao, J.-s. Nie, and S. Dai. 2005. Late Cenozoic deformation and uplift of the NE Tibetan Plateau: Evidence from high-resolution magnetostratigraphy of the Guide Basin, Qinghai Province, China. Geological Society of America Bulletin 117:1208–1225. Flynn, L. J. 2008. Paleobiogeographic affi nity across southern Asia during the Miocene: Small mammals reflect the Oriental Realm. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28:78A. Flynn, L. J., J. C. Barry, M. E. Morgan, D. Pilbeam, L. L. Jacobs, and E. H. Lindsay. 1995. Neogene Siwalik mammalian lineages: Species longevities, rates of change, and modes of speciation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 115:249–264. Flynn, L. J. and R. L. Bernor. 1987. Late Tertiary mammals from the Mongolian People’s Republic. American Museum Novitates 2872: 1–16. Flynn, L. J., R. H. Tedford, and Z.-x. Qiu. 1991. Enrichment and stability in the Pliocene mammalian fauna of North China. Paleobiology 17:246–265. Flynn, L. J., W.-y. Wu, and W. R. Downs. 1997. Dating vertebrate microfaunas in the late Neogene record of northern China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 133:227–242. Fortelius, M., J. Eronen, J. Jernvall, L.-p. Liu, D. Pushkina, J. Rinne, A. Tesakov, I. A. Vislobokova, Z.-q. Zhang, and L.-p. Zhou. 2002. Fossil mammals resolve regional patterns of Eurasian climate change over 20 million years. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4:1005–1016. Fortelius, M., J. Eronen, L.-p. Liu, D. Pushkina, A. Tesakov, I. Vislobokova, and Z.- q. Zhang. 2003. Continental-scale hypsodonty patterns, climatic paleobiogoegraphy and dispersal of Eurasian Neogene large mammal herbivores. In Distribution and Migration of Tertiary Mammals in Eurasia, A Volume in Honour of Hans de Bruijn, ed. J. W. F. Reumer and W. Wessels, pp. 1–11. DEINSEA 10. Fortelius, M., J. Eronen, L. Liu, D. Pushkina, A. Tesakov, I. Vislobokova, and Z.-q. Zhang. 2006. Late Miocene and Pliocene large land mammals and climatic changes in Eurasia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 238:219–227. Fortelius M., A. Gionis J. Jernvall and H. Mannila. 2006. Spectral ordering and biochronology of Eu ropean fossil mammals. Paleobiology 32(2): 206–214. Fortelius, M. and Z.-q. Zhang. 2006. An oasis in the desert? History of endemism and climate in the late Neogene of North China. Palaeontographica, part A 277:131–141. Ginsburg, L. 1984. Les faunnes tertiaires du Nord de la Th aïlande. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, n.s., 47:67– 69. Gnibidenko, Z. N. 1990. Paleomagnetism and magnetic stratigraphy of Neogene deposits in Pre-Irtisch region. Academy Sciences USSR (Siberian Branch), Geology Geophysics:85–94. Hanta, R., B. Ratanasthien, Y. Kunimatsu, H. Saegusa, H. Nakaya, S. Nagaoka, and P. Jintasakul. 2008. A new species of Bothriodontinae, Merycopotamus thachangensis (Cetartiodactyla, Anthracotheriidae) from the late Miocene of Nakhon Ratchasima, northeastern Thailand. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28:1182–1188. Hedberg, H. D. 1976. International Stratigraphic Guide: A Guide to Stratigraphic Classification, Terminology, and Procedure. First ed.

International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classification of IUGS International Commission on Stratigraphy. New York: Wiley. Höck, V., G. Daxner-Höck, H. P. Schmid, D. Badamgarav, W. Frank, G. Furtmüller, O. Montag, R. Barsbold, Y. Khand, and J. Sodov. 1999. Oligocene-Miocene sediments, fossils and basalts from the Valley of Lakes (Central Mongolia): An integrated study. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geologischen Gesellschaft 90: 83–125. Huang, W.-b., H.-x. Ji, W.-y. Chen, C.-q. Hsu, and S.-h. Zheng. 1980. Pliocene stratum of Guizhong and Bulong Basin, Xizang. In Paleontology of Tibet, Part 1, ed. Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Comprehensive Scientific Investigation Team of Chinese Academy of Sciences, pp. 4–17. Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Scientific Investigation Series. Beijing: Science Press. Jin, C.-z. 2004. Fossil leporids (Mammalia, Lagomorpha) from Huainan, Anhui, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 42:230–245. Jin, C.-z., Y. Kawamura, and H. Taruno. 1999. Pliocene and early Pleistocene insectivore and rodent faunas from Dajushan, Qipanshan and Haimao in North China and the reconstruction of the faunal succession from the late Miocene to middle Pleistocene. Osaka City University Journal of Geosciences 42:1–19. Kaakinen, A. and J. P. Lunkka. 2003. Sedimentation of the Late Miocene Bahe Formation and its implications for stable environments adjacent to Qinling mountains in Shaanxi, China. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 22:67–78. Kappelman, J., A. Duncan, M. Feseha, J. P. Lunkka, D. Ekart, F. McDowell, T. M. Ryan, and C. C. Swisher III. 2003. Chronology. In Geology and Paleontology of the Miocene Sinap Formation, Turkey, ed. M. Fortelius, J. Kappelman, S. Sen, and R. L. Bernor, pp. 41– 66. New York: Columbia University Press. Kordikova, E. G. and A. V. Mavrin. 1996. Stratigraphy and Oligocene-Miocene mammalian biochronology of the Aktau Mountains, Dzhungarian Alatau Range, Kazakhstan. Palaeovertebrata 25:141–174. Kordikova, E. G., E. P. J. Heizmann, and A. V. Mavrin. 2000. Early Miocene Carnivora of Aktau Mountains, south eastern Kazakhstan. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 74:195–204. Li, C.-k., Y.-p. Lin, Y.-m. Gu, L.-h. Hou, W.-y. Wu, and Z.-d. Qiu. 1983. The Aragonian vertebrate fauna of Xiacaowan, Jiangsu. 1. A brief introduction to the fossil localities and preliminary report on the new material. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 21:313–327. Li, C.-k. and Z.-d. Qiu. 1980. Early Miocene mammalian fossils of Xining basin, Qinghai. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 18:198–214. Li, C.-k., Z.-d. Qiu, and S.-j. Wang. 1981. Discussion on Miocene stratigraphy and mammals from Xining basin, Qinghai. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 19:313–320. Li, C.-k., W.-y. Wu, and Z.-d. Qiu. 1984. Chinese Neogene: Subdivision and correlation. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 22:163–178 (in Chinese with English abstract). Li, Q., X.-m. Wang, and Z.-d. Qiu. 2003. Pliocene mammalian fauna of Gaotege in Nei Mongol (Inner Mongolia), China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 41:104–114. Liu, L.-p., J. T. Eronen, and M. Fortelius. 2009. Significant midlatitude aridity in the middle Miocene of East Asia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 279:201–206. Lopatin, A. V. 2004. The Early Miocene small mammals from the North Aral region (Kazakhstan) with special reference to their



biostratigraphic significance. Paleontological Journal 38(suppl. 3): 217–323. Lucas, S. G., B. U. Bayshashov, L. A. Tyutkova, A. K. Shamangara, and B. Z. Aubekerov. 1997. Mammalian biochronology of the Paleogene-Neogene boundary at Aktau Mountain, eastern Kazakhstan. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 71:305–314. Lucas, S. G., R. J. Emry, B. U. Bayshashov, and L. A. Tyutkova. 2009. Cenozoic mammalian biostratigraphy and biochronology in the Zaysan Basin, Kazakstan. In Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology, and Biostratigraphy in Honor of Michael O. Woodburne, ed. L. B. Albright, III. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65:621–633. Lucas, S. G., R. J. Emry, V. Chkhikvadze, B. U. Bayshashov, L. A. Tyutkova, F. A. Tleuberdina, and A. Zhamangara. 2000. Chapter 29, Upper Cretaceous-Cenozoic lacustrine deposits of the Zaysan Basin, eastern Kazakhstan. In Lake Basins Th rough Space and Time, ed. E. H. Gierlowski-Kordesch and K. R. Kelts, pp. 335– 340. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Special Volume 46. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Mascarelli, A. L. 2009. Quaternary geologists win timescale vote. Nature 459:624. Mein, P. and L. Ginsburg. 1997. Les mammifères du gisement Miocène inférieur de Li Mae Long, Thaïlande : Systématique, biostratigraphie et paléoenvironnement. Geodiversitas 19:783– 844. Meng, J., B.-y. Wang, and Z.-q. Bai. 1996. A new middle Tertiary mammalian locality from Sunitezuoqi, Nei Mongol. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 34:297–304. Meng, J., J. Ye, W.-y. Wu, L.-p. Yue, and X.-j. Ni. 2006. A recommended boundary stratotype section for Xiejian Stage from northern Junggar Basin: Implications to related bio-chronostratigraphy and environmental changes. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 44:205–236. Meng, J., J. Ye, W.-y. Wu, X.-j. Ni, and S.-d. Bi. 2008. The Neogene Dingshanyanchi Formation in northern Junggar Basin of Xinjiang and its stratigraphic implications. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 46:90–110. Molnar, P. 2005. Mio-Pliocene growth of the Tibetan Plateau and evolution of East Asian climate. Palaeontologia Electronica 8:1–23. Passey, B. H., L. K. Ayliffe, A. Kaakinen, Z. Zhang, J. T. Eronen, Y. Zhu, L. Zhou, T. E. Cerling, and M. Fortelius. 2009. Strengthened East Asian summer monsoons during a period of highlatitude warmth? Isotopic evidence from Mio-Pliocene fossil mammals and soil carbonates from northern China. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 277:443– 452. Pevzner, M. A., E. A. Vangengeim, V. I. Zhegallo, V. S. Zazhigin, and I. G. Liskun. 1982. Correlation of the upper Neogene sediments of entral Asia and Eu rope on the basis of paleomagnetic and biostratigraphic data. International Geology Review 25:1075–1085. Puolamäki, K. M., Fortelius, and H. Mannila. 2006. Seriation in paleontological data using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. PLoS Computational Biology 2:e6. Qi, G.-q. 1985. Stratigraphic summarization of Ramapithecus fossil locality, Lufeng, Yunnan. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 4:55– 69. Qiu, Z.-d. 1996. Middle Miocene Micromammalian Fauna from Tunggur, Nei Mongol. Beijing: Academic Press. Qiu, Z.-d. 2001. Cricetid rodents from the middle Miocene Quantougou Fauna of Lanzhou, Gansu. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 39:204–214. Qiu, Z.-d. and C.-k. Li. 2003. Rodents from the Chinese Neogene: Biogeographic relationships with Eu rope and North America. In Vertebrate Fossils and Their Context: Contributions in Honor of

23

Richard H. Tedford, ed. L. J. Flynn, pp. 586– 602. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 279. Qiu, Z.-d. and C.-k. Li. 2005. Evolution of Chinese mammalian faunal regions and elevation of the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibet) Plateau. Science in China, ser. D, 48:1246–1258. Qiu, Z.-d. and G. Storch. 2000. The early Pliocene micromammalian fauna of Bilike, Inner Mongolia, China (Mammalia: Lipotyphla, Chiroptera, Rodentia, Lagomorpha). Senckenbergiana Lethaea 80:173–229. Qiu, Z.-d. and Q. Li. 2008. Late Miocene micromammals from the Qaidam Basin in the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 46:284–306. Qiu, Z.-x. 1989. The Chinese Neogene mammalian biochronology— its correlation with the Eu ropean Neogene mammalian zonation. In Eu ro pe an Neogene Mammal Chronology, ed. E. H. Lindsay, V. Fahlbusch, and P. Mein, pp. 527–556. New York: Plenum Press. Qiu, Z.-x. and Z.-d. Qiu. 1990. The sequence and division of mammalian local faunas in the Neogene of China. Journal of Stratigraphy 14:241–260. Qiu, Z.-x. and Z.-d. Qiu. 1995. Chronological sequence and subdivision of Chinese Neogene mammalian faunas. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 116:41–70. Qiu, Z.-x., B.-y. Wang, Z.-d. Qiu, F. Heller, L.-p. Yue, G.-p. Xie, X.-m. Wang, and B. Engesser. 2001. Land mammal geochronology and magnetostratigraphy of mid-Tertiary deposits in the Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province, China. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 94:373–385. Qiu, Z.-x., W.-y. Wu, and Z.- d. Qiu. 1999. Miocene mammal faunal sequences of China: Palaeozoogeography and Eurasian relationships. In The Miocene Land Mammals of Europe, ed. G. E. Rössner and K. Heissig, pp. 443– 472. Munich: Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. Quade, J., D. O. Breecker, M. Daëron, and J. Eiler. 2011. The paleoaltimetry of Tibet: An isotopic perspective. American Journal of Science 311:77–115. Ratanasthien, B. 2002. Problems of Neogene biostratigraphic correlation in Th ailand and surrounding areas. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 19:235–241. Rowley, D. B. and B. S. Currie. 2006. Palaeo-altimetry of the late Eocene to Miocene, Lunpola Basin, central Tibet. Nature 439:677– 681. Salvador, A. 1994. International Stratigraphic Guide—A Guide to Stratigraphic Classification, Terminology, and Procedure. Second Edition. In International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classification of IUGS International Commission on Stratigraphy, ed. A. Salvador. Boulder: Geological Society of America. Sasagawa, I., K. Takahashi, T. Sakumoto, H. Nagamori, H. Yabe, and I. Kobayashi. 2003. Discovery of the extinct red panda “Parailurus” (Mammalia, Carnivora) in Japan. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23:895–900. Sen, S. 1983. Rongeurs et Lagomorphes du gisement Pliocène de Pul-e Charki, bassin de Kabul, Afghan istan. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 5th ser., 5C:33–74. Sen, S. 1996. Present state of magnetostratigraphic studies in the continental Neogene of Eu rope and Anatolia. In Th e Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, ed. R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann, pp. 57– 63. New York: Columbia University Press. Sen, S. 2001. Rodents and insectivores from the upper Miocene of Molayan, Afghan istan. Palaeontology 44:913–932.


24

INTRODUCTION

Sen, S. and M. A. Erbajeva. 2011. A new species of Gobicricetodon Qiu 1996 (Mammalia, Rodentia, Cricetidae) from the Middle Miocene Aya Cave, Lake Baikal. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 49:257–274. Song, C.-h., D.-l. Gao, X.-m. Fang, Z.-j. Cui, J.-j. Li, S.-l. Yang, H.-b. Jin, D. W. Burbank, and J. L. Kirschvink. 2005. Late Cenozoic high-resolution magnetostratigraphy in the Kunlun Pass Basin and its implications for the uplift of the northern Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin 50:1912–1922. Sotnikova, M. V. 2006. A new canid Nurocyon chonokhariensis gen. et sp. nov. (Canini, Canidae, Mammalia) from the Pliocene of Mongolia. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 256:11–21. Sotnikova, M. V., A. E. Dodonov, and A. V. Pen’kov. 1997. Upper Cenozoic bio-magnetic stratigraphy of Central Asian mammalian localities. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 133:243–258. Steininger, F. F. 1999. Chronostratigraphy, geochronology and biochronology of the Miocene “Eu ropean Land Mammal MegaZone” (ELMMZ) and the Miocene “Mammal-Zones (MNZones”). In The Miocene Land Mammals of Europe, ed. G. E. Rössner and K. Heissig, pp. 9–24. Munich: Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. Steininger, F. F., W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, R. L. Bernor, S. Sen, and J. Agustí. 1996. Circum-Mediterranean Neogene (Miocene and Pliocene) marine- continental chronologic correlations of Eu ropean mammal units. In Th e Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, ed. R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.-W. Mittmann, pp. 7– 46. New York: Columbia University Press. Tedford, R. H., L. B. Albright III, A. D. Barnosky, I. FerrusquíaVillafranca, R. M. Hunt Jr., J. E. Storer, C. C. Swisher III, M. R. Voorhies, S. D. Webb, and D. P. Whistler. 2004. Mammalian biochronology of the Arikareean through Hemphillian interval (Late Oligocene through Early Pliocene Epochs). In Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology, ed. M. O. Woodburne, pp. 169–231. New York: Columbia University Press. Tedford, R. H., L. J. Flynn, Z.-x. Qiu, N. O. Opdyke, and W. R. Downs. 1991. Yushe Basin, China: paleomagnetically calibrated mammalian biostratigraphic standard for the late Neogene of eastern Asia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 11:519–526. Tedford, R. H. and C. R. Harington. 2003. An Arctic mammal fauna from the Early Pliocene of North America. Nature 425:388–390. Thomas, H. 1983. Les Bovidae (Artiodactyla, Mammalia) du Miocène moyen de la formation Hofuf (Province de Hasa, Arabie Saoudite). Palaeovertebrata 13:157–206. Tomida, Y. and C.-z. Jin. 2009. Two new species of Pliopentalagus (Leporidae, Lagomorpha) from the Pliocene of Anhui Province, China, with a revision of Pl. huainanensis. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 47:53–71. Tong, Y.-s., S.-h. Zheng, and Z.-d. Qiu. 1995. Cenozoic mammal ages of China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 33:290–314. Vangengeim, E. A., A. N. Lungu, and A. S. Tesakov. 2006. Age of the Vallesian lower boundary (continental Miocene of Europe). Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 14:655– 667. Vangengeim, E. A., I. A. Vislobokova, A. Y. Godina, E. L. Dmitrieva, V. I. Zhegalla, M. V. Sotnikova, and P. A. Tleuberdina. 1993. On the age of mammalian fauna from the Karabulak Formation of the Kalmakpai River (Zaisan Depression, eastern Kazakhstan). Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 1:37– 44.

Vekua, A. and D. Lordkipanidze. 2008. The history of vertebrate fauna in eastern Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences 2:149–155. Vislobokova, I. A. 2009. A new species of Megacerini (Cervidae, Artiodactyla) from the Late Miocene of Taralyk- Cher, Tuva (Russia), and remarks on the relationships of the group. Geobios 42(3):397– 410. Vislobokova, I. A., M. V. Sotnikova, and A. E. Dodonov. 2001. Late Miocene-Pliocene mammalian faunas of Russia and neighbouring countries. Bullettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 40: 307–313. Wallace, A. R. 1876. The Geographical Distribution of Animals. With a Study of the Relations of Living and Extinct Faunas as Elucidating the Past Changes of the Earth’s Surface. Vol. 1. New York: Harper. Wang, X., Z.-d. Qiu, Q. Li, Y. Tomida, Y. Kimura, Z. J. Tseng, and H.-j. Wang. 2009. A new early to late Miocene fossiliferous region in central Nei Mongol: Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy in Aoerban strata. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 47:111–134. Wang, X., Z.-d. Qiu, Q. Li, B.-y. Wang, Z.-x. Qiu, W. R. Downs, G.-p. Xie, J.-y. Xie, T. Deng, G. T. Takeuchi, Z. J. Tseng, M.-m. Chang, J. Liu, Y. Wang, D. Biasatti, Z. Sun, X. Fang, and Q. Meng. 2007. Vertebrate paleontology, biostratigraphy, geochronology, and paleoenvironment of Qaidam Basin in northern Tibetan Plateau. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 254:363–385. Wang, X., Z.-d. Qiu, and N. O. Opdyke. 2003. Litho-, bio-, and magnetostratigraphy and paleoenvironment of Tunggur Formation (Middle Miocene) in central Inner Mongolia, China. American Museum Novitates 3411:1–31. Wang, X., B.-y. Wang, Z.-x. Qiu, G.-p. Xie, J.-y. Xie, W. R. Downs, Z.- d. Qiu, and T. Deng. 2003. Danghe area (western Gansu, China) biostratigraphy and implications for depositional history and tectonics of northern Tibetan Plateau. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 208:253–269. Wang, X., G.-p. Xie, Q. Li, Z.- d. Qiu, Z. J. Tseng, G. T. Takeuchi, B.-y. Wang, M. Fortelius, A. Rosenström-Fortelius, H. Wahlquist, W. R. Downs, C.-f. Zhang, and Y. Wang. 2011. Early explorations of Qaidam Basin (Tibetan Plateau) by Birger Bohlin—reconciling classic vertebrate fossil localities with modern biostratigraphy. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 49:285–310. Whybrow, P. J. and D. Clemens. 1999. Arabian Tertiary fauna, flora, and localities. In Fossil Vertebrates of Arabia, with Emphasis on the Late Miocene Faunas, Geology, and Palaeoenvironments of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, ed. P. J. Whybrow and A. Hill, pp. 460– 473. New Haven: Yale University Press. Whybrow, P. J., H. A. McClure, and G. F. Elliott. 1987. Miocene stratigraphy, geology and flora (Algae) of eastern Saudi Arabia and the Ad Dabtiyah vertebrate locality. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 41:371–381. Wood, H. E., R. W. Chaney, J. Clark, E. H. Colbert, G. L. Jepsen, J. B. Reeside Jr., and C. Stock. 1941. Nomenclature and correlation of the North American continental Tertiary. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 52:1– 48. Woodburne, M. O. 1987. Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Geochronology and Biostratigraphy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Woodburne, M. O. 2004. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. New York: Columbia University Press.



Woodburne, M. O. and C. C. Swisher III. 1995. Land mammal highresolution geochronology, intercontinental overland dispersals, sea level, climate, and vicariance. In Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlation: A Unified Framework for a Historical Geology, ed. W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, M. P. Aubry, and J. A. Hardenbol, pp. 335–364. Society of Economic Paleontology and Mineralogy Special Publications 54. Tulsa: Society for Sedimentary Geology. Xu, Y.-l., Y.-b. Tong, Q. Li, Z.-m. Sun, J.-l. Pei, and Z.-y. Yang. 2007. Magnetostratigraphic dating on the Pliocene mammalian fauna of the Gaotege section, central Inner Mongolia. Geological Review 53:250–260. Xue, X.-x., Y.-x. Zhang, and L.-p. Yue. 1995. Discovery and chronological division of the Hipparion fauna in Laogaochuan Village, Fugu County, Shaanxi. Chinese Science Bulletin 40:926–929. Xue, X.-x., Y.-x. Zhang, and L.-p. Yue. 2006. Paleoenvironments indicated by the fossil mammalian assemblages from red clay-loess sequence in the Chinese Loess Plateau since 8.0 Ma B.P. Science in China, ser. D, 49:518–530. Yin, H.-f., K.-x. Zhang, J.-n. Tong, Z.-y. Yang, and S.-b. Wu. 2001. The Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) of the PermianTriassic Boundary. Episodes 24:102–114. Yue, L.-p., T. Deng, R. Zhang, Z.-q. Zhang, F. Heller, J.-q. Wang, and L.-r. Yang. 2004. Paleomagnetic chronology and record of Himalayan movements in the Longgugou section of GyirongOma Basin in Xizang (Tibet). Chinese Journal of Geophysics 47: 1135–1142. Yue, L.-p. and Y.-x. Zhang. 1998. Hipparion fauna and magnetostratigraphy in Hefeng, Jingle, Shanxi Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 36:76– 80. Yue, L.-p. and Y.-x. Zhang. 2006. Paleomagnetic dating of Lufengpithecus lufengensis fossil strata. In Lufengpithecus hudienensis Site, ed. G.-q. Qi and W. Dong, pp. 252–255. Beijing: Science Press. Zhang, Y.-p., Y.-z. You, H.-x. Ji, and S.-y. Ting. 1989. The Cenozoic deposits of the Yunnan region. Professional Papers on Stratigraphy and Paleontology 7:1–21. Zhang, Y.-x., D.-h. Sun, Z.-s. An, and X.-x. Xue. 1999. Mammalian fossils from late Pliocene (lower MN 16) of Lingtai, Gansu Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 37:190–199.

25

Zhang, Y.-x., X.-x. Xue, and L.-p. Yue. 1995. Age and division of Neogene “red bed” of Laogaochuan, Fugu County, Shaanxi. Journal of Stratigraphy 19:214–219. Zhang, Z.-q., A. W. Gentry, A. Kaakinen, L.-p. Liu, J. P. Lunkka, Z.-d. Qiu, S. Sen, R. S. Scott, L. Werdelin, S.-h. Zheng, and M. Fortelius. 2002. Land mammal faunal sequence of the late Miocene of China: New evidence from Lantian, Shaanxi Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 40:165–176. Zhang, Z.-q., L.-h. Wang, A. Kaakinen, L.-p. Liu, and M. Fortelius. 2011. Miocene mammalian faunal succession from Damiao, central Nei Mongol and the environmental changes. Quaternary Sciences 31:608– 613. Zheng, S.-h. 1980. The Hipparion fauna of Bulong Basin, Biru, Xizang. In Paleontology of Tibet, Part 1, ed. Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Comprehensive Scientific Investigation Team of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 33–47. Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Scientific Investigation Series. Beijing: Science Press. Zheng, S.-h., W.-y. Wu, and Y. Li. 1985. Late Cenozoic mammalian faunas of Guide and Gonghe basins, Qinghai Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 23:89–134. Zheng, S.-h. and Z.-q. Zhang. 2001. Late Miocene-early Pleistocene biostratigraphy of the Leijiahe area, Lingtai, Gansu. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 39:215–228. Zhu, R.-x., Q.-s. Liu, H.-t. Yao, Z.-t. Guo, C.-l. Deng, Y.-x. Pan, L.-q. Lü, Z.-g. Chang, and F. Gao. 2005. Magnetostratigraphic dating of hominoid-bearing sediments at Zhupeng, Yuanmou Basin, southwestern China. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 236:559–568. Zhu, Y.-m., L.-p. Zhou, D.-w. Mo, A. Kaakinen, Z.-q. Zhang, and M. Fortelius. 2008. A new magnetostratigraphic framework for late Neogene Hipparion red clay in the eastern Loess Plateau of China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 268:47–57. Zykin, V. S. and V. S. Zazhigin. 2004. A new biostratigraphic level of Pliocene in West Siberia and the age of the lower-middle Miocene stratotype of the Beshcheul horizon. Doklady Earth Sciences 398:904–907. Zykin, V. S., V. S. Zykina, and V. S. Zazhigin. 2007. Issues in separating and correlating Pliocene and Quaternary sediments of southwestern Siberia. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 2(30):24– 40.

ADDENDUM

The editors of this volume count among our highly esteemed colleagues all of the contributors herein. Well into production of this book, we were deeply moved by the passing of one of our authors, Eleonora Vangengeim (1930–2012). Eleonora was a key figure in vertebrate paleontology at the Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Her expertise led and inspired a generation of paleontologists throughout the world. Her focus was biostratigraphy and the evolution of Neogene mammalian complexes, emphasizing the geological setting of the vertebrate remains upon which we piece together the terrestrial biotic history of Asia. We benefit from the rich legacy of her work. Thank you, Eleonora.


Fossil Mammals of Asia

Recommend Documents