An Assessment of the Middle Devonian- Mississippian Biodiversity Dynamics in Central Asia on the Basis of Soviet-Time Compilations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dmitry A. Ruban Geologos, 2011, 17 (1): 29–47 doi: 10.2478/v10118-011-0003-8 Do partly outdated palaeontological data produce just a noise? An assessment of the Middle Devonian- Mississippian biodiversity dynamics in central Asia on the basis of Soviet-time compilations Dmitry A. Ruban1,2 1Division of Mineralogy and Petrography, Geology and Geography Faculty, Southern Federal University, Zorge Street 40, Rostov-na-Donu, 344090, Russian Federation; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 2Address for contact by post: P.O. Box (a/jashik) 7333, Rostov-na-Donu, 344056, Russian Federation Abstract Interregional tracing of trends and events in the biotic evolution is an important task of modern palaeobiology. In Soviet times (1917–1991), numerous palaeontological data have collected for the territory of Russia and neighbouring U.S.S.R. countries. Later, these data were compiled and published in a series of reference volumes. Although this information cannot be updated in a conventional way, it remains valuable for quantitative analyses, particularly because of its comprehensive and unique character. Assessment of the previously collected data on the stratigraphic distribution of Middle Devonian-Mississippian marine invertebrates in three regions of central Asia (central Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) reveals some general patterns of biodiversity dynamics. The total number of genera generally declined during the Givetian-Famennian, whereas a remarkable diversity peak occurred in the Visean. This is consistent with the global pattern and, thus, permits to hypothesize a regional signature of the global trends. Changes in the extinction rate differ, however, between central Asia and the Earth in its entirety, which may be explained particularly by biases in either the regional or the global records. Evidence of the Givetian and Frasnian/Famennian mass extinctions is found in the three regions under study. Results of this tentative study indicate important directions for further research and suggest that central Asia is a highly important domain for studies of mid-Palaeozoic biodiversity dynamics. Keywords: palaeontological data; palaeobiodiversity, mass extinctions, Middle Devonian, Late Devonian, Mississip- pian, central Asia 1. Introduction ters & Foote (2001), and Purdy (2008) demon- strated the efficacy of this approach on a global Quantitative assessment of biodiversity re- scale. However, the reconstructed patterns of mains the principal direction of modern pal- palaeobiodiversity dynamics require an accu- aeobiology. It allows to recognize both some rate interregional tracing. This is the case, for main evolutionary trends and key events (radi- example, for the Frasnian/Famennian mass ations, mass extinctions, major turnovers, etc.) extinction, which is well-documented (Raup & in the history of life. The studies by Sepkoski et Sepkoski, 1982; Buggisch, 1991; McGhee, 1996; al. (1981), Sepkoski (1993), Benton (2001), Pe- Hallam & Wignall, 1997; House, 2002; Purdy, Do partly outdated palaeontological data produce just a noise? An assessmentUnauthenticated of the Middle Devonian- Mississippian...Download Date | 11/30/15 12:43 PM 30 Dmitry A. Ruban 2008), but still lacks an adequate place in the data will produce just a noise, but such a judg- context of different palaeogeographical do- ment seems unjustified. The comprehensive- mains (Racki, 2005). ness of the compilations and their contents When analysis of new palaeontological data of high-quality data, which would otherwise contributes to the quantitative assessment of never be updated, requires consideration of palaeodiversity, older – possibly partly outdat- the question whether they should not deserve ed – data from poorly known regions should to become included in present-day studies. Of not be abandoned. In the former U.S.S.R, a huge course, many other monographs and compen- amount of high-quality (by the then standards) dia including taxonomic descriptions and illus- information about the stratigraphic distribu- trations were published in Soviet times (e.g., tion of fossils had accumulated. An important Morozova, 1970; Grunt & Dmitriev, 1973), but tradition of the Soviet time (1917–1991) geo- there is no guarantee that they include all taxa science was the publication of compilations of from the above-mentioned compilations, and the available geological and palaeontological relationships between the various information data under supervision of top professionals. sources can therefore not always be traced. One Examples of such compilations are the dozens might thus state that comprehensive publica- of volumes in the series ’Geology of the USSR’, tions without taxonomic descriptions and il- ’Stratigraphy of the USSR’, etc., as well as nu- lustrations on the one hand and palaeontologi- merous descriptive notes supplied to geologi- cal monographs on the other hand are different cal maps and stratigraphical correlations tables sources of information for palaeobiodiversity that were published with open access. They investigations. Specialists in the systematics have remained inaccessible for the interna- and palaeobiology of particular fossils groups tional scientific community, however, because will, indeed, prefer ’classical’ monographs, but of their publication in Russian. These publica- more general palaeobiologists should not leave tions should nevertheless still be regarded as the other compilations unstudied. precious sources of information, ready for pa- The present contribution has two objectives. laeobiological assessment. First, it aims at demonstrating a possible way Unfortunately, part of these compilations to use the palaeontological data from Soviet are now partly outdated. As they contain only time. Second, it provides an example of such taxonomic lists without descriptions and illus- an analysis, which deals with information on trations, it seems difficult, if possible at all, to Middle Devonian to Mississippian (397.5– check the correct identification of specimens 318.1 Ma) marine invertebrates from central and – if necessary – to improve them. It might Asia, more specifically central Kazakhstan, Uz- be argued that any new analysis of these old bekistan and Tajikistan (Fig. 1). This example will show that these partly outdated data can help to recognise regional signatures of global trends and events. 2. Geological setting The palaeontological information consid- ered in the present contribution characterizes a large region delimited by political bounda- ries. It is thus related to particular countries, rather than to geological domains. It should be noted, however, that the occurrence of most of the Middle Devonian-Mississippian fossils Fig. 1. Location of the territory considered in the present treated in the present analysis are connected study (shaded in light grey). in the original data sources to major tectonic Unauthenticated Download Date | 11/30/15 12:43 PM Do partly outdated palaeontological data produce just a noise? An assessment of the Middle Devonian-Mississippian... 31 structures, which simplifies the task of geologi- time and space of the sedimentary and palaeo- cal delineation of the study area. geographical development of central Asia. Geographically, the study area embraces Regarding palaeotectonics, central Asia is the central part of Kazakhstan and entire Uz- a heterogenous region. The available plate-tec- bekistan and Tajikistan (Fig. 1). Geologically, tonic reconstructions (Şengör & Natal'in, 1996; this territory is highly diverse and it comprises Kalvoda, 2002; Bazhenov et al., 2003; Stamp- several structural domains; the most impor- fli & Borel, 2002; Buslov et al., 2004; Scotese, tant ones are the Kazakh terranes, the Tien 2004; Torsvik & Cocks, 2004; Ruban et al., 2007; Shan (western part), and the Pamirs. Devo- Abrajevitch et al., 2008; Biske & Seltmann, 2010) nian and Carboniferous deposits, both marine leave some uncertainty with respect to their and terrestrial, are extensive (Zhamojda, 1968; nature, which is especially well-demonstrated Nalivkin et al., 1973; Baratov, 1976; Tuljaga- in the syntheses by Torsvik & Cocks (2004) and nov & Jaskovitch, 1980; Bespalov & Kostenko, Ruban et al. (2007). The nomenclature of ter- 1981a,b; Orlov & Bespalov, 1981). The various ranes is yet to be developed, and even an ap- units have different lithologies, thickness, and proximate relative position of tectonic blocks in facies (Fig. 2). Generally, these deposits are the mid-Paleozoic remains debated or simply mixed siliciclastics, carbonates (less frequent), unclear. It seems that central Kazakhstan, Uz- and volcanics/volcaniclastics in the Middle- bekistan, and Tajikistan constitute collages of Upper Devonian interval and carbonates with terranes (many are small in size), which formed some siliciclastics in the Mississippian interval. gradually through the Paleozoic-Mesozoic. The proportion of carbonates increases south- The Kazakh terranes were a particular tectonic wards, and this lithology dominates the entire domain, whereas many other terranes were Middle Devonian-Mississippian succession in parts of terrane chains (like Hun, Cimmeria) the central Pamirs. Unfortunately, the lack of delivered from the Gondwanan margin of the appropriate plate-tectonic reconstructions (see Tethyan oceans (Proto-Tethys, Palaeo-Tethys, below) prevents the precise reconstruction in Neo-Tethys) to the Laurussian margin. In the Fig. 2. Chronostratigraphy of the Middle Devonian-Mississippian interval (after Ogg et al., 2008) and correlation of