DELIMITATION AND CORRELATION OF THE PONTIAN AND THE MESSINIAN STAGES ON THE BASIS OF MALACOFAUNA by P. M. Stevanovic

Introduction. in the present review of some of the latest attempts to correlate the Messinian in the Mediterranean province and the Pontian of the Paratethys, reference is made foremostly to the published papers from the 7th RCMNS Congress in Athens and the rich literature on the Pontian used in preparing the book “The Pontian” to be edited and published in Yugoslavia in the book series “Chronostratigraphie und Neostratotypen in der zentralen Paratethys”. My speculations are based on the results of general malacofauna considerations and my field investigations in various regions of the Paratethys in Greece and Italy. In a paper recently published under the title “Die Äquivalente des Tortoniano und Messiniano in der zentralen Paratethys”, it is claimed that after the Badenian, stages from the Mediterranean can be correlated with those from the Paratethys only “mit Hilfe radiometrischen Daten” or only of mammals (Papp and Steininger, 1979), thus excluding other possible correlations. While certain authors, like J. Senes, maintain the “equivalence de Page du Messinien et du Pontién supérieur” (Senes, 1981, p. 54), another group of palaeo- malacologists have a different approach to the Messinian/Pontian correlation, cor­ recting their concept with the time (G illet, 1958, 1963, 1969; Selli, 1960, 1973; P app, Steininger and G eorgiades-D ikeoulia, 1978; Balesio, A rchambault- G uézou, 1980; Stevanovic, 1963, 1966; A rchambault-G uézou, Ilina et al., 1979; Papp, 1980; Ilina, 1980; R ögl and Steininger, 1983; and others). Approaches of other specialist to the Messinian/Pontian relationship such as of mammalogists, ostracodologists, micropalaeontologists, palynologists,geochemists, geophysicists, etc are not considered in the present paper. Among the researchers various approaches are noted or rather variants in ap" proaches and estimates of the possible Messinian/Pontian correlation. Some of the attempts are mentioned below. Messinian synchronous with Pontian Messinian synchronous with Upper Pontian Messinian synchronous with Upper Pontian+Lower Kimmerian (= Lower Dacian) Messinian synchronous with Maeotian-f- Lower Pontian Messinian synchronous with Lower Pontian (possibly the whole Pontian) Messinian synchronous with Chersonian + Maeotian + Lower Pontian. There is an extreme opinion that the Messinian is synchronous with the Middle and Upper Sarmatian, Maeotian and Pontian (G illet, 1959). Supporters of the “Messinian synchronous with Upper Pontian” are vague or are not mentioning their understanding of the Upper Pontian. No reference is made to its biostratigraphy, malacofauna, climatic—palaeographic circumstances of the 364 P. M. Stevanovic

time, etc. The Upper Pontian in the western (“central”) Paratethys is known, however, to be a more general term (Stevanovic, 1951) than in the Dacian or euxinian Para­ tethys where it is represented only by Bosporian stage of vaguely marked boundaries (A ndrusov, 1917; 1923). By its principal properties (facies, fauna, sediment types) the Messinian is rather a geological formation than a stage. Its lithological—faunal aspect is highly variable: Lower Messinian consists of laminite deposits, the middle of evaporites with laminites and the upper of “Lago mare facies”, while also coral and algal reefs occur on western and eastern Mediterranean margins. If it was not separated as a “stage” in the last century, it would be much easier to compare, correlate with relative sediments in the eastern Paratethys. Similar difficulties in geological correlations of deposits from two or more separate basins are rarely faced in the stratigraphy. All this is a consequence of great diversity in Messinian sediments from the base upward to the top. Another difficulty in correlating with the Messinian is inadequate knowledge of Mediterranean geologists of Neogene deposits in the Paratethys or the knowledge of central and southeastern European geologists of formations in the Mediterranean. Further consideration will cover the following: 1 biostratigraphic boundaries of the Pontian stage; 2 are Pontian and Pannonian in the western (“central”, by Senes) Paratethys synchronous or not?; 3 relation of the Messinian from the Mediterranean (Italy, etc) to the Pontian in Greece and eastern Paratethys; 4 what biocorrelation is possible between Messinian and Pontian?; 5 relation of the Tortonian from the Mediterranean basin to Maeotian and Pontian stages. When correlating the Messinian with the Upper Miocene or Lower Pliocene in the Paratethys first must be answered the principal question: Has it been proved in any published work that evaporites in Mediterranean basin lie above argillaceous-marl sediments with Lago mare malacofauna, i.e. over an undoubted correlate with the Lower Pontian (Novorossian substage)? If evaporites are nowhere lying so they must be together with laminites as Lower and Middle Messinian, older than the Lower Pontian, i.e. be equivalent in geological age to the Chersonian and the Maeotian stages. This even more so because no discordance has been proved between the evaporite complex (Middle Messinian) and “Lago mare facies”. 1 Delimitation of the Pontian Lower boundary in the Carpathian province or the Pannonian basin is con­ sidered by P. Stevanovic (1951, 1977) and in the Proceedings under the title “The Pannonian” (1985, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) as a boundary between the Pannonian and Pontian stages. The boundary in the Vienna basin is between the “subglobosa zone” (“E” zone, in Pa pp, 1953) and the “zahalkai zone” (“F” zone, also in Papp). Related to malacofauna this boundary in the south of the Pannonian basin lies between “subglobosa zone” (Upper Pannonian) and “Praerhom- boidea zone” (Lower Pontian) or “upper Abichi beds”. The Lower Pontian boundary in Dacian and Euxinian basins is marked by first occurrences of Limnocardids, Pseudoprosodacna and Pseudocatillus in the so-called Eupatoria-horizon. Delimination and correlation o f the Pontian. . . 365

The Upper Pontian boundary in Carpatho —Pannonian basin is characterized by the disappearance of last Congeria, Limnocardium and Valenciennius. This boundary is not sufficiently marked in Dacian and Euxinian basins; the top of the Bosporian substage (Andrusov, 1917) marks the end of the Pontian stage. This substage, according to some authors (Senes, 1981), should be synchronous with the whole of the Messinian. Other authors (T aktakishvili, N evesskaia, and Stevanovic, 1985) take that the Bosporian substage is virtually inseparable from the Portaferrian. At that time Transcarpathian connections between Pannonian and Dacian basins and between Black Sea (Euxinian basin) and Caspian basin were still existent; in other words, there was a single Paratethys from the Alps to the Aral sea in Asia. 2 Were Pontian and Pannonian in the western ( “central”) Paratethys synchronous or not? An answer to the above question is partly given in the mentioned Proceedings “The Pannonian” (Papp edits., 1985,Budapest). My discussion on the Pannonian, be­ tween the Sarmatian and the Pontian, with J ekelius (1943) and Pevzner and W an- GENGEiM (1982), will not be presently referred to (it will be published elsewhere); only an unsustainable passage will be quoted from the disputable questions of the volume and stratigraphic position of the Pannonian by P evzner and Wagengeim, which reads: “Thus, in our opinion the whole of the Pannonian (= Congeria beds) in Hungary can be correlated with the Pontian” (see p. 50). The mentioned authors are of the opinion that a regression i.e. dry land existed in the Carpatho —Balkan basin between Pannonian zone with Congeria ornithopsis and three younger zones (C, D, E) of the same stage. This opinion fully agrees with that of R. H oernes (1900) and his follower J ekelius (1943), though it was generally abandoned long ago after deep borings and instructive surface sections. The opinion about interrupted sedimentation and retreat of the Pannonian sea has been contradict­ ed by the long established evolution of Mollusca (Dreissenids, Limneids, Limnocar- dids) through the Pannonian and the Pontian from the level with Congeria orni­ thopsis (the oldest Pannonian) to the end of the Pontian level with Congeria rhom- boidea and Prosodacna vutskitsi. 3 Relationship of the Messinian from the Mediterranean (Italy) to the Pontian in Greece, Turkey, and Eastern Paratethys The Messinian is divided, as mentioned above, into three levels: (1) praevaporites and laminites, (2) evaporites and (3) postevaporites or into Lower, Middle and Upper Messinian. Postevaporites or Lago mare facies are known (G illet, 1962, 1969; Selli, 1960, 1973; and others) to be of the greatest importance for defining the Mes­ sinian to Pontian relationship. Both in past and the present time, many palaeo- malacologists have inferred that soon after evaporite deposition, in early Pontian, an association of molluscs, which had common properties with molluscs of Eupatoria beds of the Lower Pontian in the Paratethys, entered the Mediterranean basin and its periphery or partly as autochtone developed in it. It was discovered in a peripheral area of the Mediterranean from Spain in the west trough southern France and Italy to Greece and Near East. Similarly, Ostracods in this region were brackish (Caspi- brackish fauna). Mollusca from the Upper Messinian, i.e. Lago mare facies, have been studied by many authors in Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, southern France and certain common species were identified for the Lower Pontian of the Paratethys and Upper Messinian of the Mediterranean (G illet, 1960, 1961, 1965, 1969; A rchambault-G uézou et al., 366 P. M. Stevanovic

1976, 1979; Stevanovic, 1963, 1964, 1966). Particularly notable among Limnocardids in both basins are small Pseudoprosodacna (P. litoralis), Paradacna (P. abichi), Euxinicardium (E. subodessae), etc., all forms known and first described from the Lower Pontian in the Paratethys. These originally euxine species are jointed with some endemic Limnocardid species such as Didacna and Pontalmyra (G illet, 1961, 1965). “Lago mare fauna” of this “Italian type” is also found in the Lower Pontian of the Aegean region, e.g. southeast of Thessaloniki, in Alatini suburb (Stevanovic, 1963) and near the village of Trilophos (G illet et F augére, 1970; G illet et G eissert, 1971; Papp, 1980). Moreover Lower Pontian with this species is known from Tracones Limestones south of Athens on Attican peninsula (G illet, 1937, 1957; Stevanovic, 1963, 1964; Papp, Steininger and G eorgiades-D ikeoulia, 1978). Related to the present molluscan species typical of the Eupatoria horizon in the Euxine basin, all of the mentioned authors describe the three mentioned localities to the Lower Pontian. The Workshop for the Paratethys, assembled in Sofia (1978), consulted specialist in Pontian of the eastern Paratethys, at a proposal by A. P app, asking them to confirm Lower Pontian age of sediments near Thessaloniki, which they did by having agreed with the earlier determinations (see Papp, 1980). Simple comparison of Upper Messinian malacofauna from Italy, e.g. vicinity of Ancona (G illet, 1969)*, and C apellini’s collections from Toscana (G illet, 1962) with fauna from Lower Pontian of the Aegean basin, Greece, readily shows the com­ mon caspi-brackish character of the association in addition to certain local, autoch­ thonous elements in both regions. This type of Upper Messinian malacofauna closely related to the Lower Pontian euxine type in the Paratethys, can also be identi­ fied in regions of the Mediterranean Sea other than Italy and Greece as mentioned above. In the light of these facts, the opinions: “Therefore, beds in Trilophos and Trakones were older than the Messinian”, or: “ .. .Geological age of these deposits should be determined as the Upper Tortonian” (Papp, 1980, p. 243), about the geologi­ cal age of the mentioned localities in Greece can hardly be accepted because they are not based on required malacological data but only on time determination by physical or similar methods. 4 What correlation between the Messinian and the Pontian is possible? As there is not any discordance between evaporites and postevaporites of Lago mare facies, the deposition of evaporites must be geologically older than the Lower Pontian, equivalent to Maeotian and Chersonian (or Pannonian). Both Maeotian and Chersonian are characterized by great regression of the Paratethys, same as the Lower and Middle Messinian in the Mediterranean. The marine connection between western and eastern Paratethys provinces ceased to exist at that time; the connection between the eastern province and the Mediterranean simultaneously broke in the Chersonian and existed at intervals in the Maeotian; during the deposition of laminites and marginal Messinian reefs, occasional communication with the Paratethys may have existed. Significant reduction in molluscan species in deep sea of eastern Paratethys during the Chersonian in particular, corroborates its complete isolation both from the

* A close examination of Lago mare fauna from Ancona area (Gillet, 1969) may reveal occasional Pannonian (s. str.) or prae-Pontian forms of Limnocardids, e.g. ex gr. Limnocaidium cekusi, L. veselinovici, L. viquesneli. Delimination and correlation o f the Pontian. . . 367

Mediterranean and Pannonian provinces of the Paratethys, as has been documented by the absence of common species in these three basins. Correlation of the Lower and Middle Messinian or evaporite formation and Lower and Upper Pontian is not possible from a climatic aspect as it can be done using malacofauna. The Lower Pontian is characterized by relatively lower tempera­ ture than that of the immediately older Maeotian; there are opinions that Ukrainian rivers of the time froze in the winter*. The Upper Pontian (Portaferrian and Bosporian substages) as directly younger, on the other hand, is characterized by clearly warm and humide climate especially in Dacian and Pannonian basins of the Paratethys. In other words, in the Pontian stage, both the Lower (Novorossian substage) and the Upper (Portaferrian and Bosporian substages), the conditions were not suitable for sedimentation of evaporites: the older Pontian because of low temperature and humidity, and the younger, with increased temperature but even more humid climate. Dry and warm epoch in the younger Neogene, suitable for homogene sediments, is represented in the western Paratethys by the younger Sarmatian, upper Bessarabian and Pannonian. At that time enormous masses of semilagoonal marl sediments, known as “white marlstone formation”, were deposited in the south of the Pannonian basin. They are accompanied by flaglike limestones poor in malacofauna but rich in fish remains and continental flora. This formation in Yugoslavia is including “white marls” from Zagreb area (Radoboj locality with sulphur occurrence, “praepontic” marls in the same area, G orjanovic-K ramberger, 1900). In various areas of Yugo­ slavia it is known as: “Radix beds”, “Provalenciennesia beds” (Moos, 1944; O zegovic, 1944; Jenko, 1944) in Croatia; “Banatica beds” in Slavonia, “Beocin marls” in Srem, Belgrade area, Roumanian Banat and Transylvania, etc. Middle and Upper Pontian (Portaferrian) is marked by warm and very humid climate along the southern Pannonian margin, which, according to the above authors, should be synchronous with evaporites in the Mediterranean. Thus on the territory of Yugoslavia, from Krsko in the west (Slovenija) to the Carpathians in the east (eastern Serbia), the Upper Pontian (Portaferrian) typically has thick deposits of brown coal (lignite)—an evidence of humid climate. This is used by national palaeo- botanists (Pantic, 1956, 1957) to describe warm and very humid climate in the Upper Pontian. The fact is that there are also different opinions (Hsü et al., 1977; Papp and Steininger, 1980) about the climate in northern areas of the Pannonian basin. Pontian coal basin at Krsko (Globoko) in Slovenia and the nearest Messinian evaporites in Marche province, Italy, are approximately situated at the same parallel, some 300 kilometres apart in air line. When coal was deposited in Krsko (Globoko), the Dinarides, according to palaeobotanic data, were by about 800 to 1000 metres lower than at the present time; similarly was with the Alps. The question arises: are two extreme types, one very arid, suitable for evaporite deposition, and the other, very humid, providing conditions for coal deposition, conceivable in one geological time at one geographic parallel of the north latitude over a relatively short distance? Similar examples of allegedly simultaneous deposition of climatologically extreme types of sediments at a short distance can be given for various parts of Balkan peninsula, e.g. southern Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey. One example is the Pontian coal deposits 50 metres thick in Kosovo coal basin and Messinian gypsum, anhydrite, only 150 kilometres away, near Tirana. These could not be simultaneous from the climatological aspect. Given examples therefore contradict the mentioned understanding of correlation. * Recent palaeofloral examinations in the Lower Pontian of southern Ukraina contradict this opinion (see Suladze, 1984). 368 P. M. Stevanovic

Above considerations of the correlation based on malacofauna and continental flora (including palaeoclimatic factor) oppose the published opinions that the Mes- sinian was synchronous with the Upper Pontian and Lower Kiminerian (Senes, 1981; Semenenko, 1979). On the contrary, a different correlation is possible that would suit both the nature of malacofauna in the Mediterranean and the Paratethys and the nature of fossil continental vegetation, including in consideration also palaeogeo- graphic—climatic circumstances in the two regions during the Messinian, viz.:

5 Relations of the Tortonian from the Mediterranean to the Chersonian, Maeotian and Pontian from the Paratethys If correlation, as proposed in the preceding chapter using malacofauna, climate, etc could be accepted, i.e. that Messinian of the Mediterranean is synchronous with the Chersonian, Maeotian and Lower Pontian then the table of stratigraphic correla­ tion in Rögl and Steininger (1983) must be revised. Three stages mentioned in the above subtitle are evidently younger than the Tortonian in Italy, underlying the Messinian. Tortonian as one of Mediterranean Neogene stages cannot be correlated with the Lower Pontian of the Paratethys only the Upper Messinian can. Conclusion. Considering the question of correlation of Neogene stages at Mio- cene/Pliocene boundary, the proposal in the 6th RCMNS Congress resolution may be closer to the right answer from the malacofauna and continental vegetation points of view. It related the Messinian to the Maeotian and the Lower Pontian. If left at that, we would not discuss today the correlation of the Tortonian to the Lower Pontian, which is absurd from the viewpoint on which the present work is based. Two stages, which are certainly in superposition in the Mediterranean, are placed in one segment of time! Synchronisation of Messinian —Pontian will be further considered because there are various formulations of the proposals based on radiometric data*, nanoplanktons and the like. It is not a final, generally acceptable solution that is negotitated for; nothing the weakness of the arguments presented by certain authors and some advantages of the methods used, the attempt is made in this review to eliminate the doubts in the validity of using malacofauna in younger Neogene stratigraphy. Comparative stratigraphic tables published recently are known to completely neglect the division into stages, horizons and biozones derived using malacofauna. When introducing new correlation methods, however, the tested methods should not be neglected which were successful in providing data when the first “classical” division of the Neogene was made for the Tethys and the Paratethys.

* In a handwritten paper for the Proceedings “The Pontian”, which is to be edited by me and published, Trubikhin is concluding as follows: “As Messinian deposits cover the sixth and fifth palaeomagnetic epochs and the lowermost Gilbert epoch, the whole of the Pontian or at least most of the Lower Pontian is equivalent to the Upper Messinian” (1985, manuscript). If so, the older Messinian (evaporites and laminites) must certainly be Maeotian or Praepontian. Evidently, neither results acquired by physical methods are identical with all authors. Delimination and correlation o f the Pontian... 369

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A ndrusov N. 1917: Ponticeskij jarus. — Geológia Rossii, t. IV, f. 2, St. Petersburg, 1923: Apse- ronskij jams. — Trudy Geol. kom. n. ser. 110. Archambault-Guézou J. 1976: Présence de Dreissenidae euxiniques dans les dépots á Congéries de la vallée du Rhone et sur le portours du bassin méditerranéen. — Bull. soc. géol. France. 18. Archambault-Guézou J., Iljina L. B., Keller J. P. et Montenat C. 1979: Affinitás euxiniques de mollusques messiniennes d’Elche (Alicante, Espagne) et implications palaeogéographiques. — Ann. géol. pays hell. (Hors sér.) I. Balesio R., A rchambault-Guézou J. 1980: Présence du Messinien dans la vallée du Rhone. — Geobios. 13. (6). Bartha F. 1959: Feinstratigraphische Untersuchungen am Oberpannon der Balatongegend. — Ann. Inst. geol. publ. Hung. 48. (1). Cita M. B. 1975: The Miocene—Pliocene boundary: History and Definition. — In Saito T. and Burkle L. H. (eds.): Late Neogene epoch boundaries. New York. — 1979: Sedimentation in the latest Messinian at Capo Rosselo (Sicily). — Sedimentology. 26. Colalongo M. L. 1970: Appunti biostratigrafici sul Messiniano. — Giorn. geol. ser. 2. 36. (2). Colalongo M. L., di Grande A. et al. 1979: A proposal for the Tortonian/ Messinian boundary. — Ann. géol. pays hell. (Hors sér.) I. Crescenti U., Coppola L., Tomassoni D. 1975: Sul Mio—Pliocene di Ancona: note di Strati- grafia. — Boll. erv. geol. Italia. 45. (1). Crescenti U., Gianelli L., M artinez-D iaz C., Salvatorini G. 1973: Tentativo di correlazione tra i piani Andalusiano e Messiniano. — Atti Soc. Tosc. Nat. Sei. Mem. Ser. A. 80. Eberzin A. G. 1945: Sur la fauné des couches pontiennes des environs de Keshan (Dardanelles). — C. R. Acad. sc. U. d. SSR. 50. Moscou. Gillet S. 1937: Sur la presence du Pontién s. str. dans la région de Salonique. — C. R. séance d. Acad. sc. 13 dec. 1937. — 1957: Contribution á Thistoire du Bassin mediterranéen et euxinique au Néogéne et au Quaternaire. — Bull. serv. cart. geol. Alsace et Loraine. 10. (2). — 1960: Affinitás orientales des Mollusques messiniens. — Atti Soc. Toscana sc. nat. ser. A. 66. (II). — 1961: Nuevo Jacimento pliocenico de facies Salobres en al subsuelo de Barcelona, la este del Tribidabo. — Not. y com. Inst. geol. y min. Espana. 63. — 1962: Revision des Mollusques de la collection de Capelini.—Giorn. geol. Annali mus. geol. Bologna, ser. 2a, 30. (1). — 1965: Los Limnocardidos del Plioceno de Papiol (Barcelona). — Inst. J. Almera, sect, geomorf. Mem. y comunic. 2. (1). — 1969: La fauné messiniennes des environs d’Ancona. — Giorn. geol. Annali mus. geol. Bologna, ser. 2a, 36. (1). Gillet S., Faugéres L. 1970: Contribution á l’étude du pontién de Macedoine. — Rev. géogr. phys. et géol. dinamique. 12. (1). Gillet S., Geissert T. 1971: La fauné de Mollusques du pontién de Trilophos (SW Thessaloniki). — Ann. géol. pays hell. 23. Gorjanovic-Kramberger K. 1890: Die präpontischen Bildungen des Agramer Gebirges. — Glasnik Hrvatskog naravnosl. drustva, V. Zagreb. Hoernes R. 1900: Die vorpontische Erosion. — Sitzungsber. d. Akad. Wiss. Math. Naturwiss. Kl. B. 109. Iaccarino S., Papani G. 1979: II Messiniano del Apennino settentrionale della Val d’Arda alle Val Secchia. — Serriti Inst. geol. pal. Parma. Iljina L. B. 1980: O svjazah meoticeskogo mórja s vostoenim Tetisom. — Izvestia Akad. nauk SSSR. Ser. geol. 7. Jekelius E. 1943: Das Pliozän und die Sarmatische Stufe im Mittleren Donaubecken. — Ann. Inst. geol. al Romaniei. XXII. Jenko K. 1944: Stratigrafski i tektonski polozaj juznog poboeja Pozeske gore i Kasonje brda. — Vestnik Geol. zavoda, B. II/III.

24 370 P. M. Stevanovic

Marinescu F. 1975: Elements récents pour une hypothése plus ancienne concernant la correlation Messinien-Pontien. — Proc. VI. Congrés CMNS. Bratislava. Moos A. 1944: Neue Funde von Limneiden insbesondere von Valenciennesiden im Pannon Kroatiens. — Vestnik Geol. zavoda, B. II/III. Zagreb. Ozegovic F. 1944: Prilog geologiji mladjeg tercijara na temelju podataka iz novijih busotina u Hrvatskoj. — Ibidem. Pantic N. 1956: Biostratigraphie desflores tertiairesde Serbie.—Ann.géol. Péninsule Balkanique. 24. — 1957: Die jungtertiären Floren und der Klimawechsel im Balkan-Raum. — Abh. Zentral, geol. Inst. 10. Papp A. 1953: Die Molluskenfauna des Pannon im Wiener Becken. — Mitt. Geol. Ges. 44. Wien. — 1980: Die Molluskenfauna von Trilophos südlich von Thessaloniki (Griechenland) und ihre palaeogeographische Bedeutung. — Ann. géol. pays hellén. XXX. — ed. 1985: PANNONIEN. Chronostratigraphie und Neostratotypen. VII. — Budapest. Papp A., Steininger F., Georgiades-D ikeoulia E. 1978: Biostratigraphie und Korrelation des Neogens von Trakones südlich von Athen (Attika, Griechenland). — Ibidem: XXIX. Papp A., Steininger F. 1979: Die äquivalente des Tortonian und Messinian in der Zentralen Paratethys. — Verh. d. Geol. Bundesanstalt. Pevzner M. A., W angenheim E. A. 1982: Spornie voprosi v ponimanii obema i stratigraficeskogo polozenia Pannona. — Izvestia Akad. nauk SSSR. Ser. geol. 11. Rögl F., Steininger F. 1983: Vom Zerfall der Tethys zu Mediterran und Paratethys. Die neogene Palaeogeographie und Palinplastik des zirkum-mediterranen Raumes. — Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Bd. A. 85. Rouchy J. M. 1979: La sedimentation evaporitique messinienne sur les marges mediterranéenes. — Ann. géol. pays hell. (Hors sér.) III. Rouchy J. M. and Fréneix S. 1979: Quelques gisements messiniens de Bivalves (Formations des Tripolis, d’Algérie et du Maroc). Ibidem. Selli R. 1960: II Messiniano Mayer-Eymar 1867. Proposita di un neostratotipo. — Giornale di Geológia. Ann. Mus. Geol. di Bologna, ser. 2, 28. (2). — 1973: An outline of the Italian Messinian. Messinian events in the Mediterranean. — Geodynamics Scientific. Rep. 7. Semenko V. N. 1979: Correlation of Miopliocene of the East Paratethys and Tethys. — Ann. géol. pays hell. (Hors sér.) III. Senes J., 1981: Paratethys, progrés et problémes. — Ibidem, IV. Stevanovic P. 1951: Pontische Stufe im engeren Sinne, Obere Congerienschichten Serbiens und der angrenzenden Gebiete. — Sonderausg. Serb. Akad. Wiss. B. 187. Math, naturwiss. Kl. 2. — 1963: Beitrag zur Kenntnis der pontischen Molluskenfauna aus Griechenland und ihre stratigraphische Bedeutung. — Bull. Acad. serbe sc, et arts. 31. Math, naturwiss. Kl. 9. — 1964: Contribution á la connaissance de l'étage Pontién de Gréce. Lucas Malada CSIC. — Cursilos y conferencias CI. 9. Stevanovic P. and Taktakisvili I. G. 1979: Correlation of the Pontian stage deposits of the Euxino-Caspian, Dacian and Pannonian Basins (report from 1977). — Inform. Bull, march 1979. No. 6. Edit. J. Senes. — Geol. Inst. Slovak. Acad. sc. Stevanovic P. and Nevesskaia L. A. 1985: Ponticeskij etap razvitia Paratetisa. — Izvestia — Akad. nauk SSSR. Ser. geol. 9. Suladze A. I. 1984: Evpatoritskij gorizont i ekosistemny analiz bassejna ego sedimentacii.— Akad. nauk. gruzin. SSR, izd. “Mecniereba”. Taktakisvili I. G. 1977: K pliocenovoj istorii molluskovoj fauni Paratetisa. — Inst, paleobiologii Grúz. Akad. nauk. Izd. “Mecniereba”. — 1978: Biostratigrafia pliocena zapadnoj Gruzii.— Ibidem.

PROF. DR. P. M. STEVANOVIC u. Fiiipa Kljajiéa 26 11.000 BEOGRAD, SFRJ