Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Helfried Mostler Geol. Paläont. Mitt. Innsbruck, ISSN 0378-6870, Bd. 20, S. 165-205, 1995 359 PERMIAN CONODONT ZONATION AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR THE PERMIAN STRATIGRAPHIC STANDARD SCALE Heinz Kozur With 4 figures, 2 tables and 6 plates Abstract: Conodonts are the stratigraphically most important fossils in the Permian with numerous guide forms distributed world-wide in both shallow-water and pelagic deposits (figs. 1, 2). Conodont provincialism is insignificant, but the fa- cies control of conodonts may be considerable. Problems of conodont zonation are caused by migrations due to large scale facies changes, especially in the Middle Permian Guadalupian Series and at the Guadalupian-Lopingian boun- dary. Migration events of conodonts are not suitable for definitions of stage boundaries and large scale correlations, because they are diachronous. A new genus, Wardlawella n. gen., and a two new species are described. Zusammenfassung : Conodonten sind die strati graphisch bedeutendsten permischen Fossilien und weisen sowohl im Flachwasser als auch in pelagischen Ablagerungen zahlreiche weltweit verbreitete Leitformen auf (Figs. 1, 2). Provinzialismus ist unbedeu- tend, aber die Faziesabhängigkeit permischer Conodonten kann beträchtlich sein. Probleme für die Conodontenzonie- rung ergeben sich aus Migrationen infolge großräumiger Faziesänderungen, besonders in der mittelpermischen Guada- lupe-Serie und an der Guadalupe/Loping-Grenze. Migration-events sind diachron und daher ungeeignet für die Defini- tion von Stufengrenzen und großräumige Korrelationen. Eine neue Gattung, Wardlawella n. gen., und zwei neue Arten werden beschrieben. 1. Introduction fossil group of marine deposits, as in the Devo- nian and Carboniferous. The most important co- Detailed taxonomic and stratigraphie studies nodont guide forms are not influenced by the of Permian conodonts began considerably later strong Permian faunal provincialism and are than in other Paleozoic systems because in the therefore decisive fossils for definition of the classical areas of conodont studies in Middle and C/P and P/T boundaries as well as for the defini- Western Europe and Eastern USA the Permian is tion and correlation of the stage boundaries mostly continental or missing. Conodont-bear- within the Permian. ing Permian pelagic and slope deposits are com- Based on previous publications, and my own mon in the Cis-Urals, the Tethys, western North conodont studies of material from the Cis-Urals, America, the Circum-Pacific realm and partly in Arctic Canada, Eastern Greenland, Texas, New the Arctic and on the northern margin of Gond- Mexico, Arizona, Germanic Zechstein, Italy, wana. Most of the Permian conodonts have been Greece, Turkey, Oman, Transcaucasia, Iran, Pa- described during the last 20 years from these mirs, Russian Far East, Japan and Bolivia, a de- areas. These investigations have shown that co- tailed shallow-water and pelagic conodont zona- nodonts are the stratigraphically most important tion for the Permian System is introduced 165 (figs. 1, 2, see p. 188) and range charts of the subdivision of the Early Lopingian are still dis- Permian conodonts are presented (tabs. 1, 2, see puted. p. 190-193). A few examples of insignificant The Middle Permian fusulinid ages, often conodont provincialism are shown (fig. 4, see used as stages (Kubergandinian, Murgabian, p. 189). Midian) for the Tethys are not used in the Different stratigraphie scales are used in dif- present paper. No conodonts are known from the ferent regions and by different authors. In the Midian stratotype and from the Midian of the present paper, the scale proposed by KOZUR entire Transcaucasian type area. Few conodonts (1993) is used (see columns Series and Stage in are known from the Kubergandinian and Murga- figs. 1, 2). A three-fold subdivision is preferred, bian type area in SE Pamirs, but strong rework- with the Cisuralian Series (Asselian, Sakmarian, ing prevent the recognition of a conodont suc- Artinskian, Cathedralian stages), the Guadalupian cession. Only one conodont-bearing sample is Series (Roadian, Wordian, Capitanian stages) and present from the upper Jachtashian. If the co- Lopingian Series (Dzhulfian or Wuchiapingian, nodonts are not reworked, they indicate an Early Changhsingian stages). The Cisuralian Series is Artinskian age for this level. No conodonts are best known from its Cis-Uralian type area. Its known from the Bolorian type area in the Dar- lower boundary coincides with the base of the vas. Conodonts are common in the Bolorian of Permian defined in this area (proposed candi- SE Pamir, but because no fusulinids are present dates Ajdaralash and Usolka). Asselian, Sak- in the conodont-bearing beds, the richest cono- marian and Artinskian stages have their strato- dont fauna with Vjalovognathus shindyensis types in this area. The Kungurian is hypersalinar cannot be exactly assigned to the earliest Bolo- and therefore the upper boundary of the Cisural- rian or latest Jachtashian. The Jachtashian, Bo- ian Series cannot be defined in the Cis-Urals. lorian, Kubergandinian, Murgabian and Midian However, the upper boundary of a stratigraphie stratotypes are no longer accessible after the dis- unit must be always defined with the lower integration of the former Soviet Union and they boundary of the following unit in the type area cannot be used as a world standard for the Per- of the latter unit (Guadalupian Series). The mian (KOZUR et al., 1994). Cathedralian stage is defined in the type area of Both the lower and upper boundary of the the Guadalupian Series, the Delaware Basin and Permian are not yet finally defined. In the its shelves in the Guadalupe and Glass Moun- present paper the base of the Permian is placed tains. It was introduced by Ross & Ross (1987) at the base of the Streptognathodus barskovi-S. as a stage between the top of the Artinskian and invaginatus Zone. For the upper boundary of the the base of the Roadian. The Cathedralian- Permian the base of the Hindeodus parvus Zone Roadian boundary can be defined in the Guada- is preferred (YIN, 1993; KOTLYAR et al., 1993; lupe Mountains within the permanent accessible KOZUR, 1994a, b, PAULL & PAULL, 1994). proposed stratotype for the Guadalupian Series (GLENISTER et al, 1992, GLENISTER, 1993). There, the upper Cathedralian and all 3 stages of the Guadalupian Series are well exposed in a contin- 2. Previous work uous section, rich in ammonoids, conodonts (CAI = 1), fusulinids and other fossils. The Lopingian CLARK & BEHNKEN (1971) established a first, Series is defined in South China. Its lower boun- coarse Permian conodont zonation. In later dary was both by KOZUR (1992b, c, d, 1993) and papers, detailed Permian conodont zonations MEI et al. (1994) defined with the base of the have been established (e.g. BEHNKEN, 1975; Clarkina altudaensis Zone, originally estab- KOZUR, 1975, 1978, 1990a, c, 1992d, 1993a; lished in the Glass Mountains, West Texas KOZUR et al., 1978; MOVSHOVICH, et al., 1979; (KOZUR, 1992C, d, 1993, 1994). Correlation and BANDO et al., 1980; WARDLAW & COLLINSON, 166 Geol. Paläont. Mitt. Innsbruck, Bd. 20, 1995 1986) or detailed conodont range charts have (CATALANO et al., 1991, 1992; GULLO & KOZUR, been published (IGO, 1979, 1981; HAYASHI, 1992; KOZUR, 1990b, 1992a, 1993b, c). 1981; CLARK & WANG, 1988; KOZUR, 1990a). In Scattered Tethyan conodont faunas of differ- KOZUR (1978) and CLARK & BEHNKEN (1979), ent ages are also known from some displaced ter- phylomorphogenetic lineages of Permian co- ranes in Canada and western USA (e.g. WARD- nodonts have been demonstrated. LAW et al., 1982; ORCHARD, 1984; ORCHARD & The best investigated conodont succession is FORSTER, 1988; BEYERS & ORCHARD, 1991). known from the Middle Permian Guadalupian Also, the rather well known conodont succes- Series (Roadian, Wordian and Capitanian sions of Japan (IGO, 1979, 1981, HAYASHI, 1981, stages) of western North America. In the warm- IGO & HISHIDA, 1986) have a Tethyan character. water pelagic faunas of the Delaware Basin and The correlation of these successions is difficult its surroundings (type area of the Guadalupian because of tectonic and sedimentologie compli- and its stages), the conodont succession is well cations. known, and has been correlated in detail with The conodont studies in the Cis-Uralian the ammonoid- and fusulinid zonations as well stratotype began later than in most other areas as with stage boundaries (BEHNKEN, 1975; (KOZUR, 1975, 1978, KOZUR & MOSTLER, 1976, CLARK & BEHNKEN, 1979; WARDLAW & GRANT, MOVSHOVICH et al., 1979). The Asselian to Ar- 1990; GLENISTER et al., 1992; KOZUR, 1992b-d). tinskian conodont zonation established in these The Upper Artinskian to Guadalupian conodont papers, was later modified for the Asselian succession of the Phosphoria Basin in the west- (CHERNIKH & RESHETKOVA, 1987, 1988; CHER- ern USA is also well known (CLARK et al., 1979; NIKH, in CHUVASHOV et al., 1990; CHUVASHOV et WARDLAW & COLLINSON, 1979, 1984, 1986; al., 1993), but no final conodont zonation was BEHNKEN et al., 1986), but the late Capitanian to elaborated. Rather correlation of the conodont early Wuchiapingian conodont ages for the up- successions with the earlier elaborated fusulinid permost part of the sequence (upper Gerster For- zonations was attempted. mation) are not in agreement with the largely Also well-known are low diversity conodont brachiopod based determination of a Wordian faunas of the Lower Wuchiapingian of Green- age (CLARK & WANG, 1988). land and the contemporaneous Zechstein Lime- Similarly well-investigated are the Late Per- stone of central and northwestern Europe (e.g. mian (Lopingian Series) conodont successions BENDER & STOPPEL, 1965; SWEET, 1976; KOZUR, in Transcaucasia, NW and Central Iran (SWEET, 1978; SWIFT, 1986; SWIFT & ALDRIGDE, 1986; 1973; KOZUR, 1975, 1978, 1990a; KOZUR, RASSMUSSEN et al., 1990). The Boreal Changh- MOSTLER & RAHEVII-YAZD, 1975) and the Per- singian conodont fauna is represented by the co- mian conodont successions of China, especially nodont faunas of the Otoceras beds (SWEET, of South China (e.g. WANG & WANG, 1981a, b; 1976; HENDERSON, 1993), so far mostly placed ZHANG et al., 1984; DAI & ZHANG, 1989; DONG into the Triassic.