Volume 21 July 2003 Eoparastaffella simplex Vdovenko 1954 Eoparastaffella rotunda Vdovenko 1971 sccs I.U.G.S. SUBCOMMISSION ON CARBONIFEROUS STRATIGRAPHY July 2003 Table of Contents CHAIRMAN’S COLUMN ...................................................................................................................... 1 SECRETARY / EDITOR’S REPORT 2002-2003 ................................................................................... 3 SCCS ANNUAL REPORT 2002 .............................................................................................................. 3 TASK/PROJECT GROUP REPORTS .................................................................................................... 6 Report of the Task Group seeking a GSSP close to the traditional Tournaisian-Viséan boundary ........................................................................................................... 6 Progress report from the Task Group to establish a GSSP close to the existing Viséan-Serpukhovian boundary ........................................................................................................ 6 Report from the Task Group to establish a GSSP close to the existing Bashkirian-Moscovian boundary .................................................................................................... 10 Progress report of the Task Group to establish a GSSP close to the Moscovian-Kasimovian boundary .................................................................................................. 10 CONTRIBUTIONS BY MEMBERS .................................................................................................... 12 Updated cyclothem constraints on radiometric dating of the Pennsylvanian succession in North America and its correlation with dates from Europe (Heckel) ........................................................................ 12 Defining boundary stratotypes - Speciation, migration, and extinction (Pfefferkorn) ................................ 20 Report on the Upper Viséan-Serpukhovian conodont zonation in South China (Wang Zhi-hao and Qi Yu-ping) ..................................................................................................... 22 Additional comments on the Upper Paleozoic glaciations in Argentina (González) .................................. 25 Did the “Ostrogsky episode” really exist? (Mosseichik and Ignatiev) ..................................................... 26 Correlation of the Moscow Basin Lower Carboniferous with the Carboniferous megafloral zones of the Euramerican palaeofloristic region (Mosseichik) ........................................................... 29 U-Pb zircon and K-Ar illite radiometric dating of Upper Stephanian continental successions in the French Massif Central. An overview of recent results and its correlation with other occurrences in the Variscan Belt of Europe (Becq-Giraudon and Bruguier) ............................. 32 Carboniferous tetrapod footprint biostratigraphy and biochronology (Lucas) ......................................... 36 FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES .................................................................................................... 42 SCCS VOTING & CORRESPONDING MEMBERSHIP 2003 ......................................................... 45 SCCS OFFICERS AND VOTING MEMBERS 2000-2004 ................................................................ 54 Carboniferous Newsletter Newsletter on Carboniferous Stratigraphy Edited by D.M. Work IUGS SUBCOMMISSION ON CARBONIFEROUS STRATIGRAPHY / VOL. 21 - 2003 task group. More detail on the activities of the boundary task CHAIRMAN’S COLUMN groups follows the introductory portion of this Newsletter. In This year has seen much more progress toward defining addition, the Project Group on Comparative Angara and boundaries between the stages of the Carboniferous System. At Gondwana Biostratigraphy chaired by Marina Durante is work- this time, we are looking forward to the 15th International Con- ing on a paper ‘Upper Paleozoic boreal biota: Stratigraphy and gress on the Stratigraphy and Geology of the Carboniferous and paleogeography.’ This group has seven members who are work- Permian Systems [XV-ICCP] to be held in Utrecht, the Nether- ing on various fossil groups [including brachiopods, small fo- lands, during the week of August 11-15, 2003. At this meeting rams, pelecypods, and plants] as well as the stratigraphy of north- there will be a Carboniferous workshop on Wednesday, August ern and northeastern Russia and Mongolia. 13, at which all boundary task groups will meet in adjacent rooms Stage and Series Subdivision equipped with poster and layout space, projection equipment, and microscopes for examining conodonts and forams. In the I have received very little formal feedback on my discussion past several years, I have found that this type of meeting of the of stages and series in the Carboniferous. What I have heard task group to which I belong has been very fruitful for inter- informally strongly supports the idea of relatively few stages, change of information, ideas, and particularly for achieving com- that is, a similar number of stages as exist in the Devonian and mon ground on the recognition of the fossil taxa that are critical Permian, and certainly far fewer than exist in the northwest Euro- for defining boundaries. On Friday morning, August 15, there pean regional classification of the Carboniferous. At present, will be a meeting of the Subcommission on Carboniferous Stratig- there are task groups working on stage boundaries for five stages raphy, where we can discuss the results of the workshops and in addition to the two that have already been established by the other issues of interest to Carboniferous stratigraphers. Devonian-Carboniferous and Mid-Carboniferous boundaries, for a total of seven. One of the issues to be dealt with at the SCCS Status of Boundary Task Groups meeting in Utrecht will be to reduce the rank of the 7 Namurian The Tournaisian-Viséan Boundary Task Group chaired by and 3 Westphalian stages that were formally approved in 1989 George Sevastopulo is putting the finishing touches on its pro- [see Wagner and Winkler Prins, 1997 Proceedings of XIII ICCP, posal for the base of the Viséan at the Pengchong section in 1: 187-196] to that of regional substages. Regarding stage names, Guangxi, southern China. The Task Group to establish a GSSP what little I heard generally supported the idea that the faunal close to the existing Viséan-Serpukhovian Boundary chaired by elements characterizing the Russian names for the late Pennsyl- Barry Richards has 20 members and is summarizing the current vanian stages are far more readily recognized throughout most state of knowledge on useful biotic lineages, potentially useful of the large area of Eurasia and the western Arctic region, whereas sequence-stratigraphic, chemostratigraphic, magnetostratgraphic the faunal elements characterizing the North American names and other physical events, and the locations of essentially con- are recognized elsewhere only in part of South America. Possi- tinuous, fossiliferous marine successions that are readily acces- bly a little of the post-Viséan biota characterizing the Russian sible. The Task Group to establish a GSSP close to the existing names is recognized in Angaraland, but the biota of neither set Bashkirian-Moscovian Boundary chaired by John Groves has of post-Viséan names is recognized in the Gondwana region. 17 members and is compiling lists of potentially useful biotic Regarding series subdivision, what I have heard suggests that lineages, physical and chemostratigraphic events, and basins expanding the Viséan as a series upward to include the where continuous sections exist. The Task Group to establish a Serpukhovian as a stage, and expanding the Westphalian down- GSSP close to the Moscovian-Kasimovian Boundary chaired by ward to include the upper Namurian [Alekseev, 2001 Carbonifer- Elisa Villa held a meeting during August 2002 in Ufa, Russia, ous Newsletter, 19: 14-16], would depart too much from a volumi- where they visited possible candidate sections in the southern nous amount of traditional literature to be pragmatically useful Urals, and where the Russian conodont workers reported the or acceptable. Thus it appears that the western European termi- possibility that a lineage involving Idiognathodus sagittalis may nology for the three higher series of the Carboniferous would be useful in defining the boundary. A subsequent meeting of most easily be retained for only the regional classification [see Russian, Ukrainian, and American conodont workers in Mos- Wagner and Winkler Prins, 2002 Carboniferous Newsletter, 20: cow in May-June 2003 further evaluated this possibility and 14-16]. This proposal also would require three more task groups concluded that I. sagittalis occurs in Midcontinent North to be set up to select GSSPs at the base of three Belgian stages, America and the Moscow and southern Urals regions of Russia, which would be a time-consuming process, considering how as well as in the Donets Basin of Ukraine from which it was long it has taken for the Tournaisian-Viséan boundary to be named. Thus more activity is planned on refining the taxonomy established. Because no other alternative has been suggested, of the lineage and identifying the accompanying fossils of other it appears that the proposal to utilize the positional terms Lower, important groups. This same meeting in Moscow also discussed Middle, and Upper to provide three series in each