8 research outputs found

    Integrated chronostratigraphy of Proterozoic-Cambrian boundary beds in the western Anabar region, northern Siberia

    Get PDF
    Carbonate-rich sedimentary rocks of the western Anabar region, northern Siberia, preserve an exceptional record of evolutionary and biogeochemical events near the Proterozoic/Cambrian boundary. Sedimentologically, the boundary succession can be divided into three sequences representing successive episodes of late transgressive to early highstand deposition; four parasequences are recognized in the sequence corresponding lithostratigraphically to the Manykai Formation. Small shelly fossils are abundant and include many taxa that also occur in standard sections of southeastern Siberia. Despite this coincidence of faunal elements, biostratigraphic correlations between the two regions have been controversial because numerous species that first appear at or immediately above the basal Tommotian boundary in southeastern sections have first appearances scattered through more than thirty metres of section in the western Anabar. Carbon- and Sr-isotopic data on petrographically and geochemically screened samples collected at one- to two-metre intervals in a section along the Kotuikan River, favour correlation of the Staraya Reckha Formation and most of the overlying Manykai Formation with sub-Tommotian carbonates in southeastern Siberia. In contrast, isotopic data suggest that the uppermost Manykai Formation and the basal 26 m of the unconformably overlying Medvezhya Formation may have no equivalent in the southeast; they appear to provide a sedimentary and palaeontological record of an evolutionarily significant time interval represented in southeastern Siberia only by the sub-Tommotian unconformity. Correlations with radiometrically dated horizons in the Olenek and Kharaulakh regions of northern Siberia suggest that this interval lasted approximately three to six million years, during which essentially all 'basal Tommotian' small shelly fossils evolved

    Late Mesoproterozoic magnetostratigraphic results from Siberia: Paleogeographic implications and magnetic field behavior

    No full text
    International audienceWe present a magnetostratigraphic study of the late Mesoproterozoic Malgina and Linok Formations, located along the southeastern (Uchur-Maya region) and northwestern (Turukhansk region) margins of the Siberian craton, respectively. Biostratigraphic, radiometric, and chemostratigraphic data indicate that these formations are likely coeval between 1050 and 1100 Ma. Paleomagnetic analyses reveal a high-temperature component carried by magnetite and/or hematite. This component yields positive fold and reversal tests, together with a positive conglomerate test for the Malgina Formation, which indicates that the magnetization was acquired during or soon after sediment deposition. The mean paleomagnetic direction obtained from the Uchur-Maya region, which is unambiguously representative of the Siberian craton, indicates that it could not have been part of Rodinia at that time if Siberia was located in the Southern Hemisphere and if we assume that Laurentia and Siberia were connected along their present northern shorelines. We emphasize that Siberia could have been part of Rodinia during the late Mesoproterozoic if southern Siberia was joined to the northern part of Laurentia as recently proposed by Rainbird et al. [1998]. If true, placing the Siberian craton in the Southern Hemisphere implies that the magnetic polarity of the ∼1000 Ma Laurentian paleomagnetic poles must be switched. Our data also show the occurrence of at least 15 symmetric geomagnetic field reversals, indicating that the paleomagnetic results from the late Mesoproterozoic Keweenawan lavas do not reflect a worldwide and persistent asymmetric field during the Proterozoic

    Sizing up the sub-Tommotian unconformity in Siberia - Reply

    No full text
    The occurrence of an unconformity beneath Tommotian rocks in southeastern Siberia is not controversial. Landing implies that we presented this observation as new, but as one of us (Semikhatov and Serebryakov, 1983) first documented this feature more than a decade ago, we would hardly make such a claim; four references to previous research (two by Landing) attend its first mention in our text. Interpretation of the unconformity is more contentious, and Landing has, indeed, swum against the current for years in asserting that the hiatus beneath the Tommotian stratotype lasted a long time. We regret that in trimming our paper to meet the page limits of Geology we omitted reference to this view. Assertion, however, is one thing; demonstration is another
    corecore