fossil mammals of asia

search, with international collaborations. Asian mamma-lian biostratigraphy is at a stage where local or regional frameworks are beginning to take shape, but there is no attempt at linking these regional syntheses to derive a continent- wide perspective. Asian vertebrate paleontolo-gists are largely operating within the borders of their own countries, with infrequent communication across po liti-cal boundaries. Th is is in contrast to situations in North America and Eu rope, where fl uid exchange of information and ideas results in continuous refi nement of continent- wide chronological schemes that are widely accepted among practitioners (e.g., Woodburne 1987; Steininger et al. 1996; Steininger 1999; Woodburne 2004).

During the last 30 years, an indigenous continental mammalian chronological system has been emerging, mostly based on existing, relatively well- studied faunas in China (Chiu et al. 1979; Li et al. 1984; Qiu 1989; Qiu and Qiu 1990, 1995; Tong et al. 1995; Qiu et al. 1999; Deng 2006). Th ese compilations, however, suff er from some shortcomings. Foremost is constant looking to Eu-rope as a reference for relative correlations. To a certain extent, this is inevitable as Asia and Eu rope constitute essentially a single continent during much of the Neo-gene and at any given time, the two “continents” share many faunal characteristics. However, this tendency of looking to the West for guidance also breeds a reluctance to build indigenous systems. As a result, discussions about chronology tend to make references to the Eu ro-pe an Neogene Mammal units (MN system), as if the lat-ter’s “stamp of approval” would somehow make a more

Strategically located between North America, Eu rope, and Africa, Asia is at the crossroads of intercontinental migrations of terrestrial mammals. Asia thus plays a cru-cial role in our understanding of mammalian evolution, zoogeography, and related questions about fi rst appear-ances of immigrant mammals in surrounding continents and their roles as major markers of biochronology. As the largest continent, Asia is the locus of origination for many groups of mammals and/or a site of signifi cant subsequent evolution. Th e temporal and spatial distributions of these mammals in Asia thus provide a vital link to related clades in surrounding continents (fi gure I.1; see fi gure I.3). Such a strategic role is particularly apparent during the Neo-gene (~23– 2.6 Ma) when Asia was intermittently con-nected to Africa and North America, and widely con-nected to Eu rope. Asia also occupies the greatest range of climates and habitats, from tropics to arctic and from rainforests to desert zones, oft en boasting the most fos-siliferous regions with fantastic exposures and producing some of the richest fossil mammal localities in the world. It is therefore no exaggeration that Asia is central to a global understanding of mammalian history.

Such importance and opportunity notwithstanding, with the exception of a few instances (such as northern Pakistan), Asian mammalian biostratigraphy lags behind that science in Eu rope and North America for historical reasons, and many unresolved issues become bottlenecks for a detailed understanding of mammalian evolution elsewhere. Despite a relatively late start, a tremendous surge has been seen in recent de cades in indigenous re-

IntroductionToward a Continental Asian Biostratigraphic

and Geochronologic Framework

XIAOMING WANG, LAWRENCE J. FLYNN, AND MIKAEL FORTELIUS

Copyrighted Material

China

AsiaticRussia

MongoliaKazakhstan

India

Pakist

an

AfghanistanIran

Turkey

Saudi Arabia

U.A.E.

Mya

nmar

Thailand

2 3

4

7

Europe

Egypt

5

41

14

15

16

Nepal

17

1819

2221

20

2423

25 2728

26

29

UzbekistanTajikistan30

Kyrgyzstan31

33

36

35

3432

42

46

810

119

6

12

1

13

37

43

44

4748

4950

Georgia

Africa

51

5253

54

56

58

5755

59

61

62

60 63

6466

65

67 68

7069

71

7273

7475

7677

7879

8081

8283

84

85

8688

87

89

92

90

91

9394

Japan

95

98

97

99

96

100

EuropeanRussia

Ural M

t.U

ral R.

45

38

3940

Figure I.1 Main Neogene vertebrate fossil- producing regions or localities in Asia discussed in this volume. A traditional defi nition of the conti-nent of Asia is adopted here (areas without shade), even though such a defi nition is somewhat arbitrary and often does not represent natural boundaries of faunal provinces. The Aral Sea is currently much smaller than it is shown in this map.

Af ghan i stan: (12) Khurdkabul Basin; (13) Kabul Basin. China: (51) Botamoyin (XJ99005) section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region; (52) Chibaerwoyi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region; (53) Dingshanyanchi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Re-gion; (54) Xishuigou section, Tabenbuluk (Danghe) Basin, Gansu Province; (55) Olongbuluk section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (56) Tuosu Nor section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (57) Shengou section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (58) Huaitoutala section, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province; (59) Bulong Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region; (60) Kunlun Pass Basin, Qinghai Province; (61) Gyirong Basin, Tibetan Autono-mous Region; (62) Zanda Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region; (63) Guide Basin, Qinghai Province; (64) Xining Basin, Qinghai Province; (65) Linxia Basin, Gansu Province; (66) Zhangjiaping- Duitinggou section, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province; (67) Quantougou section, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province; (68) Tongxin Basin, Ningxia Autonomous Region; (69) Leijiahe, Lingtai area, Gansu Province; (70) Renjiagou, Lingtai area, Gansu Prov-ince; (71) Lantian area, Shaanxi Province; (72) Baode Basin, Shanxi Province; (73) Fugu area, Shaanxi Province; (74) Yushe Basin, Shanxi Province; (75) Jingle Basin, Shanxi Province; (76) Nihewan Basin, Hebei Province; (77) Damiao area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (78) Aoerban area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (79) Gashunyinadege area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (80) Tunggur Tableland, Inner Mon-golia Autonomous Region; (81) Baogeda Ula area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (82) Jurh area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (83) Huade area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (84) Gaotege area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; (85) Shanwang area, Shandong Province; (86) Sihong area, Jiangsu Province; (87) Nanjing area, Jiangsu Province; (88) Huainan area, Anhui Province; (89) Xiaolongtan Basin, Yun-nan Province; (90) Lufeng Basin, Yunnan Province; (91) Yuanmou Basin, Yunnan Province; (92) Zhaotong (Chaotung) Basin, Yunnan Province. Georgia: (5) Bazaleti; (6) Eldari. India: (17) Ramnagar; (18) Nurpur; (19) Haritalyangar; (20) Chandigarh and Haripur Khol areas; (21) Kalagarh. Iran: (4) Maragheh. Japan: (93) Kani Basin, Gifu Prefecture; (94) Mizunami Basin, Gifu Prefecture; (95) Sasebo area, Nagasaki Prefecture; (96) Sendai area, Miyagi Prefecture; (97) Tochio area, Niigata Prefecture; (98) Aikawa area, Kanagawa Prefecture; (99) Iga- Omi Basin, Mie Prefecture; (100) Awaji Island, Hyogo Prefecture. Kazakhstan: (35) Aktau Mountain area; (36) Kalmakpay; (37) Pavlodar; (39) North Aral region; (40) northern Ustyurt region. Kyrgyzstan: (33) Ortok; (34) Djilgyndykoo and Akterek. Mongolia: (41) Altan- Teli and Hyargas Nor; (42) Valley of Lakes; (43) Kholobolchi Nor and Hung Kureh; (44) Shamar. Myanmar: (23) Chaungtha; (24) Yenangyaung; (25) Magway. Nepal: (22) Dang Valley. Pakistan: (14) Bugti; (15) Zinda Pir; (16) Potwar Plateau. Rus sia: (38) Novaya Stanitsa and Isakovka; (45) Tuva; (46) Tagay and Sarayskoe; (47) Aya Cave; (48) Tologoi 1; (49) Udunga; (50) Beregovaya. Saudi Arabia: (8) Al Jadidah; (9) Jabal Midra ash- Shamali; (10) Ad Dabtiyah; (11) As Sarrar. Tajikistan: (30) Daraispon; (31) Magian and Pedjikent. Thailand: (26) Li Mae Long Basin; (27) Mae Moh Basin; (28) Chiang Muan Basin; (29) Mun River Sand Pits. Turkey: (1) Pasalar; (2) Sinap; (3) central and western Anatolia. United Arab Emirates: (7) Al Gharbia. Uz-bekistan: (32) Kairakkum.


A CONTINENTAL ASIAN BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOCHRONOLOGIC FRAMEWORK 3

brate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) in early July 2007. A symposium volume was also included in the proposal. However, or gan i za tion al eff orts did not begin in earnest until April 2008, when IVPP noted that such a meeting would be opportune as a celebration of its 80th anniversary. At this point, co- editors of this volume (LJF and MF) agreed to be involved in the meeting or ga-ni za tion and editing of the symposium volume. Th e main challenge was to raise substantial funds to pay for partici-pants who were otherwise unable to attend. Toward that end, we secured funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF, U.S.), National Natural Science Foun-dation (NSFC, China), and Society of Vertebrate Paleon-tology, as well as institutional support from the IVPP. In par tic u lar, we adopted the Critical Transitions workshop (a NSF– NSFC cofunded workshop series on the critical transitions in the history of life) as a unifying theme for international collaborations.

Th e “Neogene terrestrial mammalian biostratigraphy and chronology in Asia— a workshop and symposium to-ward the establishment of a continent- wide stratigraphic and chronologic framework” was convened at the IVPP over 3 days, June 8– 10, 2009, followed by a 4- day post- conference fi eld trip to the Linxia Basin in Gansu Prov-ince. More than 70 scholars and graduate students par-ticipated in the workshop, with repre sen ta tion from 19 countries, including Austria, China, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iran, Japan, Mon-golia, Pakistan, Rus sia, Spain, Sweden, Th ailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

It became apparent during the workshop that existing Chinese mammalian biostratigraphic divisions possess the best potential as the core of an Asian framework, as summarized by Woodburne: “Th e background of China’s long and fundamental role in developing a chronologic system was clearly recognized in this regard, and the ar-ray of approaches to developing chronological systems portrayed at this conference provided the Chinese orga-nizers with considerable examples to draw upon in fur-thering their goals” (unpublished report to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology by M. O. Woodburne). As one of the chief architects of the Chinese system developed during the past 20 years, Zhan- xiang Qiu was tasked to form a working group for creating such a framework (Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume). However, it was clear from the beginning, as well as in reviews of various draft s of manuscripts circulated during the workshop, that serious disagreements exist regarding conceptual issues as well as practical problems. Another forum would thus be nec-essary to give a full airing of the controversies. Toward that end, a second workshop was or ga nized, again funded

reliable age determination. Th is is unfortunate because many Asian faunas are derived from basins with long and continuous sections, which, with careful magnetic cali-brations, can off er chronological control superior to the long- distance correlations that the MN system ever can achieve.

Th is book is thus a coming- of- age attempt to synthe-size the state of the art. By compiling mammal faunas from all major fossil- producing countries and regions in Asia, we hope to demonstrate that an Asian system can stand on its own, or at the very least be a starting point for further refi nements that can ultimately build a major con-tinental system in its own right. Th is book is the result of a collaborative eff ort by leading mammalian paleontolo-gists of the world, who gathered in Beijing in 2009 and 2010 for two international conferences for the purpose of formulating an initial framework of Asian continental biostratigraphy (see following section). Th e complex na-ture of such a task, which oft en has to contend with in-complete information, makes it necessarily an interim solution intended to encourage additional research and further debate. A timely publication of this volume, how-ever incomplete it may be in par tic u lar areas, stands to gain the most by laying down the principles and practices of mammalian biostratigraphy and geochronology from all regions and countries. Toward this goal, we are confi -dent that a well- established mammalian biostratigraphic framework in Asia will contribute to a global picture of mammalian evolution in a refi ned chronological context.

BACKGROUND FOR BEIJING WORKSHOPS AND GENESIS OF THIS VOLUME

Th e idea of an Asian Neogene biostratigraphic meeting in Beijing with Asia- wide participation came up in late June 2007, while the se nior author (X. W.) was in Beijing. Th e main impetus was the recognition that there is, thus far, no Asia- wide forum to discuss the feasibility of an Asian land mammal age system. As an emerging leader, China seems a natural place to take the initiative, as the country embarks on an unpre ce dented economic development with attendant re nais sance in basic research. China also happens to straddle the mid- latitude desert zones that are oft en the best hunting grounds for vertebrate fossils in the world. Its long history of “dragon bone” hunting, going back hundreds of years in traditional medicine, gives it a head start in vertebrate paleontology.

Given these favorable conditions, a meeting proposal, with endorsements from Zhan- xiang Qiu, Zhu- ding Qiu, and Tao Deng, was submitted to the Institute of Verte-


4 INTRODUCTION

tinental Neogene research in motion toward that goal (Z.- x. Qiu). However, there is strong opposition against a chronostratigraphic system by several participants, par-ticularly those who champion an in de pen dent system as exemplifi ed by the NALMA. Th e main problem with golden spikes is that, once nailed, they are no longer fl ex-ible, and an Asian system should be based on true biostra-tigraphy in multiple long sections that can be further re-fi ned and revised as new advancements come along (M. Woodburne; see further discussion in “Some Conceptual Issues”).

Given the oft en messy developments of continental land mammal systems, some openly wonder if we should not simply do away with a land mammal age system and use numeric ages instead (F. Bibi). In fact, a biozonation has never been given a high priority in the Siwalik se-quence (J. Barry), and people working in South Asia are generally content in talking about absolute ages rather than land mammal ages (L. Flynn). However, most seem to recognize that land mammal ages will al-ways have a place in the formulation of a chronological system because the biological component can never be subjugated under isotopic dating or paleomagnetic dat-ing (M. Woodburne).

Another issue of major concern is the spatial distribu-tion of mammal fossils. Geography is of paramount im-portance for a super- continent as Eurasia that spans great longitudes and latitudes and crosses many climatic zones. In South Asia and Southeast Asia, roughly the modern Oriental Zoogeographic Province, mammals share much greater similarities during much of the Neogene, whereas the low latitude faunas in southern China and southeast-ern Asia are generally unlike those from mid- latitudes in north China and the rest of central Asia (R. Hanta; L. Flynn). Nonetheless, mid- latitude faunas can oft en be recognized along great longitudinal spans, such as the Pik-ermian chronofauna originally recognized from late Mio-cene localities in Greece, which have comparable equiva-lents in north China (M. Fortelius).

While conventional biostratigraphic approaches are perhaps best employed to generate regional stratifi ca-tions, the rising fi eld of computational ordering (seria-tion) of localities based on taxonomic presence/absence information (e.g., Alroy 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000; Fortel-ius et al. 2006; Puolamäki et al. 2006) may well off er more general systems. Ultimately based on the essentially irre-versible evolution of lineages and communities (climate driven or intrinsic), computational approaches are espe-cially attractive as a potential route toward a future, continent- wide mammal chronology. Indeed, a prelimi-nary study by Alroy et al. (1998) already suggested that

by the NSF-NSFC critical transitions theme. Th is second workshop was held at IVPP, March 8– 9, 2010, and at-tended by a small group of key participants from the United States, Finland, and China.

Th is book, following a similar volume on North Amer-ican mammals (Woodburne 2004), is the culmination of these eff orts. It attempts to bring together state- of- the- art Asian biostratigraphy and geochronology with the wid-est repre sen ta tion possible.

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

One of the distinguishing features of the workshops is the open discussion about concepts and practices, as well as the diversity of opinions. Much refl ection is given to prac-tices elsewhere in the world. In par tic u lar, the Eu ro pe an Neogene Mammal units (MN system) and North Ameri-can Land Mammal Ages (NALMA) are closely scrutinized for strengths and weaknesses in the hope of building a bet-ter system. Many of the comments during the workshop are indicative of current sentiments regarding historic de-velopments, and they are briefl y summarized here as ex-tractions from meeting minutes with original commenta-tors cited in parentheses when appropriate.

Th ere is general recognition that the Eu ro pe an MN system, although very practical and widely used, has some serious limitations, mostly out of necessity rather than by design. By its own nature and oft en for lack of long strati-graphic sections with unambiguous superpositional rela-tionships, the MN system is a formulation of biozonation that cannot distinguish diachrony even in cases of precise correlation, and the system would not be able to distin-guish time diff erences in correlative faunas (L. Werdelin). Furthermore, correlation errors can be as much as two MN units above and below (M. Fortelius). Whenever possible, therefore, an Asian system should avoid the defi -ciencies in the MN zonation, which is undergoing revi-sion to improve the basis of those units. For example, current work by Spanish colleagues is recalibrating MN units to base them on a true biostratigraphic framework (J. Agustí), but where this is done, the Iberian equivalents are oft en younger than those in mainland Eu rope.

Given the shortcomings of the MN system, the widely used chronostratigraphic stage (“golden spikes” and as-sociated concepts) in the marine realm seems an attrac-tive approach (M. Böhme). Furthermore, most of the ma-rine Neogene stages have been ratifi ed, and the All- China Stratigraphic Commission has been in full agreement with this approach and has attempted to set Chinese con-



mature and those of other continents far less so. In devel-oping an Asian land mammal system, much of the focus, both in workshop discussion and in subsequent manu-script development, has thus centered on the best prac-tices in Eu rope and North America.

Although the Chinese land mammal age system has implicitly or explicitly adopted certain aspects of the Eu-ro pe an or North American practices, past iterations have mostly been concerned with articulations of the empiri-cal evidence instead of an examination of the methodolo-gies (e.g., Qiu 1989; Qiu and Qiu 1990; Qiu et al. 1999). An introspective assessment of current practices in the world thus represents a welcomed fi rst step to construct a thoughtful system that is both methodologically defen-sible and practically useful.

From the beginning of the fi rst workshop, it became clear that a European- style MN unit system has serious shortcomings because of its general lack of biostrati-graphic underpinnings. Th e MN system, while widely practiced, off ers little guidance as a model for Asia. Asia, like North America, possesses all the potential for devel-oping a framework based on biostratigraphy in long stratigraphic sections. Nonetheless, the MN system is by far the most infl uential in Asian biochronologic develop-ments due to the wide connections between the two con-tinents and the large number of shared taxa in various ages. So pervasive are the MN units that it is not uncom-mon for Asian faunas to be directly compared to Eu ro-pe an ages/MN units or simply to be labeled with MN designation.

Unity with International Code vs. Regional In de pen dence

One of the most controversial subjects during the two Beijing workshops is the desire to follow the International Stratigraphic Guide (ISG; Hedberg 1976; Salvador 1994). Intense debates center on the suitability of a chronostrati-graphic system in continental settings with golden spikes (Global Stratotype Section and Point, or GSSP) nailed in a physical lithostratigraphic section. Th e debate is set against a background of recent trends in the Chinese stratigraphic community to adopt the ISG protocol, buoyed by the establishment of several Chinese GSSPs for the Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras (e.g., Yin et al. 2001; Chen et al. 2006). Th e All- China Stratigraphic Commis-sion (2001) went as far as selecting many existing Chinese land mammal units as “stages” and briefl y characterized each (within Neogene the following were included: Xiejian, Shanwangian, Tunggurian, Baodean, Gaozhuangian, and

the biochronological signal was stronger for Western Eurasia as a whole than for its western and eastern parts separated at 20 degrees eastern longitude. Such a result refl ects well- known phenomena of the fossil record: re-gional per sis tence of core lineages and the connected-ness of coeval communities through long- range dispersal of species. For the operational detection of both of these, two requirements are critical: standardized taxonomy and presence of exceptionally well- sampled “Rosetta lo-calities” (Alroy 1992). Th erefore, a key priority for com-putational as well as for conventional approaches to bio-stratigraphy is coming to grips with problems of synonymy and regional taxonomic “dialects.”

For the time being, it is clear that an Asian land mam-mal system faces some challenges common to all conti-nents (fossil mammals are rare; sampling errors are high; diachrony is common) as well as unique challenges in Asia (uneven studies in diff erent countries; lack of marine interface; shortage of datable volcanic rocks interbedded in sediments; high degree of zoogeographic diff erentia-tion; some degree of endemism). Recognizing these chal-lenges, the workshop participants adopted the following resolutions by unanimous consent:

(1) an Asian chronologic system, in de pen dent from the Eu-ro pe an MN units, is needed; (2) such a system should be mainly based on biological events, associated with paleo-magnetic and isotopic dates where available; (3) the exist-ing Chinese system, imperfect as it is, can serve as a starting point that can evolve through time; (4) the benefi t of such a system is a common framework in which hypotheses of bio-logical events across the continent can be rigorously tested; (5) a committee headed by Zhan- xiang Qiu, Tao Deng, Zhu- ding Qiu, Chuan- kui Li, Zhao- qun Zhang, Ban- yue Wang, and Xiaoming Wang (additional expertise will be recruited as need arises) will work toward the above goal; and (6) ad-ditional subcommittees of relevant specialists to clean up taxonomies should be established.

SOME CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

Mammalian biostratigraphy has been and still is the pri-mary means for Cenozoic terrestrial geochronology. Continental mammalian biostratigraphic frameworks are integral to related disciplines such as mammalian evolu-tion, zoogeography, paleoecol ogy, and paleoenvironment. Various chronologic frameworks have been established in all continents except Antarctica, but their qualities (precision and internal consistencies) vary greatly, with Eu ro pe an and North American systems being the most


Bringing their vast experience in the North American land mammal age system to bear, Woodburne, Tedford, and Lindsay (chapter 2, this volume) proposed a frame-work of an endemic North China mammalian biochro-nologic system as an evolving standard of temporal inter-vals that accounts for all of Neogene time without gaps or overlaps. Th ey suggest that such a system represents in-formal biochronologic units, and until this system has been widely tested, formalized international chronostrati-graphic standards should not be applied. Woodburne et al.’s premise is that a land mammal age system should always give fossil mammals prominent consideration. Methodologically, they strongly advocate for a single taxon defi nition of mammal age boundaries in order to mini-mize potential gaps and overlaps.

In a compromise approach, Meng et al. (chapter 3, this volume) used the Xiejian as an example to illustrate their single- criterion, single- taxon defi nition, but largely within the chronostratigraphic framework recommended by the ISG. As such, Meng et al.’s scheme allows future adjustments of boundary defi nition but it must be tied to a specifi c stratotype section. Th eir Xiejian example also explores the case where a stage/age in question roughly coincides with a major international boundary of higher rank (in this case, Oligo–Miocene boundary). Th ey treat these two boundaries as strictly separate entities and place the Xiejian lower boundary 0.5 myr above the in-ternational Oligo–Miocene boundary.

Th is controversy pits chronostratigraphic boundary defi nition as a convention serving to standardize nomen-clature against a more dynamic land mammal age scheme (as practiced by North American paleontologists), em-phasizing empirical evidence and fl exibility of shift ing boundaries. To a certain extent, the former seems to sig-nal a desire to move toward an internationally accepted, marine invertebrate norm, whereas the latter represents a more self- confi dent approach to a regional, continental mammal- based system divorced from ISG standards.

CURRENT STATE OF ASIAN BIOCHRONOLOGY

Primarily as a working hypothesis and overview aid, we compile a generalized chart to summarize the state of continental Neogene mammalian biostratigraphy and chronology, usually based on the most recent published updates in the respective regions, including those in this volume (fi gure I.2). Not intended as an original synthe-sis, these diagrammatic summaries provide a mea sure of consistency in pre sen ta tion of existing stratigraphic frameworks and thus serve as a quick index for existing

Mazegouan). To push these eff orts further, the commis-sion distributed grants to the IVPP to fl esh out Cenozoic stages in China, which resulted in some preliminary boundary selections, mostly coinciding with those en-dorsed by the ISG (e.g., Deng et al. 2003; Deng et al. 2004; Deng et al. 2006; Meng et al. 2006; Deng et al. 2007).

Whereas the GSSP standard promoted by the ISG is largely accepted in the marine stratigraphic community, it is far from certain how a continental system should proceed given its inherent problems in depositional gaps, rareness of fossils, patchiness in distribution, and insu-larity of paleoenvironments. While there is general agree-ment that such factors call for regionally limited chrono-logical systems, commonly at the continental scale or smaller, opinions are deeply divided regarding how to construct such a system and whether such a system should be consistent with the ISG recommendations. A promi-nent example is the North American Land Mammal Age system, which enjoys wide ac cep tance among North American vertebrate paleontologists but is at variance from the recommendations of the ISG. Fundamental to the premise of the NALMA is the recognition that there is no inherent reason why events in land mammal evolu-tion should coincide with those of marine organisms from half a world away. In fact, part of the initial impetus by the “Wood Committee” to establish the North Ameri-can “provincial ages” is an attempt to avoid the “danger-ous ambiguity, cumbersome circumlocution, or both” when trying to correlate to the Eu ro pe an standard time scale (Wood et al. 1941:2).

Following the recommendations by the All- China Stratigraphic Commission (2001), Qiu et al. (chapter 1, this volume) propose a Chinese Regional Land Mammal Stage/Age system that they envision will ultimately tran-sition to one fully consistent with the ISG standards. Chronostratigraphic boundaries of such a system are based on multiple criteria of lithostratigraphy, magneto-stratigraphic reversals, and mammalian fi rst appearances and faunal characterizations. In doing so, Qiu at al. point out that the NALMA also uses lithologic criteria, at least in the case of the lower boundary of the Arikareean. Th ey further argue that land mammal ages cannot be equated to biochrons. In fact, in their opinion, biochrons have no place in a regional chronostratigraphic system. As a step further in making all land mammal stage/age systems conformable to the international standard, Qiu et al. pro-pose that for those mammal ages whose lower boundaries are near the standard international boundaries of a higher rank, such as the Oligo- Miocene and Mio- Pliocene bound-aries, the mammal age boundaries should coincide with the epoch boundaries.

6 INTRODUCTION


A

LMA

Turkey

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch MaraghehBasin

SinapBasin

Bayn

unah F

m.

Anatolia

Mar

aghe

hF

m.

Shuwaihat Fm.

Sin

ap F

m.

Al GharbiaEldari

Basaltv-v-v-v-v

v-v-v-v Trachyte

Pazar Fm.

24,24A

104,65

72,91,108106,113

87,89,93,94,121

64

11,12, OZ028A,B,114,108/8

75, 83,844968

3469

26,27,30,33,70

Gemerek

Basaltv-v-v-v-v

- F

Kaleköy/Karaözü

- F- F

Kemiklitepe- F

- F

Basal TuffFm.

v-v-v

Iran U.A.E.

Dam Fm.

Baynunah F.

L. Maragh. F.

U. Maragh. F.

Saudi ArabiaGeorgia

Eld

ari F

m.

Eldari bonebed

Bazaleti

Dus

heti

Fm

.

Bazaleti loc.

Hof

uf F

m.

Al Jadidah

Ad DabtiyahRegion

Jabal Midraash-Shamali

GönenBasin

De

irmen

dere

Fm

.

Pa alar Loc.1

3

3

3

4

6

5 7

8

9

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

4,88,107

2

2

Dam

Fm

.

As Sarrar +Ad Dabtiyah

10 11

Had

rukh

Fm

.

Figure I.2a Asian terrestrial Neogene vertebrate- producing strata, mammalian faunas, and faunistic complexes (abbreviated as “F” and “F C”) or fossil- producing horizons (placed within a box), and their chronologic relationships. Solid lines above and below a block of strata indicate ap-proximate duration of the strata (often constrained by magnetostratigraphy), and absence of such lines indicates uncertainty of the duration of sedimentation. We adopt the Neogene- Quaternary (Pliocene/Pleistocene) boundary at 2.6 Ma, as formally defi ned by the International Commis-sion on Stratigraphy (Mascarelli 2009), and many of the faunas falling within the 1.8– 2.6 Ma interval and formerly considered late Pliocene are not treated here. Locality numbers correspond to those in fi gure I.1. Major Neogene faunas and strata of western Asia: (1) Pasalar, Gönen Basin, Turkey (Andrews and Alpagut 1990); (2) Sinap, Turkey (Kappelman et al. 2003; numbers indicate select fossil localities); (3) central and western Anatolia, Turkey (Sen 1996; “- F” indicates fossil horizons); (4) Maragheh, Iran (Mirzaie Ataabadi et al., chapter 25, this volume); (5) Bazaleti, Geor-gia (Vekua and Lordkipanidze 2008; Vangengeim and Tesakov, chapter 23, this volume); (6) Eldari, Georgia (Vangengeim, Lungu, and Tesakov 2006; Vekua and Lordkipanidze 2008); (7) Al Gharbia, United Arab Emirates (Bibi et al., chapter 27, this volume); (8) Al Jadidah (Hofuf Formation), Saudi Arabia (Thomas 1983; Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999; Flynn and Wessels, chapter 18, this volume); (9) Jabal Midra ash- Shamali (Hadrukh Formation), Saudi Arabia (Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999; Flynn and Wes-sels, chapter 18, this volume); (10) Ad Dabtiyah (Dam Formation), Saudi Arabia (Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999); (11) As Sarrar (Dam Formation), Saudi Arabia (Whybrow, McClure, and Elliott 1987; Whybrow and Clemens 1999; Flynn and Wessels, chap-ter 18, this volume).


Afghanistan

PotwarPlateau

Khurdkabul+ Kabul basins

CentralBasin

Bugti-Zinda Pir

SiwalikHills

A

LMA

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch Mae MohBasin

ChiangMuan Basin

Pakistan

Vih

owa

Fm

.C

hita

rwat

a F

m. (

uppe

r m

emb.

)Li

tra

Fm

.C

haud

hwan

Fm

.

MammalAssem-blage A

MammalAssem-blage B

Kam

lial F

m.

Mur

ree

Fm

.

Mid

dle

Siw

alik

sT

atro

t Fm

.C

hinj

i Fm

.

Low

er S

iwal

iks

Nag

ri F

m.

Dho

k P

atha

n F

m.

Upp

er S

iwal

iks

India/Nepal

Samwal Fm.

BoulderConglomerate

foss

il lo

calit

ies

and

thei

r fr

eque

ncie

s (lo

nges

t bar

= 6

7)

Mur

ree

Gro

up

Mid

dle

Siw

alik

sT

atro

t Fm

.

Low

er S

iwal

iks

Upp

er S

iwal

iks

Pin

jor

Fm

.

BoulderCongl.

Ramnagarassemblage

Kalagarhassemblage

Dang Valleyassemblage

Haritalyangarassemblage

Nurpurassemb.

Cha

ndig

arh

+ J

amm

ufo

ssil

sect

s.

Myanmar Thailand

Irra

wad

dy F

m.

Chaungthafauna

Yenangyaungfauna

Obo

gon

Fm

.

Megwayfauna

Yenangyaung(top)fauna

Na

Kha

em F

m.

Hua

i Lua

ng F

m.

Huai KingFm.

J Zone

K ZoneQ Zone

Chi

ang

Mua

n F

m.

Upper Lignite

Lower LigniteM

ae L

ong

Fm

. Small mammalassemblage inlignites

MunRiver

Tha ChangSand Pits

Somsak sandpit (pit No. 8)

- Molayan- Ghazgay- Taghar- Sherullah

“Sér

ie d

e La

taba

nd”

- Hadji Rona

- Malang- Dawrankhel- Pul-e Charkhi

12

13

MammalAssem-blage C

MammalAssem-blage D

14 15

14 15

14 15

14 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

24

26

27

28

29

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

Li Mae LongBasin

Figure I.2b Major Neogene faunas and strata of South and Southeast Asia: (12) Khurdkabul Basin, Af ghan i stan (Sen 2001); (13) Kabul Basin, Af ghan i stan (Brandy 1981; Sen 1983, 2001); (14) Bugti and (15) Zinda Pir, Pakistan (Antoine et al., chapter 16, this volume; Flynn et al., chapter 14, this volume); (16) Potwar Plateau (Siwaliks), Pakistan (Barry et al., chapter 15, this volume; Flynn et al., chapter 14, this volume); (17) Ram-nagar, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (18) Nurpur, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (19) Haritalyangar, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (20) Chandigarh (including Patiali Rao, Ghaggar, and Nadah sections) and Haripur Khol areas, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this vol-ume); (21) Kalagarh, India (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (22) Dang Valley, Nepal (Patnaik, chapter 17, this volume); (23) Chaungtha, Myanmar (Chavasseau et al., chapter 19, this volume); (24) Yenangyaung, Myanmar (Chavasseau et al., chapter 19, this volume); (25) Magway, Myanmar (Chavasseau et al., chapter 19, this volume); (26) Li Mae Long Basin, Thailand (Mein and Ginsburg 1997; Ratanasthien 2002; Chaimanee et al. 2007); (27) Mae Moh Basin, Thailand (Chaimanee et al. 2007; Coster et al. 2010); (28) Chiang Muan Basin, Thailand (Coster et al. 2010); (29) Mun River Sand Pits, Thailand (Chaimanee et al. 2006; Hanta et al. 2008).


Tajikistan

FerganaBasin

Tajik Basin/NW Tajik.

ZaysanBasin

KochkorBasin

IliBasin

A

LMA

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch

Kyrgyzstan

Low

er D

juuk

in S

ubsu

ite

Uzbekistan Kazakhstan/Russia

Kar

anak

/Mag

ian

suite

sG

uzar

Sui

te

Daraispon

MagianPedjikent

Kur

uksa

yS

uite

Kai

ruba

kS

uite

Ortok

Bak

tria

n S

uite

Sok

h S

uite

Kairakkum

Kar

abul

ak F

m.

Kalmakpaybone bed

Ilian

Sui

te Adyrgan

Issyk KulBasin

Upp

er Is

sykk

ulia

n S

uite

Djilgyndykoo

Akterek

Ula

khol

Sui

te

Djergalan Suite

Khorgosian Suite

San

tash

Sui

te

Esekartkan

ObigarmTutak

Kuruksay

Akt

au F

m.

A1, A7 locs.

A6 Loc.

A3 Loc.

Chu

lady

r F

m.

Fauna fromm. member

kalm

akpa

y F

m.

Sar

ybul

ak F

m.

Zay

san

Fm

.

IrtyshBasin

Pav

loda

rska

ya S

.(P

avlo

dar

regi

on)

GusinyiPerelet

Pavlodar 2

Aralregion

30

31

32

33

34

35

35

35

35

36

37

37

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

Nov

aya

Sta

nits

a-Is

akov

ka-B

iteke

sui

tes

(Om

sk r

egio

n)

NovayaStanitsa

Isakovka38

Ara

l Fm

. (se

nsu

lato

)

AralFauna

Tar

khan

Fm

.

KushukFauna

39

40

BishtyubyaFm.

Kin

tykc

he F

m.

NorthernUstyurt

area

NorthAralarea

38

Figure I.2c Major Neogene faunas and strata of Central Asia: (30) Daraispon, Tajik Basin, Tajikistan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (31) Magian and Pedjikent, northwestern Tajikistan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislo-bokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (32) Kairakkum, Fergana Basin, Uzbekistan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sot-nikova, and Dodonov 2001); (33) Ortok, Kochkor Basin, Kyrgyzstan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (34) Djilgyndykoo and Akterek, Issyk Kul Lake, Kyrgyzstan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (35) Aktau Mountain area (Kordikova and Mavrin 1996; Lucas et al. 1997; Kordikova, Heizmann, and Marvin 2000; stratigraphic nomen-clature and faunal contents cannot be easily reconciled among cited authors), Esekartkan and Adyrgan (Sotnikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001), Ili Basin, Kazakhstan; (36) Kalmakpay, Zaysan Basin, Kazakhstan (Vangengeim et al. 1993; Sot-nikova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001; Lucas et al. 2009); (37) Pavlodar, Pavlodar region, Irtysh River, Kazakhstan (Gnibidenko 1990; Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001; Zykin, Zykina, and Zazhigin 2007); (38) Novaya Stanitsa and Isakovka, Omsk region, Irtysh River, Rus sia (Zykin and Zazhigin 2004; Zykin, Zykina, and Zazhigin 2007); (39) North Aral regions, Kazakhstan (Lopatin 2004); (40) northern Ustyurt region, Kazakhstan (Lopatin 2004).


Russia: Eastern Siberia

OlkhonIsland

A

LMA

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch

Kha

laga

y F

m. Tagay F.

Sarayskii F. C.(sect. 1, hor. 3)

HyargasNor

Mongolia

Valleyof Lakes

Alta

n-T

eli

Fm

.H

yarg

as N

orF

m.

Huyn Gol Fm.

Lower Oshin Fm.

~12 fos-siliferoushorizonsthrough-outsection

BiozoneD

Loh

Fm

.

BiozoneD1/1

BiozoneD1/2

Basalt III(13.0 Ma)

BiozoneE

Tuy

n G

ol F

m.

Khu

nuk

Fm

.

Kholobolchi Nor+ Hung Kureh

KhunukValley

Shamar

Chonokhariakh-1bone bed

Aya Cave TransbaikalRegion

Tagay F.

?

?

Aya Cave F.

Odominskii F. C.(sect. 1, hor. 5)

Khuzirian F.(sect. 5, hor. 8)

Olkhonskii F.(sect. 1, hor. 6)

Udunga F. C.

Beregovaya F.Tologoi 1 F.Shamar F.

41

42

42

42

42

41

43

44

46

46

46

46

46

47

48

49

50T

ungg

uria

nB

aode

anY

ushe

an

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

Taralyk-Cher F.

45

Tuva

Edy

gei F

m.

Figure I.2d Major Neogene faunas and strata of Mongolia and eastern Rus sia: (41) Altan- Teli and Hyargas (Khyargas, Khirgis) Nor, Mongolia (Pevzner et al. 1982; but see Tedford et al. 1991 for an alternative interpretation; Sotnikova 2006); (42) Valley of Lakes, Mongolia (Höck et al. 1999; Daxner- Höck et al., chapter 20, this volume); (43) Kholobolchi Nor and Hung Kureh, Mongolia (Flynn and Bernor 1987); (44) Shamar, Mongolia (Vislobokova, Sotnikova, and Dodonov 2001); (45) Taralyk- Cher, Tuva, Rus sia (Vislobokova 2009); (46) Tagay (Tagai) and Sarayskoe (Saray), Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal, Rus sia (arrows indicate widely divergent interpretations of the Tagay Fauna) (Daxner- Höck et al., chapter 22, this volume; Erbajeva and Alexeeva, chapter 21, this volume); (47) Aya Cave, western shore of Lake Baikal, Rus sia (Erbajeva and Filippov 1997; Sen and Erbajeva 2011); (48) Tologoi 1, (49) Udunga, and (50) Beregovaya of Transbaikal area, east of Lake Baikal, Rus sia (Erbajeva and Alexeeva, chap-ter 21, this volume).


A

LMA

China: Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch

Tie

jiang

gou

Fm

.U

nnam

ed F

m.

Olongbuluk F.

Upp

er Y

oush

asha

n F

m.

Woma F.

Wom

a F

m.

E. QaidamBasin

CentralHimalaya

Qia

ngta

ng F

m.

Yuzhu F.

TabenbulukBasin

Tuosu F.

Shengou F.

Huaitoutala F.

Shi

zigo

u F

m.

Qigequan Fm.

L. Youshashan Fm.

Paoniuquan Fm.

Xishuigou F.

Unnamed F.

Unnamed F.

Kunlun Fm.

Wangkun Till

?? ??

Tibetanhinterland

Bulong F.B

ulon

g F

m.

XiningBasin

LinxiaBasin

Xinjiang

Din

gsha

nyan

chi F

m.

Dingshanyanchi F.(XJ200613 + 17)

XJ200614 Loc.?? ??

?? ??

?? ??

?? ??

?? ??

Hal

ama-

gai F

m.

Suo

suoq

uan

Fm

.

Top Gravel Bed

Kek

emai

-de

ng F

m.

Kekemai-deng F.

Halamagai F.

Suosuoquan II F.(XJ99005 loc.)

Suosuoquan III F.(XJ200210,XJ200206,XJ200205,

and other loc.)

JunggarBasin

?? ??

?? ??

51

52

53

53

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

WesternHimalaya

Zanda F.

61

62Zanda F

m.

Guide F.

Amigang Fm.

Ganjia Fm.

Herjia Fm.

AshigongFm.

GuidemenFm.

Gui

de G

roup

????

????

Garang Fm.

Gui

de G

roup

GuideBasin

63

Xie

jia F

m.

Che

toug

ouF

m.

Xia

nshu

ihe

Fm

.C

hara

ng F

m.

Xia

dong

shan

Fm

.S

hang

tan

Fm

.

Xiejia F.

Chetougou F.

64

64

Lierbao F.

Charang F.

Xiadong-shan F.

Shangtan F.

Sha

ngzh

uang

Fm

.D

ongx

iang

Fm

.H

ujia

liang

Fm

.Li

ushu

Fm

.H

ewan

gjia

Fm

.W

uche

ngLo

ess

Sigou F.

Shinanu F.

Zengjia F.

Laogou F.

Guonigou F.

Dashengou F.

Yangjiashan F.

Qingbushan F.

Shilidun F.

Longdan F.

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

Jish

i Fm

.

Figure I.2e Major Neogene faunas and strata of Xinjiang and the Tibetan Plateau: (51) Botamoyin (XJ99005) section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Meng et al. 2006; Meng et al., chapter 3, this volume); (52) Chibaerwoyi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Meng et al. 2006; Meng et al., chapter 3, this volume); (53) Dingshanyanchi section, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang Autonomous Region (Meng et al. 2008); (54) Xishuigou Fauna, Tabenbuluk (Danghe) Basin, Gansu Province (Wang, Qiu, and Opdyke 2003; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (55) Olongbuluk Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (56) Tuosu Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (57) Shengou Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Qiu and Li 2008; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (58) Huaitoutala Fauna, Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province (Wang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (59) Bulong (Biru) Fauna, Bulong Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region (Huang et al. 1980; Zheng 1980; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (60) Yuzhu Fauna, Kunlun Pass Basin, Qinghai Prov-ince (Song et al. 2005; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (61) Woma Fauna, Gyirong Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region (Huang et al. 1980; Yue et al. 2004; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (62) Zanda Fauna, Zanda Basin, Tibetan Autonomous Region (Deng et al. 2011; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (63) Guide Fauna, Guide Basin, Qinghai Province (Zheng, Wu, and Li 1985; Fang et al. 2005; Wang et al., chapter 10, this volume); (64) Xiejia and Chetougou faunas, Xining Basin, Qinghai Province (Li and Qiu 1980; Li, Qiu, and Wang 1981; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (65) Linxia Basin, Gansu Province (Deng et al., chapter 9, this volume; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume).


China: Loess Plateau

LingtaiBasin

LanzhouBasin

BaodeBasin

TongxinBasin

LantianBasin

A

LMA

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Earl

y M

ioce

ne Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch

Bah

ean

YusheBasin

Xia

nshu

ihe

Fm

.

Zhangjiaping F.

Quantougou F.

Duitinggou F.

Hon

gliu

gou

Fm

.

Dingjiaergou F.

Leiji

ahe

Fm

.

Leijiahe I-II

Leijiahe IIILeijiahe IV

Leijiahe V

Wucheng Loess

66

66

6768

69

69

69

Renjiagou F70

Lant

ian

Fm

.B

ahe

Fm

.K

oujia

cun

Fm

.Le

ngsh

uigo

u F

m.

?? ??

Lengshuigou F.

Koujiacun F.

BaheF.

BH1

BH2

Lantian F.

Bao

de F

m.

Jing

le F

m.

WuchengLoess

Baode F.

71

71

72

FuguArea

Mah

uiF

m.

Gao

zhua

ngF

m.

Maz

e-go

u F

m.

Mazegou F.

Nanzhuang-gou F.

Mahui F.

Wucheng Loess

74

74

74

Haiyan Fm. Haiyan F.74

JingleBasin

JingleFm.

Hefeng F.

WuchengLoess

75

Laog

aoch

uan

sect

ion

Lamagou F.

Miaoliang F.

73

73

NihewanBasin

Yux

ian/

Dao

di F

m.

Nih

ewan

Fm

.

Eolian Red Clay

Loess

Daodi F.

Dongyaozitou F.

MJGIII F.

classicNihewan F.

76

Figure I.2f Major Neogene faunas and strata of the Loess Plateau: (66) Zhangjiaping and Duitinggou faunas, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province (Qiu et al. 2001; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (67) Quantougou Fauna, Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province (Qiu 2001; Qiu et al., chapter 1 this volume); (68) Dingjiaergou Fauna, Tongxin Basin, Ningxia Autonomous Region (Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (69) Leijiahe biozones I– V, Lingtai, Gansu Province (Zheng and Zhang 2001; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (70) Renjiagou Fauna, Lingtai, Gansu Province (Zhang et al. 1999); (71) Bahe Fauna, Lantian Basin, Shaanxi Province (Zhang et al. 2002; Kaakinen and Lunkka 2003; Zhang et al., chapter 6, this volume); (72) Baode Fauna, Shanxi Province (Zhu et al. 2008; Kaakinen et al., chapter 7, this volume); (73) Laogaochuan section, Fugu area, Shaanxi Province (Xue, Zhang, and Yue 1995; Zhang et al. 1995; Xue, Zhang, and Yue 2006); (74) Mahui, Nanzhuanggou, and Mazegou faunas, Yushe Basin, Shanxi Province (Tedford et al. 1991; Flynn, Wu, and Downs 1997); (75) Hefeng Fauna, Jingle Basin, Shanxi Province (Chen 1994; Yue and Zhang 1998); (76) Daodi Fauna, Nihewan Basin, Hebei Province (Cai et al., chapter 8, this volume).


A

LMA

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

China: Inner Mongolia

Ao

erb

an F

m.

L. A

oer-

ban

F.

Middle GreenMudstone Mb.

Low

er R

edM

udst

. Mb.

U. A

oer-

ban

F.

Upp

er R

edM

udst

one

Mb.

Bal

unha

lage

n F

.

Bal

unha

lage

n be

d

Bilu

tu F

.

Bilu

tu b

ed

Gashunyinadege F.

Gashunyinadegebed

Tairum Nor F.

Tamuqin F.

Moergen F.

Tun

ggur

Fm

.

Amuwusu F.

Am

uwus

ube

d

Shala F.

Sha

labe

d

Ulan Hushu-yin Nur F.

Tun

ggur

Fm

.

Aoerbanarea

Gashunyin-adege area

TunggurTableland

Jurharea

Baogeda Ulaarea

BaogedaUla F.

Bao

geda

Ula

Fm

. Tuchengzi F.

Tuc

hen.

bed

Ert. F.

Ert

emte

bed

Bilike F.

Bili

kebe

d

HarrOboF.

Huadearea

Gaotegearea

Gaotege bed

Huitenghe F.

Hui

teng

he b

.

Gaotege F.

DM16 Loc.

Dam

iao

Fm

.

?? ??

?? ??

DM01 Loc.?? ??

?? ??

DM02 Loc.?? ??

?? ??

Damiaoarea

77

77

77

78

78

78

78

79

80

80

8081

81

82

82

83

83

84

84

Figure I.2g Major Neogene faunas and strata of Inner Mongolia: (77) Damiao section, Siziwang Qi, Inner Mongolia (Zhang et al. 2011); (78) up-per and lower Aoerban, Balunhalagen, and Bilutu faunas, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (Wang et al. 2009; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (79) Gashunyinadege Fauna, Inner Mongolia (Meng, Wang, and Bai 1996; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (80) Tairum Nor, Moergen, and Tamuqin faunas, Inner Mongolia (Qiu 1996; Wang, Qiu, and Opdyke 2003; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (81) Ulan Hushuyin Nur and Baogeda Ula faunas, Inner Mongolia (Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (82) Shala and Amuwusu faunas, Inner Mongolia (Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (83) Bilike, Ertemte, Harr Obo, and Tuchengzi faunas, Inner Mongolia (Fahlbusch, Qiu, and Storch 1983; Qiu and Storch 2000; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume); (84) Gaotege and Huitenghe faunas, Inner Mongolia (Li, Wang, and Qiu 2003; Xu et al. 2007; Qiu, Wang, and Li, chapter 5, this volume).


A

LMA

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

Eastern China

MiaoshanpoFauna

Mia

osha

n-po

Fm

.

Shihuiba F.

Shi

huib

aF

m.

Xiaolongtan F.

Xia

olon

gtan

Fm

.

Xiacaowanarea

Huainanfissures

Nanjingarea

LufengBasin

XiaolongtanBasin

Liuhe F.

Hua

ngga

ng F

m.

YuanmouBasin

ZhaotongBasin

Xiaohe F.

Xia

ohe

Fm

.

Shuitangba F.

ShanwangBasin

89

87

90

90

92

91

Xia

caow

an F

m.

Sih

ong

F.

Sha

nwan

g F

m.

Xiejiahe F.

85

86

Laodong F.

Xindong F.

Tiesiju F.

88

88

88

Fangshan F.

Don

gxua

ngua

n F

m.

87

Buz

haob

aM

arlit

e F

m.

Hetou F

Het

ou F

mD

ongs

heng

qiao

Fm

.

?? ??

?? ??

South China: Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau

Sha

gou

Fm

.Y

uanm

ou F

m.

Shagou F.

XiaopanshanBasalt

PingshanBasalt

Tuo

buka

Fm

.

Zhaotong E.Pleistoceneassemblage

Figure I.2h Major Neogene faunas and strata of eastern China and Yunnan: (85) Xiejiahe Fauna, Shandong Province (Deng, Wang, and Yue 2008; Qiu and Qiu, chapter 4, this volume); (86) Xiacaowan Fauna, Jiangsu Province (Li et al. 1983; Qiu and Qiu, chapter 4, this volume); (87) Fangshan and Liuhe faunas, Jiangsu Province (Bi, Yu, and Qiu 1977; Qiu et al., chapter 1, this volume); (88) Laodong, Xindong, Tiesiju fi ssure faunas, Anhui Province (Jin, Kawamura, and Tatuno 1999; Jin 2004; Tomida and Jin 2009); (89) Xiaolongtan Fauna, Xiaolongtan Basin, Yunnan Province (Dong 2001; Dong and Qi, chapter 11, this volume); (90) Shihuiba and Miaoshanpo faunas, Lufeng Basin, Yunnan Province (Qi 1985; Chen 1986; Yue and Zhang 2006; Dong and Qi, chapter 11, this volume); (91) Xiaohe and Shagou faunas, Yuanmou Basin, Yunnan Province (Zhu et al. 2005; Dong and Qi, chapter 11, this volume); (92) Shihuiba Fauna, Zhaotong (Chaotung) Basin, Yunnan Province (Chow and Zhai 1962; Zhang et al. 1989; Denise Su, pers. comm.).


A

LMA

5

10

15

Plio

cen

eLa

te M

ioce

ne

Mid

dle

Mio

cen

ePl

eist

oce

ne

Nih

ewan

ian

20

Eur

ope

(MN

)

Earl

y M

ioce

ne

23

Tim

e (M

a)

Epo

ch

Tun

ggur

ian

Bao

dean

Yus

hean

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

7/8

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sha

nwan

gian

Xie

jian

Bah

ean

Japan

Kob

iwak

o G

roup

Nakatsu Gr.

MizunamiBasin

Tochioarea

Saseboarea

Iga-OmiBasin

Aikawaarea

AwajiIsland

KaniBasin

Miz

unam

i Gro

up

Noj

ima

Gro

up

Osa

ka G

roup

?? ??

Hac

hiya

Fm

.N

akam

u-ra

Fm

.H

iram

aki

Fm

.

Miz

unam

i Gro

up

Toki Lignite-bearing Fm.

Hongo Fm.

Akeyo Fm.- F - F- F

- F

- F

Dota Loc.

- F

9394

Oya Fm.

Fukazuki Fm.

Minamitabira Fm.

- F

Araya Fm.

Ushigakubi Fm.

Shiroiwa Fm.

Unnamed Fm.

- F

95

97

- F98

- F- F- F- F

- F

99

- F100

Sendaiarea

Sen

dai G

r.

Kameoka Fm.

Tatsunokuchi Fm.

- F96

Figure I.2i Major Neogene faunas and strata of Japan: (93) Dota locality and other fossil sites (marked with an “- F”), Kani Basin (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (94) terrestrial vertebrate fossil sites (marked with an “- F”), Mizunami Basin (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (95) Diatomys locality (“- F”), Sasebo area (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (96) Sendai area (Tomida et al., chapter 12, this volume); (97) Para-ilurus locality (“- F”), Tochio area (Sasagawa et al. 2003; Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume); (98) Dolichopithecus locality, Aikawa area (Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume); (99) Iga- Omi Basin (Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume); (100) Awaji Island, Hyogo Prefecture (Nakagawa, Kawamura, and Taruno, chapter 13, this volume).


works on fossil- producing basins. Eff orts are made to preserve a sense of lithostratigraphic (formations, suites, etc.) and biostratigraphic relationships (fossil localities, faunas, faunistic complexes, etc.). Although we cite the original sources for individual columns, any errors or misinterpretations are entirely our own. Nor is this an exhaustive account of all Asian sites, although most of the well- known sites are included. Such an exercise in-variably fails to capture the complexities and nuances of the regions being depicted, and readers are urged to ex-amine the original sources (and citations within) for each locality or basin. In many basins, controversies exist for faunal interpretations, in some cases, with discrepan-cies of millions of years. In presenting individual strati-graphic columns, we did not attempt to analyze each re-gional scheme, although we did occasionally reinterpret magnetic correlations. Th e intention of this exercise is to put together, for the fi rst time, all major fossil- mammal- producing regions in a series of charts, to draw attention to the diff erent conceptual frameworks and diff erent constructions of faunal relationships. We hope this will serve as a starting point to integrate various stratigraphic schemes.

It is also immediately clear that there is much uneven-ness in concepts and in practices. At the conceptual level, countries in the former Soviet Union (such as Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Rus sia) or those infl uenced by the Soviet Union (Mongo-lia, and China to a lesser extent) have used stratigraphic schemes combining various notions of litho- or biochro-nology. Th e stratigraphic term “svita” (here translated as “suite”), is not only defi ned by lithologic characteristics (as in “formations” in western countries), but is also laden with a connotation of time, oft en indicated by fossil content. When western concepts of separation of litho- and biostratigraphy are applied to some of the areas, ma-jor discrepancies can occur that are diffi cult to reconcile, such as in the Aktau Mountain area (Kordikova and Ma-vrin 1996; Lucas et al. 1997) and in the Zaysan Basin (Sotni kova, Dodonov, and Pen’kov 1997; Lucas et al. 2000). As a result, our summaries for these countries are oft en not strictly comparable to those found elsewhere (see fi gure I.2c). Th ese are areas that can benefi t greatly by applications of consistent criteria to evaluate the strati-graphic schemes.

In practical correlations, the Eu ro pe an MN system continues to exert infl uences in many areas. In some cases, such as countries in the former Soviet Union and western Asian countries, the MN units sometimes have been directly projected to the local strata. Th e Eu ro pe an infl uence can also be felt as far as Southeast Asia, some-

times with disparate results, such as in the Li Mae Long Basin in northern Th ailand (Ginsburg 1984; Mein and Ginsburg 1997; Chaimanee et al. 2007). Th is basin was considered to have a late Early Miocene small mammal fauna or even as earlier Miocene (MN 4), but ongoing work has benefi tted from paleomagnetic data (Chaima-nee et al. 2007) that, together with continued systematic studies, place the assemblage in the Middle Miocene. Ex-amples like these highlight the perilous nature of long- distance correlation to a Eu ro pe an system that is itself full of uncertainties and ambiguities and the importance of establishment of an indigenous biostratigraphy.

In stratigraphic resolution, existing Asian frameworks span a full spectrum of resolving power of continental bio-stratigraphy. At the fi nest scale, the Siwalik sequences in Pakistan, well constrained by 47 magnetic sections, boast consistent resolution of up to 200,000 years or less for 80% of the more than 1,000 fossil localities, and 100,000 years or less for 50% of the localities. Such a remarkable precision is pushing the resolving power in terrestrial sed-imentation to the limits (Barry et al., chapter 15, this vol-ume) and can rival the resolution of any basin of continen-tal deposits in the world. At the other end of the spectrum, however, crude biochronologic characterizations, oft en without any in de pen dent calibrations, are still widely prac-ticed, which is the norm in many Asian countries.

Although a true sense of biostratigraphy for individual taxa within reasonably fossiliferous spans is emerging for a number of basins (e.g., Sinap, Maragheh, Siwalik, Jung-gar Basin, Valley of Lakes, Qaidam Basin, Lingtai, Bahe, Yushe Basin), in the majority of regions in Asia, nominal “local faunas” or “faunas” are still widely used as a tradi-tional way to communicate an aggregate of taxa oft en spanning a certain stratigraphic thickness representing a certain amount of time. More inclusive terms, such as chronofauna (or faunistic complex) can be useful con-cepts to construct ideas of larger biota that span greater geographic and temporal ranges.

From the perspective of geologic time represented in various Asian regions, our charts show that Early Mio-cene has the largest gaps in the fossil rec ords of almost every region in Asia. Th is is especially true for the begin-ning of the Miocene (23– 20 Ma), during which preciously few localities have any rec ords and those that have some data are represented by mostly small mammals.

Another conspicuous gap in the Chinese coverage has somewhat unexpectedly turned out to be the early part of the Late Miocene, the temporal equivalent of the Eu-ro pe an Vallesian (11.2– 9.5 Ma). Th e reason why this was not at fi rst realized has to do in part with lack of stratigraphic control and in part with the monsoon- driven

16 INTRODUCTION



other than either is to southern Asia. Plate tectonics along the India- Asia collision zone and its resulting uplift of the Himalayan Range and Tibetan Plateau are thus critical factors imposing a fi rst- order or ga ni za tion of the Asian continent. Th is pattern of modern zoogeographic division can be traced back in deep time at least to the early Neogene, if not earlier, based on fossil mammals (Qiu and Li 2003, 2005; Flynn 2008), consistent with the early attainment of a high Tibet (e.g., Rowley and Currie 2006; Quade et al. 2011). Climatic diff erentia-tions are similarly recorded by Neogene mammal rec-ords (Fortelius et al. 2002; Fortelius et al. 2003; Fortelius et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2009). Given such complexity in ge-ography and climate, questions naturally arose during the workshops as to the feasibility of devising an Asia- wide land mammal age system that can work across major zoo-geographic boundaries. If Eu rope and East Asia within the Palearctic Province are to have a separate chronologic system, shouldn’t South Asia in the Oriental Province have its own?

The East–West Divide Between Eu rope and Asia

Th e Eurasian continent spans the entire eastern hemi-sphere and beyond. Since the disappearance of the epi-continental Turgai Sea by about early Oligocene, Eu rope and Asia have been a single connected landmass. Despite this continuity during the Neogene, however, distant fau-nas from the extreme ends in western Eu rope and eastern Asia show marked Early Miocene diff erences, although there is a tendency for increased similarity through time (Mirzaie Ataabadi et al., chapter 29, this volume). A cli-matic gradient is likely, since sheer distance alone proba-bly cannot fully account for such faunal diff erences.

Diamond (1997) advanced the thesis that organismic (including human) migrations are easily achieved along the east– west axis because Earth’s atmospheric variances are oft en or ga nized latitudinally; that is, organisms can readily adapt to habitats of similar climatic zones of simi-lar latitudes. Th is is in contrast to the north– south axis, which entails the crossing of climatic zones. By this argu-ment, western Eu rope and eastern China, both of similar latitudes, should share more faunal similarities despite their vast geographic distance. Existence of distinct fau-nas from Eu rope and eastern Asia thus indicates climatic diff erentiations (wetter Eu rope vs. drier central and east-ern Asia) or distinct environmental barriers, such as des-erts in central Asia and the Tibetan Plateau. Faunal dis-tinction through much of the Neogene (few species in common) is the strongest rationale for an Asian land

climate history of East Asia. Recent fi eldwork has re-vealed that several key Chinese Late Miocene localities are signifi cantly younger than previously assumed (Zhang et al., chapter 6, this volume; Kaakinen et al., chapter 7, this volume), leaving the Vallesian time equivalent of China remarkably poorly sampled. Recent rediscovery and correlation of Bohlin’s Tsaidamotherium locality (now called Quanshuiliang section) in the Qaidam Basin re-veal that much of the Quanshuiliang section corresponds to the magnetically calibrated Tuosu Fauna of the early Bahean (~11– 10 Ma; Wang et al. 2011). However, while rich in large mammals, much of the fauna represents an endemic Tibetan Plateau assemblage that is not easily re-lated to faunas elsewhere. It has also recently become clear that the general trend of climate change in China during the Late Miocene is the opposite of the global trend of increasing aridity seen in Eu rope and North America and that faunal evolution in China accordingly follows a diff erent path (e.g., the reappearance in the re-cord and survival of the anchitherine horse Sinohippus far into the Late Miocene). Evidence from multiple sources now shows that China instead became gradually more humid during this interval, most probably as a result of a strengthened summer monsoon (Fortelius et al. 2002; Passey et al. 2009). Th e Chinese mammal fauna of the early, dry part of the late Miocene is characterized by low diversity and endemism, and it is only the more humid part of the late Miocene, from about 8 Ma onward, that sees the proper, pancontinental “Hipparion fauna” estab-lished in China (Fortelius and Zhang 2006; Mirzaie Ataabadi et al., chapter 29, this volume). In this perspec-tive, the potential for establishing a long stratigraphic sequence from Lingtai takes on a special importance, and it will therefore be of considerable interest and im-portance to see whether future fi eldwork will verify the tentative Vallesian correlations suggested by Deng et al. (chapter 9, this volume).

ZOOGEOGRAPHIC COMPLEXITY

As the largest continent on Earth, Asia defi es easy cate-gorization. With vast latitudinal, longitudinal, and altitu-dinal spans, as well as the attendant climatic zonations, zoogeographic diff erentiations are profound (fi gure I.3). Indeed, in Alfred Russel Wallace’s (1876:map 1) classic map of zoogeographic provinces, the boundary between Palearctic and Oriental provinces was drawn within Asia, mostly along the southern slopes of the Himalaya Range and its lateral extensions. In other words, northern Asia and Eu rope are zoogeo graph i cally more similar to each


1996). Such a widespread biome of long duration has been termed the Pikermian chronofauna (Eronen et al. 2009), which lends support for Asian land mammal ages spanning at least northern Asia. As demonstrated by Mirzaie Ataabadi et al. (chapter 29, this volume), such a concept may also be applicable in parts of Eurasia in the Middle Miocene, as represented by the Tunggurian chro-nofauna, although the evolving nature of this chrono-fauna from an earlier appearance in western Eu rope and migrating east to eastern China near the latest Middle Miocene implies diachrony. Such diachrony has obvious implications for correlation, a case in point being the car-nivore genus Dinocrocuta, which in Eu rope and western Asia is a good indicator of early Late Miocene age and has been used to support a Vallesian correlation of Bahean

mammal age system in de pen dent of the Eu ro pe an MN units. Th is is in contrast to North America, which has a much narrower longitudinal span, and its paleofaunas have even narrower distributions within the western half of North America (eastern North America is poorly fos-siliferous). As a result, faunal diff erences between Pacifi c coastal states and the Great Plains are small enough to be subsumed within a single NALMA system.

Despite east–west faunal diff erentiations, however, broad faunal similarities can be recognized in much of western and Central Asia at select time periods. For ex-ample, the notion of a Pikermian paleobiome recognizes a wide swath of Eurasia during the late Miocene that is dominated by dry climate, increasingly open environ-ments, and seasonally adapted mammals (Bernor et al.

Central Asia

Europe

Africa

SouthAsia Southeast

Asia

East Asia

Arctic Realm

West Asia

Palearctic Province

Oriental Province

Europe-Asia faunal interchange

Asia-N

.Am. dispersal

Afri

ca-Asia dispersal

(inte

rmittent connection)

(in

term

ittent connection)

(full connection during Neogene)

Shifting transitional zonebetween Palearctic/Orientalprovinces in coastal China

)

Figure I.3 Schematics of inter- and intracontinental faunal interchanges and dispersals centered around Asia. Europe– East Asia faunal inter-change entails largely the same latitudes in the east– west direction; the main barrier is the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent arid regions of Central Asia. Except for mammals adapted to Arctic regions, Asia– North America dispersals include a large “vertical axis” component along longitude, and mammals must cross different climate zones in order to reach to the other side. Thin air and high mountains present formidable barriers along the southern slopes of the Himalaya, which form a sharp zoogeographic boundary; to the east along the east coast of China, however, the boundary becomes fuzzy and a transitional zone shifts through time along with climate changes. Africa– Asia connection is intermittent during the Neogene. Gray tones in continents roughly refl ect the amount of vegetation: white or light gray indicates desert or dry environments and darker gray indicates more vegetation coverage. Width of arrows is suggestive of magnitude of terrestrial dispersals.

18 INTRODUCTION



and Wessels, chapter 18, this volume), featuring occa-sional dispersals in both directions, notably among ro-dents and primates.

Connection of North America and Asia

Since the early Miocene, immigrants to North America from Asia seem to suggest a closed Bering Strait for much of the time (Woodburne and Swisher 1995). Th e Bering Land Bridge undoubtedly acts as a fi lter that allows fau-nas in the Arctic realm to pass freely but severely limits those from middle or lower latitudes. Because of this lim-ited faunal exchange, correlations of Asian and North American land mammal ages, which are entirely based on mid- latitude faunas, are not easy, and the NALMA did not have much infl uence on the developments of the Asian mammal system.

Contributions of Asia– North America faunal exchange are oft en asymmetrical; a large number of immigrant events have been recorded in North America, but far fewer mammals made it to Asia. Tedford et al. (2004:fi g. 6.3) counted 88 allochthonous genera of Old World ori-gin during the Miocene Epoch (Arikareean through Hemphillian); many of these became signifi cant compo-nents of local communities in North America. With the exception of horses (Anchitherium, Hipparion, Equus), camels (Paracamelus), dogs (Eucyon, Nyctereutes, Vulpes), and several small mammals (the rabbit Alilepus, squirrels like Marmota, beavers, and birch mice [see Kimura, chapter 30, this volume]), mammals that dispersed from North America did not exert a corresponding presence in Asia. Although such a discrepancy potentially may be ac-counted for by sampling eff ects, at least in the Pliocene (Flynn et al. 1991), it is also possible that a larger Eur-asian continent presented a more competitive environ-ment for North American newcomers. One striking ex-ample is an early Pliocene Arctic North American fauna that shares close similarity with contemporaneous fau-nas from North China (Tedford and Harington 2003).

Embedded within the overall balance of exchange favoring entry of Asian forms into North America is a striking, apparently climate- driven exception. Th e disper-sal of Eurasian ungulates into North America was dis-continuous, greatly declining during the later Miocene. Between 15 and 5 million years ago only four ungulate genera of Eurasian origin are known from North Amer-ica: Pseudoceras, Neotragoceros, Platybelodon, and Tapirus (Tedford et al. 2004). In contrast to the successful dis-persal of horses and camels in the opposite direction dur-ing this interval, none of the new arrivals diversifi ed aft er

age localities in China. Recent studies suggest, however, that Dinocrocuta has a primarily (or even exclusively?) Turolian age range in China, with the best- dated rec ords so far clustering around 8 Ma (Zhang et al., chapter 6, this volume).

The North–South Divide Between North and South Asia

A fi rst- order zoogeographic division between the Pale-arctic Province to the north and Oriental Province to the south was long recognized to be the result of Earth’s sur-face pro cesses (Wallace 1876). Such a clear distinction is rooted in the following two interrelated pro cesses: erec-tion of a formidable geographic barrier in Tibet- Himalaya and its lateral extensions, and formation of summer mon-soons in South and East Asia and winter westerlies and northwesterlies in northern China and central Asia. Th is factor, coupled with major west– east river systems, dis-tinguishes much of China. A Palearctic/Oriental-style provinciality can be recognized since the early to middle Miocene based on small- mammal rec ords in eastern China (Qiu and Li 2003, 2005), large mammals from the northern rim of the Tibetan Plateau (Qiu et al. 2001), and small mammals from South Asia (Flynn 2008). Fur-thermore, in contrast to increasing faunal homogeneity between east and west Eurasia during the Neogene, the north–south faunal division became progressively more clearly delineated through time as Tibet was being up-lift ed and its climatic eff ects became more pronounced. Th e above pro cess thus presents the biggest obstacle in the establishment of a truly Asia- wide land mammal age system.

Intermittent Connections Between Africa and South Asia

Faunal exchanges between Africa and South Asia, either by direct migration through the Arabian Peninsula or by indirect routes of western Eu rope (across the Strait of Gibraltar), are evidenced by rec ords from the Siwaliks and equivalent deposits of Dera Bugti and Sulaiman ar-eas (Barry et al. 1991; Flynn et al. 1995; Antoine et al., chapter 16, this volume). Being in similar latitudes and warm climates, the main control of Africa– South Asia dispersal was by intermittent land corridors. It is thus not surprising that South Asia oft en has the largest number of African elements outside of Africa, and an Ethiopian- Oriental connection seems to be recognizable (Flynn


birds. Once again, fossil mammals off er direct evidence for this profound change. Furthermore, as consumers of veg-etation, mammalian ungulates are also invaluable for as-sessing plant compositions. Isotope ratios of dental enam-els, hypsodonty indices, microwear, and mesowear have become critical means to deduce plant coverage, paleo-temperature, and precipitation. As the fi eld matures, such “ecometrics” (Eronen et al. 2010) are likely to become welded into an increasingly quantitative paleoenviron-mental framework that can be used in conjunction with paleoclimate modeling to constrain and refi ne reconstruc-tions of past conditions and pro cesses (Eronen et al. 2009).

AC KNOW LEDG MENTS

It goes without saying that a volume such as this is not possible without the contributions from all authors— we express our gratitude to all who took the time to under-take this worthy project. Th e Institute of Vertebrate Pale-ontology and Paleoanthropology provided logistic sup-port in the two Beijing workshops, and we thank the numerous graduate students from the IVPP for their help and participation. We thank our publisher Patrick Fitzger-ald, se nior manuscript editor Irene Pavitt, assistant edi-tor Bridget Flannery- McCoy, copyeditors Karen Victoria Brown and Richard Camp, production editor Edward Wade, designer Milenda Lee, and indexer Maria Coughlin for their tireless work to ensure that this book will come to fruition. We also appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions by two anonymous volume reviewers. We are grateful to Alexey Tesakov for his review of a late draft of this chapter and for providing important Rus sian literature on several localities. Th is book and its com-panion workshops in Beijing and Los Angeles benefi ted from fi nancial support from the Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology program of the National Science Foun-dation (U.S.) and its counterpart in the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation. In connection to these fi -nancial assistances, we would like to acknowledge Ray-mond L. Bernor, H. Richard Lane, and Lisa Boush, whose sustained support are keys to our success in putting to-gether the largest gathering of mammalian paleontolo-gists working on Asian continental biostratigraphy. Th e Society of Vertebrate Paleontology made it possible for three young scholars to attend. Finally, but certainly not least emphatically, we are greatly indebted to Zhan- xiang Qiu, who not only produced the key summary chapter on Chinese land mammal ages/stages but was more than generous in his fi nancial support of the production of this volume through his Special Researches Program of Basic

dispersal, and, with the exception of Tapirus, all had a short duration in the fossil record. Eronen et al. (in press) attribute this imbalance to the fact that during this time North America was signifi cantly more arid than Eurasia, creating a situation where North American ungulates were literally pre- adapted to the conditions yet to appear in Asia, while Asian ungulates correspondingly lagged behind the environmental conditions already in place in North America. Th at the result is not due to sampling er-ror is testifi ed by continued successful dispersal of Eur-asian carnivores into North America during the same in-terval, and by the fact that ungulate dispersal into North America resumed when the climatic imbalance disap-peared in the Plio- Pleistocene.

CRITICAL TRANSITIONS

Th is book is the result of collaborative eff orts in Beijing and a follow- up Los Angeles workshop, which are part of a Sino- U.S. collaborative research agenda on critical transitions in the history of life. Th e goal is to address critical transitions in geologic history that profoundly af-fect biological and environmental evolution on global scales. Once again, Asia, by its unique geographic posi-tion and geologic history, has much to off er in our un-derstanding of global environmental changes. Mammal distributions in space (zoogeography) and time (biostra-tigraphy and geochronology) are two key components in any attempt to formulate ideas about paleoenvironmen-tal change. In many ways, mammal biostratigraphy by it-self off ers evidences of critical transitions. In that sense, we hope this volume will provide the initial dataset and encouragement to stimulate further research on the vari-ous critical transitions.

Looming large among Asian Cenozoic geologic events is the rise of the Himalayan and Tibetan highlands and eff ects on the initiation of Indian and East Asian mon-soon climates. Without doubt, Himalaya- Tibet, as an im-posing physical entity in central Asia, is a fi rst- order cli-mate maker. Much debate, however, is centered on the timing and pro cess of the coupling of mountain uplift and climate change and their feedback on erosion and weathering (e.g., Molnar 2005). From a paleontological perspective, mammals as a biological component and a chronological marker have much to off er in this debate.

Th e emergence of Himalaya- Tibet and the ensuing zoogeographic division of Palearctic and Oriental prov-inces aff ects mammal distributions in two ways. Th e ris-ing Himalaya coupled with drastic changes in climatic zonation form an eff ective barrier for all but high- fl ying

20 INTRODUCTION



Chiu, C.- s., C.- k. Li, and C.- t. Chiu. 1979. A preliminary review of the mammalian localities and faunas. Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques, non-ser. vol. 1:263– 272.

Chow, M.- c. and R.- j. Zhai. 1962. Early Pleistocene mammals of Chaotung, Yunnan, with notes on some Chinese stegodonts. Ver-tebrata PalAsiatica 6:138– 147.

Coster, P., M. Benammi, Y. Chaimanee, C. Yamee, O. Chavasseau, E.- G. Emonet, and J.- J. Jaeger. 2010. A complete magnetic- polarity stratigraphy of the Miocene continental deposits of Mae Moh Basin, northern Th ailand, and a reassessment of the age of hominoid- bearing localities in northern Th ailand. Geological So-ciety of America Bulletin 122:1180– 1191.

Deng, T. 2006. Chinese Neogene mammal biochronology. Verte-brata PalAsiatica 44:143– 163.

Deng, T., S. Hou, and H. Wang. 2007. Th e Tunggurian Stage of the continental Miocene in China. Acta Geologica Sinica 81:709– 721.

Deng, T., W.- m. Wang, and L.- p. Yue. 2003. Recent advances of the establishment of the Shanwang stage in the Chinese Neogene. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 41:314– 323.

Deng, T., W.- m. Wang, and L.- p. Yue. 2006. Th e Xiejian stage of the continental Miocene series in China. Journal of Stratigraphy 30:315– 322.

Deng, T., W.- m. Wang, and L.- p. Yue. 2008. Report on research of the Shanwangian and Baodean stages in the continental Neogene se-ries of China. In Reports on Establishing the Major Stages in China, ed. Z.- j. Wang and Z.- g. Huang, pp. 13– 31. Beijing: Geological Publishing House.

Deng, T., W.- m. Wang, L.- p. Yue, and Y.- x. Zhang. 2004. New ad-vances in the establishment of the Neogene Baode Stage. Journal of Stratigraphy 28:41– 47.

Deng, T., X.- m. Wang, M. Fortelius, Q. Li, Y. Wang, Z. J. Tseng, G. T. Takeuchi, J. E. Saylor, L. K. Säilä, and G.- p. Xie. 2011. Out of Ti-bet: Pliocene woolly rhino suggests high- plateau origin of Ice Age megaherbivores. Science 333:1285– 1288.

Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: Th e Fates of Human Societ-ies. New York: Norton.

Dong, W. 2001. Upper Cenozoic stratigraphy and paleoenvironment of Xiaolongtan Basin, Kaiyuan, Yunnan Province. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meetings of Chinese Society of Vertebrate Pale-ontology, ed. T. Deng and Y.- q. Wang, pp. 91– 100. Beijing: China Ocean Press.

Erbajeva, M. A. and A. G. Filippov. 1997. Miocene small mammalian faunas of the Baikalian region. In Actes du Congrès BiochroM’97, ed. J.- P. Aguilar, S. Legendre, and J. Michaux, pp. 249– 259. Mémoires et Travaux E.P.H.E., Institut de Montpellier, 21.

Eronen, J. T., M. Fortelius, A. Micheels, F. T. Portmann, K. Puol-amäki and C. M. Janis. In press. Neogene aridifi cation of the Northern Hemi sphere. Geology.

Eronen, J. T., M. Mirzaie Ataabadi, A. Micheels, A. Karme, R. L. Bernor, and M. Fortelius. 2009. Distribution history and climatic controls of the Late Miocene Pikermian chronofauna. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:11867– 11871.

Eronen, J. T., P. D. Polly, M. Fred, J. Damuth, D. C. Frank, V. Mos-brugger, C. Scheidegger, N. C. Stenseth, and M. Fortelius. 2010. Ecometrics: Th e traits that bind the past and present together. Integrative Zoology 5:88– 101.

Fahlbusch, V., Z.- d. Qiu, and G. Storch. 1983. Neogene mammalian faunas of Ertemte and Harr Obo in Nei Monggol, China. 1 Report

Science and Technology grant (No. 2006FY120400) from the Ministry of Science and Technology.

REFERENCES

All- China Stratigraphic Commission. 2001. Regional Stratigraphic Guide of China and Its Explanation. Revised ed. Beijing: Geologi-cal Publishing House.

Alroy, J. 1992. Conjunction among taxonomic distributions and the Miocene mammalian biochronology of the Great Plains. Paleobi-ology 18:326– 343.

Alroy, J. 1994. Appearance event ordination: A new biochronologic method. Paleobiology 20:191– 207.

Alroy, J. 1998. Diachrony of mammalian appearance events: Impli-cations for biochronology. Geology 26:23– 26.

Alroy, J. 2000. New methods for quantifying macroevolutionary pat-terns and pro cesses. Paleobiology 26:707– 733.

Alroy, J., R. L. Bernor, M. Fortelius, L. Werdelin. 1998. Th e MN System: Regional or Continental? Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammllung für Paläontologie und historische Geologie 38:243– 258.

Andrews, P. and B. Alpagut. 1990. Description of the fossiliferous units at Paşalar, Turkey. Journal of Human Evolution 19:343– 361.

Barry, J. C., M. E. Morgan, A. J. Winkler, L. J. Flynn, E. H. Lindsay, L. L. Jacobs, and D. Pilbeam. 1991. Faunal interchange and Miocene terrestrial vertebrates of southern Asia. Paleobiology 17:231– 245.

Bernor, R. L., N. Solounias, C. C. Swisher III, and J. A. Van Couver-ing. 1996. Th e correlation of three classical “Pikermian” mammal faunas— Maragheh, Samos, and Pikermi— with the Eu ro pe an MN unit system. In Th e Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, ed. R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.- W. Mitt-mann, pp. 137– 154. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bi, Z.- g., Z.- j. Yu, and Z.- x. Qiu. 1977. First discovery of mammal re-mains from upper Tertiary deposits near Nanking. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 15:126– 138.

Brandy, L. D. 1981. Rongeurs muroïdés du Néogène supérieur d’Af-ghan i stan: Évolution, biogéographie, corrélations. Palaeoverte-brata 25:133– 149.

Chaimanee, Y., C. Yamee, B. Marandat, and J.- J. Jaeger. 2007. First middle Miocene rodents from the Mae Moh Basin (Th ailand): Biochronological and paleoenvironmental implications. Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 39:157– 163.

Chaimanee, Y., C. Yamee, P. Tian, K. Khaowiset, B. Marandat, P. Taff oreau, C. Nemoz, and J.- J. Jaeger. 2006. Khoratpithecus piriyai, a Late Miocene hominoid of Th ailand. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131:311– 323.

Chen, W.- y. 1986. Preliminary studies of sedimental environment and taphonomy in the hominoid fossil site of Lufeng. Acta An-thropologica Sinica 5:89– 100.

Chen, X.- f. 1994. Stratigraphy and large mammals of the “Jinglean” Stage, Shanxi, China. Quaternary Science 1994:339– 352.

Chen, X., J.- y. Rong, J.- x. Fan, R.- b. Zhan, C. E. Mitchell, D. A. T. Harper, M. J. Melchin, P.- a. Peng, S. C. Finney, and X.- f. Wang. 2006. Th e Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the base of the Hirnantian Stage (the uppermost of the Ordo-vician System). Episodes 29:183– 196.


International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classifi cation of IUGS International Commission on Stratigraphy. New York: Wiley.

Höck, V., G. Daxner- Höck, H. P. Schmid, D. Badamgarav, W. Frank, G. Furtmüller, O. Montag, R. Barsbold, Y. Khand, and J. Sodov. 1999. Oligocene- Miocene sediments, fossils and basalts from the Valley of Lakes (Central Mongolia): An integrated study. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geologischen Gesellschaft 90:83– 125.

Huang, W.- b., H.- x. Ji, W.- y. Chen, C.- q. Hsu, and S.- h. Zheng. 1980. Pliocene stratum of Guizhong and Bulong Basin, Xizang. In Pale-ontology of Tibet, Part 1, ed. Qinghai- Tibetan Plateau Compre-hensive Scientifi c Investigation Team of Chinese Academy of Sci-ences, pp. 4– 17. Qinghai- Tibetan Plateau Scientifi c Investigation Series. Beijing: Science Press.

Jin, C.- z. 2004. Fossil leporids (Mammalia, Lagomorpha) from Huainan, Anhui, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 42:230– 245.

Jin, C.- z., Y. Kawamura, and H. Taruno. 1999. Pliocene and early Pleistocene insectivore and rodent faunas from Dajushan, Qipan-shan and Haimao in North China and the reconstruction of the faunal succession from the late Miocene to middle Pleistocene. Osaka City University Journal of Geosciences 42:1– 19.

Kaakinen, A. and J. P. Lunkka. 2003. Sedimentation of the Late Mio-cene Bahe Formation and its implications for stable environ-ments adjacent to Qinling mountains in Shaanxi, China. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 22:67– 78.

Kappelman, J., A. Duncan, M. Feseha, J. P. Lunkka, D. Ekart, F. Mc-Dowell, T. M. Ryan, and C. C. Swisher III. 2003. Chronology. In Geology and Paleontology of the Miocene Sinap Formation, Turkey, ed. M. Fortelius, J. Kappelman, S. Sen, and R. L. Bernor, pp. 41– 66. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kordikova, E. G. and A. V. Mavrin. 1996. Stratigraphy and Oligocene- Miocene mammalian biochronology of the Aktau Mountains, Dzhungarian Alatau Range, Kazakhstan. Palaeover-tebrata 25:141– 174.

Kordikova, E. G., E. P. J. Heizmann, and A. V. Mavrin. 2000. Early Miocene Carnivora of Aktau Mountains, south eastern Kazakh-stan. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 74:195– 204.

Li, C.- k., Y.- p. Lin, Y.- m. Gu, L.- h. Hou, W.- y. Wu, and Z.- d. Qiu. 1983. Th e Aragonian vertebrate fauna of Xiacaowan, Jiangsu. 1. A brief introduction to the fossil localities and preliminary report on the new material. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 21:313– 327.

Li, C.- k. and Z.- d. Qiu. 1980. Early Miocene mammalian fossils of Xining basin, Qinghai. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 18:198– 214.

Li, C.- k., Z.- d. Qiu, and S.- j. Wang. 1981. Discussion on Miocene stra-tigraphy and mammals from Xining basin, Qinghai. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 19:313– 320.

Li, C.- k., W.- y. Wu, and Z.- d. Qiu. 1984. Chinese Neogene: Subdivi-sion and correlation. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 22:163– 178 (in Chi-nese with En glish abstract).

Li, Q., X.- m. Wang, and Z.- d. Qiu. 2003. Pliocene mammalian fauna of Gaotege in Nei Mongol (Inner Mongolia), China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 41:104– 114.

Liu, L.- p., J. T. Eronen, and M. Fortelius. 2009. Signifi cant mid- latitude aridity in the middle Miocene of East Asia. Palaeogeogra-phy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 279:201– 206.

Lopatin, A. V. 2004. Th e Early Miocene small mammals from the North Aral region (Kazakhstan) with special reference to their

on fi eld work in 1980 and preliminary results. Scientia Sinica, ser. B, 26:205– 224.

Fang, X.- m., M.- d. Yan, R. Van der Voo, D. K. Rea, C.- h. Song, J. M. Parés, J.- p. Gao, J.- s. Nie, and S. Dai. 2005. Late Cenozoic defor-mation and uplift of the NE Tibetan Plateau: Evidence from high- resolution magnetostratigraphy of the Guide Basin, Qing-hai Province, China. Geological Society of America Bulletin 117:1208– 1225.

Flynn, L. J. 2008. Paleobiogeographic affi nity across southern Asia during the Miocene: Small mammals refl ect the Oriental Realm. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28:78A.

Flynn, L. J., J. C. Barry, M. E. Morgan, D. Pilbeam, L. L. Jacobs, and E. H. Lindsay. 1995. Neogene Siwalik mammalian lineages: Spe-cies longevities, rates of change, and modes of speciation. Palaeo-geography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 115:249– 264.

Flynn, L. J. and R. L. Bernor. 1987. Late Tertiary mammals from the Mongolian People’s Republic. American Museum Novitates 2872:1– 16.

Flynn, L. J., R. H. Tedford, and Z.- x. Qiu. 1991. Enrichment and sta-bility in the Pliocene mammalian fauna of North China. Paleobi-ology 17:246– 265.

Flynn, L. J., W.- y. Wu, and W. R. Downs. 1997. Dating vertebrate microfaunas in the late Neogene record of northern China. Pal-aeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 133:227– 242.

Fortelius, M., J. Eronen, J. Jernvall, L.- p. Liu, D. Pushkina, J. Rinne, A. Tesakov, I. A. Vislobokova, Z.- q. Zhang, and L.- p. Zhou. 2002. Fossil mammals resolve regional patterns of Eurasian climate change over 20 million years. Evolutionary Ecol ogy Research 4:1005– 1016.

Fortelius, M., J. Eronen, L.- p. Liu, D. Pushkina, A. Tesakov, I. Vislo-bokova, and Z.- q. Zhang. 2003. Continental- scale hypsodonty patterns, climatic paleobiogoegraphy and dispersal of Eurasian Neogene large mammal herbivores. In Distribution and Mig-ration of Tertiary Mammals in Eurasia, A Volume in Honour of Hans de Bruijn, ed. J. W. F. Reumer and W. Wessels, pp. 1– 11. DEINSEA 10.

Fortelius, M., J. Eronen, L. Liu, D. Pushkina, A. Tesakov, I. Vislobo-kova, and Z.- q. Zhang. 2006. Late Miocene and Pliocene large land mammals and climatic changes in Eurasia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 238:219– 227.

Fortelius M., A. Gionis J. Jernvall and H. Mannila. 2006. Spectral ordering and biochronology of Eu ro pe an fossil mammals. Paleo-biology 32(2): 206– 214.

Fortelius, M. and Z.- q. Zhang. 2006. An oasis in the desert? History of endemism and climate in the late Neogene of North China. Palaeontographica, part A 277:131– 141.

Ginsburg, L. 1984. Les faunnes tertiaires du Nord de la Th aïlande. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, n.s., 47:67– 69.

Gnibidenko, Z. N. 1990. Paleomagnetism and magnetic stratigraphy of Neogene deposits in Pre- Irtisch region. Academy Sciences USSR (Siberian Branch), Geology Geophysics:85– 94.

Hanta, R., B. Ratanasthien, Y. Kunimatsu, H. Saegusa, H. Nakaya, S. Nagaoka, and P. Jintasakul. 2008. A new species of Bothriodon-tinae, Merycopotamus thachangensis (Cetartiodactyla, Anthracoth-eriidae) from the late Miocene of Nakhon Ratchasima, northeast-ern Th ailand. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28:1182– 1188.

Hedberg, H. D. 1976. International Stratigraphic Guide: A Guide to Stratigraphic Classifi cation, Terminology, and Procedure. First ed.

22 INTRODUCTION



Richard H. Tedford, ed. L. J. Flynn, pp. 586– 602. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 279.

Qiu, Z.- d. and C.- k. Li. 2005. Evolution of Chinese mammalian fau-nal regions and elevation of the Qinghai- Xizang (Tibet) Plateau. Science in China, ser. D, 48:1246– 1258.

Qiu, Z.- d. and G. Storch. 2000. Th e early Pliocene micromammalian fauna of Bilike, Inner Mongolia, China (Mammalia: Lipotyphla, Chiroptera, Rodentia, Lagomorpha). Senckenbergiana Lethaea 80:173– 229.

Qiu, Z.- d. and Q. Li. 2008. Late Miocene micromammals from the Qaidam Basin in the Qinghai- Xizang Plateau. Vertebrata PalAsi-atica 46:284– 306.

Qiu, Z.- x. 1989. Th e Chinese Neogene mammalian biochronology— its correlation with the Eu ro pe an Neogene mammalian zonation. In Eu ro pe an Neogene Mammal Chronology, ed. E. H. Lindsay, V. Fahlbusch, and P. Mein, pp. 527– 556. New York: Plenum Press.

Qiu, Z.- x. and Z.- d. Qiu. 1990. Th e sequence and division of mam-malian local faunas in the Neogene of China. Journal of Stratigra-phy 14:241– 260.

Qiu, Z.- x. and Z.- d. Qiu. 1995. Chronological sequence and subdivi-sion of Chinese Neogene mammalian faunas. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 116:41– 70.

Qiu, Z.- x., B.- y. Wang, Z.- d. Qiu, F. Heller, L.- p. Yue, G.- p. Xie, X.- m. Wang, and B. Engesser. 2001. Land mammal geochronology and magnetostratigraphy of mid- Tertiary deposits in the Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province, China. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 94:373– 385.

Qiu, Z.- x., W.- y. Wu, and Z.- d. Qiu. 1999. Miocene mammal faunal sequences of China: Palaeozoogeography and Eurasian relation-ships. In Th e Miocene Land Mammals of Eu rope, ed. G. E. Rössner and K. Heissig, pp. 443– 472. Munich: Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.

Quade, J., D. O. Breecker, M. Daëron, and J. Eiler. 2011. Th e paleoal-timetry of Tibet: An isotopic perspective. American Journal of Sci-ence 311:77– 115.

Ratanasthien, B. 2002. Problems of Neogene biostratigraphic corre-lation in Th ailand and surrounding areas. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 19:235– 241.

Rowley, D. B. and B. S. Currie. 2006. Palaeo- altimetry of the late Eocene to Miocene, Lunpola Basin, central Tibet. Nature 439:677– 681.

Salvador, A. 1994. International Stratigraphic Guide— A Guide to Stratigraphic Classifi cation, Terminology, and Procedure. Second Edition. In International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classifi -cation of IUGS International Commission on Stratigraphy, ed. A. Salvador. Boulder: Geological Society of America.

Sasagawa, I., K. Takahashi, T. Sakumoto, H. Nagamori, H. Yabe, and I. Kobayashi. 2003. Discovery of the extinct red panda “Parailu-rus” (Mammalia, Carnivora) in Japan. Journal of Vertebrate Pale-ontology 23:895– 900.

Sen, S. 1983. Rongeurs et Lagomorphes du gisement Pliocène de Pul- e Charki, bassin de Kabul, Af ghan i stan. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 5th ser., 5C:33– 74.

Sen, S. 1996. Present state of magnetostratigraphic studies in the continental Neogene of Eu rope and Anatolia. In Th e Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, ed. R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.- W. Mittmann, pp. 57– 63. New York: Co-lumbia University Press.

Sen, S. 2001. Rodents and insectivores from the upper Miocene of Molayan, Af ghan i stan. Palaeontology 44:913– 932.

biostratigraphic signifi cance. Paleontological Journal 38(suppl. 3):217– 323.

Lucas, S. G., B. U. Bayshashov, L. A. Tyutkova, A. K. Shamangara, and B. Z. Aubekerov. 1997. Mammalian biochronology of the Paleogene- Neogene boundary at Aktau Mountain, eastern Ka-zakhstan. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 71:305– 314.

Lucas, S. G., R. J. Emry, B. U. Bayshashov, and L. A. Tyutkova. 2009. Cenozoic mammalian biostratigraphy and biochronology in the Zaysan Basin, Kazakstan. In Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleon-tology, and Biostratigraphy in Honor of Michael O. Woodburne, ed. L. B. Albright, III. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65:621–633.

Lucas, S. G., R. J. Emry, V. Chkhikvadze, B. U. Bayshashov, L. A. Tyutkova, F. A. Tleuberdina, and A. Zhamangara. 2000. Chapter 29, Upper Cretaceous- Cenozoic lacustrine deposits of the Zaysan Basin, eastern Kazakhstan. In Lake Basins Th rough Space and Time, ed. E. H. Gierlowski- Kordesch and K. R. Kelts, pp. 335– 340. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Special Vol-ume 46. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Mascarelli, A. L. 2009. Quaternary geologists win timescale vote. Nature 459:624.

Mein, P. and L. Ginsburg. 1997. Les mammifères du gisement Miocène inférieur de Li Mae Long, Th aïlande : Systématique, bio-stratigraphie et paléoenvironnement. Geodiversitas 19:783– 844.

Meng, J., B.- y. Wang, and Z.- q. Bai. 1996. A new middle Tertiary mammalian locality from Sunitezuoqi, Nei Mongol. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 34:297– 304.

Meng, J., J. Ye, W.- y. Wu, L.- p. Yue, and X.- j. Ni. 2006. A recommended boundary stratotype section for Xiejian Stage from northern Jung-gar Basin: Implications to related bio- chronostratigraphy and envi-ronmental changes. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 44:205– 236.

Meng, J., J. Ye, W.- y. Wu, X.- j. Ni, and S.- d. Bi. 2008. Th e Neogene Dingshanyanchi Formation in northern Junggar Basin of Xinjiang and its stratigraphic implications. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 46:90– 110.

Molnar, P. 2005. Mio- Pliocene growth of the Tibetan Plateau and evo-lution of East Asian climate. Palaeontologia Electronica 8:1– 23.

Passey, B. H., L. K. Ayliff e, A. Kaakinen, Z. Zhang, J. T. Eronen, Y. Zhu, L. Zhou, T. E. Cerling, and M. Fortelius. 2009. Strength-ened East Asian summer monsoons during a period of high- latitude warmth? Isotopic evidence from Mio- Pliocene fossil mammals and soil carbonates from northern China. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 277:443– 452.

Pevzner, M. A., E. A. Vangengeim, V. I. Zhegallo, V. S. Zazhigin, and I. G. Liskun. 1982. Correlation of the upper Neogene sediments of entral Asia and Eu rope on the basis of paleomagnetic and biostratigraphic data. International Geology Review 25:1075– 1085.

Puolamäki, K. M., Fortelius, and H. Mannila. 2006. Seriation in pa-leontological data using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. PLoS Computational Biology 2:e6.

Qi, G.- q. 1985. Stratigraphic summarization of Ramapithecus fossil locality, Lufeng, Yunnan. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 4:55– 69.

Qiu, Z.- d. 1996. Middle Miocene Micromammalian Fauna from Tung-gur, Nei Mongol. Beijing: Academic Press.

Qiu, Z.- d. 2001. Cricetid rodents from the middle Miocene Quantou-gou Fauna of Lanzhou, Gansu. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 39:204– 214.

Qiu, Z.- d. and C.- k. Li. 2003. Rodents from the Chinese Neogene: Biogeographic relationships with Eu rope and North America. In Vertebrate Fossils and Th eir Context: Contributions in Honor of


Vekua, A. and D. Lordkipanidze. 2008. Th e history of vertebrate fauna in eastern Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgian National Acad-emy of Sciences 2:149– 155.

Vislobokova, I. A. 2009. A new species of Megacerini (Cervidae, Ar-tiodactyla) from the Late Miocene of Taralyk- Cher, Tuva (Rus-sia), and remarks on the relationships of the group. Geobios 42(3):397– 410.

Vislobokova, I. A., M. V. Sotnikova, and A. E. Dodonov. 2001. Late Miocene- Pliocene mammalian faunas of Rus sia and neighbour-ing countries. Bullettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 40:307– 313.

Wallace, A. R. 1876. Th e Geo graph i cal Distribution of Animals. With a Study of the Relations of Living and Extinct Faunas as Elucidating the Past Changes of the Earth’s Surface. Vol. 1. New York: Harper.

Wang, X., Z.- d. Qiu, Q. Li, Y. Tomida, Y. Kimura, Z. J. Tseng, and H.- j. Wang. 2009. A new early to late Miocene fossiliferous region in central Nei Mongol: Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy in Aoerban strata. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 47:111– 134.

Wang, X., Z.- d. Qiu, Q. Li, B.- y. Wang, Z.- x. Qiu, W. R. Downs, G.- p. Xie, J.- y. Xie, T. Deng, G. T. Takeuchi, Z. J. Tseng, M.- m. Chang, J. Liu, Y. Wang, D. Biasatti, Z. Sun, X. Fang, and Q. Meng. 2007. Vertebrate paleontology, biostratigraphy, geochronology, and pa-leoenvironment of Qaidam Basin in northern Tibetan Plateau. Pal-aeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 254:363– 385.

Wang, X., Z.- d. Qiu, and N. O. Opdyke. 2003. Litho-, bio-, and mag-netostratigraphy and paleoenvironment of Tunggur Formation (Middle Miocene) in central Inner Mongolia, China. American Museum Novitates 3411:1– 31.

Wang, X., B.- y. Wang, Z.- x. Qiu, G.- p. Xie, J.- y. Xie, W. R. Downs, Z.- d. Qiu, and T. Deng. 2003. Danghe area (western Gansu, China) biostratigraphy and implications for depositional history and tectonics of northern Tibetan Plateau. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 208:253– 269.

Wang, X., G.- p. Xie, Q. Li, Z.- d. Qiu, Z. J. Tseng, G. T. Takeuchi, B.- y. Wang, M. Fortelius, A. Rosenström- Fortelius, H. Wahlquist, W. R. Downs, C.- f. Zhang, and Y. Wang. 2011. Early explorations of Qaidam Basin (Tibetan Plateau) by Birger Bohlin— reconciling classic vertebrate fossil localities with modern biostratigraphy. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 49:285– 310.

Whybrow, P. J. and D. Clemens. 1999. Arabian Tertiary fauna, fl ora, and localities. In Fossil Vertebrates of Arabia, with Emphasis on the Late Miocene Faunas, Geology, and Palaeoenvironments of the Emir-ate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, ed. P. J. Whybrow and A. Hill, pp. 460– 473. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Whybrow, P. J., H. A. McClure, and G. F. Elliott. 1987. Miocene stra-tigraphy, geology and fl ora (Algae) of eastern Saudi Arabia and the Ad Dabtiyah vertebrate locality. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 41:371– 381.

Wood, H. E., R. W. Chaney, J. Clark, E. H. Colbert, G. L. Jepsen, J. B. Reeside Jr., and C. Stock. 1941. Nomenclature and correla-tion of the North American continental Tertiary. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 52:1– 48.

Woodburne, M. O. 1987. Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Geo-chronology and Biostratigraphy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Woodburne, M. O. 2004. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sen, S. and M. A. Erbajeva. 2011. A new species of Gobicricetodon Qiu 1996 (Mammalia, Rodentia, Cricetidae) from the Middle Mio-cene Aya Cave, Lake Baikal. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 49:257– 274.

Song, C.- h., D.- l. Gao, X.- m. Fang, Z.- j. Cui, J.- j. Li, S.- l. Yang, H.- b. Jin, D. W. Burbank, and J. L. Kirschvink. 2005. Late Cenozoic high- resolution magnetostratigraphy in the Kunlun Pass Basin and its implications for the uplift of the northern Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin 50:1912– 1922.

Sotnikova, M. V. 2006. A new canid Nurocyon chonokhariensis gen. et sp. nov. (Canini, Canidae, Mammalia) from the Pliocene of Mongolia. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 256:11– 21.

Sotnikova, M. V., A. E. Dodonov, and A. V. Pen’kov. 1997. Upper Cenozoic bio- magnetic stratigraphy of Central Asian mamma-lian localities. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 133:243– 258.

Steininger, F. F. 1999. Chronostratigraphy, geochronology and bio-chronology of the Miocene “Eu ro pe an Land Mammal Mega- Zone” (ELMMZ) and the Miocene “Mammal- Zones (MN- Zones”). In Th e Miocene Land Mammals of Eu rope, ed. G. E. Rössner and K. Heissig, pp. 9– 24. Munich: Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.

Steininger, F. F., W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, R. L. Bernor, S. Sen, and J. Agustí. 1996. Circum- Mediterranean Neogene (Miocene and Pliocene) marine- continental chronologic correlations of Eu ro pe an mammal units. In Th e Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, ed. R. L. Bernor, V. Fahlbusch, and H.- W. Mittmann, pp. 7– 46. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tedford, R. H., L. B. Albright III, A. D. Barnosky, I. Ferrusquía- Villafranca, R. M. Hunt Jr., J. E. Storer, C. C. Swisher III, M. R. Voorhies, S. D. Webb, and D. P. Whistler. 2004. Mammalian bio-chronology of the Arikareean through Hemphillian interval (Late Oligocene through Early Pliocene Epochs). In Late Creta-ceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology, ed. M. O. Woodburne, pp. 169– 231. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tedford, R. H., L. J. Flynn, Z.- x. Qiu, N. O. Opdyke, and W. R. Downs. 1991. Yushe Basin, China: paleomagnetically calibrated mammalian biostratigraphic standard for the late Neogene of eastern Asia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 11:519– 526.

Tedford, R. H. and C. R. Harington. 2003. An Arctic mammal fauna from the Early Pliocene of North America. Nature 425:388– 390.

Th omas, H. 1983. Les Bovidae (Artiodactyla, Mammalia) du Miocène moyen de la formation Hofuf (Province de Hasa, Arabie Saoudite). Palaeovertebrata 13:157– 206.

Tomida, Y. and C.- z. Jin. 2009. Two new species of Pliopentalagus (Leporidae, Lagomorpha) from the Pliocene of Anhui Province, China, with a revision of Pl. huainanensis. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 47:53– 71.

Tong, Y.- s., S.- h. Zheng, and Z.- d. Qiu. 1995. Cenozoic mammal ages of China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 33:290– 314.

Vangengeim, E. A., A. N. Lungu, and A. S. Tesakov. 2006. Age of the Vallesian lower boundary (continental Miocene of Eu rope). Strati-graphy and Geological Correlation 14:655– 667.

Vangengeim, E. A., I. A. Vislobokova, A. Y. Godina, E. L. Dmitrieva, V. I. Zhegalla, M. V. Sotnikova, and P. A. Tleuberdina. 1993. On the age of mammalian fauna from the Karabulak Formation of the Kalmakpai River (Zaisan Depression, eastern Kazakhstan). Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 1:37– 44.

24 INTRODUCTION



Zhang, Y.- x., X.- x. Xue, and L.- p. Yue. 1995. Age and division of Neo-gene “red bed” of Laogaochuan, Fugu County, Shaanxi. Journal of Stratigraphy 19:214– 219.

Zhang, Z.- q., A. W. Gentry, A. Kaakinen, L.- p. Liu, J. P. Lunkka, Z.- d. Qiu, S. Sen, R. S. Scott, L. Werdelin, S.- h. Zheng, and M. Fortel-ius. 2002. Land mammal faunal sequence of the late Miocene of China: New evidence from Lantian, Shaanxi Province. Verte-brata PalAsiatica 40:165– 176.

Zhang, Z.- q., L.- h. Wang, A. Kaakinen, L.- p. Liu, and M. Fortelius. 2011. Miocene mammalian faunal succession from Damiao, cen-tral Nei Mongol and the environmental changes. Quaternary Sci-ences 31:608– 613.

Zheng, S.- h. 1980. Th e Hipparion fauna of Bulong Basin, Biru, Xi-zang. In Paleontology of Tibet, Part 1, ed. Qinghai- Tibetan Plateau Comprehensive Scientifi c Investigation Team of Chinese Acad-emy of Sciences, 33–47. Qinghai- Tibetan Plateau Scientifi c In-vestigation Series. Beijing: Science Press.

Zheng, S.- h., W.- y. Wu, and Y. Li. 1985. Late Cenozoic mammalian faunas of Guide and Gonghe basins, Qinghai Province. Verte-brata PalAsiatica 23:89– 134.

Zheng, S.- h. and Z.- q. Zhang. 2001. Late Miocene- early Pleistocene biostratigraphy of the Leijiahe area, Lingtai, Gansu. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 39:215– 228.

Zhu, R.- x., Q.- s. Liu, H.- t. Yao, Z.- t. Guo, C.- l. Deng, Y.- x. Pan, L.- q. Lü, Z.- g. Chang, and F. Gao. 2005. Magnetostratigraphic dating of hominoid- bearing sediments at Zhupeng, Yuanmou Basin, south-western China. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 236:559– 568.

Zhu, Y.- m., L.- p. Zhou, D.- w. Mo, A. Kaakinen, Z.- q. Zhang, and M. Fortelius. 2008. A new magnetostratigraphic framework for late Neogene Hipparion red clay in the eastern Loess Plateau of China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecol ogy 268:47– 57.

Zykin, V. S. and V. S. Zazhigin. 2004. A new biostratigraphic level of Pliocene in West Siberia and the age of the lower- middle Miocene stratotype of the Beshcheul horizon. Doklady Earth Sciences 398:904– 907.

Zykin, V. S., V. S. Zykina, and V. S. Zazhigin. 2007. Issues in separat-ing and correlating Pliocene and Quaternary sediments of south-western Siberia. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 2(30):24– 40.

Woodburne, M. O. and C. C. Swisher III. 1995. Land mammal high- resolution geochronology, intercontinental overland dispersals, sea level, climate, and vicariance. In Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlation: A Unifi ed Framework for a Historical Geology, ed. W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent, M. P. Aubry, and J. A. Hardenbol, pp. 335– 364. Society of Economic Paleon-tology and Mineralogy Special Publications 54. Tulsa: Society for Sedimentary Geology.

Xu, Y.- l., Y.- b. Tong, Q. Li, Z.- m. Sun, J.- l. Pei, and Z.- y. Yang. 2007. Magnetostratigraphic dating on the Pliocene mammalian fauna of the Gaotege section, central Inner Mongolia. Geological Review 53:250– 260.

Xue, X.- x., Y.- x. Zhang, and L.- p. Yue. 1995. Discovery and chrono-logical division of the Hipparion fauna in Laogaochuan Village, Fugu County, Shaanxi. Chinese Science Bulletin 40:926– 929.

Xue, X.- x., Y.- x. Zhang, and L.- p. Yue. 2006. Paleoenvironments indi-cated by the fossil mammalian assemblages from red clay- loess sequence in the Chinese Loess Plateau since 8.0 Ma B.P. Science in China, ser. D, 49:518– 530.

Yin, H.- f., K.- x. Zhang, J.- n. Tong, Z.- y. Yang, and S.- b. Wu. 2001. Th e Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) of the Permian- Triassic Boundary. Episodes 24:102– 114.

Yue, L.- p., T. Deng, R. Zhang, Z.- q. Zhang, F. Heller, J.- q. Wang, and L.- r. Yang. 2004. Paleomagnetic chronology and record of Himalayan movements in the Longgugou section of Gyirong- Oma Basin in Xizang (Tibet). Chinese Journal of Geophysics 47:1135– 1142.

Yue, L.- p. and Y.- x. Zhang. 1998. Hipparion fauna and magneto-stratigraphy in Hefeng, Jingle, Shanxi Province. Vertebrata Pal-Asiatica 36:76– 80.

Yue, L.- p. and Y.- x. Zhang. 2006. Paleomagnetic dating of Lufengp-ithecus lufengensis fossil strata. In Lufengpithecus hudienensis Site, ed. G.- q. Qi and W. Dong, pp. 252– 255. Beijing: Science Press.

Zhang, Y.- p., Y.- z. You, H.- x. Ji, and S.- y. Ting. 1989. Th e Cenozoic deposits of the Yunnan region. Professional Papers on Stratigraphy and Paleontology 7:1– 21.

Zhang, Y.- x., D.- h. Sun, Z.- s. An, and X.- x. Xue. 1999. Mammalian fossils from late Pliocene (lower MN 16) of Lingtai, Gansu Prov-ince. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 37:190– 199.

ADDENDUM

Th e editors of this volume count among our highly esteemed colleagues all of the contributors herein. Well into produc-tion of this book, we were deeply moved by the passing of one of our authors, Eleonora Vangengeim (1930– 2012). Ele-onora was a key fi gure in vertebrate paleontology at the Geological Institute of the Rus sian Academy of Sciences. Her expertise led and inspired a generation of paleontologists throughout the world. Her focus was biostratigraphy and the evolution of Neogene mammalian complexes, emphasizing the geological setting of the vertebrate remains upon which we piece together the terrestrial biotic history of Asia. We benefi t from the rich legacy of her work. Th ank you, Eleonora.


fossil mammals of asia

Documents

jabal midra ash

ningxia autonomous region

united arab emirates

iugs international commission

tibetan autonomous region

xinjiang autonomous region

geological publishing house

columbia university press