THE UPPER CARBONIFEROUS OF FERGANA AND THEQUESTION OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE

CARBONIFEROUS AND THE PERM IAN

BY BORIS LICHAREW, LENINGRAD USSR1

The study of the Upper Carboniferous has been attracting much atten-tion recently and the question as to its extent and stratigraphy has been theobject of very serious discussion, but so far without any positive results. Thelarge territory of the Soviet Union affords no doubt great possibilities for thesolution of this problem. One must remember that it was in USSR wherethe extent of this division of the Carboniferous was for the first time estab-lished, at first by setting out the Permian system and then by the so-calledPermo-Carboniferous hain above and Middle Carboniferous or Moscovian frombelow. Chinese geologists hñe lately contributed a great deal to our know-ledge of the Upper Palozoic of Eurasia, and have kindly afforded one

of my colleagues the possibility of publishing in their geological journal a paperdiscussing the boundary between the Middle and Upper Carboniferous. Ialso avail myself of their kindness and wish to make some critical remarksconcerning the recently expressed opinions as to the extent of the UpperCarbonifetous, illustrating them by some data which I obtained from my notyet concluded study of the same in the Fergana valley of Soviet Turkestan.

Let us begin with a short history. The idea of referring the Uralian2to the Pennian system prevailing in a serins of later publications is of Russianorigin. In 1922 M. Noinsky in his report at the first National Conferenceof Russian geologists in Leningrad expressed an opinion that some of theUra!ian Upper Carbomferous limestones of Bashkyrian Ural, usually referred

Published by the permission of the Director of the Geological and ProapectingInstitute for Scientific Research.

2. The term Uralian series or Uralian is generally meant for the upper division ofthe Carboniferous. A. W. Grabau ud this tenu oniy for the denomination of theUpper Carboniferous of Ural Mountains the age of which he determines as thePennian. On this paper in order to avoid misunderstanding I shall employ theterm Uralian only ¡n this latter limited sense.

I.

156 Bulletin of the Geological Society of China

to the very upper parts of the Uralian, are synchronous to the Artinskian. Hedid not bring forward the question of revising the age of the Uralian ingeneral. As far as I am aware M. Noinsky's views have not been published,although some reference to them can be found in the American literature.' N.Gerassimow, M. Noinsky's pupil, who studied the fauna of the brachiopodsof the Sterlitamack limestone, discovered there a slight prevalence of speciescommon to the Trogkofel beds over the species common to the Auernig beds.This circumstance according to N. Gerassimow casts doubt on the UpperCarboniferous age of the above mentioned limestones.2 M. Gerassimow'sarguments based only on purely statistical comparison, are not very coñvincing.especially for such geologists who are inclined to refer the Trogkofel beds tothe lower parts of the Uralian.3

M. Noinsky's opinion has been supported in a short article by D.Nalivkin who investigated the territory of South Ural4 and later on G. Dut-kevitch stated that some Upper Carboniferous limestones of the Tcherdyn Ural,which outcrop in the shape of huge knobs among Artinsk sandstones, are infact a reef facies of the latter.5 To complete the review I must mentionthat G. Frederiks in his recently published paper states that Th. Tschernyschew'sCora horizon is situated within the boundaries of the Ufa Plateau stratigra-phically higher than the Artinskian and must therefore be referred to theKungurian. But the absence of somewhat convincing facts which could supportthis author's conclusions, who is generally rather shaky in his opinions, obligesus to defer to his conclusions with great caution.6

Thus so far all the Russian writers who have attacked the questionof the upper boundary of the Uratian admit there only partial alterations,

I. See for instance Ch. Keyes: Taxonomic analysis of Permian Term. Pan.American Geologist. V. LIV, 1930, p. 228.N. Gerassimow: The Brachiopods of the Sterlitamack limestone. Scientif.Papers of the Kazan State Univ. V. L)(XXIX, book 5-6, 1929, p. 864.The author begs to note that he personally does not share this opinion.D. Nalivkin: Geology of South Ural. Ann. de l'lnst. des Mines a Leningrad.V. VII, 1926, p. 87.G. Dutkevitch, in the Annual Report of Petroleum Geological and ProspectingInstitute for 1930, l93l, p. 56-57. Ibidem for 1931, 1933, p. 58.G. Frederiks: Ablanderung in der Stratigraphie der oberen Palacozoikums desUrals.Mem. Soc. Russe Mineral.. Ser. 2. y. LXII, L. 1. 1933, p. 89.

Lidwrew : Upper Carbonijerous of Fergana 157

nothing more. At the same time the geologists of other countries have a

tendency to a more serious reform of the extent of the latter. The mostdecided opinion on this subject was expressed by J. Beede, who after a longstudy of the Upper Palozoic section of Kansas and Oklahoma, came to theconclusion that the lower boundary of the Permian must be traced in thesestates to the bottom of the Neya Limestone, with which the first appearanceof Schwagerina is connected.1 As the latter genus is also widely distributedin Eurasia J. Beede finds it expedient to consider this first appearance ofSchwagerina to be the beginning o'f the Periman. J Beede also gives muchattention to the age of the Uralian, according to him the fauna of theSchwagerina Limestone is closely connected with that of the Aitinskian, whilethe fauna of lower horizons of the Uralian appears to bear on the contrarya more ancient character. At present we know however that the "Schwagerinahorizon" of Th. Tschernyschew constitutes only a reef (bryozory) facies ofthe Uralian2 (according to G. Dutkevitch and Periman also). A more youthfulaspect of its fauna can evidently be explained by the more favourable conditionsin which this fauna developed, living among densely populated bryozory reefswhich supplied abundant nourishment. It is worthy of note that out of thesegenera of Brachiopods, which J. Beecle considers the youngest and which inthe Urals are characteristic only for the Schwagerina horizon or for the Pennian3,at least one hall of them, according to the unpublished data of M. Tolstikhina,are present in a fairly 1ow horizon of the Uralian, namely in the TchemajaRetchka horizon. As to Schwagerina they occur in the Ural in the samehorizon i.e. together with Omphalofrochus whilneyi Meek; on the Northernand Southern Timan, Sdiwagerina princeps is also associated with this gastropodand occurs in the lower part of the Uralian section.4 Thus, if we accept the

I. J. Beecle and H. Kniker: Species of the genus Schwa germa oct. Univ. Texas.Bull. No. 2433, 1924.M. Tolstikhina: On some Reef Formation in the Upper Carboni ferous depositsof the Ufa Plateau. Bull, of Un. Geol. and Prosp. Service of USSR, y, LI,fas. 93, 1932.Namely: Notothyris, Aulocoihyris, Keyserlingina, Terebratuloides Spirijerdia,Martiniopsis, A ulosteges and Proboscideila (? B.L).B. Licharew. Report on the geological explorations in the region of the Vychegda-Petchora Watershed during 1930. Bull, of Un. Geol. and Prosp. Serv, ofUSSR. V. LI, fas. 65, 1932, p. 949.

158 Bulletin of the Geologkd Sodety of Clna

fact of the presence of Schuxzgerino as testimony of the Permian Urafian, thisaccording to J. Bcede himself contains a fauna of a more ancient aspect.

Ch. Schuchert while accepting J. Beede's opinion in general did notbring forward any confirmation of it in any new or weighty arguments ;2 onthe contrary in a large monograph A. \V. Graban offers a more radical reformof the Upper Carboniferous, exhaustingly documented.3 lt is a pity that theauthor in this serious and interesting work, whilst giving much attention to thequestions of the stratigraphy of the Russian Upper Palozoic, at the same tiu'shows an insufficient knowledge of the Russian literature which was not probablyaccessible to him. Therefore it is not possible to accept some of his conclusions.As Grabau's work seems to have influenced in a high degree th views ofthe Chinese geologists I shall dwell a littk longer on some of his conclusions.

A. W. Grabau comes to the acknowledgment of the Permian age of theUralian in a somewhat round-about way. At the very beginning, of his generalreview he states that the age of the Productos Limestone of the Salt-Range isundoubtedly Permian. He infers it by comparing its fauna with that whichoccurs in the positively established Permian leposits of China. and by compar-ing then the fauna of this limestone with the Uralian he comes to the èonclsionof the synchronisation of these deposits. In fact Grabau repeats the saineanalysis which 30 years ago Th. Tschernyschew made. The Russian author.as it is known, obtained nearly the same results, but he inferred from thiscomparison exactly the opposite conclusion, namely he referred the greaterpart of the Productus Limestone to the Upper Carboniferous and afterwardsthe same age was ascribed to the Lopingian in Southern China. 1f we takeinto consideration that the Persian system was established by Mwchi50 in theEuropean part of the Soviet Union, and that the Uralian has alway. been

I. K. Novik described Sthuagerina carbonka Novik even from the horizon C,2 ofthe Donetz basin, but the correctnesa of their generic determinatjo, must beverified. See K. Novik Ijeber einige Vertreter der Foranriniferen de, Carbonsdes Donetz-beckens etc. Scieu. Magaz. of the Geological Cathode, of Dhno-propetrovsk, 1927 (in Russian).

Ch. Schuchert: Review of the late palozok formations and faunas. etc. Bull.of the Geol. Soc. of Am. V. 39, 1929, p. 801. 806.A. W. Grbau: The Fennkn of Mongolia, Natural History of Central Asia,IV, 1931.

Lkharew --Upper Carhoniferous of Fergana 59r

considered as belonging to the Upper Carboniferous, we can infer that Th.Tschernyschews conclusion was more logical. It is another question howeverhow far the synchronisation in the above mentioned deposits, which both authorsaccept, was correctly established.

Contrary to J. Beede, A. W. Crabau not only refers the Schwagerina Bedsto the Permian, but he refers them nearly all to the Uralian, except the lowesthorizon with Spirijer marcoui Waagen (C3'a according to Th. Tschernyschew'sdesignation) which in his opinion is the only horizon representing the UpperCarboniferous in the Ural Mountain.

The oniy argument which Grabau brings forward in favour of sucha division of the Urahan is the presence of a hiatus and a disconformity which,as he supposes, divides the horizon (l'b from C'a.

In the Russian geological literature we however do not find any indica-Lions as to the existence of such a hiatus in the Uralian sections; on the contrary1it is stated that it is very difficult to mark here the Middle Carboniferous andseparate the horizon C3a from GTb. A somewhat different relation was givenby Th. Tschernyschew only for the northern outskirts of the Timan, where heactually observed in some outcrops at the bottom of the horizon C31b a layer ofthe arkose sandstone of. but slight thickness; if we accept Grabau's opinionthat this sandstone testifies a 'period of change in sedimentation", it is incon-ceivabje why the presence of this layer must infallibly indicate the existence of"a hiatus of unknown length". Graban indicates that in the section BelojeTschellje Omphalotrochus beds lie unconformably on the sericite schists, butit is a mistake, because these schists do not occur in the given region anywhere.A5 to the section on Petshorskaja Pijma, cited by Graban, there i5 accordingto the author himself, no hiatus whatever between Cs'a and (l'b and a hiatusbetween C3'a and G is not even mentioned by Th. Tschemyschew himself.The presence of clastic deposits among the cakarnous strata on the NorthernTiman can indicate the oscillation cf the coastal line probably situated not farfrom this region, but we have no foundation whatever to suppose here, neithert14e presence of a hiatus of some length, nor to extend these conclusions to thewhole region of the development of the Urahan.

160 Bulletin ej the Geological Society of China

For the confirmation of the opinion in favour of an universal hiatusbetween the horizon C3'a and C31b it would be advisable to compare the faunawhich they contain. Unfortunately Th Tscheruyschew indicates only fewspecies from the horizon C3a. It is also worthy of note that Spirifer marceulWaagen which is usual for this horizon also occurs in the upper horizon, as wellas some Brachiopods, as for instance Productus (Produclus) orienklis Tschernys-chew,1 Pr. (Productus) gruenewaldti Krotow var., Carnarophoria sella Kutorga.According to Th. Tschernyschew himself it is not always possible to draw astrict demarcation line between Q'a and C31b, in consequence of which heunites them into one horizon. This conclusion makes still more doubtful theexistence in that place of long hiatus and unconformity stated by Grabau.Besides in another place of his book Grahau himself does not apparentlybring these two horizons in opposition to one another,2 but speaks of theOmphalotrochus Limestone in a general way and says that it is divided fromthe beds with Spin/er moaquensis "by a well marked hiatus while anotherhiatus, though of less magnitude seems to separate them from Cora beds."

lt is a pity that Grabau does not dwell on the stratigraphy of theUpper Carboniferous developed within the Russian Platform, except of theDonetz basin. He only mentions that "the Gschellian with Spinier marcoulappears to represent a local development of a portion of the Ural Carboniferous

series, most of which in Eastern Russia is unrepresented." Unfortunately some

data which he gives about bathrological position o. separate strata, are wrongwhile they are very important for the correct solution of this question. Thuswhen speaking of leading Spin/er from the Taiyuan series (i.e. Chonistiles pailoviand Ch. trautscholdi) he says that the latter occurs in the Samara beds lyingaccording to him "as high up in the Russian Permian". At the same timein another place we learn that under the "Samara bed" he understands the

Russian Zechstein4 (or the Kazan stage) which does not contain the above

This denomination has been at first offered by Th. Tschernyschew for the formwhich was afterwardz by mistake identified by him with Pr. ¡nf latos MacU

chesney.

A. W. Grabau: Op. cit., p. 426.A. W Graban: Op. cit., p. 411.A. W. Grabau: Op. cit., p. 482,. 387.

Licharew Upper Carbonijerzus of Fer gana 16

mentioned Chorislites. Carboniferous deposits of the Sarnara Bend minutelydescribed by M. Noinsky1 in a large monograph, present a great interest forthe solution of this question. Here we find a continuous section of the UpperCarboniferous from the deposits with big Choristite to beds with Schwagerin«princeps, which according to M. Noinsky pass without any hiatus into lowerPermian deposits. The fauna of separate overlying horizons indicates a graduJprocss of its impoverishment shown by a sharp reduction of brachiopods thenumber of species of which drops in Schwagerina beds to 6: In lower hor0Cs besides the said Choristiles there occur also several Middle Carbonifetóu5Fusulinid such as Sta//ella sphroidea Moell. and Fusulinella bocki MoiiG. Frederiks denominates this horizon as the Samara horizon and refers it tothe Middle Carboniferous. Later on we shall return to his statement. G.Frederiks supposes the existence of a long hiatus.between thé Schwagerina bedsand the Permian, which continued during all of Lower Permian time but wedo not observe any apparent stratigraphical hiatus here and the fauna of LowerPermian present according to M. Noinsky only a more impoverished degenerafauna of the Upper Carboniferous, which has accomoclated itself to the life insalted basins. It is noteworthy that such rare and unknown species as Isogra,pachti Ditt.2 passes here from the Schwagenna beds into the Lower Permj

In the region of the Zna elevation a similar correlation predominat ingeneral between the Schwagerina beds and the Lower Permian, but faunjstjcally the Carboniferous is not yet studied well enough here. In the Moscovianbasin in the former government of Moscow the Schwagerina beds are absentaltogether. The composition of underlying horizons and their faunas are knownthrough A. Ivanov's works.3 The deposits of the Mjatcbkovo horizon of thMiddle Carboniferous with Spinier mosquensis are underlying here those of the

The monograph is published in Russian without a summary in a f3reign languageM. Noinsky: Samara Bend. Geological researches. Trans. of Natural HistorSoc. at the Kazan Univers. V. XLV, fas. 4-6, 1913.I very much doubt the correctness of the specific determination of this formis. pachti was, as it is known, descnbed by A. Dittniar from the Lowerboniferous.

A. Ivanov: Dépots du carbonifère moyen et supérieur du gouvernementMoscou. Bull, de la Soc. Natur, de Moscou, Sec. Géolog. T. IV. ¡926.

162 Bulletin c the Geological SocieL, of China

upper division separated from them by a thin (O,OSO,2m) layer o the calcarcou'conglomerate, which A. Ivanov does not consider to be "actual basal nonglomerate" but only an evidence of a rather sharp oscillation of the bottoro,unaccompanied by any abrasional denudation. The lower horizon is calledby A. Ivanov the Tegulifera beds, although the oniv one form, very brieflydescribed by him, apparently does not belong to Tegulijera but 'is ß. Kinnsupposes, must be referred to Prorichthofe.nia. lt is interesting to note thatanother species of the saine genus reappears already in the Mjatchkovo horizon.which contains a fairly considerable amount of species common to the "Teguli-fera" beds. The latter is in its turn closely connected by its fauna with theoverlying Omphalotrochus beds, aLready containing 5 species of O,nphdoro-chus, in that numbâ Orn. whitreyi Meek. The fauna of brachiopods hornthese beds is represented by 79 species, among which 9 are new species and 58occur in the Uralian. A. Ivanov hypothetically correlates ihe 'Tegulilera"beds with the horizon G' of Th. Tschemyschew.

In the Onega system the Upper Carboniferous deposits also are notseparated by any hiatus from the Middle Carboniferóus. The Upper. horizonwith Schu,agerina princeps contains in the upper part a small form of Productasinlated to Pr. cancrini. M. Tolstikhina supposes that this upper layer may betransitory to the Perniian.1

The above stated data contirm the absence of any sharp stratigraphicalor faunistical hiatus in the hanging and foot walls of the Upper Carhoniferouswithin the Russian Platform. On the other hand its fauna has a close relation-ship with the Uralian. The difference in the :verti& disposition of the samespecies in the Urals and on che platform may probably be explained by some

mistakes made at the interpretation of the stratigraphy of the Uralian and &soby the difference m the physico-geographical conditions during the depositionof these beds.

A. W. Graban allots much space in his work to the comparison of theUpper Carboniferous of the Oonet.z basin with the Uralian, in consequence ofwhich he comes to quite unexpected conclusions as to the absence of "valid

1. M. Tolstikhina: Note sur le Carbonifère dans les G,uvernements de la Dvina}a Nerd et da Volga, Veatnick of Geol, Conmittee, 1928, No. 9-lo, p. 12-13.

¿ici«reW --Upper Grrbonifcrow of Fergwna 16i

e',idencc for the correlation ut the Schwagerina limestone with the whole oreven a part o[ the Donetzian. The latter from its stratigraphic superpositionnust therefore re,rescn the Upper Caiboni1eus whereas the typical Uralian

must be considered a younger horizon.' '

How did Grabau corne to this conclusion? lt is not difficult toguess that he judges about the fauna of the Donetzian Upper Carboniferousfrom the list given in 1897 by L. Lutugin and Th. Tschernyschew, which hadbeen made a long time before the appearance of a well known monograph bythe lhtter author, in which fonnet determinations underwent considerable changesand a great many new species were established.

For the whole of ibe Doneiziarr Carboniferous only 58 species cibrachiopods are cited by Graban, but at the present time, although wehave no. monographical description of the latter, N. Lebedev alone cites aboutl41 species, but of which number 72 are from the tluee upper series (1'C"

Nevertheless we have very serious reasons to refer senes G' as yet tothe Middle Carboniferous. In this respect there is full agreement among allpdontologists studying seawater and freshwater faunas as well as among allpalobotanists. Thus if we leave out such forms which occur only in theeries G' we shafl have only 52 species of brachiopods out of which numbert is quite new, 34 occur in the Uralian and 10 in the indubitable Pennian.Only 5 species appear to have a more ancient character such as Enldetrs kmarkiFischer? Spirifer sfrangwysi Vern, Sp. lrigoaalis Martin and others.

Basing on these numbers and confining oneself like Grabau withthe comparison of the bradriopods only, one ought to make quite an oppositeinference to that made by this author, namely thd the Donetzian fauna iscontemporary and at any rate not more ancient than the Uralian one. Theobserved slight difference between them can be accounted by different facialconditions, which nevertheless had not much influenced the representativesof this cIa&. A somewhat different aspect in this respect is presented bypekcypods and gastropods. Besides the purely local forms one can observe

L A. W. Grtau: Op. cit. p. 44ti,2. N. Lebedew: Die Mateñalien aur Geologie des Doaetzbeckens Scient. Magoz

of the Geokt. Catheder of Doneproperrovsk. 1927. p. 34J9.

164 Bulletin of the Geological Society of China

among them a great many North American species: after D. Fedotow's studythe number of them in series and Cs' reaches 41.

According to A. W. Graban the presence of Asiatic elements in theUralian fauna speaks for the Permian age of the Iaer.

He supposes that there are evident proofs that in the Permian timethere existed two centres of fauna formation for Eurasia and North America,oneboreal and the otherpacific. The typical representative of the formerhe considers to be the fauna of Zechstein of Northern Europe.' If the faunaof the Schwagerina Limestone in Ural was actually at the place of its primarydevelopment and only afterwards spread itself in the Eastern andSouthern directions and became there a component of the Permian faunas,one must expect, according to Grabau, to meet it also in correspondingregions in North America, namely in the Palo-Cordillerian geosyncline,which is the continuation of the Boreal Sea in the Late Carbonic andPennian time, but. that according to Grabau did not take place.2 However

G Girty, a well known connoisseur of the North American UpperPaleozoic more than once pointed out the development in the western part ofNorth America of the fauna of the Gschellian type. In one of his works heplainly states for instance that Gschellian is related to Hueco, which E. Bose

refers to the lower parts of the Lower In another recent paper,

when speaking of the whole series of formations developed in the western partof North America G. Girty says: "the fauna of those Eormations thus tentatively grouped together, though preserving many local modifications, can ingeneral way be correlated with the Gschellian fauna of the Ural mountains,some of the American assemblages presenting truly remarkable resemblances

L lt is difficult to accept his hypothesis. as the Zechstein fauna bears a peculiaraspect of those unfavourable physico-geographical conditions which reined inthese half closed basins, considerably altering the original aspect of the faunathat penetrated here from the open sea.A. W. Grabau: Op. cit: 381. Similar views are expressed by Grabau in hispaper: Paleozoic Centres of Faunal Dispersions. Pan-American Geol. V.LVIII, No. 4, 1932, p. 283.G. Girty: Upper Carboniferous. J urn, of Geology. V. XVIII, No. 4, 1909.

4, G. Giny. The Fauna of the phosphate beds of Park City Formation etc. Bull.of U. S. Geol. Sv., No. 436, 1916, p. 10.

Licharew .Upp'r Carbonijerous of Fergana 165

of those of Russia". It is true however that later on this author has some-what changed his point of view respecting the age of these formations and inaccordance with other American writers began to consider them as Permian9but nevertheless he continues to draw attention to their close f aunistical resem-blance with the Uralian and Artinskian.1 In the present case only the latterconclusion of G. Girty is of interest to us. As to the Alaskan Upper PaIozoicfauna, its age owing to the absence of a monographical description of the latterremains questionable Thus the f aunistical exchange between the Uraliaiand Paheo-cordillerian geosnycline undoubtedly took place, probably as earlyas in the Upper Carboniferous or which is less probable in the Lower Permiantime.5

Now returning to the question of the presence of North Americanspecies in the Donetzian we have to acknowledge in case we accept thePalogeographical construction given by Grabau for the Upper carboniferoustime,4 that the basins containing similar fauna (West American and Donetzian)must be situated in the shape of vast gulfs on two opposite ends or anelongated ocean within the region of which this fauna is absent. Th. Tscher-nyschew formerly pointed out the correlation of the Donetzian fauna withthat of the states Ohio, Illinois and others drawing attention to the similarityof the facial conditions which existed there at that time. Perhaps this cir-cumstance evoked here the appearance of vicarious species which we acceptas identical only owing to the absence of comparative material or to the imper-f ection in the methods of paIontoIogical determinations. But perhap it imore natural to suppose that the migration of forms pioceeded through a Tethys

I. G. Girty: Note in J. Mansfield's Geography, Geology and Mineral resources ofPart of South Eastern Idaho etc. Prof. Pap. of U. S. Geol, Swv. No. 152,1927, p. 48-61.lt is interesting to note thau the Koihyma Lower Perinian fauna has no closeresemblance whatever with the Uraliar, faunas.Remember that Ch. Schuchert formerly considered it possible that the Schwager-ma fauna in th regions removed from the Uralian geosyncline. could exist ata geologically earlier time. Ch. Schuchert: The Russian Carboniferous andPermian etc. Amer. Journal of Science, V. XXII, .1906, p. 154. Lately Ch.Schuchert has apparntly adopted A. W. Grabau's point of view. See his review:The Pennian of Mongolia. Ibidem. V. XXII, No. 150, 1931.See A. W Grabau: A textbook of Geology. Pt. II. Historical Geology, p. 485.

166 Bulletin oJ th Geological Society al China

which opened into the Atlantic, along the northern coast of which there tookplace the exchange of faunas with the eastern North American Carbomferousbasin, in favour of this supposition there is the presence of the North Americanelements in the Carboniferous faunas of the Mediterranean.

I quite agree with A. W. Grabau's opinion as to the Permian age of theProductus Limestone and do not deny the possibility of some of the Uralianlimestone being actually a facies of the Artinskian but I cannot consider thereform of the stratigraphy of the Russian Upper Paleozoic, which h' offers.as an expedient one. The synchronisation of the Uralian with the MiddliProductus Limestone of Salt Range which both Tschernyschew and Grabashave accepted, might prove to be erroneous perhaps on account of its hein1based on the comparison of the faunas of brachiopods which were in a consider.able degree conservative and principally connected with different facies, perhaprbecause the conception of the variations of a species in Tschernyschcw's monograph was not taken narrow enough.

The above mentioned author's point of view is also shared by RKing and H. Frebold. The former author however does not specially dwellon Russian deposits) H.. Frebold considers that the presence of anAmmonoid fauna in the Schwagerina beds speaks in favour to the supposi-tion of its belonging to the Permian, as among its species there occurs such atypical Permian form as Medlicottia arliensis Gruenew2. But against thisargument the following objection can be brought forward. Firstly there aremany cases when a certain leading form is quite unexpectedly found in thedeposits belonging to a different age. One can cite the occurrence ofScachindla gigantea Schellw. in the Upper Carboniferous deposits of theUral Mountains or Fergana etc. On the other hand the Ammonoidea withcomplicated sutures which bring them near the Permian representatives, werefound not only in the Ural Mountains, but also in Texas in the lower partsof Cisco (Graham formation); Lower Permian unconformably overlying Cisco

R. King: The Geology of the Glass Mouzasns, Texas, Pt. II. Univ. ofTexas Bull, No. 3042, 1930.

H. Frebold: Marines Unterperm in Ostgroenland Medd. von Croenl. B. 84,No. 4, 1932. p. 23-30.

Licherew Upper Carbor.iferoiis of Fergena 167

separated from the beds with Ammonoidea by strata up to 900 feet thick.'Another explanation of this fact can also be found without the necessity of aradical reform of the Upper Paleozoic of the Ural. One must rememberthat out of few ammonoidea found in the Uralian the majority of them includingthe above mentioned Midlicottia arliensis Gruenew were described horn theso-called Krasnoufimsk beds cf G. Frederiks. According to the latter thelimestones of this horizon are exposed in the shape oí separate rock-remnantsamong the Artinskian and are separated from tht latter by a long hiatus andunconformity.2 Nevertheless as A. i'schernov notes there are many reasonsto consider the Krasnoufirnsk beds as belonging already to the Artínskian

Another attempt to revise the volume of the Russian Carboniferousbelongs to G. Frederiks who, offered it for the first time in 1928, but hasnot yet given any positive foundation for it. lt was supported by G. Rakusz,4but was severely criticized by S. Semikhatowa with whose opinion I fullyagree. in connection with this reform it is intereaittig to note that G. Frederiksand G. Rakusz came to the conclusion that the Taiyuan series are of theMiddle Carboniferous age, but the Chinese geologists consider them as LowerPerrnian. j. S. Lee also draws special attention to the fact that Schwagerincprktceps Mocil, is common to the whole series and occurs even at its very'ottom.6 0u the other hand one of the leading forms of the lower zone ofthis seriesSchellwienia srnplex Schellw. occupies in the Northern Ural also

I. P. Plummer aod K. Moor: Stratigraphy of the Pensylvanian Formations ofNorth Central Texas. Univ. of Texas, Bull. No. 2132, p. 146,G. Frederiks: Thé Upper Paleozoic of the 'Western slope of the Ural. Tran-sactions of the Geolog. and Prospect. Service of USSR. Fas. I 06 1932, p.86.A. Tschernov: On the absence of a break between Upper arboniferous andLower Pcnnian deposits of the Ural-Region. Bu1ktns of the Geokg. asidProspect. Service. V. LI, f ase. 21 1932, p. 360.G. Rakusr: Die Obercarbonischen Fossilien von Dobsina und Nagivishyo.Geol. Hungrica. Ser. Palacont. Fas. 8, 1930.S. Semichatowa: Contributicti to the question concerning the boun'dary betweenthe Upper and the Middle Carboniferous etc. Mein, of Nation. Reser. histit.of Geology, 1930, No. IX.3. S. Lee: Distribution of the dominant types of the Fusulinid foraminifera etBoll. Geol. Soc. China, V. X, 1931. p. 278.

168 Bulletin of the Geological Society of China

the lowest position in the Uralian. Choristites paviovi 'Stuck. mentioned before,occurs in the horizon Cab of the Upper Carboniferous of the Samara Bend.All this permits correlation with sufficient certainty of the Taiyuan series withthe Upper Carboniferous of the Russian Platform, but which in its lower partsbears a somewhat more ancient character. Perhaps this can be explained bythe presence of a sharp f aunistical hiatus which is pointed out by J. S. Leeand which is unknown within the Russian Platfonn.'

Let us turn now to the survey of the Upper Carboniferous of Fergana,the rection of which I had the opportunity of slightly studying in the summesof 1932. Of the greatest interest in this respect is a small range Kara-Tchstyr,stretching from the station Mujan (to the east of Fergana town) as far asthe Aravan rivef a little to the north of the well known radium deposit ofTuja-Mujan 2

The western termination of this range enables study of the uppermostbeds of the dislocated Upper Carboniferous deposits developed there. Oncrossing the above mentioned range by one of the footpaths, one canconstruct a fairly full section of the formations developed here which are wellexposed on the surface. The lithological character of these deposits is some-what similar to the Carboniferous deposits of the Donetz basin; it is characterizedby frequent interbedding of sandstones, shales and limestone, while the twolatter rocks are especially predominant; shales are developed at the bottomof the section and the limestones in its upper parts, conglomerates in thewestern part of the Kara-Tchatyr occupy only a very subordinate place, butin the eastern part their thickness is much augmented and is already measuredby scores and hundreds of meters. It is necessary 'to note the absence of any

signs of coal-bearing beds there.

The compound section (in the ascending order) of the western part otthe range is as follows:

I. 1. Ozaki's holding in doubt the age of Fenchi series is in my opinion ungrounded,as the age of a fauna is determined not by one or another form, but ,by thewhole complex of the latter, and the fauna of the given series has a strictlyMiddle Carboniferous character.

2. The first mention of the Upper Carboniferous deposits was thade here by W.Weber.

Licharew : Upper Carboniferous oJ Fergana 169

a ..-Compact thickly lamellated limestones with scarce fauna: Entdeles sp.nov., Productus sp. indet.;

b .Sandstones and conglomerates;

c..Shales with the intercalation of sandstones and mute limestones not lessthan 500 m.;

d .Limestones interbedded with conglomerates with Productcs (Pustula) sp.nov., Teguliferina cf. geniculata Ozaki;

e.Shales, sandstones and limestones, at the bottom conglomerates, the thick-fless of limestones increases towards the hanging wall. General thicknessof d and e is about 700 m.;

f.Limestones, partly shales and sandstones with Spin!er (Chonistiles) fruchtScheliw., Produclus gruenewaldli Krotow, about 700 m..;

g.Limestones with thin intercalation of shales with abundant fauna, not lessthan 400 m. thick.

The general thickness of thè Upper Carboniferous I estimate at about2.5 kilom. while I did not observe any hiatus or unconformity within the series.

The stratum g is exposed at the trough of the syncline and unconkrm-ably overlies the Mesozoic deposits; therefore to obtain here any data aboutthe higher beds of the Palozoic has proved impossible. The said huge thick-ness of deposits also reminds us of the conditions in which the deposition ofthe Donetzian took place.

Some of the beds of limestones exposed here appear to be fairly constantin the horizontal direction. Conglomerates on the contrary often pass intosandstone and vice versa.

Some remains of the sea fauna have been found in not very thickconglomerates of the series d. The conglomerates of the series b on the contraryare very thick and contain different and well rounded pebbles, sometimes ofvery large size. Sometimes big boulders of limestone with the remains ofCarboniferous Producius have been found there.

Palontologically characterized layers begin from the series d. Theboundaries between these series are principally marked on the basis of lithologicaldata, as the pakontological material in the lower series occurs only sporadicallyand not in all liniestones.

170 Bulletin of the Geological Society of China

Corning now to the examination of the fauna occurring in the abovementioned series I must say that I can give oniy preliminary, very incomphttelists of forms, as the whole fauna is vet waiting for its monographic description.Corals and f orarninif era I have left ot altogether, although they will undoubted-ly present sorne important data at the comparison of the Kara-Tshatyr UpperCarboniferous with that of other regions. Of the greatest interest here areundoubtedly Fusulinas which are rather numerous and can easily be coltected¡ra situ unlike other fossils picked up for the most part from the talus.'

The fossils found in the himestones of the series a are so few in numberthat it is impossible to judge of their age. Series b and c are apparentlymute. but in the series d the following though still rather poor fauna has

been found.

Fene,stdla polyporata Phil. var. orloeskrnsis Nikif.a

Chonete.s latesirazatus Schehiw.

Derbyia sp. ex. gr. uaageni Shehiw.

Ptoducins (Produclus) 1rwstersa1is Tschern.

Produclus (Produd us) grueneuaUli Krot.

Productus (Prod ud us) aif. sis ckenbergi Krot.

Prod uctus (Pustula) fasciatus Kut.

Productus (Pustula) degans Mccoy

Productus (Pustula) konschmi sp. nov. (aIf. ptmciatus Mart.)

Productus (Aonia) ediidrrijormis Chao et Grab.

Productur (Marginifera) sepieniriondis Tschern.

Teguliferina cf. genicobcia Ozaki.

ht addition to these were tound some large specimens of .ingle Rugosa,some badly preserved gastropods and a remnant of a pygidium of a trilobitewhich may belong to Griffithides prnpenrdcus Weber. Fusrrlina abound insorne liinestones.

f. I have at my duposal not oriy my own collections, but also those of the geologistsI. Keanyshan asd W. Weber who wosked here before.

2. All de nahoru of bryozoa are done by A. Nktorowa.

Licharew : .--Upper Carboniferous of F er gana 171

If we exclude horn the cited list the forms which have a wide distribu-tion in the whole of the Carboniferous and also some new species, amongwhich Produclus komischani is near to Pr. punctatus, differing from it by itsvery large sizes (ti length reaches 120 mm.) then we shall have among theremaining forms a considerabk number of Moscovian species such as Productustransversdis, Pr. gruenewdati, Pr.. degans, Pr. seplentrionalis, Pr. echidni-foi-mis, which are also known in the Upper Carboniferous. Fenest diapoly parafa var. co-foos1iana is described from the series C12 of the Donetz basin,but in the Fergana section it occurs also in the overlying series. Sofar from the Upper Carboniferous or Permian deposits only, there have beendescribed Chaneles Ialesinuatus and Teg'aliferina ge.nicutala. Deibyia which hasbeen found here is nearly identical with the form which I described from thePermian deposits of the Northern Caucasus.

Thus the general aspect of the fauna speaks rather for the UpperCarboniferous age of the given series.

In the overlymg series f the fossils are more varied, namely:

Fenesfelict alf. limbata Foerste

Fenesldlo cf. kansanensis Rogers

Septapora sp. ex. gr. robusta Ulrich

Schizophoi-ia cf. juresanensis Tschern.

Enteieles hemiplicatus Hall

DerI.yia sp.. ex. gr. wuageni Scheliw.

Productus (Producius) cf. bolioiensis d'Orb.

Productus (Productus) orientait, Tschern. (a great many)

Produd us (Productus) gruenewaldti Krot. var. frigida Salter (a greatmany)

Productas (Productus) cora d'Orb.

Productus (Pustula) aif. pusidaf us Keys.

P'oductus (Pustula) degars MacCoy

Pruthis Pustula) Ipmyschani sp. nov.

The volume of this species was too much enlarged without any well groundedreason not only by other authors, but even by E. Schellwien himself, I limitthis specks to the forms with a high area being in the plane of the separationof the valves and accept for holotype the specimen represented on pl. y, fig. 5of E. Schellwien's monograph: Die Fauna des karniachen FusulinenkalksPalmontogr. R. XXXIX. ¡892.

172 Bulletin of the Geological Society of China

Produclus (A vonia) echidniforrnis Chao et Grab.

Productus (Mar ginif era) orienidis Chao

Strophalosia cf. poyan gensis Kayser

Spin! er (ChorisNtes) frilsdii Scheliw. (a great many)

Spinif er (Chonislites) nikitini Tschern.

Spiniferina cnistata Schloth.

Mustedia remota Eichw.

Bellerophon joneianus Konin.

Euphernus antulijerus Roman.

Pharkinodontus ueberi Netsch. (sp. nov.)

Natico psis allonensis MacChesa.

tyíjcrogjoma aif. conica Meek et Worth.

Orthoceras sp. md.

Here also occur the representatives of singular Rugosa, some bedsabound in Fusulina.

Brachiopods predominate in this fauna while there frequently occur Pro-ductus orientdis, Pr. gruenewaldti var. fnigida and Spin! er frilsehi. The latterspecies is quoted by G. Frederiks for the Tchernaja-Retchka beds, to whichthe first appearance of Entdeles in the Urals is ascribed. From Auernig beds

we know Productus garenewddti and Pr. echidniformis. Nearly all brachio-pods are known in the Uralian from which they pass into the Perniian also.Among the few bryozo it is of some interest to note the presence of formssimilar to the American ones. The same is also observed for the gastropods-:the Naticopsis al1onessis occurring here has a fairly wide vertical distribution,according to J. Beede's and A. Rogers's data, in the Kansas section, only they

.Licharew : Upper Carbonijerous oj Fergwia 173

do not reach there the Schwagerina beds: Microd orna conica, which is nothowever identical with the Ferganian form, occurs in the Lower Coal Measuresof Illinois. It is necessary to note that the family of Bdlerophontidfrom the Ferganian Carboniferous had been formerly examined by A.Netchajew, who died before he could publish his work; it is a pity that inthat work there is no comparison of the Fergaman forms with those of Nost}America. T. H. Yin's work: Gastropoda of the Penchi and Taiyuan seriesof the North China, was received in Leningrad after I had finished thedetermination of the fauna and I could not, I am sorry to say, make useof it, The general likeness between the Gastropoda fauna which he de-scribes and that of Fergana is very considerable.

Judging by the fauna the given formation in my opinion can be con-sidered syndiroriical with the Spirif er beds of the Karnic Alps. In China itscorresponding members are probably the lower parts of Taiyuan series althoughI do not yet know the list of its faunas on separate horizons An explicitcomparison with the Carboniferous of the Samara Bend is also rather difficultat present. If we take for a base the development of large Clzoristiles, wecan name as a synchronic formation the series C3b which G. Frederiks stillrefers to the Samanan horizon of the Moscovian; according to M. NoinskyProductas orientais obtains here a wide distribution and it is here also thatthe first appearance of a considerable number of gastropods and pelecypodstook place, among which there are some North American forms.

The most abundant in fossils is the following series g. The list offorms which I quote here is far from exhausting all the numerous fossils occurringthere.

Scliwagerina princeps Moeller

Fusalina (long spindle-like forms)

Amblysiphonella? sp. nov. (frequent)

Chladochorws? sp. nov. (a great many)

Rugosa

Plates of Crinoidea, among them Platycrinua.

Archocidans? sp. nov.

174 Bulletin of the Geological Society of China

Baioslomdla sp.

Fistulipora sp.

Rhombotrypdla sp.

Eridopra conradi Ulrich

Feneslella minima Ulrich

Fenesidla modesta Ulrich

Fenestclla limbata Foerste

Fenestclla polyporala Phill. var. orlovsk.ensis Nikif.

Fenesldla sp. ex. gr. kansaneisis Rog.

Poqpora diiplica Rog.

Polypora alf. gold!ussi Eichw.

Polypora all. spinulifera Ulrich

Polypora cf. submarginata Meek

Polypoca cf. orientdis Eichw.

Pinnatopora sp.

Septapora aif. ceslriensis Prout

Enideles carnicus Schellw.

Erdeletes cf. hesniplicatus Hall

Isogramma paotechouensls Crab. et Chao

!sogrwnma cf. millepunclatum Meek et Worth

Productas (Productus) cf. boliviensis d'Orb.

Productus (Productus) gruenewddti Krat.

Productus (Produd us) urdicus Tschern.

Produrtus (Productas) çancriniformis Tschern.

Productas (Pustula) degans MacCoy

Pro luctus (Marginijeur) carniolicus Schellw.

I. This new generic name I offer for the Upper Carhoniferous and Permian repre-sentatives usually referred to Squarnula,*z, but from which they differ by thecharacter of their sculpture, as well as by the position of the axes of spiral cones.

2. Identical with B. calan'dtoides Grabau (Upper Taiyuan series)

Licharew : Upper Carbonif crow of Fergana 175

Scacchinella gigantea Schellw.

Pugnax swallowi Shum.

Pugnax negrli Gemin.

Terebratulaidea lriplic.ata Kut

Camarophoria subsdlla sp. nov.

Spirile: (Brachythyris) rectangulus Kut.

Spirifer (Chorislites) fritschi Scheliw,

Martinia (Pseudoinartinia) simensis Tschem.

Neophricadothyris' asiaticus ao

Spiriferma cristata Schioth.

Hemiptychina dienen Schellw.

A viculopecten aif. interlineatu.s Meek et Worth.

Myalina aif. permiana Swall. (a great many)

Antracondia talfiana Girty

Sehizodus cunlus Meek

Schizodus meekiana Girty (a great many)

A startdla aif. adenticuhzta Yacow.

Conocardium ferganensis sp. nov.

Bdlerophon jonesianus Kon.

Euphernus anulifcrus Roman.

Bucaniopsis lincato-carinatus Roman.

Bucanio psis tricazinatus Akimow2

Phyrnatif er rncniliferus Roman.

176 Bulletin of the Geological Soj ej China

Microdorna aif. conica Meek et Worth

Sol eniscuss brevis 'X1hite

Soleniscus paludincejorrais Hall

Soleniscus primi genius Conrad

Natico pis allonensis MacChesney

Trachydomia wheeleri Swall

Dentaliurn strialum Roman.

Pseudorthoceras sp. nov.

Dentdiurn striatum Roman.

Already from this preliminary and very short list one can see that thelife of the Ferganian Carboniferous Sea during the deposition of the given stratawas very diverse. Many forms reach there large dimensions, as for instanceI have a spine of A rchceocictaris which is 165 mm. long. It is quite amazingthe large size of one Myalina (?) which unfortunately is found only in fragments:its valves reach 25 mm. in thickness. Of about the same diameter are somestalks of crinoidea. It is notcwotthy the accumulation of tabulata which Ihypothetically refer to the genus Cladochonu5. The corals Rugosa occur ingreat numbers only in a few beds and are rather uniform. Bryozoa are mostlyof the family Fenestellidce and are generally found in fragments. l3rachiopods,as compared with molluska are not so varied, some forms pass here from thelower serie', although Spirif er (Choristites) Iritschi is already not so abundant.lt is necessary to note the presence of representatives of the genus ¡so gramma,though they are not found very cften Mollusca present a great many varieties;pelecypods mostly occur in separate layers, where they appear to compose thelarge part of the rock,it is the case esPecially with the large Myalina aif.permiana, which unfortunately is always represented only by broken specimens.......-Many valves of pelecypods have been well prepared by nature itself andpermit the study of their interior structure. Most of the varieties are observedamong the gastropods, especially among smaller forms of the genus 4 cusma,Pseudozygopleura and others; some Murci-jisonja reach a very great size.Cephalopods are comparatively scarce.

Licharew : Upper Caibonijerous of Fergana 77

Turning to the question of the age of the given strata it is at firstnecessary to note it is decidedly of Upper-Carhoniferous age. The numberof purely Permian forms, which have not been found in the Carboniferous, isvery small. Let us examine the geological distribution of separate representa-tives of different classes Among foraminiferas one especially notes the pre-sence of Schwa germa princeps. The stratigraphical position of Schwagerinain the section of the Upper Palozoic has been mentioned before. Withinthe region of the Russian platform the appearance of this species is connectedwith the uppermost parts of the Upper Carboniferous while in the Urals andTiman they occur approximately in the middle part of the Upper Carboniferoussection. in the Taiyuan series they are distributed along the whole strata fromit. bottom to the top. lt is noteworthy the presence of sponges apparentlybelonging to the genus A in biysiphonella. in Europe the representatives of thisgenus were cited by E. Schellwien from the Conocarclium beds of the Kronsand Auernig section (higher than the beds with Spin/er Iritschi) and in theUpper Carboniferous of Austria (G. Steinmann). In Asia the representativesof Amblysiphoneflaoccur in the Schwagerina beds of Darvas, being howeverrepresented there by somewhat different much larger species; then they havebeen found in Persia, India, Indo-China and Japan. All these latter fossilsare probably of Permian age. in North America Am. prosseri which remindsus of the Ferganian form has been found in the Kansas section below the NeyaLimestone.

Among Crinoidea of some interest are the original stalks of Plalycrinus,quite similar to those described from the Taiyuan series.

Among Bryozo, of which oniy 6 species have received exact specificdetermination, one cannot help noticing the dominating prevalence of NorthAmericar species over European ones. Unfortunately the Upper CarboniferousBryozoa of the Donetzian have not yet been studied. The North Americanspecies mentioned in the list were described in North America from the Lowerand Upper Coal-Measures, while none of these species, known in the Kansassection dc not rise there as high as the Neya Limestone.

Among brachiopods we can cite only a few species identical with theUpper Carboniferous ones of the European part of USSR: for the Donetziaiithey amount to 5, for the Moscovian basin---4, Samarian Carbonjferous-5

Bulletin of the Geological Society af China

and at last Uralian1 I. It is very characteristic that some species occurringhere are also present in the Donet2 and Moscovian basins only in the MiddleCarboniferous. lt is perhaps probable that the incomplete determ;iiatjon ofbrachiopods does nbt permit us to obtain an exact picture. lt is especiallyinteresting to note the presence in these strata of some species, among them-Scacchinello gigantea, occurring in the Periman of Kamic Alps and Texas(formations Wolfcamp and Hess), as well as in the Tschernaja Retchka bedsof the Uralian. Then it is necessary to note the appearance of Entekies,indicated from some beds of. the Uralian and especially of lsograinrngj. Onespecimen, which I found, I determined as Is. millepundatu described fromthe Pennsylvanian and the Permian of North America, this species in theKansas section does not reach the Neya Limestone; the same stratigraphicalposition it also occupies in Nebraska, while in Texas it is already limited byPermian deposits. The other species which I found of the same genus__Is.paotechouensis has been for the first time described from the Taiyuan series,but was afterwards found in the Karnic Alps where it is one of the leadingforms of the Upper Carboniferous. 1f Racusz is right in his supposition thatit is identical with Is. ex pansa (Gortani) then one can point out that in thepre-war Italian part of Karnic Alps this species is restricted to the lower part ofthe Upper Carboniferou. Racusz himself described it from the Middle Car-boniferous of Hungarian Silesia. In the Russian Upper Carbonjferous only!sogramma pachti is indicated from the Schwagerina beds of the SamarjanCarboniferous, but its specific determination is in my opinion very doibtfu1.

Among pelecypods there occur several. North American species, de-.scribed also from the Donetzian: The presence of A nthraconella ta/fiana Girtyoccurring in North America in the Wewoka formation, is interesting but in theDonetz basinin the Middle Carboniferous; Schizo Jus curtus it is also citedfrom the series C of this section. Very characteristic is the presence of alarge Conocardium which is represented by allied forms in the Upper Carboiij-ferous of Karnian Alps, l)onetz basin and Taiyuan series.

The compansol of gastropods is difficult on account of an incompleteknowledge of the latter in other Upper Palozoic faunas. For the UpperCarboniferous of the Donetz basin M. Akhimov1 described only two species,

I. M. Akhimov: Materials for the gastropods fauna of the Russian CarbonjferoSciant, Magazine of Geol. Cath. of Katerinoslav, 1926.

Licharew Upper Carboniferous of Fer gana 179

while the former lists of Th. Tschernyschew and L. Lutugin contain I O

species, the majority of which are North American species. A. Netschajewwho studied the representatives of the family Bdlerophonlide from the FerganaCarboniferous described all the forms as new ones; I have therefore excludedthem from the above cited list; nevertheless two species appear to be identicalwith the Donetz Carboniferous namelyBucaniópsis Iricarinatus, which hasbeen described there from the Middle Carbomferous and Trachydotnia wheelerioccuring in the series C32 and higher up. Naiicopsis dlonensis, Soleniscusperludinforrnis and the above mentioned Trachydomia are known from thePennsylvanian of Kansas where they ascend as high as the Neya Umestone;Soleniscus brevis is described from the Wowoka formation; in Missouri this formreaches the Douglas formation.

Among cephalopods of some interest is the presence of a new speciesof Pseudorihoceras allied to P. knoxense McChesn., which in the Missourisection reaches the Shawnee formation and the stage G of the Kansas section,i.e. as far as the beds lying considerably lower than the Neya Limestone.

Based on this short analysis of the fauna of the given strata, we cometo the conclusion that it is undoubtedly of the Upper Carboniferous age, onthe other hand we have ascertained that on the level with Schwa germa princepsand other typical Upper Carboniferous species there also occurs a certainnumber of forms occupying in the Donetz basin a comparatively lower. stratigraphical position. This circumstance evidently indicates that the given stratacannot occupy in the section of the Upper Carboniferous a very high strati-graphical position, that it is rather older and at any rate not younger thanthe Tschernajy Rechka beds of the Uralian and tht the uppermost horizonsof the Upper Carboniferous are absent in Kara-Tchatyr. On the other hand,the given fauna presents an undoubted resemblance to the fauna of the Taiyuanseries of North China and the Auemig beds of the Karnic Alps. The pre-sence of Schwagerina at the base of the Iaiyuan series of China, in thegiven strata of the Fergana section, in the Tschernaja Retchka horizon ofUrals and in the Neya Umestone of Kansas points out, in spite of J. Beede'sopinion, that the said form appeared in the Upper Carboniferous at a differentgeological time. To ascribe a Permian age to the Ainblysiphonella L,imestones

180 Bulletin of the Geological Society of Chi

is in my opinion quite groundless. I regret to say that I was unable to tracethe mutual relationship of the described series in the Western Kara-Tchatyrwith the strata of conglomerates and sandstones interbedded with layers oflimestones from which C. Frederiks has described the Middle Carboniiferoufauna, known as Aravan fauna, but there is no doubt that it is stratigraphicallylower than the described section; 1 shall not refer here to its section or fauna.

The Upper Carboniferous fairly well characterised by fauna wasobserved in the valley of the Isphara river, several kilometers to the Northof the town of the same name. Here are found dark limestones interbeddedwith sandstones, which appear to be very dislocated and contain a very similarfauna; in the East of the Isphara river this stratum is replaced by one uninterrupted series of mute limestories, which according to W. Weber's observa-tions, pass further on in the same direction into conglomerates. The heightcomposed of these rocks bears the name of the Cusan range.

From the above mentioned limestones I have determined the follow-ing fauna.

Schwagerina princeps Mocil.

A mblysiphonel?z? sp. (frequent)

Cladochonus? sp. (a great many)

Derbyia regularis Waagen

¡sogrammdi paotechouensis Chao (a great many)

Producius (Productus) cora d'Orb. vat. lineijta Waag.

Productus (Productus) aft. inca d'Orb.

Productus (Productus) cf. dartoni King

Productas (Productus oriental is Tschern.

Produts (A vonia) echidniformis Grab. et Chao

Prodaclus (Puslula) degans MacCoy

Productas schurabensis sp. nov. (aif. subPunctatus Nikit. many)

Productus (Marginif era) pusilla Scheliw. (many)

Spirif er tegulatus Trautsch.

Lidiarew : Upper Carboniferous of Fergan3 181

Nophricadothyris asiaticus Chao (many)

¡-Iostedia remota Eichw.

Conocardium Jerganensis sp. nov.

Bellerophon cf. impressus Reed

Bucaniopsis tricarinatus Akimov

Euphenus carbonarius Stuck. (non Cox?)

Soieniscus cf. paludineformis Hall

Trachydomia wheeleri Swa!l.

Pseudorthoceras sp. nov.

Gril ilhides cf. prperrncus Vleber

As we can see this fauna is in general very similar to the abovedescribed fauna of the Amblisyphonella Limestone of the Western Kara-Tchatyr. A whole number of forms as Cladochonus? sp. Amblisyphonellasp., Isogramma paotechouensis, Conocardium Jerganensis, Bucanio psis iricarina-tus, Soieniscus pal udin4orniis and others occur in both place. Among

brachiopods the attention is drawn to the numerous occurrences of well preservedthick valves of Isagramma paolechouensis, but which unfortunately have not been

found here in whole specimens.

It is also necessary to note the presence of not yet described spines ofProductus similar to Pr. (Pustuln) subpunctalus Nikit. from the Gschellianformation; a form quite identical with the above mentioned has been found in

the series G' of the Donetz Carboniferous. Among gastropods are especially

numerous Bdlleroph9ntid among which there a great many species common

with the said Kara-Tchatyr Limestones.

I shall not dwell here on some other occurrences ot the Upper Carboni-

ferous of the Ferganian Valley. The above cited facts well enough testifyto the presence in this region of well developed deposits of the Upper Car-boniferous, displaying a considerable f aunistic resemblance to the Denetzian;this resemblance is probably due to the analogy of facial conditions and tothe existence of an immediate connection between these regions. The Uralian

182 Bulletin of the Geological Society ej China

displays a different type of the fauna, though undoubtedly of the same age,but which lived in somewhat different physico-geographical conditiom. Thisdifference is also made apparent in the lithological character of rocks and theirthickness. Further study of the fauna of the Ferganian Carboniferous willundoubtedly permit us to synchronise more completely all these deposits andalso to connect them with the Upper Carboniferous of North China.