the chronostratigraphic space of the lithosphere …...events during this giant period of time are...

www.elsevier.com/locate/rgg

The chronostratigraphic space of the lithosphere and the Vendian as a geohistorical subdivision of the Neoproterozoic

B.S. Sokolov *

A.A. Borisyak Institute of Paleontology, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Profsoyuznaya 123, Moscow, 117997, Russia

Received 13 May 2011; accepted 3l May 2011

Abstract

Chronostratigraphic space is defined as information about the geologic history and paleobiosphere that elucidates the Earth’s evolution asthe interaction of different layers of the geosphere. Stratigraphic subdivisions act as information-carrying medium. Elementary units in thePhanerozoic chronostratigraphic space are biostratigraphic zones, whereas in the Proterozoic space, sequenthemes. The Vendian sequenthemehas a unique paleontological characteristic, which continuously expands and is refined. Its lower boundary determines the top of cryogenicsuberatheme and is marked by deposition of the last diamictite (Varangerian, Marinoan) and the largest postglacial transgression. In thechronostratigraphic space, the Vendian is surely Neoproterozoic, but constitutes a single acrochrone of the biosphere evolution with thePhanerozoic. The Vendian stage divides and connects two different-sized intervals in the evolution of Geomerida: a long interval of time(from the origin of life to the beginning of the Vendian) marked by a predominance of prokaryotic ecosystems and a relatively short intervalwith the incredible biodiversity of modern-type ecosystems dominated by eukaryotes.© 2011, V.S. Sobolev IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Vendian; biosphere evolution; stratigraphic geochronology; lithosphere; Neoproterozoic

Introduction

Stratigraphic concept in geology remains one of the earliestand most developed. It belongs to the historical concepts and,therefore, rightfully claims to be scientifically fundamentallike the concept of evolution in biology. Both of them arebased on our understanding of the evolving (“living” fromKarl von Baer) planet in the solar system over the past4 billion years. We have no such knowledge on any otherplanetary body in the universe. All of the geocosmodynamicevents during this giant period of time are also recorded interms of stratigraphic geochronology and biosphere evolution.

Historical geology does not consider the entire course ofthe formation of the earth body; however, the lithosphericcover is the real and the main object of its study, including alayered and folded structure, its transformations, composition,and variable information involved in bed successions (se-quences of different scales). The idea of geological timedetectable in terms of the biogeosphere evolution and recordedin the chronological succession by radiometric geochemicalmethods is transferred only through the testimony of historical

geology. This time with good reason may be called paleo-biospheric in its nature, and it is known as divisions betweenevents in the history of the planet, still only on the Earth.Abstract time, independent of the material system of theplanet, does not exist. Only such an understanding of timetestifies to its reality (Fig. 1).

Chronostratigraphic space of the lithosphere

The upper part of the lithosphere is a layered cover,stratisphere, the dynamic reworking of which is the Earth’stectonosphere, and these concepts are inseparable, which iseasily understood by looking at the geological map. It is thelast concept and its interpretation that finally has revealed thesignificance of strata, their combinations and structures inspace and has given the idea of its chronostratigraphic natureof organization. It provided the greatest insight into geologicalconcepts, the originators of which were Nikolai Stenon andM.V. Lomonosov. It was of fundamental importance for thenatural science and philosophy. Chronostratigraphic space ofthe Earth’s lithosphere is the repository of the entire histori-cal-geological information disclosing the course of the historyof the planet in the interaction of its total four geosphere

Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 1048–1059

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (B.S. Sokolov)

doi:10.1016/j.rgg.201 . 001068-7971/$ - see front matter D 201 IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.V S.. S bolev1,

1 0o

9+. 2

covers. The nature of stratigraphic space organization isrevealed as a natural-historical consequence of the stage-by-stage development of the Earth, the frequency and complexdynamics of endo-, and exogenic processes. This stage-by-stage development has been established as an empiricalgeneralization in the surface (field) study of sedimentary andvolcanogenic-sedimentary rocks of the lithosphere, which laterwere called Phanerozoic (Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic). Butinitially, as is known, the geological systems, sequences ofrocks with a certain similarity of persistent features, have beendistinguished. Among the latter, first of all lithologic, theimportance of paleontological features was found, which soonbecame the principal ones in the Phanerozoic.

It is important to emphasize that generally very harmoniousarrangement of combination of the geological systems fromthe Cambrian to the Quaternary was elaborated sufficientlyempirically without the predeveloped program. However, theregional empirical approach and intuition of the classics ofstratigraphy in continental Europe have appeared so a soundbasis for the formation of the conceptions about the categoryof each system that even after almost two centuries since thegreat stratigraphic twenty years, there is no need for funda-mental restructuring of the established geohistorical frame-work. Our understanding of the structure and dynamics of thelithosphere was formed not by speculative and cabinet models,but by the natural experience in field observations, and, first

of all, geological mapping based on geochronology of li-thological layered and folded tectonomagmatic complexes.Purely geophysical and geotectonic approaches could notprovide a correct and full insight into the most important thingin the geological process—its historicism without prede-veloped and understandable stratigraphical basis. It was per-fectly understood by the classics of stratigraphy engaged ingeological survey. But this should also be known for themodern stratigraphers who focused on the special stratigraphicmethods developed in laboratories (micropaleontological, li-thogeochemical, geophysical). Very interesting models areobtained; however, they often work for themselves rather thanfor the real geological situation characterizing the paleobasins.

However, the distinguishment of geological (stratigraphic)systems did not imply the inviolability of this framework.There remained the problem of boundaries between them. Itwas ignored for a long time, and when it appeared due tosufficiently deep analysis of the sequence of layers (Cam-brian–Silurian (particularly painful problem for Murchison andSedgwick) or Silurian–Devonian (which became the mostimportant model of study for all the systems), Carboniferous–Permian (leading to the intermediate notion “Permo-Carbon-iferous”, Cretaceous–Paleogene (resulting in one moreproblem of Danian stage, etc.)), it resulted in sharp conflictsof personal and scientific nature. The way to overcome theseconflicts was through refining the stratigraphy of sedimentary

Fig. 1. Time in its nonuniform event divisions (stages).

B.S. Sokolov / Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 1048–1059 1049

sequences from a system to an elementary unit through thedeveloped hierarchy “series—stage—zone”. Conventionally,I will call the generalized elementary unit a “biostratigraphiczone,” even though the concepts of biozonal stratigraphy arevery extensive. This hierarchy is the Phanerozoic key modelof stratigraphy on the biochronological basis. The use of thismodel allowed the biological (palaeontological) the principleof stratigraphic boundary between systems and stages to befirst finalized in 1972. This was accepted at the Montreal(Canada) Session of the International Geological Congress,and the work of the International Commission of IUGSexperts, covering all the continents, started from 1958–1960.How difficult was the way to this decision is easy tounderstand by the example of two systems—the Silurian andDevonian, if you take into consideration that the systemsthemselves have been established in Wales (UK), the stagedivision of the Devonian system was in the Ardennes (Bel-gium), and type lower (just lower!) boundary of the Devoniansystem was adopted in Clonks (Barrandian, Czech Republic)along the bottom of the layers with graptolites (zone Monog-raptus uniformis) and the concomitant association of trilobites,conodonts, tentaculites and other groups, the complex of whichacquired its own correlation value. I call this principle“transfer of the correlation function,” but it works only in theglobal biochronological correlation and is stricter than theprinciple of “interchangeability of various features,” proposedfor the regional stratigraphy by S.V. Meien.

Digby McLaren, chairman of the expert group of specialistson the S/D boundary, proposed that the selected point in thelocality should be fixed as a reference point, the stratotype(limitotype) of the lower boundary of the correspondingsystem as an international standard that correspond to thecurrent level of knowledge, and call it the “golden nail.” TheInternational Commission on Stratigraphy (MCS) of the IUGSaccepted this procedure of fixing the stratigraphic boundariesof the systems as a policy task aimed at the stability of theglobal correlation, and this work is not yet finished. It hasbrought together the efforts of stratigraphers and paleontolo-gists of all the countries more than any other of thegeohistorical programs of the IGCP IUGS, and it is quitenatural, because stratigraphy is the basis of the internationalgeological mapping. However, many investigators perceivedit not as the culmination of the historical problem ofdetermining the stratigraphic boundaries between systems andtheir stages, but as a new scientific concept of stratigraphy ingeneral, drawing attention from the study of more substantiveissues related not to the boundaries of divisions themselves,their further refining and retrieval of the multidimensionalinformation which is contained in sedimentary sequencesthemselves and which provides the most complete insight intothe environment and life of ancient sedimentary basins. Theprogram to develop “golden nails” is not so much a newconcept, as an absolutely necessary procedure of developingthe reference criteria for stratigraphic correlation. No strati-graphic units can exist without their fixed boundaries: theyare to be mapped and necessary for various scientific andexploratory purposes in geology. This does not imply, of

course, that limitotypes are approved for all the time, theycorrespond to the modern level of our knowledge and couldbe updated in the future. It must be admitted as an axiom thatneither of the methods of remote stratigraphic correlationprovides us with the undisputed accuracy of the results: thecorrelation lines would rather indicate the approach to avail-able accuracy than synchronicity, and the paleontologicalmethod is the most efficient in this case. The notion of equalityof all the methods in stratigraphic correlation is a pure illusion.

In the 1950s, when the National Stratigraphic Committee(NSC) was first created in our country, a burning questionarose as to what the distinguished or identified stratigraphicunits, which generally are referred to as strata, formations, andlayers, represent—real geohistorical objects or commonnessof these layers suitable for geological mapping, which areartificially created by geologists. The answers were different,but ultimately, it was recognized that the nature of these unitsshould be natural-historical. This was clearly formulated bythe representatives of the Geological Committee of Russia atthe very first sessions of the International Geological Congressat the end of the XIX century. This is a fundamental principleand it should not be compromised. It entails recognition ofthe reality of geologic time: geological eras, periods and ages.“The primacy in the stratigraphy due to specific structuring ofgeologic time belongs to the material carriers of that time—stratigraphic units and information contained in them ... Noneof the properties of time can be found besides the physicaldocuments of geology, besides the development of materialsubstance” (Sokolov, 1971, p. 128). This conclusion wasdrawn from the deep reasoning of V.I. Vernadsky concerningthe time and biosphere evolution. Now I can only repeat this.The entire world experience of geological studies in thePhanerozoic part of the stratisphere relied on the recognitionof the primacy of the stratigraphic unit over its derivative—thetime of formation of the corresponding part of the stratisphere.However, a casus occurred in the Precambrian, which had noglobal stratigraphic units as the Phanerozoic eonotheme had.All of its units were regional and associated with individualcontinents, their cratons or foldbelts. Deep-sea drilling in theWorld Ocean, which began in 1968, did not bring anythingnew and showed that also would not bring in the future, asthe oceanic crust remains silent, and its sedimentary cover isnot older than the Mesozoic, even the Triassic. Therefore, theEarth’s crust, maximally accessible for the complete exami-nation, is associated only with the continents, and only withintheir limits, as in the Phanerozoic, where it is necessary todevelop the criteria for subdivision and stratigraphic correla-tion of various sedimentary, volcanogenic-sedimentary andmetamorphic sequences of Precambrian strata of the Archeanand the Proterozoic, outcropping at the surface or penetratedby deep drilling in the continental syneclises on the ancientplatforms.

1050 B.S. Sokolov / Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 1048–1059

Vendian as a geohistorical subdivision of the Neoproterozoic

A great progress in the stratigraphy of the Phanerozoic andthe related Vendian achieved through the use of paleontologi-cal techniques, especially micropaleontological ones, gave riseto the hope that the Precambrian paleontology would coverby its biostratigraphic approach at least the late Proterozoic.In the scientific sense, it was surprisingly proved at theSiberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR,where in 1965, a special symposium on Paleontology ofPrecambrian and Early Cambrian was first held with theparticipation of European scientists (Sokolov, 1965, 1966,1979). Paleontological characteristic was given to the depositsof the Precambrian Vendian sequence, which has become astratotype for the new Vendian system (Sokolov, 1964), nowtraceable through all the continents, and for the Ripheaneratheme with its three divisions. In the Vendian, the so-called“Ediacaran biota” of unique macrofossils was also found,which later received a formal name Vendiata (Gureev, 1987),or Vendobionta (Seilacher, 2007), including both the unques-tionable Metazoa (Cnidaria, articulates, mollusks, worms), andthe large (often giant) fossils of so far unidentified taxonomicposition (charniids, rangeids, petalonams, dickinsonia). Ven-dobionta s. str. appeared to be the Vendian marker biota onall the continents, but they took the rank of mass biota onlyin the lower part of the Upper Vendian. In the upperPrecambrian part, the biota of the oldest thallophytes of thegroup Vendotaenides, first emerging in the pre-Vendian time,appeared to be successively typical (Gnilovskaya, 1971, 1988,2003), as well as the biota of tubularmorphic organismsSabelliditida (Sokolov, 1972) and genus Cloudina. The LowerVendian cold-water deposits, starting with transgressive ma-rine tillite or diamiktites (Laplandian, Varangerian, andequivalents), were also the epoch of diverse phytoplankton.Throughout the Vendian, vesicular macroplankton algae ofBeltanelloides type and other chuariamorfids together withacritarchs were found. Various trace fossils of mobile benthoswere also found. Thus, the Vendian as a Precambrian forma-tion was first paleontologically characterized. It seemed thatmodel of biostratigraphy, which was elaborated based on thePhanerozoic experience, could be extended to the laterPrecambrian.

Originally, like many other researchers of the Vendianprototype—the Scandinavian Eocambrian or the ChineseSinian in its platform facies, and later the Australian Edia-caran, according to the views of A. and J. Termier (1960,1964), P. Cloud and M. Glaessner (1982), I assigned theVendian sequence to the Paleozoic, or simply to the Phanero-zoic. However, it’s not all that simple. It is the problem oftypification of the stratigraphic boundaries of the geologicalsystems, and, hence, their subdivisions that appeared devel-oped as a whole only for the internal boundaries of thePhanerozoic systems, rather than the definition of the bounda-ries of the Phanerozoic itself, both for the lower boundarywith the Proterozoic, and, probably, the upper one with theQuaternary–Anthropogene. These are truly global problems in

the history of the Earth! The Vendian was an importantmilestone in the search for this object in our geology. It wasa particular trouble for V.V. Menner as a stratigrapher andA.A. Bogdanov as a geological map delineator. Attacks onthe independence of the Vendian were from different sides—one would like to attach it somewhere, but the StratigraphicCommittee of the USSR–Russia has preserved it as a newsystem (like the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian in the USA),and this is a special merit of D.V. Nalivkin and A.I. Zhamoida.It turned out that, in essence, only the lower boundary of theCambrian system of the Paleozoic eratheme could be substan-tiated clearly enough based on the of Phanerozoic biostrati-graphic model regardless of whether it would be finallyadopted along the bottom of the Tommotian stage in Siberia,or the Nemakit-Daldyn, or Baltic stages, now assigned to theVendian. In any case, it would be a biozonal boundary, asthroughout the Phanerozoic that have already been shown bysearching the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary outside ofRussia. Its reference by the most surprising way was adoptedby the International Commission on stratigraphy in Newfound-land (Canada), in isolation both from the stratotype of theEdiacaran in Australia and the Vendian in European Russiaand Siberia, where, undoubtedly, the most complete, paleon-tologically substantiated succession of Lower Cambrian stagesis located. The interval to determine this boundary on theSiberian Platform is extremely narrowed, and there is no asinister hiatus between the layers with Ediacaran biota and notquite the oldest Cambrian biota of Archaeocyatha in Siberia,as in Australia. There is more politics than science content inthe adopted decision (Rozanov et al., 1997).

The lower boundary of the Vendian, as well as a completelydifferent, purely sedimentological boundary of the Ediacaranin South Australia along the base of “carbonate cap” of theNuccaleena Formation overlying the Marino tillite, has nobiostratigraphic evidence as it already represents the internalProterozoic boundary, where all the major stratigraphic sec-tions are associated with hiatuses in the successions ofsequentia and consequentia of Riphean and Karelian type, i.e.,they are geohistorical. These units are also paleontologicallycharacterized, but this characterization is specific—these areacritarchs, stromatolites, and microbial mats. Biological massof different organisms (archaebacteria, Cyanea, phytoplankton,and fungi) is fantastic in some places, but this is not aPhanerozoic realm of Metazoa and Metaphyta in its taxonomicand ecosystem diversity. Only the Vendian period with its firstmarine biota of benthos and plankton became the forerunnerof the Phanerozoic Geomerida (Beklemishev, 1928). It hasbecome the basis of the Phanerozoic biostratigraphy.

A purely geospheric event occurred rather than the evolu-tionary-biological one before this outbreak of life. This eventwas called in the literature «snowball Earth» (snow-coveredEarth). If we assume nearly 650–630 million years as thebeginning of the Vendian, which, surely, does not coincidewith the bottom of the Nuccaleena horizon, then this eventoccurred, in our terminology, at the end of the Late Ripheaneratheme. The Vendian period began at the end of the GlacialPeriod or rather at the end of the glacial suberatheme—one


of the most significant in the history of the earth andassociated with major manifestations of geodynamics. Post-glacial transgression began with the loss of recent marinetillites and diamictites of the final glaciation of this cycle. Itwas a subglobal in nature and has long been established inScandinavia (Varangerian or Vendian Tillite), in the Yangtzebasin (Sinian Tillite), South Australia (Marino tillite), and inseveral other areas. In the stratotype region of the Vendian(European Russia, Belarus and Ukraine), this is a Laplandianglaciohorizon of the Vendian, established by N.M. Chumakov(2007), which includes not only tillites. Its paleontologicaldescription, limited mainly by acritarchs, is much inferior byits stratigraphic effect to that which is borne by the fluvio-glacial sequence of rocks, preceding the first populationexplosion in the Vendian (Ediacaran age itself or Red’kinoage in our system of units). A second Cambrian populationexplosion has opened an entirely new course of evolution onthe Earth. The Vendian was a retrospective milestone of theevolution, which is so lacking in Darwin.

The International Commission on Stratigraphy of thePrecambrian in 2004 approved the decision of the Subcom-mission on the Terminal Proterozoic System with the conven-tional lower boundary of 630 million years and the name not“Vendian,” already achieving a dominant position in theliterature since the late 1950s, but the “Ediacaran.” This datinghas nothing to do with the stratigraphic base of the Ediacarianin South Australia, the Nuccaleena lithological formation. Butin this way the geohistorical concept of the Vendian wasdestroyed, which took a decade of discussion. This is surelythe scientific mishap, but it was a precedent for the Subcom-mission on the Precambrian in the approach to the Precam-brian stratigraphy in general. It has become not investigative,geohistorical, as in the Phanerozoic, but simply geochronomet-rical, which without any grounds has been referred to as“geochronological.” It is only the historical formation of thePhanerozoic stratigraphic units that has been geochronological.With unacceptable haste (really Klondike), 10 periods (sys-tems) have immediately been established in the Proterozoic,with their own names, good etymological explanation, but notsupported by stratotypes studied by geological methods. Thisis still only a nomen nudum, which cannot be the object ofpriority preservation (Gradstein et al., 2004).

The use in the Precambrian stratigraphy of the term“stratigraphic system,” which is the main in the Phanerozoicand, above all, conveys a biochronological meaning, requiresserious consideration. Of all the Proterozoic systems, only theEdiacaran approaches to the concept of system, but it holds aparticular place. It cannot be considered out of context withthe Vendian, which for the first time has become a truestratigraphic carrier of Ediacaran biota in its middle part, butthis is only one of several biotas of the Vendian. In addition,a comprehensive view of the Terminal Neoproterozoic Systemis provided only by incorporation of basal marine glaciohori-zon of the Varangerian or Laplandian level, as properly issubstantiated by N.M. Chumakov (2008), V.V. Khomentovsky(2008), M.A. Semikhatov (1994, 2008), and others.

A special position of the Vendian lies in the fact that it notonly completes the Late Proterozoic epoch glaciations, whichbegan in the Cryogenic period which, of course, is moremultiform than just glacial, but also starts a completely newhistorical stage of the largest geological transgression oncratons of the Earth. The beginning of this transgressionalways attracted attention of geologists trying to understandthe events that took place in the late Precambrian andCambrian, and to determine the position of a thick sequenceof sediments lying directly under the Cambrian and includingthe specific horizons or tillites and diamictites.

Two approaches to the solution of these issues have beenformulated; I call them and Eocambrian and Infracambrian.The first approach dates back to B. Ramsay (1911), whoproposed the name “Eocambrian” for the sparagmite formationof Scandinavia, and B. Asklund (1958), who preserved it onlyfor the upper, red sparagmate corresponding to the Varangianseries with the Varanger tillite. I first correlated it with theVendian sequence or series of the Russian Platform (Sokolov,1952, 1958, 1964), representing a model for the Vendiansystem. The second approach is connected with the Frenchgeologists and their experience in North Africa, first of all,N.N. Menchikoff (1949) and P. Pruvost (1951), who proposedthe name “Infracambrian.” The first approach led away aterminal unit to the Paleozoic and, therefore, Phanerozoic, thesecond one remained it in the Proterozoic. At the verybeginning the author considered the Vendian sequence as the“Paleozoic Precambrian,” relating it with the Eocambrian andthe Sinian system of China as Paleozoic by definition ofA. Grabau (1922), S. Lee (1924), and other Chinese geologistswho have had in mind only the section on the Yangtzeplatform as a type one. Spouses A. and J. Termier (1960, 1964,1968), who first used the name “Ediacarien” for the firstpaleontological stage of the Eocambrian, with which theCambrian begins, also considered it to be Paleozoic. P. Cloudand M. Glaessner (1982), who raised the level of this stageto the system, included it in the Phanerozoic. And only theSubcommission of the ICS on Precambrian Terminal Systemapproved it as Proterozoic, which was perfectly correct,although the lower boundaries of the Ediacaran and theVendian system appeared different. And this is a matter ofprinciple!

The Subcommission on Precambrian Terminal System,created following the Moscow meeting of the IGC (1984),when after the Vendian, the “Ediacaran” has become widelyused, was entrusted to make decision on its boundaries andname because of their apparent similarity. Theoretically, theupper boundary would have to be defined by the bottom ofthe Cambrian system as the base of the Paleozoic andPhanerozoic; it was clear that the principle of its substantiationwas biostratigraphic, even though the question of the subdivi-sion of the Cambrian remained still unresolved. Glacialsequences or rather the bottom of the upper tillite-bearinghorizon (Varangerian, Marinoan), or a “carbonate cap” ob-served in many cases, as in Australia, became the competingbases for the lower boundary. The prospects of Ediacaranacritarchs were also discussed, which first disclosed their


biostratigraphic potential as early as the 1950s, in studyingUpper Proterozoic deposits (Riphean and Vendian) of theUSSR. By the beginning of 2000, it has become clear that theexperts (20 of 18) prefer the “carbonate cap,” and in 2004 thisdecision was accepted at the session of IGC in Florence,together with the name of the system. This time the Vendiansimply was not considered—the decision was accepted by theSubcommission by voting(!). The new “International Strati-graphic Chart” (2000–2004) was discussed in the meetings ofthe Stratigraphic Committee of Russia and provoked sharpcriticism regarding the Upper Precambrian; the proposalconcerning distinguishing the new systems on the numericalbasis was rejected, but “Neoproterozoic-III” was accepted asthe Vendian system, already included in the Russian Strati-graphic Code (Zhamoyda and Petrov, 2008).1

Trying to understand why there was a change of attitudeto the principles of stratigraphy, traditionally used in Russianand European stratigraphy and modern approach to thisInternational Commission on Stratigraphy IUGS, I came tothe conclusion that the reason is practicality. This is, probably,a natural consequence of a fading interest in the history ofscience, and easier to say, the work of predecessors’ thought.An apostle of the American pragmatism in the stratigraphy inthe second half of XX century undoubtedly was an outstandinggeologist Hawleys Hedberg, with whom I happened to meet.Three fundamentally wrong propositions seem to lie at thebasis of this approach.

1. Denial of the necessity of natural-historical approach tothe substantiation of the stratigraphic units, i.e., geohistoricalmethod.

2. Lack of understanding (or lack of interest) of the natureof geologic time, which, as has been stated by K.V. Simakov(2003), is not an independent substance, but a reality, relatedonly to the material systems (biostratisphere). Failure tounderstand that geochronometry and geochronology are twodifferent things. Exaggeration of self-sufficiency of the radioi-sotopic method of measuring time for stratigraphy.

3. The belief that in the stratigraphy all its methods areequivalent. In fact, there are no various stratigraphies, but onlya variety of methods of regional stratigraphic correlation, ofwhich only historical ones are good for the global stratigraphy.In the Phanerozoic, this a zonal biostratigraphic method, basedon which the classic hierarchical model has been constructed.In the Precambrian, this model is no longer applicable,although the Precambrian paleontology became a reality. Andin the Quarternary–Anthropogene, its own climatic-ecostrati-graphic model should be developed with completely different

value of elementary stratigraphic unit. In general, you canprobably talk about the three basic models of stratigraphy:petrostratigraphy for the Archean and Paleoproterozoic, se-quence-stratigraphy for the Proterozoic, and biostratigraphyfor the Phanerozoic.

But in what did undoubtedly pioneer experience of usingthe paleontological method in the Precambrian stratigraphyand, first of all, the Proterozoic, culminate? There is no doubtthat the presence of the biosphere on the Earth begins withthe emergence of a virtually water-sediment process and thatfrom the third billion years of formation of the lithosphere,the Earth’s crust already began to accumulate paleobiologicalinformation related to the prokaryotic form of life and thatlife, once appeared, never interrupted, leaving its complexrecord in the Precambrian, as in the Phanerozoic. Theoverwhelming living variety on the Earth was called byV.N. Beklemishev (1928) “Geomerida,” considering the Pre-cambrian to be the beginning of its life; it is the first and, atthe same time, the highest biocenoesis of the terrestrialbiosphere and is only a single in the universe. Its evolution,diversification and history provided the living Earth with quitea unique biochronological tool, which also became thefoundation of geochronology. The specific feature of life inthe Precambrian is the rate of its evolution, the level ofbiological organization, the appearance only in the Neopro-terozoic–Vendian of complex multicellular organisms, whosekingdom the Phanerozoic has become. For this reason, onlythe Phanerozoic had true biostratigraphy, and this allowed theelaboration of its biochronological model, which is based onbiozonation. In the pre-Vendian Proterozoic, this is notachieved and unlikely to be achieved under the conditions ofstill prokaryotic evolution. The Phanerozoic biosphere, startingfrom the Cambrian, is the biosphere of almost modern type.It seems necessary to conclude that the Proterozoic strati-graphic subdivisions which are similar in position to thePhanerozoic systems, but by the age range are by 2–3 timeslonger, should have different terminology, and the Phanerozoicmodel for the Precambrian is absolutely not appropriate. Herestratigraphic sequences themselves come to the first place—sequences of variable order, also carrying micropaleontologi-cal information, but of different taxonomic rank. I havesuggested earlier the term “sequentheme,” but probably,“suberatheme” would be more appropriate. Among all sequen-themes of the Proterozoic, the Vendian one would remain ina special position in the future: it is the first to contain avariety of eukaryotic macrobiotas, among which, however,only the Ediacaran s. str. has no analogs in the Phanerozoic.

The deposits of the Vendian system in Russia have acomprehensive paleontological description that well definesthe major units in the two-member division. The LowerVendian, as the Riphean suberathemes, has a micropaleon-tological characteristic. It is also of value in the UpperVendian, but the diversity of biotas of phytogenous andzoogenous macroorganisms appears here for the first time.Ediacaran biota with its three characteristic formal groups ofradial-ray petalonamae, three-prong trilobozoa and, undoubt-edly, mobile proarticulata (Fedonkin, 1981, 1987; Ivantsov and

1A dissapointing detail should be added. In 1964, the author for the first timemade the report on the Vendian as a system and period of the Global natureat the International Geological Congress in New Delhi (India); the report hasbeen published in English language (Sokolov, 1964), but this work of realpriority appeared absolutely has not been cited in the foreign literature,including the summary publications (Cloud and Glaessner, 1982), biblio-graphies, cited by the Subcommission of the ICS in its publications, andeven in the fundamental monographs on the Vendian–Ediacaran biota in theproject of the ISGC #493 “The Rise and the Fall of the Venian Biota(2003–2007).”


Leonov, 2009), to which, first of all, nontaxonomic name—“vendiata” must refer, is very typical of the middle part of theVendian, but it was the basis of distinguishing the Vendianas a system and its biostratigraphic subdivision. The basis wasgeohistorical, like all the systems of the Paleozoic, and macro-,and microbiotas and the succession of their appearancebecame its biostratigraphic characteristic. The latter is illus-trated (Fig. 2) based only on the materials on the type regionfor the Vendian in the East European Platform and in part ofthe Urals (Grazhdankin et al., 2009). The stratigraphic divisionof the Vendian corresponds to that accepted in Russia, exceptfor the lower division, for which a type subdivision, in myopinion, should be represented by the Vychegda regiostage

(horizon), having an excellent micropaleontological charac-teristic, including the assemblage of acantomorphic acritarchs(Vorob’eva et al., 2009). This division incorporates theVaranger glaciohorizon, basal for the Lower Vendian that byitself includes the Ediacaran Pertatataka assemblage of acri-tarchs of Australia in the lower Vendian (Golubkova et al.,2010; Grey and Calver, 2007).

The paleontological characteristic of the Vendian is dividedinto eight ecostratigraphic groups, typical of different marineenvironments. Bacterial mats (films), stromatolites, andsimilar formations, formed mainly by cyanophytes (Cyano-phyta). These are the oldest manifestations of prokaryotic lifealready in the ecological form, marking the origin of biosphere

Fig. 2. Vendian of the stratotype region. 1–8, ecostratigraphical groups: 1, bacterial mats (films), stromatolites and similar formations, created mainly by cyanophytes;2, mushroom-like microorganisms; 3, microphytoplankton; 4, macrophytoplankton; 5, phytobentos; 6, Ediacaran biota, combining groups Trilobozoa (generaTribrachidium, Albumares, Anfesta), Proarticulara (genera Vendia, Dickinsonia, Andiva, Ivovicia, Cyanorus, Yorgia) and Petalonamae (genera Rangea, Charnia,Charniodiscus, Onegia, Ventogyrus); 7, type and groups of water Metazoa; 8, trace fossils; 9, small skeletal remains. Cy, cyanophytes; Pr, Primophlagella;Ca, Caudina; Sm, Sarmenta; O, Obruchevella; Aa, acantomorphic acritarchs; L, Leiosphaeridia; B, Bavlinella; Ts, Tasmanites; Ch, Chuariamorphida; Be, Beltanel-loides; A, Archyfasma; V, Vendotaenia; T, Tyrassotaenia; D, Dvinia; ABC, Trilobozoa, Proarticulara and Petalonamae; Po, type Porifera (genera Vaveliksia,Fedomia); C, type Cnidaria (genera Nemiana, Vendoconularia(?), Hiemalora); A, type Annelida (genus Pm, Parmia); P, type Pogonophora (genera Sabellidites,Paleolina, Saarina, Calyptrina); M, type Mollusca (genus Kimberella); Ar, type Arthropoda (genus Parvancorina); E, type Echinodermata; T, type Tunicata (genusAusia); Pl, Palaeopsachnites, N, Neonereites, Ha, Harlaniella, Tr, Treptichnus; SSF, small skeletal remains.


on the cooling and cold earth, probably, in still humid crustsof weathering and the first continental fresh-water pools-ba-sins. In the Precambrian paleontology, stromatolites were thefirst to show their chronospecificity and were of significantimportance to the stratigraphy of Riphean carbonates. In theNeoproterozoic siliciclastic basins, stromatolites were replacedby organic sapropelite mats of “laminarite” type and so-calledpostmortal masks of died out microbial mats and colonies(Gehling, 1999; Grazhdankin and Gerdes, 2007).

Fungus microorganisms, undoubtedly, emerged very earlytogether with cyanobacteria and were in the process of forminglichen biocoenoses on the bedrocks in the crusts of weathering.But attention is paid first of all to actinomycetes (Actinomy-cetes) as epibionts on sapropelic films and thalli of Vendoteniaalgae, first found by M.B. Gnilovskaya (1971, 1985, 1988);these are the genera Primophlagella, Caudina and Sarmenta,characteristic of the Vendian (see Fig. 2).

The largest and stratigraphically most important group isrepresented by microphytoplankton, combined by the name“acritarchs” (Acritarcha). Its major part is composed ofphytoplankton, but it also includes other microorganisms andtheir components—microfossils in a general sense. Acritarchsbecame the fundamental paleontological characteristic of theRiphean and Vendian (Upper Proterozoic). V.N. Sergeev(Sergeev, 2009) identifies six chronostratigraphic units, theupper two of which belong to the Lower Vendian—630–550 Ma (acantomorphs of the Amadeusian series), and to theUpper Vendian—550–542 Ma (Belomorian series).

For macrophytoplankton of chuariamorphic character, Ipreviously used the conventional name “Chuariamorphida”(Sokolov, 1974), referring to it genus Beltanelloides, ex-tremely abundant in the Vendian pelagial, which became thebasis for correlation of the Upper Vendian of the EastEuropean Platform. The genera Mezenia and Tawuia are closeto it. The assemblage of these vesicular algae is accompaniedby the strombuliform Grypania.

In the Vendian, the oldest representatives of benthic flora,thalline Vendotaeniacea, have first been discovered (Gni-lovskaya, 2003), as well as the genera Archyfasma, Eoholynia,Vendotaenia, Tyrassotaenia, Dvinia, etc., now known through-out the Vendian–Ediacaran deposits as “Vendotaenia.” Ofparticular interest is the genus Archyfasma from the lowerlayers of the upper Vendian (Red’kino regiostage) of uniquepreservation that for the first time allowed examination of thetissular structure of so ancient plants.

The most exotic Vendian biota was the so-called Edia-caran biota of benthic organisms represented by forms, moreor less similar to types known in paleontology as Metazoa, orentirely new and unknown in the Phanerozoic Vendobionta(Seilacher, 2007) or Vendiata (Gureev, 1987), that is the same(see Fig. 2). This biota has played a crucial role in the currentunderstanding of the taxonomy of Bilateria (Malakhov, 2010).This biota was named after the place of its finding byAustralian geologist Robert Sprigg (1947) in the west of theFlinders Ridge in South Australia and until 1959 was presum-ably considered to be Cambrian (Glaessner, 1959). The entireVendian bears the trace fossils of mobile benthic Metazoa,

and small shelly fauna characterizes the basal biochronozoneof the Lower Cambrian, i.e., the Phanerozoic. It was aso-called “Cambrian explosion population” in the evolution ofthe biosphere and Geomerida.

The main biostratigraphic conclusion that follows from theconsideration of the entire composition of Vendian Geomeridacomes to the fact that in its development two stages are clearlydefined—the Early Vendian stage with a dominant develop-ment of cold-water pelagic phytoplankton and the first, alreadyquite diverse benthos of shelf, and the second stage—the LateVendian, marking the first population-taxonomic explosion ofMetazoa. The start of both is related to postglacial isostaticjumps, followed by the formation of basal diamictites andmarine tillites. In the first case, this is the Laplandianglaciohorizon, which is likely to be linked to the Vychegdaregiostage, and the second stage, the level of the “glacialGlusskaya Formation” of the Volyn Series of Belarus, corre-sponding to the Gasquet glaciation, according to N.M. Chu-makov (2008)—584 Ma. The phytoplankton assemblage of theLower Vendian acritarchs well characterizes the series bios-tratigraphically, while benthos is important mainly paleon-tologically.

In the upper Vendian, the main focus was placed worldwideon Ediacaran biota, particularly after its finding in Russia. Thefirst findings were Vendia in the Mezen syneclise, Cy-clomedusa in Podolia, Charnia in the Vendian section,penetrated by drilling in the North of Europe, and Rangea inthe Olenek uplift in Siberia. In its full range, this biota wasfound in a unique 100-meter thick section of the Vendian inthe Letnii shore of the White Sea and in the Onega Peninsula(Fedonkin, 1981, 1987; Grazhdankin, 2003; Martin et al.,2000; etc.) and became the most complete among the mostfamous biotas on the continents of Australia, America,Eurasia, and Africa. She gave birth to the hope that the firstpaleozoological foundation for the Late Precambrian stratigra-phy was found. However, its real value was not in this, butrather in defining the first marker level of the biosphereevolution for the planetary stratigraphy, and this level was theVendian. The Ediacaran biota occupied its place in it, but didnot become the basis of the stratigraphy of the TerminalProterozoic. The chronological range of vendiata distribution,as suggested by the best expert on this biota M.A. Glaessner,has appeared too narrow for the geological period. This topicwas discussed during my meetings with M.A. Glaessner inAdelaide and in Moscow in the 1970s. However, there areseveral attempts to construct a chronostratigraphic sequencein the position of Ediacaran fossils in the biotas on Newfound-land (Avalon biota), the White Sea (Belomor biota) and SouthAfrica (Namibian biota). The last of the attempts (Xiao andLaflamme, 2008) presents precisely this series, combined bythe interval of 575–542 Ma within the Upper Vendian withthe indistict boundaries. The Upper Vendian biostratigraphyof the East European Platform is somewhat different in termsof the entire composition of fossils. The Red’kino regiostageis a massive development of Ediacaran biota, which is typefor the Ediacaran stage in views of A. and J. Termier (1960,1964); the Kotlin regional stage is characterized by a wide


distribution of Vendophycea; the Rovno and Baltic regionalstages are characterized by various tubularmorphic organismsof the seabed protected by a tubular sheath of organic,chitinous, phosphate or carbonate composition. These arerepresentatives of annelids, and probably Pogonophora—thegenera Saarina, Calyptrina, Sabellidites, Paleolina. The firstsabelliditids are already known from Red’kino and Kotlindeposits. By separating the lower Baltic horizon from theLower Cambrian Baltic Series (Sokolov, 1965), which corre-sponds to the Rovno horizon, I primarily relied on the massdistribution of Sabelliditida at this level both in the EastEuropean and the Siberian Platforms, where deposits withsabelliditids, Cloudina, Namacalathus and vendotenia algaeare part of the Nemakit-Daldyn stage of the Vendian (Kon-torovich et al., 2009). The problem of the Baltic stage,probably, could not be completely resolved, as it immediatelyprecedes a very important biostratigraphic zone of the LowerCambrian with the mass emergence of small shelly organismswith carbonate skeletons, which is the base of the Tommotianstage of the Cambrian. It is of no principal value for the finaldetermination of the Vendian boundary as a terminal subdivi-sion of the Proterozoic and Phanerozoic, in any case, it willbe the base of the Phanerozoic.

Conclusions

In the chronostratigraphic space of the lithosphere, theVendian (Vendian period and system, and evolutionary-biospheric stage) appeared a new geohistorical reality andoccupied quite a definite position in the system of stratigraphicsubdivisions of the stratisphere (Fig. 3). It showed that theperiod of heroic wandering of ideas of geologists in theLipalian gaping (Walcott, 1914) was over, that the boundarybetween the Algoncian (Proterozoic) and Cambrian (Phanero-zoic) was not a painful mystery. The only issue, subject todiscussion is to what eonotheme the Vendian tends more. Theproponents of its inclusion in the Phanerozoic, of course,would remain, and there is a reason for this, even judgingfrom the existing notions about the nature of diversificationof Geomerida during its evolution and history. But thedefinition of the lower boundary of the Vendian as aconsequence of the started postglacial transgression (eustatics)relates the Vendian to the period of the Late Proterozoicsubglobal glaciations and the emergence of the cold ocean.This period is now metaphorically called “the Cryogen”(Plumb, 1991). It seems that the more meaningful is theconcept of Baikalian of V.V. Khomentovsky (2002). But interms of correlation, it has to be developed not only in easternSiberia, but in the Urals within the framework of the LateRiphean.

First of all, it is necessary to revert to consideration of theMinyarian of M.E. Raaben (1975), but not as a unit prior tothe “Terminal Riphean,” i.e., the Kudashian of B.M. Keller(1973) and the Vendian, but only to the upper part of theformer, corresponding in the Southern Urals to the KurgashlaFormation, already bearing the typical features of the Vendian

with tilloids at the bottom. The Minyarian and the Baikalianare the large Upper Proterozoic pre-Vendian units that formedunder severe conditions, and not only glacial, althoughoccasionally they were predominant.

The Baikalian and the Vendian, at the modern level of theirgeological study, are most likely to be considered as the UpperNeoproterozoic. However, their drastically different organicworld inevitably leaves open the problem of the lowerboundary of the Phanerozoic. The basic points of view arefully developed and logically they are well founded. But theinclusion of the Vendian in the Phanerozoic acrothemedestroys a concept of the three-member Lower Paleozoic(Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian), and makes questionable thefirmly entrenched general concept of “Precambrian.” Thelatter becomes pre-Vendian or pre-Ediacaran. This is unlikelyto be accepted by the geological community. The concept of“Precambrian” could be preserved in this case, if in ourstratigraphic nomenclature the Eocambrian would remained as“the dawn” of the Cambrian, according to A. and J. Termier(1960), but this did not happen. Inclusion of the Vendian inthe Neoproterozoic remains stable the lower boundary of thePhanerozoic as the base of the Paleozoic eratheme s. l., butat the same time, the Phanerozoic biozonal principle ofestablishing its lower boundary is lost. But this is natural andinevitable, as the use of the integrated paleontological methodof fixing the type boundaries of Proterozoic units (Ripheanand Karelian) is sharply limited.

The first place already in the early Proterozoic biota isoccupied by the realm of single-cellular organisms, Pro-karyota, represented by single forms of cyanobacteria, or theirclusters, forming the film structures that can assimilatecalcium carbonate, commonly known as stromatolites. Theseare the only macrostructural formations in the pre-Vendiansediments of organogenic origin with fairly stable types of“skeletal” structure. However, they are not the biological taxaof the Linnaean system, but the products of life activity of thecolonial films (elementary coenoses) of single-cellular pro-karyotes, mainly filamentous bacterial forms. These structuresunexpectedly exhibited the features of the “organismic plan,”which finally provided the basis to formally use the binarynomenclature in their description. Stromatolites played aprominent role in the subdivision of the Proterozoic carbonatestrata. Other forms of free coccoid and filamentous cyanobac-teria, whose taxonomic diversity is dramatically higher thanthat of formal taxa of stromatolites, were distributed insiliciclastic facies. In these facies, probably, by the early ormid-Karelian the first Eukaryota had emerged. The emergenceof their coloniality is undoubtedly assigned to the Riphean. Itoften exhibits the ordered forms, but these are not yet thetissular structures, which were first found in the Vendian genusAchyfasma (vendotaenids).

As for Metazoa, the genus Parmia, found by M.B. Gni-lovskaya in Late Precambrian sediments of Pre-Ttiman regionprimarily attracts the attention (Gnilovskaya et al., 2000).Their age was interpreted as “pre-Ediacaran” partly due toacritarch appearance, but more due to similarity of Parmiawith so-called “Hainan biota,” found in North China at the


base of the Sinian system s. str. (Sun et al., 1986) that, in myview, is most likely to correspond to the Lower Vendian.Three genera are indicated in the composition of this biota:Sinosabellidites, Pararenicola, Protoarenicola. These aresurely not tubular organisms that are very similar to each otherand, undoubtedly, annelidomorphic as Parmia. Their isotopicage is indicated in the range 900–700 Ma, which is rathervague. However, quite new biostratigraphic data have beenreported regarding the findings of Parmia anastassiae in theacritarch assemblages at the base of the Vychegda regiostage,penetrated by drilling in the Vychegda River basin of thePre-Timan region (Vorob’eva et al., 2009). Stratigraphically,these deposits correspond to the Lower Vendian that in Chinacorresponds to the Doushanto Formation of the Sinian in theYangtze River basin. This is a stratotype of the Sinian systems. str. in the South China platform; the name is preserved onlyfor it (1982) and the Sinian suberatheme is excluded from use.Thus, surprisingly very high level of organization of repre-sentatives of the Hainan biota can be explained: these Metazoaare not of Riphean but of Early Vendian age.

Paleontology of the Early Vendian has not yet sufficientlybeen developed; it is much poorer than the Late Vendian, buteven what we know, definitely indicates the beginning of anew phase of the biosphere, rather than the completion of thepreceding one with its severe subglacial climate. The EarlyVendian is a flash of various micro-, and macrophytoplankton,large acantomorphyc acritarchs, chuariamorphids (Chuaria,Beltanelloides, Tawuia); this is the emergence of offshoremeadows populated by vendotaenia fauna, fossil traces ofmobile benthic organisms, the first worm-like organisms, notyet protected by tegmen, and rare medusoids of Kullingia type.This is undoubtedly the dawn of the Vendian biota as a newgeological period, but not yet Ediacaran biota, which appearedonly at the beginning of the Late Vendian. The knownPertatataka acritarch biota of Australia is also of Vendian age.The Proterozoic stage of life evolution preceding the Vendianwas the time single-celled prokaryotes and eukaryotes thatcovered the pelagic zone of the World Ocean. This life hasbeen immense in their biomass, and it has left its mark bybecoming the source of the oldest hydrocarbons. But it hasexperienced a climatic perturbation that resulted in biota

Fig. 3. Acrochrones of the biosphere evolution and the chronostratigraphic space of the lithosphere.


extinction, probably, to the largest in Earth’s history. It is notshocking today only because that event happened in the worldof single-celled organisms.

The organic world of the Upper (Late) Vendian is perceivedas the world of undoubtedly Phanerozoic type by the trend inits evolution, defined earlier. But attention was attracted byits composition, first of all, the exotic nucleus, which did notfit either of the known types of Metaphyta, or Metazoa. Theseare groups, which are now defined as Trilobozoa, Proarticulataand Petalonamae (Research of the Laboratory of PrecambrianOrganisms of the Paleontological Institute of RAS under theguidance of M.A. Fedonkin). We do not know with certaintytheir descendants even in the early classical Phanerozoic(Cambrian). However, the Vendian macrobiota is not limitedby these groups. It consists of dozens of genera which arewith good reason, as V.V. Malakhov (2010) does, can be seenwithin the Radiata and Bilateria, including many types ofMetazoa (sponges, cnidarians, annelids, Pogonophora, mol-lusks, arthropods and even echinoderms, and, perhaps, tuni-cates).

Striking is the fact of really explosive formation of thebasic types of multicellular organisms. The Vendian and thePhanerozoic appear as a single acrochrone of the biosphereevolution. In the Late Riphean, one could observe only theemergence of coloniality in cellular structures. But the first,undoubtedly, tissular ones, appeared only in the Late Ven-dian—Archyfasma dimera, the Ust-Pinega Formation of theWhite Sea (Gnilovskaya, 2003). Such genera as Horodiskya,Grypania, cannot be regarded as tissular; the nature of thegenus Udokania from the Proterozoic of Siberia also remainsuncertain.

The above-mentioned very important work of N.G. Vo-rob’eva, V.N. Sergeev and A. Noll (Vorob’eva et al., 2009)allows the inclusion in the Ediacarian of the Vychegda stage,to which the Laplandian horizon is also assigned. But this isreally a lower series of the Vendian—the system, foundedmuch earlier than the name “Ediacaran” for the same systemappeared in the literature (Sokolov, 1952, 1958, 1964). Thestatement that Ediacaran is not a synonym of the Vendian(Cloud and Glaessner, 1982), is not true: now you can quiteclearly state that in terms of geologic history, the Vendian,Sinian s. str., and Ediacaran are in a single correlation series;they define a single global stage of the biosphere evolution.But ultimately, it is crucial that a new geologic period andsystem have been discovered in the XX century. I am proudthat in 1997 for this discovery the Russian Academy ofSciences awarded me with its highest scientific prize, Lo-monosov Grand Gold Medal.

Baikalid formation, the epoch of long-term subglobalglaciation and the Vendian postglacial transgression were themost important events of the late Proterozoic in the world,which have had a fundamental impact on the crucial eventsin the biosphere, in the history of Geomerida. We only nowbegin to really understand this.

I am grateful to M.B. Gnilovskaya for your great help inthe work, as well as to N.V. Bochkarev and A.V. Krayushkin.

The work was performed under the grant of the Presidentof the Russian Federation no. 02.120.11.64541-NSH.

References

Asklund, B., 1958. Le probléme Cambrien–Eocambrien dans la Partie Centraledes Calédonides Suédoises, in: LXXVI Colloques Internationaux duCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Les relations entre précam-brien et cambrien. Problemes des séries intermédiares. Paris, 39–52.

Beklemishev, V.N., 1928. Organism and community (to setting of the problemof identity in biocoenology), in: Transactions of the Biological ResearchInstitute and the Biological Station at the Perm University [in Rus-sian]. Perm, Issue 2–3, pp. 12–14.

Chumakov, N.M., 2007. Climates and climate zonality of the Vendian:geological evidence, in: Vickers-Rich, P., Komarower, P. (Eds.), The Riseand Fall of the Ediacaran Biota. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 286, pp. 15–26.

Chumakov, N.M., 2008. Problem of the Earth’s totalitarian glaciations in theLate Precambrian. Stratigrafiya. Geologicheskaya Korrelyatsiya 16 (2),3–15.

Cloud, P., Glaessner, M.F., 1982. The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoainherit the Earth. Science 217, 783–792.

Fedonkin, M.A., 1981. Belomorian Biota of the Vendian (PrecambrianInvertebrate Fauna of the Northern Russian Platform) [in Russian]. Nauka,Moscow.

Fedonkin, M.A., 1987. Vendian Invertebrate Fauna and Its Place in MetazoaEvolution [in Russian]. Nauka, Moscow (Transactions of PIN, Vol. 226).

Gehling, J.G., 1999. Microbiol mats in terminal Proterozoic siliciclastics:Ediacaran death masks. Palaios 14, 40–57.

Glaessner, M.F., 1959. Precambrian Coelenterata from Australia, Africa andEngland. Nature 183, 1472–1473.

Gnilovskaya, M.B., 1971. The oldest water plants of the Vendian in theRussian Platform. Paleontologicheskii Zh., No. 3, 101–107.

Gnilovskaya, M.B., 1985. Vendian ray fungi and organisms of ambiguoussystematic position, in: Vendian System, Vol. 1: Palaentology [in Rus-sian]. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 125–127.

Gnilovskaya, M.B. (Ed.), 1988. Vendotaenids of the East European Platform[in Russian]. Nauka, Leningrad.

Gnilovskaya, M.B., 2003. On the ancient tissular differentiation of Precam-brian (Vendian) algae. Paleontologicheskii Zh., No. 2, 92–98.

Gnilovskaya, M.B., Veis, A.F., Bekker, Yu.R., Olovyanishnikov, V.G.,Raaben, M.E., 2000. Pre-Ediacaran fauna of Timan (Upper Ripheanannelidomorphs) [in Russian]. Stratigrafiya. Geologicheskaya Korrelyat-siya, No. 8, 11–39.

Golubkova, E.Yu., Raevskaya, E.G., Kuznetsov, A.B., 2010. Lower Vendianmicrofossil assemblages of Eastern Siberia in solution of stratigraphicalproblems of the region, [in Russian]. Stratigrafiya. GeologicheskayaKorrelyatsiya 18 (4), 3–27.

Grabau, A.W., 1922. The Sinian System. Bull. Geol. Soc. China 1, 44–88.Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.J., Bleeker, W., Lourens, L.J., 2004. A

new Geologic Time Scale, with special reference to Precambrian andNeogene. Episodes 27, 83–100.

Grazhdankin, D.V., 2003. Structure and sedimentation of the Vendiansequence in Southeastern Belomor region [in Russian]. Stratigrafiya.Geologicheskaya Korrelyatsiya 11 (4), 3–34.

Grazhdankin, D., Gerdes, G., 2007. Ediacaran microbial colonies. Lethaia, 40,201–210.

Grazhdankin, D.V., Maslov, A.V., Krupenin, M.T., 2009. Structure andformation stages of Vendian deposits of the Sylvets Series of the westernslope of the Central Ural [in Russian]. Stratigrafiya. GeologicheskayaKorrelyatsiya 17 (5), 20–40.

Grey, K., Calver, C.R., 2007. Correlating the Ediacaran Australia, in:Vickers-Rich, P., Komarower, P. (Eds.), The Rise and Fall of theEdiacaran Biota. The Geological Society, London, Special Publications286, pp. 115–135.


Gureev, Yu.A., 1987. Morphological Analysis and Systematic of Vendiates[in Russian]. Institute of Geological Sciences AS USSR, Kiev, Preprint87-15.

Ivantsov, A.Yu., Leonov, M.V., 2009. Imprints of Vendian Animals—UniquePaleontological Objects of the Arkhangel’sk Region [in Russian]. Severo-Zapadnoe Knizh. Izd., Arkhangel’sk.

Keller, B.M., 1973. Vendian, Yudomian and Terminal Riphean (Vendomian).Izv. AS USSR, Ser. Geol., No. 1, 86–92.

Khomentovsky, V.V., 2002. Baikalian of Siberia (850–650 Ma). Geologiya iGeofizika (Russian Geology and Geophysics) 43 (4), 313–333 (299–318).

Khomentovsky, V.V., 2008. Yudomian of Siberia, Vendian and EdiacaranSystem of the International Stratigraphic Chart [in Russian]. Stratigrafiya.Geologicheskaya Korrelyatsiya 16 (6), 3–21.

Kontorovich, A.E., Sokolov, B.S., Kontorovich, V.A., Varlamov, A.I.,Grazhgankin, D.V., Efimov, A.S., Klets, A.G., Saraev, S.V., Ter-leev, A.A., Belyaev, S.Yu., Varaksina, I.V., Karlova, G.A., Koch-nev, B.B., Nagovitsyn, K.E., Postnikov, A.A., Fillipov, Yu.F., 2009. Thefirst section of Vendian deposits in the basement complex of the WestSiberian petroleum megabasin (resulting from the drilling ofthe Vostok-3parametric borehole in the eastern Tomsk region). Dokl. Earth Sci. 425(2), 219–222.

Lee, J.S., 1924. Geology of the Gorges District of the Yangtze from Ychongto Tsekue, with Special Reference to the Development of the Gorges.Bull. Geol. Soc. China 3.

Martin, M.W., Grazhdankin, D.V., Bowring, S.A., Evans, D.A.D., Fedon-kin, M.A., Kirschvink, J.L., 2000. Age of Neoproterozoic bilaterian bodyand trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution.Science 288, 841–845.

Menchikoff, N., 1949. Quelques traits de I’histoire geoloque du Saharaoccidental. Ann. Hébert et Haug 7, 303–325.

Malakhov, V.V., 2010. A new system of Bilateria. Vestnik RAN (Herald ofthe Russian Academy of Sciences) 80 (1), 27–44 (29–41).

Plumb, K.A., 1991. New Precambrian time scale. Episodes 14 (2), 139–140.Pruvost, P., 1951. L’Infracambrien. Bull. Belge Geol. et Hydrol. 60 (1), 43–63.Raaben, M.E., 1975. Upper Riphean as a Unit of the General Stratigraphic

Chart [in Russian]. Nauka, Moscow.Ramsay, W., 1911. Betzage Zur Geologie der Kalbinsel Kanin. Fenuia 31, 4.Rozanov, A.Yu., Semikhatov, M.A., Sokolov, B.S., Fedonkin, M.A., Chu-

makov, N.M., 1997. Decision on the selection of Precambrian/Cambrianboundary stratotype: breakthrough in the problem or error [in Russian].Stratigrafiya. Geologicheskaya Korrelyatsiya 5 (1), 21–31.

Seilacher, A., 2007. The nature of vendobionts, in: Vickers-Rich, P.,Komarower, P. (Eds.), The Rise and Fall of the Ediacaran Biota.Geological Society, London, Special Publications 286, pp. 387–397.

Semikhatov, M.A., 1994. Vendian System (period), in: Raaben, M.E. (Ed.),Stratigraphical Dictionary. Upper Precambrian [in Russian]. Nauka,Moscow.

Semikhatov, M.A., 2008. Chronostratigraphy and chronometry: competingconceptions of the general subdivision of the Precambrian. Byul. MOIP,Ser. Geol. 83 (5), 36–58.

Sergeev, V.N., 2009. The distribution of microfossil assemblages in Protero-zoic rocks. Precam. Res. 173, 212–222.

Simakov, K.V., 2003. On some methodological problems of geochronologyand geochronometry, in: Simakov, K.V. (Ed.), Geological Sketches. Izd.SV NTs DVO RAN, Magadan, pp. 73–84.

Sokolov, B.S., 1952. On the age of the oldest sedimentary cover of the RussianPlatform. Izv. AN SSSR, No. 5, 21–31.

Sokolov, B.S., 1958. Le probleme de la limite inférieure du Paléozoïque etles depots les plus anciens sur les plates-formes antsiniennes de l’Eurasie,in: LXXVI Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la RechercheScientifique. Les relations entre précambrien et cambrien. Problemes desséries intermédiares. Paris, pp. 103–128.

Sokolov, B.S., 1964. The Vendian and the Problem of the Boundary betweenthe Pre-Cambrian and Paleozoic Group, in: Report of the Twenty-SecondSession of International Geological Congress. Part X. Archaean andPre-Cambrian Geology. New Delhi, 288–304.

Sokolov, B.S., 1965. All-Union Symposium on Cambrian and Early CambrianPalaentology (Novosibirsk, November 25–30, 1965). Abstracts of Reports[in Russian]. Novosibirsk, Izd. SO AN SSSR.

Sokolov, B.S., 1966. All-Union Symposium on Precambrian and EarlyCambrian Palaentology. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, No. 4, 114–117.

Sokolov, B.S., 1971. Biochronology and stratigrapical boundaries, in: Prob-lems of General and Regional Geology [in Russian]. Nauka, Novosibirsk,pp. 155–178.

Sokolov, B.S., 1972. The Vendian Stage in Earth History, in: Twenty-FourthSession of the International Geological Congress. Section 1. PrecambrianGeology. Montréal, pp. 78–84.

Sokolov, B.S., 1974. The problem of the boundary between the Precambrianand Cambrian. Geologiya i Geofizika (Russian Geology and Geophysics)15 (2), 3–29 (1–22).

Sokolov, B.S., 1979. Precambrian palaentology, in: Precambrian and EarlyCambrian Palaentology, Transactions of All-Union Symposium (Lenin-grad, March 11–16, 1976) [in Russian]. Nauka, Leningrad, pp. 5–16.

Sprigg, R.C., 1947. Early Cambrian (?) jellyfishes from the Flinders Ranges,South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 71,212–224.

Zhamoida, A.I., Petrov, O.V. (Eds.), 2008. Status of Knowledge of thePrecambrian and Phanerozoic Stratigraphy in Russia. Goals of FurtherStudies. Resolutions of the ISC and Its Permanent Commissions [inRussian]. Izd. VSEGEI, St. Petersburg, Issue 38.

Sun, W., Wang, G., Behne, Z., 1986. Macroscopic worm-like body fossilsfrom the Upper pre-Cambrian (900–700 Ma), Huainan District, Anhui,China and their stratigraphic and evolutionary significance. Precam. Res.31, 377–403.

Termier, H., Termier, G., 1960. L’Ediacarien premier étage paleontologique.Revue Gen. Sci. 67 (3–4), 79–87.

Termier, H., Termier G., 1964. Les Temps Fossiliféres. I. PaléozoiqueInférieur. Masson et Co., Paris.

Termier, H., Termier G., 1968. Evolution et biocenose. Les invrtebres donsI’histoires du monde vivant. Paris, Masson et Co.

Vorob’eva, N.G., Sergeev, V.N., Knoll, A.H., 2009. Neoproterozoic micro-fossils from the northeastern margin of the East European Platform.J. Paleontol. 83, 161–196.

Walcott, C.D., 1914. Cambrian Geology and Palaeontology. SmithsonianMiscellaneous Collections 64 (2), 77–156.

Xiao, S., Laflamme M., 2008. On the eve of animal radiation: phylogeny,ecology and evolution of the Ediacaran biota. Trends in Ecology andEvolution 24, 31–40.


the chronostratigraphic space of the lithosphere …...events during this giant period of time are...

Documents