The Russian Carboniferous and Permian compared with those of India and America : a review and discussion / by Charles Schuchert.
- Charles Schuchert
- Date:
- 1906
Licence: In copyright
Credit: The Russian Carboniferous and Permian compared with those of India and America : a review and discussion / by Charles Schuchert. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
23/38 page 143
![Art. X V\—The Russian Carboniferous and Permian com- pared with those of India and America. A Review and Discussion / by Charles Schuchert. [Continued from p. 46.] Part III. The Work of Diener. 1. The Pennocarboniferous Fauna of Chitichun No. I. Mem. Geol. Surv. India, ser. xv, Himalayan Fossils, vol. i, pt. 3, 1897, pp. 1-105, pis. i-xiii. 2. The Permian Fossils of the Productus Shales of Kumaon and Gurhwal. Ibid., pt. 4, 1897, pp. 1-54, pis. i-v. 3. Permian Fossils of the Central Himalayas. Ibid., pt. 5, 1903, pp. 1- 204, pis. i-x. In the central Himalayas at the limestone crag of Chitichun No. 1, at an elevation of 17,700 feet, Griesbach, Middlemiss, and Diener, in the year 1892, discovered a lot of fossils described in the work cited above (1). The stratigraphical results of this collection are described by Diener on pp. 85-105, from which are taken the following extracts :— “ Karpinsky and Tschernyschew, two authors to whom the most detailed studies of the Artinskian fauna are due, strongly advocate the distinction of the pennocarboniferous from carbon- iferous and permian systems, and are decidedly averse to uniting it with either the one or the other. Tschernyschew especially strongly combats the view of the majority of geologists who proposed to unite the pennocarboniferous with the permian, as a lower division of the system. According to him a separa- tion of the pennocarboniferous from the permian system is demanded by the general aspect of the fauna, in which the carboniferous types greatly predominate, chiefly among the brachiopods. If it ought to be united either with the carbon- iferous or permian system, in spite of its distinctly intermediate position, it must necessarily be placed in the former, on the strength both of the carboniferous character of its fauna and of historical priority, since the Artinskian sandstone had been correlated with the carboniferous millstone-grit of Western Europe by Sir Roderick Murchison, who first introduced the name permian. “Against the first argument the objection may be raised that notwithstanding the prevalence of carboniferous types in the Artinskian fauna, the latter ‘ marks a very important moment in the history of development of organic remains, namely, the first appearance of true ammonites with complicated sutures.’ Nor is the large percentage of carboniferous types in the Artinskian fauna an astonishing fact, in view of the absence of any break in the sequence of marine beds from the upper carboniferous to the true permian strata. Even in beds, which must be placed very high in the permian system, in the upper Productus limestones of the Salt Range and in the Oto- Am. Jour. Sci.—Fourth Series, Vol. XXII, No. 128.—August, 1906.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22407194_0025.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
