Litho-, Bio-, and Magnetostratigraphy and Paleoenvironment of Tunggur Formation (Middle Miocene) in Central Inner Mongolia, China

32 Pages·2003·3 MB·English

by  Wang Xiaoming

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10024
Number 3411, 31 pp., 10 figures, 1 table July 28, 2003
Litho-, Bio-, and Magnetostratigraphy and
Paleoenvironment of Tunggur Formation (Middle
Miocene) in Central Inner Mongolia, China
XIAOMING WANG, 1,2 ZHUDING QIU,2 AND NEIL D. OPDYKE3
ABSTRACT
TheTunggurFormationispresentlyexposedalongtheedgeoftheTunggurTableland.Being
mostlyflat-lyingandwithamaximumthicknessoflessthan80m(mostsectionsarelessthan
40 m thick), exposures along the northern, western, and southern edges of the platform all
producevertebratefossils.TheAmericanMuseumWolfCampQuarryandPlatybelodonQuar-
ry produced most of the early collections. To the east, the Tableland graduallyblendsintothe
landscape, and its distribution becomes less well delineated. At the extreme eastern end, the
Tunggur Formation is probably overlain by the late Miocene Baogeda Ula Formation. The
Tunggur Formation has its stratotype along a small exposure at Mandelin Chabu inthenorth-
west edge of the Tableland.
The Tunggur Formation in the Tableland is divided into two informal sedimentary units,
theupperandlowerbeds.Thestratotypesection,WolfCamp,andPlatybelodonQuarry,along
with most localities in the northern escarpment, belong to the upper beds, which are charac-
terized by cross-bedded sandstones, variegated mudstones, and occasional marls. The entire
southernTairumNorbadlandandlowerpartoftheAletexiresectionbelongtothelowerbeds,
which are characterized by more uniform red mudstones interrupted by a channel sandstone.
The upper beds produce the Tunggur Fauna, which includes most of what is traditionally
knownasthePlatybelodonFauna.ThelowerbedscontainamorerecentlynamedTairumNor
1ResearchAssociate,DivisionofPaleontology,AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory;AssociateCurator,Depart-
ment of Vertebrate Paleontology, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los An-
geles,CA,90007. e-mail:[email protected]
2Researcher,InstituteofVertebratePaleontologyandPaleoanthropology,ChineseAcademyofSciences,P.O.Box
643, Beijing100044,China.e-mail:[email protected]
3Professor, Department of Geology, University of Florida, 1112 Turlington Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-7340.
e-mail:drno@ufl.edu
Copyright(cid:113)AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory2003 ISSN0003-0082
2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3411
Fauna, which has the latest occurrence of Tachyoryctoides and three musteloid carnivorans:
Leptarctus neimenguensis, a new species of Sthenictis, and a new form possibly related to
Aelurocyon, with all three being well represented in the North American Miocene.
Paleomagnetic study of two key sections at Moergen small mammal locality and at Tairum
Nor locality suggests a correlation in the magnetozones C5Ar.3r through part of C5r.3r, with
an age range of 11.8–13 Ma. Systematic prospecting in known and previously unexplored
areas has resulted in an expansion of the faunal representations in the region. By integrating
the faunal data with magnetostratigraphy, we provide the first chronological tie point in the
Chinese middle Miocene mammalian stratigraphy. Paleoenvironmentalstudies oftheTunggur
Formation indicate a mosaic of grassland and mixed conifer–broadleaf woodland. Shallow
channels were abundant, and floodplains had undergone different degrees of soil formation.
Large mammal communities contain many low-crowned browsers and a few high-crowned
grazers, but small mammals are dominated by grassland-adapted forms.
INTRODUCTION ies of key sections; (4) to update the faunal
lists produced from each localities; and (5)
In 1928, the Central Asiatic Expeditionby
to summarize evidence for paleoenviron-
the American Museum of Natural History
ments of the regime.
found the first ‘‘Pliocene’’ locality near a
INSTITUTIONAL ABBREVIATIONS: AMNH,
freshwater well known as Gur Tung Khara
American Museum of Natural History, New
Usu in central Inner Mongolia, China (An- York; CAE, Central Asiatic Expedition; F:
drews, 1932; Spock,1929).Thusbeganase- AM, Frick Collection of American Museum
ries of sensational discoveries that produced of Natural History, New York; IVPP, Insti-
a fossil mammal assemblage best known for tute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleo-
its shovel-tusked elephant Platybelodon anthropology,ChineseAcademyofSciences,
grangeri. For a long time Tunggur was the Beijing;andSSPE,Sino-SovietPaleontolog-
onlyChinesemiddleMiocenelocalitywidely ical Expedition.
known in the world. This pre-Hipparion
(three-toedhorse)fauna,oneoftherichestin
METHODS
the Chinese middle Miocene,becametheba-
sis of the Tunggurian land mammal age in Geographic names of the Tunggur area
East Asia. Despite this promising start,how- have been complicated by a combination of
ever, geological exploration of the region cross-translationsamongEnglish(sometimes
was discontinued because of wars and polit- French), Mongolian, Chinese, and occasion-
ical instabilities. With the exceptions of a ally Manchurian. Mongolian location names
brief exploration by a Sino-Soviet Paleonto- in early publications were sometimes trans-
logical Expedition in 1959 and more recent lated to Chinese, which were subject to in-
fieldwork by the Institute of Vertebrate Pa- terpretations by individuals with different
leontology and Paleoanthropology in 1986– backgrounds in Chinese dialects, and finally
1987 (see History of Study below), no sys- to English, which can be based on either
tematic field study was attempted. As a re- Wade-Gile or Pinyin systems. To compound
sult, much basic information is lacking, such these problems, Mongolian location names
as the status of the type section and the lo- may change within a short time because no-
cations of historically important localities. madic tribes have no permanent settlement.
Without such information, faunas from his- With the exception of well-established
torical collections were often scrambled into names, such as Tunggur and Tairum Nor, we
a single heterogeneous assemblage. use names published in Chinese 1:100,000
The present field studies, carried out be- topographicmaps(publishedin1971).These
tween1993and2000,attempttoaddressfive Chinese translationsofMongoliannamesare
basic issues: (1) to relocate classiclocalities; further translated to English in the standard
(2) to establish lithological and biostrati- Pinyin system of the People’s Republic of
graphic criteria for correlation within Tung- China.
gurstrata;(3)toconductpaleomagneticstud- CAE archive photographs of the Tunggur
2003 WANG ET AL.: TUNGGUR STRATIGRAPHY 3
Fig. 1. Geologic map of the Tunggur Formation. The boundariesoftheTunggurFormation(shaded
gray) follow the escarpment of the Tunggur Tableland shown on the Chinese topographic map (Carto-
graphic Bureau of People’s Liberation Army, 1972). Where there is no clear topographic relief the
boundary is more difficult to draw (shown in dashed lines). Maps in inset indicate important regional
landmarks and localities.
localities are stored in the general library of ogist P. Teilhard de Chardin (Andersson,
the American Museum of Natural History. 1923; Teilhard de Chardin, 1926a, b). In a
Latitudinalandlongitudinalcoordinateswere fluvial sand exposure 50 miles southeast of
measured by a Trimble Navigation Scout Erenhot, Andrews’ team found a partial
Master GPS (global positioning system) set ‘‘mastodon’’ skeleton near awellnamedGur
in the WGS-72 mapping datum. All GPS Tung Khara Usu (Andrews, 1932) (Fig. 1).
measurements were taken before May 1, Fieldwork for more than 10 days resulted in
2000, when the ‘‘selective availability’’ (a a small collection of two species of probos-
form of data degradation) was switched off cideans, a carnivore, a chalicothere, a rhino,
by the Department of Defense of the United a cervid, an antelope, some turtle shells, and
States, and thus they have a degraded accu- freshwater bivalves. The fossil vertebrates
racy of (cid:54)30 m.
were estimated to be ‘‘Pliocene’’ in age,rep-
resenting a previously unknown fauna, and
HISTORY OF COLLECTIONS
the bone bed was promptly reported by L.E.
In June 1928, Roy Chapman Andrews of Spock (1929) as Tung Gur Formation, a
the American Museum Central Asiatic Ex- name reversed from the local well Gur Tung
peditions made an excursion southeastof the Khara Usu.
Eren Dabasu (the present day city of Eren- Afteraone-yearhiatus,theCAEteamcar-
hot), a vast area only briefly explored in the ried out a more extensive expedition in the
southern parts by Swedish geologist J. G. Tunggur area in 1930. Collections were con-
Andersson and French vertebrate paleontol- centrated in two new localities,Platybelodon
4 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3411
Quarry and Wolf Camp (Fig. 1). The Platy- near Tairum Nor, which is older than the
belodon Quarry yielded aseriesofexquisite- classic Tunggur fauna.
ly preserved Platybelodon skeletons,ranging Independently, various regionalgeological
from infants to full adults, and the Wolf survey teams have attempted to synthesize
Camp produced a rich variety of medium- the local geology into a mappable regional
sized mammals. Together with a few other framework (e.g., Bureau of Geology and
lesser known localities, the Tunggur Forma- Mineral Resources of Nei Mongol Autono-
tion produced 28 species of mammals, most mous Region, 1991), which were often too
ofthemnewtoscience.Thesefossils,housed coarse an outline to be of assistance in field
in the AMNH, were subsequently described studies. More recently, Dong Mingxing
by various specialists: two proboscideans (1993), a graduate student of China Univer-
(Osborn, 1929; Osborn and Granger, 1931, sityofGeoscience,brieflyexploredproblems
1932), one anchitheriine horse (Colbert, related to the regional correlation and depo-
1939b), one chalicothere (Colbert, 1934a), sitional environment of the Tunggur Forma-
eight carnivorans (Colbert, 1939a; Hunt and tion. However, with the exception of two
briefreportsoncontactrelationshipsandfos-
Solounias, 1991), one suid (Colbert, 1934b),
sil tracks (Dong, 1999; Dong and Ai, 2001),
two bovids (Pilgrim, 1934), four cervids
he did not publish his thesis.
(Colbert, 1936b, 1940), one giraffe (Colbert,
1936a), four rodents (Stirton, 1934; B.-y.
Wang, 1988; Wood, 1936), two lagomorphs GEOLOGICAL SETTING
(Dawson, 1961), and three rhinocerotids
Cenozoic deposits east of Erenhot gener-
(Cerden˜o, 1996) (see table1 foralistoftaxa
ally lie in the upper part of the fill of aseries
and their occurrences).
of northeast–southwest oriented rift subba-
Wars and political difficulties prevented
sins. Collectively, these fault-controlled sub-
further exploration of these rich deposits un-
basins form the Eren Basin, initially filled in
til 30 years later when a brief visit to the
the Jurassic through Cretaceous by fluviola-
Tunggur area was organized by a joint Sino-
custrine deposits and often forming half gra-
Soviet Paleontological Expedition in 1959
bens or asymmetric grabens, up to 3–5 km
(Chow and Rozhdestvensky, 1960). Materi-
thick (Lin et al., 2001). The Mesozoic de-
als obtained from this expedition, however,
posits are mostly in the subsurface, but they
were mostly lost or destroyed as relation-
may crop out in basin margins, as near the
ships between the two countriesdeteriorated,
Qagan Nor Chemical Factory (Jianchang in
and only two new taxa, a beaver and a car-
fig. 1).
nivore, were published as a result of this ex-
In central Inner Mongolia between thecit-
pedition (Li, 1963; Zhai, 1964). After anoth-
ies of Erenhot and Xilinhot is a large span
er long hiatus, a renewed effort by the IVPP
of rolling plains with few notable landmarks
in1986–1987ledtosubstantialprogressboth (inset map in fig. 1). Besides occasional
ingeologyandpaleontology(Z.-x.Qiuetal., patches of granites, usually weathered to
1988).Inparticular,intensivescreen-washing ground levels, the most conspicuous features
at the Moergen localityyieldedmorethan20 areaseriesoflowtablelands,commonly40–
species of small mammals, nearly doubling 80 m above ground level and forming ele-
the previously known number of taxa, and vated benches that extend tens of kilometers
correcting the traditional bias against small in a single stretch. Outcrops along their edg-
mammals in the early collections. The most es often produce fossils. The Tunggur Table-
important result of this latter expedition is a land is outlinedinanortheast–southwest-ori-
monograph on Tunggur small mammals (Z.- ented, tongue-shaped platform, although its
d. Qiu, 1996). In a follow-up study, we at- northeastern extent becomes gradually less
tempted to correlatesmallmammalfaunasin well defined (fig. 1). To the east, another
and around the Tunggur area (Z.-d. Qiu and large tableland near Baogeda Ula is capped
Wang, 1999), which includes faunas from by a lava, forming a well-defined platform.
early Miocene to Pliocene. Within the Tung- Late Miocene in age, this latter tableland is
gurFormation,wedifferentiatedanewfauna similar to another series of lava-capped plat-
2003 WANG ET AL.: TUNGGUR STRATIGRAPHY 5
forms along the Huiteng River (Chiton Gol) northern rim of the Tunggur Tableland at an
farthersoutheastofTunggur,asfirstexplored elevation of 986 m. They placed these two
by Teilhard de Chardin (1926b). forms in the middle Eocene Irdin Manha
Neogene deposits at Tunggur and sur- Formation and recorded a disconformable
rounding areas are often confined to small contact between the Tunggur Formation and
basins of just a few square kilometers that the underlying Irdin Manha Formation. To
are less than a few meters in thickness (e.g., thesouthofthetableland,Mengetal.(1996)
Gashunyin Adege, Shala, Amuwusu; see fig. recently reported a new fauna of early Mio-
1).TheTunggurFormationandtheoverlying cene age from Gashunyin Adege (see also
Baogeda Ula Formation, on the other hand, Z.-d. Qiu and Wang, 1999). The Gashunyin
represent much larger depositional basins of deposits, however, are confined within a
severalhundredsquarekilometersinsizeand small basin in an area of granite basement
up to 100 m in thickness. Over the entire rocks,andtheyareunlikelytobesuperposed
Tableland the Tunggur Formation is flat-ly- by the Tunggur Formation.
ing, and structural disturbance of theserocks As for the overlying sediments, the Edi-
is minimal. Teilhard de Chardin (1926b) de- torialCommitteeofStratigraphicTableofIn-
scribed volcanic cones along the Huiteng ner Mongolia Autonomous Region (1978)
River area south of Xilinhot. Basalt lava first established the Baogeda Ula Formation
sheets from these eruptions, several meters based on escarpments near the village of
thick in some places, top the presumed Bao- BaogedaUla,approximately20kmnortheast
geda Ula Formation and form a resistant of the easternmost Tunggur locality, Road-
bench. Their fresh appearance suggests a mark482Loc.However,thebaseoftheBao-
young age (Whitford-Stark, 1987), and re- geda Ula Formation, which contains a Hip-
cent K-Ar radiometric dates indicate at least parion fauna, cannot be observed at the type
three episodes of eruptions (3.27, 2.08, and section. The 482 locality is the only section
0.47 Ma) during the late Pliocene through where a conglomerate is seen to overlie dis-
Pleistocene (Liu, 1999). These lava sheets conformably on the Tunggur Formation (see
and the underlying Baogeda Ula Formation fig.8).Althoughthethinconglomerate(1m)
form the most conspicuous tablelands to the cannot be directly correlated to the type sec-
south and west of Xilinhot. The Tunggur Ta- tion of the Baogeda Ula Formation, its geo-
bleland, however, is not capped by the lava, graphic proximity and fossil content suggest
which lies too far to the south and east. In- this contact relationship relative to Tunggur
stead, the topography of the Tunggur Table- Formation.
land is mostly shaped by resistant marls or
sandstones. Where there is no marl or sand- DESCRIPTION OF TUNGGUR
stone, the Tableland tends to gradually blend LOCALITIES
into the lowland, and exposures are covered
by vegetation. Spock’s (1929) original description of the
Contact relationships of the Tunggur For- Tunggur Formation is sketchy, and all local-
mation with rocks above and belowwerenot ities were in reference to a single well ‘‘Gur
an issue during the CAE andSino-Sovietex- Tung Khara Usu’’ (see further commentsbe-
peditions. Z.-x. Qiu et al. (1988: 403) first low). Spock reversed the first two words to
cited a locality ‘‘25 km northeast to Saihan coin the stratigraphic unit ‘‘Tung Gur For-
Gobi’’ to the north of the Tunggur Tableland mation’’. Osborn and Granger (1932: fig. 1)
as producing Lophiomeryx, ‘‘indicating the subsequently used ‘‘Tung Gur Tableland’’ to
Oligocene age of the fossil-bearing beds’’, refer to a low plateau, whose escarpments
although they acknowledged that no direct along the northern, western, and southern
contact can be observed between Tunggur edges form the exposures of the Tunggur
Formation and its underlying deposits. Dong Formation. We continue this usage and the
and Ai (2001) recently reported some frag- name Tunggur thus refers to ‘‘the wholearea
mentary materials of a brontothere Protitan where the Tung-gur Formation is actually or
and a chalicothere Eomoropus in a locality potentially exposed’’ (Z.-x. Qiu et al., 1988:
(43(cid:56)31(cid:57)21(cid:48)N, 113(cid:56)13(cid:57)07(cid:48)E) not far from the 400). The original spelling of ‘‘Tung Gur
6 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3411
Formation’’ in Spock (1929) was subse- to a freshwater well frequently used by the
quently modified to ‘‘Tung-gur Formation’’ local herdsmen. The well ‘‘lies in a deep ba-
by Z.-x. Qiu et al. (1988) and further sim- sin surrounded by poorly exposed bluffs’’
plified to ‘‘Tunggur Formation’’ in Z.-d. Qiu (Andrews, 1932: 386). This lowland, which
(1996).Wefollowthislatestformthroughout is well delineated on the topographic map,
this text. covers several square kilometers and con-
Preciselocationofthestratotypeandother tains within it at least five wells, as marked
CAE localitiesin theTunggur areawasham- on the topomap. Two major wells, however,
pered by the lack of precise topographic are more likely candidates for Gur Tung
maps,scarcityofgeographicreferencepoints Khara Usu because they are converging
in an essentiallyfeaturelessterrain,andoften points of multiple trails, which were also in-
inadequate photographic or descriptive doc- dicated by Andrews (1932); the other three
umentation of the exposures and rock se- wellshavedriedupandthereisnomorethan
quences. Subsequent field studies, widely one trail leading to them. On the Chineseto-
separated in time and by different groups of pographic map, the two active wells are
people, had only the sketch map published named the Donghuren Huduge and theGulin
byOsbornandGranger(1932:fig.1)forref- Huduge (‘‘Huduge’’ means well in Mongo-
erence. The 1959 Sino-Soviet Paleontologi- lian). The two wells are separated by ap-
cal Expeditions concentrated on a few quar- proximately 4 km, and presumably one of
ries, and their collections made minimal ref- them was once called Gur Tung. Gulin Hu-
erence to the historical localities (Chow and duge (43(cid:56)35(cid:57)10(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)45(cid:57)00(cid:48)E, elevation
Rozhdestvensky, 1960). The IVPP 1986– 1015 m) seems a more likely choicebecause
1987 field teams attempted to relocate the of its closer match to the distance estimates
CAE localities, this time with the benefit of by the CAE (see map in fig. 1).
accurate Chinese 1:100,000 topographic
maps (Cartographic Bureau of People’s Lib- AMNH Mandelin Chabu
eration Army, 1972). The IVPP team triedto (Figure2)
reconcile their findings on the basis of Os-
born and Granger’s sketch map and a few GPS LOCATION: 43(cid:56)38(cid:57)20.9(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)45(cid:57)
distance estimates made by Andrews (1932), 37.6(cid:48)E.
which may account for many of the errorsin ELEVATION AT TOP OF SECTION: 1061 m.
their estimates (see description of localities SYNONYMS: ‘‘Elephant Camp’’inAndrews
below). Z.-x. Qiu et al.’s map (1988: fig.1) (1932: 406); ‘‘Mastodon Camp’’ in Andrews
is essentially that of Osborn and Granger’s (1932: 429–430); ‘‘N. Camp 1928’’ in Os-
(1932: fig. 1), whereas Z.-d. Qiu (1996: fig. born and Granger (1932: fig. 1); ‘‘Gur Tung
1) adopted the Chinese topographic map but Khara Usu’’ in many labels of the AMNH
still used the relative positioning of the var- collection; and IVPP loc. 86023, ‘‘Mandelin
ious localities in Z.-x. Qiu et al. (1988). Our Chaba’’ (Z.-d. Qiu, 1996; Z.-x. Qiu et al.,
own map is based on the same topographic 1988).
map, with the GPS positionsbeing plottedin REMARKS: This is the stratotype section of
Figure 1. the Tunggur Formation as originally defined
by Spock (1929), and it is 7 km (4.3 mi)
AMNH ‘‘Gur Tung Khara Usu’’ north of the Gulin Huduge. Recognition of
the type section is helped by its unique po-
A commonly referenced, and confused, sition on the northeastern rim of a small em-
landmark in the Tunggur Tableland is theso- bayment along the northern edge of the
called ‘‘Gur Tung Khara Usu’’. Since this Tunggur Tableland escarpment (see Osborn
wasoneoffewMongoliangeographicnames and Granger, 1932: fig. 1). An exact match
(most others were coined by the CAE team) of Spock’s photograph of the type locality
and serves as the sole geographic reference (1929: fig. 2) (AMNH photo archive no.
pointforallotherfossillocalities,itisamat- 411010) can be made at the above GPS lo-
ter of importance to relocate this landmark. cation looking eastward. A minor dry stream
Thename‘‘GurTungKharaUsu’’referred carvesacrosstheforegroundofSpock’spho-
2003 WANG ET AL.: TUNGGUR STRATIGRAPHY 7
Fig. 2. Type locality of Tunggur Formation at Mandelin Chabu. Photograph taken during 1928
expedition, looking east. Negative no. 411020, courtesy Department of Library Services, American
Museum of Natural History.
tograph, as can still be seen today. Large (Chow and Rozhdestvensky, 1960: 5); ‘‘18
bone fragments could be found near the pre- km south of Benbatu ((cid:53) Saihan Gobi)’’ (Li,
sumed spots where rhino and proboscidean 1963; Zhai, 1964); IVPP loc. 86018, ‘‘Aoer-
skeletons were collected a few hundred me- shen Chabe’’ (Z.-x. Qiu et al., 1988: fig. 1);
ters west of the North Camp. ‘‘Aoershun Chabu’’ (Z.-d. Qiu, 1996: fig. 1).
The local rock sequence consists of sand- REMARKS: Approximately 4 km southwest
stones and mudstones capped by a thin marl of Mandelin Chabu, this locality is the clos-
(immediately below the North Camp) or a est to the stratotype.It wasquarriedforthree
hard cross-bedded sand (slightly southwest weeksbytheSino-SovietExpeditionin1959
of the North Camp). As depicted in Spock’s (Chow and Rozhdestvensky, 1960), and in
figure 4, exposures to the west still preserve partially refilled trenches dug out by bull-
more than 2 m of coarse cross-bedded sands dozers, rusty-yellow sandstones are still vis-
above the marl, whereas the eastern section ible. Aoershun means ‘‘Russia’’ in Mongo-
has lost the sands above the marl. The mea- lian and refers to the low hills (top elevation
sured section of IVPP loc. 86023 (Z.-x. Qiu 1063 m) formed by reddish mudstones
et al., 1988: 403) is probably a few hundred capped by rusty-yellow sands. Li (1963) and
Zhai (1964) described ‘‘Monosaulax’’ tun-
meters farther east of the type section.
gurensis and Percrocuta tungurensis from
‘‘18 km south of Benbatu’’ collected during
SSPE Aoershun Chaba
the Sino-Soviet Expedition. Both Aoershun
GPS LOCATION: 43(cid:56)36(cid:57)53.4(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)43(cid:57) Chaba and Zhunwuguer (see below) more or
50.8(cid:48)E. less fit in this description, but the former is
ELEVATION AT TOP OF SECTION: 1067 m. more likely the locality because the latter
SYNONYMS: SSPE ‘‘Tung Gur locality’’ was probably not prospected during thattrip.
8 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3411
The lower beds are a sequence of varie- ELEVATION AT TOP OF SECTION: 1065 m.
gated mudstones, followed by a buff sand SYNONYM: ‘‘GeneralQuarryNo.2’’inOs-
and capped by a layer of rusty-yellowsands, born and Granger (1932).
which was bulldozed by the Sino-Soviet REMARKS: Andrews (1932: 431) described
team. Chow and Rozhdestvensky (1960: 5) the discovery of this important locality,
mentioned the recovery of two partial skel- whichproducedmanywell-preservedfossils.
etons of mastodonts, several skulls and jaws He named the locality Wolf Camp because
of mastodonts and rhinocerotids, as well as the campsite ‘‘was infested by wolves’’. The
cervids and carnivores. However,besidesthe Wolf Camp was pitched ‘‘on a jutting prom-
abovementioned ‘‘Monosaulax’’ and Percro- ontory’’ protruding into the west, and had
cuta, most materials were never accounted otherwise no other geographic distinctions.
for and were presumably destroyed or lost Fortunately, two CAE archive photographs
during the Cultural Revolution. are available, and one of them, AMNH ar-
chiveno. 116819,showsanerosionalcliffof
IVPP Zhunwuguer Locality
a local marl layer, which is uniquely shaped
GPS LOCATION: 43(cid:56)36(cid:57)07.0(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)41(cid:57) asahardcap(arrowsinfig.3A,B).Standing
01.9(cid:48)E. onaspotat43(cid:56)32(cid:57)50.3(cid:48)N,112(cid:56)39(cid:57)25.1(cid:48)Eand
ELEVATION AT TOP OF SECTION: 1053 m. looking to the north, no. 116819 can be du-
SYNONYMS: IVPP loc. 86019, ‘‘South plicated with all of the details of the land
Zhunwuguer’’ and ‘‘Wolf Camp’’ (Z.-x. Qiu
forms (fig. 3B). Two hundred meters to the
et al., 1988); ‘‘Wolf Camp’’ of Z.-d. Qiu
northeast is the promontory where the Wolf
(1996: fig. 1).
Camp was located, where a second archive
REMARKS:Lessthan4kmsouthwestofthe photo (AMNH archive no. 116816) can be
Aoershun Chabu is an exposure about 1 km
matched. Also in support of its identity as
long. An isolated small hill, a few hundred
the Wolf Camp is the fact that this is one the
meters from the main edge of the Tableland,
largest exposures on the western rim of the
is called Zhunwuguer with an elevation of
Tunggur Tableland, with well-exposedcross-
1037.1 m on the topographic map. Andrews
bedded sands and bivalves, a likely place to
(1932: 431) described his discovery of a
yield abundant large mammals. The Wolf
‘‘round-tusked mastodon’’ mandible from
Camp is 5.9 mi (9.5 km) southwest of the
‘‘an isolated rounded hill ... well out in the
Gulin Huduge (as compared with 5–6 miles
basin’’ (the specimen became the type of
in the historical record). Sand dunes covered
Serridentinus gobiensis Osborn and Granger,
many exposures in the Wolf Camp in the
1932). Andrews’ isolated hill is probably
2000 season.
Zhunwuguer, based on its distance (6.2 km)
Almost all of the vertebrate fossils were
to the AMNH Wolf Camp (Osborn and
collected by the CAE in 1930 (both SSPE
Granger, 1932: fig. 1). The holotype of La-
and IVPP 1986 field seasons failed to cor-
gomeryx triacuminatuswasfrom‘‘aboutfive
rectly locate the AMNH Wolf Camp). At
miles west of Gur Tung Khara Usu’’ (Col-
leasttwofossiliferoushorizonsarepresentin
bert, 1936b: 12). Lacking a more precise de-
ourinvestigations,onebelowthelowerchan-
scription, this locality is also considered
nel sandstone or immediately above it and
Zhunwuguer or nearby.
Largeexposuressouthandsoutheastofthe another ata much higherleveljustbelowthe
Zhunwuguer hill were established as IVPP top marl. Unfortunately, no field record was
loc. 86019 and mistakenly identified by the kept about which level the historical collec-
1986 field team as the CAE ‘‘Wolf Camp’’ tions came from.
(Z.-d. Qiu, 1996; Z.-x. Qiu et al., 1988). We
now conclude that the original Wolf Campis IVPP Dabuhaer Locality
located 6 km farther south (see below).
GPS LOCATION: 43(cid:56)32(cid:57)34.0(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)37(cid:57)
AMNH Wolf Camp 52.9(cid:48)E.
(Figure3) SYNONYM: IVPP loc. 86022 (Z.-x. Qiu et
GPS LOCATION: 43(cid:56)32(cid:57)57.3(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)39(cid:57) al., 1988).
427.5(cid:48)E. REMARKS: Two kilometers southwest of
2003 WANG ET AL.: TUNGGUR STRATIGRAPHY 9
Fig. 3. AMNH Wolf Camp locality. A, Field photo taken during 1930 expedition, looking north,
negative no. 116819, courtesy Department of Library Services, American Museum of Natural History;
tentsnearrightsideareoriginalWolfCampsite;B,matchingphotographtakenin1996.Arrowsindicate
erosional gap of the top marl layer, which is correlated to a similar bed at the Platybelodon Quarry.
the Wolf Camp is a small exposure near Da- east–west-oriented wash draining toward the
buhaer on the topographic map, with an el- west, the Platybelodon Quarry is surrounded
evation of 1083.4 m. This locality was by small exposures in the north, east, and
thought to be close to the AMNH Platybel- south. Although the Platybelodon Quarry is
odon Quarry (Z.-x. Qiu et al., 1988: fig. 1), small(lessthan30(cid:51)30m)anditssurround-
but the latter is actually 7 km farther south ing exposures are inconspicuous, extensive
(see below). excavations at this quarry permitted oppor-
tunities for better photographic documenta-
AMNH Platybelodon Quarry tion of this locality than other sites. These
(Figure4) pictures (AMNH archive nos. 116833–36)
GPS LOCATION: 43(cid:56)28(cid:57)54.0(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)36(cid:57) showthequarrypositionrelativetotheback-
07.6(cid:48)E. ground in all four directions. The light green
ELEVATION AT TOP OF SECTION: 1060 m. mudstones prominently displayed to the
SYNONYMS: ‘‘Mastodon quarry’’ in An- south of the quarry in AMNH no. 116836
drews (1932: 437); ‘‘Big mastodon quarry’’ are especially distinctive,andcombinedwith
in Andrew (1932); ‘‘Platybelodon Quarry other photos positively identifiedthisquarry.
No. 1’’ in Osborn and Granger (1932). Numerous proboscidean bone fragments are
REMARKS:Situatedintheeasternendofan presently scattered in and around the quarry.
10 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3411
Fig. 4. AMNH Platybelodon Quarry. A, Field photo taken during 1930 expedition, looking north,
negative no. 116836, courtesy Department of Library Services, American Museum of Natural History;
B, matching photograph taken in 1996.
Andrews (1932: 434) described the Pla- IVPP Moergen Locality
tybelodon Quarry in ‘‘an amphitheater in the (Figure5)
badlands, capped on the western side with
snow-whitemarl.’’Thislattermarl,verylim- GPS LOCATION: 43(cid:56)44(cid:57)41.3(cid:48)N, 112(cid:56)54(cid:57)
ited in extent, can be observed 200 m south- 02.6(cid:48)E.
west of the quarry where it forms a hard cap ELEVATION AT TOP OF SECTION: 1053 m.
of the exposure. At the horizon of the actual SYNONYMS: Probably CAE locality of ‘‘15
Platybelodon Quarry, there are large blocks miles northeast of Gur Tung Khara Usu’’;
(up to 50 cm across) of well-cemented cal- probably SSPE locality of ‘‘Tabchintala’’
careousnodules.ThePlatybelodonQuarryis (Chow and Rozhdestvensky, 1960: 5); IVPP
17.4 km (10.8 mi, compared with 10 mi in loc. 86020 (Z.-d. Qiu, 1996; Z.-x. Qiu et al.,
the CAE estimate) southwest of the Gulin 1988).
Huduge, and 8.8 km (5.5 mi, compared with REMARKS: This is one of most intensively
6 mi in the original estimate) south of the worked localities in the IVPP 1986 field sea-
Wolf Camp. son. As the principal small mammallocality,
NearthetoprimoftheTunggurTableland, much of the screen washing was done here.
the Platybelodon Quarry is rather high in With the exception of IVPP loc. 86026, the
stratigraphic position, probably close to the Moergen locality also has the thickest and
top marl layer at the Wolf Camp section. most complete exposure along the northern