New Stratigraphic Data from the Erlian Basin: Implications for the Division, Correlation, and...

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

CENTRAL PARK WEST A T 79TH STREET, NEW YOR K, NY 10024

Number 3570, 31 pp., 7 figures, 2 tables May 16, 2007

New Stratigraphic Data from the Erlian Basin:Implications for the Division, Correlation, and

Definition of Paleogene Lithological Unitsin Nei Mongol (Inner Mongolia)

JIN MENG,1 YUANQING WANG,2 XIJUN NI,2 K. CHRISTOPHER BEARD,3

CHENGKAI SUN,2,4 QIAN LI,2 XUN JIN,2 AND BIN BAI2,5

ABSTRACT

Newly measured stratigraphic sections are reported for Paleogene rocks in the Nuhetingboerhe-Huheboerhe (Camp Margetts) area of Nei Mongol (Inner Mongolia), China. The compositesequence in this region is 82.4 m thick, encompassing three lithological units separated byimportant depositional hiatuses. In stratigraphic order, these rock units correspond to theNomogen, Arshanto and Irdin Manha formations. The sequence contains faunas from four Asianland-mammal ‘‘ages’’, the Gashatan, Bumbanian, Arshantan, and Irdinmanhan, which togetherspan the interval from late in the Late Paleocene to early in the Middle Eocene. Comparisons withlocalities and sections documented since the time of the Central Asiatic Expeditions (CAE) showthat the so-called Houldjin gravels of the CAE from this area are mostly Irdin Manha Formationand that the ‘‘Irdin Manha beds’’ of the CAE belong to the Arshanto and/or Nomogen formations.These findings reveal that previous concepts of the Irdin Manha and Arshanto faunas from theCamp Margetts area probably include fossils of different ages, so that the corresponding Asianland-mammal ‘‘ages’’ based on these faunas are problematic and need systematic revision. TheNomogen, Arshanto, and Irdin Manha formations are redefined.

Copyright E American Museum of Natural History 2007 ISSN 0003-0082

1 Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History ([email protected]).2 Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 643, Beijing

100044, P.R. China.3 Section of Vertebrate Paleontology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.4 Section of Natural History, Shandong Provincial Museum, 14 Jing 11th Road, Jinan, Shandong 250014, P.R. China

([email protected]).5 Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, P.R. China.

INTRODUCTION

The Mongolian Plateau has been a majorsource of data for studies of Paleogenevertebrate paleontology and stratigraphy sincethe pioneering work by the Central AsiaticExpeditions (CAE) of the American Museumof Natural History in the 1920s. Moststratotypes for Paleogene biostratigraphicand chronostratigraphic units in Asia wereestablished on the basis of faunas andsediments from this region. Despite theirhistoric role in providing a basic frameworkfor studying Asian Paleogene faunal succes-sion and intercontinental correlation (Russelland Zhai, 1987; Tong et al., 1995; Meng andMcKenna, 1998; Luterbacher et al., 2004),many of these lithostratigraphic and biostrati-graphic units were not clearly defined at thetime they were proposed. As a result, earlyPaleogene lithostratigraphic and biostrati-graphic units on the Mongolian Plateaucontinue to be poorly constrained in terms ofboth superpositional relationships and datingindependent of fossils. Correlation of theseunits remains controversial (Tong et al., 1995;Meng and McKenna, 1998; Beard andDawson, 1999; Lucas, 2001; Luterbacher etal., 2004; Averianov and Godinot, 2005),which hampers our understanding ofPaleogene faunal evolution, intercontinentalexchanges, and biotic responses to environ-mental changes, both regionally and globally.

The Erlian Basin, located on the southernpart of the Mongolian Plateau, is particularlypertinent to the Paleogene Nomogen,Arshanto, Irdin Manha, and Houldjin forma-tions and faunas. Since the work of the CAE,when most of these lithological units werenamed, additional studies of the lithology andfaunas of the Erlian Basin have been carriedout during the course of the last three decades(Zhou and Qi, 1978; Jiang, 1983; Qi, 1987;Meng, 1990; Meng et al., 1998, 2004; Bowen etal., 2005). During the last few years, signifi-cant progress has been made in clarifying thestratigraphy of the Erlian Basin, particularlyin the areas of Bayan Ulan and Huheboerhe.Here, we report newly measured sections fromthe Nuhetingboerhe-Huheboerhe (CampMargetts) area of the Erlian Basin andcompare them with those made since the

CAE, as recorded in field notebooks andpublished work. We clarify several long-standing problems related to localities, di-vision, and correlation of lithological units,and the stratigraphic occurrences of fossils inthe region. We then revisit the definitions ofthe Irdin Manha, Arshanto, and Nomogenformations. This work represents part of oureffort to improve the stratigraphic dataassociated with fossils collected since theCAE and thus to refine the basis for somePaleogene Asian land-mammal ‘‘ages’’ (LMA)that have been widely used.

RESEARCH HISTORY

In late April of 1922, the Central AsiaticExpedition (CAE), known as the Third AsiaticExpedition at the time, launched its recon-naissance trip to the Mongolian Plateau fromKalgan, a city now known as Zhangjiakou,China. On August 7, 1922, a paper describingsome of the Paleogene strata and fossilsencountered during the trip was published(Granger and Berkey, 1922). This paperrecognized two Paleogene rock units, theHouldjin and Irdin Manha formations, fromthe area of Iren Dabasu, today’s Erlian saltlake. Near Iren Dabasu was a telegraphstation, called Erlian. The Houldjin For-mation was located some 5 miles south ofthe salt lake, from which the first fossil foundby the expedition was collected. The IrdinManha Formation was situated 25 miles(20 miles in Berkey and Morris, 1924; 1927)farther south of the salt lake. The Houldjinbeds were then considered to be Miocene orlater in age, whereas the Irdin Manha wasthought to be Oligocene or Eocene. Berkeyand Granger (1923) reiterated their conclu-sions regarding the Paleogene beds in the IrenDabasu area. Berkey and Morris (1924)regarded the Houldjin gravel as LowerOligocene, while they considered the IrdinManha beds to be Upper or even MiddleEocene. Beneath the Houldjin gravel at IrenDabasu they observed poorly fossiliferousbeds from which the tooth of a small lophio-dont was recovered. At Irdin Manha, Berkeyand Morris recognized the Arshanto red bedsbeneath the titanothere rich sandstone and

2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3570

noted that ‘‘[the] Arshanto may prove to beonly the lower Irdin Manha, or it may beseparated from the Irdin Manha by a discon-formity. The base of these beds has not beenseen’’ (Berkey and Morris, 1924: 119). Theytentatively correlated the Arshanto red beds atIrdin Manha with the relatively barren beds atIren Dabasu. In a more thorough summary ofMongolian geology, based on field investiga-tions made during 1922–23, Berkey andMorris (1927) considered that the barrenbeds at Iren Dabasu, above the CretaceousIren Dabasu Formation and below theHouldjin Formation, probably belonged tothe Arshanto Formation. They more formally,but still tentatively, restricted the Irdin ManhaFormation at the Irdin Manha locality to theupper gray beds exposed there, referring thelower red beds that had previously beenincluded in the Irdin Manha Formation tothe Arshanto Formation (see also Matthewand Granger, 1926).

West of the Irdin Manha area, Granger andMorris made a modest collection of mammalfossils at an escarpment 25 miles southwest ofIren Dabasu in 1923. Seven years later, the CAEteam returned to the same area and set up a basenamed ‘‘Camp Margetts’’. Camp Margetts wasused as a geographic waypoint, and severalother localities found in 1930 were named inreference to it. Numerous specimens werecollected from beds that were thought to beHouldjin and Irdin Manha formations at theselocalties, but early interpretations of the localstratigraphy proved to be erroneous (see below).

Since the work of the CAE, many investiga-tions have been conducted in the region,including the joint Sino-Soviet paleontologicalexpedition in the late 1950s (Zhou[Chow] andRozhdestvensky, 1960), fieldwork involvingIVPP, the geological mapping team andmuseum of Nei Mongol in the 1970s (Zhouet al., 1976; Zhou and Qi, 1978; Qi, 1979,1987; Jiang, 1983), and more recent fieldworkby the present authors and their colleagues(Meng, 1990; Meng et al., 1998, 2004, 2005;Bowen et al., 2005). The most significantprogress made in this region during thefieldwork of the 1970s was the discovery ofthe late Paleocene Nomogen fauna and bedsand their equivalents at Bayan Ulan andSubeng (Zhou et al., 1976; Zhou and Qi,

1978; Jiang, 1983; Meng et al., 1998). TheNomogen Formation was described by Zhouet al. (1976), who noted the earlier, informaluse of the name by the mapping team from theGeological Survey of Nei Mongol. The‘‘Bayan Ulan Formation’’ was also proposedbased on beds and fauna from the Bayan Ulanlocality (Jiang, 1983), but its validity andpotential relationship with the Nomogen andArshanto formations remain questionable(Meng et al., 1998, 2004, 2005; Bowen et al.,2005). Regardless of the controversies sur-rounding the lithostratigraphy of these upperPaleocene beds, the Nomogen and BayanUlan faunas are widely regarded to representthe late Paleocene of Nei Mongol, beingcorrelative with Gashatan faunas across theinternational boundary in Mongolia. Duringthis time, new terminology was proposed toreplace the names for rock units employed bythe CAE, but the original names are onceagain in use. Appendix 1 delineates thevarious terminologies that have been proposedfor lithostratigraphic units in the region.

The most important lithostratigraphic andbiostratigraphic advance made in this area inrecent years is the discovery of probableBumbanian beds, characterized by theGomphos bed, in the Huheboerhe region(Meng et al., 2004; Bowen et al., 2005)and potentially at the Bayan Ulan locality(Meng et al., 2005). As pointed out by Menget al. (2004), the lithological sequence atHuheboerhe potentially contains strata thatare conventionally assigned to the Nomogen,Arshanto, and Irdin Manha formations.However, Meng et al. (2004) chose not toassign the lower beds (beds 1 to 11) atHuheboerhe to any previously named rockunit, although they recognized that the top ofthese beds is truncated by an erosional surfacemarking the base of the Irdin ManhaFormation. Earlier stratigraphic work in thevicinity of Huheboerhe had been conducted byothers. A section from Ulanboerhe was de-scribed by Jiang (1983), and another fromHuhe Bulak was reported by Qi (1987). Thesesections do not agree with each other in termsof either lithology or fossil distributions, andtheir precise geographic locations are unclear.For comparative purposes, we include thesesections as appendix 2.

2007 MENG ET AL.: PALEOGENE STRATIGRAPHY, INNER MONGOLIA 3

Fig. 1. A. Localities (black dots) of the Erlian Basin, Nei Mongol (Inner Mongolia). The shaded areaindicates the location of the Nuhetingboerhe-Huheboerhe area (NHA). B. Topographic map of NHA. Theblack bars indicate positions of measured sections at the Daoteyin Obo, Nuhetingboerhe, Wulanboerhe(Huheboerhe of Meng et al., 2004), and Huheboerhe.

This study reports new stratigraphic dataobtained during the last two years from theNuhetingboerhe-Huheboerhe (Camp Mar-getts) area of Nei Mongol (fig. 1). These dataare critical in clarifying several stratigraphicproblems that have been in the study of AsianPaleogene since the 1920s.

NEW SECTIONS

Three newly measured sections and aprevious one (Meng et al., 2004) from theNuhetingboerhe-Huheboerhe area (NHA) areindicated in figure 1B.

A. Daoteyin Obo Section (fig. 1B)Irdin Manha Formation (upper beds)Endpoint coordinate (top of the section):43u23.2399N; 111u55.9279E

3) Gray-cemented, cross-bedded sandstone con-taining conglomerates that are poorly sortedand rounded. Locally, the beds are rustyyellowish and contain fragmentary fossils(mostly large mammals). . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Level 19.5–28.5 m (9 m thick)

2) Gray and grayish green sandstone with gravelsincluding nodules from the underlying beds,mostly with a diameter of about 5 mm andmoderately rounded. The top bed is a 30-cmgrayish white weathered crust. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Level 16.5–19.5 m (3 m thick)

—Disconformity (the upper hiatus)—

Arshanto Formation (middle beds)

1) Brownish red, with some gray, sandy clays,interbedded with fine sandstone. Weatheredsurface is loess yellow or dark red. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Level 0–16.5 m (16.5 m thick).

Starting point coordinate (base of thesection): 43u23.3709 N; 111u55.4179 E.

B. Nuhetingboerhe Section (figs. 1B, 2)Arshanto Formation (middle beds)Endpoint coordinate (top of the section):43u24.0459N; 111u46.5009E.

11) Variegated sandstone and sandy mudstone,with conglomeratic lenses in which rounded

quartz pebbles are dominant. Thickness ofthese beds varies considerably. Large cross-bedding and uneven erosional surfaces arecommon. The uppermost beds are brownishyellow lenses of coarse conglomerate withdebris that is poorly rounded andsorted. . . . . Level 42.5–50.5 m (8 m thick)

10) A major lithological boundary between theNomogen and Arshanto formations (43u24.0879N; 111u46.4799E) is at the level of37.5 m. The contact surface is uneven. Theupper beds start with a 3-cm-thick grayishgreen clay (fig. 2) above the hiatus. Abovethe green mudstone lies a 30-cm-thick sand-stone with cross-bedding and channel fills.The sandstone is primarily gray and lightyellow, and contains variegated sandy mud-stone. The beds are richly fossiliferous. TheLitolophus and Gobiatherium pits known tothe south of the cliff should be in the samelevel. . . . . . Level 37.5–42.5 m (5 m thick)

—Disconformity (the lower hiatus; fig. 1)—

Nomogen Formation (lower beds)

9) Reddish sandy mudstone that forms manysmall isolated hills in front of the mainelevated upper part of the cliff; the color ofthe beds is very distinctive and homogeneousin the NHA. The basal beds of 20–30 cmcontain white calcareous nodules with diam-eters of 10–30 cm and yielded Gomphos andother fossils. Fossils referable to Pataecopsparvus and other fossils were found above theGomphos bed. The beds become more varie-gated (brownish red, grayish green) andsandy in upper parts, with weathered surfacebeing earthy brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Level 30.5–37.5 m (7 m thick)

8) Brownish red sandy mudstone with grayishgreen nodules, black stain patches andmanganese nodules. The beds become morereddish upward. These beds form the plat-form at the foot of the elevated hills in thisarea . . . . . Level 24.3–30.5 m (6.2 m thick)

7) Earthy brown and red muddy sandstone,weathering surface light brown, containingcalcareous and sandy nodules, some of whichare of elongated ‘‘fish-dropping’’ shape, andothers are irregular. A 5–10 cm thick, un-stable lens with white nodules form the topsof small hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 15.7–24.3 m (8.6 m thick)

6) Variegated muddy sandstone and coarsesandstone . . Level 13.0–15.7 m (2.7 m thick)


5) Brownish red sandy mudstone with nodules 2–20 mm in diameter, dominated by small ones,which grade into variegated sandy mudstoneand fine sandstone with pebbles . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 10.2–13.0 m (2.8 m thick)

4) Grayish white and green fine sandstone, withhorizontal bedding. The lower beds containwhite calcareous nodules ranging from 5–40 mm in diameter and many segments of

petrified woods. The beds become sandymudstone and more variegated (grayishbrown, green) upward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Level 8.5–10.2 m (1.7 m thick).

3) Variegated (earthy yellow, light reddish) sandymudstone, with nodules of mudstone.Petrified wood having a diameter of up to20 mm is present. The mudstone is structure-less, with irregular cracks after weathering.

Fig. 2. Above, Paleogene outcrops at the Nuhetingboerhe locality. The arrow points to the lower hiatusbetween the Nomogen (lower) and Arshanto (upper) formations; Below, Close-up view of the lower hiatusshowing the lithology and erosional surface.


Fossils typical of Late Paleocene Bayan Ulanfauna, such as Lambdopsalis, Prionessus, andPalaeostylops, are found in the beds . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Level 5.1–8.5 m (3.4 m thick)

2) Brownish red muddy sandstone, soft andcontaining small nodules, no bedding struc-ture, interbedded with yellowish green sand-stone lens and siltstone with fine bedding;weathered surface coffee-colored . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Level 2.2–5.1 m (2.9 m thick).

1) Pale grayish green sandy clay, structureless,containing small debris of rock, cappedby a layer of 5–10 cm thick hard sand-stone . . . . . . . Level 0–2.2 m (2.2 m thick)

Starting point coordinate (base of the sectioncovered): 43u24.8039 N; 111u45.5799 E.

C. Huheboerhe Section (figs. 1B, 3, 4)Irdin Manha Formation (upper beds)Endpoint coordinate (top of the section):43u19.7939N; 111u45.4099E

11) Grayish white sandy conglomerates with poor-ly sorted and rounded, dark-colored debris.Also fossiliferous, including bronthotheresand other perissodactyls. On the top of themesa, or the Gobi plain, are sandstone andconglomerates consisting of particles ofquartz that are better sorted androunded . . Level 48.2–52.4 m (4.2 m thick)

10) The boundary between the middle beds(Arshanto Formation) and the upper beds(Irdin Manha Formation; fig. 4) is at thelevel of 42.6 m level. The contact surface isdistinctively uneven. Gray muddy sandstoneand coarse sandstone containing lumps ofreddish mudstone from underlying beds andsome white nodules; thin-layered yellowishgreen sandy mudstone and sandstone, inter-bedded with lenses of conglomerate andreddish sandy mudstone; richly fossiliferous,including petrified wood and mammals (ro-dents, lagomorphs, artiodactyls, primateshyaenodontid, and perissodactyls are cur-rently identified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 42.6–48.2 m (5.6 m thick)

—Disconformity (the upper hiatus; fig. 4)—

Arshanto Formation (middle beds)

9) Variegated (earthy or reddish) sandy mud-stone . . . . Level 37.7–42.6 m (4.9 m thick)

8) Grayish green, variegated sandy siltstone andfine sandstone, containing nodules of mud-stone from underlying beds and perisso-dactyl fossils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 30.0–37.7 m (7.7 m thick)

7) Light brownish siltstone or mudstone, also withblack stain on the surface. The contactsurface with the underlying beds is uneven,but does not look like a significant de-positional hiatus. Some levels are more sandyand the top 30 cm of the beds are morereddish. Many fossil fragments, mostly fromsmall mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 27.9–30.0 m (2.1 m thick)

6) Earthy, muddy siltstone interbedded withsandy lenses and fossiliferous . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 19.8–27.9 m (8.1 m thick)

5) Reddish sandy mudstone, with black stain;nodules and fossil fragments in transitionalbeds. Fossils of hyaenodontid and numeriousperrisodactyls were found in this level.A quarry site that yielded many rodentspecimens was located at level of 19 mof the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 17.1–19.8 m (2.7 m thick)

4) Fine sandstone, primarily grayish green silt-stone, with bands of mudstone. Some bonefragments and petrified wood, usually fromthe lower grayish green beds. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Level 12.7–17.1 m (4.4 m thick)

3) The contact surface is uneven, representinga depositional hiatus (fig. 3). Beds above theboundary are fluvial sandstone, coarse sand-stone with small debris and purplish bedswith cross-bedding, similar to those of theLitolophus and Gobiatherium pits at theWulanboerhe section. Fossils of Metaco-ryphodon and perissodactyls . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Level 7.4–12.7 m (5.3 m thick)

—Disconformity (the lower hiatus; fig. 3)—

Nomogen Formation (lower beds)

2) Fine sandy mudstone, with increasing grayishgreen color and black manganese nodules orirregular patches of black stains . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Level 2.6–7.4 m (4.8 m thick)

1) Variegated (brownish red, grayish green, withblack stain) siltstone and sandy mudstone.These beds contain white nodules and fossilsof Gomphos, and are similar to and correla-tive with those that yield Gomphos in theNuhetingboerhe section and in the section ofMeng et al. (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Level 0–2.6 m (2.6 m thick)


Fig. 3. Above, Beds at the transition of the Nomogen (lower) and Arshanto (upper) at the Huheboerhelocality. Below, Close-up view of the lower hiatus showing the lithology and erosional surface between theNomogen and Arshanto fomarions.


Fig. 4. Above, The Arshanto Formaiton (middle beds) and Irdin Manha Formation (upper beds) at theNuhetingboerhe locality; the arrow points to the upper hiatus between the two formatitons. Below, Close-upview of the upper hiatus showing the lithology and erosional surface.


Starting point coordinate (base of the sectioncovered): 43u20.3309N; 111u44.8079E.

LOCALITIES

We refer to the area depicted in figure 1 asthe Nuhetingboerhe-Huheboerhe area (NHA),which corresponds roughly to the CampMargetts (CM) area of the CAE. On thetopographic map each locality name, such asHuheboerhe, does not refer specifically toa landmark or a clearly delimited area, butdesignates a general segment of the escarp-ment. These names have changed over time.Many local names used in figure 1, which isbased on topographic maps published in the1960s, have been altered on topographic mapspublished in the 1990s. Because several localnames on the topographic maps published inthe 1960s have been used in research publica-tions, we choose to use those names in thisstudy.

The sections measured at Daoteyin Obo,Nuhetingboerhe, and Huheboerhe in the 2005field season are indicated in figure 1. TheNHA has been visited by several field partiessince 1923, but locality data remain unclear(Meng, 1990; Meng et al., 1998). Here weintend to relocate these localities based onprevious fieldnotes, publications, and our fieldobservations.

The location of Camp Margetts as a fieldbase is close to the 1923 site, which is about40 km (25 miles) southwest of the Erlian saltlake (Iren Dabasu) and probably on the edgeof the escarpment where the site calledDuheminboerhe is located on the topographicmap published in the 1960s (see Meng, 1990;fig. 1). Other CAE sites include, ranging fromeast to west: 5 miles east (also called theOvernight Camp), 2 miles east, K mile west,1 mile west, 1K miles west, 6 miles west,7 miles southwest (235u), and 10 miles south-west of CM. Fossils collected from these sitesby the CAE team are listed in appendix 3.Based on their distance and direction, theOvernight Camp was probably on the escarp-ment called Daoteyin Obo, the site 6 mileswest of CM was probably near today’sNuhetingboerhe escarpment, the 7 milessouthwest (235u) site was most likely nearWulanboerhe, and the 10 miles southwest site

should have been around today’s Huheboerhe(fig. 1).

Radinsky (1964) treated localities 7 mileswest and 7 miles southwest (235u) of CM as ifthey were two different sites, which appearsnot to be the case. According to Granger(1930: 38), fossils were collected ‘‘from anexposure about 7 miles, 235u, from CampMargetts.’’ In the successive pages of hisfieldnotes, he recorded all fossils from thissite as being ‘‘7 mi. w. Camp Margetts.’’ Thus,we infer that only one site occurs in this range,7 miles southwest (235u) of CM.

Not only do the distances from CampMargetts correspond for these sites, but alsoGranger’s (1930) sketch sections for his7 miles southwest (235u) and 10 miles south-west sites are also similar in lithology, andeven topography, to what we observed inexposures of the NHA, although assignmentsof rock units are quite different (see below).Moreover, fossils help to correlate theselocalities. For instance, fossils of Litolophusgobiensis, a chalicothere, were recorded onlyfrom 6 miles west of CM in the CAEcollections. Today, notable concentrations ofLitolophus are found in one area on theNuhetingboerhe escarpment. The geographicdistribution of chalicotheres supports ourrelocation of the relevant sites.

Three sections have been published pre-viously from the NHA, including theWulanboerhe section (Jiang, 1983), HuheBulak section (Qi, 1987) and Huheboerhesection (Meng et al., 2004). The sectionsreported by Jiang and Qi have no coordinates(see appendix 2) and cannot be preciselyrelocated. However, from the positions ofthe sections marked on the location mapsand lithology and fossils of the sequencesdescribed in the original reports, it is prob-able that the Wulanboerhe section ofJiang is from Wulanboerhe as indicated infigure 1 and that the Huhe Bulak section ofQi is likely on the Huheboerhe escarpment.The Huheboerhe section of Meng et al. (2004;fig. 1), for which precise geographic coordi-nates are available, is actually closer toWulanboerhe than to Huheboerhe, andshould therefore be close to the sectionreported by Jiang and referred to asWulanboerhe section.


STRATIGRAPHY OF NHA

LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY: Lithostratigraphy inthe NHA has proved to be problematic sincethe work of CAE because of several factors.First, early workers did not provide cleardefinitions of the named formations. Forinstance, the lower limits of the Arshantoand Houldjin formations and the upper limitof the Irdin Manha Formation were unknown.Similarly, the lower and upper limites of theNomogen Formation are both unknown at itstype locality. These ambiguities have left roomfor later investigators to draw boundaries orto divide rock sequences using differentcriteria. Second, as is typical for continentalsediments, the lithology of rock units of thesame age can vary considerably as beds aretraced laterally. Because of this fact, pre-mature proposals of additional lithologicalunits were made in the 1970s, complicatingstratigraphic correlations in the region (ap-pendices 1 and 2). Finally, as depositionalcycles repeated themselves during geologicaltime, sediments of different ages often displaysimilar lithology, further complicating effortsto recognize and correlate rock units.

Although lithological sequences have beendescribed from several transects of the NHA(Granger, 1930; Jiang, 1983; Qi, 1987; Menget al., 2004), we know for the first time thatthe sediments in the area differ in theirlithologies and significantly in their ages(fig. 5). Escarpments along the Wulanboerhe-Nuhetingboerhe are formed primarily by bedsthat produced the Late Paleocene fauna andEarly Eocene Gomphos fauna. These beds arecapped by a relatively thin sequence of fluvialsediments that produced the chalicotherefauna. In contrast, the Huheboerhe escarp-ment is dominated by younger strata, wherethe Gomphos bed is the basal unit, and theyounger beds form the main body of thecliff. Exposures along the Daoteyin Obo-Duheminboerhe escarpments are thin andare best correlated to the top part of theHuheboerhe section. From the topographicmap one can also see that the sections atDaoteyin Obo and Huheboerhe are rela-tively higher in altitude than those fromNuhetinboerhe and Wulanboerhe. Using theGomphos bed as a marker, our correlation ofthese beds is shown in fig. 5.

Two major depositional hiatuses exist in thesequences of NHA, referred to as the lowerand upper hiatus, respectively (fig. 5). Thesehiatuses are good boundaries to delimitformations and to correlate beds of the region.The intervals of time that are represented bythese hiatuses are currently unclear. The lowerhiatus occurs at the 37.5 m level in theNuhetingboerhe section and can be tracedlaterally to the hiatus between beds 11 and 12in the section reported by Meng et al. (2004)and its equivalent between beds 2 and 3 (level7.4 m) in the Huheboerhe section (figs. 2, 3,5). The upper hiatus lies at the 42.6 m level ofthe Huheboerhe section, between beds 9 and10 and between beds 1 and 2 in the DaoteyinObo section (figs. 4, 5). Although theDaoteyin Obo section is short, we are able tocorrelate it with the upper part of theHuheboerhe section on the basis of similarlithology, altitude (as indicated by GPSelevation readings and positions on thetopographic map; fig. 1), and fossil contents.

The two hiatuses separate the NHA se-quence into three packages, referred to as thelower, middle, and upper beds (fig. 5). Thelower beds in the Nuhetingboerhe section areat least 37.5 m thick, with the base beingcovered. Taken as a whole, the lower beds aredominated by gray mudstones and finesandstones. Their upper part has more reddishsandy clays. In the section reported by Menget al. (2004), the lower beds are largelycomparable to those of the Nuhetingboerhesection, but the strata that produce multi-tuberculates are currently unknown in theWulanboerhe section. Meng et al. (2004)noted the lower hiatus and considered thatthis erosional surface represents the mostdistinctive and regionally traceable strati-graphic datum for this part of the earlyPaleogene sediments in the Erlian Basin.However, those authors chose not to assignbeds (beds 1 to 11) below the hiatus to anynamed rock unit, but recognized that theupper bed (bed 12 of Meng et al., 2004) abovethe hiatus is typical of the Irdin ManhaFormation. They recognized no significantsedimentological hiatus in the section belowthe erosional surface, a view contrary toprevious studies in this region (Jiang, 1983;Qi, 1987). Meng et al. (2004), however, noted


a significant color transition between beds 10and 11 in their section, and a large number ofwhite calcareous nodules in the bottom of bed11, and considered these as indicative ofpaleosol formed under different conditions

from those during the deposition of theunderlying beds. They also thought that thepresumably Bumbanian fauna, dominated byGomphos, occurred in the upper part of bed10.

Fig. 5. Stratigraphic correlations of the Nuhetingboerhe-Huheboerhe area (NHA). See Fig. 1B for thelocations of the sections.


Our field observations at Nuhetingboerheduplicate those made by Meng et al. (2004),except that the Gomphos fauna probablycomes directly from the red beds that containthe white nodules. On the Nuhetingboerheand Wulanboerhe escarpments, only the lowerpart of the middle beds, primarily channel fillsand cross-bedded sandstone, are preserved(figs. 2, 5).

At Huheboerhe, the Gomphos bed is basaland the lower hiatus is at the 7.4 m level in themeasured section (figs. 3, 5); only the upperpart of the lower beds is exposed. The mainbody of the cliff is formed by the middle beds,which are 35.2 m thick and bracketed by thetwo hiatuses. The middle beds are a set ofsediments that start with coarse fluvial sand-stone and channel fills and grade upward intosandstone and clays, probably representinga sedimentological cycle. Relatively minorvariations of sandstones and mudstone arecommon within the package. Colors of sedi-ments vary considerably from place to place inthe middle beds. Because the erosional sur-faces of the two hiatuses are uneven, thethickness of the middle beds also varies atdifferent transects of the escarpment.

The upper beds are exposed on the top ofthe Huheboerhe escarpment (figs. 4, 5) and atDaoteyin Obo. Because the upper hiatus andthe eroded top surface of the section are bothuneven, the thickness of the upper beds variesconsiderably at various transects of theescarpment. They are 9.8 m thick at thetransect corresponding to the measured sec-tion. These beds are dominated by coarse grayfluvial sandstones and channel fills, and aresomewhat similar to the lithology of the basalportion of the middle beds. In the DaoteyinObo section, only the upper part of the middlebeds and some of the upper beds are exposed.

BIOSTRATIGRAPHY: Because both the lowerand upper hiatus and the beds containingthem compare favorably with the lithologicaltransition seen at the type section forArshanto-Irdin Manha, it is not straightfor-ward to correlate these strata solely onlithology. In this regard, fossils can be veryhelpful, given that many fossils have beencollected from the type Irdin Manha beds andfrom the NHA. For instance, Lophialetesexpeditus has been recognized as characteristic

of the type Irdin Manha beds (Radinsky,1964). Finding this species, and other fossils,in beds of the NHA would be useful forstratigraphic correlation. We realize thatbecause a large number of fossils have beencollected from the NHA since 1930 and yetprofound stratigraphic errors have been em-bedded in the data asscociated with thesefossils, considerable effort must be made toclarify the biostratigraphic issues of thisregion. Here we present a preliminary accountof the biostratigraphy of the region based onold collections and those we have made in thelast two years, although most of our newfossils have not been studied in detail.

1) The basal beds at the Nuhetingboerhesection have produced the Late Paleocenefauna characterized by Lambdopsalis,Palaeostylops and Prioenssus (fig. 5). Thesetaxa commonly occur in Late Paleocenefaunas from the Nomogen, Bayan Ulan andSubeng localities in Nei Mongol, as well as inGashatan faunas in Mongolia. There is nodoubt that the basal beds of the NHAsequence extend back to the Late Paleocene.

2) The Early Eocene fauna, here termed asthe Gomphos fauna, is characterized by thepresence of Gomphos elkema and other mam-mals and is found in the Nuhetingboerhe andHuheboerhe sections and in the one reportedby Meng et al. (2004). Gomphos elkema wasconsidered the primary evidence for an EarlyEocene age for the beds because this taxonwas previously known from the Early EoceneBumban beds of Mongolia (Dashzeveg, 1988;Asher et al., 2005). In addition, ctenodactyloidrodents similar to those of the Bumbanianspecies (Dashzeveg, 1990) and a euprimateclosely similar to ‘‘Teilhardina’’ brandti fromthe earliest Eocene Wa0 of Wyoming(Gingerich, 1993) was also known from theGomphos bed (Ni et al., in press). A lower jawof Prodinoceras, a typical Late Paleocenetaxon, has been found between theLambdopsalis bed and the Gomphos bed(Bowen et al., 2005), which constrains thestratigraphic extent of the Late Paleocene bedsin the sequence.

3) Immediately above the Gomphos bed isan assemblage that includes fossils referable toPataecops parvus and other mammals. Stillhigher in position but below the lower hiatus,


a lower jaw referred to as Uintatherium sp.(Bai, 2006) was found.

Pataecops parvus (Radinsky, 1965)Radinsky, 1966, was known from the Kholo-bolchi Formation (also known as Kholboldjisuite, Dashzeveg, 1991; Kholoboldzhi-NurSvita, Russell and Zhai, 1987), MenkhenTeg, Mongolia. The age of the Kholobolchifauna was considered to be Middle Eocene(Russell and Zhai, 1987; Dashzeveg, 1991).More recent workers regard the age ofthe Kholobolchi fauna to be Arshantan(Dashzeveg and Hooker, 1997; Lucas,2001). Dashzeveg and Hooker (1997: 136)suggested that the Arshantan ‘‘predates theIrdinmanhan and belongs to the earliest mid-dle or latest early Eocene’’, whereas Lucas(2001) considered the Arshantan land mam-mal age to be older than the North Americanmiddle Bridgerian. Lucas and Emry (2001)regarded the Irdinmanhan and Arshantanages as collectively correlative with theBridgerian, but Luterbacher et al. (2004)correlate the Arshantan with the entireBridgerian and the Irdinmanhan with theUintan. Pataecops munutissimus from thelower Alay beds (latest Early Eocene) at theAndarak 2 locality in Kyrgyzstan is smallerthan P. parvus but is not necessarily moreprimitive than the Mongolian species(Averianov and Godinot, 2005). Followingthe definition of the Arshantan andIrdinmanhan by Lucas (2001), Averianovand Godinot (2005) considered the Andarakfauna to be Irdinmanhan in age. However,because the Andarak mammals are foundwithin a marine section that yields a largeSelachian fauna, Averianov and Godinot(1998, 2005) argued that the Andarak fauna,and thus the Irdinmanhan, be consideredbelonging to the latest Early Eocene (lateYpresian, but see Lucas and Emry, 2001).

If the correlation of the Gomphos fauna atNHA with the Bumbanian fauna is correct(Meng et al., 2004), the occurrence ofPataecops parvus immediately above theGomphos fauna supports an age for theArshantan earlier than the Middle Eocene,a notion more concordant with the ageestimate of the Arshantan proposed byDashzeveg and Hooker (1997), or even earlier.Whether the Irdinmanhan age will extend into

the latest Early Eocene, as Averianov andGodinot (2005) suggested, remains question-able. Part of the uncertainty may be rooted inthe mixed faunas from the Arshanto and IrdinManha formations, as will be further dis-cussed below.

4) There are several fossiliferous levelswithin the middle beds, and the fossil assem-blages are distinctive from those below thehiatus. Large mammals including Metaco-ryphodon, Gobiatherium, and Litolophus havebeen found in the basal fluvial beds above thelower hiatus. Although these fossils may differmodestly in their stratigraphic occurrences,they can be lumped into one assemblage. Thebeds yielding the Metacoryphodon are imme-diately above the lower hiatus in theHuheboerhe section and represent the lowestpart of the middle beds. Similar specimenscollected previously from this area have beennamed Metacoryphodon luminis (Qi, 1987,IVPP 5697), but Lucas (1998) regarded thisspecies as a symnonym of Eudinoceras mon-goliensis, which is one of the taxa that marksthe beginning of the Arshantan land-mammalage according to Lucas (2001).

5) The beds that preserved a concentrationof Litolophus, a chalicothere, also generatednumerous specimens of rodents, lagomorphs,and other mammals. Litolophus gobiensis(Colbert, 1934; Radinsky, 1964b) was univer-sally considered an Irdinmanhan taxon (Liand Ting, 1983; Russell and Zhai, 1987;Lucas, 2001), although Radinsky (1964a) waspuzzled by its peculiar occurrence in IrdinManha beds. We will show below thatLitolophus, collected from the locality 6 mileswest of Camp Margetts, was from theArshanto Formation, not from the IrdinManha Formation.

A primitive lagomorph has been describedfrom the Litolophus assemblage (Li et al., inpress). The new lagomorph is similar to, butmore primitive than, Aktashmys montealbus(Averianov, 1994) from beds dated as terminalEarly Eocene at the Andarak 2 locality,Kyrgystan (Averianov and Lopatin, 2005). Itis also more primitive than other Eoceneforms, such as Lushilagus and Strenulagus, ofIrdinmanhan age. In addition to a diversegroup of ctenodactyloid rodents, at least twonew miniscule rodents have been recognized


from the Litolophus assemblage (unpublisheddata). One of them is a myodont thatis morphologically more primitive thanElymys complexus from the early MiddleEocene (early Bridgerian) North American(Emry and Korth, 1989) and Middle EoceneAsian myodonts such as Aksyiromys dabs(Shevyreva, 1984; Emry et al., 1998),Primisminthus, and Banyuesminthus (Tong,1997). The other represents a group unknownpreviously, which is similar to alagomyids inseveral dental aspects but has upper cheekteeth being considerably narrower (Meng etal., in press). These findings suggest that thebeds yielding the fauna are older than MiddleEocene.

6) Beds 5 and 6 in our Huheboerhe section,which are higher than the Litolophus beds,produced numerous fossils of hyaenodontids,insectivores, lagomorphs, rodents, and perri-sodactyls. Preliminary identifications showthat some rodents are referable to Advenimusand/or Tamquammys, and the most abundantperissodactyls are referable to Schlosseriamagister. Advenimus burkei was named basedon specimens from the site 7 miles southwest(235u) of CM (Dawson, 1964; appendix 3).Schlosseria magister (Matthew and Granger,1926) is a perissodactyl typical of theArshanto fauna. The type specimen (AMNH20241; field number 172) was collected fromthe Arshanto Formation in the northeasternbasin of Irdin Manha, about 7 miles north ofthe telegraph line and were the first and onlyfossils from the Arshanto Formation at thissite. Radinsky (1964a) also noted thatSchlosseria magister came from the Arshantobeds. In a later study, Radinsky (1965: 197)wrote: ‘‘In the Irdin Manha area the bedscontaining Schlosseria underlie those withLophialetes, but in the Camp Margetts areaboth genera are recorded as coming fromthe same horizon.’’ This coexistence wasendorsed by Qi (1987), and Schlosseria wasincluded in the composite Irdinmanhan fauna(Lucas, 2001). However, the occurrence ofSchlosseria, at least in the Camp Margettsarea, is problematic as a result of the incorrectdivision and correlation of beds in the region(see below). Tong et al. (1995) thoughtTeilhardia, another perissodactyl, was fromthe type Arshanto beds, which is untrue. The

type specimen of Teilhardia was from thelower red beds at the Shara Murun Formationat Ula Usu (Matthew and Granger, 1926).

7) The upper beds are also fossiliferous. Wehave collected several mammals, includingrodents, lagomorphs, perrisodactyls, and oth-er forms. Brontotheres are common in theMiddle Eocene in North America and Asiaand are particularly abundant in theIrdinmanhan age (Mihlbachler, in press).Some of the perrisodactyls from the upperbeds are referable to Lophialetes andRhodopagus, both being typical Irdin Manhataxa.

It is clear that the sequence of the NHAcontains faunas from four Asian LMAs,Gashatan, Bumbanian, Arshantan andIrdinmanhan, and that it spans the intervalof Late Paleocene to Middle Eocene. Based onboth lithology and fossils, we think the upperhiatus correlates best with the Arshanto–IrdinManha boundary, the fluvial sediments abovethe upper hiatus (the upper beds) to the IrdinManha Formation, part of the middle bedsbelow the upper hiatus to the conventionalArshanto Formation, and the lower bedsyielding the Late Paleocene and EarlyEocene faunas to the Nomogen Formation.The composite sequence has a total thicknessof 82.4 m (fig. 5).

COMPARISON OF SECTIONS

THE CAE SECTIONS: Four sections fromthe Camp Margetts area were recorded in thefield notebooks of the CAE team. The onesketched by Morris (1923) at Camp Margettsdescribed the lithology but did not assignstrata to any named unit. The other three weremade at Camp Margetts and 7 miles south-west (235u) and 10 miles southwest of CM byGranger (1930; figs. 6, 7). In Granger’ssketched sections the lower red clays wereconsidered to be ‘‘Irdin Manha beds’’ whereasthe upper sandstone ‘‘Houldjin beds’’.Recognition of these lithological units hadchanged with increased stratigraphic knowl-edge of the region during that period of time.As noted by Radinsky (1964), for instance,specimens collected in the area in 1923(AMNH 20161, the type of Desmatotheriumfissuin, and AMNH 20136, a large achaeno-


dont molar fragment figured in Matthew andGranger, 1925) are recorded from the IrdinManha beds, and most were found in thesandstones, whereas specimens collected in1930 from the same sandstones are recordedfrom the ‘‘Houldjin beds’’, and those found inthe underlying red and gray shales from the‘‘Irdin Manha beds’’. It remains unclear,however, why Granger (1930) considered mostof the red clays and standstone as ‘‘IrdinManha beds’’ in his sketched sections at thetime when the Irdin Manha Formation was

already recognized as a set of gray fluvialsandstone, distinctive from the underlyingArshanto Formation, a set of red beds(Berkey and Morris, 1927). Radinsky (1964:5) pointed out that none of these sectionsagrees exactly with any other or with thesection measured in 1923, and concluded that:‘‘The available evidence thus suggests that therelationship between the beds called ‘IrdinManha’ in the Camp Margetts area and thetype Irdin Manha beds is complex and not yetfully understood. The solution to this problem

Fig. 6. Sketch profiles from (above) Camp Margetts and (below) 7 miles southwest (235u) of CampMargetts (Granger, 1930).


requires careful stratigraphic investigations inthe critical areas and the collection of addi-tional faunal samples with accurate strati-graphic data. At least until such is done, theterms ‘Irdin Manha’ and ‘Houldjin’ should beplaced in quotation marks when strata in theCamp Margetts area are referred to, toindicate that correlation is still uncertain.’’

Given our relocation of localities providedabove, we think Granger’s (1930) sections atCamp Margetts, 7 miles southwest (235u) ofCamp Margetts, and 10 miles southwest ofCamp Margetts correspond roughly to theDaoteyin Obo, Wulanboerhe (Meng et al.,2004) and Huheboerhe sections, respectively(fig. 1).

The Camp Margetts section of Granger is88 feet (,27 m) thick and consists of theupper yellow and gray sandstones and thelower gray and red clays, similar to those inthe Daoteyin Obo and Duhemingboerhe sec-tions. Fossils from Camp Margetts and its

vicinity collected by the CAE were dominatedby bronthotheres, most of which are frombeds considered as ‘‘Houldjin gravels’’ (ap-pendix 3). Our correlation of the DaoteyinObo and Huheboerhe sections indicate thatthose ‘‘Houldjin gravels’’ are mostly IrdinManha beds. In a recent review ofbronthotheres, Mihlbachler (in press) notedthat species from the ‘‘Houldjin gravels’’ atCamp Margetts area are similar to those fromIrdin Manha beds elsewhere and to Uintantaxa from North America. Therefore, eventhough the specimens were labeled as beingfrom the ‘‘Houldjin gravels’’, he consideredthem to pertain to the Middle EoceneIrdinmanhan LMA. These observations lendsupport to the notion that at least most of the‘‘Houldjin gravels’’ at Camp Margetts isactually Irdin Manha Formation.

However, specimens of Indricotheriumtransouralicum (Granger and Gregory, 1936,Wood, 1938), which is supposed to be an

Fig. 7. Sketch profile from the locality 10 miles southwest of the Camp Margetts (Granger, 1930).


Oligocene taxon, were found in the ‘‘Houldjingravels’’ from the Overnight Camp site, andpostcranial elements probably belonging tothe same taxon were also found on the surfaceof the upper exposures of the escarpmentduring our recent fieldwork. The presence ofthese fossils can be interpreted either asevidence of true Houldjin gravels in thissequence or the occurrence of Indricotheriumin Irdin Manha beds. If the former is the case,the Houldjin gravels may be represented onlyby a thin layer of loose sand and conglomer-ates forming the Gobi surface.

The section at the locality 7 miles southwest(235u) of Camp Margetts drawn by Grangerdid not include data specifying the thickness ofthe beds (fig. 6). The profile is similar to theupper part of the section at Wulanboerhe(Meng et al., 2004; Bowen et al., 2005) intopography and lithology. The upper beds,called ‘‘Houldjin’’ by Granger, are most likelyequivalent to bed 12 of Meng et al. (2004),which they considered typical of the IrdinManha Formation. These strata are nowknown to form the lower part of the middlebeds according to our terminology. Granger’sprofile did not seem to include the lower partof the lower beds (beds 1–4 of Meng et al.,2004) that slope gently to the base of theexposed section at Wulanboerhe. The‘‘Eudinoceras’’ in Granger’s sketch were de-scribed as Gobiatherium mirificum (Osbornand Granger, 1932). This species is thedominant taxon in terms of abundance at thissite (appendix 3), and it is regarded as one ofthe index taxa for the Arshantan (Lucas,2001). Although Protitan minor, a brontothere,was reported from the site 7 miles southwestof CM, Mihlbachler (in press) considered ita new species (taxon A) different from thatfrom the site 0.5 mile west of CM. We thinkthat the bed that contains Gobiatheriummirificum (‘‘Eudinoceras’’) in Granger’ssection is roughly correlative with the bedsthat yielded Litolophus, Gobiatherium, andMetacoryphodon within the middle beds ofthe NHA sequence. The red clays underlyingthe ‘‘Eudinoceras’’ bed in Granger’s sectiontherefore correlate with the red bed thatyielded Gomphos and Pataecops in thesections measured at Wulanboerhe andNuhetingboerhe.

The thickness and lithology of the sketchedsection at 10 miles southwest of CM are closeto those of our Huheboerhe section (fig. 7).Granger’s section, again, may not include thelowest beds that yield specimens of Gomphos,which are exposed in a small area at the verybase of the escarpment adjacent to the coveredlow land. The ‘‘13 feet soft-cross beddedsandstones and sandy clays’’ and ‘‘20 feetgray sandy clay (some cross bedding)’’ areprobably equivalent to beds 3 and 4 in ourHuheboerhe section. The beds that yield‘‘abundant Lophialetes and many crocodiles’’are most likely correlative to beds 5 and 6 inour section. Like Granger, we have collecteda large number of perissodactyls and othermammals from these beds. Granger may haveconsidered these beds as ‘‘Irdin Manha’’, eventhough they are lithologically distinctive fromthe type Irdin Manha Formation, because hethought the perrisodactyls from these bedswere Lophialetes, a common taxon fromthe type Irdin Manha section. It is in-teresting to note, however, that althoughGranger’s diagrammatic section cites ‘‘abun-dant Lophialetes and many crocodiles’’ fromthe bed above the 20 feet of gray sandyclays (fig. 7), his field notes record allLophialetes and lophiodont specimens asbeing from the upper gray clay designatedas ‘‘?Irdin Manha beds’’ on Granger’s sketchdrawing (appendix 3); none were actuallycollected from the lower beds. Granger’sfield notes regarding Lophialetes agree withour field observations. Our preliminarystudy of perissodactyl fossils collectedfrom beds 5 and 6 shows that the dominantperissodactyl taxon is referable to Schlosseria,not Lophialetes, and that specimens ofLophialetes were collected from bed 8 orhigher, as stated above.

The 28 feet of gray sandy clay on Granger’ssketch bearing the field numbers 916, 918 and930 (fig. 7; appendix 3) is probably equivalentto bed 8 of our Huheboerhe section. The top60 some feet of yellow sands and clays onGranger’s sketch likely correlate with ourupper beds, or Irdin Manha Formation. Aswe observed in the field, the Irdin Manha bedsare fluvial sediments and channel fills, whichvary significantly in thickness along the sameescarpment. This explains the discrepancy in


the thickness of these beds in Granger’s sketchand our measured sections.

Our correlation based on new stratigraphicobservations indicates that the basal sand-stones and clays in Granger’s section at thesite 10 miles southwest of the CM correlatewith the package that includes the gray clays,reddish clays, and ‘‘Houldjin’’ in the section atthe locality 7 miles southwest of the CM.Thus, the bulk of the section 10 miles south-west of CM is younger than the exposed strataat the site 7 miles southwest of the CM. Theentire ‘‘Irdin Manha’’ in Granger’s section atthe locality 10 miles southwest of CM shouldbe Arshanto Formation, and his ‘‘Houldjin’’,and probably the ‘‘?Irdin Manha’’ as well,should be Irdin Manha Formation. InGranger’s section at the site 7 miles southwest(235u) of CM, beds below the gray clayscontaining ‘‘Eudinoceras’’ belong to theNomogen formation (see below), and the restare Arshanto Formation, not Irdin Manha orHouldjin gravels. These correlations indicatethat previous ideas about the stratigraphy ofthis region were fundamentally flawed andthat classical conceptions of the Arshanto andIrdin Manha faunas were based on heteroge-neous fossil assemblages from different strati-graphic levels.

OTHER SECTIONS: Qi’s (1987) section atHuhe Bulak, which we think is part of theHuheboerhe escarpment, is generally compa-rable to the section we measured atHuheboerhe in its recognition of rock units.It differs from our section in being thinner,with a total thickness of 41.99 m and in failingto recognize the upper hiatus. Fossils in-cluding Gobiatherium and Schlosseria magisteroccur at a relatively higher level compared toour records. Moreover, Qi’s section includesthe lower part of the Nomogen Formationbecause of the presence of Prodinoceras; thiscontradicts our observation that the Gomphosbed is by far the lowest bed we observed at theHuheboerhe section. However, given that weare not certain about the exact location of Qi’ssection and that the lithology and thicknessvary laterally along the escarpment, thesevariances are not surprising.

Qi’s (1987) Arshanto fauna, the basis of theArshantan LMA (Tong et al., 1995; Lucas,2001), consists of fossils collected from a dozen

widely scattered localities, including the IrdinManha area, Huhe Bulak, Daatein Obo,Bayan Ulan, Ulan Bulak, 8 miles north ofTukhum Lamasery; the Ulan Shireh area,25 miles southwest of Iren Dabasu, ArshantoObo, near Camp Margetts, Camp Margetts,and North Mesa. Given our stratigraphiccorrelation of the NHA, some of the fossilsincluded by Qi (1987) in his compositeArshanto fauna are almost certainly from theIrdin Manha Formation.

Jiang’s Wulanboerhe section (1983) reflectsa drastically different stratigraphic conceptionof the region (Some of the terminologies usedtherein are tabulated in appendix 1). Themeasured part of the section totals 44.94 min thickness and comprises four formations.The ‘‘Bayan Ulan Formation’’ is anotherlithological unit of the sequence, but itsthickness was not specified. The section andthe listed fossils appear to be composite.

DEFINITION OFFORMATIONS REVISITED

IRDIN MANHA FORMATION: As mentionedabove, the Irdin Manha Formation was foundabout 33 km southeast of the modern city ofErlian (Granger and Berkey, 1922; Berkey andMorris, 1924, 1927; see also Russell and Zhai,1987). At the type locality for the Irdin ManhaFormation, the strata are predominantly graybeds of sandy clay, sand, and gravel that arecharacterized by numerous channel-cuts andfills (Berkey and Morris, 1927). Two peculiar-ities of the Irdin Manha beds were mentionedby Berkey and Morris. One is the presence ofinnumerable white marly or limy lumps, likeconcretions. The other is the lustrous polish ofthe pebbles contained in the unit. Berkey andMorris (1927: 208) noted: ‘‘The handsomelustrous stones have given the place its name,for Irdin Manha means ‘Valley of Gems’’’.

Different thicknesses of Irdin Manha for-mation have been documented in previousstudies. In the first report on the formation(Granger and Berkey, 1922), the Irdin ManhaFormation was considered to be 24 to 29 feetthick. In a subsequent study (Berkey andMorris, 1924), the sequence was cited as being40 to 100 feet thick. Because the sequence waslater divided into two formations (the re-


stricted Irdin Manha Formation above andthe new Arshanto Formation below), thethickness of each should be less than thefigures reported. In later studies, the thicknessof the Irdin Manha at its type locality wasconsidered to be 10 m (Russell and Zhai,1987). Qi (1987: 10) noted that ‘‘the thicknessof the type Irdin Manha beds is 41 m’’,although the thickness of Irdin Manha bedsin the section at Arshanto Obo was given as10.13 m (Qi, 1987: 5). Based on our observa-tion at several outcrops of Irdin Manhaescarpments, we concur that the restrictedIrdin Manha Formation is 10–15 m in thick-ness at its type area. Irdin Manha beds werereported to be about 5 m at the Huheboerhecliff (Qi, 1980), 5.4 m at Huhe Bulak (Qi,1987), and 41.1 m at Bayan Ulan (Qi, 1987).However, the 41.1 m ‘‘Irdin Manha’’ beds atBayan Ulan include a 27.5 m thick package ofred beds, which was subsequently correlatedwith the Shara Murun Formation (Meng etal., 1999).

The Irdin Manha Formation can be definedas a set of gray beds dominated by fluvialsandy clay, sand, and gravel and characterizedby numerous channel-cuts and fills. Its lowerlimit is marked by an erosional surfaceequivalent to an interval of time at the typelocality, which can be correlated to the upperhiatus in the NHA. This erosional surface isuneven and the thickness of the Irdin ManhaFormation varies from place to place. At theHuheboerhe transect, it is 9.8 m thick. Itsupper limit is unknown at the type locality,but may be overlain by the Shara MurunFormation in the Bayan Ulan area. The age ofthe Irdin Manha Formation is conventionallyregarded as Middle Eocene.

ARSHANTO FORMATION: Berkey and Morris(1927) named the lower red beds of theoriginal Irdin Manha Formation as theArshanto Formation (see also Matthew andGranger, 1926). Therefore, the Arshanto andIrdin Manha formations share the same typelocality. The name Arshanto came from partof a broad, undrained hollow about 1 mileeast of the Irdin Manha escarpment (Berkeyand Morris, 1927). Although the preciselocality of ‘‘Irdin Manha’’ is uncertain today,examples that show the same lithology andsuperpositional relationship of beds can be

found along excarpments south and southeastof Iren Dabasu.

The base of the Arshanto Formation wasnot observed at any outcrop in the IrdinManha area. Berkey and Morris (1927)thought the formation rests upon Cretaceousbeds, based on their belief that the ArshantoFormation correlates with the so-called barrenbeds at Iren Dabasu. However, the lithologyof the barren beds at Iren Dabasu is differentfrom the Arshanto beds at Irdin Manha. AtIrdin Manha, the red beds are ‘‘prevailinglyred clays and fine silts, which, on weathering,crumble into small hard chips. Much of thedeposit is structureless, almost like loess;however, it lacks the vertical cleavage andthe concretions so commonly noted in loess’’(Berkey and Morris, 1927: 207). The barrenclays above the Cretaceous beds at IrenDabasu are ‘‘distinctly shaly and well bedded;there is no doubt that they, at least, were laiddown in water’’ (ibid.).

Qi (1987) divided the CAE’s ‘‘ArshantoFormation’’ into three units, the latePaleocene Nomogen beds, the early EoceneBayan Ulan beds, and the middle EoceneArshanto beds. Qi grouped the Nomogen andBayan Ulan beds into the NomogenFormation, whereas the Arshanto beds andoverlying Irdin Manha beds were associated inthe Irdin Manha Formation. Although Qi(1987) suggested that the NomogenFormation (his definition) could be distin-guished from the Arshanto beds by thepresence of celestite nodules therein, thesepurported differences are not distinctive(Meng, 1990). Because the Arshanto andIrdin Manha rocks are lithologically distinc-tive, Meng (1990) suggested that they beretained as separate formations.

The lower hiatus present in several sectionsat the NHA is a good stratigraphic marker,which we recognize as the lower limit ofthe Arshanto Formation. The ArshantoFormation thus defined is best exposed inthe Huheboerhe section, where its lower andupper limits are both present and the forma-tion measures 35.2 m in thickness. TheArshanto Formation in our usage is expandedto encompass more strata than it did conven-tionally. In particular, it consists not only ofa set of reddish clays, but also of gray, fluvial


coarse sediments with cross-bedding struc-tures in its basal beds. The lithology graduallygrades into finer sandstone and clays upward.Reddish clays exist mostly in the upper part ofthe formation. This sequence probably repre-sents a large-scale sedimentological cycle. Theage of the Arshanto Formation was tradition-ally considered to be Middle Eocene, but withthe expansion of its lithological content, theformation probably spans from the late EarlyEocene to early Middle Eocene. The basal partof the Arshanto Formation is characterized bypresence of several large mammals, includingMetacoryphodon, Gobiatherium, and Litolo-phus, as well as numorious primitive rodentsand lagomorphs.

NOMOGEN FORMATION: The NomogenFormation was used informally by theGeological Survey of Nei Mongol and wasfirst reported by Zhou et al. (1976). At its typelocality, Haliut, the formation consists ofthree levels of approximately 16 m aggregatethickness (reported as 14 m in Russell andZhai, 1987; see also Meng et al., 1998) andproduced a mammalian fauna traditionallyconsidered to be late Paleocene (Zhou et al.,1976; Zhou and Qi, 1978). The formation ismainly composed of red sandy clays oflacustrine orign (Russell and Zhai, 1987).The bottom of the formation is not exposed.Similar beds have been reported from theHuheboerhe, Bayan Ulan, Urdyn Obo, andSubeng localities (Jiang, 1983; Qi, 1987; Meng,1990; Meng et al., 1998), but they all varyin lithology to some degree. In addition tothe Nomogen Formation, ‘‘Bayan UlanFormation’’ has been proposed (Jiang, 1983),but this concept was subsequently abandoned(Qi, 1987; BGMRNMAR, 1991; Meng et al.,1998) because it was based primarily on itsfossil content, not its lithology. Meng et al.(1998) suggested that the basal beds at BayanUlan are laterally equivalent to the NomogenFormation. Both the Nomogen and theArshanto formations contain reddish claysand are only partly exposed at their typelocalites; their precise stratigraphic relation-ship has never been made clear, althoughfossils indicated that the Nomogen Formationis older than the Arshanto Formation.

The lower hiatus in the NHA sectionsprovides a clear-cut upper boundary for the

Nomogen Formation, but its lower limitremains unknown. The Nomogen Formationrecognized here measures 37.5 m thick atNuhetingboerhe, which is significantly thickerthan the sequence recognized at its typelocality. The lithology is characterized byvariegated sandstone, sandy clays and clays,with more reddish beds in the upper part ofthe formation. The formation contains at leasttwo distinctive faunas, the Gashatan Lamb-dopsalis fauna below and the BumbanianGomophos fauna above, and is currentlyestimated as ranging from the LatePaleocene to Earliest Eocene.

CONCLUSION

New stratigraphic data show that thesequence at the NHA, or Camp Margettsarea, Nei Mongol, comprises three litholog-ical units, the Nomogen, Arshanto, and IrdinManha formations, with a thickness of82.4 m. It contains faunas from four AsianLMA (Gashatan, Bumbanian, Arshantan,and Irdinmanhan) that span the time intervalfrom Late Paleocene to Middle Eocene. Forthe first time, the superpositional relation-ships of these formations and faunas can bedemonstrated in one sequence. These dataalso show that previous understanding of thestratigraphy in the NHA was largely in-correct. The so-called ‘‘Houldjin gravels’’ ofthe CAE are mostly Irdin Manha Formationor Arshanto Formation and the ‘‘IrdinManha beds’’ of the CAE mostly belong toeither the Arshanto Formation or theNomogen Formation. These correlationsreveal that classical notions of the composi-tion of the Irdin Manha and Arshantofaunas, which include fossils from the bedsof the NHA, are based on heterogeneoussamples from different stratigraphic hori-zons. Because these mixed faunal assem-blages have served as the foundation for theAsian Eocene Arshantan and Irdinmanhanland mammal ages, previous discussions onregional and intercontinental biostratigraphiccorrelation, regional biochronology, and fau-nal evolution during this period of time areproblematic. To clarify these problems re-quires a systematic study of regional stratig-raphy, a review of all fossils collected from


the region, and the establishment of a regionaltime scale that is independent of fossils, suchas a magnetostratigraphic sequence.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Gabriel J. Bowen, Qiang Cao,Wei Gao, Daniel L. Gebo, Paul L. Koch,Chun Li, Ping Li, Qiang Li, Shijie Li, SuyinTing, Rui Yang, Jie Ye and Wei Zhou for fieldassistance; Chuankui Li, Zhanxiang Qiu, andBanyue Wang for discussion; Drs. Malcolm C.McKenna and Spencer Lucas for commentson the manuscript. This project has beensupported by the National Natural ScienceFoundation of China (40532010), U.S.National Science Foundation grants (EAR-0120727, BCS-0309800), and the Major BasicResearch Projects of MST of China(2006CB806400).

REFERENCES

Asher, R.J., J. Meng, M.C. McKenna, J.R. Wible,D. Dashzeveg, G. Rougier, and M.J. Novacek.2005. Stem Lagomorpha and the Antiquity ofGlires. Science 307: 1091–1094.

Averianov, A.O. 1994. Early Eocene mimotonidsof Kyrgyzstan and the problem of Mixo-dontia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 39:393–411.

Averianov, A.O., and M. Godinot. 1998. A reporton the Eocene Andarak mammal fauna ofKyrgyzstan. In K.C. Beard and M.R. Dawson(editors), Dawn of the age of mammals in Asia,Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of NationalHistory 34: 124–147.

Averianov, A.O., and M. Godinot. 2005.Ceratomorphs (Mammalia, Perissodactyla)from the early Eocene Andarak 2 locality inKyrgystan. Geodiversitas 27: 221–234.

Averianov, A.O., and A.V. Lopatin. 2005. EoceneLagomorphs (Mammalia) of Asia: 1. Akta-shmys (Strenulagidae fam. nov.). Paleonto-logical Journal 39: 308–317, [Translated fromPaleontoliicheskii Zhurnal 3: 81–90]

Bai, B. 2006. New materials of Eocene Dinocerata(Mammalia) from the Erlian Basin, NeiMongol (Inner Mongolia). Vertebrata Pal-Asiatica 44: 250–261.

Beard, K.C., and M.R. Dawson. 1999.Intercontinental dispersal of Holarctic landmammals near the Paleocene–Eocene bound-ary: paleogeographic, paleoclimatic and bio-

stratigraphic implications. Bulletin de la SocieteGeologique de France 170: 697–706.

Berkey, C.P., and W. Granger. 1923. Latersediments of the desert basins of centralMongolia. American Museum Novitates 77:1–16.

Berkey, C.P., and F.K. Morris. 1924. Basinstructures in Mongolia. Bulletin of theAmerican Museum of Natural History 50:103–127.

Berkey, C.P., and F.K. Morris. 1927. Geology ofMongolia—a reconnaissance report based onthe investigations of the years 1922–1923.Natural History of Central Asia, Volume,475 pp.

BGMRNMAR (Bureau of Geology and MineralResources of Nei-Mongol AutonomousRegion). 1991. Regional geology of Nei-Mongol (Inner Mongolia) autonomous region.Geological Memoirs (1)25: 1–725.

Bowen, G.J., P.L. Koch, J. Meng, J. Ye, and S.-Y.Ting. 2005. Age and correlation of fossiliferousLate Paleocene-Early Eocene strata of theErlian Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. Amer-ican Museum Novitates 3474: 1–26.

Chow, M.-C., and A.K. Rozhdestvensky. 1960.Exploration in Inner Mongolia—a preliminaryaccount of the 1959 field work of the Sino-Soviet Paleontological Expedition (SSPE).Vertebrate PalAsiatica 4: 1–10.

Colbert, E.H. 1934. Chalicotheres from Mongoliaand China in the American Museum. Bulletinof the American Museum of Natural History67: 353–387.

Dashzeveg, D. 1988. Holarctic correlation of non-marine Palaeocene-Eocene boundary stratausing mammals. Journal of the GeologicalSociety (London) 145: 473–478.

Dashzeveg, D. 1990. The earliest rodents(Rodentia, Ctenodactyloidea) of Central Asia.Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 33: 11–35.

Dashzeveg, D. 1991. Hyracodontids and rhinocer-otids (Mammalia, Perissodactyla, Rhinocero-toidea) from the Paleogene of Mongolia.Palaeovertebrata 21: 1–84.

Dashzeveg, D., and J.J. Hooker. 1997. Newceratomorph perissodactyls (Mammalia) fromthe Middle and Late Eocene of Mongolia: theirimplications for phylogeny and dating.Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society120: 105–138.

Dawson, M.R. 1964. Late Eocene rodents(Mammalia) from Inner Mongolia. AmericanMuseum Novitates 2191: 1–15.

Emry, R.J., and W.W. Korth. 1989. Rodents of theBridgerian (Middle Eocene) Elderberry CanyonLocal Fauna of eastern Nevada. SmithsonianContributions to Paleobiology 67: 1–14.


Emry, R.J., L.A. Tyutkova, S.G. Lucas, and B.-Y.Wang. 1998. Rodents of the Middle EoceneShinzhaly Fauna of Eastern Kazakhstan.Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18:218–227.

Gingerich, P.D. 1993. Early Eocene Teilhardinabrandti: oldest omomyid primate from NorthAmerica. Contributions from the Museum ofPaleontology, University of Michigan 28:321–326.

Granger, W. 1930. Records of fossils collectedin Mongolia. Central Asiatic Expeditions,New York: American Museum of NaturalHistory.

Granger, W., and C.P. Berkey. 1922. Discovery ofCretaceous and older Tertiary strata inMongolia. American Museum Novitates 42:1–7.

Granger, W., and W.K. Gregory. 1936. Furthernotes on the gigantic extinct rhinoceros,Baluchitherium, from the Oligocene ofMongolia. Bulletin of the American Museumof Natural History 72: 1–73.

Granger, W., and W.K. Gregory. 1938. A newtitanothere genus from the upper Eocene ofMongolia and North America. Bulletin of theAmerican Museum of Natural History 74:435–436.

Granger, W., and W.K. Gregory. 1943. A revisionof the Mongolian titanotheres. Bulletin of theAmerican Museum of Natural History 80:349–389.

Jiang, H.-X. 1983. Division of the Paleogene in theErlian Basin of Inner Mongolia. Geology ofInner Mogolia 2: 18–36. [in Chinese]

Li, C.-K., J. Meng, and Y.-Q. Wang. In press.Dawsonolagus antiquus, a primitive lagomorphfrom the Eocene Arshanto Formation. InnerMongolia, China: Bulletin of the CarnegieMuseum of National History.

Li, C.-K., and S.-Y. Ting. 1983. The Paleogenemammals of China. Bulletin of CarnegieMuseum of Natural History 21: 1–98.

Lucas, S.G. 1998. Fossil mammals and thePaleocene/Eocene series boundary in Europe,North America, and Asia. In M.-P. Aubry, S.Lucas and W.A. Berggren (editors), LatePaleocene-Early Eocene Events in the marineand terrestrial records: 451–500. New York:Columbia University Press.

Lucas, S.G. 2001. Gobiatherium (Mammalia:Dinocerata) from the Middle Eocene of Asia:taxonomy and biochronological significance.Palaontologische Zeitschrift 74: 591–600.

Lucas, S.G., and R.J. Emry. 2001. Sharamynodon(Mammalia: Perissodactyla) from the Eoceneof the Ily basin, Kazakstan and the antiquityof Asian amynodonts. Proceedings of the

Biological Society of Washington 114: 517–525.

Luterbacher, H.P., J.R. Ali, H. Brinkhuis, F.M.Gradstein, J.J. Hooker, S. Monechi, J.G. Ogg,J. Powell, U. Rohl, A. Sanfilippo, and B.Schmitz. 2004. The Paleogene Period. In F.Gradstein, J. Ogg and A. Smith (editors),A geological time scale 2004: 384–408.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matthew, W.D., and W. Granger. 1925. Fauna andcorrelation of the Gashato Formation ofMongolia. American Museum Novitates 189:1–12.

Matthew, W.D., and W. Granger. 1926. Two newperissodactyls from the Arshanto Eocene ofMongolia. American Museum Novitates 208:1–5.

McKenna, M.C., and S.K. Bell. 1997. Classificationof mammals above the species level. New York:Columbia University Press.

Meng, J. 1990. A new species of Didymoconidaeand comments on related locality and stratig-raphy. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 28: 206–217.

Meng, J., G.J. Bowen, J. Ye, P.L. Koch, S.-y. Ting,Q. Li, and X. Jin. 2004. Gomphos elkema(Glires, Mammalia) from the Erlian Basin:evidence for the Early Tertiary BumbanianLand Mammal Age in Nei-Mongol, China.American Museum Novitates 3425: 1–24.

Meng, J., C.-K. Li, X.-J. Ni, Y.-Q. Wang, and K.C.Beard. In press. A new Eocene rodent fromthe lower Arshanto Formation in theNuhetingboerhe (Camp Margetts) area, InnerMongolia

Meng, J., and M.C. McKenna. 1998. Faunalturnovers of Palaeogene mammals from theMongolian plateau. Nature 394: 364–367.

Meng, J., A.R. Wyss, Y.-M. Hu, Y.-Q. Wang, G.J.Bowen, and P.L. Koch. 2005. Glires (mamma-lia) from the late Paleocene Bayan UlanLocality of Inner Mongolia. AmericanMuseum Novitates 3473: 1–25.

Meng, J., J. Ye, and X.-S. Huang. 1999. Eocenemammals from the Bayan Ulan of Nei Mongol(Inner Mongolia) and comments on relatedstratigraphy. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 37: 165–174.

Meng, J., R.-J. Zhai, and A.R. Wyss. 1998. Thelate Paleocene Bayan Ulan fauna of InnerMongolia, China. Special volume of theSymposium on Cretaceous and Early TertiaryMammals of Asia. Bulletin of CarnegieMuseum of Natural History 34: 148–185.

Mihlbachler, M.C. In press. Species taxonomy, phy-logeny, and biogeography of the Bronto-theriidae (Mammalia: Perissodactyla). Bulletin ofthe American Museum of Natural History.


Morris, F.K. 1923. Geological field notes. Book II.Central Asiatic Expeditions. New York:American Museum of Natural History.

Ni, X.-J., C.K. Beard, J. Meng, Y.-Q. Wang, andD. Gebo. In press. Baataromomys ulaanus gen.and sp. nov., an Early Eocene euprimate fromInner Mongolia.

Osborn, H.F., and W. Granger. 1932.Coryphodonts and uintatheres from theMongolian expedition of 1930. AmericanMuseum Novitates 552: 1–16.

Qi, T. 1979. A general account of the early Tertiarymammalian faunas of Shara Murun area, InnerMongolia. 2nd Congress of Stratigraphy,Peking, China: 1–9.

Qi, T. 1980. Irdin Manha Upper Eocene and itsmammalian fauna of Huhebolhe Cliff inCentral Inner Mongolia. Vertebrata PalAsia-tica 18: 28–32.

Qi, T. 1987. The Middle Eocene Arshanto fauna(Mammalia) of Inner Mongolia. Annals ofCarnegie Museum 56: 1–73.

Radinsky, L.B. 1964a. Notes on Eocene andOligocene fossil localities in Inner Mongolia.American Museum Novitates 2180: 1–11.

Radinsky, L.B. 1964b. Paleomoropus, a new EarlyEocene chalicothere (Mammalia, Perissodac-tyla), and a revision of Eocene chalicotheres.American Museum Novitates 2179: 1–28.

Radinsky, L.B. 1965. Early Tertiary Tapiroidea ofAsia. Bulletin of the American MuseumNatural History 129: 183–263.

Radinsky, L.B. 1966. Pataecops, new name forPataecus Radinsky, 1965. Journal of Paleon-tology 40: 222.

Russell, D.E., and R.-J. Zhai. 1987. The Palaeogeneof Asia: mammals and stratigraphy. Sciences dela Terre Series C 52: 1–488.

Shevyreva, N.S. 1984. New Early Eocene Rodentsfrom the Zaysan Basin. In L.K. Gabunia(editor), Flora i fauna Zaysanskoi vpadiny,Akademiya Nauk Gruzinskoy SSR, pp. 77–114.[in Russian]

Tong, Y.-S. 1997. Middle Eocene small mammalsfrom Liguanqiao Basin of Henan Province andYuanqu Basin of Shanxi Province. CentralChina. Paleontologica Sinica, 18, New SeriesC, 26: 189–256. [in Chinese with Englishsummary]

Tong, Y.-S., S.-H. Zheng, and Z.-D. Qiu. 1995.Cenozoic mammal ages of China. VertebrataPalAsiatica 33: 290–314.

Wood, H.E. 1938. Cooperia totadentata, a remark-able rhinoceros from the Eocene of Mongolia.American Museum Navitates 1012: 1–20.

Zhou, M.-Z., and T. Qi. 1978. Paleocene mamma-lian fossils from Nomogen Formation of InnerMongolia. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 16: 77–85.[In Chinese]

Zhou, M.-Z., T. Qi, and Y. Li. 1976. Paleocenestratigraphy and faunal characters of mamma-lian fossils of Nomogen commune, Si-zi-wangQi, Nei Mongol. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 14:228–233.


AP

PE

ND

IX1

TE

RM

INO

LO

GIE

SU

SE

DF

OR

LIT

HO

LO

GIC

AL

UN

ITS

OF

NE

IM

ON

GO

L(T

RA

NS

LA

TE

DF

RO

MB

GM

RN

MA

R,

19

91

)


APPENDIX 2

SECTIONS MEASURED FROM THE

NUHETINGBOERHE-HUHEBOERHE AREA BY JIANG

(1983) AND QI (1987)

A. Huhe Bulak Section (Qi, 1987)

Irdin Manha Formation

Middle Eocene Irdin Manha beds

11. Gray-white on surface, but gray-yellow inside,sandstone and sandy gravels with manycylinder-like calcareous masses; having graysandy conglomerate and sandstone; gravelsoften black quartz, the diameter 1 cm or so,with Andrewsarchus (5Paratriisodon; Mc-Kenna, personal commun. [McKenna andBell, 1997: 366]) gigas, etc. (77037) . . 5.4 m

—unconformity (5 base of channel)—

Middle Eocene Arshanto beds

10. TOP: dark gray-green-pink sandy clay. UPPER

PART: yellow-green fine sandstone. BOTTOM:gray-green sandy ‘‘conglomerates’’ (‘‘grav-els’’ mainly being muddy masses and quartz,etc., diameter 0.2 cm), with Gobiaherium,Mesonyx obtusidens, Schlosseria magister,etc. (77036-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 m

9. UPPER PART: dark red clay with fossil mammalfragments and calcareous-nodules, diameter1.5 cm. LOWER PART: brown clay with fewmanganese nodules. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.04 m

8. Red-gray muddy siltstone (white on surface),with few mammalian incisors and fragments(77036-H8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.85 m

7. Brown-loess-red clay, with manganese nodules,the diameter 0.5 cm; bearing few limb bonesof Dinocerata (77036-H7). . . . . . . . . 5.1 m

6. Light loess–red siltstone . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 m5. Brown muddy siltstone (white on surface) with

few calcareous nodules, bearing Sinosinopasinensis (77036-H5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 m

4. Brown-gray sandy conglomerates (gray onsurface), gravels mainly a lot of muddymasses and colorless, black, or yellow-greenquartz grains, with many fossil tapirs, frag-ments of turtles and crocodiles. Finingupward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.04 m

3. Dark red or gray-green variegated clay, withfew quartz grains and calcareous nodules,

bearing astragali of Dinocerata (77036–H3).Gray-green clay decreased and manganesenodules apparent up section . . . . . . . 6.5 m

—disconformity—

Nomogen Formation

Lower Eocene Bayan Ulan beds

2. Brick-red sandy clay with few nodulesand many bone fragments, bearing fossiltapirs, Dinocerata (Prodinoceras sp. 5Mongolotherium; McKenna, personal com-mun. [McKenna and Bell, 1997, 358])(77035) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.76 m

1. Loess-red and gray-green clay with manycalcareous nodules between 5–10 cm diame-ter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 m

—base not visible—

B. Wulanboerhe Section (Jiang, 1983; original inChinese) Quaternary sands on mesa surface.UpperNaogangdai Formation (E3s)

10. Light-yellowish pebbly sandstone . . . . 1.07 m

—disconformity—

Aliusu Formation (E2al)

9. Light-brownish red clays interbedded withgrayish-green clays and gray or pink sand-stone. Teleolophus sp.. . . . . . . . . . 10.48 m

8. Grayish-white fine sandstone with lens ofpebbly coarse sandstone. Fossils includeGobiatherium sp., Lophialetes sp., Gobia-therium? major, Metacoryphodon luminis,Teleolophus rechus, Eurgletes [Teleolophus]magnus, Schlosseria sp., Eudinoceras sp.,and Breviodon sp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 m

—disconformity—

Arshanto Formation (E2a)

7. Reddish clays, with the upper portion darker incolor, containing gypsum and fossils, in-


cluding Teleolophus primaries, Teleolophussp. and Schlosseria sp. . . . . . . . . . . 7.32 m

Bayan Ulan Formation (E2b)

6. Grayish-green clay above and light-brownishclays below, and locally with calcareous-nodules. Mongolotherium sp. was collectedfrom a site 3 km south of the section . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [no thickness]

Nomogen Formation

5. Light-reddish, grayish green muddy siltstonewith calcareous-nodules. Fossils include Hyop-sodontidae and Palaeostylops iturus . . 4.9 m

4. Grayish, yellowish-green sandy clays withinterbedded lens of reddish clay.Palaeostylops iturus and Lambdopsalis bul-la . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 m

3. Grayish-green, earthy muddy siltstone, withsmall calcareous-nodules and lens of sand-stone. Palaeostylops iturus, Prionesus lucifer,Lambdopsalis bulla and Prodinocerassp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.27 m

2. Variegated clays with grayish white siltstone,with gypsum and fossils: Prodinoceras sp. andPalaeostylops iturus . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.35 m

1. Grayish-green clays. . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.65 m

—base not visible—

APPENDIX 3

FIELD RECORDS OF FOSSILS BY THE CAE(GRANGER, 1930) FROM THE NUHETINGBOERHE-

HUHEBOERHE (CAMP MARGETTS) AREA


AP

PE

ND

IX3

FIE

LD

RE

CO

RD

SO

FF

OS

SIL

SB

YT

HE

CA

E(G

RA

NG

ER

,1

93

0)

FR

OM

TH

EN

UH

ET

ING

BO

ER

HE-H

UH

EB

OE

RH

E(C

AM

PM

AR

GE

TT

S)

AR

EA

Lo

cali

tyB

eds

Fie

ldn

o.

Fie

ldid

enti

fica

tio

nA

MN

Hn

o.

Pu

bli

shed

iden

tifi

cati

on

Ref

eren

ces

5M

E(o

ver

nig

ht)

Mo

stly

Ird

inM

an

ha

83

7te

eth

,fo

otb

on

es,

etc.

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

52

Ca

eno

lop

hu

s(l

ow

erja

w)

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

53

Lop

hia

lete

s(l

ow

erja

w)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

74

Balu

chit

her

ium

(bo

ne

elem

ents

)

26

387

Intr

ico

ther

ium

tra

nso

ura

licu

m

Gra

nger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

93

6,

wo

od

,1

93

8

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

77

Balu

chit

her

ium

(cer

vic

al

ver

t.)

26

392

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

84

Ente

lod

on

(lo

wer

jaw

)2

63

94

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

85

rhin

oce

rid

(lo

wer

jaw

)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

87

tita

no

ther

e(s

ku

ll,

rig

ht

ha

lf)

26

399

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

2M

Eo

fC

MIr

din

Ma

nh

ab

eds

89

0rh

ino

ceri

d(s

ku

ll&

jaw

s)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s,b

ase

92

1ti

tan

oth

ere

(lo

wer

jaw

)

Ca

mp

Ma

rget

tsIr

din

Ma

nh

ab

eds

83

8te

eth

,fo

otb

on

es.

Etc

.2

66

40

,R

-29

48

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

61

Hy

aen

od

on

(lo

wer

jaw

)

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

75

small

per

isso

da

cty

ls(L

ow

er

jaw

)

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

76

small

per

isso

da

cty

ls(L

ow

er

jaw

)

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

82

tita

no

ther

e(s

ku

ll&

jaw

s)2

64

11

(ty

pe)

Met

ate

lma

ther

ium

cris

tatu

m

Gra

nger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

88

rhin

oce

rid

(lo

wer

jaw

)2

66

42

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

89

Eud

ino

cera

s(l

eft

P2-M

3)

26

617

Go

bia

ther

ium

mir

ific

um

Osb

orn

an

dG

ran

ger

,1

93

2

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

39

teet

h,

foo

tbo

nes

,et

c.F

-637

6

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

45

tita

no

ther

e(s

ku

ll,

top

dam

aged

)2

63

97

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

40

Balu

chit

her

ium

,m

isc.

bo

nes

26

388

–9

,2

63

93

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

50

hy

aen

od

on

t(l

ow

erja

w)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

60

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

401

Hy

oti

tan

tho

maso

ni

Gra

nger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

64

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

429

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

73

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

424

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

78

am

bly

po

d(s

ku

ll)

26

384

Hy

per

cory

ph

od

on

tho

mso

ni

Osb

orn

an

dG

ran

ger

,1

93

2

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

86

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

wfr

ag

.)2

64

03

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

57

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

425

tax

on

CM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

56

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

427

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

59

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

ws)

26

421

Pro

tita

ng

rang

eri

Mih

lba

chle

r(i

np

ress

)


Lo

cali

tyB

eds

Fie

ldn

o.

Fie

ldid

enti

fica

tio

nA

MN

Hn

o.

Pu

bli

shed

iden

tifi

cati

on

Ref

eren

ces

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

58

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

426

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

71

tita

no

ther

e(m

axil

la)

26

406

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

72

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

Pro

ba

bly

Ho

uld

jin

89

1ti

tan

oth

ere

(fem

ur)

KM

Wo

fC

MH

ou

ldji

ng

ravel

s8

44

tita

no

ther

e(b

ase

of

sku

ll)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

34

tita

no

ther

e(s

ku

ll,

top

da

ma

ged

)

26

395

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

83

trio

ny

chid

s(a

bo

ut

12

shel

ls)

67

28–

67

37

top

of

Ird

inM

an

ha

83

5ti

tan

oth

ere

(sk

ull

)2

64

16

Pro

tita

nm

inor

(ty

pe)

Mih

lba

chle

r(i

np

ress

)

1M

Wo

fC

Mto

po

fIr

din

Ma

nh

a8

36

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

ws)

26

422

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

41

tita

no

ther

e(s

ku

ll,

top

wea

ther

ed)

26

396

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

46

tita

no

ther

ium

(sk

ull

&lo

wer

jaw

s)

26

391

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

s(t

yp

e)G

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

47

rhin

oce

rid

(lo

wer

jaw

s)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

54

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

ws)

26

400

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

s;

tax

on

BG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3;

Mih

l.

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

55

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

ws)

26

407

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

62

rhin

oce

rid

(lo

wer

jaw

s)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

63

rhin

oce

rid

(lo

wer

jaw

)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

67

tita

no

ther

e(s

ym

ph

ysi

s,

pre

mo

lars

)

26

404

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

68

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

402

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

69

rhin

oce

rid

(lo

wer

jaw

)2

63

86

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s(b

asa

l

gra

y)

85

1rh

ino

ceri

d(l

ow

erja

ws)

Gra

nger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

79

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

419

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

79

Ati

tan

oth

ere

(lef

tra

mu

s)2

64

20

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

80

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

81

?rh

ino

ceri

d(l

ow

erja

w)

26

430

tax

on

AM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

?Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

42

tita

no

ther

e(r

am

us

of

low

er

jaw

)

26

408

tax

on

AM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

?Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

43

tita

no

ther

e(r

am

us

of

low

er

jaw

)

26

409

Gra

nger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

?Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

48

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

410

Pro

tita

nm

inor;

tax

on

AM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

?Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

49

tita

no

ther

e(p

art

of

sku

ll)

26

417

Pro

tita

nm

inor

Gra

nger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

AP

PE

ND

IX3

(C

on

tin

ued

)


Lo

cali

tyB

eds

Fie

ldn

o.

Fie

ldid

enti

fica

tio

nA

MN

Hn

o.

Pu

bli

shed

iden

tifi

cati

on

Ref

eren

ces

1K

MW

of

CM

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

66

tita

no

ther

e(s

ku

ll,

top

wea

ther

ed)

26

398

Met

ati

tan

reli

ctu

sG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

70

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

405

6M

Wo

fC

MIr

din

Ma

nh

ab

eds

93

4a

mb

lyp

od

(lo

wer

jaw

)2

66

13

Eud

ino

cera

sm

on

go

lien

sis

Osb

orn

&G

ran

ger

,1

93

2

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s9

35

am

bly

po

d(l

ow

erja

w)

26

612

Eud

ino

cera

sm

on

go

lien

sis

Osb

orn

&G

ran

ger

,1

93

2

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s9

36

cha

lico

ther

e(s

ku

lls,

jaw

s,et

c.)

26

644

–5

5L

ito

lop

hus

go

bie

nsi

sC

olb

ert,

19

34

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s9

37

am

bly

po

d(f

rag

.T

eeth

)2

66

14

7M

23

5Ir

din

Ma

nh

ab

eds

89

2M

isce

ll.

Sm

all

per

is.

Etc

.2

66

64

–5

Ad

ven

imu

sb

urk

eiD

aw

son

,1

96

6??

?

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

94

cro

cod

ile

(po

rtio

no

fsk

ull

)6

60

7

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

95

mes

on

ych

id(l

ow

erja

w)

26

661

Mo

ng

olo

ny

x

do

lich

og

na

thu

s

Sza

lay

an

dG

ou

ld,

19

66

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

96

cro

cod

ile

(lo

wer

jaw

s)6

60

6

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

97

Eud

ino

cera

s(l

ow

erja

ws-

p2

-

m3

)

26

616

Go

bia

ther

ium

mir

ific

um

Osb

orn

an

dG

ran

ger

,1

93

2

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

98

Eud

ino

cera

s(l

ow

erja

w,

2)

26

615

Go

bia

ther

ium

mir

ific

um

Osb

orn

an

dG

ran

ger

,1

93

2

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s8

99

?cre

od

on

t(p

ort

ion

of

sku

ll)

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s9

00

Eud

ino

cera

s(

jaw

s,sk

ull

,et

c.)

26

630

–3

7G

ob

iath

eriu

mm

irif

icu

mO

sbo

rna

nd

Gra

nger

,1

93

2

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s9

07

mes

on

ych

id(m

ax

illa

)2

66

62

Mo

ng

olo

ny

x

do

lich

og

na

thu

s

Sza

lay

an

dG

ou

ld,

19

66

Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s9

13

??rh

ino

ceri

d(s

ku

ll,

teet

h

wea

ther

ed)

26

643

Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

cla

ys

90

9E

ud

ino

cera

s(j

aw

s,sk

ull

,et

c.)

26

621

–2

9G

ob

iath

eriu

mm

irif

icu

mO

sbo

rna

nd

Gra

nger

,1

93

2

Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

91

1E

ud

ino

cera

s(j

aw

s,et

c.)

26

618

–1

9G

ob

iath

eriu

mm

irif

icu

mO

sbo

rna

nd

Gra

nger

,1

93

2

Ird

inM

an

ha

,to

po

fre

d

cla

ys

91

0E

ud

ino

cera

s(s

ku

ll)

26

637

Go

bia

ther

ium

mir

ific

um

Osb

orn

an

dG

ran

ger

,1

93

2

?Ird

inM

an

ha

bed

s(t

op

)9

20

lop

hio

do

nt

(lo

wer

jaw

)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

01

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

415

Pro

tita

nm

inor;

Tax

on

AG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

02

tita

no

ther

e(f

ron

to

flo

wer

jaw

)2

64

31

tax

on

AM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

08

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

ws)

26

418

Pro

tita

nm

inor;

tax

on

AG

ran

ger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

14

Balu

chit

her

ium

(ax

is)

26

390

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

22

low

erja

w2

63

85

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s8

93

?lo

ph

iod

on

t(l

ow

erja

w)

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

03

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

04

?rh

ino

ceri

d(l

ow

erja

ws)

AP

PE

ND

IX3

(C

on

tin

ued

)30 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3570

Lo

cali

tyB

eds

Fie

ldn

o.

Fie

ldid

enti

fica

tio

nA

MN

Hn

o.

Pu

bli

shed

iden

tifi

cati

on

Ref

eren

ces

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

05

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

413

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

06

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

w)

26

432

tax

on

AM

ihlb

ach

ler

(in

pre

ss)

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

19

lop

hio

do

nt

(lo

wer

jaw

s)

10

MS

Wo

fC

MIr

din

Ma

nh

ab

eds

91

2o

xya

enid

(fro

nt

of

sku

ll)

26

641

Sa

rka

sto

don

mo

ng

oli

ensi

sG

ran

ger

,1

93

8

Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

cla

ys

91

5?r

hin

oce

rid

(fro

nt

of

sku

ll,

low

erja

w

26

660

Fo

rste

rco

oper

iaco

nfl

uen

sW

oo

d,

19

63;

Ra

din

sky

,1

96

7

Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

cla

ys

91

8?a

mb

lyp

od

(lo

wer

jaw

s)2

66

11

Eud

ino

cera

sm

on

go

lien

sis

Osb

orn

&G

ran

ger

,1

93

2

?Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

cla

ys

92

4lo

ph

iod

on

ts(j

aw

sa

nd

sku

lls)

Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

cla

ys

92

5lo

ph

iod

on

ts(2

low

erja

ws,

1

ma

xil

la)

?Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

cla

ys

92

9L

op

hia

lete

s(n

um

ero

us

spec

imen

s)

?Ird

inM

an

ha

,u

pp

erg

ray

cla

ys

93

0a

mb

lyp

od

(ba

cko

fsk

ull

)2

66

20

Go

bia

ther

ium

mir

ific

um

Osb

orn

an

dG

ran

ger

,1

93

2

?Ird

inM

an

ha

92

3ti

tan

oth

ere

(lo

wer

jaw

)2

64

14

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

16

tita

no

ther

e(l

ow

erja

ws)

26

412

Pro

tita

nm

inor

Gra

nger

an

dG

reg

ory

,1

94

3

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

26

small

per

iss.

,p

art

of

sku

ll

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

27

va

rio

us

small

jaw

s,et

c.

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

32

tita

no

ther

e(j

aw

s)2

64

23

Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

33

?lo

ph

iod

on

t(l

ow

erja

ws)

?Ho

uld

jin

gra

vel

s9

31

small

form

s,lo

wer

jaw

s

AP

PE

ND

IX3

(C

on

tin

ued

)


This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

Complete lists of all issues of the Novitates and the Bulletin are available at World Wide

Web site http://library.amnh.org/pubs. Inquire about ordering printed copies via e-mail from

[email protected] or via standard mail from: American Museum of Natural History,

Library—Scientific Publications, Central Park West at 79th St., New York, NY 10024. TEL:

(212) 769-5545. FAX: (212) 769-5009.

New Stratigraphic Data from the Erlian Basin: Implications for the Division, Correlation, and...

Documents

Transcript of New Stratigraphic Data from the Erlian Basin: Implications for the Division, Correlation, and...