
تعداد نشریات | 43 |
تعداد شمارهها | 1,744 |
تعداد مقالات | 14,237 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 35,213,451 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 13,982,508 |
Decapod crustacean from the Qom Formation (Lower Miocene) of the Isfahan area, Central Iran | ||
پژوهش های چینه نگاری و رسوب شناسی | ||
مقالات آماده انتشار، اصلاح شده برای چاپ، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 17 خرداد 1404 اصل مقاله (1.35 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22108/jssr.2025.145216.1313 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Ali Bahrami* 1؛ Álex Ossó* 2؛ Mehdi Yazdi1؛ Hossein Vaziri-Moghaddam1؛ Azizollah Taheri3؛ Amir-Hossein Alibeigi1 | ||
1Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran | ||
2Ateneu de Natura, Llorenç de Villalonga, 17B, 1-1, 43007 Tarragona, Catalonia | ||
3Department of Geology, Faculty of Earth Science, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran | ||
چکیده | ||
The discovery of a new specimen of Portunus withersi (Glaessner 1933) from the Lower Miocene Qom Formation in the Vartun section, north of Isfahan (Central Iran), contributes to our knowledge of this portunid species, to which most fossil portunids found in the Miocene of Iran have been attributed. New images of the holotype are also presented herein. The Miocene decapod fauna of Iran, exhibiting a clear Indo-Pacific affinity, reflects an emerging loss of faunal homogeneity between the decapod communities on either side of the Tethys Realm. This differentiation is related to the progressive closure of the Tethys Seaway, which interrupted the connection between the proto-Mediterranean and Paratethys seas and the Indian Ocean. This stands in contrast to the relative faunal homogeneity observed during the Paleogene, as evidenced by the presence—on both sides of the Tethys Realm—of genera such as Zanthopsis M’Coy 1849, Palaeocarpilius A. Milne-Edwards 1862, or Lophoranina Fabiani 1910, among others, and even species such as Retrocypoda almelai Vía Boada 1959. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
Brachyura؛ Portunidae؛ early Miocene؛ Qom Formation؛ Isfahan؛ Central Iran | ||
اصل مقاله | ||
Introduction A number of studies on fossil decapod crustaceans of Iran were published in the last fifteen years. For such a geologically diverse country, this is, however, still insufficient and the knowledge on the decapod fossil record of Iran remains poor. To our knowledge, the first report of fossil decapods was that by Withers 1932, Glaessner 1933. Subsequently, Förster and Seyed-Emami (1982) on an erymid lobster from the Middle Jurassic of northern Iran. Cretaceous decapods were discussed by McCobb and Hairapetian (2009), Yazdi et al. (2009, 2010), Jagt et al. (2014), and Bahrami et al. (2020); the alleged lobster of uncertain affinities described by Feldmann et al. (2007) was later reinterpreted to be an isopod (Hyžný et al. 2020). Cenozoic decapod occurrences from Iran include those from Eocene, Oligocene, and Miocene strata. Eocene decapods were reported by Garassino et al. (2014), Khodaverdi Hassan-Vand et al. (2016), and Ossó et al. (2023), whereas the Oligocene decapods were reported by Bahrami et al. (2023). The first report on Miocene decapod crustaceans of Iran was an abstract by Torabi and Yazdi (2002), presenting a portunid crab from the Isfahan area. Much more attention was dedicated to Miocene decapod assemblages from the Mishan Formation (Vega et al. 2010, 2012; Heidari et al. 2012; Hyžný et al. 2013; Yazdi et al. 2013; Key et al. 2017; Hyžný et al. 2021; Khosravi et al. 2022). The present study focuses on the description of the decapod from the lower Miocene of the Qom Formation exposed in the Isfahan area. Fig 1- Geographic map of Iran with study area location in central Iran (left) and the Late Oligocene–Early Miocene palaeogeography of the Tethyan Seaway and adjacent regions, with the indication of Qom Basin (after Harzhauser and Piller 2007; Reuter et al. 2009). Geological setting In general, the Rupelian–Burdigalian (Early Oligocene–Early Miocene) Qom Formation was deposited at the northeastern margin of the Tethyan Seaway in three northwest–southeast-trending basins, including the Central Iran back-arc basin, the Urumieh–Dokhtar magmatic arc (intra-arc) basin, and the Sanandaj–Sirjan fore-arc basin (Schuster and Wielandt 1999; Daneshian and Ramezani Dana 2007; Reuter et al. 2009; Mohammadi et al. 2013, 2015; Mohammadi 2023). Based on Reuter et al. (2009), at first, the fore-arc basin was inundated by the marine transgression, of the Qom Sea during the late Early Oligocene (Ru 3 cycle), while in the back-arc basin marine environments were not established until the beginning of the Late Oligocene (Ru 4/Ch 1 cycle). Subsequently, normal marine conditions prevailed in both basins throughout the Oligocene. In the Isfahan–Sirjan basin this condition continued during Aquitanian and early Burdigalian, while in the Qom Basin due to the compressive tectonics, the gates to the open ocean gradually became restricted in the Early Miocene and during the the Aquitanian and Burdigalian restricted marine conditions prevailed and episodic precipitation of evaporate deposits occurred. Berberian (1983) attributed the formation of the Oligo–Miocene Qom Basin to the subduction of Neotethys oceanic crust beneath Central Iran, which formed a back-arc opening, deposition of the Qom Formation, and alkaline volcanic processes, but did not point to the formation process of fore-arc basin. Based on Rahimzadeh (1994), the closure of the Oligo–Miocene, central Iran basin was possibly the result of the eustatic falling of sea level, orogenic movement, or the contemporaneous effects of both. However, Reuter et al. (2009) believed that the closure of the Tethyan Seaway and the disruption of connections of the Qom Basin with the open water of Proto-Indopacific was caused by the collision of the African-Arabian and Eurasia plates. According to Bassi et al. (2009), the closure of the connection between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean took place before the Langhian (Figs 1–2). The thickness of the Qom Formation varies from area to area, in the type area, the Qom Formation was laid on the gypsiferous and evaporitic red beds (Lower Red Formation) conformably and overlaid conformably by evaporitic red beds of Middle–Late Miocene age (Upper Red Formation) (Daneshian and Ramezani Dana 2007). Active tectonics led to the formation of complicated local tectonic movements with erosional faces which influenced the lateral thickness in the Qom Formation and produced facies variations (Poroohan et al. 2009; Jalali and Feizi 2010). Because of the major facies changes of the Qom Formation, no stratotype section has been introduced for it, but the Qom area (located approximately 100 km south of Tehran) is proposed as its type area (Rahimzadeh 1994; Aghanabati 2006; Mohammadi et al. 2011, 2013). The studied locality (Bentonite mine section) is situated in the Isfahan area (Fig 3) in the Isfahan–Sirjan fore-arc Basin with GPS co-ordinates: 32° 56′ 28″ N; 52° 08′ 29″ E), 85 km north of Isfahan, near the Ab-Garm hot spring at the foothill of a bentonite mine. The section includes, grey-yellow to yellow-white highly fossiliferous marls and fossiliferous argillaceous to sandy limestones (Fig. 3a). The fossils, among others, include coralline red algae (Lithophyllum sp., Lithothamnium sp.), molluscs (Spondylus sp., Turritella sp.), and echinoderms (Eucidaris sp., Clypeaster sp., scutellid echinoids), with minor intercalation of marly limestones with the occurrence of foraminifers Neoalveolina melocurdica, Peneroplis evolutus, Dentritina rangi, Meandropsina anahensis, Acervulina sp., and Archaias sp., the foraminifers indicate Aquitanian–Burdigalian age (Pedramara et al. 2019). (Fig 3 c–i). Accompanying of crustaceans, corals, bryozoans, echinoderms, mollusks and Skolithos burrows in the red algal grainstone-bearing limestone (Fig 3-a) indicates high hydrodynamic (water) energy (Vinn and Wilson 2013; Sedorko et al. 2018), coralline red algae (Lithophylum, Sporolithon, Mesophyllum and Lithothamnium) were the major and most abundant biotic components of photozoan and heterozoan communities of Oligocene–Miocene cool waters (non-tropic) and shallow tropical carbonates (Braga et al. 2010). Fig 2- a: Map showing the distribution of Urumieh–Dokhtar Magmatic Arc, the Qom Formation outcrops, suture zones of Paleotethys and Neotethys in Iran (after Mohammadi et al. 2013: Mohammadi 2023), b: Geological map of Kuhpayeh area and the location of the study section in Isfahan area (modified from Radfar and Kohansal 2002). Fig 3- a: stratigraphical column of the studied succession; b: close view of the outcrop with the indication (arrow) of the studied crustacean bearing level; c–i: prominent accompanying fauna, bivalve, echinoid, coral, balanoid and epibiont bryozoans. Material & Methods From the Burdigalian strata of studied sections, altogether one fossil brachyuran crab was recovered as ex-situ, on the surface (Fig 3a). Photographs were taken with a NIKON D5600 camera under natural light. The specimen is well-preserved and deposited at the Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Isfahan, Iran (EUIC). Other abbreviations: NHMUK – Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom. Systematic palaeontology Class Malacostraca Latreille 1802 Order Decapoda Latreille 1802 Infraorder Brachyura Latreille 1802 Section Eubrachyura Saint Laurent 1980 Subsection Heterotremata Guinot 1977 Superfamily Portunoidea Rafinesque 1815 Family Portunidae Rafinesque 1815 Portunus withersi (Glaessner 1933) Fig 4A–D 1933* Neptunus (Achelous) withersi Glaessner, p. 8, pl. 2, figs. 1–3. 1969 Portunus (Achelous) withersi (Glaessner 1933); Glaessner, p. R510, fig. 319.2. 2008 Portunus withersi (Glaessner 1933); Karasawa et al. p. 127. 2012 Portunus withersi (Glaessner 1933); Heidari et al. p. 3, fig. 5. 2013 Portunus withersi (Glaessner 1933); Yazdi et al. p.230, figs. 5.1-4. Studied material and measurements (in mm): One carapace with cuticle partially preserved, EUIC-87946: length = 38.9; width = 53.5. Description Carapace: Carapace subhexagonal, wider than long, widest at the level of last anterolateral spine; regions faintly marked. Front not preserved. Orbits relatively broad; supraorbital margin with two fissures, one medially placed, and another adjacent to the extra-orbital tooth; extra-orbital tooth acute subtriangular, forward directed. Anterolateral margins are widely convex, not completely preserved but retaining the remains of nine short subtriangular teeth alternating in size (extra-orbital tooth included), the last one, the epibranchial tooth, appears to be short. Posterolateral margins are convex, shorter than the anterolateral ones, entire and rimmed. Reentrant of the fifth pereiopod well marked, very broad. The posterior margin is straight, rimmed, with rounded angles. Gastric process barely marked; protogastric lobes slightly swollen; mesogastric region subpentagonal, thin and elongated anteriorly. Urogastric region depressed. Cardiac region diamond-shaped. Both, urogastric and cardiac regions are bounded laterally by marked branchiocardiac grooves. Intestinal region undefined, flattened. The hepatic region flattened. Epibranchial region slightly raised, defined by an arched ridge that ends in the epibranchial tooth; mesobranchial lobes slightly swollen; metabranchial region depressed. Ischium of third maxilliped elongated, inner margin convex, outer margin concave, deep groove paralleling the inner margin; merus subquadrate; exopod narrow, elongate. Thoracic sternum broad, ovate, maximum width at the level of sternite 6. Thoracic sternites 1, 2 not observable; sternites 3 and 4 fused; sternite 3 inverted subtriangular; sternite 4 subtrapezoidal, divided medially by deep sternopleonal cavity, crossed transversely at mid-length by a step; sternites 5, 6, and 7 transversely subrectangular with rounded outer margins, sternite 7 shorter; sternite 8 not preserved. Episternites 4 and 5 are short, curved, downward directed, and separated from sternites by a deep suture. Sternal suture 3/4 visible only laterally; sternal sutures 4/5, 5/6, 6/7, complete laterally. Male pleon broadly subtriangular; pleonal somite 6 broken; somites 3-4-5 fused, narrowing anteriorly; somite 2 extremely narrow transversely, wider than somite 3. Chelipeds and ambulatory legs are not preserved. Remarks The specimen described herein showcases strong morphological similarities, both dorsal and ventral, with Portunus withersi, described by Glaessner (1933, p. 8, 9, pl. 2, figs 1, 2; Fig 4C, D), from the Lower Miocene of Sulabdar in SW Iran, near the Persian Gulf. In despite of the poor dorsal preservation of the holotype, preserving only partially front-orbital and anterolateral margins (Fig.4C), the general outline, short epibranchial tooth, small anterolateral subtriangular teeth alternating in size, that is, although all the teeth are small, some are slightly smaller than the others, alternating between them, as Glaessner indicated in his original description, is coincident with the described specimen. Also, the ventral features of both (Fig. 4D) are almost identical, differing only in the degree of preservation. Thus, we can assign our specimen to Portunus withersi. Subsequent authors, Heidari et al. (2012) and Yazdi et al. (2013), assigned to Portunus withersi several portunid specimens recovered in the Lower and Middle Miocene outcrops of the Persian Gulf Coast of Iran. The present specimen sheds some more light on the dorsal morphology of Portunus withersi, beyond Glaessner's idealized depictions (e.g. Glaessner 1969, fig. 2a), and based on it, perhaps it would be worth reviewing the two aforementioned assignments, to see if they actually correspond to P. withersi. In any case, more and better material would be necessary to know the true nature of the front-orbital and anterolateral margins of Portunus withersi, and thus confirm its belonging to the genus Portunus or to any other portunid genus, such as Achelous De Haan 1833, as Glaessner suggested in his original description. Fig 4. A–D: Portunus withersi (Glaessner 1933). A–B: EUIC 87946 from the Lower Miocene of the Vartun section, north of Isfahan, A: dorsal view; B: ventral view. C–D: holotype NHMUK-24479, from the Lower Miocene of Sulabdar, SW of Iran, C: dorsal view; D: ventral view. Abbreviations: a = pleonal somites; cxP1 = coxa of pereiopod 1; ex = exopod of third maxilliped; is = ischium of third maxilliped; me = merus of third maxilliped; st = thoracic sternites. Scale bar = 10 mm. Photographs of C and D by Peter Grugeon. Discussion The Oligo–Miocene deposits of the Qom Formation developed in the southeastern margin of the Western Tethys Region (Fig 3). The faunas of this region are important for the interpretation of palaeobiogeography of the circum-Mediterranean region, including the proto-Mediterranean and Paratethys seas, and its connection with the Indian Ocean, as have been discussed by various scholars since the 1990s (Stöcklin and Setudehina 1991; Rögl 1999; Seyrafian and Torabi 2005; Harzhauser et al. 2007; Khaksar and Maghfouri Moghaddam 2007; Daneshian and Ramezani Dana 2007; Reuter et al. 2009; Mohammadi et al. 2011, 2013; Behforouzi and Safari 2011; Yazdi et al. 2013). The timing of the opening and closure of the Tethyan Seaway (especially in the fore-arc and back-arc basins) is still being debated. Bozorgnia (1966) believed that the Qom Sea (Qom back-arc basin) persisted from the Rupelian (early Oligocene) to the Burdigalian (late early Miocene). Schuster and Wielandt (1999) also mentioned that in both foreland basins (Sanandaj–Sirjan and Central Iran), the marine sedimentation began during the early Oligocene and continued until the end of the early Miocene. However, Berning et al. (2009), suggested that during the late Oligocene, the narrowing Tethyan Seaway formed a connection between the eastern and the western Tethys regions. During the Paleogene, the fossil record of decapod fauna of Iran suggests a potential homogeneity of brachyuran faunas on both sides of the Tethys Realm (e.g. Khodaverdi Hassan-vand et al. 2016; Ossó et al. 2023; Bahrami et al. 2023). This relative homogeneity appears to have persisted until the very early Miocene (Hyžný et al. 2021). However, at the end of the Early Miocene and onward, this trend changes. Indeed, Glaessner (1933, p. 11) noted: “The crabs from the Persian Miocene are rather different from any European fauna”, suggesting a “tropical, Indo-Pacific character” for the Persian Miocene decapod fauna. This is consistent with subsequent works on Miocene decapods of that area, which reported fauna of clear Indo-Pacific affinity (Vega et al. 2010, 2012; Yazdi et al. 2013; Khosravi et al. 2022; Garassino et al. 2024). As for Portunus withersi, it appears to be the dominant portunid species in the siliciclastic sediments of the eastern Tethys area (Reuter et al. 2009), just as P. monspeliensis (Milne-Edwards 1860) was in the siliciclastic sediments of the Proto-Mediterranean and Paratethys areas during the Miocene (see Gašparič and Ossó 2016). More research is needed to resolve the migratory routes of decapod crustaceans along the Tethyan Seaway, which might change throughout several tens of million years. Fossils from the Qom Basin, being positioned in the middle between eastern and western Tethyan regions, are of great importance in this research. Conclusions The new specimen represents an addition to the knowledge of the morphology of Portunus withersi. Further fieldwork to find more and better-preserved specimens will help to understand the diagnostic characteristics of this species and clarify its systematic position within the Portunidae family. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the University of Isfahan for providing laboratory and fieldwork logistics. We are grateful to Rich Howard (NHMUK) for providing images of the holotype. Thanks to the reviewers for their pertinent remarks. | ||
مراجع | ||
Aghanabati A. 2006. Geology of Iran: Tehran, Ministry of Industry and Mine, Geological Survey of Iran, 586 p. Bahrami A. Ossó À. Yazdi M. and Ansari H. 2023.Oligocene crabs (Decapoda: Brachyura) from the Asmari Formation in Yasuj area (SW Iran). Acta Geologica Polonica, 73 (2): 189-200. DOI:10.24425/agp.2023.145615 Bahrami A. Yazdi M. and González-León O. Serrano-Sánchez M.L. and Vega J.V. 2020. Crustacea (Isopoda, Anomura, Brachyura) from the Cretaceous of Soh area (NW Isfahan) Central Iran. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, 72(2): 1-14. DOI:10.18268/BSGM2020v72n2a271019 Berberian M. 1983. Structural evolution of the Iranian Plateau; Contribution to the seismotectonics of Iran, Part IV: Continental Deformation in the Iranian Plateau. Geological Survey of Iran, Report, 52: 19-68. Bassi D. Braga JC. and Iryu Y. 2009. Palaeobiogeographic patterns of a persistent monophyletic lineage: Lithophyllum pustulatum species group (Corallinaceae, Corallinales, Rhodophyta). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 284: 237–245. DOI:10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.10.003 Braga J.C. Bassi D. and Piller W. 2010. Palaeoenviromental significance of Oligocene–Miocene coralline red algae – a review. In: Mutti M. Piller W. Betzler C. (Eds.), Oligocene-Miocene carbonate systems. International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication, 42: 165–182. Behforouzi E. and Safari A. 2011. Biostratigraphy and paleoecology of the Qom Formation in Chenar area (northwestern Kashan), Iran. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas, 28: 555-565. Berning B. Reuter M. Piller W.E. Harzhauser M. and Kroh A. 2009. Larger foraminifera as a substratum for encrusting bryozoans (Late Oligocene, Tethyan Seaway, Iran). Facies, 55: 227-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10347-008-0169-x Bozorgnia F. 1966. Qom Formation stratigraphy of the Central basin of Iran and its intercontinental position. Iranian Petroleum Institute Bulletin, 24: 69-75. Daneshian J. and Ramezani Dana L. 2007. Early Miocene benthic foraminifera and biostratigraphy of the Qom Formation, Deh Namak, central Iran. Journal of Asian Earth Science, 29: 844-858. DOI:10.1016/j.jseaes.2006.06.003 De Haan W. 1833. Crustacea. In: Siebold P.F. von (Ed.), Fauna Japonica, sive descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japoniam, jussu et auspiciis superiorum, qui summum in India Batava imperium tenent, suscepto, annis 1823-1830 collegit, notis, observationibus et adumbrationibus illustravit, ievii, iexxxi, ixexvi þ 243. J. Müller et Co., Lugduni Batavorum (Leiden). Fabiani R. 1910. Sulle specie di Ranina finora note ed in particolare sulla Ranina aldrovandii. Atti della Accademia Scientifica Venetino Trentino Istriana, 3: 85-102. Feldmann R.M. Kolahdouz A. Biranvand B. and Schweigert G. 2007. A new family, genus, and species of lobster (Decapoda: Achelata) from the Gadvan Formation (Early Cretaceous) of Iran. Journal of Paleontology, 81: 405–407, doi:10.1666/0022-3360(2007)81[405:ANFGAS]2.0.CO;2. Förster R. and Seyed-Emami K. 1982. First occurence of Eryma bedelta (Quenstedt) (Crustacea, Decapoda) from the Aalenian of Iran. Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Historische Geologie, 22: 41-45. Garassino A. Bahrami A. Yazdi M. and Vega F.J. 2014. Report on decapod crustaceans from the Eocene of Zagros Basin, Iran. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 274: 43-54. DOI:10.1127/njgpa/2014/0442 Garassino A. Pasini G. Mirzaie Ataabadi M. Hadi M. Parsazad M. Nyborg T. and Vega F.J. 2024. New report of decapod crustaceans from the Miocene of Iran. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, 76 (1): 1-14. DOI:10.18268/BSGM2024v76n1a200324 Gašparič R. and Ossó À. 2016. New reports of decapod Portunus monspeliensis A. Milne Edwards, 1860 from Miocene beds of eastern Slovenia with notes on palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography. Geologija, 59 (1): 55-66. https://doi.org/10.5474/geologija.2016.005 Glaessner M.F. 1933. New Tertiary crabs in the collection of the British Museum: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 10, 12 (67): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933308673747 Glaessner M.F. 1969. Decapoda. In: Moore R.C. Teichert C. (Eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part R, Arthopoda, vol. 4(2). Geological Society of America, Boulder, and The University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, pp. R399-R533. R552-R566. Guinot D. 1977. Propositions pour une nouvelle classification des Crustacés Décapodes Brachyoures. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, série D, 285 : 1049-1052. Harzhauser M. Kroh A. Mandic O. Piller W.E. Göhlich U. Reuter M. and Berning B. 2007. Biogeographic responses to geodynamics: a key study all around the Oligo-Miocene Tethyan Seaway. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 246: 241-256. DOI:10.1016/j.jcz.2007.05.001 Heidari A. Feldmann R.M. and Moussavi-Harami R. 2012. Miocene decapod crustacean from the Guri Member of the Mishan Formation, Bandar-Abbas, Southern Iran. Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum, 38: 1-7. Hyžný M. Bahrami A. Klompmaker A.A. Yazdi M. Portell R.W. and Neumann Ch. 2013. The fossil record of Glypturus (Decapoda: Axiidea: Callianassidae) revisited with additional observations and description of a new species. Swiss Journal of Palaeontology 132: 129-139. DOI:10.1007/s13358-013-0060-4 Hyžný M. Audo D. Feldmann R.M. and Schweigert G. 2020. Tricarina gadvanensis is an isopod: reinterpretation of an alleged lobster from the Lower Cretaceous of Iran. Journal of Paleontology, 94 (2): 304 – 310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jpa.2019.61 Hyžný M. Bahrami A. Yazdi M. and Torabi H. 2021. Decapod crustaceans from the lower Miocene Qom Formation of the Isfahan area, Central Iran. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, 73 (3): 1-14. Jagt J.W.M. Van Bakel B.W.M. Fraaije R.H.B. and Neumann C. 2014. New data on mid-Cretaceous dromioid crabs (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura) from northwest Germany and southwest Iran. In: Fraaije R.H.B. Hyžný M. Jagt J.W.M. Krobicki M. and Van Bakel B.W.M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Mesozoic and Cenozoic Decapod Crustaceans, Krakow, Poland, 2013: A tribute to Pál Mihály Müller. Scripta Geologica, 147: 35-47. Jalali M. and Feizi M. 2010. Introduction of Miocene deposits turbidities in the Saveh-Takab area (NW of central Iran basin): The First International Applied Geological Congress, Department of Geology, Islamic Azad University-Mashad Branch, Iran, 26-28. Karasawa H. Schweitzer C.E. and Feldmann R.M. 2008. Revision of the Portunoidea Rafinesque, 1815 (Decapoda: Brachyura) with emphasis on the fossil genera and families: Journal of Crustacean Biology, 28: 82-127 Key M.M. Jr. Hyžný M. Khosravi E. Hudáčková N. Robin N. and Ataabadi M.M. 2017. Bryozoan epibiosis on fossil crabs: a rare occurrence from the Miocene of Iran. Palaios, 32: 491-505. DOI:10.2110/palo.2017.040 Khaksar K. and Maghfori-Moghaddam I. 2007. Paleontological study of the echinoderms in the Qom Formation (Central Iran). Islamic Azad University, Earth Science Researches, 11: 57-79. Khodaverdi Hassan-vand M. Bahrami A. Yazdi M. Ossó À. Safari A. Martínez J.L. and Vega F.J. 2016. Occurrence of Retrocypoda almelai Via Boada, 1959 (Decapoda: Retroplumidae) in the Eocene of Central Iran. Paleontología Mexicana, 5: 21-31. DOI:10.22201/igl.05437652e.2016.5.1.201 Khosravi E. Sari A. Mirziee-Ataabadi M. Gholamalian H. Hyzny M. and Naderloo R. 2022. A new species of Galene de Haan, 1833 (Galenidae: Brachyura) from the Middle Miocene of Zagros Mountains, Iran. Zootaxa, 5124(2):139-154. DOI:10.11646/zootaxa.5124.2.2 Latreille P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière des Crustacés et desInsectes. Ouvrage faisant suite à l’histoire naturelle générale et particulière, composée par Leclerc de Buffon, et rédigée par C.S. Sonnini, membre de plusieurs sociétés savantes, Vol. 3. Dufart, Paris, 476 p. McCobb L.M.E. and Hairapetian V. 2009. A new lobster Paraclytia valashtensis (Crustacea, Decapoda, Nephropidae) from the Late Cretaceous of the central Alborz Range, Iran. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 83: 419-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542-009-0033-5 M’Coy F. 1849. On the classification of some British fossil Crustacea with notices of new forms in the university collection art Cambridge. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2) 4, 161-179: 330-335. Milne Edwards A. 1860. Histoire des Crustacés podophthalmaires fossiles et Monographie des Décapodes Macroures de la famille des Thalassinens. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 4e série, 14: 129-357. Milne-Edwards A. 1862. Monographie des Crustacés fossiles de la famille des Cancériens. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Botanique), Séries 4, 18: 31-85. Mohammadi E. Safari A. Vaziri-Moghaddam H. Vaziri M.R. and Ghaedi M. 2011. Microfacies analysis and paleoenvironmental interpretation of the Qom Formation, south of the Kashan, Central Iran. Carbonates and Evaporites, 26: 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13146-011-0059-0 Mohammadi E. Hasanzadeh-Dastgerdi M. Ghaedi M. Dehghan R. Safari A. Vaziri-Moghaddam H. Baizidi C. Vaziri M. and Sfidari E. 2013. The Tethyan Seaway Iranian Plate Oligo–Miocene deposits (the Qom Formation): distribution of Rupelian (Early Oligocene) and evaporate deposits as evidences for timing and trending of opening and closure of the Tethyan Seaway. Carbonates and Evaporites, 28: 321-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13146-012-0120-7 Mohammadi E. Vaziri M.R. and Dastanpour M. 2015. Biostratigraphy of the nummulitids and lepidocyclinids bearing Qom Formation based on larger benthic foraminifera (Sanandaj–Sirjan fore-arc basin and Central Iran back-arc basin, Iran). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8: 403-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-1136-6 Mohammadi E. 2023. Foraminiferal biozonation, biostratigraphy and trans-basinal correlation of the Oligo-Miocene Qom Formation, Iran (northeastern margin of the Tethyan Seaway). Palaeoworld, 32: 156-173. DOI:10.1016/j.palwor.2022.04.005 Pedramara A. Zágoršek K. Bitner M.A. Yazdi M. Bahrami A. and Maleki Z. 2019. Bryozoans and brachiopods from the Lower Miocene deposits of the Qom Formation in North-East Isfahan (Central Iran). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie – Abhandlungen, 294: 229-250. DOI:10.1127/njgpa/2019/0852 Ossó À. Bahrami A. Yazdi M. and Mohammadrezaei A. 2023. Presence of Zanthopsis M’Coy, 1849 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) in the Early Eocene of Iran, and comments on the different species and/or morphotypes and their palaeobiogeography. Annales de Paléontologie, 109:102597. Poroohan N. Teimoornegad K. and Mohajjel M. 2009. Geometry and Kinematics of Qom-Zefreh Fault System and its Significance in Transpresssion Tectonics: Proceedings of the Third IASME /WSEAS International Conference on Geology and Seismology, 53-57. Radfar J. and Kohansal R. 2002. Geological map of Iran (Kuhpayeh), scale 1:100,000. Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration of Iran. Rafinesque C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature, ou tableau de l’univers et des corps organisés : L’Imprimerie de Jean Barravecchia. Palermo 224 p. Rahimzadeh F. 1994. Geological map of the Moghan. Geological Survey of Iran, scale 1: 250,000. Reuter M. Piller W.E. Harzhauser M. Mandic O. Berning B. Rögl F. Kroh A. Aubry M.P. Wielandt-Schuster U. and Hamedani A. 2009. The Oligo-/Miocene Qom Formation (Iran): evidence for an early Burdigalian restriction of Tethyan Seaway and closure of its Iranian gateways. International Journal of Earth Science, 9: 627-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-007-0269-9 Rögl F. 1999. Mediterranean and Paratethys. Facts and hypotheses of an Oligocene to Miocene paleogeography (short overview). Geologica Carpathica, 50: 339-349. Saint Laurent M. de. 1980. Sur la classification et la phylogénie des Crustacés Décapodes Brachyoures. I. Podotremata Guinot, 1977 et Eubrachyura sect. Nov. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 290 : 1265-1268. Sedorko D. Bosetti E.P. and Netto R.G. 2018. An integrative ichnological and taphonomic approach in a transgressive–regressive cycle: A case study from Devonian of Paraná Basin, Brazil. Lethaia, 51(1): 15–34. https://doi. org/10.1111/let.12219 Seyrafian A. and Torabi H. 2005. Petrofacies and sequence stratigraphy of the Qom Formation (Late Oligocene– Early Miocene), north of Nain, Southern trend of the Central Iranian Basin. Carbonates and Evaporites, 20: 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03175451 Schuster F. and Wielandt U. 1999. Oligocene and Early Miocene coral faunas from Iran: palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 88: 571-581. Stöcklin J. and Setudehni A. 1991. Stratigraphic Lexicon of Iran. – 2nd edition, Report No. 18: 376 pp. Tehran (Geological Survey of Iran). Torabi H. and Yazdi M. 2002. First report on Miocene decapod fauna (Crustacea) from central Iran, a preliminary study on their environmental and ecological factors. Geological Society of Australia Abstracts, 68: 156. Vega F.J. Gholamalian H. and Bahrami A. 2010. First record of Miocene crustaceans from Hormozgan Province, Southern Iran. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 8: 485-493. Vega F.J. Gholamalian H. Hassani M.-J. Sajadi S.-H. and Schaaf P. 2012. Miocene Crustacea from northern Bandar Abbas, South Iran. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 265: 221-234. DOI:10.1127/0077-7749/2012/0247 Vía Boada L. 1959. Decápodos fósiles del Eoceno español. Boletín del Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, 70: 1-72. Vinn O. and Wilson M.A. 2013. An event bed with abundant Skolithos burrows from the late Pridoli (Silurian) of Saaremaa (Estonia): Carnets de Géologie [Notebooks on Geology], Brest, Letter, 83–87. https://doi. org/10.4267/2042/49316 Withers T. H. 1932. Some Eocene Crabs from Persia and India." The Annals and Magazine of Natural History (10) ix. pp. 467-472, pl. xiii. Yazdi M. Bahrami A. and Vega F.J. 2009. Albian decapod Crustacea from Southwest Isfahan, Central Iran-Kolah-Qazi area. Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum, 35: 71-77. Yazdi M. Bahrami A. and Vega F.J. 2010. Additions to Albian (Cretaceous) Crustacea from Iran. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, 62: 207-211. DOI:10.18268/BSGM2010v62n2a1 Yazdi M. Bahrami A. Abbasi P. Sadeghi R. and Vega F.J. 2013. Miocene brachyuran Crustacea from Konar-Takhteh and Ahram sections, southwestern Iran. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, 65: 225-233. doi 10.18268/bsgm2013v65n2a4 | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 59 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 20 |