2017
DOI: 10.1515/agp-2017-0014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Silurian stratigraphy of Central Iran – an update

Abstract: ABSTRACT:Hairapetian,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is a difference in size of the labial basal extension between D. problematicus and S. mirabilis, as well as a great time difference between their occurrences, but otherwise these two taxa could be synonymised. Siberiodus was also found in the Famennian of Chariseh section, central Iran (Hairapetian & Ginter, 2009). From the same section, but from its Frasnian part, yet another probable omalodontiform, Manberodus fortis, was recovered (Hairapetian et al, 2008).…”
Section: Siberiodus and Manberodusmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There is a difference in size of the labial basal extension between D. problematicus and S. mirabilis, as well as a great time difference between their occurrences, but otherwise these two taxa could be synonymised. Siberiodus was also found in the Famennian of Chariseh section, central Iran (Hairapetian & Ginter, 2009). From the same section, but from its Frasnian part, yet another probable omalodontiform, Manberodus fortis, was recovered (Hairapetian et al, 2008).…”
Section: Siberiodus and Manberodusmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Siberiodus was also found in the Famennian of Chariseh section, central Iran (Hairapetian & Ginter, 2009). From the same section, but from its Frasnian part, yet another probable omalodontiform, Manberodus fortis, was recovered (Hairapetian et al, 2008). Its teeth are more compact than those of Siberiodus, with three thick cusps.…”
Section: Siberiodus and Manberodusmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The term "Padeha Formation", usually reported for the lowermost part of the Devonian in the eastern Alborz Mountains, seems inappropriate. The later unit was originally proposed by Ruttner et al (1968) for some nonmarine, siliciclastic-dominant deposits rich in gypsum interbeds exposed in the Ozbakh-Kuh area, northeastern Central Iran, at the base of a Devonian succession sandwiched between the Silurian marine carbonates presently assigned to the Dahaneh-Kalut Formation (Hairapetian et al, 2017) and the Givetian (Middle Devonian) Bahram Formation (Wendt et al, 2005). In the absence of fossils, the age constraints for the unit are very poor, while the detailed description of the type section is not yet available.…”
Section: Miaolingian To Ordovician Unconformitiesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The upper member, of Late Ordovician age, consists of a lower red bed interval that grades upward into mixed marine and non-marine sediments (Hamedi 1995). In the Kerman region, the Katkoyeh Formation disconformably overlies the Furongian stromatolitic Hatkan Dolomite Member of the topmost Kuh-Banan Formation, and is overlain in turn by the basal fluvial deposits of the Silurian Shabdjereh Formation (Hamedi 1995, Zhen et al 2001, Hairapetian et al 2017.…”
Section: Geological Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a landmark conodont contribution, Müller (1973) analyzed Cambrian-Early Ordovician conodonts from Northern Iran (Alborz region). However, conodonts from the Katkoyeh Formation in the central regions of Iran went out of research focus until publications by Hamedi (1995), Hamedi et al (1997), Zhen et al (2001) and Hairapetian et al (2017). Apart from a few conodont publications from the Shirgesht Formation in the Tabas area (Ghaderi et al 2008(Ghaderi et al , 2009, the application of conodonts to the lower Palaeozoic biostratigraphy in Central Iran has been limited.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%