Discovery of dinosaur ichnoassemblage from the Middle Jurassic at Ganquan County, Shaanxi Province
-
摘要:
恐龙足迹化石是重建鄂尔多斯盆地侏罗纪恐龙动物群的重要途径。在野外地质调查和室内研究的基础上，对陕西甘泉中侏罗世直罗组发现的恐龙足迹群进行了简要记述。初步研究结果表明，甘泉恐龙足迹群具有较强的多样性，足迹类型包括了兽脚类、蜥脚类、可能的鸟脚类及龟鳖类足迹；兽脚类足迹呈现高度多样化，包括大型、中型和小型的三趾型足迹和大型的四趾型足迹；蜥脚类足迹可归入雷龙足迹；可能的鸟脚类足迹保存较差，难以归入到具体属种；可能的龟鳖类足迹为鄂尔多斯盆地侏罗系的首次记录。甘泉恐龙足迹群的发现，扩大了中国恐龙足迹的地理分布，对于重建鄂尔多斯盆地侏罗纪恐龙动物群及古生态、古地理、古环境等具有重要意义。
Abstract:Dinosaur tracks have become the crucial way to reconstruct the Jurassic dinosaurian fauna in the Ordos Basin, since few dinosaur fossil skeletons have been ever reported from the Jurassic in the basin. On the basis of field geological survey and indoor research, the newly discovered dinosaur ichnoassemblage from the Middle Jurassic Zhiluo Formation at Ganquan County of Shaanxi Province is briefly described herein. Preliminary research indicates that Ganquan dinosaur ichnoassemblage reveals a relatively diverse ichnofauna consisting of theropod, sauropod, possible ornithopod and turtle. Theropod footprints are highly diverse, and include large, medium and small tridactyl footprints and large tetradactyl footprints. Sauropod footprints can be attributed to Brontopodus isp.. A single possible ornithopod footprint is poorly preserved and cannot be classified. Possible turtle footprints represent the first record from the Jurassic in the Ordos Basin. The discovery of Ganquan dinosaur ichnoassemblage expands the geographic distribution of dinosaur tracks in China, and has great significance for the reconstruction of the Jurassic dinosaurian fauna, palaeogeography, palaeoecology, and palaeoenvironment in the Ordos Basin. Further research on Ganquan dinosaur ichnoassemblage will be carried out.
-
Key words:
- dinosaur footprint /
- Zhiluo Formation /
- Middle Jurassic /
- Ganquan /
- Shaanxi Province /
- geological survey engineering
-
-
[1] Avanzini M, García−Ramos J C, Lires J, et al. 2005. Turtle tracks from the Late Jurassic of Asturias, Spain[J]. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 50(4): 743−755.
[2] Chen P J, Li J J, Matsukawa M, et al. 2006. Geological ages of dinosaur–track bearing formations in China[J]. Cretaceous Research, 27: 22−32. doi: 10.1016/j.cretres.2005.10.008
[3] Kim J Y, Lockley M G. 2016. First report of turtle tracks from the Lower Cretaceous of Korea[J]. Cretaceous Research, 64: 1−6. doi: 10.1016/j.cretres.2016.03.014
[4] Lockley M G, Fanelli D, Honda K, et al. 2010. Crocodile waterways and dinosaur freeways: implications of multiple swim track assemblages from the Cretaceous Dakota Group, Golden area, Colorado[J]. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin, 51: 137−156.
[5] Lockley M G, Xing L D, Li J J, et al. 2012. First records of turtle tracks in the Cretaceous of China[C]//Huh M, Kim H J, Park J Y. The 11th Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems Abstracts volume, Korea Dinosaur Research Center. Kwangju: Chonnam National University: 311–313.
[6] Lockley M G, Cart K, Martin J, et al. 2014. A bonanza of new tetrapod tracksites from the Cretaceous Dakota Group, western Colorado: implications for paleoecology[J]. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin, 62: 393−409.
[7] Lockley M G, Li J J, Xing L D, et al. 2018. Large theropod and small sauropod trackmakers from the Lower Cretaceous Jingchuan Formation, Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Cretaceous Research, 92: 150−167. doi: 10.1016/j.cretres.2018.07.007
[8] Lockley M G, Xing L D, Xu X. 2019. The “lost” holotype of Laiyangpus liui Young (1960) (Lower Cretaceous, Shandong Province, China) is found: Implications for trackmaker identification, ichnotaxonomy and interpretation of turtle tracks[J]. Cretaceous Research, 95: 260−267. doi: 10.1016/j.cretres.2018.11.017
[9] Xing L D, Lockley M G, Klein H, et al. 2018. Theropod assemblages and a new ichnotaxon Gigandipus chiappei ichnosp. nov. from the Jiaguan Formation, Lower Cretaceous of Guizhou Province, China[J]. Geoscience Frontiers, 9(6): 1745−1754. doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2017.12.012
[10] Xing L D, Li D Q, Klein H, et al. 2019. Lower Cretaceous turtle tracks from Hekou Group of Northwest China[J]. Cretaceous Research, 99: 269−274. doi: 10.1016/j.cretres.2019.03.009
[11] Xing L D, Niu K C, Lockley M G, et al. 2019. A probable tyrannosaurid track from the Upper Cretaceous of southern China[J]. Science Bulletin, 64(16): 1136−1139. doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2019.06.013
[12] 陈印, 冯晓曦, 陈路路, 等. 2017. 鄂尔多斯盆地东北部直罗组内碎屑锆石和铀矿物赋存形式简析及其对铀源的指示[J]. 中国地质, 44(6): 1190−1206.
[13] 郭艳琴, 李文厚, 郭彬程, 等. 2019. 鄂尔多斯盆地沉积体系与古地理演化[J]. 古地理学报, 21(2): 293−320.
[14] 胡松梅, 邢立达, 王昌富, 等. 2011. 陕西商洛地区下白垩统大型兽脚类恐龙足迹[J]. 地质通报, 30(11): 1697−1700. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-2552.2011.11.005
[15] 计波, 焦养泉, 刘阳. 2022. 鄂尔多斯盆地东北部下侏罗统富县组底部石英砂岩成因与物源[J]. 地质通报, 41(9): 1601−1612.
[16] 姬书安, 卢立伍, 张笠夫, 等. 2017. 内蒙古鄂尔多斯地区早白垩世恐龙动物群研究新进展[J]. 中国地质, 44(1): 196−197.
[17] 李建军, 巴特尔, 张维虹, 等. 2006. 内蒙古查布地区下白垩统巨齿龙足印化石[J]. 古生物学报, 45(2): 221−234.
[18] 李建军, 白志强, Lockley M G, 等. 2010. 内蒙古乌拉特中旗恐龙足迹研究[J]. 地质学报, 84(5): 723−742.
[19] 李建军, 白志强, 魏青云. 2011. 内蒙古鄂托克旗下白垩统恐龙足迹[M]. 北京: 地质出版社: 1–109.
[20] 李日辉, 李建军, 邢立达. 2019a. 中国恐龙足迹化石图谱[M]. 青岛: 青岛出版社: 1–924.
[21] 李日辉, 陈晓辉, 李建军, 等. 2019b. 山东郯城以蜥脚类恐龙为主的足迹化石群: 古生态学及地层学意义[J]. 山东科技大学学报(自然科学版), 38(1): 40−48.
[22] 李欣伟, 马浪, 惠瑞瑞. 2022. 陕西安塞首次发现中侏罗世晚期恐龙足迹[J]. 地质通报, 41(11): 2081−2086. doi: 10.12097/j.issn.1671-2552.2022.11.015
[23] 李兴文, 唐永忠, 邢立达, 等. 2021. 陕西省恐龙足迹化石的分布特征及评价研究[J]. 世界地质, 40(1): 7−14. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5589.2021.01.002
[24] 李阳, 蒋顺兴, 汪筱林. 2020. 新疆准噶尔盆地发现世界最大的亚洲足迹[J]. 科学通报, 65(18): 1875−1887.
[25] 刘池洋, 赵红格, 桂小军, 等. 2006. 鄂尔多斯盆地演化-改造的时空坐标及其成藏(矿)响应[J]. 地质学报, 80(5): 617−638.
[26] 陕西省地质调查院. 2017. 中国区域地质志·陕西志[M]. 北京: 地质出版社: 1–1120.
[27] 唐永忠, 邢立达, 徐涛, 等. 2018. 陕西中鸡发现白垩纪恐龙足迹群[J]. 地质通报, 37(7): 1193−1196.
[28] 杨兴隆, 杨代环. 1987. 四川盆地恐龙足印化石[M]. 成都: 四川科学技术出版社: 1−30.
-
下载:
图(5)
计量
- 文章访问数: 512
- PDF下载数: 75
- 施引文献: 0