On the Stratigraphy of the Lower Part of the Cambrian on the Southwestern Slope of the Kuznetsk Alatau

A. G. Sivov

The scheme for subdividing the Cambrian deposits of the southwestern slope of the Kuznetsk Alatau, proposed in its time by K. V. Radugin [5], was later revised in various ways by different researchers, who proposed in its place a number of schemes. Of these, the scheme adopted at the stratigraphic conference held in 1965 in Novosibirsk was recognized as the most detailed and the best substantiated. However, in developing the 1965 stratigraphic scheme, not only the newest facts but also previously known ones were not taken into account; as a result, in some of its parts it does not reflect reality and therefore requires substantial changes and additions. The aim of the present article is to elucidate this question, which concerns chiefly the lower part of the Cambrian in the southwest of the Kuznetsk Alatau. It is based on materials obtained by me as a result of four years of stratigraphic-paleontological investigations in the basin of the upper reaches of the Mrassu River, where the deposits of the above-mentioned part of the Cambrian are most widely distributed and where they participate in the structure of the Kamzas syncline. The latter occupies the area of the northern slopes of the Abakan Range and the southern spurs of the Kubes uplands (I, geological map).

In the Kamzas syncline, which extends in a sublatitudinal direction from the sources of the Kaurchak River (a tributary of the Lebed River) in the southwest to the lower reaches of the Sykzas River (a tributary of the Mrassu River) in the northeast, the base of the Cambrian is composed of clastic-volcanogenic rocks recently assigned to the Pyankovo Formation of the lower Lower Cambrian (Sivov, 1966). They had previously been unjustifiably combined with the Kondoma [1] and Kamzas formations and were quite erroneously referred to the upper Lower–lower Middle Cambrian [3, 6]. On the left bank of the upper reaches of the Kommunza River (a right tributary of the Kamzas River), the pyrogenic accumulations of the Pyankovo Formation are, apparently unconformably, overlain by massive light-gray limestones up to 600 m thick. Along strike they are replaced by siliceous-argillaceous shales, tuffaceous sandstones, and, together with them, probably participate in the structure of a large synclinal fold overturned to the west (Fig. 1).

In the above-mentioned limestones L. V. Peshekhonov first discovered organic remains, of which algae predominate in the lower part of these limestones¹, including Epiphyton (point 845, Fig. 1), while in the upper—

¹ The algae were identified by V. A. Shipitsyn and M. V. Stepanova; archaeocyaths by V. D. Alimova; trilobites by A. G. Sivov, except in especially disputed cases.

in addition, Girvanella sibirica Masl., Subtifloria sp., Bologdinella sp., Botominella sp., and others, associated with archaeocyaths—Ajacicyathus sp., Archaeolynthus sp., Coscinocyathus sp., Tumulocyathus sp. (localities 724, 845, Fig. 1). Lower down, along the Kommunza River, on the same left side of it, appear

Fig. 1. Schematic geological map of the Kommunza River basin (after L. V. Peshekhonov, with additions and modifications by the author): 1—Quaternary deposits; 2—post-Temir intrusive rocks, Lower Cambrian; 3—limestones of the Kaizas Formation, Adaak suite; 4—clastic-carbonate accumulations; 5—boulder conglomerate, Kommunza sequence; 6—platy limestones; 7—massive limestones; 8—siliceous-clayey shales; 9—tuffaceous rocks, Pyankovo Formation; 10—spilites and their tuffs; 11—diabases, their tuff-conglomerates; 12—elements of the attitude of bedding; 13—faults; 14—locality of organic remains; a—archaeocyaths; b—algae; c—trilobites

dark, sometimes platy limestones, whose stratigraphic relationships with the light-gray massive limestones cannot be established, since both varieties of carbonate rocks are broken up by a granite-porphyry dike and by effusives of the Pyankovo Formation. At the same time, in the quarry situated on the right side of the Kamzas River, opposite the middle of the settlement of the same name, the dark limestones, becoming distinctly dolomitic, lie, through a bed of tuffaceous sandstones, on an eroded surface of volcanogenic formations of the Pyankovo Formation and contain remains of algae and isolated specimens of archaeocyaths. Among the former, various paleontologists have identified: Epiphyton sp., Botominella sp., Vesicularites bothrydioformis (Krasn.), Vermiaelites irregularis (Reitl.), Radiosus ravidus Z. Zhur., Renalcis jacuticus Korde, and among the latter Ajacicyathus sp., Coscinocyathus sp. (locality 501, Fig. 1).

Thus, the limestones of interest to us, replaced by siliceous-argillaceous shales and tuffaceous sandstones and overlying the volcanogenic rocks of the Pyankovskaya Formation, are clearly distinguished as an independent stratigraphic subdivision, which I have called the Kommunzas Member. Characterized by the first appearance of 3–4 genera of archaeocyaths, accompanied by algae, among which prostrate forms predominate, it represents the second subdivision from the base of the Lower Cambrian of the southwest of the Kuznetsk Alatau. It is quite possible that it will correspond to the lower beds of the lowermost Ust-Kundat (Kundat) horizon of the Lower Cambrian of the Sayano-Altai region.

M. K. Vinkman and A. G. Gintsinger convincingly showed that stratigraphically above the Pyankovskaya Formation, or, in their terminology, the Kondomskaya (Kamzasskaya) Suite, there lies a clastic-carbonate unit [1], which as early as 1936 was distinguished by K. V. Radugin as the Adiak Suite [5]. Later, in violation of the principle of priority, some researchers began to combine its deposits into the Kamzasskaya unit [3, 6], and others into the Mrasskaya Suite [1, 4]. The lower boundary of the Adiak Suite is clearly established at the base of its basal conglomerate, lying on the eroded surface of the underlying rocks. Thus, for example, on the left side of the Kamzas River (north of the settlement of Kamzas) the conglomerate rests on volcanogenic rocks of the Pyankovskaya Formation, while at the mouth of the Kommunza River and on the right slope of the Kamzas River, opposite the settlement of the same name, it overlies the limestones of the Kommunzas Member. The conglomerate of the Adiak Suite is composed predominantly of pebbles, fragments, and boulders of those rocks on which it directly rests, i.e., rocks of the Pyankovskaya Formation, with a minor contribution of microquartzites, metamorphosed sandstones, shales, and gneiss-like microdiorites of the Late Precambrian. The conglomerate and the overlying fine-grained sandstones, interbedded with argillaceous and siliceous-argillaceous shales containing rare phosphorite concretions, constitute the lower unit of the Adiak Suite. The thickness is up to 200 m. In places within the unit there appear now rare, now relatively frequent lens-shaped bodies of light-gray and dark limestones, sometimes containing organic remains. Among the latter, on the right and left slopes of the Kamzas River (opposite the middle of the settlement of Kamzas), algae have been established—Botominella lineata Reitl., Epiphyton mirabilis Kord., Girvanella sibirica Masl.—and isolated gastropods (locality 3, Fig. 2). On the watershed between the Pyankovskaya River and the Karabulyuk Stream (north of the settlement of Pyankovsky), in the limestones of the lower unit, together with algae—Botominella lineata Reitl., Epiphyton sp., Renalcis jacuticus Kord., Vermiculites irregularis (Reitl.)—there are archaeocyaths, including: Ajacicyathus sp., Archaeolynthus unimurus (Vologd.), Bicyathus angustus Vologd., Cosinocyathus sp., Dictyocyathus salairicus Vologd., Dokidocyathus sp., Kotuyicyathus sp., Loculicyathus membranivestites Vologd., Nochoroicyathus sp., Porocyathus sp., Protopharetra sp., Szecyathus cylindricus Vologd., Tumuliolynthus sp. (locality K-11, Fig. 2).

In the middle course of the B. Kurlan River (left tributary of the Mrassu River), the deposits of the lower unit of the Adiak Suite contain a thin cover of diabases with a well-expressed pillow texture. The middle unit of the Adiak Suite is represented by platy dark-gray limestones, interlayered with numerous thin beds of siliceous-limestone shales with phosphorite nodules, as well as sandstones and argillaceous shales, among which varieties of violet and burgundy color are very characteristic. They are concentrated mainly in the upper parts of the unit, which reaches a thickness of not less than 330 m, and are its marking elements. In the middle parts of the unit under consideration, exposed by a trench on the watershed between the Pyankovskaya River and the Karabu-

Fig. 2. Schematic geological map of the watershed of the Kamzas—Pyzyankovskaya rivers: 1 — Quaternary deposits; 2 — tuff-conglomerates of the Usakh Formation of the lower Middle Cambrian; 3 — post-Kaizas intrusive formations; Lower Cambrian; 4 — limestones of the Kaizas Suite; Aldan Suite: 5 — clastic-carbonate rocks; 6 — rocks of the “red pie”; 7 — basal conglomerates; Pyzyankovskaya Formation: 8 — diabases and their tuffs; 9 — localities of remains of archaeocyaths (a) and trilobites (b); 10 — localities of algae; 11 — bedding attitudes.

meadow, north of the village of P’yankovsky, trilobites are present (point K-12, Fig. 2): Calodiscus, Erbiella, Kootenia anabarensis Lerm., Kootenina, Serrodiscus, Erbia, which, together with Proerbia, Neopagetina, Neoredlichina, and others, were first discovered and described by E. S. Fedyanina [9]. Associated there with the trilobites are archaeocyaths: Carinacyathus sp., Clathricoscinus infirmus (Vologd.), Coscinocyathus sp., Cyclocyathella sp., Gordonicya-thus sp., Szecyathus sp., Tumulocyathus sp., Uralocyathus sp., Ethmophyllum grandiperforatum Vologd. (the last form according to the determination of I. T. Zhuravleva); algae—Botominella lineaspta Reitl., Epiphyton evalutum Kord., Erbia mirabili Kord., Vologdinella; brachiopods Kutorgina, Nisusia; and a peculiar pelecypod (?)—Bagenovia (determinations by the author). In the upper parts of the middle member, poorly exposed on the left slope of the Kamzas River, opposite the end of the village of Kamzas, among the organic remains archaeocyaths and algae occur more often, and trilobites very rarely; among the former have been found Ajacicyathus sp., A. salebrosus (Vologd.), A. acutus (Born.), A. clarus (Vologd.), A. tomicus (Vologd.), Archaeolynthus sibiricus (Toll.), A. nalivki (Vologd.), Archaeofungia dissepimentalis Vologd., Asterocyathus sp., Bronchocyathus sp., Clathricoscinus sp., Coscinocyathus sp., Cyclocyathella annulospinosus (Vologd.), Dictyocyathus javorskii Vologd., Formosocyathus sp., Loculicyathus membranivestites Vologd., Leptosocyathus sp., Orbicyathus mongolicus Vologd., Robustocyathus proscurjkovi (Toll.), Rhabdocyathella sp., Tumulocyathus pustulatus Vologd., Thalamocyathus sp. (determinations by a number of paleontologists). Among the algae have been established Botominella lineata Reitl., Epiphyton mirabile Kord., E. evalutum Kord., E. plumosum Vologd., Girvanella sibirica Masl., Rasumovskia uralica Vologd.; and among the trilobites, Calodiscus, Kootenia, Comsocephalus (points 500, 503, Fig. 1).

The section of the Adiak suite is crowned by a member of “layer cake,” representing a frequent alternation of relatively broad bands of light and gray limestone with thin dark ribbons of siliceous rock. In this member, which has a thickness of up to 75 m, only on the watershed of the P’yankovskaya River have trilobites so far been established, among them Alacephalus, Calodiscus, Hebediscus, Protypus (collections and determinations by T. V. Korobeinikova), which are also characteristic of the middle member. The composition of the organic remains cited above most fully characterizes the paleontological content of the Adiak suite. It changes noticeably in its vertical section, being expressed in its lower member by archaeocyaths and algae, and in the upper members, in addition, by trilobites, brachiopods, and peculiar pelecypods (?). The composition of the archaeocyaths of the lower member of the Adiak suite shows a close similarity to the composition of the archaeocyaths of the Belokamenka complex of the Ust’-Kundat suite. As for the deposits of the upper members of the Adiak suite, they, being characterized by the special Karabuluk complex of archaeocyaths and trilobites, represent the stratotype for distinguishing an independent Karabuluk horizon, younger than the Ust’-Kundat horizon.

K. V. Radugin had already proved that the Adiak suite is overlain by massive light-gray limestones, which he, and subsequently a number of other geologists, assigned to the Karcha suite [1, 5]. Later these limestones were distinguished by M. K. Vinkman and others as the Kaizas suite; G. I. Spanderashvili combined them into the Mazas suite [8]; and I called them the Sakharov limestones [7]. Near the village of P’yankovsky, the lower members of the Sakharov limestones crop out, directly covering the upper member (“layer cake”) of the Adiak suite and reaching a thickness of about 175 m. In these limestones, remains of archaeocyaths and trilobites are not at all rare. Among the latter there are Alace-

phalus sp., Bidjinella sp. n., Bonnia sp., Calodiscus chachlovi Fjed., Erbiospis sp., Neopagetina sp., Poliellina sp. n. Protypus sp., Tumulina sp.

Among the archaeocyaths, at various times different paleontologists have identified the following forms: Archaeolynthus crassimurus (Vologd.), Clathricoscinus vassilievei (Vologd.), Loculicyathus membranivestites Vologd., L. tolli Vologd, Protopharetra sp., Szecyathus cylindricus Vologd. [1], Clathricoscinus opinatus Roz., Tomocyathus operosus Roz., Archaeofungia dissepimentalis Vologd. [6], Archaeolynthus sp., Ajacicyathus tomicus (Vologd.), A. patulus (Born.), A. acutus (Born.), A. clarus (Vologd.), Bicyathus angustus Vologd., Coscinocyathus dianthus Born., Ethmophyllum sp., Thalamocyathus sp., Tumulocyathus sp., and others (localities 510 and 511, Fig. 2).

Between the settlements of Semyashkino in the north and Sakharovskii in the south, higher parts of the sections of the Sakharov limestones appear, situated 500–600 m above their base, but characterized by a composition of archaeocyaths and trilobites that changes only slightly in comparison with the lower part. It is expressed by the following representatives, cited in the geological literature: A. aff. elongatus (Born.), A. kemtschikensis (Vologd.), A. patulus (Vologd.), A. neiburgae (Vologd.), A. cf. immanis (Vologd.), A. aff. tenuimurus (Vologd.), A. speranskji (Vologd.), A. aff. arteintervallum (Vologd.), A. aff. gorskinensis (Vologd.), Coscinocyathus aff. bedfordi Vologd., Loculicyathus membranivestites Vologd., L. tolli Vologd., Orbicyathus sp., Robustocyathus moori (Vologd.), Kijanella Tungusella (?), Poliellina [1]. This list must also be supplemented by such representatives of the archaeocyaths as Cyclocyathella nikitini (Vologd.), Gordonicyathus sp., Leptosocyathus sp., Robustocyathus Proscurjakovi (Toll), and of the trilobites—Alacephalus sp., Protypus sp., Laticephalus sp., Kanzasosephalus (a new genus), the latter genus apparently having been accepted by L. I. Egorova as the genus Tungusella (locality 512; Fig. 2).

The described members of the Sakharov limestones probably correspond to those parts of them that are exposed on the left slope of the Mrassu River, now below the mouth of the P’yankovskaya River, and which, dipping steeply there to the north, are in places replete with remains of archaeocyaths—Ajacicyathus virgatus (Vologd.), A. tenuimurus (Vologd.), A. salebrosus (Vologd.), A. cf. grandis (Vologd.), Archaeolynthus sp., Clathricoscinus sp., Coscinocyathus howelli Vologd., Ethmophyllum sp., Gordonicyathus kuznezovi (Krasn.), Kijacyathus chomętovskii Zhus., Lercyathus sp., Leptosocyathus sp., Loculicyathus membranivestites Vologd., Nochorocyathus sp., Protopharetra sp., Rhabdocyathella sp., Robustocyathus monoporousus Zhur., Szecyathus sp., Urcyathus sp., and others (localities 514, 516, Fig. 2).

The cited composition of archaeocyaths and trilobites, characteristic of the stratotype section of the Sakharov limestones, represents a specific assemblage, which I have named the Sakharov assemblage. It is appropriate to note here that this assemblage also includes that composition of archaeocyaths and trilobites which was first discovered by us in boulders of dark massive limestones distributed at the headwaters of the Chulana River. There, in one of the boulders, among the archaeocyaths, the following were established: Ajacicyathus patulus (Born.), A. facilis (Vologd.), A. clarus (Vologd.), A. immanis (Vologd.), Archaeofungia sp., Asterocyathus longus Vologd., A. cf. salairicus Vologd., Carinacyathus sibiricus Krasn., Coscinocyathus diantini (Vologd.), Cyclocyathella nikitini Vologd.), C. tersiensis (Vologd.), C. jakovlevi (Vologd.), Ethmophyllum sp., Gordonicyathus sp., Ladaecyathus limbatus (Zhur.), Orlicyathus sp., Rhizacyathus sp., Robustocyathus proskurjakovi (Toll.), Szecyathus cylindricus Vologd., Thalamocyathus spinosus Vologd., and among trilobites—Bidjinella sp., Comsocephalus sp., Kijanella sp., Poliellina gigantea sp., Bonnia cf. asiatica Pocr. (locality 507, Fig. 2). Among the archaeocyaths and trilobites of the Sakharov assemblage, forms of relatively broad ...

of vertical distribution with an insignificant role of the “leading” forms, i.e., those that first appear at the beginning of Sakharovo time and disappear at its end. These include, for example, Clathricoscinus opinatus Roz., Cyclocyathella nikitini (Vologd.), Cyclocyathella tersiensis (Vologd.), C. jakovlevi (Vologd.), Loculicyathus tolli Vologd., Kijacyathus chomentovskii Zhur., Tomocyathus operosus Roz., Bidjinella, Tumulina. Among the “surviving” representatives of the Sakharovo complex only those are named which earlier were unjustifiably regarded as characteristic of the Sanashtykgol complex, namely: Arhaeofungia dissepimentalis Vologd., Asterocyathus cf. salairicus Vologd., Carinacyathus loculatus Vologd., Clathricoscinus vassiljevi (Vologd.), Zadacyathus limbatus (Zhur.), Poliellina, Laticephalus, Erbiopsis, Paleofossus, etc.

Approximately 1.5 km northeast of the settlement of Sakharovskoe, almost on the watershed between the Pyankovskaya River and the Adiakskaya River, the uppermost members of the Sakharovo limestones crop out; they form the closure of a synclinal fold and contain remains of archaeocyaths and trilobites, probably of the Sanashtykgol complex. Among the former, together with numerous through-ranging forms, there are Cosinocyathellus parvus Vologd., Tegerocyathus, Clathricyathus (new species), and among the latter—rare Pagetia, Poliellina, Metagraulos (locality 513, Fig. 1). The boundary between the limestones with the Sakharovo and Sanashtykgol archaeocyath–trilobite complexes is conditional, purely paleontological, which is natural, since the Sakharovo limestones enclosing them are characterized by a massive structure and are subdivided into three parts only very approximately.

At the same time, in the Sakharovo limestones remains of algae are found everywhere; their composition shows a certain variability in the vertical section. Thus, for example, in the above-mentioned limestones characterized by the Sakharovo archaeocyath–trilobite complex, the algae are dominated by Botominella lineata Reitl., Vologdinella fragile Korde, Proaulopora rarissima Vologd., Amganella glabra (Krasn.), Epiphyton rectum Korde, E. simplex Korde, E. crinitum Korde, E. fruticosum Vologd., Rasumovskya uralica Vologd. (localities 510, 512, Fig. 2). In the upper part of these limestones, together with archaeocyaths and trilobites, possibly of the Sanashtykgol complex, among the algae there are Chabakovia sp., Epiphyton densum Korde, Epiphyton marinum Korde, E. zonatum Korde, E. seriatum Korde, E. crinitum Korde, Rasumovskia uralica Vologd., Proaulopora rarissima Vologd., and species of the genera Botominella are almost completely absent (localities 513, 515, Fig. 2).

In the stratigraphic scheme of the Cambrian of the southwest of the Kuznetsk Alatau, the Sakharovo limestones are united into the Kaizas Formation, against which hardly any objections can be raised. It should only be borne in mind that in the sections of the Kamzass synclinorium the Kaizas Formation transgressively and unconformably overlies the underlying rocks and is divided into two biostratigraphic subdivisions. The upper of these corresponds to the Sanashtykgol Horizon, while the lower, characterized by remains of the Sakharovo complex of archaeocyaths, trilobites, and algae, belongs to the upper part of the Kameshkovsky Horizon or, more precisely, corresponds to the middle part of the Usinsk Formation of the Kiya section of the northern spurs of the Kuznetsk Alatau. It is important to note that in this section of the Usinsk Formation, together with Poliellina sp., Paleofossus sp., Bonnia sp., there occur Palaeolenella (Kameshkovsky complex), Comsocephalus sp., Elganella sp., etc. (Bazaikha complex).

In the Kamzass synclinorium the Cambrian section is crowned by characteristic Uzas pyroxene porphyries and their pyroclastic derivatives, the area of distribution of which is limited ap-

Table 1

Comparison of the stratigraphic schemes of the Kamza syncline

the bank of the Mrassu River, opposite the mouth of the Chulana River, and the upper reaches of the latter. There these formations directly cover the Sakharov limestones, which, to be sure, contain only remains of algae.

Thus, within the Cambrian of the Kamzas syncline, five local stratigraphic units are clearly distinguished, the Cambrian age of which is reliably established on the basis of paleontological and, in part, stratigraphic evidence. Unfortunately, in view of the state of study, it is possible to determine the age of these subdivisions more precisely within the Cambrian period only as a first approximation to reality. Thus, the sedimentary-pyrogenic Pyankovskaya Formation and the overlying carbonate Kommunazskaya unit, in terms of age, apparently correspond to the early Lower Cambrian. It is possible that the lower member of the Adiakskaya Formation will also belong to the early Lower Cambrian, but only to its upper part. The Late Lower Cambrian age of the trilobites from the upper part of the Adiakskaya Formation (the Karabuluk Horizon) is convincingly substantiated in the article by E. S. Fedyanina [9], and to what was said there the following may be added. Among the trilobites of the Karabuluk Horizon there are no forms at all that are characteristic of the early Lower Cambrian. On the contrary, almost all of them (with the exception of species of the genera Erbiella, Kootenina, Neoredlichina) are consistently found also in a higher part of the Cambrian section than the Karabuluk Horizon; moreover, such representatives as Proerbia, Erbia, Neopagetina first appear on the Siberian Platform only in Olekma time of the Late Lower Cambrian. Further, among the archaeocyaths of the Karabuluk Horizon, represented predominantly by likewise long-ranging forms, there occur Clathicocinus, Carinocyathus, Rhaldocyathella, Asterocyathus, Ethmophyllum grandiferforatum Vologd., of which the first three forms on the Siberian Platform first appear in Taryn time, and the last two—in Sinsk–Olekma time [2, 6]. Evidently, the Karabuluk Horizon of the upper part of the Adiakskaya Formation, being younger than the Taryn Horizon, represents the base of the Late Lower Cambrian of the Kuznetsk Alatau.

It is appropriate to note here that the organic remains (algae, archaeocyaths) of the stratotype of the Mrasskaya Formation are more ancient than the organic remains of the upper part of the Adiakskaya Formation, a point to which a number of researchers have drawn attention [6]. As was indicated in its place, the Adiakskaya Formation is unconformably overlain by the Kaizasskaya Formation, the lower and upper parts of which, characterized by the Sakharov complex of archaeocyaths, trilobites, and algae, correspond to the upper part of the Kameshkovsky Horizon. Its Late Lower Cambrian age is beyond doubt. In this connection, the early Middle Cambrian age of the upper part of the Kaizasskaya Formation, which contains the Sanashtykol complex of archaeocyaths, trilobites, and algae, is quite probable, but is recognized only by individual researchers. As for the age of the pyroclastic Uzasskaya Formation, it is determined by its position in the section as belonging to the lower part of the Middle Cambrian. Leaving aside consideration of questions concerning the spatial distribution, over the area of the southwest Kuznetsk Alatau, of the Cambrian stratigraphic subdivisions making up the Kamzas syncline, I emphasize that the ascending succession of the Pyankovskaya Formation, the Adiakskaya and Kaizasskaya formations is now unambiguously established in a single section; this section, extending along the watershed of Karabuluk Creek—the Pyankovskaya River and along the left slope of the latter, may serve as a standard for solving problems of both local and broader correlation.

Of course, the scheme of stratigraphy of the Cambrian deposits of the Kamzas syncline presented here is not in all its parts flawless,

but it is more detailed in comparison with the 1965 scheme, as is evident from an analysis of these schemes, reflected in Table 1.

REFERENCES

1. M. K. Vinkman, A. B. Gintsinger. On the question of correlation of the Cambrian deposits of the western part of the Altai–Sayan region. Materials on the Regional Geology of Siberia. Proceedings of SNIIGGiMS, issue 24, 1962.

2. I. T. Zhuravleva, V. I. Korshunov. Stratigraphy of the Lower Cambrian of the Kharaulakh Mountains. Geology and Geophysics, No. 11, 1965.

3. I. T. Zhuravleva, L. N. Repina, A. V. Khomentovskii. Lower Cambrian horizons of Mountain Shoria. Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, vol. 128, No. 5, 1959.

4. A. G. Pospelov, N. A. Aksarina, A. S. Boyarinov, Yu. S. Nadler, E. S. Fedyanina. On the stratigraphy of the Cambrian of Mountain Shoria. Materials on the Geology of Krasnoyarsk Krai, issue 1, 1961.

5. K. V. Radugin. Elements of the stratigraphy and tectonics of Mountain Shoria. Materials on the Geology of the West Siberian Krai, issue 37, 1936.

6. L. N. Repina, V. V. Khomentovskii, I. T. Zhuravleva, A. Yu. Rozanov. Biostratigraphy of the Lower Cambrian of the Sayan–Altai folded region. Siberian Branch, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Nauka Publishing House, 1964.

7. A. G. Sivov. On key questions of the Cambrian stratigraphy of the Western Sayan. Proceedings of TPI, issue 2, vol. 127, Tomsk State University Press, 1965.

8. G. I. Spanderashvili. Phosphorites of Mountain Shoria. In: Phosphorites of Western Siberia. Materials on the Geology of Western Siberia, No. 65, 1967.

9. E. S. Fedyanina. Trilobites of the Mrasskaya Formation from the Pyankovsky Spring (Mountain Shoria). Materials on the Geology of Western Siberia. Tomsk State University Press, 1962.