此三台非彼三台———纠正一则化石产地之误

THIS SANTAI BEING NOT THAT SANTAI——CORRECTING AN ERROR OF FOSSIL LOCALITY

1956年斯行健教授在《古生物学报》载文记述一些保存良好的斜方薄皮木(LeptophloeumrhombicumDawson)化石,文中称标本系地质部西北地质局631队第7分队提供,采自新疆吉木萨尔县三台镇。自那以后近50年的地质调查表明:包括吉木萨尔县三台镇在内的整个博格达山,从未发现此类植物化石和上泥盆统。由此存在对斯行健教授描记标本真实产地的疑问,和对三台镇附近到底有否上泥盆统的质疑,这在很长一段时间中,对东天山地区的地质填图、层序建立、古生物群分区以及地质构造解释等实际和理论问题的解决带来诸多的不确定因素。上述问题长期未能澄清。作者通过多年实地调查考察,结合资料考据结果认定:L.rhombicum化石的原始产地应是西天山北麓赛里木湖边的三台附近,而不是东天山北麓吉木萨尔县三台镇,在三台镇地区也根本不存在含该化石的上泥盆统。

In 1956, the late Professor Sze Hsin-Chien (H. C. Sze) published a paper dealing with some specimens of Leptophloeum rhomblicum Dawson, which in this paper were said to be provided by the No. 7 Branch of the No. 631 Team of the Northwest Bureau of Geology, Ministry of Geology and collected from Santai Town of Jimsar County, Xinjiang. Since then, geological investigations in nearly 50 years have shown that neither fossil plants of such kind nor the Late Devonian strata have yet been found throughout the Mount Bogada including the above-mentioned Satai Town of Jimsar County. Thus, questions arise about the true locality yielding the specimens described by Sze and also about whether there are the Late Devonian strata near Satai Town indeed. These unsettled questions have long been practically and theoretically affecting the task of geologic mapping, palaeofloristic provincialism and interpretation of geological structure of the eastern Tianshan Mountains. Such problems have not yet been cleared up to now. Based on the on-the-spot investigations and examinations for many years and combined with the results of research data, the authors confirm that the original locality of L. rhomblicum is actually the site near Satai by the side of the Sayram Lake at the northern foot of western Tianshan Mountains, and not the Satai Town of Jimsar County at the northern foot of eastern Tianshan Mountains, where the Late Devonian strata containing the above-mentioned plant fossils do not occurr.