Discovery of the Jiawengmen Stromatolite Assemblage in the Southern Belt of Eastern Kunlun, NW China and Its Significance

This paper reports a newly discovered Late Mesoproterozoic-Early Neoproterozoic stromatolite assemblage, named here the ＂Jiawengmen stromatolite assemblage＂, represented by a Conophyton-Baicalia association in the Jiawenmen area in the southern belt of the Eastern Kunlun. This stromatolite assemblage is dominated by large-scale conical stromatolites and related elements, i.e., Conophyton garganicus var. inkeni, C. cf. ressoti Menchikov, Jacutophyton cf., Conicodomenia f., which commonly co-exist with elements of the group of Baicalia. This assemblage can be correlated with that of the middle Jixian-middle Qingbaikou System in North and Northwest China, but is different from that in South China. Correlation can also be made with that in the upper horizon of the Middle Riphean-lower horizon of the Upper Riphean in the South Ural Mountains and Siberia of Russia, in North Africa, and in the Alaskan Peninsula of North America. These facts suggest that the Jiawengmen stromatolite assemblage probably colonized during 1300-850 Ma ago. Accordingly, the stromatolite-bearing carbonate rocks are then proposed to correspond to the middle Jixian System-middle Qingbaikou System or the upper Middle Riphean-lower Upper Riphean. Our stromatolite data further suggest that a Precambrian microblock, named the Xialawen microblock here, occurred in the southern belt of Eastern Kunlun, the western part of the Maqên microblock. Similar stromatolite assemblages in the Maqên microblock and those blocks that occurred in North China, Siberia and North Africa point to similar paleogeographic and paleoenvironmental conditions. These microblock and blocks were probably located at low latitudes and on the continental margins of the Rodinian supercontinent, where warm epicontinental seas were favorable to widespread colonization of stromatolites during the Late Mesoproterozoic-Eady Neoproterozoic. However, these stromatolite assemblages are quite different from those of the South China block, which is suggestive of different paleogeographic contexts, and probably also of a different tectonic affinity.