Biostratigraphic usefulness of stromatolitic precambrian microbiotas: A preliminary analysis

Diverse, cellularly preserved microbial communities are now known from stromatolitic sediments of at least twenty-eight Precambrian formations. These fossiliferous deposits, principally cherts and cherty portions of carbonate units, range in age from Early Proterozoic (Transvaal Dolomite, ca. 2250 Ma old) to Vendian (Chichkan Formation, ca. 650 Ma old) and include units from Australia, India, Canada, South Africa, Greenland, the United States and the Soviet Union. More than three-quarters of these microbiotas have been discovered since 1970. Although few, therefore, have as yet been studied in detail, virtually all of the assemblages are known to be dominated by prokaryotic (bacterial and blue-green algal) microorganisms and to contain three major categories of microfossils: spheroidal unicells, cylindrical tube-like sheaths, and cellular trichomic filaments. Analyses of data now available (including measurements of more than 7800 fossil unicells) indicate that each of these three types of microfossils exhibited a gradual, but marked, increase in mean diameter and size range during the Proterozoic and that taxonomic diversity apparently also increased, especially beginning about 1400 Ma ago. Thus, it now seems evident that (i) the microbial components of Proterozoic stomatolitic assemblages have varied systematically as a function of geologic age and that (ii) such communities are both more abundant and more widespread than had previously been recognized. These observations augur well for the future use of such assemblages in Precambrian biostratigraphy. At present, however, data are sufficient to warrant the provisional establishment of only a few microfossil-based subdivisions of the Proterozoic. Such zones, necessarily relatively long-ranging, are here tentatively defined; it is of interest to note that boundaries between certain of these microfossil-based subdivisions appear to coincide, at least approximately, with previously suggested stromatolite-based boundaries. To some extent, therefore, results of this study seem consistent with, and may be supportive of, the concept of stromatolite-based biostratigraphy. At the same time, however, the study seems to indicate that stromatolites of markedly differing age, whether of similar or of dissimilar morphology, were probably formed by distinctly differing microbiotas. Data are as yet insufficient to indicate whether differing types of coetaneous, stratigraphically useful, stromatolites were formed by differing microbial communities and two what extent the “evolution” of stromatolite morphology was a result of the biologic evolution of stromatolite-building microorganisms. There is thus continued need for investigation of the potential biostratigraphic usefulness of stromatolitic microbiotas and, especially, for more effective integration of results of such studies with those available from studies of stromatolites without preserved microbiotas and from studies of the acritarchs preserved in Proterozoic shales.