ISSN 08695938, Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, 2013, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 36–47. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013. Original Russian Text © I.A. Starodubtseva, 2013, published in Stratigrafiya. Geologicheskaya Korrelyatsiya, 2013, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 31–42.

S.N. Nikitin (1851–1909) and His Contribution to the Development of the Mesozoic Stratigraphic Scheme of Central Russia I. A. Starodubtseva Vernadskii State Geological Museum, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow email: [email protected] Received July 18, 2011

Abstract—The paper presents a biography of S.N. Nikitin, one of the outstanding Russian geologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and provides a review of his contribution to study of the Mesozoic of Central Russia. Keywords: S.N. Nikitin, Geological Committee, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Central Russia, paleogeography, cephalopods DOI: 10.1134/S086959381206007X

The year 2011 marks the 160th birthday of Sergey Nikolaevich Nikitin, Corresponding Member of the Imperial Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences, one of the founders of hydrogeology in Russia, a renowned stratigrapher and paleontologist and senior geologist in the Geological Committee (Fig. 1). It also marks 130 years since he originally distinguished the Volgian Formation (stage), the status and exact age of which have given rise to an ongoing debate. S.N. Nikitin, a prominent researcher of the geol ogy of Central Russia, one of those who laid the foun dations of systematic geological studies in Russia, per formed geological mapping and completed sheets 56, 57, 71, and 92 (jointly with I.F. Sintsov) of the geolog ical map of European Russia. He was the first to develop a zonal subdivision of the Jurassic of Central Russia and correlate these deposits with coeval succes sions in Western Europe. He also recognized the Upper and Lower Volgian Substages (adopted as a sin gle stage in 1966) of the Upper Jurassic. He was also first to identify several remains of fossil labyrintho donts and fishes in the Triassic multicolored marls of Central Russia. He published the first monograph on the Cretaceous of Central Russia. Biographical notes. First steps in science. S.N. Nikitin was born on January 23 (February 3) 1851 in Moscow, in the family of N.D. Nikitin, anato mist from the Department of Anatomy, Imperial Mos cow University (IMU). He wrote to his future wife, E.A. Susareva, that “as a child I was always praised for being smart and intelligent, for having a good memory. This motivated me to succeed, drove my curiosity and, also, helped build my ambition, selfesteem, faith in the power of my mind, and hope of a great future” (Baskov, 1982, p. 9). In 1867, after he had finished with honors the 5th Moscow classical secondary school, S.N. Nikitin

entered the Moscow University at the age of 16 as a student of the Division of Natural Sciences at the Fac ulty of Physics and Mathematics. Even in school years, his interest in natural science was awakened by Professors G.E. Shchurovskii and N.N. Kaufman who took their students on walking trips to learn about local geology and the rural environment of the Moscow province. During his first few years at the university he took courses in zoology and botany, attended lectures on lectures on comparative anatomy by Professor Ya.A. Borzenkov. Later, he concentrated on botany and his candidate’s thesis was a study of the flora of Novaya Zemlya. “For S.N., the entire range of geolog ical disciplines at the time tended to fall by the way side, which might have been explained by all those dull lectures delivered on these disciplines”, wrote F.N. Chernyshev (1909, p. 2). These words by Chernyshev do not seem to be groundless. The course on geology at the university was delivered at the time by Professor G.E. Shchurovskii. In his memoirs S.N. Nikitin recalled that this course of lectures was more interesting and “more actively attended by stu dents than the other ones”, but he also noted that these lectures “did not reveal the geology of the seven ties, they were limited just to the geology of von Buch and Murchison” (In Memoriam …, 1885, p. 41). Obviously, a university professor who taught his sub ject matter based on obsolete, quarter century old knowledge could not lay the basis for shaping scientific knowledge and interests of the students. After he was graduated from IMU in 1871 with a 1

candidate of the University degree S.N. Nikitin was appointed a teacher of geography and botany in the 1A

candidate of the University degree was awarded to honorary graduates of the universities and other higher education institu tions on the examination of a thesis embodying the results of a candidate’s research.

36

S.N. NIKITIN (1851–1909) AND HIS CONTRIBUTION

37

Fig. 1. S.N. Nikitin (1851–1909). Photo courtesy of the History of Geology Department, Vernadskii State Geological Museum, Russian Academy of Sciences.

4th Moscow girls’ secondary school. In 1872, he started teaching at the 1st girls’ secondary school and later moved to the Commercial Academy. His text books Elementary Course of Botany and Elementary STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

Course of Geography were first published in 1874– 1875 and reprinted several times since and, as noted by F.N. Chernyshev, “were a remarkable success” (Chernyshev, 1909, p. 2). Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

38

STARODUBTSEVA

S.N. Nikitin took his teaching duties professionally seriously and taught his classes in a creative way, hav ing a great knowledge of Russian and foreign pedagog ical literature. Such an approach work beyond his research remained evident in his organizational responsibilities throughout his life. Since 1875, S.N. Nikitin gave lectures on mineral ogy and geology at Moscow Natural History courses, in the establishment of which he had played an active part. Apparently teaching did not completely satisfy him, and he felt he was dedicated to scientific research. However, neither botany nor zoology, which he had enjoyed as a student, found a place in his life. The later choice of geology, or more precisely, paleon tology and stratigraphy as a profession was strongly influenced by K.O. Milashevich, curator of the Min eralogical and Paleontological Cabinet at the Depart ment of Geognosy and Paleontology of Moscow Uni versity. In 1874, he engaged S.N Nikitin in the study of the Jurassic of Central Russia, showed him the collec tions at the University and familiarized him with a thennew technique of zonal stratigraphy, which was elaborated by German geologists under the leadership of A. Oppel. Later, S.N. Nikitin recalled, “during that time, not a single year passed but a significant part of it was dedicated to geological and paleontological stud ies” of Central Russia (Nikitin, 1890b, p. IV). S.N. Nikitin began studying the geology of Mos cow suburbs, focusing on Paleozoic and Mesozoic deposits of Central and Northwestern European Rus sia. He visited, “with the limited means at his dis posal”, most of the known classic sections and “col lected a wealth of fossil finds, which were subsequently handed over to the Geological Committee” (Cherny shev, 1909, pp. 2–3). Note also than many of the new specimens in his collection came not only from his trips to fossil localities but were also added as he con tinued to exchange with or to purchase from other col lectors, including researchers from Western Europe. For example, he acquired a part of the paleontological collection of S. Jonio, a wellknown Moscow “collec tor of all sorts of antiquities”, while the remaining part was purchased by Moscow collector and naturalist N.P. Vishniakoff (Nikitin, 1916, p. 33). Thoroughness and representation of actual specimens of Jonio’s col lection, which contained a variety of Moscow Jurassic fossils, can be seen from the part purchased by N.P. Vishniakoff and now kept at the Vernadskii State Geological Museum, Russian Academy of Sciences. The first paper by S.N. Nikitin on Jurassic deposits of the Moscow province was published in 1877 in Bul letin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. The paper examined the stratigraphy of the deposits of Vorobyevy Gory (Sparrow Hills), Moscow (Nikitin, 1877). He revealed that “the occurrence of forms here was com pletely different from that appearing in works by Trautschold,” but “the unquestioned correctness of paleontological identifications which prevailed at that time … gave me no reason to doubt any of these iden

tifications or the order of organisms distribution in the Moscow Jurassic”. He concluded that “organisms that have been found cooccurring may characterize the socalled three stages of the Moscow Jurassic” and regarded them to be coeval deposits but belonging to different facies (Nikitin, 1890b, p. 38). He recalled later that the most astonishing in the Jurassic sections was “a successive occurrence” of layers with “Amm. ful gens beneath layers containing Perischinctes subditus” contrary to the view of G.A. Trautschold, who consid ered layers with “Amm. fulgens to be the topmost Mos cow Jurassic formations”. But even as a beginner he dared to contribute his observations in a paper (Nikitin, 1881, p. 206). Subsequently, S.N. Nikitin repeatedly emphasized the erroneous interpretation by G.A. Trautschold of a succession of layers in the Mos cow Jurassic (Nikitin, 1881, 1883b, 1886, 1890b). After a thorough study of available literature on the Jurassic of Central Russia, S.N. Nikitin came to the conclusion that the zonal subdivision of Jurassic deposits requires a more detailed elaboration and paleontological identifications need a revision, so that these studies open a wide field of investigation for a geologist (Nikitin, 1881). Apart from Moscow vicinity, S.N. Nikitin under took studies on the Jurassic of the Oka and Upper Volga river basins “in order to trace the succession of layers and the development of organic life in the Juras sic sea of Central Russia” (Nikitin, 1881, p. 201). A scheme proposed by M. Neumayer (1876) provided the basis for his further work. With tremendous amounts of collected factual material, he successfully accomplished the task which he set to himself. Studies of this material and collec tions at IMU provided the basis for Nikitin’s paper “Ammonites of the Amaltheus funiferus group” (1878). His work on the Jurassic of Central Russian com menced with studies and redescription of ammonites. He believed that “mistaken identifications of fossil species, a lack of precise data on the corresponding biohorizon, and a confusion of forms from the differ ent stages” finally led to a serious conflict between the Jurassic stratigraphic scheme of Central Russia and the current scientific knowledge (Nikitin, 1878, pp. 102–103). He was convinced that the genetic clas sification itself “would help overcome confusion with identification of related forms” and that the Jurassic stratigraphy could not be ascertained properly “with out a welldeveloped and consistent system of ammo nites as they are excellent index fossils” (Nikitin, 1878, pp. 103–104). At the time, he first attempted (in Russia) to establish the phylogenetic lineage of some groups of Callovian and Oxfordian ammonites. For example, he proposed “the first phylogenetic lineage of Russian Oxfordian ammonites Cardioceras corda tum–C. alternoides–C. alternans, in which each spe cies was assigned a successive bed”, as noted by M.S. Mesezhnikov (1993, p. 36). However, the phylo genetic lineage of Callovian ammonites proposed by

STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

S.N. NIKITIN (1851–1909) AND HIS CONTRIBUTION

Nikitin seems less perfect due to insufficiently accu rate stratigraphic correlation. This paper was pub lished in the Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists in 1878 and was later submitted by S.N. Nikitin as a master’s thesis to the Department of Physics and Mathematics of IMU, where he was awarded a mas ter’s degree in 1879. In 1881 he published the monograph “Jurassic deposits between Rybinsk, Mologa and Myshkin” in German and Russian (Nikitin, 1881; Nikitin, 1881a). He subdivided Jurassic deposits of the area into the following ammoniterich beds (from the base upward): (1) Stephanoceras compressum bed, (2) Amaltheus leachi bed, (3) Amaltheus cordatus bed, (4) Amaltheus alternans bed, (5) Perisphinctes virgatus bed, (6) Neumayria fulgens bed, and (7) Perisphinctes subditus bed. Based on a comparison of ammonites from the above beds with those known from Central Europe, S.N. Nikitin elaborated the correlation scheme in which Bed 1 is correlated with the Mid Callovian, Bed 2 with the Upper Callovian, Bed 3 with the Lower Oxfordian, Bed 4 with the Mid and Upper Oxfordian of Western Europe. This correlation was supported by the abundance of similar forms throughout the Juras sic sequences of Central Europe, as well as Moscow, Yaroslavl, and Oka areas. According to Nikitin’s remark, beds 5, 6, and 7, due to their uniqueness and originality, do not allow the more precise correlation with the Western European subdivisions, therefore, he proposed to distinguish these beds as the “Volgian For mation” (Nikitin, 1881, p. 249). Considering these deposits to be of Jurassic age, Nikitin disagreed with E.I. Eichwald’s assignment of a Cretaceous age and never tended to support Trautschold’s idea in favoring correlation of these deposits with the Kimmeridgian and Portlandian of Western Europe. The paleontological section of his paper character ized ammonites, belemnites, nautilids, and only those forms which he collected personally from sections where he was absolutely confident about their strati graphic ties. In the preparation of this paper, S.N. Nikitin examined a number of representative collections of Jurassic fossils from Central Russia and Western Europe held at the Moscow University. How ever, his “large private collection of Jurassic fossils from Germany, France and Britain”, which he obtained from foreign scientists as an exchange for Russian fossil specimens provided him with “the rich est material for comparison” (Nikitin, 1881, p. 216). In his monograph “Der Jura der Umgegend von Elatma” (1881b) S.N. Nikitin reported the occur rence of Callovian and Oxfordian deposits in the immediate neighborhood of Elatma settlement, which were divided into three horizons (from the base upward): 1) Stephanoceras elatmae horizon (“Macro cephalenschicht”), 2) Steph. milaschevici horizon, 3) Amaltheus cordatus and Am. alternans horizon. As in his previous work, Nikitin provided a comparison of STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

39

ammonites from Jurassic deposits around Elatma with the Jurassic species of Central Europe, as well as Mos cow and Rybinsk neighborhoods. These papers were immediately recognized by leading Russian geologists, and in 1883 he was awarded the Helmersen Prize from the Academy of 2

Sciences. The commission consisting of G.P. Helm ersen, L.I. Schrenk, G.I. Vild, and F.B. Schmidt stated that only with publication of the works by S.N. Nikitin “we obtained a strong evidence for sup port of the structure of the Russian Jurassic and its relationship with the Western European equivalents, which have long remained in obscurity” (Helmersen et al., 1884, p. 127). In 1880, S.N. Nikitin and K.O. Milashevich were commissioned by the Imperial Saint Petersburg Min eralogical Society to conduct geological studies in the southwestern and central parts of the Kostroma prov ince. Later, K.O. Milashevich withdrew because of his health conditions, and Nikitin had to cope with this work alone under the instruction by the Society. In the summer of 1881, he completed geological studies on the Kostroma River basin, which were started in col laboration with K.O. Milashevich, and then moved to the upper courses of the Unzha River. He found that “more and more Lower Jurassic beds that can be traced along the river to the north constitute the termi nal part of the Ammonites macrocephalus Zone” and that “the thick Jurassic succession occurs north of Kologriv, extending toward the boundary of the Kos troma province” (Protocols …, 1882, p. 387). Subse quently, S.N. Nikitin continued his works in the east ern areas, which he called “the Vetluga land” and by the next season his works were finished. By then, the area had been sparsely populated and covered by bogs, “like an oasis isolated on every side by impassable for ests intersected by a few roads running across unpopu lated land for 60–80 miles”, while most of the existing maps were extremely rough (Nikitin, 1883a, p. 2). A few previous studies in the area had been conducted by G.A. Trautschold in 1863. He reported the presence of barren variegated rocks along the Vetluga River which he assigned to be Permian in age (Trautschold, 1863). S.N. Nikitin was able to trace these deposits along the entire course of the Vetluga River, while most of his route was over “the topmost horizon of the multicol ored marls which appeared to me plain, dull, and pale ontologically barren” (Nikitin, 1883a, p. 14). Near Bolshaya Sludka village on the Vetluga River, he encountered many fragments of fish scales, bones, and teeth, as well as remains of labyrinthodonts (“bony plates” and teeth) (Nikitin, 1883a). These finds were definitely indicative of a Triassic age of the horizon of 2 The

Helmersen Prize was established in 1878 by the Imperial Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences in honor of the 50th anniversary of G.P. Helmersen scientific activity (1803– 1885) and was give once every 5 years for the outstanding works in geology, paleontology, and physical geography.

Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

40

STARODUBTSEVA

multicolored marls. The age of this horizon was an issue of controversy at that time, most geologists in Saint Petersburg assigned it to the Triassic, while geol ogists in Kazan considered it to be of Permian (Zech stein) age. Later S.N. Nikitin proposed to replace the term “horizon of multicolored marls” with the Tatarian hori zon (Nikitin, 1887b). In the 1930s, A.N. Mazarovich attributed the upper part of this horizon to the Lower Triassic while its lower, major portion was assigned to the Upper Permian. Work in the Geological Committee. In July–Octo ber 1882, S.N. Nikitin was asked by the Geological Committee to conduct geological studies in the Yaro slavl province. In March 1882 he was elected a senior geologist of this newly founded Geological Committee (Geolcom). Although the results of the secret ballot voting on election of Committee’s senior geologists were not favorable to S.N. Nikitin (4 yeas to 3 nays), “the biggest support to his election was rendered by Professors of the Academy of Mines P.V. Eremeev and V.I. Mueller, who highly appreciated his skill, talent, and energy” (Baskov, 1982, p. 23). The move to Saint Petersburg and the work in the Geological Committee “offered him a chance to fill large gaps in his knowl edge of geology”, wrote F.N. Chernyshev (1909, p. 3). However, when S.N. Nikitin began working for Geol com he had already had a successful experience in bio stratigraphic research, and his works that shaped the presentday Jurassic stratigraphic scheme of Central Russia ranked him among the leading Russian geolo gists of that time. In Geolcom, apart from geological studies, he was engaged in organization, management and planning of geological activities, in acquisitions of library mate rials. S.N. Nikitin claimed the need for a geological museum. In December 1882 he donated his represen tative collection of fossils to Geolcom. This collection contained about 3744 specimens, and it laid the basic foundations of the future museum where he was taken on as the curator for the geological collections of spec imens from Volga and Polar regions. In 1883–1886, S.N. Nikitin performed geological mapping in the Moscow province and the neighbor hoods, with a special focus on Carboniferous, Juras sic, Cretaceous, and Quaternary glacial deposits. Later, he was entrusted by Geolcom on his own initia tive to undertake studies along railways under con struction in Ryazan, Tambov, Simbirsk, Penza, and Samara oblasts. In 1884, Nikitin compiled and published a mono graph on sheet 56 of the Geological Map of European Russia (Yaroslavl, Rostov, Klyazin, Vesyegonsk, and Poshekhonye regions), which was based on the results of his own studies and materials of A.Yu. Ditmar, P.V. Eremeev, and A.A. Krylov. In this work, Geolcom attempted a compilation of the first map of the above regions, which, not coincidentally, were selected as a study area. Large amounts of factual information and

observations collected on this region required inter pretation and supplemental data from additional research, which “had to be further used to build a geo logical map.” This task was appointed to S.N. Nikitin (Nikitin, 1884, p. 2). The results of field studies in Moscow neighborhoods formed the basis for the sub sequent work. He distinguished the Callovian and Oxfordian and Volgian Formation deposits and subdi vided them into horizons (or zones in the presentday meaning). He discriminated the Cadoceras milaschev ici horizon in the Middle Callovian, Quenstedtoceras leachi horizon in the Upper Callovian, Cardioceras cordatum horizon in the Lower Oxfordian, and Cardio ceras alternans horizon in the Middle Oxfordian. He proposed a twofold division of the Volgian For mation, the Lower Volgian Stage (“Perischinctes virg atus horizon” or virgatus zone in the present scheme) and Upper Volgian Stage, comprising “Oxynoticeras fulgens and Olcostephanus subditus horizons” (respectively, fulgens and subditus zones in the present scheme) (Nikitin, 1884, p. 50–55). One year later, he completed sheet 71 (Kostroma) with explanatory notes of the General Geological Map of European Russia, which was compiled from results from S.N. Nikitin and K.O. Milashevich’s field studies. The lower subdivision of the Callovian, the Cadoceras elat mae zone, distinguished by him in the area has been widely recognized by today’s researchers. He corre lated the Cadoceras milaschevici horizon with the Reineckia anceps zone of the Middle Callovian from the West European subdivisions. He considered the overlying Cardioceras cordatum beds to be correlated with the Aspidoceras perarmatum zone of the Lower Oxfordian, whereas beds with Cardioceras alternans contain ammonites characteristic of the Peltoceras transversarium, P. bimmamatum and Oppelia tenuilo bata zones of the Middle and Upper Oxfordian of Western Europe. He emphasized that the overlying horizon with Perischinctes virgatus, as well as the Olc. nodiger horizon at the top of Jurassic sequence have no equivalents in Western Europe (Nikitin, 1885). Therefore, based on his studies on Yaroslavl and Kos troma Jurassic deposits, S.N. Nikitin proposed (and consistently used in his subsequent works) a threefold division of the Upper Volgian Stage (Upper Volgian Substage in the present scheme), which corresponds to the Kachpurites fulgens, Craspedites subditus, and Craspedites nodiger zones of the present scheme (Nikitin, 1888a). In his General Geological map of Russia (Sheet 71), Nikitin confirmed the conclusion that the Upper and Lower Volgian Stages should be regarded as Jurassic. The observations enabled him to draw the upper boundary of the upper Olc. nodiger zone of the Upper Volgian Stage along “Neocomian black shale, which is separated from this stage by a clearly seen boundary” (Nikitin, 1885, p. 103). S.N. Nikitin said that in his comparison of cephalopods from the Kostroma Juras sic deposits and those from Western Europe, he gave

STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

S.N. NIKITIN (1851–1909) AND HIS CONTRIBUTION

no consideration to “the relations between Russian Jurassic fossils and their equivalents in the Jurassic basins of Boreal, Central European, Mediterranean, Crimean–Caucasian and Indian provinces” and that the final conclusions might have been forthcoming “if all fossil remains from the Central Russian Jurassic basin had been examined” (Nikitin, 1885, p. 85). Before this monograph was published in the Proceed ings of the Imperial Saint Petersburg Mineralogical Society, a large section of this book with a description of cephalopods from Kostroma Jurassic deposits came out as a separate article (Nikitin, 1885a). The second article by Nikitin on Callovian and Oxfordian cephalopods from Elatma deposits was published in the same year (Nikitin, 1885b). In 1886, his article “The geographic range of the Jurassic deposits in Russia” was published simulta neously in German and Russian in the Journal of Mines and in Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paleontogie. This article was a critical review of M. Neumayer’s publication “Die Geographische Ver breitung der Juraformation” (Geographic range of Jurassic deposits) issued in the Proceedings of the Vienna Academy of Sciences in 1885. S.N. Nikitin strongly refuted the view of M. Neumayer, a well known Austrian geologist and paleontologist, who suggested the existence of a Boreal basin in the area of European Russia during Callovian and Oxfordian times. Nikitin concluded that since the Callovian, Oxfordian, and Kimmeridgian deposits of Russia con tain an ammonite fauna characteristic of Central European formations, it does not seem admissible to discriminate an essentially northern (Boreal) zone. To support this argument, he provided lists of identical genera and species of Callovian, Oxfordian, and Kim meridgian ammonites, which were identified by him in the museums’ collections as well as specimens from his own collections gathered from different localities in European Russia (Nikitin, 1886). As he wrote later, these lists “separated successions of forms and types, which, according to Neumayer, characterize the Cen tral European and the Boreal ammonite faunas recorded from the Callovian and Oxfordian deposits” (Nikitin, 1887a, p. 552). Moreover, S.N. Nikitin found that “the collections of Callovian and Oxfordian faunas from Britain and France” contain the same ammonite species as coeval deposits of European Russia. In the collections at Nancy University (France) he found, to his surprise, “a striking similarity between the Russian and French forms from the Callovian and Oxfordian deposits”, which would be mistaken for the Elatma Jurassic forms, “if every specimen of the collections had never been well localized at all” (Nikitin, 1886, p. 39). Therefore, S.N. Nikitin confirmed that most of Euro pean Russia and Central Europe represented at that time a single zoogeographical province. At the same time, he did not exclude the possibility that “separate climatic regions” and “separate provinces” may have STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

41

existed within this basin, but he said that” there is much more to be done to recognize a province as def initely as in the case of the Mediterranean Jurassic province” (Nikitin, 1886, p. 47). Nikitin explained the mistakes made by M. Neu mayer by his poor knowledge of the Jurassic fauna of Russia, as well as papers on Jurassic paleogeography by Russian scientists. Foremost among these were papers by K.F. Rouillier “On animals of Moscow Oblast” (1845) and V.O. Kovalevskii “A few words on the boundary between the Jurassic and Cretaceous formations and the role the Jurassic deposits of Russia in the solution of this problem” (1874). Nikitin noted that many papers that were published in Russia in German and French remained unknown to M. Neu mayer as well. He also remarked that in his paper M. Neumayer did not give a review of Western litera ture, “we cannot see any detailed review of the litera ture on Jurassic geography; or even if present, the notes on the subject are fragmentary and do not incor porate references to von Buch” (Nikitin, 1886, p. 7). M. Neumayer published his response to Nikitin’s criticism in “Neues Jahrbuch” in 1887. S.N. Nikitin wrote: “judging from the latest German publications, one may suppose that my objections regarding assumed identification of cephalopods from these two basins (Callovian and Oxfordian—author’s remark) as separate faunal regions were not overlooked. It became more and more clear that this identification was based on the inadequate knowledge of not only Russian but also French ammonite faunas” (Nikitin, 1887a, p. 451). In continuation of his debate with M. Neumayer, Nikitin repeatedly returned to the issue of climatic zones, demonstrating the correctness of his conclu sions, which were based on a thorough study of the collections of French and British Jurassic ammonites (Nikitin, 1887a, 1888b). For example, in a small col lection of French Jurassic ammonites acquired by Geolcom as an exchange in 1886, he identified species characteristic of the Callovian and Oxfordian of Cen tral Russia. He noted that “the typical Russian” Cadoceras elatmae is present in his private collection of British specimens (Nikitin, 1887a). In 1888, during the 4th Session of the International Geological Congress in London, S.N. Nikitin took a chance to learn more about the museums’ collections in Western Europe and the classic Jurassic sections of France and Britain. This made him sure that “none of the types of Russian cephalopods recorded from the Callovian, Oxfordian, and Kimmeridgian strata pro vide a satisfactory basis for discrimination between the Boreal and Central European belts, and the contrary has been only the case due to the lack of literature data and insufficient knowledge of the collections of the French and Russian Jurassic fossils” (Nikitin, 1888b, p. 12). S.N. Nikitin noted that similar neglect or lack of familiarity with scientific literature on the subject was Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

42

STARODUBTSEVA

typical of many Russian specialists. He wrote: “more or less inadequate attention to the published literature on the subject unfortunately became an issue of grow ing concern for the review papers… Every now and then you come upon a wellknown truth announced by statements of the discoverers with no hesitation even in the face of their predecessors. Any opinions other than their own are ignored, or disregarded, and criticism is viewed as an affront, or at least not essen tial” (Nikitin, 1886, p. 4). Naturally, this was of great concern to S.N. Nikitin. It appears that this tendency among other things prompted S.N. Nikitin in 1886 to launch a new abstracts journal “Russian Geological Library” as a supplement to the “Proceedings of the Geological Committee”. This journal featured abstracts of Rus sian and Frenchlanguage monographs, articles, and brief notes of Russia’s researchers on many fields of geology. The vast majority of these were compiled by S.N. Nikitin, who had been the editor of this journal for 12 years (from 1886 to 1898). In the same years he was also a consistent contrib utor to the German journal “Neues Jahrbuch für Min eralogie, Geologie und Paleontologie” where he regu larly published “the abstracts of the most recent arti cles on geology, mineralogy, and paleontology of Russia” to bring them to the attention of the Western scientific community (Baskov, 1982, p. 57). He was also a contributor to the “Yearbook of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society”, in which he pub lished his reviews of the geological literature of Russia and abroad. He wrote in one of these works, having been frustrated by the quality of some recent Russian contributions: “the authors’ insufficient knowledge of the literature on a subject often will often lead to a ‘rediscovery’ of all the many wellknown ideas. The rapid multiplication of periodicals encourages the unauthorized circulation of reprints of the same article in the same language with changes in the text, which rendered them impossible to understand without knowing all of the previous versions. But the most unpleasant thing about the modern scientific periodi cals is the widespread use of socalled ‘journalese’, which necessarily means dirty, slipshod, mistakes and misprints in most papers and notes, rapid filing of obsolete discoveries and ideas, which would never have been released had the authors not rushed their papers out” (Nikitin, 1892, pp. 1–2). These remarks could be applied to not a few modern researchers. It should be noted that S.N. Nikitin showed his perfect knowledge of the existing literature on the sub ject published by modern and earlier authors. His monographs were prefaced by a complete list of refer ences both to Russian and foreign articles in the field. This was the accepted style of publications of Geol com following the guidelines developed by S.N. Nikitin. Also note that in his early works he dem onstrated a thorough knowledge of the literature on the subject.

In working out a zonal subdivision of the Jurassic of central Russia, S.N. Nikitin encountered a problem of correlating the Upper Jurassic horizons (Lower and Upper Volgian Substages) with their Western Euro pean equivalents. At first, he was inclined to consider them entirely Jurassic (Nikitin, 1881, 1885). In 1886, he suggested, though more cautiously, that these stages “are likely to be parallel to the lowermost Neocomian horizons (in the broad sense of this word)” (Nikitin, 1886, p. 11). One year later, at the Geological Com mittee meeting he came out with a proposal, empha sizing “the need for recognition of part of the Upper Volgian Stage to be equivalent to the Lower Neoco mian. On the other hand, the original faunal character of Volgian deposits will never allow them to be pre cisely correlated with the horizons of the European Portland, Kimmeridge, Weald, or Neocomian” (Jour nal …, 1887, p. 98). He first proposed the index JCr to designate these deposits on maps, and this was adopted at the Geolcom meeting. A new approach to correlation of the Volgian Stages and their stratigraphic position was further elaborated by Nikitin in his monograph “Traces of the Cretaceous in Central Russia” (1888a). This was the first compila tion on the Cretaceous deposits of Central Russia and the last major publication by S.N. Nikitin on the Mesozoic of the study area. It was published as a sep arate section of the Explanatory Note to Sheet 57 of the General Geological Map of European Russia (Nikitin, 1890b). He had to postpone the work on this volume as a large amount of new geological material became available on water supply wells in Moscow and the surrounding. He wanted to make use of some of the outcomes, while the results of his study on the Cre taceous he decided to publish in a monograph (Nikitin, 1888a). In this work he provided characterization of the Cre taceous deposits of the Moscow, Vladimir, Ryazan, Simbirsk, and Saratov oblasts and pointed out that “the Russian Cretaceous deposits should be regarded only as provisionally synchronous with those of Western Europe” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 125). He proposed a new stratigraphic subdivision and mentioned that he would not deal with “the two topmost layers of the Russian Cretaceous strata: Senonian (Maastrichtian, Campa nian, Santonian, Coniacian—author’s remark) and the underlying siliceous marls and limestones with Avicula tenuicostata” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 125). He dis tinguished two stages in the lowermost part of the Upper Cretaceous (from the top downward): (a) the inoceramid stage, or “Grey Cretaceous” of some authors, whose Early Turonian age is most noticeable” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 129) and (b) the Cenomanian stage with abundant fish remains. S.N. Nikitin divided the Lower Cretaceous into the Albian, Aptian, and Neocomian, with the latter con taining three horizons: (a) Olcostephanus versicolor horizon; (b) septarian horizon with Olcostephanus

STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

S.N. NIKITIN (1851–1909) AND HIS CONTRIBUTION

decheni var. elatus, Olc. unbonatus, Olc. progrediscus, Olc. fasciatofalcatus, Olc. discofalcatus, and Inocera mus aucella; (c) gypsumbearing, almost barren beneath the Simbrisk area, sandy clay with Pecten crassitella. He noted that a striking similarity between the Neocomian faunas of Simbirsk and Germany sug gests that faunas in “both regions may have migrated from a similar source and that changes in the exotic faunas in both regions were also similar” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 137). The phosphorite sands of Ryazan in the Olc. hopli toides horizon as well as the shale nodule beds with Olc. polyptychus Keys. developed along the Vychegda, Sukhona and Pechora rivers were regarded by Nikitin as the most enigmatic among Lower Cretaceous deposits. He has pointed out that they leave no doubt as to their Neocomian age, which, in his view, “can be reasonably judged from their position and composi tion of the faunas” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 139). However, the exact stratigraphic position of these deposits remained doubtful, since he was not sure as to whether they overly or lie parallel to the Upper Volgian Stage. “Considering all available data”, S.N. Nikitin con cluded that these deposits are synchronous with the Olc. nodiger horizon of the Upper Volgian but their ammonite fauna has several characteristic features” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 139). Based on these consider ations, he assumed that the Upper Volgian Stage, either entirely or partially, should be regarded “as equivalent of the lower horizons of the Neocomian, which is more or less coincident with the ‘Valanginien’ stage” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 138). S.N. Nikitin recognized that only the Upper Vol gian deposits of the Mesozoic of Central Russia “bear the traces of influence of the Boreal Sea usually seen in their fauna and position… these deposits delineate the large Central Russian Sea closed to the south and con nected toward the north and northeast with the large coeval Boreal Sea. The diversity and originality of the Upper Volgian fauna prevent correlation with any other deposits in the east, south, and west, and only Boreal Siberia contains the related forms of fauna. This precludes determination of the exact age the Upper Volgian Stage as well as direct correlation with any of the Jurassic or Cretaceous horizon in Europe. The age of the Upper Volgian Stage might be largely determined by its relation to the Simbirsk Neocomian and the position of the Lower Volgian Stage within the Mesozoic strata” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 141). Nikitin concluded that the Lower Volgian Stage, in particular, the Perisphinctes virgatus zone and Hop lites rjasanensis beds (the presentday rjasanensis zone of the Ryazan Stage) represent coeval deposits belong ing to different facies. He noted that the Perisphinctes virgatus and Hoplites rjasanensis beds are overlain in Ryazan area by the Upper Volgian Stage, the base of STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

43

which (Olcostephanus okensis and Oxynoticeras ful gens horizon) “passes without a gap into the Lower Volgian deposits” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 139), whereas the upper horizon with Olcostephanus nodiger passes gradually into the Neocomian clay bed containing Olcostephanus versicolor (the Hauterivian Stage in the presentday scheme) (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 140). On these considerations he attributed the Upper Volgian Stage to the Neocomian and regarded the Volgian strata as part of the Upper Jurassic and part of the Lower Cretaceous. Therefore, Nikitin erroneously determined the stratigraphic position of the Olc. hoplitoides and Olc. polyptychus Keys. beds (Valanginian Stage) and the Hoplites rjasanensis horizon (Ryazan Stage) because he correlated them with the Upper Volgian and Lower Volgian Stage, respectively. He confirmed once again his conclusion about the impossibility of accurate correlation of the Lower and Upper Volgian Stages with their Western European equivalents and pointed out that these deposits replace the uppermost Jurassic and lowermost Neocomian horizons” (Nikitin, 1888a, p. 40). In this work, S.N. Nikitin proposed to recognize a sand stage as the local stratigraphic subdivision in the Moscow province, which comprises the socalled Klin and Tatarovo sands and sandstones with floral remains and Vorobyevo sand (currently assigned as Lower Aptian), as well as Lytkarino, Kotelniki sandstones with abundant invertebrate shells (=Upper Volgian Substage). He regarded these deposits as the top of the Upper Volgian in the Moscow province and placed them at the base of the Lower Cretaceous. Note that some researchers considered these deposits as coeval, but differing in facies, and assigned them to the Lower Cretaceous (or Weald), while the others treated them as Upper Jurassic. In 1890, A.P. Pavlov found the brown sandstone beds with Late Neocomian fossils below the Vorobyevo white sand of Moscow. He reported this discovery at April 19 meeting of the Imperial Moscow Society of Naturalists. The abstract of this communication was published in the newspaper Russkie Vedomosti in the column Moskovskie Vesti (Moscow news) on April 21, 1890. A few days later, on April 24, the abstract was reissued with some revisions, where Pavlov wrote that “the fauna of the Vorobyevy Gory brown sandstones markedly differs from that of the Volgian beds… and fossils recorded in these sandstones are indicative of an Upper Neocomian age, i.e., of their assignment to the Cretaceous System, but not to its lowermost horizon” (Moscow News …, 1890, p. 3). Soon afterwards, S.N. Nikitin responded to Pav lov’s communication with a letter to editor published in Russkie Vedomosti, May 10: “I was not about to deny the presence of the Lower Cretaceous (Neoco Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

44

STARODUBTSEVA

mian) at Vorobyevy Gory as well as in other localities in Moscow neighborhood, but rather to prove their existence during the latest decade. I only call then another name (Upper Volgian Stage—author’s remark), as it was accepted, based on my own studies and my suggestion, almost in all foreign special papers and guidelines…” (Nikitin, 1890a, p. 3). In response to Nikitin’s letter, A.P. Pavlov empha sized in Russkie Vedomosti, May 12, 1890 that his work was focused on deposits containing the Upper Neocomian and resting just above Nikitin’s Upper Volgian Stage, which he correlated with the base of the Neocomian. Pavlov purposely pointed to a quote with the page number from Nikitin’s monograph in which he asserted that Moscow strata do not contain even traces of the Neocomian fauna and that “the respec tive deposits are absent from the known series” (Pav lov, 1890, p. 3). This put their discussion to an end. However, Nikitin’s conclusions about the same age of sandstones and discrimination of the sand stage at the base of the Cretaceous of Moscow proved unsound. A geological map (Sheet 57) which Nikitin pub lished in 1890 became the outcome of his longterm studies of Moscow and included areas of almost the entire Moscow province, western part of the Vladimir province, as well as parts of the Tver, Yaroslavl, and Kaluga provinces. The map was supplemented with the monograph “General geological map of Russia. Sheet 57” in which he did not provide a detailed description of Cretaceous deposits and referred to his earlier monograph (Nikitin, 1888a). He pointed out that A.P. Pavlov had discovered sandstones with the Upper Neocomian fossils in Moscow, and he person ally “had the pleasure of seeing them…to ascertain the correctness of their assignment” (Nikitin, 1890b, p. 279). S.N. Nikitin emphasized that he found similar deposits in the Vladimir province and he was “glad to know about Pavlov’s fossil finds, which are compelling evidence to support the extension of the same horizon beneath Moscow”. However, he did not mention his incorrect age assignment for the Vorobyevy Gory sands, despite the fact that Pavlov’s studies provided the basis for a revised stratigraphy of the Moscow Lower Cretaceous. He concluded that Pavlov’s dis covery was “in harmony” with his views on “Upper Volgian deposits as a replacement of the base of the Neocomian, which gradually passed into the Middle (Upper) Neocomian with a fauna much resembling a Western European type” (Nikitin, 1890b, pp. 279– 280). S.N. Nikitin pointed out that by the time Pavlov discovered the Upper Neocomian, the geological map had been already published and he had no chance to delineate these deposits on map. Although that does not mean that there have not been the possibility to make corrections in the text, but they have not been made.

Nikitin’s colleagues pointed out that criticism was a prominent feature of his scientific thinking. “He critically evaluated every article, idea, or note. He needed to have a full picture in mind through a com prehensive discussion of the subject, or by comparing a vast amount of new information with the already available data, prior to making a conclusive statement on the subject” (Tikhonovich and Prigorovskii, 1909, p. 19). The most brilliant manifestation of his “critical thinking” was Nikitin’s compilations of abstracts of geological scientific papers, which were published in the “Russian Geological Library” journal and in which the works by Pavlov and his followers were given harsh and often undue criticism. Nonetheless, as a skilled geologist, S.N. Nikitin did not like to admit his mistakes and always defended his opinion, making the facts fit his ideas. S.N. Nikitin is well known for his debates with G.A. Trautschold, P.I. Krotov, and M. Neumayer on the problems of the Mesozoic stratigraphy. But his dis pute with A.P. Pavlov went on to be one of the longest; it concerned the correlation of the Upper Jurassic stratigraphic scheme of Central Russia with that of Western Europe and the position of the Jurassic–Cre taceous boundary. This dispute gained a broad audi ence in the literature on the history of geology (Var sanofyeva, 1947; Starodubtseva, 2006). In the 1890s, Nikitin quit his work on problems of the Mesozoic stratigraphy of European Russia, but his papers on the Oxfordian and Callovian, as noticed by his contemporaries, quickly became “an example of stratigraphic and paleontological study” (Tikhonovich and Prigorovskii, 1909, p. 24). In 1890, S.N. Nikitin began his works on hydroge ology, compilation of the international geological map of Europe, organization of geological and soil survey, compilation of the borehole catalog, etc. It would seem that his activity at Geolcom was so extensive that it left little time for him to proceed with Mesozoic studies on European Russia. The present scheme of Boreal Jurassic stratigraphy stratigraphic was based on a scheme developed by S.N. Nikitin. A threefold subdivision of the Upper Volgian Substage proposed by him has been adopted by modern researchers (Fig. 2). Mesezhnikov wrote that Nikitin’s “zonal subdivisions of the Callovian, Oxfordian, and Upper Volgian Stage remained practi cally unchanged to the present. This was an unprece dented case because only schemes proposed by Oppel for the Hettangian, Upper Sinemurian, and Pleisba chian have proved equally successful” (Mesezhnikov, 1993, p. 37). The problem of the JurassicCretaceous boundary in the Boreal Realm remains controversial until present. Until 1996, the boundary was placed at the base of the Ryazan Horizon, as suggested by

STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

S.N. NIKITIN (1851–1909) AND HIS CONTRIBUTION

Elatma belemnite shale

Oxynoticeras fulgens

Sudstage

Stage

Craspedites subditus Upper

Perisphinctes virgatus

Epivirgatites nikitini Virgatites virgatus Dorsoplanites panderi I. sokolovi Ilovaiskya klimovi Sarmatisphinctes fallax A. eudoxus Aulacostephanus mutabilis Rasenia cymodoce Pictonia baylei A. ravni A. serratum Amoeboceras alternoides Cardioceras tenuiserratum C. densiplicatum C. cordatum Cardioceras mariae Quenstedtoceras lamberti Peltoceras athleta Erymnoceras coronatum Rondiceras milaschevici Sigaloceras calloviense Kepplerites goverianus

Cardioceras alternans

C. cordatum Quenstedto ceras Leachi

Cadoceras milaschevici

Cadoceras elatmae

Middle

Volgian

Kachpurites fulgens

Lower Upper

Lower

Upper

Middle

Kimmeridgian

A. virgatus (Kimme ridgian) stage

Olc. nodiger Olcostephanus subditus

Zones Cr. nodiger

Oxfordian

А. catenulatus (Portlandian) stage

Upper Jurassic

A. fulgens stage

Regional scheme of Jurassic deposits of the East European platform (Mitta, 2009)

Nikitin, 1881–1888

Lower Upper

Middle

Callovian

Neumayer, 1876

Cosmoceras Amaltheus cordatus Jason and Stephanoceras stage and Am. alternans stage coronartum stage

Terebra tula varians stage

A. alternans stage

A. virgatus stage

Trautschold, 1872

Ammonites alternans and Am. Jason stage

A. catenulatus stage

Rouillier, Frears, 1845

45

Lower

Cadoceras elatmae

Fig. 2. Schematic evolution of views on the Jurassic subdivision of Central Russia (second half of the XIX century).

N.A. Bogoslovskii (1896). In 1996, the Bureau of the Interdepartmental Stratigraphic Committee recom mended in its resolution to place the Jurassic–Creta ceous boundary between the Middle and Upper Vol gian Substages, while many researchers place it at the base of the Ryazan Horizon (Zakharov, 2003; Mitta, 2004, 2005). S.N. Nikitin was one of the most effective and competent geologists of the Geological Committee. His outstanding professional achievements were STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

entirely based on high superb selfefficacy and self discipline. N.N. Tikhonovich and M.M. Prigorovskii, who worked with him during the last years of his life, recalled that “when he sat in the car or in the railway station, S.N. always kept himself busy with work. Dur ing lunch he was often seen with proofs in his hands. He had little free time and the only time for rest was when he was playing the piano with proficiency, and taking care of flowers, which decorated his house…” (Tikhonovich and Prigorovskii, 1909, p. 21). Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

46

STARODUBTSEVA

S.N. Nikitin died on November 5 (18), 1909 and was buried in the Institute of Mines’ plot of the Smo lenskoye cemetery, Saint Petersburg (Baskov, 1982). More than 10 invertebrate species bear the name of S.N. Nikitin, including Cadoceras nikitini Sokolov, 1912; Ceratites nikitini Mojsisovics, 1888; Nautilus nikitini Tzwetaeva, 1888; Epivigatites nikitini (Michalskyi, 1890); Praesurutes nikitini Gerasimov et Mitta, 2004; and others. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work was supported by the Russian Founda tion for Basic Research (project no. 110501122). Reviewer A.S. Alekseev REFERENCES Baskov, E.A., Sergei Nikolaevich Nikitin (Sergei Nikolae vich Nikitin), Leningrad: Nauka, 1982 [in Russian]. Bogoslovskii, N.A., Ryazanskii gorizont (Fauna, strati graficheskie otnosheniya i veroyatnyi vozrast etogo gorizonta) (Ryazanskian Horizon (Fauna, Stratigraphic Relationships and Probable Age of this Horizon), St. Petersburg, 1896 [in Russian]. Chernyshev, F.N., In Memoriam for Sergey Nikolaevich Nikitin, Izv. Geol. Kom., 1909, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1–9. Helmersen, G.P., Shenk, L.I., Vil’d, G.I., and Shmidt, F.B., The Helmersen Prize Awarding. The Report of Commission at Meeting of PhysicalMathematical Department, November 29, 1983, in Zap. Imper. Akad. Nauk. Prilozhenie k Protokolam. T. 47 (Proc. Imper. Akad. Nauk. Supplement to Protocols), St. Petersburg: Tipogr. Imper. Akad. Nauk, 1884, vol. 47, pp. 124–128. Mesezhnikov, M.S., Phylogenetic Grounds for the First Zonal Schemes (80s Years of the XIX Century⎯the 30s Years of the XX Century), in Filogeneticheskie aspekty paleontologii. Trudy XXXV sessii Vsesoyuznogo paleontol. obva (yanvar’ 1989 g., Leningrad) (Phylogenetic Aspects in Paleontology. Proc. XXXV Sess. AllRuss. Paleontol. Obva (January, 1989, Leningrad)), St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1993, pp. 35–41. Mitta, V.V., On Callovian and Oxfordian Boundary Sedi ments of the Volga River Basin, VMNovitates, 2003, no. 11. Mitta, V.V., On the Ammonite Succession of Ammonites in the Jurassic–Cretaceous Boundary Deposits of the Mosk ovian Syneclise, Paleontol. Zh., 2004, no. 5, pp. 17–24. Mitta, V.V., New Data on the Age of the Ryazanian Stage Basal Layers, Stratigr. Geol. Correlation, 2005, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 459–560. Mitta, V.V., Regional’naya skhema yurskikh otlozhenii Vos tochnoEvropeiskoi platformy (Regional Scheme of Jurassic Deposits of the EastEuropean Platform), MPR RF, FGUP SNIIGGiMS, 2009. Moskow News, Russkie Vedomosti, 1890, no. 110, p. 3. Neumayer, M., Die Ornatenthone vor Tschulkowo und die Stellung der Russischen Jura, Geogn. Palaont. Beitr. Muenchen, 1876, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 319–348. Nikitin, S., Die JuraAblagerungen Zwischen Rybinsck, Mologa und Myschkin an der Oberen Wolga, Mém. l`Acad. Imp. Sci. St.Petersbourg, 1881a, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1–98.

Nikitin, S., Die Cephalopodenfauna der Jurabildungen des Gouvernement Kostroma, Zap. Imp. S.Peterb. Miner. Obva, 1885a, Iss. 2, no. 20, pp. 13–88. Nikitin, S., Die Sperlingsberge (Worobiewy Gory) als Jurassische Gegend, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 1877, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 99–117. Nikitin, S.N., Jurassic Formations between Rybinsk, Mologa, and Myshkin, in Materialy dlya Geologii Rossii (Materials for Geology of Russia), St. Petersburg, 1881, vol. X, pp. 201–331. Nikitin, S., Der Jura der Umgegend von Elatma. Eine Pale ontologischeGeognostische Monographie. 1te Lief, Nouv. Mem. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 1881b, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 85–133. Nikitin, S.N., Geologicheskii ocherk Vetluzhskogo kraya (Geological Sketch of the Vetluga Krai), St. Petersburg: Tipogr. Imperat. Akad. Nauk, 1883 [in Russian]. Nikitin, S.N., Zametka po voprosu o posledovatel’nosti Volzhskogo yarusa Moskovskoi yury (Note on the Problem of Succession of the Volgian Stage (the Jurassic Moscovian), St. Petersburg: Tipogr. Imper. St. Petersburg. Akad. Nauk, 1883 [in Russian]. Nikitin, S.N., General Geological Map of the Russia. Sheet 56, Tr. Geol. Kom, 1884, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 153. Nikitin, S.N., General Geological Map of the Russia. Sheet 71, Tr. Geol. Kom, 1885, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 218. Nikitin, S., Der Jura der Umgegend von Elatma. 2te Lief, Nouv. Mem. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 1885b, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 42–67. Nikitin, S.N., Geographical Distribution of Jurassic Sedi ments in the Russia, Gorn. Zh., 1886, vol. 4, no. 10, p. 56. Nikitin, S.N., On Distribution of Some Jurassic Ammo nites, Izv. Geol. Kom., 1887a, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 451–457. Nikitin, S.N., Geological Observations along the Samara Ufa Railway. Zechstein and Tatarian Stages, Izv. Geol. Kom., 1887b, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 225–248. Nikitin, S.N., Signs of the Cretaceous Period in the Central Russia, Tr. Geol. Kom., 1888a, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 205. Nikitin, S.N., Western Europe: Travel Notes, Izv. Geol. Kom., 1888b, vol. 7, no. 10, p. 48. Nikitin, S.N., A Letter to the Editor of “Russkie Vedo mosti”, Russ. Vedom., 1890a, no. 126, p. 3. Nikitin, S.N., General Geological Map of the Russia. Sheet 57, Tr. Geol. Kom., 1890b, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 301. Nikitin, S.N., Achievements of Geological Science in Rus sia in 1890 Year, Ezh. Imper. Russ. Geogr. Ova, 1892. Nikitin, S.N., Cephalopoda of the Moskovian Jurassic (Unpublished Works. Part I), Tr. Geol. Kom. Novaya Ser., 1916, no. 70. Pavlov, A.P., An Answer to Mr. Nikitin’s Letter (A Letter to the Editor of “Russkie Vedomosti”), Russ. Vedom., 1890, no. 128, p. 3. Protocols of Meetings of the Emperial St.Petersburg Min eralogical Society in 1881 Year, Zap. Imper. St.Peterburg. Mineral. Ova, 1882, Iss. 2, no. 27, pp. 337–391. Rouillier, C. and Frears, H., Coupe Geologique des Envi rons de Moscou, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 1845, vol. 18, no. 4. Starodubtseva, I.A., Evolyutsiya vzglyadov na stratigrafiyu yury Tsentral’noi Rossii (XIX–XX vv.) (Evolution of the Opinions on the Central Russia Jurassic Deposits Stratigra

STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

Vol. 21

No. 1

2013

S.N. NIKITIN (1851–1909) AND HIS CONTRIBUTION phy (XIX–XX Centuries)), Moscow: Nauch. Mir, 2006 [in Russian]. Tikhonovich, N.N. and Prigorovskii, M.M., In Memoriam for Sergey Nikolaevich Nikitin, Izv. Geol. Kom., 1909, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 17–32. Trautschold, H., Briefe aus Wetluga, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 1863, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 282–291. Trautshol’d, G.A., Northern Part of the Moscow Govern ment. Commentary to the Special Geological Map of this Part of the Russia (Two Sheets and the Schematic Section of the Formation), in Materialy dlya geologii Rossii (Materials for Geology of the Russia), St. Petersburg: Tipogr. Imper. Akad. Nauk, 1872, pp. 129–170. Varsanof’eva, V.A., Aleksei Petrovich Pavlov i ego rol’ v razvitii geologii (Alexei Petrovich Pavlov and His Role in Development of Geology), Moscow: MOIP, 1947 [in Russian].

STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION

47

In Memoriam for Grigorii Efimovich Shchurovskii. Report at Extraordinary Joint Meeting of The Society of Amateurs of Natural Sciences, Anthropology, and Ethnography and the Committee of the Polytechnic Museum on April 14, 1884, Izv. Imper. Ova Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya, Antropologii i Etnografii, 1885, vol. 33 (Suppl.). Zakharov, V.A., In Defence of the Volgian Stage, Stratigr. Geol. Correlation, 2003, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 585–593. Journal of Meeting of Geological Committee Journal on October 21, 1887, Izv. Geol. Kom., 1887, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 96–100. Nikitin, S.N., Ammonites of the Group Amaltheus Funiferus Phill., Bull. Soc. Nat. de Moscou, 1878, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 81–159.

Vol. 21

No. 1

2013