What is the Carboniferous period. Carboniferous period of the Paleozoic era, fossils. Sections on this page

According to the hydride theory of V. Larin, hydrogen, which is the main element in our Universe, did not evaporate from our planet at all, but, due to its high chemical activity, formed various compounds with other substances even at the stage of the formation of the Earth, thus becoming part of its composition. bowels And now the active release of hydrogen in the process of decay of hydride compounds (that is, compounds with hydrogen) in the core of the planet leads to an increase in the size of the Earth.

It seems quite obvious that such a chemically active element will not pass thousands of kilometers through the thickness of the mantle "just like that" - it will inevitably interact with its constituent substances. And since one of the most common elements in the Universe and on our planet is carbon, the preconditions for the formation of hydrocarbons are created. Thus, one of the side effects of V. Larin's hydride theory is the version of the inorganic origin of oil.

On the other hand, according to the established terminology, hydrocarbons in the composition of oil are usually called organic substances. And so that the rather strange phrase “inorganic origin of organic substances” does not arise, we will continue to use the more correct term “abiogenic origin” (that is, non-biological). The version of the abiogenic origin of oil in particular, and hydrocarbons in general, is far from new. Another thing is that it is not popular. Moreover, to a large extent due to the fact that in different versions of this version (an analysis of these variants is not the task of this article), ultimately there remain many ambiguities in the question of the direct mechanism for the formation of complex hydrocarbons from inorganic starting materials and compounds.

The hypothesis of the biological origin of oil reserves is incomparably more widespread. Under this hypothesis, oil was formed overwhelmingly in the so-called Carboniferous period (or Carboniferous - from the English "coal") from the processed organic remains of ancient forests under conditions of high temperatures and pressures at a depth of several kilometers, where these remains allegedly fell as a result of vertical movements of geological layers. Under the influence of these factors, peat from the numerous swamps of the Carboniferous turned into various types of coal, and under certain conditions, into oil. In such a simplified version, this hypothesis is presented to us at school as an already “reliably established scientific truth”.

Tab. 1. The beginning of geological periods (according to radioisotope studies)

The popularity of this hypothesis is so great that few even thought about the possibility of its fallacy. Meanwhile, everything is not so smooth in it!.. Very serious problems in the simplified version of the biological origin of oil (in the form described above) arose in the course of various kinds of studies of the properties of hydrocarbons from various fields. Without going into the complex subtleties of these studies (such as right and left polarization and the like), we only state that in order to somehow explain the properties of oil, we had to abandon the version of its origin from simple vegetable peat.

And now you can even meet, for example, such statements: "Today, most scientists say that crude oil and natural gas originally formed from marine plankton." A more or less savvy reader may exclaim: “Sorry! But plankton is not even plants at all, but animals! And he will be absolutely right - by this term it is customary to mean small (even microscopic) crustaceans that make up the main diet of many marine life. Therefore, some of this "majority of scientists" still prefer the more correct, albeit somewhat strange term - "planktonic algae" ...

So, it turns out that once these very “planktonic algae” somehow ended up at depths of several kilometers along with bottom or coastal sand (otherwise it is generally impossible to figure out how “planktonic algae” could be not outside, but inside geological layers ). And they did it in such quantities that they formed billions of tons of oil reserves!.. Just imagine such quantities and scale of these processes!.. What?!. Doubts are already appearing?.. Isn't it?..

Now another problem. In the course of deep drilling on different continents, oil was discovered even in the thickness of the so-called Archean igneous rocks. And this is already billions of years ago (according to the accepted geological scale, the question of the correctness of which we will not touch on here)! .. However, more or less serious multicellular life appeared, as it is believed, only in the Cambrian period - that is, only about 600 million years back. Before that, there were only single-celled organisms on Earth!.. The situation becomes generally absurd. Now only cells should participate in the processes of oil formation!..

Some kind of “cellular-sandy broth” should quickly sink to depths of several kilometers and, in addition, somehow end up in the middle of solid igneous rocks! .. Doubts about the reliability of the “reliably established scientific truth” increase? for a while, look from the bowels of our planet and turn our eyes upward - to the sky.

At the beginning of 2008, sensational news spread around the media: the American spacecraft Cassini discovered on Titan, a satellite of Saturn, lakes and seas of hydrocarbons! stock will run out soon. After all, these creatures are strange - people! .. Well, if hydrocarbons were somehow able to form in huge quantities even on Titan, where it is difficult to imagine any kind of "planktonic algae" at all, then why should one limit oneself to the framework of only the traditional theory of biological origin oil and gas?.. Why not admit that hydrocarbons were formed on the Earth in a non-biogenic way?..

True, it is worth noting that only methane CH4 and ethane C2H6 were found on Titan, and these are only the simplest, lightest hydrocarbons. The presence of such compounds, say, in gas giant planets such as Saturn and Jupiter, was considered possible for a long time. The formation of these substances in an abiogenic way, in the course of ordinary reactions between hydrogen and carbon, was also considered possible. And it would be possible not to mention the discovery of Cassini in the question of the origin of oil, if not for a few “buts” ...

The first "but". A few years earlier, the media spread another news, which, unfortunately, turned out to be not as resonant as the discovery of methane and ethane on Titan, although it deserved it. Astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasingh and his colleagues at Cardiff University put forward a theory of the origin of life in the depths of comets, based on results obtained during the 2004-2005 flights of the Deep Impact and Stardust spacecraft to comets Tempel 1 and Wild 2, respectively.

In Tempel 1, a mixture of organic and clay particles was found, and in Wild 2, a whole range of complex hydrocarbon molecules were found - potential building blocks for life. Let's leave aside the theory of astrobiologists. Let us pay attention to the results of studies of cometary matter: they are talking about complex hydrocarbons! ..

The second "but". Another piece of news, which also, unfortunately, did not receive a decent response. The Spitzer Space Telescope has detected some of the basic chemical components of life in a cloud of gas and dust orbiting a young star. These components - acetylene and hydrogen cyanide, gaseous precursors of DNA and proteins - were first recorded in the planetary zone of a star, that is, where planets can form. Fred Lauis of the Leiden Observatory in the Netherlands and his colleagues discovered these organic substances near the star IRS 46, which is located in the constellation Ophiuchus at a distance of about 375 light-years from Earth.

The third "but" is even more sensational.

A team of NASA astrobiologists from the Ames Research Center published the results of a study based on observations by the same Spitzer orbiting infrared telescope. In this study, we are talking about the discovery in space of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, in which nitrogen is also present.

(nitrogen - red, carbon - blue, hydrogen - yellow).

Organic molecules containing nitrogen are not just one of the foundations of life, they are one of its main foundations. They play an important role in the entire chemistry of living organisms, including photosynthesis.

However, even such complex compounds are not just present in outer space - there are a lot of them! According to Spitzer, aromatics literally abound in our universe (see Figure 2).

It is clear that in this case any talk about "planktonic algae" is simply ridiculous. And consequently, oil can be formed in an abiogenic way! Including on our planet!.. And V. Larin's hypothesis about the hydride structure of the earth's interior provides all the necessary prerequisites for this.

A snapshot of the M81 galaxy, 12 million light years away from us.

Infrared emission from nitrogen-containing aromatic hydrocarbons shown in red

Moreover, there is one more “but”.

The fact is that in the conditions of a hydrocarbon deficit at the end of the 20th century, oilmen began to open those wells that were previously considered already devastated, and the extraction of oil residues in which was previously considered unprofitable. And then it turned out that in a number of such mothballed wells ... oil has increased! And it increased in a very tangible amount! ..

You can, of course, try to attribute this to the fact that, they say, the reserves were not very correctly estimated earlier. Or oil flowed from some nearby, unknown to the oilmen, underground natural reservoirs. But there are too many miscalculations - the cases are far from isolated! ..

So it remains to be assumed that oil has really increased. And it was added from the bowels of the planet! V. Larin's theory receives indirect confirmation. And in order to give it a completely "green light", the matter remains small - you just need to decide on the mechanism for the formation of complex hydrocarbons in the earth's interior from the original components.

Soon the fairy tale tells, but not soon the deed is done ...

I am not so strong in those sections of chemistry that relate to complex hydrocarbons to fully understand the mechanism of their formation on my own. Yes, my area of ​​interest is somewhat different. So this question could continue to be in a “pending state” for me for quite a long time, if not for one accident (although who knows, maybe this is not an accident at all).

Sergei Viktorovich Digonsky, one of the authors of the monograph published by the Nauka publishing house in 2006 under the title Unknown Hydrogen, contacted me by e-mail and literally insisted on sending me a copy of it. And having opened the book, I could no longer stop and literally swallowed its contents with a vengeance, even despite the very specific language of geology. The monograph just contained the missing link! ..

Based on their own research and a number of works of other scientists, the authors state:

“Given the recognized role of deep gases, ... the genetic relationship of natural carbonaceous substances with juvenile hydrogen-methane fluid can be described as follows.1. From the gas-phase system С-О-Н (methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide) ... carbonaceous substances can be synthesized - both in artificial conditions and in nature ... 5. Pyrolysis of methane diluted with carbon dioxide under artificial conditions leads to the synthesis of liquid ... hydrocarbons, and in nature - to the formation of the entire genetic series of bituminous substances. gas mixture with high mobility; juvenile - contained in the depths, in this case in the Earth's mantle.)

Here it is - oil from hydrogen contained in the bowels of the planet! .. True, not in a "pure" form - directly from hydrogen - but from methane. However, due to its high chemical activity, no one expected pure hydrogen. And methane is the simplest combination of hydrogen with carbon, which, as we now know for sure after the discovery of Cassini, is also in huge quantities on other planets ...

But what is most important: we are not talking about some theoretical research, but about conclusions drawn on the basis of empirical studies, references to which the monograph abounds so much that it is pointless to try to list them here!..

We will not analyze here the most powerful geopolitical consequences that follow from the fact that oil is continuously generated by fluid flows from the earth's interior. Let us dwell only on some of those that are relevant to the history of life on Earth.

Firstly, there is no longer any point in inventing some kind of "planktonic algae" that, in a strange way, once plunged to kilometer depths. It's a completely different process.

And secondly, this process continues for a very long time up to the present moment. So there is no point in isolating any separate geological period during which the planet's oil reserves allegedly formed.

Someone will notice that, they say, oil does not fundamentally change anything. After all, even the very name of the period, with which its origin was previously correlated, is associated with a completely different mineral - with coal. That's why he is the Carboniferous period, and not some kind of "Oil" or "Gas-Oil" ...

However, in this case, one should not rush to conclusions, since the connection here turns out to be very deep. And in the quote above, it is not in vain that only points numbered 1 and 5 are indicated. It is not in vain that the ellipsis is repeatedly used. The fact is that in the places I deliberately omitted, we are talking not only about liquid, but also about solid carbonaceous substances !!!

But before restoring these places, let's return to the accepted version of the history of our planet. More precisely: to that segment of it, which is called the Carboniferous period or Carboniferous.

I will not philosophize slyly, but simply give a description of the Carboniferous period, taken almost at random from a couple of some of the countless sites that replicate quotes from textbooks. However, I will capture a little more history “at the edges” - late Devon and early Perm - they will be useful to us in the future ...

The climate of Devon, as shown by the masses of characteristic red sandstone rich in iron oxide that have survived since then, was dry, continental over significant stretches of land, which does not exclude the simultaneous existence of coastal countries with a humid climate. I. Walter designated the area of ​​the Devonian deposits of Europe with the words: "The ancient red continent." Indeed, bright red conglomerates and sandstones, up to 5000 meters thick, are a characteristic feature of Devon. Near Leningrad (now: St. Petersburg), they can be observed along the banks of the Oredezh River. In America, the early stage of the Carboniferous period, characterized by maritime conditions, was previously called the Mississippian due to the thick limestone stratum that formed within the modern Mississippi River valley, and now it is attributed to the lower department of the Carboniferous period. In Europe, throughout the entire Carboniferous period, the territories of England, Belgium and northern France were mostly flooded by the sea, in which powerful limestone horizons were formed. Some areas of southern Europe and southern Asia were also flooded, where thick layers of shale and sandstone were deposited. Some of these horizons are of continental origin and contain many fossil remains of terrestrial plants, and also contain coal-bearing layers. In the middle and end of this period, in the interior of the North America (as well as in Western Europe) was dominated by lowlands. Here, shallow seas periodically gave way to marshes, in which powerful peat deposits accumulated, subsequently transformed into large coal basins that stretch from Pennsylvania to eastern Kansas. Some of the western regions of North America were inundated by the sea during most of this period. Layers of limestones, shales and sandstones were deposited there. In countless lagoons, river deltas, swamps in the littoral zone, a lush, warm and moisture-loving flora reigned. Colossal amounts of peat-like plant matter accumulated in places of its mass development, and, over time, under the influence of chemical processes, they were transformed into vast deposits of coal. Perfectly preserved plant remains are often found in coal seams, indicating that during the Carboniferous period on Earth has a lot of new groups of flora. At that time, pteridospermids, or seed ferns, were widely spread, which, unlike ordinary ferns, reproduce not by spores, but by seeds. They represent an intermediate stage of evolution between ferns and cycads - plants similar to modern palms - with which pteridospermids are closely related. New groups of plants appeared throughout the Carboniferous, including progressive forms such as cordaite and conifers. The extinct cordaites were usually large trees with leaves up to 1 meter long. Representatives of this group actively participated in the formation of coal deposits. Conifers at that time were just beginning to develop, and therefore were not yet so diverse. One of the most common plants of the Carboniferous were giant tree clubs and horsetails. Of the former, the most famous are lepidodendrons - giants 30 meters high, and sigillaria, which had a little more than 25 meters. The trunks of these clubs were divided at the top into branches, each of which ended in a crown of narrow and long leaves. Among the giant lycopsids there were also calamites - tall tree-like plants, the leaves of which were divided into filamentous segments; they grew in swamps and other wet places, being, like other club mosses, tied to water. But the most wonderful and bizarre plants of the carbon forests were, without a doubt, ferns. The remains of their leaves and stems can be found in any major paleontological collection. Tree-like ferns, reaching from 10 to 15 meters in height, had a particularly striking appearance, their thin stem was crowned with a crown of complexly dissected leaves of bright green color.

Forest landscape of Carboniferous (according to Z. Burian)

On the left in the foreground are calamites, behind them are sigillaria,

to the right in the foreground is a seed fern,

in the distance in the center - a tree fern,

on the right, lepidodendrons and cordaites.

Since the Lower Carboniferous formations are poorly represented in Africa, Australia, and South America, it can be assumed that these territories were predominantly in subaerial conditions. In addition, there is evidence of widespread continental glaciation there. At the end of the Carboniferous period, mountain building was widely manifested in Europe. Mountain ranges stretched from southern Ireland through southern England and northern France to southern Germany. This stage of orogeny is called the Hercynian, or Varisian. In North America, local uplifts occurred at the end of the Mississippian period. These tectonic movements were accompanied by marine regression, the development of which was also facilitated by the glaciation of the southern continents. In the Late Carboniferous, sheet glaciation spread on the continents of the Southern Hemisphere. In South America, as a result of marine transgression penetrating from the west, most of the territory of modern Bolivia and Peru was flooded. The flora of the Permian period was the same as in the second half of the Carboniferous. However, the plants were smaller and not as numerous. This indicates that the climate of the Permian period became colder and drier. According to Walton, the great glaciation of the mountains of the southern hemisphere can be considered established for the Upper Carboniferous and pre-Permian time. Later, the decline of mountainous countries gives rise to arid climates. Accordingly, variegated and red-colored strata develop. We can say that a new "red continent" has emerged.

In general: according to the "generally accepted" picture, in the Carboniferous period we have literally the most powerful surge in the development of plant life, which with its end came to naught. This surge in the development of vegetation allegedly served as the basis for deposits of carbonaceous minerals.

The process of formation of these fossils is most often described as follows:

This system is called coal because among its layers there are the most powerful interlayers of coal, which are known on Earth. Seams of coal originated due to the charring of plant remains, buried in masses in sediments. In some cases, accumulations of algae served as the material for the formation of coals, in others - accumulations of spores or other small parts of plants, in others - the trunks, branches and leaves of large plants. Plant tissues slowly lose some of their constituent compounds released in the gaseous state, while some, and especially carbon, are pressed by the weight of the sediments that have fallen on them and turn into coal. The following table, taken from the work of Y. Pia, shows the chemical side of the process. In this table, peat is the weakest stage of charring, anthracite is the last one. In peat, almost all of its mass consists of easily recognizable, with the help of a microscope, parts of plants, in anthracite there are almost none. It can be seen from the table that the percentage of carbon increases as the carbonization progresses, while the percentage of oxygen and nitrogen decreases.

in minerals (Yu.Pia)

First, peat turns into brown coal, then into bituminous coal, and finally into anthracite. All this happens at high temperatures, which lead to fractional distillation. Anthracites are coals that are changed by the action of heat. Pieces of anthracite are overflowing with a mass of small pores formed by bubbles of gas released during the action of heat due to the hydrogen and oxygen contained in the coal. The source of heat could be the proximity to eruptions of basalt lavas along the cracks of the earth's crust. Under the pressure of layers of sediments 1 km thick, a layer of brown coal 4 meters thick is obtained from a 20-meter layer of peat. If the depth of burial of plant material reaches 3 kilometers, then the same layer of peat will turn into a layer of coal 2 meters thick. At a greater depth, about 6 kilometers, and at a higher temperature, a 20-meter layer of peat becomes a layer of anthracite 1.5 meters thick.

In conclusion, we note that in a number of sources, the chain "peat - lignite - coal - anthracite" is supplemented with graphite and even diamond, resulting in a chain of transformations: "peat - lignite - coal - anthracite - graphite - diamond" ...

The vast amount of coal that has been feeding the world's industry for a century points to the vast expanse of swampy forests of the Carboniferous era. Their formation required a mass of carbon extracted by forest plants from carbon dioxide in the air. The air lost this carbon dioxide and received in return a corresponding amount of oxygen. Arrhenius believed that the entire mass of atmospheric oxygen, determined at 1216 million tons, approximately corresponds to the amount of carbon dioxide, the carbon of which is preserved in the earth's crust in the form of coal. Even Kene in Brussels in 1856 argued that all the oxygen in the air was formed in this way. Of course, this should be objected to, since the animal world appeared on Earth in the Archean era, long before the Carboniferous, and animals cannot exist without sufficient oxygen content both in the air and in the water where they live. It is more correct to assume that the work of plants on the decomposition of carbon dioxide and the release of oxygen began from the very moment of their appearance on Earth, i.e. since the beginning of the Archean era, as indicated by the accumulations of graphite, which could have been obtained as the end product of the charring of plant residues under high pressure.

If you do not look closely, then in the above version, the picture looks almost flawless.

But it so often happens with "generally accepted" theories that for "mass consumption" an idealized version is issued, which in no way includes the existing inconsistencies of this theory with empirical data. Just as the logical contradictions of one part of an idealized picture with other parts of the same picture do not fall ...

However, since we have some alternative in the form of the potential possibility of the non-biological origin of the mentioned minerals, what is important is not the “combing” of the description of the “generally accepted” version, but how this version correctly and adequately describes reality. And therefore, we will be primarily interested not in the idealized version, but, on the contrary, in its shortcomings. And therefore, let's look at the picture drawn from the standpoint of skeptics ... After all, for objectivity, you need to consider the theory from different angles. Is not it?..

First of all: what does the above table say? ..

Yes, almost nothing!

It shows a sample of just a few chemical elements, from the percentage of which in the above list of fossils there is really simply no reason to draw serious conclusions. Both in relation to the processes that could lead to the transition of fossils from one state to another, and in general about their genetic relationship.

And by the way, none of those presenting this table bothered to explain why these particular elements were chosen, and on what basis they are trying to make a connection with minerals.

So - sucked from the finger - and normal ...

Let's omit the part of the chain that touches wood and peat. The connection between them is hardly in doubt. It is not only obvious, but actually observable in nature. Let's move on to brown coal ...

And already at this link in the chain one can find serious flaws in the theory.

However, some digression should first be made, due to the fact that for brown coals, the "generally accepted" theory introduces a serious reservation. It is believed that brown coal was formed not only under somewhat different conditions (than hard coal), but also at a different time in general: not in the Carboniferous period, but much later. Accordingly, from other types of vegetation ...

The marshy forests of the Tertiary period, which covered the Earth approximately 30-50 million years ago, gave rise to the formation of brown coal deposits.

Many species of trees were found in brown-coal forests: conifers from the genera Chamaecyparis and Taxodium with their numerous aerial roots; deciduous, for example, Nyssa, moisture-loving oaks, maples and poplars, heat-loving species, for example, magnolias. The dominant species were broad-leaved species.

From the lower part of the trunks, one can judge how they adapted to the soft marshy soil. Coniferous trees had a large number of stilted roots, deciduous trees had cone-shaped or bulbous trunks expanded downwards.

Lianas, twining around tree trunks, gave the brown-coal forests an almost subtropical look, and some types of palm trees that grew here also contributed to this.

The surface of the marshes was covered with leaves and flowers of water lilies, the banks of the marshes were bordered by reeds. There were many fish, amphibians and reptiles in the reservoirs, primitive mammals lived in the forest, birds reigned in the air.

Brown coal forest (according to Z. Burian)

The study of plant remains preserved in coals made it possible to trace the evolution of coal formation - from older coal seams formed by lower plants to young coals and modern peat deposits, characterized by a wide variety of higher peat-forming plants. The age of the coal seam and associated rocks is determined by the species composition of the remains of plants contained in the coal.

And here is the first problem.

As it turns out, brown coal is not always found in relatively young geological layers. For example, on one Ukrainian site, the purpose of which is to attract investors to the development of deposits, the following is written:

“... we are talking about a brown coal deposit discovered in the Lelchits region back in Soviet times by Ukrainian geologists from the Kirovgeologiya enterprise. three well-known - Zhitkovichi, Tonezh and Brinevo. In this group of four, the new deposit is the largest - approximately 250 million tons. In contrast to the low-quality Neogene coals of the three named deposits, the development of which still remains problematic, the Lelchitsy brown coal in the Lower Carboniferous deposits is of higher quality. The working calorific value of its combustion is 3.8-4.8 thousand kcal / kg, while Zhitkovichi has this figure in the range of 1.5-1.7 thousand. An important characteristic is humidity: 5-8.8 percent versus 56-60 for Zhitkovichi. The thickness of the formation is from 0.5 meters to 12.5. The depth of occurrence - from 90 to 200 meters or more is acceptable for all known types of mining.

How can it be: brown coal, but lower carbon? .. Not even upper! ..

But what about the composition of plants?.. After all, the vegetation of the Lower Carboniferous is fundamentally different from the vegetation of much later periods - the “generally accepted” time of the formation of brown coals ... Of course, one could say that someone messed up something with the vegetation, and it is necessary to focus on the conditions for the formation of Lelchitsy brown coal. Say, because of the peculiarities of these conditions, he simply “did not reach a little” to the bituminous coals that were formed in the same period of the Lower Carboniferous. Moreover, in terms of such a parameter as humidity, it is very close to “classical” hard coal. Let's leave the riddle with vegetation for the future - we will return to it later ... Let's look at brown and hard coal precisely from the standpoint of chemical composition.

In brown coals, the amount of moisture is 15-60%, in hard coals - 4-15%.

No less serious is the content of mineral impurities in coal, or its ash content, which varies widely - from 10 to 60%. The ash content of the coals of the Donetsk, Kuznetsk and Kansk-Achinsk basins is 10-15%, Karaganda - 15-30%, Ekibastuz - 30-60%.

And what is “ash content”?.. And what are these very “mineral impurities”?..

In addition to clay inclusions, the appearance of which in the process of accumulation of the initial peat is quite natural, among the impurities most often mentioned ... sulfur!

In the process of peat formation, various elements enter the coal, most of which are concentrated in the ash. When coal is burned, sulfur and some volatile elements are released into the atmosphere. The relative content of sulfur and ash-forming substances in coal determines the grade of coal. High-grade coal has less sulfur and less ash than low-grade coal, so it is in greater demand and more expensive.

Although the sulfur content of coals can vary from 1 to 10%, most coals used in industry have a sulfur content of 1-5%. However, sulfur impurities are undesirable even in small quantities. When coal is burned, most of the sulfur is released into the atmosphere as harmful pollutants called sulfur oxides. In addition, the admixture of sulfur has a negative impact on the quality of coke and steel smelted on the basis of the use of such coke. Combining with oxygen and water, sulfur forms sulfuric acid, which corrodes the mechanisms of coal-fired thermal power plants. Sulfuric acid is present in mine waters seeping out of waste workings, in mine and overburden dumps, polluting the environment and preventing the development of vegetation.

And here the question arises: where did sulfur come from in peat (or coal) ?!. More precisely: where did it come from in such a large number ?!. Up to ten percent!

I'm ready to bet - even with my far from complete education in the field of organic chemistry - such amounts of sulfur have never been in wood and could not be! .. Neither in wood nor in other vegetation that could become the basis of peat, in the future transformed into coal! .. There is less sulfur by several orders of magnitude! ..

If you type in a search engine a combination of the words "sulfur" and "wood", then most often only two options are displayed, both of which are associated with the "artificial and applied" use of sulfur: for wood conservation and for pest control. In the first case, the property of sulfur to crystallize is used: it clogs the pores of the tree and is not removed from them at ordinary temperatures. In the second, they are based on the toxic properties of sulfur, even in small quantities.

If there was so much sulfur in the original peat, then how could the trees that formed it grow at all? ..

And how, instead of dying out, on the contrary, all those insects that bred in incredible numbers in the Carboniferous period and at a later time felt more than comfortable? .. However, even now the swampy area creates very comfortable conditions for them ...

But sulfur in coal is not just a lot, but a lot! .. Since we are talking about even sulfuric acid in general! ..

And what's more: coal is often accompanied by deposits of such a useful sulfur compound in the economy as sulfur pyrite. Moreover, the deposits are so large that its extraction is organized on an industrial scale! ..

…in the Donets Basin, the extraction of coal and anthracite of the Carboniferous period also proceeds in parallel with the development of the iron ores mined here. Further, among the minerals, one can name limestone of the Carboniferous period [The Church of the Savior and many other buildings in Moscow were built from limestone exposed in the vicinity of the capital itself], dolomite, gypsum, anhydrite: the first two rocks as a good building material, the second two as a material for processing into alabaster and, finally, rock salt.

Sulfur pyrite is an almost constant companion of coal and, moreover, sometimes in such quantity that it makes it unfit for consumption (for example, coal from the Moscow basin). Sulfur pyrite is used to produce sulfuric acid, and from it, by metamorphization, those iron ores, which we spoke about above, originated.

This is no longer a mystery. This is a direct and immediate discrepancy between the theory of coal formation from peat and real empirical data!!!

The picture of the "generally accepted" version, to put it mildly, ceases to be ideal ...

Now let's go directly to coal.

And help us here ... creationists are such fierce supporters of the biblical view of history that they are not too lazy to grind a bunch of information, just to somehow adjust reality to the texts of the Old Testament. The Carboniferous period - with its duration of a good hundred million years and which took place (according to the accepted geological scale) three hundred million years ago - does not fit in with the Old Testament, and therefore creationists diligently look for flaws in the "generally accepted" theory of the origin of coal...

“If we consider the number of ore-bearing horizons in one of the basins (for example, in the Saarbrug basin in one layer of approximately 5000 meters there are about 500 of them), then it becomes obvious that the Carboniferous within the framework of such a model of origin should be considered as a whole geological epoch that took time many millions of years ... Among the deposits of the Carboniferous period, coal can in no way be considered as the main component of fossil rocks. Separate layers are separated by intermediate rocks, the layer of which sometimes reaches many meters and which are empty rock - it makes up most of the layers of the Carboniferous period ”(R. Juncker, Z. Scherer,“ History of the Origin and Development of Life ”).

Trying to explain the features of the occurrence of coal by the events of the Flood, creationists confuse the picture even more. Meanwhile, this very observation of them is very curious!.. After all, if you look closely at these features, you can notice a number of oddities.

Approximately 65% ​​of fossil fuels are in the form of bituminous coal. Bituminous coal is found in all geological systems, but mainly in the Carboniferous and Permian periods. Initially, it was deposited in the form of thin layers that could extend over hundreds of square kilometers. Bituminous coal often shows traces of the original vegetation. 200-300 such interlayers occur in the northwestern coal deposits of Germany. These layers date back to the Carboniferous period and they run through 4,000 meters of thick sedimentary layers that are stacked one on top of the other. The layers are separated from each other by layers of sedimentary rocks (eg sandstone, limestone, shale). According to the evolutionary/uniformist model, these layers are supposed to have formed as a result of repeated transgressions and regressions of the seas at that time into coastal swamp forests over a total of about 30–40 million years.

It is clear that the swamp can dry out after some time. And on top of the peat, sand and other precipitation, typical for accumulation on land, will accumulate. The climate may then become wetter again, and the swamp re-forms. This is quite possible. Even multiple times.

Although the situation is not with a dozen, but with hundreds (!!!) of such layers, it is somewhat reminiscent of a joke about a man who stumbled, fell on a knife, got up and fell again, got up and fell - “and so thirty-three times” ...

But even more dubious is the version of a multiple change in the regime of sedimentation in those cases when the gaps between the coal seams are no longer filled with sediments characteristic of land, but with limestone! ..

Limestone deposits are formed only in reservoirs. Moreover, limestone of this quality, which takes place in America and Europe in the corresponding layers, could be formed only in the sea (but not in lakes at all - it turns out to be too loose there). And the "generally accepted" theory has to assume that in these regions there has been a multiple change in sea level. Which, without batting an eyelid, she does...

In no epoch did these so-called secular fluctuations occur so often and intensely, albeit very slowly, as in the Carboniferous period. Coastal expanses of land, on which abundant vegetation grew and buried, sank, and even significantly, below sea level. Conditions gradually changed. Sands and then limestones were deposited on the ground swampy deposits. In other places, the opposite happened.

The situation with hundreds of such successive dives/ascents, even for such a long period, no longer even resembles a joke, but complete absurdity!..

Furthermore. Let us recall the conditions of coal formation from peat according to the "generally accepted" theory!.. To do this, peat must sink to a depth of several kilometers and fall into conditions of high pressure and temperature.

It is foolish, of course, to assume that a layer of peat accumulated, then sank several kilometers below the surface of the earth, transformed into coal, then somehow ended up again on the very surface (albeit under water), where an intermediate layer of limestone accumulated, and finally, all this again turned out to be on land, where the newly formed swamp began to form the next layer, after which such a cycle was repeated many hundreds of times. This version of events looks completely delusional.

Rather, it is necessary to assume a slightly different scenario.

Let's assume that vertical movements did not occur every time. Let the layers accumulate first. And only then the peat was at the required depth.

It all looks so much more reasonable. But…

Again there is another "but"! ..

Then why didn't the limestone accumulated between the layers also undergo metamorphization processes?!. After all, he had to turn into marble at least partially! .. And such a transformation is not even mentioned anywhere ...

It turns out some kind of selective effect of temperature and pressure: they affect some layers, but not others ... This is not just a discrepancy, but a complete discrepancy with the known laws of nature! ..

And in addition to the previous one - another small fly in the ointment.

We have quite a few deposits of coal, where this fossil lies so close to the surface that it is mined in an open way. And, in addition, the layers of coal are often located horizontally.

If in the course of its formation coal at some stage was at a depth of several kilometers, and then rose higher in the course of geological processes, retaining its horizontal position, then where did the very kilometers of other rocks that were above the coal and under the pressure of which it formed?

Did the rain wash them all away?

But there are even more obvious contradictions.

So, for example, the same creationists noticed such a rather common strange feature of coal deposits as the non-parallelism of its different layers.

“In extremely rare cases, coal seams lie parallel to each other. Nearly all hard coal deposits at some point split into two or more separate seams (Figure 6). The combination of an already almost fractured layer with another, located above, from time to time appears in the deposits in the form of Z-shaped joints (Fig. 7). It is difficult to imagine how two superimposed strata should have arisen from the deposition of growing and replacing forests if they are connected to each other by crowded groups of folds or even Z-shaped joints. The connecting diagonal layer of the Z-shaped connection is particularly striking evidence that both layers that it connects were originally formed simultaneously and were one layer, but now they are two horizontal lines of petrified vegetation located parallel to each other ”(R. Juncker, Z .Scherer, "History of the origin and development of life").

Formation fault and crowded groups of folds in the lower and middle

Bochum deposits on the left bank of the lower Rhine (Scheven, 1986)

Z-junctions in the middle Bochum layers

in the Oberhausen-Duisburg area. (Scheven, 1986)

Creationists are trying to “explain” these oddities in the occurrence of coal seams by replacing the “stationary” swampy forest with some kind of “floating on water” forests ...

Let's leave alone this “replacement of sewing with soap”, which actually changes absolutely nothing and only makes the overall picture much less likely. Let us pay attention to the fact itself: such folds and Z-shaped joints fundamentally contradict the “generally accepted” scenario of the origin of coal!.. And within the framework of this scenario, folds and Z-shaped joints cannot be explained at all!.. data ubiquitous!

What?.. Enough doubts about the “ideal picture” have already been sown?..

Well then, let me add a little...

On fig. 8 shows a petrified tree passing through several layers of coal. It seems to be a direct confirmation of the formation of coal from plant residues. But again there is a "but" ...

Polystrate wood fossil, penetrating several coal layers at once

(from R. Juncker, Z. Scherer, "The History of the Origin and Development of Life").

It is believed that coal is formed from plant residues during the process of coalification or charring. That is, during the decomposition of complex organic substances, leading to the formation of “pure” carbon under conditions of oxygen deficiency.

However, the term "fossil" suggests something different. When people talk about petrified organics, they mean the result of the process of replacing carbon with siliceous compounds. And this is a fundamentally different physical and chemical process than coalification!..

Then for Fig. 8, it turns out that in some strange way, in the same natural conditions with the same source material, two completely different processes simultaneously occurred - petrification and coalification. Moreover, only the tree was petrified, and everything else around was coalified!.. Again, some kind of selective action of external factors, contrary to all known laws.

Here's to you, father, and St. George's day! ..

In a number of cases, it is stated that coal was formed not only from the remains of whole plants, or at least mosses, but even from ... plant spores (see above)! They say that microscopic spores accumulated in such quantity that, being compressed and processed in conditions of kilometer depths, they gave coal deposits of hundreds or even millions of tons!!!

I don’t know about anyone, but such statements seem to me to go beyond not just logic, but common sense in general. And after all, such nonsense is quite seriously written in books and replicated on the Internet! ..

Oh, times!.. Oh. morals!.. Where is your mind, Man!?.

It is not even worth going into the analysis of the version of the originally plant origin of the last two links in the chain - graphite and diamond. For one simple reason: there is nothing to be found here except purely speculative and far from real chemistry and physics rantings about some "specific conditions", "high temperatures and pressures", which ultimately results only in such an age of the "original peat" that exceeds all conceivable boundaries of the existence of any complex biological forms on Earth ...

I think that on this it is already possible to finish “dismantling the bones” of the well-established “generally accepted” version. And move on to the process of collecting the resulting "fragments" in a new way into a single whole, but on the basis of a different - abiogenic version.

For those of the readers who still hold up their sleeves the "trump card" - "imprints and carbonized remains" of vegetation in hard and brown coal - I will only ask you to be patient a little more. Seemingly "unkilled" this trump card we will kill a little later ...

Let's return to the already mentioned monograph "Unknown Hydrogen" by S. Digonsky and V. Ten. The previous quote, in its entirety, actually reads as follows:

“Given the recognized role of deep gases, and also based on the material presented in Chapter 1, the genetic relationship of natural carbonaceous substances with juvenile hydrogen-methane fluid can be described as follows.1. From the gas-phase system С-О-Н (methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide), solid and liquid carbonaceous substances can be synthesized both in artificial conditions and in nature.2. Natural diamond is formed by instantaneous heating of natural gaseous carbon compounds.3. Pyrolysis of methane diluted with hydrogen under artificial conditions leads to the synthesis of pyrolytic graphite, and in nature to the formation of graphite and, most likely, all varieties of coal.4. Pyrolysis of pure methane under artificial conditions leads to the synthesis of soot, and in nature - to the formation of shungite.5. Pyrolysis of methane diluted with carbon dioxide under artificial conditions leads to the synthesis of liquid and solid hydrocarbons, and in nature to the formation of the entire genetic series of bituminous substances.”

The cited Chapter 1 of this monograph is titled "Polymorphism of solids" and is largely devoted to the crystallographic structure of graphite and its formation during the stepwise transformation of methane under the influence of heat into graphite, which is usually represented only as a general equation:

CH4 → Sgraphite + 2H2

But this general form of the equation hides the most important details of the process that actually takes place.

“... in accordance with the rule of Gay-Lusac and Ostwald, according to which, in any chemical process, not the most stable final state of the system initially occurs, but the least stable state, which is closest in energy value to the initial state of the system, i.e., if between the initial and the final states of the system, there are a number of intermediate relatively stable states, they will successively replace each other in the order of a stepwise change in energy. This “rule of stepwise transitions”, or “the law of successive reactions”, also corresponds to the principles of thermodynamics, since in this case there is a monotonous change in energy from the initial to the final state, taking successively all possible intermediate values ​​”(S. Digonsky, V. Ten,“ unknown hydrogen).

When applied to the process of graphite formation from methane, this means that methane not only loses hydrogen atoms during pyrolysis, passing successively through the stages of "residues" with different amounts of hydrogen - these "residues" also participate in reactions, interacting with each other as well. This leads to the fact that the crystallographic structure of graphite is, in fact, interconnected not at all atoms of “pure” carbon (located, as we are taught at school, at the nodes of a square grid), but hexagons of benzene rings! .. It turns out, that graphite is a complex hydrocarbon in which there is simply little hydrogen left! ..

On fig. 10, which shows a photograph of crystalline graphite with a 300-fold increase, this is clearly visible: the crystals have a pronounced hexagonal (i.e., hexagonal) shape, and not at all square.

Crystallographic model of graphite structure

Micrograph of a single crystal of natural graphite. SW. 300.

(from the monograph "Unknown Hydrogen")

Actually, from all the mentioned Chapter 1, only one idea is important to us here. The idea that in the process of decomposition of methane, the formation of complex hydrocarbons occurs in a completely natural way! It happens because it turns out to be energetically favorable!

And not only gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons, but also solid ones!

And what is also very important: we are not talking about some purely theoretical research, but about the results of empirical research. Research, some areas of which, in fact, have long been put on stream (see Fig. 11)!..

(from the monograph "Unknown Hydrogen")

Well, now it's time to deal with the "trump card" of the version of the organic origin of brown and black coal - the presence of "coalified plant residues" in them.

Such "carbonized plant residues" are found in coal deposits in huge quantities. Paleobotanists "confidently identify plant species" in these "remains".

It was on the basis of the abundance of these "remnants" that the conclusion was made about almost tropical conditions in the vast regions of our planet and the conclusion about the violent flowering of the plant world in the Carboniferous period.

Moreover, as mentioned above, even the "age" of coal deposits is "determined" by the types of vegetation that "imprinted" and "preserved" in the form of "remains" in this coal ...

Indeed, at first glance, such a trump card seems unkillable.

But this is only at first glance. In fact, the "unkilled trump card" is killed quite easily. What I will do now. I will do it “by someone else's hands”, referring all to the same monograph “Unknown Hydrogen” ...

“In 1973, an article by the great biologist A.A. Lyubishchev "Frost patterns on glass" ["Knowledge is power", 1973, No. 7, p.23-26]. In this article, he drew attention to the striking external similarity of ice patterns with a variety of plant structures. Considering that there are general laws governing the formation of forms in wildlife and inorganic matter, A.A. Lyubishchev noted that one of the botanists mistook a photograph of an ice pattern on glass for a photograph of a thistle.

From the point of view of chemistry, frosty patterns on glass are the result of gas-phase crystallization of water vapor on a cold substrate. Naturally, water is not the only substance capable of forming such patterns when crystallized from a gas phase, solution or melt. At the same time, no one tries - even with extreme similarity - to establish a genetic relationship between inorganic dendritic formations and plants. However, completely different reasoning can be heard if plant patterns or forms acquire carbonaceous substances crystallizing from the gas phase, as shown in Fig. 12, borrowed from the work [V.I. Berezkin, "On the soot model of the origin of Karelian schungites", Geology and Physics, 2005. v.46, No. 10, p.1093-1101].

When pyrolytic graphite was obtained by pyrolysis of methane diluted with hydrogen, it was found that, away from the gas flow, in stagnant zones, dendritic forms are formed that are very similar to “vegetable remains”, clearly indicating the vegetable origin of fossil coals” (S. Digonsky, V. Ten, "Unknown Hydrogen").

Electron microscopic images of carbon fibers

in geometry to the light.

a – observed in shungite substance,

b - synthesized during the catalytic decomposition of light hydrocarbons

Next, I will give some photographs of formations that are not prints in coal at all, but a “by-product” during the pyrolysis of methane under different conditions. These are photographs both from the monograph "Unknown Hydrogen" and from the personal archive of S.V. Digonsky. who kindly gave them to me.

I will give almost no comments, which, in my opinion, will simply be superfluous ...

(from the monograph "Unknown Hydrogen")

(from the monograph "Unknown Hydrogen")

Trump card beat...

The “reliably scientifically established” version of the organic origin of coal and other fossil hydrocarbons did not have any serious real support left ...

And what in return?..

And in return - a rather elegant version of the abiogenic origin of all carbonaceous minerals (with the exception of peat).

1. Hydride compounds in the bowels of our planet decompose when heated, releasing hydrogen, which, in full accordance with the law of Archimedes, rushes up - to the surface of the Earth.

2. On its way, due to its high chemical activity, hydrogen interacts with the substance of the interior, forming various compounds. Including such gaseous substances as methane CH4, hydrogen sulfide H2S, ammonia NH3, water vapor H2O and the like.

3. Under conditions of high temperatures and in the presence of other gases that are part of the fluids of the subsoil, there is a step-by-step decomposition of methane, which, in full accordance with the laws of physical chemistry, leads to the formation of gaseous hydrocarbons, including complex ones.

4. Rising both along the existing cracks and faults in the earth's crust, and forming new ones under pressure, these hydrocarbons fill all the cavities available to them in geological rocks (see Fig. 22). And due to contact with these colder rocks, gaseous hydrocarbons pass into a different phase state and (depending on the composition and environmental conditions) form deposits of liquid and solid minerals - oil, brown and coal, anthracite, graphite and even diamonds.

5. In the process of formation of solid deposits, in accordance with the still far unexplored laws of self-organization of matter, under appropriate conditions, the formation of ordered forms occurs, including those reminiscent of the forms of the living world.

All! The scheme is extremely simple and concise! Exactly as much as a brilliant idea requires ...

Schematic section illustrating common localization conditions

and the shape of graphite veins in pegmatites

(from the monograph "Unknown Hydrogen")

This simple version removes all the contradictions and inconsistencies mentioned above. And oddities in the location of oil fields; and inexplicable replenishment of oil tanks; and crowded fold groups with Z-junctions in coal seams; and the presence of large amounts of sulfur in coals of different breeds; and contradictions in the dating of deposits, and so on and so forth ...

And all this without the need to resort to such exotic things as "planktonic algae", "spore deposits" and "multiple transgressions and regressions of the sea" over vast territories...

Earlier, only some of the consequences that the version of the abiogenic origin of carbon minerals entails were actually mentioned in passing. Now we can analyze in more detail what all of the above leads to.

The simplest conclusion that follows from the above photographs of "carbonized plant forms", which in fact are only forms of pyrolytic graphite, will be this: paleobotanists now need to think hard! ..

It is clear that all their conclusions, "discoveries of new species" and systematization of the so-called "vegetation of the Carboniferous period", which are made on the basis of "imprints" and "remains" in coal, should simply be thrown into the wastebasket. No, and there were no such species! ..

Of course, there are still imprints in other rocks - for example, in limestone or shale deposits. Here the basket may not be needed. But you have to think!

However, it is worth considering not only paleobotanists, but also paleontologists. The fact is that in the experiments not only “plant” forms were obtained, but also those that belong to the animal world! ..

As S.V. Digonsky put it in a personal correspondence with me: “Gas-phase crystallization generally works wonders - both fingers and ears came across” ...

Paleoclimatologists also need to think hard. After all, if there was no such violent development of vegetation, which was required only to explain the powerful deposits of coal in the framework of the organic version of its origin, then a natural question arises: was there a tropical climate in the so-called "Carboniferous period"? ..

And it was not for nothing that at the beginning of the article I gave a description of the conditions not only in the "Carboniferous period", as they are now presented within the framework of the "generally accepted" picture, but also captured the segments before and after. There is a very curious detail: before the "Carboniferous period" - at the end of Devon - the climate is rather cool and arid, and after - at the beginning of Perm - the climate is also cool and arid. Before the "Carboniferous period" we have a "red continent", and after we have the same "red continent" ...

The following logical question arises: was there a warm "Carboniferous period" at all ?!.

Remove it - and the edges will sew together wonderfully! ..

And by the way, a relatively cool climate, which will eventually turn out for the entire segment from the beginning of Devon right up to the end of Perm, will perfectly fit with a minimum of heat from the bowels of the Earth before the start of its active expansion.

ut, of course, geologists will have to think.

Remove from the analysis all coal, which previously required a significant period of time to form (until all the “original peat” accumulates) - what will remain?!

Will there be other deposits? .. I agree. But…

It is customary to divide geological periods in accordance with some global differences from neighboring periods. What is it?..

There was no tropical climate. There was no global peat formation. There were no multiple vertical movements either - what was the bottom of the sea, accumulating limestone deposits, remained this bottom of the sea! On the contrary: the process of condensation of hydrocarbons into a solid phase had to take place in a closed space!.. Otherwise, they would simply dissipate into the air and cover large areas without forming such dense deposits.

Incidentally, such an abiogenic scheme for the formation of coal indicates that the process of this formation began much later, when layers of limestone (and other rocks) had already formed. Furthermore. There is no single period of formation of coal at all. Hydrocarbons continue to come from the depths to this day!..

True, if there is no end to the process, then there may be its beginning ...

But if we associate the flow of hydrocarbons from the bowels precisely with the hydride structure of the planet's core, then the time of formation of the main carboniferous seams should be attributed to a hundred million years later (according to the existing geological scale)! By the time when the active expansion of the planet began - that is, to the turn of Perm and Triassic. And then the Triassic must already be correlated with coal (as a characteristic geological object), and not at all some kind of "Carboniferous period", which ended with the beginning of the Permian period.

And then the question arises: what are the grounds for distinguishing the so-called "Carboniferous period" in a separate geological period? ..

From what can be gleaned from the popular literature on geology, I come to the conclusion that there are simply no grounds for such a distinction! ..

And consequently, the conclusion is drawn: there was simply no “Carboniferous period” in the history of the Earth! ..

I don't know what to do with a good hundred million years.

Whether to cross them out altogether, or distribute them somehow between Devon and Perm…

Don't know…

Let the experts break their heads over this in the end! ..

Huge deposits of coal are found in the deposits of this period. Hence the name of the period. There is another name for it - carbon.

The Carboniferous period is divided into three sections: lower, middle and upper. During this period, the physical and geographical conditions of the Earth underwent significant changes. The outlines of the continents and seas repeatedly changed, new mountain ranges, seas, and islands arose. At the beginning of the Carboniferous, a significant subsidence of the land takes place. The vast areas of Atlantia, Asia, and Rondwana were flooded by the sea. The area of ​​large islands has decreased. Disappeared under water deserts of the northern continent. The climate became very warm and humid,

In the Lower Carboniferous, an intensive mountain-building process begins: the Ardepny, Gary, the Ore Mountains, the Sudetes, the Atlasspe Mountains, the Australian Cordillera, and the West Siberian Mountains are formed. The sea is receding.

In the middle Carboniferous, the land descends again, but much less than in the lower one. Thick strata of continental deposits accumulate in intermountain basins. Formed Eastern Ural, Penninskis mountains.

In the Upper Carboniferous, the sea recedes again. Inland seas are significantly reduced. On the territory of Gondwana, large glaciers appear, in Africa and Australia, somewhat smaller ones.

At the end of the Carboniferous in Europe and North America, the climate undergoes changes, becoming partly temperate, and partly hot and dry. At this time, the formation of the Central Urals takes place.

Marine sedimentary deposits of the Carboniferous period are mainly represented by clays, sandstones, limestones, shales and volcanogenic rocks. Continental - mainly coal, clays, sands and other rocks.

Intensified volcanic activity in the Carboniferous led to the saturation of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. Volcanic ash, which is a wonderful fertilizer, made fertile carboxylic soils.

A warm and humid climate prevailed on the continents for a long time. All this created extremely favorable conditions for the development of terrestrial flora, including higher plants of the Carboniferous period - bushes, trees and herbaceous plants, whose life was closely connected with water. They grew chiefly among vast swamps and lakes, near brackish lagoons, on the shores of the seas, on damp muddy soil. In their way of life, they resembled modern mangroves that grow on the low-lying shores of tropical seas, at the mouths of large rivers, in swampy lagoons, rising above the water on high stilted roots.

Significant development in the Carboniferous period was received by lycopods, arthropods and ferns, which gave a large number of tree-like forms.

Tree-like lycopods reached 2 m in diameter and 40 m in height. They didn't have annual rings yet. An empty trunk with a powerful branched crown was securely held in loose soil by a large rhizome, branching into four main branches. These branches, in turn, were dichotomously divided into root processes. Their leaves, up to a meter in length, adorned the ends of the branches with thick plump-shaped bunches. At the ends of the leaves there were buds in which spores developed. Trunks of lycopods were covered with scarred scales. Leaves were attached to them. During this period, giant club-shaped lepidodendrons with rhombic scars on the trunks and sigillaria with hexagonal scars were common. In contrast to most club-like sigillaria, there was an almost unbranched trunk on which sporangia grew. Among the lycopods there were also herbaceous plants, which completely died out in the Permian period.

Articular plants are divided into two groups: cuneiform and calamites. Cuneiformes were aquatic plants. They had a long, jointed, slightly ribbed stem, to the nodes of which leaves were attached in rings. Reniform formations contained spores. Cuneiformes kept on the water with the help of long branched stems, similar to the modern water ranunculus. Cuneiformes appeared in the middle Devonian and died out in the Permian period.

Calamites were tree-like plants up to 30 m tall. They formed swamp forests. Some types of calamites penetrated far to the mainland. Their ancient forms had dichotomous leaves. Subsequently, forms with simple leaves and annual rings prevailed. These plants had a highly branched rhizome. Often, additional roots and branches covered with leaves grew from the trunk.

At the end of the Carboniferous, the first representatives of horsetails appear - small herbaceous plants. Among the carboxylic flora, ferns played a prominent role, in particular herbaceous ones, but reminiscent of psilophytes in their structure, and real ferns, large tree-like plants, fixed by rhizomes in soft soil. They had a rough trunk with numerous branches on which grew broad fern-like leaves.

Gymnosperms of carbon forests belong to the subclasses of seed ferns and stachyospermids. Their fruits developed on leaves, which is a sign of primitive organization. At the same time, linear or lanceolate leaves of gymnosperms had a rather complex vein formation. The most perfect plants of the Carboniferous are cordaites. Their cylindrical leafless trunks up to 40 m branched in height. The branches had wide, linear or lanceolate leaves with reticulate venation at the ends. Male sporangia (microsporangia) looked like kidneys. Nut-shaped sporangia developed from female sporangia: . fruit. The results of microscopic examination of the fruits show that these plants, similar to cycads, were transitional forms to coniferous plants.

The first mushrooms, moss-like plants (terrestrial and freshwater), sometimes forming colonies, and lichens appear in the coal forests.

In marine and freshwater basins, algae continue to exist: green, red and char.

When considering the Carboniferous flora as a whole, the variety of forms of leaves of tree-like plants is striking. Scars on the trunks of plants throughout life kept long, lanceolate leaves. The ends of the branches were decorated with huge leafy crowns. Sometimes leaves grew along the entire length of the branches.

Another characteristic feature of the Carboniferous flora is the development of an underground root system. Strongly branched roots grew in the silty soil and new shoots grew from them. At times, significant areas were cut by underground roots.

In places of rapid accumulation of silty sediments, the roots held the trunks with numerous shoots. The most important feature of the Carboniferous flora is that the plants did not differ in rhythmic growth in thickness.

The distribution of the same carboniferous plants from North America to Svalbard indicates that a relatively uniform warm climate prevailed from the tropics to the poles, which was replaced by a rather cool one in the Upper Carboniferous. Gymnosperms and cordaites grew in a cool climate.

In the Devonian, plants and animals were just beginning to explore the land, in the Carboniferous they mastered it. At the same time, an interesting transitional effect was observed - plants have already learned how to produce wood, but fungi and animals have not yet learned how to effectively consume it in real time. Due to this effect, a complex multi-stage process was initiated, as a result of which a significant part of the carbonic land turned into vast swampy plains, littered with undecayed trees, where coal and oil layers formed under the surface of the earth. Most of these minerals were formed in the Carboniferous period. Due to the massive removal of carbon from the biosphere, the oxygen content in the atmosphere has more than doubled - from 15% (in the Devonian) to 32.5% (now 20%). This is close to the limit for organic life - at high concentrations of oxygen, antioxidants cease to cope with the side effects of oxygen respiration.

Wikipedia describes 170 genera related to the Carboniferous period. The dominant type, as before, is vertebrates (56% of all genera). The dominant class of vertebrates is still lobe-finned (41% of all genera), they can no longer be called lobe-finned fish, because the lion's share of lobe-finned fish (29% of all genera) acquired four limbs and ceased to be fish. The classification of carbon tetrapods is very cunning, confusing and contradictory. When describing it, it is difficult to use the usual words “class”, “detachment” and “family” - small and similar families of carbon tetrapods gave rise to huge classes of dinosaurs, birds, mammals, etc. As a first approximation, carbon tetrapods are divided into two large groups and six small ones. We will consider them gradually, in descending order of diversity.

The first large group is reptiliomorphs (13% of all genera). These animals led a terrestrial rather than aquatic lifestyle (although not all of them), many of them did not spawn, but carried eggs with strong shells, and not tadpoles hatched from these eggs, but fully formed reptiliomorphs that need to grow, but radically there is no need to change the structure of the body. By the standards of the Carboniferous period, these were very advanced animals, they already had normal nostrils and ears (not auricles, but hearing aids inside the head). The most numerous subgroup of reptiliomorphs is synapsids (6% of all genera). Let's start considering synapsids with their largest group - ophiacodonts. They were moderately large (50 cm - 1.3 m) "lizards", nothing particularly remarkable. The word "lizards" is in quotation marks, because they have nothing to do with modern lizards, the resemblance is purely external. Here, for example, is the smallest of the ophiacodonts - Archeotiris:

Other synapsids, varanopids, were more reminiscent of modern monitor lizards than lizards in their anatomical features. But they had nothing to do with monitor lizards, these are all tricks of parallel evolution. In the Carboniferous, they were small (up to 50 cm).

The third group of synapsids of the Carboniferous are edaphosaurs. They became the first large herbivorous vertebrates, for the first time occupying the ecological niche of modern cows. Many edaphosaurs had a folding sail on their backs, which allowed them to more effectively regulate their body temperature (for example, to keep warm, you need to go out into the sun and open the sail). Edaphosaurus of the Carboniferous period reached 3.5 m in length, their weight reached 300 kg.

The last group of synapsids of the Carboniferous period worth mentioning are sphenacodonts. These were predators, for the first time in the history of tetrapods, powerful fangs grew at the corners of their jaws. Sphenacodonts are our distant ancestors, all mammals descended from them. Their sizes ranged from 60 cm to 3 m, they looked something like this:

On this topic, synapsids are revealed, let's consider other, less prosperous groups of reptiliomorphs. In second place (4% of all genera), anthracosaurs are the most primitive reptiliomorphs, possibly the ancestors of all other groups. They did not yet have a tympanic membrane in their ears, and in childhood they may have still passed the tadpole stage. Some anthracosaurs had a weakly pronounced tail fin. The sizes of anthracosaurs ranged from 60 cm to 4.6 m

The third large group of reptiliomorphs is sauropsids (2% of all genera of the Carboniferous). These were small (20-40 cm) lizards, already without quotes, in contrast to the lizard-like synapsids. Hylonomus (in the first picture) is the distant ancestor of all turtles, petrolacosaurus (in the second picture) is the distant ancestor of all other modern reptiles, as well as dinosaurs and birds.

To finally reveal the topic of reptiliomorphs, let's mention the strange creature of the Soledondosaurus (up to 60 cm), which is generally not clear which branch of the reptiliomorphs to attribute to:

So, the topic of reptiliomorphs is revealed. Now let's move on to the second large group of tetrapods of the Carboniferous - amphibians (11% of all genera). Their largest subgroup was temnospondyls (6% of all genera of the Carboniferous). Previously, they, together with anthracosaurs, were called labyrinthodonts, later it turned out that the unusual structure of the teeth in anthracosaurs and temnospondyls formed independently. Temnospondyls are similar to modern newts and salamanders, the largest reaching a length of 2 m.

The second and last large group of amphibians of the Carboniferous are lepospondyls (thin vertebrae), they include 5% of all genera of the Carboniferous period. These creatures have completely or partially lost their limbs and have become similar to snakes. Their sizes ranged from 15 cm to 1 m.

So, all the large flourishing groups of tetrapods have already been considered. Let's take a brief look at small groups that almost do not differ from those described above, but are not closely related to them. These are transitional forms or dead-end branches of evolution. So let's go. Baphotids:

and other, very small groups:

On this topic, the tetrapods are finally revealed, let's move on to the fish. Cross-finned fishes (namely, fish, excluding tetrapods) make up 11% of all genera in the Carboniferous, while the layout is approximately as follows: 5% are tetrapodomorphs that did not go through the development of land, another 5% are coelacanths, and the remaining 1% are the miserable remnants of the Devonian diversity lungfish. In the Carboniferous, tetrapods displaced lungfish from almost all ecological niches.

In the seas and rivers, the lobe-finned fishes were strongly pressed by cartilaginous fishes. Now they are no longer a few births, as in the Devonian, but 14% of all births. The largest subclass of cartilaginous fishes is plastic gills (9% of all genera), the largest superorder of lamellar gills is sharks (6% of all genera). But these are not at all the sharks that swim in modern seas. The largest detachment of Carboniferous sharks are eugeneodonts (3% of all genera)

The most interesting feature of this order is the dental spiral - a long, soft outgrowth on the lower jaw, studded with teeth and usually coiled. Perhaps, during the hunt, this spiral was shot out of the mouth, like a "mother-in-law's tongue", and either grabbed the prey, or cut it like a saw. Or maybe it was meant for something else entirely. However, not all eugeneodonts have a dental spiral in all its glory, some eugenodonts had dental arches (one or two) instead of a dental spiral, which are generally not clear why they are needed. A typical example is edestus

Eugeneodonts were large fish - from 1 to 13 m,Campodusbecame the largest animal of all time, breaking the Devonian record of the dunkleosteus.

However, the helocoprion was only a meter shorter

The second large detachment of Carboniferous sharks are symmoriids (2% of all genera). This includes the stethacant, already familiar to us from the Devonian survey. Symmoriids were relatively small sharks, no more than 2 m in length.

The third order of Carboniferous sharks, worthy of mention, is xenacanthids. These were moderately large predators, from 1 to 3 m:

An example of a Late Carboniferous xenocanthus is at least a pleuracanthus, one of the most studied representatives of ancient sharks. These sharks were found in the fresh waters of Australia, Europe and North America, complete remains were dug up in the mountains near the city of Pilsen. Despite the relatively small size - 45-200 cm, usually 75 cm - pleuracanths were formidable enemies for acanthodias and other small fish of that time. Attacking a fish, the pleuracanth instantly destroyed it with its teeth, each of which had two divergent points. Moreover, they hunted, as it is believed, in packs. According to the assumptions of scientists, pleuracanths laid their eggs, connected by a membrane, in the shallow and sunny corners of small reservoirs. Moreover, both freshwater and brackish water reservoirs. Pleuracanths were also found in the Permian - their numerous remains were found in the Permian strata of the Central and Western

pleuracanthus

Europe. Then pleuracanths had to coexist with many other sharks adapted to the same habitat conditions.

It is impossible to ignore one of the most remarkable ktenokant sharks, which is also the property of the Carboniferous. I mean banding. The body of this shark did not exceed 40 cm in length, but almost half of it was occupied by ... a snout, a rostrum! The purpose of such an amazing invention of nature is not clear. Maybe the bandrings felt the bottom with the tip of their snouts in search of food? Maybe, like on a kiwi's beak, the nostrils were located at the end of the shark's rostrum and helped it to sniff everything around, since they had poor eyesight? So far, no one knows. Bandringa's occipital spine was not found, but most likely she had one. Amazing long-nosed sharks lived both in fresh waters and in salty ones.

The last Ctenocantans died out in the Triassic period.

On this topic, carbon sharks are fully disclosed. Let's mention a few more lamella-gill fish, similar to sharks, but not being them, these are tricks of parallel evolution. These “pseudo-sharks” include 2% of all genera of the Carboniferous, they were mainly small fish - up to 60 cm.

Now let's move on from laminabranchs to the second and last large subclass of cartilaginous fish - whole-headed (5% of all genera of the Carboniferous). These are small fish, similar to modern chimeras, but more diverse. Chimeras also belong to the whole-headed and already existed in the Carboniferous.

On this topic, cartilaginous fish are completely exhausted. Let's take a quick look at the two remaining classes of fish from the Carboniferous: ray-finned fish (7-18 cm):

and acanthode (up to 30 cm):

Both of these classes vegetated quietly in the Carboniferous. As for the armored fishes and almost all jawless fishes, they became extinct at the end of the Devonian, and thus the review of the fishes of the Carboniferous period is completed. Let us briefly mention that in the Carboniferous primitive chordates and hemichordates, which did not have a real backbone, were found here and there, and we will move on to the next large phylum of Carboniferous animals - arthropods (17% of all genera).

The main news in the world of arthropods is that on the transition from the Devonian to the Carboniferous, trilobites almost died out, only a small detachment remained of them, which continued a miserable existence until the next big extinction at the end of the Permian period. The second big news was the appearance of insects (6% of all genera). The abundance of oxygen in the air allowed these creatures not to form a normal respiratory system, but to use poor tracheae and feel no worse than other terrestrial arthropods. Contrary to popular belief, the diversity of insects in the Carboniferous period was small, most of them were very primitive. The only extensive detachment of Carboniferous insects is dragonflies, the largest of which (meganeura, shown in the picture) reached a wingspan of 75 cm, and approximately corresponded in mass to a modern crow. However, most Carboniferous dragonflies were much smaller.

The Carboniferous period, or Carboniferous (C), is the penultimate (fifth) geological period of the Paleozoic era. It started 358.9 ± 0.4 Ma ago and ended 298.9 ± 0.15 Ma ago. This prehistoric time period greatly influenced humanity, especially during the industrial revolution. This period got its name from the formation of huge underground beds of coal from fern plants that grew throughout Asia, northern Europe and parts of North America in those prehistoric times. Although the term "carbon" is used to describe the period throughout the world, in the United States it is divided into the Mississipian and Pennsylvania eras. The term Mississipian refers to the early part of this period, and Pennsylvania is used to describe the later part of this period.

This period was characterized by a climate close to tropical. It was warmer and wetter then than it is today. The seasons, even if they changed, could not be visually separated from each other. Scientists determined this by examining the fossilized remains of plants from that period and realized that they lack growth rings, which indicates a very mild change of seasons. The researchers realized that the climate was virtually uniform. Warm sea waters often flooded the land, and many plants were submerged and turned into peat after they had completed their life cycle. This peat will eventually turn into coal, so intensively used by man in our time.

Lipidodendral, or massive trees, lived at this time, and many of these species grew to about 1.5 meters in diameter (4.5 feet) and about 30 meters (90 feet) in height. Other plants that existed at this time are called horsetails, known as Equisetales, as well as club mosses, known as Lycopodiales; ferns known as Filicales; scrambling plants known as Sphenophyllales; cicadas known as Cycadophyta; seed ferns known as Callistophytales and conifers known as Volciales.

During the Carboniferous period, the Priapulids first appeared on the scene of life. These marine worms have grown to large sizes due to the higher oxygen concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere and due to the wet marshy environment. These factors also allowed the multi-legged creature known as Arthropleura to grow to about 2.6 meters (7.8 ft) in length. New insect species also began to appear and diversify during this period. Some of these include griffin flies known as Protodonata and dragonflies such as insects known as Meganeura. During this time, early cockroaches known as Dictyoptera appeared.

Life in the oceans during the Carboniferous period consisted mainly of various corals (tab and rugos), foraminifera, brachiopods, ostracods, echinoderms, and microconcids. However, these were not the only types of marine life. There were also sponges, Valvulina, Endothyra, Archaediscus, Aviculopecten, Posidonomya, Nucula, Carbonicola, Edmondia, and trilobites.

At the beginning of this period, the global temperature was quite high - about 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit). By the middle of the period, the temperature began to cool to about 12 degrees Celsius (about 54 degrees Fahrenheit). This cooling of the atmosphere, combined with very dry winds, led to the disappearance of the vegetation of the Carboniferous tropical forests. It was all this dead vegetation that formed a whole layer of coal on our planet.

Tsimbal Vladimir Anatolyevich is a lover and collector of plants. For many years he has been engaged in the morphology, physiology and history of plants, and has been conducting educational work.

In his book, the author invites us into the amazing and sometimes mysterious world of plants. Accessible and simple, even for an unprepared reader, the book tells about the structure of plants, the laws of their life, the history of the plant world. In a fascinating, almost detective form, the author talks about many mysteries and hypotheses related to the study of plants, their origin and development.

The book contains a large number of drawings and photographs by the author and is intended for a wide range of readers.

All drawings and photographs in the book belong to the author.

The publication was prepared with the support of the Dmitry Zimin Dynasty Foundation.

The Dynasty Foundation for Non-Commercial Programs was founded in 2001 by Dmitry Borisovich Zimin, Honorary President of VimpelCom. The priority areas of the Foundation's activities are support for fundamental science and education in Russia, popularization of science and education.

“Library of the Dynasty Foundation” is a project of the Foundation for the publication of modern popular science books selected by expert scientists. The book you are holding in your hands was published under the auspices of this project.

For more information about the Dynasty Foundation, please visit www.dynastyfdn.ru.

On the cover - Ginkgo biloba (Ginkgo biloba) against the background of the imprint of a leaf of the probable ancestor of Ginkgo - Psygmophyllum expansum.

Book:

<<< Назад

Forward >>>

Sections on this page:

The next period in the history of the Earth is the Carboniferous or, as it is often called, Carboniferous. One should not think that, for some magical reason, the change in the name of the period entails changes in the plant and animal world. No, the plant worlds of the Early Carboniferous and Late Devonian are not much different. Even in the Devonian, higher plants of all divisions, except for angiosperms, appeared. The Carboniferous period accounts for their further development and flourishing.

One of the important events that took place in the Carboniferous period was the emergence of different plant communities in different geographical areas. What does this mean?

At the beginning of the Carboniferous, it is difficult to find the difference between the plants of Europe, America, Asia. Unless there are some minor differences between the plants of the northern and southern hemispheres. But by the middle of the period, several areas with their own set of genera and species are clearly distinguished. Unfortunately, it is still very widely believed that the Carboniferous is a time of a universally warm, humid climate, when the entire Earth was covered with forests of huge, up to 30 m high, lycopsform - lepidodendrons and sigillaria, and huge tree-like "horsetails" - calamites and ferns. All this luxurious vegetation grew in swamps, where, after death, it formed deposits of coal. Well, to complete the picture, we must add giant dragonflies - meganevr and two-meter herbivorous centipedes.

It wasn't quite right. More precisely, it was not so everywhere. The fact is that in the Carboniferous, as now, the Earth was just as spherical and also rotated around its axis and revolved around the Sun. This means that even then on the Earth a zone of hot tropical climate passed along the equator, and it was cooler closer to the poles. Moreover, in the deposits of the end of the Carboniferous in the southern hemisphere, undoubted traces of very powerful glaciers were found. Why, even in textbooks, are we still told about the “warm and humid swamp”?

Such an idea of ​​the Carboniferous period was formed back in the 19th century, when paleontologists and, in particular, paleobotanists, only fossils from Europe were known. And Europe, like America, was in the tropics in the Carboniferous period. But to judge the flora and fauna only by one tropical zone, to put it mildly, is not entirely correct. Imagine that some paleobotanist after many millions of years, having unearthed the remains of the current tundra vegetation, will make a report on the topic "The flora of the Earth in the Quaternary period." According to his report, it turns out that you and I, dear reader, live in extremely harsh conditions. That the whole Earth is covered with an extremely poor flora, consisting mainly of lichens and mosses. Only in some places unfortunate people can stumble upon a dwarf birch and rare blueberry bushes. After describing such a bleak picture, our distant descendant will certainly conclude that a very cold climate prevailed everywhere on Earth, and will decide that the reason for this is the low content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, low volcanic activity, or, in extreme cases, in some another meteorite that shifted the earth's axis.

Unfortunately, this is the usual approach to the climates and inhabitants of the distant past. Instead of trying to collect and study samples of fossil plants from different regions of the Earth, find out which of them grew at the same time, and analyze the data obtained, although, of course, this is difficult and requires a significant investment of effort and time, a person seeks to disseminate that knowledge , which he received by watching the growth of a room palm in the living room, for the entire history of plants.

But we still note that in the Carboniferous period, approximately at the end of the Early Carboniferous, scientists already distinguish at least three large areas with different vegetation. This region is tropical - Euramerian, northern extratropical - Angara region or Angarida and southern extratropical - Gondwana region or Gondwana. On the modern map of the world, Angarida is called Siberia, and Gondwana is the united Africa, South America, Antarctica, Australia and the Hindustan peninsula. The Euramerian region is, as the name implies, Europe together with North America. The vegetation of these areas varied greatly. So, if spore plants dominated in the Euramerian region, then in Gondwana and Angara, starting from the middle of the Carboniferous, gymnosperms dominated. Moreover, the difference in the floras of these areas increased during the entire Carboniferous and at the beginning of the Permian.

Rice. 8. Cordaite. Possible ancestor of conifers. Carboniferous period.

What other important events took place in the plant kingdom of the Carboniferous period? It is necessary to note the appearance of the first conifers in the middle of the Carboniferous. When we talk about conifers, our familiar pines and spruces automatically come to mind. But coniferous carbons were a little different. These were, apparently, low, up to 10 meters, trees; in appearance, they slightly resembled modern araucaria. The structure of their cones was different. These ancient conifers grew, probably in relatively dry places, and descended from ... it is not yet known what ancestors. Again, the point of view accepted by almost all scientists on this issue is as follows: conifers descended from cordaites. Kordaites, which appeared, apparently, at the beginning of the Carboniferous period, and also descended from no one knows who, are very interesting and peculiar plants (Fig. 8). These were trees with leathery, lanceolate leaves collected in bunches at the ends of the shoots, sometimes very large, up to a meter long. The reproductive organs of cordaites were long thirty-centimeter shoots with male or female cones sitting on them. It should be noted that the cordaites were very different. There were also tall, slender trees, and there were inhabitants of shallow waters - plants with well-developed aerial roots, similar to modern inhabitants of mangroves. Among them were bushes.

In the Carboniferous, the first remains of cycads (or cycads) were also found - gymnosperms, few today, but very common in the Mesozoic era following the Paleozoic.

As you can see, the future "conquerors" of the Earth - conifers, cycads, some pteridosperms existed for a long time under the canopy of coal forests and accumulated strength for a decisive offensive.

Of course, you noticed the name "seed ferns". What are these plants? After all, if there are seeds, then the plant cannot be a fern. That's right, the name is perhaps not very successful. After all, we don't call amphibians "fish with legs." But this name very well shows the confusion experienced by scientists who discovered and studied these plants.

This name was proposed at the beginning of the 20th century by the outstanding English paleobotanists F. Oliver and D. Scott, who, studying the remains of plants of the Carboniferous period, which were considered ferns, found that seeds were attached to leaves similar to the leaves of modern ferns. These seeds sat at the ends of the feathers or directly on the rachis of the leaf, as in the leaves of the genus Alethopteris(photo 22). Then it turned out that most of the plants of the coal forests, which were previously taken for ferns, are seed plants. It was a good lesson. Firstly, this meant that in the past there lived plants completely different from modern ones, and secondly, scientists realized how deceptive external signs of similarity can be. Oliver and Scott gave this group of plants the name "pteridosperms", which means "seed ferns". The names of the genera with the ending - pteris(in translation - a feather), which, according to tradition, were given to the leaves of ferns, remained. So the leaves of the gymnosperms got "fern" names: Alethopteris, Glossopteris and many others.

Photo 22. Imprints of leaves of gymnosperms Alethopteris (Aletopteris) and Neuropteris (Neuropteris). Carboniferous period. Rostov region.

But worse was the fact that after the discovery of pteridosperms, all gymnosperms, not similar to modern ones, began to be attributed to seed ferns. Peltasperms, a group of plants with seeds attached to an umbrella-shaped disk - a peltoid (from the Greek "peltos" - shield) on its underside, and Caitoniums, in which the seeds were hidden in a closed capsule, and even glossopterids were also taken there. In general, if the plant was seed, but did not "climb" into any of the existing groups, then it was immediately ranked among the pteridosperms. As a result, almost all the huge variety of ancient gymnosperms turned out to be united under one name - pteridosperms. If we follow this approach, then, without a doubt, it is necessary to attribute both modern ginkgo and cycads to seed ferns. Now seed ferns are considered by most paleobotanists to be a team, a formal group. However, the class Pteridospermopsida exists even now. But we will agree to call pteridosperms only gymnosperms with single seeds attached directly to a pinnately dissected fern-like leaf.

There is another group of gymnosperms that appeared in the Carboniferous - glossopterids. These plants covered the vastness of Gondwana. Their remains were found in deposits of the Middle and Late Carboniferous, as well as the Permian on all southern continents, including India, which was then in the southern hemisphere. We will talk about these peculiar plants in more detail a little later, since the time of their heyday is the Permian period following the Carboniferous.

The leaves of these plants (photo 24) were similar, at first glance, to the leaves of the Euramerian cordaites, although in the Angara species they are usually smaller and differ in microstructural features. But the reproductive organs are fundamentally different. In Angara plants, the organs that carried the seeds are more reminiscent of coniferous cones, although of a very peculiar kind that is not found today. Previously, these plants, voinovsky, were classified as cordaites. Now they are distinguished in a separate order, and in the recent publication “The Great Turning Point in the History of the Plant World” S. V. Naugolnykh even places them in a separate class. Thus, in the department of gymnosperms, along with the already listed classes, such as conifers or cycads, another one appears - Voynovskaya. These peculiar plants appeared at the end of the Carboniferous, but grew widely throughout almost the entire territory of Angara in the Permian period.

Photo 23. Fossil seeds of Voinovskiaceae. Lower Perm. Urals.

Photo 24

What else needs to be said about the Carboniferous period? Well, perhaps, the fact that he got his name for the reason that the main reserves of coal in Europe were formed at that time. But in other places, in particular, in Gondwana and Angarida, deposits of coal were formed, for the most part, in the next, Permian period.

Generally speaking, the flora of the Carboniferous period was very rich, interesting and varied and certainly deserves a more detailed description. The landscapes of the Carboniferous period must have looked absolutely fantastic and unusual for us. Thanks to artists such as Z. Burian, who depicted the worlds of the past, we can now imagine the Carboniferous forests. But, knowing a little more about ancient plants and the climate of those times, we can imagine other, completely “alien” landscapes. For example, forests of small, two to three meters high, slender straight tree-like club mosses on a polar night, not far from the north pole of that time, in the current extreme northeast of our country.

Here is how S. V. Meyen describes this picture in his book “Traces of Indian Grass”: “A warm arctic night was coming. It was in this darkness that the thickets of lycopsids stood.

Strange landscape! It's hard to imagine it... Along the banks of rivers and lakes, a dull brush of sticks of various sizes stretches. Some collapsed. The water picks them up and carries them, knocks them down in heaps in the backwaters. In some places, the brush is interrupted by thickets of fern-like plants with rounded feather-leaves ... There probably hasn't been autumn leaf fall yet. Together with these plants, you will never meet either the bones of any quadruped, or the wing of an insect. It was quiet in the bushes."

But we still have a lot of interesting things ahead of us. Let's hasten further, to the last period of the Paleozoic era, or the era of ancient life, to Perm.

<<< Назад

Forward >>>