A review of biotic signatures within the PrecambrianVindhyan Supergroup: Implications on evolution

of microbial and metazoan life on Earth

Adrita CHOUDHURI*, Santanu BANERJEE** and Subir SARKAR***

*Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata,Mohanpur Campus, Nadia 741 246, West Bengal, India

**Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India***Department of Geological Sciences, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India

This study presents a review of the wide spectrum of biotic signatures within the Precambrian Vindhyan Super-group deposited during the ‘boring billion’ and assesses their biological affinity and age implications. Thesedimentation took place in wide–ranging palaeo–environments from fluvial to offshore through shallow ma-rine. While the lower part of the ~ 4500 m thick Vindhyan succession is older than 1650 Ma, the age at its toppart is poorly constrained, ranging from 1000 to 650 Ma. Microbial records are abundant in the form of stro-matolites in limestone and microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) on both siliciclastics and carbo-nates across the Vindhyan succession. The wide morphological variation of these two features corresponds todepositional processes, early cementation, as well as lithological variations. The stromatolite record, as well ascalcified and chertified microbial fossils, attest to the Mesoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic age of the sediments.Although the carbonaceous body fossils do not have age implications, they indicate the proliferation of algal lifeduring the Meso– to Neoproterozoic time. The Ediacaran–like fossils mostly relate either to ‘discoidal microbialcolony’ or detached pieces of microbial mat. Wide–ranging putative metazoan fossil reports remain the focalpoint of attention for many years. Although most of these reports are found to be microbially originated, someof these features have the potential to highlight the evolution of multicellular life during the Precambrian.

Keywords: Stromatolite, Microbial mat, Discoidal microbial colony, Proterozoic, Vindhyan, Carbonaceousfossils

INTRODUCTION

A large part of the Precambrian biosphere was dominatedentirely by the microbiota and devoid of any major bio-logical evolution, hence it is considered to be ‘boringbillion’ (1.8–0.8 Ga) (Brasier and Lindsay, 1998; Mu-kherjee et al., 2018). The sedimentary records of the earlybiotic signatures are poorly preserved, and therefore sci-entists search for indirect evidence of early life. The mi-crobial record of Earth dates back to 3700 Ma (Nutman etal., 2016). However, the macroscopic fossil records of thePrecambrian remain controversial (Han and Runnegar,1992; Knoll et al., 2006; Seilacher, 2007; Bengtson etal., 2009; El Albani et al., 2010; Bengtson et al., 2017;

El Albani et al., 2019). Microbes dominated the Precam-brian atmosphere and microbial mat cover developedprofusely on the seafloor. The weakly metamorphosedPrecambrian Vindhyan Supergroup of Indian peninsulaoften yields a wide spectrum of biotic records for under-standing the evolution of life on earth (Sarkar et al., 1996;Seilacher et al., 1998; Sarkar et al., 2004; Bengtson et al.,2009; Banerjee et al., 2014; Bengtson et al., 2017). TheVindhyan succession has yielded wide–ranging microfos-sils, organo–sedimentary structures, carbonaceous fossils,Ediacaran fossils, and trace and body fossils of metazo-ans within the Vindhyan succession (Sarkar and Bane-rjee, 2019). The proliferation of moneran carpet on bothsiliciclastic and carbonate sediments depositing environ-ment led to the formation of a diverse kind of biotic sig-natures (Sarkar and Banerjee, 2019), which needs a crit-ical assessment. However, the role of environmental

doi:10.2465/jmps.190827aS. Banerjee, santanu@iitb.ac.in Corresponding author

Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences, Volume 115, page 162–174, 2020

REVIEW

processes on the morphology of microbial features is yetto be established. While some of these fossils providemeaningful age for Vindhyan sediments, many of themalso produce contradictory results. Therefore, the biostrat-igraphic relevance for fossil records needs a thoroughevaluation based on recent radiometric investigations.The reported fossils of the Vindhyan Supergroup are yetto be critically assessed for understanding the evolution ofmicrobial and metazoan life in Earth’s history.

We have presented a brief review of varieties of bi-otic signatures of the Precambrian Vindhyan Supergroup.The objectives of the paper are: a) to present the widespectrum of biotic signatures with the Vindhyan Super-group, b) assess the environmental processes on micro-bial features, and c) to indicate the complexity in estab-lishing metazoan affinity of the potential features. Wehave provided detailed elaborations of all varieties of mi-crobial mat related structures and described all varietiesof biogenic features within the Vindhyan Supergroup.

GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The Vindhyan Basin (~ 104000 sq. km area and ~ 4.5 kmthick) is the largest Proterozoic basin in India, the rocks ofwhich are exposed in central and western India (Fig. 1).The gently metamorphosed and less deformed VindhyanSupergroup overlying the Archean basement has two ma-jor subdivisions, the Lower Vindhyan/Semri Group andthe Upper Vindhyan Group, separated by an unconformity(Fig. 2; Chanda and Bhattacharyya, 1982; Bose et al.,1997, 2001; Mondal et al., 2019). The sedimentation tookplace within a westward opening epicontinental basin in

an intracratonic rift setting during the Lower Vindhyan,which evolved into a sag basin during the deposition ofthe Upper Vindhyan sediments (Bose et al., 1997, 2001,2015). The sedimentation took place in varying environ-ments including continental, shallow marine and offshoreenvironments (Fig. 2; Bose et al., 2001).

The age of the Vindhyan Supergroup has been amatter of debate over the last hundred years. Stromato-lites within the Lower and Upper Vindhyans yield the agerange from 1400–600 Ma (Prasad, 1980, 1984). Radio-metric dating and palaeobiological evidence until the lastcentury provided Meso– to Neoproterozoic age for theVindhyan sediments (Rasmussen et al., 2002). The ageof the Lower Vindhyan/Semri Group is well established(~ 1.8–~ 1.5 Ga) by U–Pb, Pb–Pb geochronology by dif-ferent groups of researchers (see Sarkar and Banerjee,2019). On the contrary, the age of the Upper Vindhyanremains controversial. On the basis of palaeomagneticand detrital zircon data, many investigators suggested

Figure 1. Geological map showing outcrops of the Vindhyan Su-pergroup in the Son valley and inset showing map of India.

Figure 2. Stratigraphy, age, and palaeogeography of the Vindhyan Supergroup.

Biotic signatures in Precambrian Vindhyan basin 163

that the closure of the basin before ~ 1.0 Ga (Fig. 2; Sar-kar and Banerjee, 2019 and references cited therein).

BIOTIC RECORDS WITHIN THE VINDHYANSUPERGROUP

Palaeobiological remains of the Vindhyan Supergroupmay be categorized as stromatolites, macroscopic carbo-naceous remains, microfossils, small shelly fossils, pseu-do–Ediacaran fossils, and microbially induced sedimen-tary structures (MISS). Microbial mats probably colo-nized on the sedimentary surfaces during the Precambrianboth in carbonates and in siliciclastics (e.g., Schieber,1999; Parizot et al., 2005; Sarkar et al., 2006; Schieberet al., 2007; Banerjee et al., 2010, 2014; Sarkar et al.,2014a). Stromatolite bears the interaction between benth-ic microbial communities and detrital/chemical sedimentswith records of three–dimensional convex upward geom-etry. In contrast to carbonate settings, the recognition ofthe microbiota within terrigenous sedimentary rocks hasoften some limitations. Therefore, their identification de-pends on indirect signatures/proxy structures resultedfrom trapping, binding, baffling, and biostabilisation ofthe non–cohesive clastic sediments. These proxy featuresare referred to as microbial mat induced sedimentarystructures (Noffke, 2010). The range of biotic signaturesin the Vindhyan Supergroup also covers carbonaceousbody fossils including Chuaria and Tawuia, calcifiedand chertified microbial fossils, as well as traces of mac-roscopic fossils. A brief description of all kinds of bioticsignatures is given below.

Stromatolites

Several workers reported stromatolites within differentstratigraphic intervals of the Vindhyan Supergroup andinferred Lower to Upper Riphean age (1600–650 Ma)(Fig. 3). The upper part of the ~ 1.7 Ga–old KajrahatLimestone preserves significant stromatolite varieties(Fig. 4a). The size of the stromatolite varies from large(average column height of 20 cm and diameter of 6 cm)to small (column height and diameter of 3.5 cm and 1.8cm) (Banerjee et al., 2007). While columns of large stro-matolites are mostly conical, those in small stromatolites

are round–headed, inclined and branched. Microbial lam-inite of very low height with wavy and crinkly laminaeoverlies small stromatolites. All these three varieties ofstromatolites occur in repeated cycles within the KajrahatLimestone, with large stromatolite at the base, followedby the small variety and are capped by microbial laminite.The transition between different varieties of stromatolitesis always gradational within the cycles. The thickness ofcycles varies from 40 to ~ 110 cm. Cycles comprising allthree varieties of stromatolites indicate periodic changesin water depth within the depositional site (Banerjee et al.,2007). While large stromatolite indicates the deposition inthe deep shelf environment, the small variety and micro-bial laminite point to intertidal and supratidal environ-ments respectively (Banerjee et al., 2007).

The Bhander Limestone Member exhibits differentvarieties of stromatolites. Both laterally attached and de-tached forms of stromatolites are abundantly present(Figs. 4b–4e). The latter variety branches upward, withprominent inter–columnar areas (Fig. 4f). Stromatolitesmay be micro–digitate, domal, arch–shaped, inclined andbranched (Figs. 4b–4j). One form may change into othermorphotypes vertically (Figs. 4d, 4k, and 4l). Digitatestromatolites are of laterally attached micro–scale variety,surrounded by comparatively larger laminae (Fig. 4b).Large arch–shaped stromatolites are laterally attachedand are occasionally draped by wave ripples (Fig. 4h).Inclined, branched and small–headed varieties overliethe large arch–shaped stromatolites (Figs. 4e and 4f). In-clined columnar varieties show branching of the columnswith wide inter–columnar space. Small–headed stromato-lites generally overlie the inclined columnar variety (Fig.4j). They appear circular on the bedding plane. Occasion-ally desiccation cracks occur on the bedding surface ofsmall stromatolites.

The different morphology of the stromatolites withinthe Bhander Limestone indicates the variation in waterdepth within the depositional environment (Sarkar andBose, 1992; Sarkar et al., 1996). Large stromatolites in-dicate a relatively deeper water environment compared tothe small variety. The inclined stromatolites representshallow water conditions within fair/storm weather wavebase (Sarkar et al., 1996). The presence of occasionaldesiccation cracks on the bedding surface of the small–

Figure 3. Salient reports of stromatolites within the Vindhyan Supergroup.

A. Choudhuri, S. Banerjee and S. Sarkar164

headed stromatolites supports a very shallow water envi-ronment, with occasional exposure. The rare presence ofwave ripples on the bedding surface of the large arch–shaped stromatolites indicates occasional wave influence.Branching of inclined columnar stromatolites supportswave/current actions (Sarkar et al., 1996). The preferredinclination in stromatolites indicates either action ofstrong current within the depositional environment orthe phototactic movement of the microbial colony (Sarkaret al., 1996).

Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) incarbonates

Although the MISS has been studied in detail from thesiliciclastic rocks, carbonates of the Vindhyan Supergroupalso display a similar group of two–dimensional bedding

plane structures representing a proxy of the microbiota.The microbial mat usually forms three–dimensional stro-matolites in carbonate depositional settings, while two–di-mension MISS occurs exclusively in siliciclastic settings.Although wide varieties of MISS are well–known frommodern carbonate environments (Bose and Chafetz,2011), wrinkle structures were only reported from theancient rocks (Xiaoying et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2013).Recently Sarkar et al. (2016, 2018) expanded the list oftwo–dimensional carbonate MISS from the lower partsof the Rohtas Limestone and Bhander Limestone of theVindhyan Supergroup (Figs. 5 and 6). These workers con-sidered carbonate MISS comparable to those found insiliciclastic rocks (Figs. 7–9).

The three–dimensional stromatolites reflect the earlycementation and repetitive process of baffling, trappingand mineralization in limestone. However, the absence

Figure 4. Field photographs show-ing: (a) Stromatolites in KajrahatLimestone. (b) Digitate form ofstromatolites from Bhander Lime-stone. Note the individual stroma-tolites are laterally attached. (c)Laterally attached and domal stro-matolites of Bhander Limestone.(d) Laterally detached columns ofstromatolites of the Bhander Lime-stone. Note the intercolumnar areais filled up by micritic sediments.Also note that laterally detachedstromatolites change vertically tosmall stromatolite variety. (e) In-clined stromatolites columns ofthe Bhander Limestone. (f ) In-clined and branched variety of stro-matolites columns from BhanderLimestone. (g) Large arch–shapedstromatolites from Bhander Lime-stone. (h) Wave ripples on top oflarge arch– shaped stromatolitesfrom Bhander Limestone. (i) Asym-metric growth of large arch–shapedstromatolites from Bhander Lime-stone. ( j) Small–scale stromatoliteswith desiccation cracks of BhanderLimestone. (k) Inclined stromatolitecolumns vertically changes upwardto small stromatolites which againbecomes inclined variety upward.(l) Large arch–shaped stromatolitechanges upward into inclined andbranched stromatolite variety. Ham-mer length, 38 cm; Scale length, 15cm; Pen length, 14.5 cm; Knifelength, 8.5 cm.

Biotic signatures in Precambrian Vindhyan basin 165

of early cementation results in two–dimensional geome-try in MISS. Most MISS in carbonates involves micro–scale deformation indicating delayed cementation of thecarbonate sediments. The activity of sulfate reducing bac-teria (SRB) facilitates the CaCO3 precipitation within athin microbial mat (Sarkar et al., 2016). The delayed ce-mentation of the sediments corresponds to the acidiccomposition of EPS secreted by the microbes (Sarkar etal., 2018 and references cited therein). The near–equato-rial palaeolatitudinal position of India (Scotese, 2001; Pe-sonen et al., 2003; Evans and Mitchell, 2011; Zhang etal., 2012) during the Mesoproterozoic time might haverestricted the growth of SRB, and the rate of sulfur re-duction, resulting the delayed cementation and preserva-tion of MISS in carbonates (Sarkar et al., 2016, 2018;Choudhuri, 2019).

Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS)within siliciclastics

The Vindhyan Supergroup is globally well known for ex-cellent preservation of MISS from siliciclastics withinKheinjua and Bhander Formations (Sarkar et al., 2004,2005; Banerjee and Jeevankumar, 2005; Sarkar et al.,2006; Banerjee et al., 2006; Sarkar and Banerjee, 2007;Schieber et al., 2007; Banerjee et al., 2010, 2014; Sarkaret al., 2014b, 2016). The sandstone beds at top of HSTs(Highstand Systems Tracts) bear excellent MISS varietieson the bed–surfaces in different stratigraphic intervals.However, the prolific mat growth in shales correspondsto maximum flooding zones (Figs. 7–9). The morpholog-ical variations of these features (Figs. 7 and 8) correspondto growth, destruction and diagenesis of microbial mats.

Carbonaceous shale (total organic carbon content

Figure 5. Field photographs showing: (a) Wrinkle structures and synaeresis cracks on the bedding plane of the Bhander Limestone. (b)Pustules (arrowed) on the bedding plane of the Rohtas Limestone. (c) Domes (arrowed) and their casts preserved on the bedding planeof the Rohtas Limestone. (d) Astropolithons with central craters (arrowed) preserved in the Rohtas Limestone, (e) Loads at the sole of thebed (right side) and their casts on top of the underlying bed (left side) preserved in the Bhander Limestone. (f ) Palimpsest ripples preservedin the Bhander Limestone, with thin calc–arenite layer mimicking the underlying ripple morphology. (g) Swarms of setulfs (arrowed) on thebedding plane of the Bhander Limestone. (h) Irritatingly sharp–crested ripples in the Bhander Limestone. (g) Cracks preserved on thebedding plane of the Rohtas Limestone. Knife length, 8.5 cm; Hammer length, 38 cm; Pen length, 14.5 cm.

A. Choudhuri, S. Banerjee and S. Sarkar166

exceeding 1.5%) associated with the stratigraphicallycondensed zones exhibits wavy, crinkly, carbonaceouslaminae, pyritic laminae, pseudo cross–strata, rolled–up,and folded carbonaceous laminae within Rampur Shale,Sirbu Shale, and in Kajrahat Formation, suggesting mi-crobial mat growth in mid– to outer–shelf depositionalconditions (Figs. 7d and 7e; Banerjee et al., 2006; Suret al., 2006). Banerjee and Jeevankumar (2005) and Sar-kar et al. (2004, 2005, 2006) recorded several microbialstructures within Vindhyan shales. Recent ultramicro-scopic studies within Rampur Shale have revealed differ-ent morphotypes of the microbial population (Mondal etal., 2019).

Carbonaceous macrofossils and microfossils

Figure 10 provides a summary of various kinds of carbo-naceous fossils and calcified/certified microfossils withinthe Vindhyan Supergroup. While these reported fossilsprovide a broad Mesoproterozoic age for the Semri/Low-er Vindhyan Group, the same indicates a Neoproterozoicage for the Upper Vindhyan (Venkatachala et al., 1996;Sarkar and Banerjee, 2019). However, the age implica-tion of these fossils remains controversial (cf. Brasier etal., 2002).

Figure 6. MISS recorded within carbonates of the Vindhyan Supergroup.

Biotic signatures in Precambrian Vindhyan basin 167

Ediacaran–like fossils

Several reports indicate the presence of probable Ediacar-an–like fossils within the Vindhyan Basin including Ed-iacaria flindersi, Cyclomedusa davidi, Medusinites, Me-dusinites asteroides, Dickensonia, and Beltanelliformisbrunsae (for details see Sarkar and Banerjee, 2019). De(2003) reported possible Ediacaran fossils within theBhander Formation to consider the Proterozoic age forthe Vindhyan. However, researchers questioned the Edia-caran affinity of the features because of their resemblancewith MISS (Banerjee et al., 2010, 2014; Sarkar and Bane-rjee, 2019).

Macroscopic/metazoan fossils

A few authors reported traces of advanced organismswithin the Vindhyan succession (see Venkatachala etal., 1996 for details). Later workers considered these re-ports as considered them as dubiofossils (Chakrabarti,2001; Sarkar and Banerjee, 2019). The metazoan fossilreports of Misra and Awasthi (1962), Mathur (1983), andSingh and Sinha (2001) possibly represents shrinkage–re-

lated cracks (Kumar, 2001). Azmi (1998) reported con-troversial small shelly fossils of Cambrian age affinityfrom the phosphoritic stromatolitic dolomite in the basalpart of the Vindhyan Supergroup from Chitrakut area.Bengtson et al. (2009, 2017) reinterpreted the fossils asfilamentous and coccoid cyanobacteria and filamentouseukaryotic algae and confirmed their Mesoproterozoicage. Bengtson et al. (2017) considered these multicellularfossil organisms as the earliest known crown group ofeukaryotes. Recently Sallstedt et al. (2018) provided theevidence of oxygenic phototrophy developed by thefilamentous microorganisms from the same stratigraphicinterval.

Trace fossils

Discovery of traces of motile organisms/worm burrowsliving under thin microbial mat cover from the ChorhatSandstone (Sarkar et al., 1996; Seilacher et al., 1998)raised many debates within the scientific community.The reports of Chorhat worm burrows were criticizedby several workers (Conway Morris, 2000; Fedonkin,2003; Peterson and Butterfield, 2005; Jensen et al.,

Figure 7. Field photographs showing: (a) Setulfs (arrowed) on the bedding plane of the Upper Bhander Sandstone. (b) Disc–shaped microbialcolonies (arrowed) and (c) Sand bulges (arrowed) preserved within the Sirbu Shale. (d) Photomicrograph under plane polarized lightshowing wavy carbonaceous laminae of black shale in the Kajrahat Formation. (e) Photomicrograph under reflected light framboidal pyritesalong the crinkly laminae in the Rampur Shale.

A. Choudhuri, S. Banerjee and S. Sarkar168

Figure 8. Field photographs showing MISS within the Chorhat Sandstone, Vindhyan Supergroup: (a) Spindle–shaped cracks preserved withinthe ripple troughs. (b) Wrinkle structures preserved on the bedding plane. (c) Sand bulges in multiple numbers on the bedding plane. (d)Patchy ripples. (e) Bulbous loads at the bottom of the sandstone (right) and their casts preserved on top of the underlying ripple (left)laminated sandstone. (f ) Elliptical sand clasts (arrowed). (g) Elongated silt curls (arrowed). (h) Thin layer of microbial mat mimics theunderlying ripple laminated sandstone generating palimpsest ripple. Knife length, 8.5 cm.

Biotic signatures in Precambrian Vindhyan basin 169

2005; Knoll et al., 2006). Seilacher (2007), however,withdrew the original interpretation of Chorhat triploblas-tic worm burrows mainly because of the radiometricdates which constrain the age of deposition older than1.6 Ga.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The Precambrian Vindhyan Supergroup hosts diversetypes of biotic signatures including microbial mat in-duced sedimentary structures (MISS), micro and macro-

Figure 9. Brief descriptions and interpretations of MISS within siliciclastics of the Vindhyan Supergroup.

A. Choudhuri, S. Banerjee and S. Sarkar170

fossils, carbonaceous fossils, Ediacaran–like fossils, andtraces of megascopic fossils (see Sarkar and Banerjee,2019 and references cited therein for details). Stromato-lites or microbialites are three–dimensional organo–sedi-mentary structures formed as a result of interaction be-tween the benthic microbial mat and the sedimentsthrough trapping, binding, baffling of the sediments,and biostabilisation. Stromatolites acquire three–dimen-sional structures through repetitive mineralization andfossilization (Noffke, 2000; Noffke et al., 2003; Noffke,2010; Noffke and Awramik, 2013). Apart from the stro-matolites, Vindhyan siliciclastic rocks preserve an arrayof bedding plane microbial mat related structures withtwo–dimensional geometry, known as MISS (see Fig.9). The prolific growth of microbial mat on sediment sur-faces stabilized the sediments, resulting in a reduced rateof erosion compared to that in Phanerozoic time. The re-duced rate of sedimentation results in the preservation ofregressive system tracts more in numbers than that oftransgressive system tracts (TST) during the Proterozoictime (Sarkar et al., 2005; Catuneanu, 2006; Sarkar et al.,2014a). Therefore, MISS in Proterozoic rock records hasan immense influence on the preservation of the systemtracts (Sarkar et al., 2005; Banerjee and Jeevankumar,2005; Eriksson et al., 2010; Banerjee et al., 2014). De-pending on their preferential relationship to the palaeo–environments, MISS were classified into three broad cat-egories – (a) occurring in shallow marine littoral–supra-tidal settings, (b) shallow subtidal to deep marine set-tings, and (c) those not having any preferential occur-rence to an environmental setting (Eriksson et al.,2010). Although siliciclastic formations yielded MISSin the past, recent studies indicated the formation of sim-ilar features within ancient carbonate sediments in caseof late cementation (Fig. 6; Sarkar et al., 2016, 2018;Choudhuri, 2019). Most of the siliciclastic MISS within

the Vindhyan Supergroup develop within shallow marinelittoral–supratidal environments whereas carbonate MISSrepresents restricted to quiet lagoonal environments. Onthe other hand, variations in stromatolite morphologyboth from the Kajrahat Limestone and Bhander Lime-stone correlates with the change in the water depth ofthe depositional basin. Therefore, both stromatolites andMISS are useful tools for high–resolution palaeo–envi-ronmental interpretations in Proterozoic shallow marinesuccessions (Banerjee et al., 2014).

Many of the MISS structures, e.g., Manchuriophy-cus, have previously been thought of as metazoan burrows(Kulkarni and Borkar, 1996 and many others). The re–ex-amination of these features, however, confirmed the mi-crobial mat origin of the sinuous cracks on the sandstonesurfaces (Sarkar et al., 2006, 2008; Banerjee et al., 2010,2014). Many of the wrinkle structures, petee–ridges, andgas domes with central depressions were mistakenly in-terpreted as organism remnants, horizontal burrows, andjellyfish impressions, respectively by different workers(see Banerjee et al., 2010 and Sarkar and Banerjee,2019 for a detailed discussion). Upon comparison withtheir modern equivalents, many of these features were ex-plained as MISS (Banerjee et al., 2010, 2014). Apart fromorgano–sedimentary structures, the Vindhyan Supergroupyielded several carbonaceous macro and microfossils, andEdiacaran–like fossils (Fig. 10; Sarkar and Banerjee, 2019and references cited therein). However, many of the Edi-acaran–like fossils were later re–interpreted as discoidalmicrobial mat growth/colony (Banerjee et al., 2010).

Seilacher et al. (1998) documented traces of triplo-blastic worm burrows under mat cover on the sandy bedsurfaces of the Chorhat Sandstone. This sensational re-port inspired many scientists for the search of an ad-vanced mode of life from ancient rocks before the Cam-brian explosion. Subsequently, the age of the Chorhat

Figure 10. Salient reports of carbonaceous macrofossils and microfossils in the Vindhyan Supergroup (see Sarkar and Banerjee, 2019 fororiginal citations of fossils reports).

Biotic signatures in Precambrian Vindhyan basin 171

Sandstone was constrained to ca 1.6 Ga (Rasmussen etal., 2002). This prompted Seilacher (2007) to discard hisidea of triploblastic worm burrows. However, it is diffi-cult to explain the origin of these structures having con-stant width, pervasive shapes (both branching and mean-dering pattern) with a diverse orientation by physical/chemical processes. Moreover, recent reports of multi–chambered organisms and bundles of tubular filamentswithin the Semri Group (cf. Bengtson et al., 2009,2017) have again created an option for the scientific com-munity to rethink about the metazoan divergence beforethe Cambrian explosion. Recent findings of multicellularorganisms, cf. Franceville biota of 2.1 Ga (El Albani etal., 2010, 2014), Stirling biota of ~ 1.8 Ga (Bengtson etal., 2017), Montana biota of 1.5–1.3 Ga (Zhu et al.,2016), and motile organisms from 2.1 Ga old rocks (ElAlbani et al., 2019), inspire a re–assessment of theVindhyan metazoan records for the evolution of ad-vanced life forms during Precambrian. Therefore, a de-tailed investigation with most advanced techniques isnecessary to correctly assess the affinity of some of theproblematic features within the Vindhyan succession. Weconclude the following points based on our investigationof biogenic structures within the Vindhyan Supergroup.a) The radiometric dating brackets the Vindhyan Super-

group within 1.7 to 1.0 Ga while stromatolites, car-bonaceous fossils, and microfossils provide Meso-proterozoic to Neoproterozoic ages for the same.

b) Microbial mat proliferates on the Vindhyan Sea,leaving a wide range of proxy features in both sili-ciclastics and carbonates.

c) Many of the fossil reports of metazoan life havebeen re–interpreted as microbial mat originated sedi-mentary structures.

d) In view of recent reports of the existence of meta-zoan life in rocks of Palaeoproterozoic age from oth-er parts of the world, the Vindhyan fossils need athorough re–examination in the future for their exactaffinity without having any bias.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

AC acknowledges DST INSPIRE Faculty program (DST/INSPIRE/04/2017/002038). SS acknowledges RUSA 2.0grant of Jadavpur University. Authors acknowledge theirrespective institutes and universities for the infrastructur-al facilities.

REFERENCES

Azmi, R.J. (1998) Discovery of lower Cambrian small shelly fos-sils and brachiopods from the Lower Vindhyan of Son Valley,

Central India. Journal of Geological Society of India, 52, 381–389.

Banerjee, S. and Jeevankumar, S. (2005) Microbially originatedwrinkle structures on sandstone and their stratigraphic con-text: Palaeoproterozoic Koldaha Shale, central India. Sedi-mentary Geology, 176, 211–224.

Banerjee, S., Bhattacharya, S.K. and Sarkar, S. (2006) Carbon andoxygen isotope compositions of the carbonate facies in theVindhyan Supergroup, central India. Journal of Earth SystemScience, 115, 113–134.

Banerjee, S., Bhattacharya, S.K. and Sarkar, S. (2007) Carbon andoxygen isotopic variations in peritidal stromatolite cycles, Pa-leoproterozoic Kajrahat Limestone, Vindhyan basin of centralIndia. Journal of Asian Earth Science, 29, 823–831.

Banerjee, S., Sarkar, S., Eriksson, P.G. and Samanta, P. (2010) Mi-crobially related structures in siliciclastic sediment resemblingEdiacaran fossils: examples from India, ancient and modern.In Microbial Mats: Modern and Ancient Microorganisms inStratified System (Seckbach, J. and Oren A. Eds.). Springer,Berlin, 111–129.

Banerjee, S., Sarkar, S. and Eriksson, P.G. (2014) Palaeoenviron-mental and biostratigraphic implications of microbial mat–re-lated structures: examples from modern Gulf of Cambay andPrecambrian Vindhyan basin. Journal of Paleogeography, 3,127–144.

Bengtson, S., Belivanova, V., Rasmussen, B. and Whitehouse, M.(2009) The controversial “Cambrian” fossils of the Vindhyanare real but more than a billion years older. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of USA, 106, 7729–7734.

Bengtson, S., Sallstedt, T., Belivanova, V. and Whitehouse, M.(2017) Three–dimensional preservation of cellular and subcel-lular structures suggests 1.6 billion–year–old crown–group redalgae, PLOS Biology, 35, 1–38.

Bickford, M.E., Mishra, M., Muelle, P.A., Kamenov, G.D., et al.(2017) U–Pb age and Hf isotope compositions of magmaticzircons from a rhyolite flow in the Porcellanite Formation inthe Vindhyan Supergroup, Son Valley (India): implications forits tectonic significance. Journal of Geology, 125, 367–379.

Bose, P.K., Banerjee, S. and Sarkar, S. (1997) Slope–controlledseismic deformation and tectonic framework of depositionof Koldaha Shale, India. Tectonophysics, 269, 151–169.

Bose, P.K., Sarkar, S., Chakraborty, S. and Banerjee, S. (2001)Overview of the Meso to Neoproterozoic evolution of theVindhyan basin, central India. Sedimentary Geology, 141,395–419.

Bose, P.K., Sarkar, S., Das, N.G., Banerjee, S., et al. (2015) Pro-terozoic Vindhyan basin: configuration and evolution. Geo-logical Society of London Memoirs, 43, 85–102.

Bose, S. and Chafetz, H.S. (2011) Morphology and distribution ofMISS: a comparison between modern siliciclastic and carbon-ate settings. In Microbial Mats in Siliciclastic DepositionalSystems Through Time (Noffke, N. and Chafetz, H. Eds.).SEPM Special Publication, 101, 3–14.

Brasier, M.D. and Lindsay, J.F. (1998) A billion years of environ-mental stability and the emergence of eukaryotes: new datafrom northern Australia. Geology, 26, 555–558.

Brasier, M.D., Green, O.R., Jephcoat, A.P., Kleppe, A.K., et al.(2002) Questioning the evidence of earth’s oldest fossils. Na-ture, 416, 76–81.

Catuneanu, O. (2006) Principles of Sequence stratigraphy. Elsevier,Amsterdam.

Chakrabarti, A. (2001) Are meandering structures found in Proter-

A. Choudhuri, S. Banerjee and S. Sarkar172

ozoic rocks of different ages of the Vindhyan Supergroup ofcentral India biogenic? A scrutiny. Ichnos, 8, 131–139.

Chanda, S.K. and Bhattacharyya, A. (1982) Vindhyan sedimenta-tion and palaeogeography: post–Auden developments. In Ge-ology of Vindhyanchal (Valdiya, K.S., Bhatia, S.B. and Gaur,V.K. Eds.). Hindustan Publ Corp, New Delhi, 88–101.

Choudhuri, A. (2019) MISS in Carbonate Formations: Promoterand inhibitor. In Abstract vol. of National Seminar on Sedi-mentary Researches: Last Five Decades of Advancement andProspects in Future & 35th Convention of Indian Associationof Sedimentologists, 18.

Conway Morris, S. (2000) Evolution: bringing molecules in thefold. Cell, 100, 1–11.

De, C. (2003) Possible organisms similar to Ediacaran forms fromthe Bhander Group, Vindhyan Supergroup, late Neoprotero-zoic of India. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 21, 387–395.

El Albani, A., Bengtson, S., Canfield, D.E., Bekker, A., et al.(2010) Large colonial organisms with coordinated growth inoxygenated environments 2.1Gyr ago. Nature, 466, 100–104.

El Albani, A., Bengtson, S., Canfield, D.E., Riboulleau, A., et al.(2014) The 2.1 Ga old Francevillian biota: Biogenicity,taphonomy and biodiversity. PLoS One, 9, e99438.

El Albani, A., Mangano, M.G., Buatois, L.A., Bengtson, S., et al.(2019) Organism motility in an oxygenated shallow–marineenvironment 2.1 billion years ago. Proceedings of the Nation-al Academy of Science USA 16, 3431–3436.

Eriksson, P.G., Sarkar, S., Banerjee, S., Porada, H., et al. (2010)Paleoenvironmental context of microbial mat–related struc-tures in siliciclastic rocks: examples from the Proterozoic ofIndia and South Africa. In Microbial mats: modern and an-cient microorganisms in stratified systems (Seckbach, J. andOren, A. Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 73–108.

Evans, D.A.D. and Mitchell, R.N. (2011) Assembly and breakup ofthe core of Paleoproterozoic–Mesoproterozoic supercontinentNuna. Geology, 39, 443–446.

Fedonkin, M.A. (2003) The origin of the metazoa in the light of theProterozoic fossil record: Paleontological Research, 7, 9–41.

Gopalan, K., Kumar, A., Kumar, S. and Vijayagopal, B. (2013)Depositional history of the Upper Vindhyan succession, cen-tral India: time constraints from Pb–Pb isochron ages of itscarbonate components. Precambrian Research, 233, 108–117.

Han, TM. and Runnegar, B. (1992) Megascopic eukaryotic algaefrom the 2.1 billion–year old Negaunee Iron–Formation, Mich-igan. Science, 257, 232–235.

Jensen, S., Droser, M.L. and Gehling, J.G. (2005) Trace fossil pres-ervation and the early evolution of animals. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 220, 19–29.

Knoll, A.H., Javaux, E.J., Hewitt, D. and Cohen, P. (2006) Eukary-otic organisms in Proterozoic oceans. Philosophical Transac-tion of the Royal Society B, 361, 1023–1038.

Kulkarni, K.G. and Borkar, V.D. (1996) Occurrence of Cochlich-nus Hitchcock in the Vindhyan Supergroup (Proterozoic) ofMadhya Pradesh. Journal of Geological Society of India, 47,725–729.

Kumar, S. (1976a) Stromatolites from the Vindhyan rocks of theSon Valley–Maihar area, district Mirzapur (UP) and Satna(MP). Journal of Palaeontological Society of India, 18, 13–21.

Kumar, S. (1976b) Significance of stromatolites in the correlationof Semri Series (Lower Vindhyan) of Son Valley and Chitra-kut area, UP. Journal of Palaeontological Society of India, 19,24–27.

Kumar, S. (2001) Mesoproterozoic megafossil Chuaria–Tawuia as-

sociation may represent parts of a multicellular plant, Vindhy-an Supergroup, central India. Precambrian Research, 106,187–211.

Kumar, S. and Gupta, S. (2002) International Field Workshop onthe Vindhyan basin, central India. Field Guide Book, Palae-ontological Society of India, Lucknow.

Laura, C.G., Meert, J.G., Pradhan, V., Pandit, M., et al. (2006)Paleomagnetic and geochronologic study of the MajhgawanKimberlite, India: Implications for the age of the UpperVindhyan Supergroup. Precambrian Research, 149, 65–75.

Luo, M., Chen, Z.Q., Hu, S., Zhang, Q., et al. (2013) Carbonatereticulated ridge structures from the lower middle Triassic ofthe Luoping Area, Yunnan, Southwestern China: geobiologicfeatures and implications for exceptional preservation of theLuoping Biota. Palaios, 28, 541–551.

Mathur, S.M. (1983) A new collection of fossils from the Precam-brian Vindhyan Supergroup of central India. Current Science,52, 363–365.

Misra, R.C. and Awasthi, N. (1962) Sedimentary markings andother structures in the rocks of Vindhyan formation of theSon valley and Maihar–Rewa area, India. Journal of Sedimen-tary Petrology, 32, 764–775.

Mondal, I., Choudhuri, A. and Sarkar, S. (2019) Spectacular mor-phic and geochemical record of microbial consortia in theMesoproterozoic Rampur Shale in the Son Valley. In Abstractvolume of National Seminar on Sedimentary Researches: LastFive Decades of Advancement and Prospects in Future & 35th

Convention of Indian Association of Sedimentologists, 52.Mukherjee, I., Large, R.R., Corkrey, R. and Danyushevsky, L.V.

(2018) The Boring Billion, a slingshot for Complex Life onEarth. Scientific Reports, 8, 1–7.

Noffke, N. (2000) Extensive microbial mats and their influenceson the erosional and depositional dynamics of a siliciclasticcold water environment (Lower Arenigian, Montagne Noir,France). Sedimentary Geology 136, 207–215.

Noffke, N. (2010) Microbial mats in sandy deposits from theArchean Era to today. Springer, Heidelberg.

Noffke, N., Gerdes, G. and Klenke, T. (2003) Benthic cyanobac-teria and their influence on the sedimentary dynamics of peri-tidal depositional systems (siliciclastic, evaporitic salty, andevaporitic carbonatic). Earth Science Reviews, 62, 163–176.

Noffke, N. and Awramik, S.M. (2013) Stromatolites and MISS–dif-ferences between relatives. GSA Today, 23, 4–9.

Nutman, A.P., Bennett, V.C., Friend, C.R.L., Van Kranendonk,M.J. and Chivas, A.R. (2016) Rapid emergence of life shownby discovery of 3,700–million–year–old microbial structures.Nature, 537, 535–538.

Parizot, M., Eriksson, P.G., Aifa, T., Sarkar, S., et al. (2005) Micro-bial mat–related crack–like sedimentary structures in the c. 2.1Ga Magaliesberg Formation sandstones, South Africa. Pre-cambrian Research, 138, 274–296.

Pesonen, L.J., Elming, S.A., Mertanen, S., Pisarevsky, S., et al.(2003) Palaeomagnetic configuration of continents duringthe Proterozoic. Tectonophysics, 375, 289–324.

Peterson, K.J. and Butterfield, N.J. (2005) Origin of the Eumeta-zoa: Testing ecological predictions of molecular clocks againstthe Proterozoic fossil record. Proceeding of National Academyof Science, USA, 102, 9547–9552.

Prasad, B. (1980) Vindhyan stromatolite biostratigraphy. Geologi-cal Survey of India Miscellaneous Publications, 44, 201–2016.

Prasad, B. (1984) Geology, sedimentation and paleogeography ofthe Vindhyan Supergroup, SE Rajasthan. Memoirs of Geolog-

Biotic signatures in Precambrian Vindhyan basin 173

ical Survey of India, 116, 1–107.Rasmussen, B., Bose, P.K., Sarkar, S., Banerjee, S., et al. (2002)

1.6 Ga U–Pb zircon age for the Chorhat Sandstone, lowerVindhyan, India: possible implications for early evolution ofanimals. Geology, 30, 103–106.

Ray, J.S., Martin, M.W., Veizer, J. and Bowring, S.A. (2002) U–Pbzircon dating and Sr isotope systematics of the Vindhyan Su-pergroup, India. Geology, 30, 131–134.

Ray, J.S., Veizer, J. and Davis, W.J. (2003) C, O, Sr and Pb isotopesystematics of carbonate sequences of the Vindhyan Super-group, India: age, diagenesis, correlations and implicationsfor global events. Precambrian Research, 121, 103–140.

Sallstedt, T., Bengtson, S., Broman, C., Crill, P.M. and Canfield,D.E. (2018) Evidence of oxygenic phototrophy in ancientphosphatic stromatolites from the Paleoproterozoic Vindhyanand Aravalli Supergroups, India. Geobiology, 16, 139–159.

Sarangi, S., Gopalan, K. and Kumar, S. (2004) Pb–Pb age of ear-liest megascopic, eukaryotic alga bearing Rohtas Formation,Vindhyan Supergroup, India: implications for Precambrianatmospheric oxygen evolution. Precambrian Research, 132,107–121.

Sarkar, S. and Bose, P.K. (1992) Variations in Late Proterozoicstromatolites over a transition from basin plain to nearshoresubtidal zone. Precambrian Research, 56, 139–157.

Sarkar, S., Banerjee, S. and Bose, P.K. (1996) Trace fossils in theMesoproterozoic Koldaha Shale, central India, and their im-plications. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie –

Monatshefte, 7, 425–438.Sarkar, S., Banerjee, S. and Eriksson, P.G. (2004) Microbial mat

features in sandstone illustrated. In The Precambrian Earth:Tempos and Events (Eriksson, P.G., Altermann, W., Nelson,W., Mueller, D.R. and Catuneanu, O. Eds.). Elsevier, Amster-dam, 673–675.

Sarkar, S., Banerjee, S., Eriksson, P.G. and Catuneanu, O. (2005)Microbial mat control on siliciclastic Precambrian sequencestratigraphic architecture: examples from India. SedimentaryGeology, 176, 195–209.

Sarkar, S., Banerjee, S., Samanta, P. and Jeevankumar, S. (2006)Microbial mat–induced sedimentary structures and their impli-cations: examples from Chorhat Sandstone, MP, India. Journalof Earth System Science, 115, 49–60.

Sarkar, S. and Banerjee, S. (2007) Some unusual and/or problem-atic features. In An Atlas of Microbial Mat Features PreservedWithin the Clastic Rock Record (Schieber, J., Bose, P.K.,Eriksson, P.G., Banerjee, S., et al. Eds.). Elsevier, Amsterdam,145–147.

Sarkar, S., Bose, P.K., Samanta, P., Sengupta, P. and Eriksson, P.G.(2008) Microbial mat mediated structures in the EdiacaranSonia Sandstone, Rajasthan, India, and their implications forProterozoic sedimentation. Precambrian Research, 162, 248–263.

Sarkar, S., Banerjee, S., Samanta, P., Chakraborty, N., et al.(2014a) Microbial mat records in siliciclastic rocks: examplesfrom four Indian Proterozoic basins and their modern equiv-alents in Gulf of Cambay. Journal of Asian Earth Science, 91,362–377.

Sarkar, S., Choudhuri, A., Banerjee, S., van Loon (Tom), A.J. andBose, P.K. (2014b) Seismic and non–seismic soft–sedimentdeformation structures in the Proterozoic Bhander Limestone,central India. Geologos, 20, 79–93.

Sarkar, S., Choudhuri, A., Mandal, S. and Eriksson, P.G. (2016)Microbial mat related structures shared by both siliciclasticand carbonate formations. Journal of Palaeogeography, 5,278–291.

Sarkar, S., Choudhuri, A., Mandal, S. and Bose, P.K. (2018) Flatpebbles and their edge–wise fabric in relation to 2–D micro-bial mat. Geological Journal, https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.3312.

Sarkar, S. and Banerjee, S. (2019) A Synthesis of Depositional Se-quence of the Proterozoic Vindhyan Supergroup in Son Valley:A Field Guide. Springer Geology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978–981–32–9551–3.

Schieber, J. (1999) Microbial mats in terrigenous clastics: the chal-lenge of identification in the rock record. Palaios, 14, 3–12.

Schieber, J., Bose, P.K., Eriksson, P.G., Banerjee, S., et al. (Eds.)(2007) An Atlas of Microbial Mat Features Preserved withinthe Siliciclastic Rock Record. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Scotese, C.R. (2001) An Atlas of Earth History, Volume 1, Paleo-geography, PALEOMAP Project, Arlington, Texas, 52.

Seilacher, A. (2007) Trace Fossil Analysis. Springer, Berlin.Seilacher, A., Bose, P.K. and Pflüger, F. (1998) Triploblastic ani-

mals more than 1 billion years ago: trace fossil evidence fromIndia. Science, 282, 80–83.

Sharma, M. (1996) Microbiolites (stromatolites) from the Meso-proterozoic Salkhan Limestone, Semri Group, Rohtas, Bihar:their systematics and significance. Geological Society of IndiaMemoirs, 36, 167–196.

Singh, S.P. and Sinha, P.K. (2001) Vindhyan Supergroup of Bihar–an overview. In Precambrian Crustal Evolution and Metallog-eny of India (Singh, S.P. Ed.). South Asian Association ofEconomic Geology, Patna, 107–126.

Sur, S., Schieber, S. and Banerjee, S. (2006) Petrographic obser-vations suggestive of microbial mats from Rampur Shale andBijaigarh Shale, Vindhyan basin, India. Journal of Earth Sys-tem Science, 115, 61–66.

Valdiya, K.S. (1969) Stromatolites of the lesser Himalayan Car-bonate formations and the Vindhyan. Journal of GeologicalSociety of India, 10, 1–125.

Venkatachala, B.S., Sharma, M. and Shukla, M. (1996) Age andlife of Vindhyans: facts and conjectures. In Recent advancesin Vindhyan Geology (Bhattacharyya A. Ed.). Memoirs ofGeological Society of India, 36, 137–166.

Xiaoying, S., Chuanheng, Z., Ganqing, J., Juan, L., et al. (2008)Microbial mats in the Mesoproterozoic carbonates of theNorth China platform and their potential for hydrocarbon gen-eration. Journal of China University of Geosciences, 19, 549–566.

Zhang, S., Li, Z., Evans, D.A.D., Wua, H., et al. (2012) Pre–Ro-dinia supercontinent Nuna shaping up: A global synthesiswith new paleomagnetic results from North China. Earthand Planetary Science Letters, 353–354, 145–155.

Zhu, S., Zhu, M., Knoll, A.H., Yin, Z., et al. (2016) Decimetre–scale multicellular eukaryotes from the 1.56–billion–year–oldGaoyuzhuang Formation in North China. Nature Communi-cation, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11500.

Manuscript received August 27, 2019Manuscript accepted January 7, 2020Published online February 22, 2020Manuscript handled by Kaushik Das Guest Editor

A. Choudhuri, S. Banerjee and S. Sarkar174