The main components are reworked corallinacean fragments and large perforate foraminifera (Figure 5(a)). The foraminifera are characterized by a relatively diverse assemblage of nummulitids (Operculina, Heterostegina

and Spiroclypeus) and lepidocyclinids (Eulepidina and Nephrolepidina). The minor components are echinoderm and bryozoan fragments (Figure 5(b)).

Interpretation: The combination of micritic matrix and abundance of typical open-marine skeletal fauna including bryozoans, echinoids, and larger foraminifera suggest a low-medium energy, open-marine environment for deposition of this microfacies [14] . The presence of large and flat nummulitids and lepidocyclinids allowed us to interpret this facies as having been deposited in the lower photic zone [5] [18] -[21] on the distal openmarin. This microfacies is as the same as RMF13 [14] .

The main characteristic of this microfacies is abundant large fragments of corallinacean, corals and benthic foraminifers (lepidocyclina, Operculina, and Heterostegina). Echinoid and bryozoan fragments are also present. The fragments are coarse sand to granule in size (Figure 5(c) and Figure 5(d)).

Interpretation: most of the main components of this facies are reef drived fragments (i.e. corallinacean and coral fragments).So they came from an open marine environment under normal marine salinity conditions with open water circulation and medium hydrodynamic energy. Evidence for this interpretation includes abundant open marine skeletal fauna [10] and stratigraphic position. Abundant open marine skeletal fauna and flora reflect well-lit water and oxygen contents within the water column and at the sediment surface. Flügel [14] believes that boundstones are disintegrated by biological and physical erosions and their fragments are reworked and, finally, these fragments produced such facies. Microfacies 2 is comparable with RMF15 [14] .

Identifiable components of this facies include benthic foraminifera (mainly Neorotalia, Heterostegina and rarely Operculina, Miogypsina, Amphistegina and lepidocyclina) and corallinacean fragments. Echinoderm segments are less common. Grains are fine- to coarse-sand size and sorting is moderate (Figure 5(e) and Figure 5(f)).

Interpretation: The presence of high diverse stenohaline fauna such as red algae, echinoid and larger foraminifera [like Neorotalia, and Heterostegina] indicate that the sedimentary environment was situated in the oligophotic zone in a shallow open marine environment [22] -[25] . The texture of this facies indicate moderate to high energy shallow waters with much movement. Pomar [21] believes that presence of Neorotalia and Heterostegina points to high energy shallow marine water in reef and intra-reef districts. This microfacies is equivalence of RMF13 [14] .

The main characteristic of this microfacies is abundant colony of corallinacean and corals. Coral skeletal form the framework of the facies and red algae have encrusting rules (Figure 6). In field, this microfacies is patch form and doesn’t continue laterally. This facies mostly intercalates with the other open marine microfacies (Figure 5(g) and Figure 5(h)).

Interpretation: Corallinacean and coral reefs are interpreted as open marine facies of an inner ramp with free marine water-circulation, above the fire-weather wave base [14] . This interpretation is supported by patchy form of the facies. The microfacies is comparable with RMF12 [14] .

Identifiable components of this facies include benthic imperforate foraminifera (especially miliolids). Archaias, echinoid, large foraminifers and corallinacean (broken fragments) are less common. Texture varies from mudstone to wackestone.

Interpretation: This facies was deposited in a semi restricted, low-energy condition. This condition is suggested by the rare normal marine biota, abundant skeletal components of restricted biota (imperforate foraminifera such as miliolids) and mud-supported fabric [14] . This microfacies is as the same as RMF16 [14] .

Skeletal grains consist of diverse imperforate foraminifera (miliolids, Archaias, Peneroplis, and Meandropsina). Additional minor components are echinoderm fragments, corallinacean fragments, perforate foraminifera, and peloids. Lime mud occupies the pores of this grain-supported texture (Figure 5(j)).

Interpretation: Co-occurrence of normal marine (perforate foraminifera and corallinacean) and platform-interior (imperforate foraminifera) components indicates that sedimentation took place in a semi restricted, low-energy environment. Both porcellaneous and hyaline foraminifer indicate that the sedimentary environment was situated in the euphotic zone [25] . Seyrafian et al. [11] reported miliolids, Archaias and Peneroplis from restricted facies of the Asmari formation in central and north-central of Zagros basin. RMF 16 [14] is proposed for equivalent of the microfacies.

The main well-sorted components are porcellaneous imperforate foraminifera like miliolids, Archaias, Mean-

dropsina and Dendritina. Echinoderm, mollusk fragments and peloid are also present (Figure 5(k)).

Interpretation: The features of this facies indicate high energy shallow waters with much movement and reworking of bioclasts. Sediments are interpreted to have been deposited in sand shoal [14] or next to it. The presence of diverse porcellaneous imperforate foraminifera and grainstone texture indicate that the facies occurred in the photic zone near a high-energy environment-like a shoal. This microfacies is comparable with RMF27 [14] .

The main characteristic of this microfacies is abundant fragments of bivalve and gastropods. The minor components are peloid and porcellaneous imperforate foraminifera. Textures are dominantly grainstone, but range from packstone to grainstone (Figure 5(l)).

Interpretation: This facies which is equal of RMF26 [14] , was deposited in a shoal. The shoal condition is suggested by the rare to absent lime mud and abundant sand-size shell fragments. Bivalves and gastropods, generally, live in shallow normal marine water. So, bioclastic shoals commonly separate restricted lagoonal environments from deeper ramp environments [14] .

The predominant grain types are superficial and bahamite ooids. Skeletal grains such as mollusca and porcellaneous foraminifera and non-skeletal grain like aggregate grains, rarely, can be seen. Ooid nuclei consist of recrystallized bivalve and gastropod fragments, and miliolids with oval, circular or elongate outlines. Grains are fine- to coarse-sand size and sorting and roundness are moderates. Due to microbial micritization, some of ooids and bioclasts have been changed to bahamits and cortoids, respectively (Figure 5(m)).

Interpretation: The features of this facies indicate moderate to high energy shallow waters with much movement and reworking of bioclasts and the production of ooids. Sediments are interpreted to have been deposited in sand shoal [14] . A low sedimentation rate is suggested by micritization. The microfacies is as the same as RMF30 [14] .

A diverse assemblage of poorly to moderately sorted, fragmented and whole fossils in lime mud is characteristic of this microfacies. Echinoderm fragments, miliolids, and Dendritina are the dominant grains. Less common grains include Borelis, Quartz grain and fragments of recrystallized mollusca (Figure 5(n)). Textures range from wackestone to packstone. In a few samples; evaporate mineral moldings can be seen.

Interpretation: The occurrence of large number of porcellaneous imperforate foraminiferal tests may point to the depositional environment being slightly hypersaline. Such an assemblage is described as being associated with a shelf lagoon environment [26] . Microfacies10 is comparable with RMF20 [14] .

This microfacies is composed of dense lime mudstones. Sediments also contain sparse ostracods, subordinate amounts of detrital quartz grains and gypsum. In some samples, gromlus fabric is produced by partially recrystalization of lime mud (Figure 5(o)). Microfacies11 occurs in upper part of the Asmari Formation, only.

Interpretation: Vaziri-Moghaddam et al. [5] believed that lime mudstone, with gypsum blades and small quartz grains and no evidence of subaerial exposure, was deposited in a restricted lagoon. This facies indicates hyper saline conditions within a lagoon. They reported such microfacies from northwestern of Zagros basin. This microfacies is similar to RMF19 [14] .

This microfacies consists of fine grained microcrystalline limestone. Fenestrate structures are well developed, and algal filaments are rare (Figure 5(p)).

Interpretation: Birdseye or fenestral structures are typical products of shrinkage and expansion, gas bubble formation, and air escape during flooding, or may even result from burrowing activity of worms or insects [26] . These vuggies structures are typical of a tidal flat zone [5] [26] . Microfacies 11 occurs in upper part of the Asmari Formation and is the same as RMF23 [14] .

Depositional sequence 0 encompasses the upper part of the Pabdeh Formation and the lower part of the Asmari Formation. Uppermost portion of its highstand systems tract (HST) is about 20 m thick and comprises the lower part of the Asmari Formation. The sediments of this part of sequence are Rupelian-Chattian in age. This interval consists of a prograding parasequences set that composes of open marine microfacies (Facies association 1). The contact between DS0 and DS1 is of the SB_II type (Figure 8). This sequence formed during the Rupelian-Chat- tian global transgression (3^rd order cycle no 4.4 of Hag et al. [27] , Figure 9).

The depositional sequence 1 formed during the Rupelian-Chattian regression (3^rd order cycle no. 4.5 of Hag et al. [27] , Figure 10). The boundary between this sequence and previous sequence (Sb I) is comparable with sequence surface Ru30/Ch10 proposed by Ehrenberg et al. [3] and surface II reported by Van Buchem et al. [4] (Figure 10). The transgressive systems tract (TST) of DS1 is marked by deposition of Mf1, Mf2 and Mf4. These open marine microfacies (FA1) have deposited on top of the semi restricted marine microfacies (Mf5; FA2) of previous depositional sequence. Topmost microfacies of the TST (Mf1) represent the Mfs (Figure 8). This TST is 11.5 m thick and consists of one abnormal parasequence.

The HST of DS1 in the Khaviz section is 72.3 m thick and composes of early HST and late HST. Early HST is characterized by one aggrading parasequence set that composes of 4 parasequences. Late HST is illustrated by a prograding parasequence set which consists of 2 parasequences (Figure 8). Early HST consists of alternation of Mf1, Mf2 and Mf4 (open marine microfacies; FA1) but late HST is characterized by a progradation from open marine (Mf1, Mf2, Mf3 and Mf4; FA1) to semi restricted marine (Mf5; FA2) and finally to shoal facies (Mf7, FA3).

The depositional sequence 2 formed during commence of the early Chattian regression (3^rd order cycle no. 1.1 of Hag et al. [27] ; Figure 9). In this area, this sequence is 28.5 m thick (Figure 8) and begins with 12 m-thick se-

diments as TST. The TST is marked by a retrograding parasequence set which includes 3 parasequences and characterized by shoal and semi restricted microfacies that are overlain by open marine microfacies (Figure 8). These microfacies are: Mf7 (shoal microfacies; FA3), Mf5 (semi restricted marine microfacies; FA2), Mf2 and Mf1 (open marine microfacies; FA1); the latter representing the Mfs.

The HST of DS2 is characterized by a progradation from open marine microfacies (FA1; Mf1, Mf2 and Mf4) to semi restricted marine microfacies (FA2, Mf6). It consists of a prograding parasequence set, including 2 parasequences. The contact between DS1 and DS2 is of the SB_II type (Figure 8). This sequence boundary (SB II) is comparable with sequence surface Ch20 proposed by Ehrenberg et al. [3] (Figure 10).

Depositional sequence 3 is Chattian in age and is comparable with 3^rd order cycle no 1.2 proposed by Hag et al. [27] (Figure 9). Therefore, it formed during commence of Chattian transgression. Its lower boundary is characterized by a type 2 sequence boundary (Figure 8). The boundary (Sb III) is comparable with sequence surface Ch30 and with surface III reported by Ehrenberg et al. [3] and by Van Buchem et al. [4] , respectively (Figure 10). A parasequence consists of Mf2 (open marine; FA1), and Mf5 (semi restricted marine; FA2) form TST of

DS3, the earlier microfacies representing the Mfs. This portion of the sequence is 18.8 m thick.

The HST of the sequence is characterized by a prograding parasequence set composes of two parasequences (Figure 8). This part of DS3 is 17.4 thick and consists of open marine (Mf2; FA1), semi restricted marine (Mf5 and Mf6; FA2) and shoal microfacies (Mf7; FA3).

This depositional sequence is Chattian in age and is 28.45 m thick. The TST of DS4 comprises of a retrograding parasequence set that consists of two parasequences (Figure 8). The thickness of TST is 7.5 m and composes of semi restricted (Mf5 and Mf6; FA2) and open marine microfacies. The HST of DS4 is characterized by a progradation from open (Mf2; FA1) and restricted facies (Mf5 and Mf6; FA2) to shoal facies (Mf7; FA3). Mf2 shows the mfs of this sequence (Figure 8).

The contact between DS3 and DS4 (SbIV) is of the SB_II type (Figure 8) and is comparable to sequence surface Aq10 proposed by Ehrenberg et al. [3] and surface IV reported by Van Buchem et al. [4] (Figure 10). Depositional sequence 5 is Chattian in age and is comparable with 3^rd order cycle no 1.3 proposed by Hag et al. [27] (Figure 9). Therefore, it formed during Chattian transgression.

The transgressive systems tract (TST) of DS5 in this section is marked by microfacies of open marine, such as Mf2, Mf3 (FA1), and semi restricted like Mf5 (FA2, Figure 8). This portion of the sequence is 7.4 m thick and consists of a parasequence.

The highstand system tract (HST) of the sequence is marked by deposition of shoal packstone-grainstone (Mf8; FA3) on top of distal open marine microfacies (Mf1, Mf2 and Mf4; FA1; Figure 8). The Mf1, the deepest microfacies of open marine facies, points to Mfs of DS6. The HST is 30.2 m thick and consists of a prograding parasequence set which includes of 3 parasequences. The lower boundary of DS5 is characterized by a type 2 sequence boundary (Sb V) (Figure 8) that is comparable with sequence surface intra-Aq10 of sequence surfaces proposed by Ehrenberg et al. [3] (Figure 10). Depositional sequence 5 is Aquitanian in age and is comparable with 3^rd order cycle no. 1.4 proposed by Hag et al. [27] (Figure 9). Therefore, it was formed during Aquitanian transgression.

The TST of DS6 shows a retrogradation from semi restricted facies (Mf5; FA2) and high-energy shoal facies (Mf7 and Mf8; FA3) to open marine microfacies (Mf1; FA1) the latter representing the Mfs (Figure 8). This system tract is 14.2 m and is made of a retrograding parasequence set includes two parasequences. The HST with 9.45 m thickness is made of a prograding parasequence set including two parasequences. Microfacies of these system tracts are: Mf2, Mf4 (open marine, FA1), Mf5 (semi restricted, FA2), Mf9 (shoal, FA3) and Mf11 (lagoon, FA4). Depositional sequence 6 is formed during the late Aquitanian regression so is comparable with 3^rd order cycle no 1.5 proposed by Hag et al. [27] (Figure 9). Contact between DS5 and DS6 is type 2 sequence boundary (Sb VI) and is equal with sequence surface Aq20/Bu10 and Surface V reported by Ehrenberg et al. [3] and by Van Buchem et al. [4] , respectively (Figure 10).

This depositional sequence is late Burdigalian in age and is 31.5 m thick. Transgressive system tract of this sequence is 25.7 m and abnormally consists of a prograding parasequence set including two parasequences. Increasing more carbonate production, compare to accommodation space, probably, is the reason of this trend [28] . Lagoon microfacies including Mf10 and Mf 11 (FA4) make this system tract. Mf10 represents its maximum flooding surface, too. The HST is introduced by fenestral mudstone (Mf12, peritidal; FA5) that lies on mfs (Figure 8). The lower boundary of DS7 in this area is characterized by a type 2 sequence boundary, whereas its upper boundary is defined by a type 1 sequence boundary (Figure 8). The lower boundary (Sb VII) is the same as sequence surface BU20 of Ehrenberg et al. [3] and surface VI of Van Buchem et al. [4] (Figure 10). DS7 is equivalent of the sequence no 2.1 of Hag et al. [27] (Figure 9).