Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

PALAIOS

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Taylor, J. F. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Who needs (lower Paleozoic) biostratigraphy?

¹ Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Geoscience Department, 875 Oakland Avenue, Indiana, Pennsylvania 15705, USA jftaylor@iup.edu

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

In the 1970s, comic genius George Carlin pushed the limits of censorship with a popular routine regarding the seven words you cannot say on television. Similarly, one can argue that geologists currently seeking grants from major funding sources, at least in the USA, are well advised to avoid using certain words or phrases in their proposals: regional, taxonomy, geologic mapping, and, perhaps the worst of the lot, biostratigraphy. This is quite unfortunate because, in reality, we have barely begun to tap the correlation potential of species range data within Cambrian and Ordovician strata, especially those provided by the rapid evolution of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites through the early Paleozoic. Other groups have considerable biostratigraphic value in certain intervals and paleogeographic settings, but none rivals the aforementioned big three in their broad temporal and spatial range of utility. Over 95% of the lower Paleozoic system, series, and stage boundaries in current geologic time scales are zonal boundaries based on key trilobite, conodont, or graptolite species (Gradstein et al., 2004; Webby et al., 2004; Babcock and Peng, 2007). Consequently, the examples I provide to argue that the need for focused biostratigraphic research has never been greater, all involve use of the big three (especially trilobites, my specialty) in the Cambrian–Ordovician of Laurentian North America. A biostratigrapher specializing in a different taxonomic group, paleogeographic setting, or time interval, however, could probably make at least as strong a case for the untapped potential within his or her group.

If biostratigraphy is so important, then why has it fallen into such disfavor, as reflected in limited prospects for funding of purely biostratigraphic research and diminishing representation of this discipline in the geoscience faculty of academic institutions and government agencies? Flessa and Smith (1997) and Plotnick (2008) presented . . . [Full Text of this Article]