Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TliME-STRATIGRAPHYi
HARRY E. WHEEr,ER2
Seattle, Washington
ABSTRACT
As in lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy, time-stratigraphic units may be classed on the basis
of their vertical, lateral, and vertico-lateral contiguity.
Those space-time units defined by their position in vertical succession are of two kinds: (1) units
of variable time value without specific time limitations, including holostrome, hiatus, lacuna, and
erosional vacuity; and (2) units of constant maximum time limits, including (a) units of constant
time value such as era, period, epoch, and age, and (b) units of variable time value within specified
maximum time limits such as system, series, and ^tage.
Holostrome and hiatus are analogous to formation in lithostratigraphy and zonule in biostratig-
raphy. Neither era-period-epoch-age, nor system-series-stage, have strict analogies in lithostratig-
raphy' or biostratigraphy.
Laterally contiguous time-stratigraphic facies based on comparative ratios of two or more of
the afore-mentioned time-variable units exist in concept, and are amenable to cartographic portrayal
if desired. Such facies in time-stratigraphy are analogous with lithofacies and biofacies.
Vertico-laterally contiguous (mutually intertongued) combined holostromes comprise deposi-
tional holosomes, and combined hiatuses comprise hiatal holosomes. These are the time-stratigraphic
analogies of lithosome and biosome. Their primary function is to serve as a basis for envisaging the
complete regional or interregional, continuous, and differential migration of depositional and non-
depositional environments in space and time.
INTRODUCTION
If this is logically sound, there should not only be differences between time-stralig-
raphy and the other two kinds, but also ways in which they correspond.
In three previous papers, V. S. Mallory and the writer have attempted to
demonstrate: (1) the necessity and utility of the arbitrary cut-ofif as a standard
procedure in the designation of certain kinds of stratigraphic units (Wheeler
and Mallory, 1953); (2) factors and consequent concepts embodied in the delinea-
tion and classification of lithostratigraphic units (Wheeler and IMallory, 1956);
and (3) the role of factors and concepts in biostratigraphy (Wheeler, 1958). The
present paper gives essentially the same treatment to time-stratigraphy.
Soon after this series of studies began it became apparent that the same
three modes of unit separation either have been or may be advantageously
employed in each of the three major stratigraphic categories; i.e., most lithic
and paleontologic data and lime interpretations may all be logically and usefully
segregated vertically, vertico-laterally, and laterally (Wheeler and i l a l l o r y ,
1954). Trial employment of litho-, bio-, and time-stratigraphy as one parameter,
and vertical, vertico-lateral, and lateral separation as the other, gives a classifica-
tion with nine categories. This in turn has led to the observation that with a few
exceptions, units occurring in vertical succession (regardless of whether they are
litho-, bio-, or time-stratigraphic in nature) are similar in dimensional configura-
tion; t h a t all vertico-laterally segregated (intertongued) units are dimensionally
alike; and that all laterally contiguous (facies) units are also "bodies" of similar
form.
This approach to time-stratigraphy is based on the initial premises that all
stratigraphic units are three-dimensional; t h a t all rock and biostratigraphic units
are defined as bodies in three-dimensional space; t h a t all time-stratigraphic units
are definable only as space-time entities in which relative geologic time is used
in place of the vertical spatial dimension employed in lithostratigraphy and bio-
stratigraphy; and t h a t time-stratigraphic units of one kind or another should be
designed to account for complete stratigraphic space-time, just as rock and bio-
stratigraphic units of some kinds are designed to account for the complete pre-
served record in stratigraphic space.
Analysis of time-stratigraphy on these bases has led to the observation that
not all time-stratigraphic units are entities of constant temporal value. Some
of those regarded as most useful for purposes of regional synthesis, and thus as a
basis for historical interpretation, occur as space-time variables. Although at
first glance these views m a y seem somewhat radical, they are based, neverthe-
less, largely on long-established b u t neglected fundamentals presented in Eliot
Blackwelder's (1909) classic study of unconformities. I n addition, and perhaps
no less important, is the fact that this synthesis embodies and impels the use,
in stratigraphic interpretation, of Joseph Barrell's (1917) frequently neglected
base-level concept.
N A T U R E OF T I M E - S T R A T I G R A P H I C UNITS
First, all tliree dimensions directly concerning rock and biostratigraphic units
are spatial. Only the lateral dimensions are spatial in time-stratigraphy; here
the "vertical" dimension is measured in terms of time.
Second, lithostratigraphic and biostratigraphic units, insofar as they are
properly delineated on the basis of tangible distribution of rocks or fossils (as
taxonomic entities rather than rock constituents) in three-dimensional space,
are intrinsically objective. The temporal element in time-stratigraphy, however,
is inferential and therefore subjective. Any estimate of geologic age, nevertheless,
must be based on either biostratigraphy or lithostratigraphy (or their physical
manifestations such as radioactivity),or preferably on the integration of both
of these mutually variable factors.
Third, while rock and faunal units are material bodies delineated in three-
dimensional space (within the tangible preserved stratigraphic record), time-
stratigraphic units, because their vertical dimension is complete time rather than
/
/ / LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC/' /
/ / /
/ /BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC / /
/ ^ /
/
1 OBJECTIVE ^ / 1 SUBJECTIVE
MATERIAL
\
j MATERIAL
I ONLY ^/ AND
NON-MATERIAL
// \ /:
.TA^t j
1
FIG. 1.Block diagrams emphasizing three-dimensional nature of both lime-stratigraphy and
litho-bioBtratigraphy, together with their fundamental differences.
thickness, must incoporate not only the tangible preserved record, but also those
non-material parts of the total space-time " v o l u m e " represented by non-deposi-
tion and those presently negative parts from which the stratigraphic record has
been erosionally removed. I n other words, just as rock units of one kind or another
are defined to fill all space occupied by the determinable present geologic record,
time-stratigraphic units of one kind or another must be conceived or designated
to account for all interpretable space-time. Otherwise the bases for interpreta-
tion of geologic history are inadequate.
Despite the three-dimensional character of rock and faunal units, this should
not be construed to imply t h a t lithostratigraphic or biostratigraphic units may
not be envisaged, illustrated, or discussed in a space-time framework. Formations,
lithosomes, zones, zonules, and biosomes, for example, may have little historical
significance until this step has been taken. Nevertheless, such substitution of
time for thickness does not destroy the fundamental nature of these rock or bio-
stratigraphic units, but merely distorts their form. T h u s a formation is a rock
unit regardless of whether its illustrated vertical dimension is a measurement of its
thickness or an estimate of its temporal value. Conversely, some time-strati-
graphic units (system, series, and stage) may be usefully distorted to fit a three-
dimensional spatial framework, although their fundamental space-time nature
is not destroyed.
1050 HARRY E. WHEELER
These views are not in complete accord with those of the American Commis-
sion on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (1952, pp. 1828-29). For example, that Com-
mission report initially staled that time-stratigraphic units are "material rock
units"; but it further pointed out that "their boundaries, as extended geographi-
cally from the type section ['or otherwise designated type'], are essentially iso-
chronous surfaces, representing everywhere the same horizon in geologic time."
These statements are incompatible. As demonstrated on following pages, only a
portion of a boundary between two such material units can be isochronousthat
portion which falls within depositional continuity from the one unit to the other.
Elsewhere the isochronous surface departs from the material entity involved,
and enters a non-material, space-time body or lacuna; there the material units
under consideration are separated from the intervening lacuna by time-variable
(non-isochronous) surfaces.
In brief summation, the discussion to this point argues that time-stratigraphic
units must include all three-dimensional entities {material, non-material, or combi-
nations of both) which are related to stratal relationships, and which are defined in a
framework consisting of two lateral space dimensions and a vertical time dimension.
In order that stratigraphic space-time may be completely accounted for, these sub-
jective units must delineate all interpreted deposition {sedimentary or volcanic), non-
deposition, post-deposition erosional removal, or whatever combinations of these may
be useful in the interpretation and visualization of geologic history.
The following analysis is based on the essential validity of the preceding
statement.
U N I T S D E F I N E D BY POSITION I N VERTIC.4L SUCCESSION
WEST EAST
FiG. 2.Generalized cross section approximately along Fortieth Parallel from Pacific Coast to
Rocky Mountains showing principal sequences and intervening unconformities from base of Upper
Mississippian (Chesterian) to Triassic-Jurassic boundary.
FIG. 3.Time-stratigraphic cross section through lateral extent of Sequence C in Figure 2,
illustrating derivation of holostrome and hiatus as primary components of regional stratigraphic
cycle.
FIG. 4.Time-stratigraphic cross section showing holostromes and hiatuses derived from se-
quences shown in Figure 2. Horizontal reference lines are boundaries of periods designated in Figure
S.
77M1--STRA TJGRA PHY 1053
above, and L a t e Mississippian or older rocks below. This is the westerly counter-
part of one of the most widespread unconformiiies in ihe historical record of
North America. Eastward across the continent this break is variously known as
pre-Cherokee, pre-Manchester, pre-I*ottsville, pre-Lee, etc. Westerly from its
termination, distinction between Sequences Y and Z is not possible on the basis
Units of variable space-time value within specified constant time limits {system,
series, and stage.These time-stratigraphic units are here exemplified by system,
which is commonly regarded as "a standard, world-wide division [which] con-
tains the rocks formed during the fundamental chronologic unit, a period"
(Ashley et al., 1933, p. 429). The phrase "contains the rocks formed during . . .
a period" may imply that the completely restored succession (all combined holo-
stromes or depositional holosomes), within period limits, comprises the system.
TlMIi-STRA riGRA FH V 1059
units. The mere fact that they are subjective in nature should not exclude them
from the category of time-stratigraphic units. In fact, as already shown, all lime-
stratigraphic units are subjective or interpretive. Periods, epochs, etc., both logi-
cally and in sound practice, must embrace both material (preserved stratal) and
non-material (lacunal), three-dimensional, time-stratigraphic (space-time) en-
tities. Thus, unless yet another set of new terms is to be introduced, the notion
that such units are non-stratigraphic at present seems untenable.
eral is believed lo be no less important than lithic ratios {e.g., volcanic versus
non-volcanic) as one of the several bases for the fades distinction (and there
is no other) between the Cordilleran miogeosynclinal and eugeosynclinal belts.
The accompanying time-stratigraphic cross section illustrate at a glance that
the number and value of hiatuses increases westward from the miogeosyncline
lost before the conclusion of the orogenic-erosional episode. In other words, there
is seldom any basis for the interpretation of gradational shifts within orogenies.
Consequently, except for the interpretations based on inadequate structural cri-
teria, most of the details of erogenic history are not decipherable.
Again, it is emphasized that these various relationships were also long ago in-
dicated, illustrated or implied by Blackwelder (1909) and by numerous investi-
gators since. Yet the subsequent lack of appropriate terminology, and neglect
of the matter of their derivation, appears to be primarily responsible for the
common failure to envisage the nature and interrelations of these and other time-
stratigraphic units, and the analogies between them and their litho- and bio-
stratigraphic relatives.
As a final analogy common to lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, and time-
stratigraphy, the "tope" concept should be mentioned. If time-stratigraphic
(paleogeographic) surfaces are subdivided on the basis of interpreted deposition
and non-deposition, such areas in time-stratigraphy would indeed be analogous
with lithotope and biotope (see Wheeler and Mallory, 1956, p. 2720; Wheeler,
1958).
CONCLUSION
that all valid scientific data, nomenclature, and interpretation must be based
on sound precept. Insofar as these notions are valid, and are considered in the
light of valid concepts in litho- and biostratigraphy, the implications and possible
attributes are manifold. Foremost among these attributes is that some units tend
to force recognition of the essential fragmentary components of time-stratig-
raphy; while others are designed to comprise the most meaningful elements of a
complete space-time "volume" which, when properly assembled from adequate
paleontologic and physical data, serves as a basis for interpretation of geologic
history as the continuous flowage of events and phenomena that it is.
As a final specific illustration of this general attribute, and strongest among
the arguments in support of the foregoing, it not only incorporates the often
neglected fundamentals presented a half-century ago by Eliot Blackwelder
(1909), but that it also appears to lend them renewed vigor. Moreover, and per-
haps of equal importance, this analysis of time-stratigraphy gives expression to
and demands employment of Barrell's (1917) indispensable concept of base-
level, to which we frequently give lip-service, but commonly disregard.
REFERENCES
AMERICAN COMMISSION ON STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE, 1952, "Nature, Usage, and Nomenclature
of Time-Stratigraphic and Geologic Time Units," Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Vol. 36, pp.
1627-38.
ASHLEY, G . H . , ET AL., 1933, "Classification and Nomenclature of Rock Units," Ball. Geol. Soc.
America, Vol. 44, pp. 423-59.
BARRELL, J., 1917, "Rhythms and the Measurement of Geologic Time," ibid.. Vol. 28, pp. 745-904.
BLACKWELDER, E . , 1909, "The Valuation of Unconformities," Joar. Geol., Vol. 17, pp. 289-99.
GiGNOTJX, M., 1955, Stratigraphic Geology. 682 pp. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
GRABATJ, A . W . , 1906a, "Guide to the Geology and Paleontology of the Schoharie Valley in Eastern
New York," New York State Mus. Btdl. 92, pp. 77-386.
, 1906b, "Tj'pes of Sedimentary Overlap," Bull. Geol. Soc. America, Vol. 17, pp. 567-636.
MOORE, R . C , 1949, "Meaning of Facias, Geol. Soc. America Mem. 39, pp. 1-34.
SLOSS, L . L., KRUMBEIN, W . C , AND DAPPLES, E . C , 1949, "Integrated Facies Analysis," ibid., pp.
91-124.
WHEELER, H . E . , 1958, "Primary Factors in Biostratigraphy," Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Vol.
42, No. 3 (March), pp. 640-55.
, AND BEASLEY, E . M . , 1948, "Critique of the Time-Stratigraphic Concept," Bull. Geol. Soc.
A merica, Vol. 59, pp. 75-86.
, AND MALLORY, V. S., 1953, "Designation of Stratigraphic Units," Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol.
Geol., Vol. 37, pp. 2407-21.
, AND , 1954, "Analysis and Classification of Stratigraphic Units" (abstr.). Bull. Geol.
Soc. America, Vol. 65, p. 1324.
-, AND , 1956, "Factors in Lithostratigraphy," Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Vol. 40,
pp. 2711-23.