12,000

We have over 12,000 students, from over 100 countries, within one of the safest campuses in the UK

93%

93% of Lancaster students go into work or further study within six months of graduating

Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > GSSPs, global stratigraphy and correlation
View graph of relations

« Back

GSSPs, global stratigraphy and correlation

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/ProceedingsChapter (peer-reviewed)

Published

  • Alan G. Smith
  • Tiffany Barry
  • Paul Bown
  • John Cope
  • Andy Gale
  • Phil L. Gibbard
  • John Gregory
  • Mark Hounslow
  • David Kemp
  • Robert Knox
  • John Marshall
  • Michael Oates
  • Peter Rawson
  • John Powell
  • Colin Waters
Publication date2014
Host publicationTitle of volume tbc
Place of publicationLondon
PublisherGeological Society
Number of pages31
Volume404
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Procedures used to define an international chronostratigraphic stage boundary and to locate and ratify a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) are outlined. A majority of current GSSPs use biostratigraphic data as primary markers with no reference to any physicochemical markers, despite the International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classification (ISSC) suggestion that such markers should be included if possible. It is argued that such definitions will not produce the high-precision Phanerozoic time scale necessary to understand such phenomena as pre-Pleistocene ice ages and global climate change. It is strongly recommended that all GSSPs should have physico-chemical markers as an integral part of their guiding criteria, and where such markers cannot be found, the GSSP should be relocated.

The methods and approach embodied in oceanic stratigraphy – coring, logging, analysing and archiving of drill sites by numerous experts using a wide range of methods – could usefully serve as a scientific model for the analysis and archiving of GSSPs, all of which are on the present-day continents. The incorporation of many more stratigraphic sections into GSSP studies, the application of physico-chemical methods, and the replacement of old U–Pb dates by newer CA-TIMS U–Pb dates, together with the use of constrained optimization (CONOP) programs that produce a calendar of events from many sections, should lead to much more precise timescales for pre-Cenozoic time than are currently available.