Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Geological Magazine   Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Geological Magazine; September 2009; v. 146; no. 5; p. 625-637; DOI: 10.1017/S0016756809006463
© 2009 Cambridge University Press (CUP)
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PAUL, C. R. C.
Right arrow Articles by LAMOLDA, M. A.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Testing the precision of bioevents

C. R. C. PAUL* and M. A. LAMOLDA{dagger}

* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
{dagger} Departarmento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Avenida de Fuentenueva s/n, 18002, Granada, Spain

* Author for correspondence: glcrcp{at}bristol.ac.uk

Deciding which of two bioevents is the less diachronous is a common problem in biostratigraphy. The most accurate correlation uses the finest timescale available. Chemostratigraphy or cyclostratigraphy offer a potential precision of about 10 ka. Graphic correlation can then be used to test the precision of bioevents and to quantify any mismatch. It can also be used to determine in which section any event occurs earlier. Application of these ideas to correlation of the Cenomanian–Turonian and Coniacian–Santonian boundaries demonstrates that some bioevents are as precise as chemo- and cyclostratigraphy, but that most are not. Two problems occur with bioevents. First they may not be recognizable in all sections. Second, where they are recognizable, they may be diachronous. In the former case, calculating confidence intervals on known ranges in sections where the relevant fossil has been recorded is an alternative test. Large confidence intervals suggest that both first and last occurrences of a fossil may be diachronous bioevents. At the Cenomanian–Turonian boundary the following bioevents (in stratigraphic order) appear to be reliable time planes for international correlation. The last occurrences of (1) Corolithion kennedyi, (2) Rotalipora greenhornensis, (3) Axopodorhabdus albianus, (4) Rotalipora cushmani, (5) Lithraphidites acutus, (6) Microstaurus chiastius and (7) the first occurrence of Quadrum gartneri. At the Coniacian–Santonian boundary only the first and last occurrences of Platyceramus undulatoplicatus, and the first occurrences of Platyceramus cycloides and Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii have been identified as potentially reliable bioevents.

Key Words: stratigraphic precision • graphic correlation • Cenomanian–Turonian boundary • Coniacian–Santonian boundary • bioevents







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Cambridge University Press (CUP)