SOLUTIONS IN CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY: THE PALEOCENE/EOCENE BOUNDARY DEBATE, AND AUBRY VS. HEDBERG ON CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES

Abstract

In several recent papers, M.-P. Aubry et al. have argued that “Hedbergian” principles of chronostratigraphy are being violated by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) when selecting Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs) for the formal divisions of the geological time scale. The current debate over the definition of the Paleocene/Eocene (P/E) boundary has been a major focus of their arguments. Unfortunately, Aubry et al. have obscured matters by misusing the term “unit stratotype,” and by equivocally using the term “stage” for the very different concepts of “synthem” and “global chronostratigraphic stage.” The P/E boundary option most repugnant to Aubry et al. (Carbon Isotope Excursion (CIE)=P/E=Thanetian/Ypresian boundary) is perfectly compatible with H.D. Hedberg's views. In contrast, another option preferred by Aubry et al. (recognition of new ∼1 m.y. duration age/stage between Thanetian and Ypresian) is inconsistent with Hedberg's views. Additional problems with the P/E boundary arguments of Aubry et al. include the fact that a “Ypresian unit stratotype” does not exist, the fact that the base of the Ypresian synthem is not immutable, and the fact that the nannofossil Tribrachiatus digitalis is of dubious relevance to the boundary debate.