Towards rationalism in Precambrian stratigraphy

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
There is no generally accepted time or time‐rock Precambrian stratigraphy, as there is for the Phanerozoic. Many authors suggest that a time‐rock nomenclature based on similar principles should be used. But no explicit general principles for the erection of major time or time‐rock stratigraphic divisions exist, or have even been used, while the confusion caused by the evolutionary and unsystematic growth of the Phanerozoic systems is admitted. Consequently, geologists dealing with the Precambrian may feel free to choose whatever methods of time subdivision and nomenclature seem most effective, unprejudiced by Phanerozoic precedent. The familiar ones used by historians seem to be more useful for Precambrian rocks and time, if megacenturies (of 108 years, or 106 centuries) are used instead of centuries, than those used in Phanerozoic stratigraphy. The conclusions that: (1) stratigraphic rock units, plus isotopic age determinations to inter‐relate major sequences and events within a numerical time‐scale of years, are together adequate for handling Precambrian stratigraphic problems, and conversely (2) traditional time and time‐rock stratigraphy is superfluous, represent the main thesis of this paper. Although there is no rock unit of system rank the local restriction of systems would overcome this deficiency; the Adelaide System is an example. Three common fallacies are: (1) rocks are the primary standard of reference for time, (2) geological maps cannot be published without time‐rock stratigraphy, and (3) the same type of nomenclature must be used for both Phanerozoic and Precambrian. International cooperation in the adoption of standard rocks for isotopic dating is advisable to promote accurate correlations in the Precambrian.

This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit: