Stratigraphy charts for 2017

[KimTexan]

I came across this today. I thought I’d share it on here.

ChronostratChart2017-02.pdf

 Not that the charts differ significantly from year to year, but I liked this link because it has quite a bit of info all in one place. It might be more useful for those who are academically and research inclined. 

 

They also have it available in many different languages for those who do not have English as their first language.

 

For those of you who collect in the Ordovician, they have a very nice detailed chart at the link below.

Ordovician Chronostratigraphic Chart

http://stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-chart-timescale

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Thanks, Kim! 

Most useful. 

[Wrangellian]

That's the one-page version. Here is my 3-page version (if you print it out full-size) - I've always got to promote this I guess because it's hard to find on this ever-expanding forum:

(Latest version is always toward the end of the thread)

I'm always in the process of updating and correcting things. You can add your own info, colors, etc.

 

[Bullsnake]

@Wrangellian

Yours is pinned in Documents. 4th one down.

[Wrangellian]

Yes, but how many know it is there? So much to look thru and nobody bothers to search the site before posting something (I'm sure I've done the same)

[doushantuo]

yeah,I know.It's older.

 

A typical paleozoic margin sequence:

 

In other words:strata are cut up,translated,over-and underthrust/imbricated,folded and faulted.Expect your stratigraphy to be messy at all scales.

One inaccessible piece of stratigraphy might be found elsewhere,where it IS accessible.

Of course,I am not saying anything new here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ludwigia]

On 1/29/2018 at 12:49 AM, doushantuo said:

 

yeah,I know.It's older.

 

and out of date, but it's a good reference that helps correlate the old with the new.

[Kane]

7 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

 and nobody bothers to search the site before posting something (I'm sure I've done the same)

Actually, I do. Absolute statements are among the easiest to invalidate with just one counterexample. I rarely find them helpful or accurate.  

 

If I hadn't been called away when I saw this post, I was going to refer the good work you did on this one. It is rightfully a pinned item in Documents, and I know there are a number of us who are very appreciative of the time and effort you put into it.  

[erose]

Great link. I like that they have the little "golden spikes" included.

 

[DPS Ammonite]

Thanks Kim for pointing out a chart that I use frequently as a collections curator, the ICS Chronstarigraphy Chart: http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2017-02.pdf

 

Some explaination is necessary to make this chart useful for many since the chart partially combines units from both chronostratigraphy and geochronology and is difficult to fully understand.

 

Here is how Wikipedia describes chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units: "It is important not to confuse geochronologic and chronostratigraphic units. Chronostratigraphic units are geological material, so it is correct to say that fossils of the species Tyrannosaurus rex have been found in the Upper Cretaceous Series. Geochronological units are periods of time and take the same name as standard stratigraphic units but replacing the terms upper/lower with late/early. Thus it is also correct to say that Tyrannosaurus rex lived during the Late Cretaceous Epoch.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostratigraphy

 

Names of chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

 

Units in geochronology and stratigraphy[1]
Segments of rock (strata) in chronostratigraphy	Time spans in geochronology	Notes to geochronological units
Eonothem	Eon	4 total, half a billion years or more
Erathem	Era	10 defined, several hundred million years
System	Period	22 defined, tens to ~one hundred million years
Series	Epoch	34 defined, tens of millions of years
Stage	Age	99 defined, millions of years
Chronozone	Chron	subdivision of an age, not used by the ICS timescale

 

In TFF collections section we are concerned with geochronologicunits such as Eons, Eras, Epochs and Ages. We also use the terms "late" and "early" instead of "upper" and "lower" when refering to geochronologic unit subdivisions. Looking at the chart again, 

ICS-eologicalTimescale2017.pdf replace the terms: eonothem with eon; erathem with era; system with period; series with epoch and stage with age. Also replace "upper" with "late" and "lower" with "early".

 

We have some errors and needing additions to the geochronologic terms in TFF collections board. Note that Pennsylvanian and Mississippian are subperiods and are not as epochs as listed in the collections board. We need to add the epochs to the Cambrian and all eons, eras and periods to the Precambrian.  

 

I'll be happy to help anyone with questions about chronostratigraphy and geochronology and their units and/or any other questions about the collections board.

 

Regards,

John

 

 

 

[Wrangellian]

15 hours ago, Kane said:

Actually, I do. Absolute statements are among the easiest to invalidate with just one counterexample. I rarely find them helpful or accurate.  

 

If I hadn't been called away when I saw this post, I was going to refer the good work you did on this one. It is rightfully a pinned item in Documents, and I know there are a number of us who are very appreciative of the time and effort you put into it.  

You're right, I normally would say "nobody seems to" (knowing I'm probably wrong), but I get lazy with my language. But still, I think you're an exception to the general tendency.

Thanks for the kudos.

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 hour ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Thanks Kim for pointing out a chart that I use frequently as a collections curator, the ICS Chronstarigraphy Chart: http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2017-02.pdf

 

Some explaination is necessary to make this chart useful for many since the chart partially combines units from both chronostratigraphy and geochronology and is difficult to fully understand.

 

Here is how Wikipedia describes chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units: "It is important not to confuse geochronologic and chronostratigraphic units. Chronostratigraphic units are geological material, so it is correct to say that fossils of the species Tyrannosaurus rex have been found in the Upper Cretaceous Series. Geochronological units are periods of time and take the same name as standard stratigraphic units but replacing the terms upper/lower with late/early. Thus it is also correct to say that Tyrannosaurus rex lived during the Late Cretaceous Epoch.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostratigraphy

 

Names of chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

 

Units in geochronology and stratigraphy[1]
Segments of rock (strata) in chronostratigraphy	Time spans in geochronology	Notes to geochronological units
Eonothem	Eon	4 total, half a billion years or more
Erathem	Era	10 defined, several hundred million years
System	Period	22 defined, tens to ~one hundred million years
Series	Epoch	34 defined, tens of millions of years
Stage	Age	99 defined, millions of years
Chronozone	Chron	subdivision of an age, not used by the ICS timescale

 

In TFF collections section we are concerned with geochronologicunits such as Eons, Eras, Epochs and Ages. We also use the terms "late" and "early" instead of "upper" and "lower" when refering to geochronologic unit subdivisions. Looking at the chart again, 

ICS-eologicalTimescale2017.pdf replace the terms: eonothem with eon; erathem with era; system with period; series with epoch and stage with age. Also replace "upper" with "late" and "lower" with "early".

 

We have some errors and needing additions to the geochronologic terms in TFF collections board. Note that Pennsylvanian and Mississippian are subperiods and are not as epochs as listed in the collections board. We need to add the epochs to the Cambrian and all eons, eras and periods to the Precambrian.  

 

I'll be happy to help anyone with questions about chronostratigraphy and geochronology and their units and/or any other questions about the collections board.

 

Regards,

John

 

 

 

Yes, you are quite right. 

I had to post an Ediacaran fossil under Cambrian as there was no other place to put it and the missing Carboniferous period is most infuriating. 

[Fossildude19]

23 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Yes, you are quite right. 

I had to post an Ediacaran fossil under Cambrian as there was no other place to put it and the missing Carboniferous period is most infuriating. 

 

I can see both Carboniferous and Ediacaran listed under Periods in Collections.  

 

           

[Tidgy's Dad]

5 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

I can see both Carboniferous and Ediacaran listed under Periods in Collections.  

 

           

Dearie, dearie me, you are quite right. 

I can actually remember not being able to find the Ediacaran, yet not only is it there but my specimen is listed, presumably by me, as being from that period. 

I've definitely lost several of my marbles today. 

I liked the green ones particularly. 

Sorry. 

[Fossildude19]

1 minute ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Dearie, dearie me, you are quite right. 

I can actually remember not being able to find the Ediacaran, yet not only is it there but my specimen is listed, presumably by me, as being from that period. 

I've definitely lost several of my marbles today. 

I liked the green ones particularly. 

Sorry. 

 

No harm done, Adam.  

If it helps any, I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning.  

[Tidgy's Dad]

3 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

No harm done, Adam.  

If it helps any, I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning.  

I can't remember this morning. 

[Bullsnake]

16 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I can't remember this morning. 

It is this morning there!

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 minute ago, Bullsnake said:

It is this morning there!

Golly! So it is! 

Half past three and a new day is beginning. 

I should probably get some kip. 

Night night! 

[KimTexan]

One thing I wanted to see was a Cretaceous chronostratigraphic chart like they had of the Ordovician. I’m terribly naive on this topic, but why would they have it for the Ordovician, but not other systems/periods? Maybe I just missed the link or something. 

Most of where I hunt is Cretaceous.

[doushantuo]

 

[doushantuo]

 

 

Above:about 0,17 natural size(he said.totally without irony)

Again,something of a baseline.

mollusc*,nannofossil,foram(inifera),event**-/magneto-/sequence-/chemo(strontium ,oxygen,and carbon isotope curves continually being recalibrated and/or updated)

Neodymium ->isotopes are also being used more.-> A R(are)E(arth) E(lement) 

*ammonite,belemnite,inoceramid bivalves

**mostly oceanic anoxic events(OAE's)

Progress has been made into using Milankovitch cycles("astronomical forcing") in CRetaceous stratigraphy

please note: cyclo-and sequence stratigraphy are related disciplines,but NOT the same

 

 

 

 

[doushantuo]

The Ordovician again:

With sealevel curves,radiometric ages,and a bit of isotope stratigraphy.From 2016

 

 

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

4 hours ago, doushantuo said:

 

 

Above:about 0,17 natural size(he said.totally without irony)

Again,something of a baseline.

mollusc*,nannofossil,foram(inifera),event**-/magneto-/sequence-/chemo(strontium ,oxygen,and carbon isotope curves continually being recalibrated and/or updated)

Neodymium ->isotopes are also being used more.-> A R(are)E(arth) E(lements) 

*ammonite,belemnite,inoceramid bivalves

**mostly oceanic anoxic events(OAE's)

Progress has been made into using Milankovitch cycles("astronomical forcing") in CRetaceous stratigraphy

please note: cyclo-and sequence stratigraphy are related disciplines,but NOT the same

 

 

 

 

Thanks!