Paleonet: true strat ranges

Peter Paul Smolka smolka at uni-muenster.de
Tue Mar 8 13:58:19 GMT 2016


Dear Pierre et al.,

a "simple" method for true stratigraphic ranges, which means ("true") on a worldwide scale,
does not exist.
To the Charlotte Brunner hint I agree as one(!) of several such methods..
If one does so, the evolutively based lifespanb of each species considerably expands.
Within ODSN they did it, "ocean-wide" (South Atlantic etc.).

Within IGCP341, several methods have been tried.
The best (and most simple) is: Really good known(!) age-depth-plots of selected(!) DSDP/ODP/IODP sites.
DSDP: Some(!) of the sites are really excellent while others are "pioneer-sites".
For "older" sites: The ages of the units, including "magnetic boundaries" (Matuyama etc.)
given the "up-to-date numbers".

Then, with these, say, 150-250 really good age-depth-plots: Run the "whole world" for
"oldest and youngest appearance" (eFAD: evolutive first appearance datum, eLAD respectively).
Then you get quite good "worldwide eFADs and eLADs" (with extended ranges).
Good(!) for evolution-studies.
To use(!) them stratigraphically, all(!) species are "index-fossils". Through overlapping all(!) ranges of a sample (ODP etc. sample) one gets quite good ranges.

For those who want to "do it from scratch again":

"Just as in the pioneer-days", e.g. age-ranges at each(!) site with
magneto-boundaries, orbital-data, MISes etc. added(!) as "known horizons"
and, this way, get, worldwide(!) true stratigraphic ranges.

Warning: Computer-time on a PI/90, at that time with "large RAM" counts in weeks (plural).

Existing data-sets to use:
See the method-book of IGCP341, the CD, look into the \strat-directory.

The data are in "pure ASCII" so, with any(!) text-editor one can read them, even over hundreds of years.

Authors: Smolka, Volkheimer, 2000: Southern Hemisphere..., Springer Science Publishers..

The "results-book" as well as the good color maps (sea surface temperatures, proof in writing can be given), fell victim to "institutes turbulence".

So: 
1) Use the "age-ranges there" (IGCP341, strat-diectory).
2) Improve the age-ranges from(!) there e.g. "extending them further" (new magneto-ages etc.)
3) Do it "from scratch" with "more excellent age-depth plots from new(!) IODP-sites"
and 
4) "update good age-depth-plots of old(!) ODP/DSDP sites"
With these "age--depth-plots" of, say, 150 such sites "run the whole world", including the 
"other" DSDP/ODP sites".
5) Do it "from scratch" as above, e.g. overlapping ranges computationally but with
"horizons" (magneto, orbtal, MISes etc." added.

For "biozone-people" (as explained on the IGCs 1996 in Beijing and 2004 in Florence (The next phase of ... stratigraphy):

The GSSP etc. describe the FADs and LADs at(!!!) that site (including zone-defining species).
A few kilometers away(!) the base (FAD) of a species might be "a little earlier" or "a little later".
The meanings(!) are "as at the GSSP".

Bill Berggren (as far as I remember) used the term "meanings have to be transferred" (written from rememberance).

That is: The framework(!) comes through the GSSPs, even "biozene-definitions" as we know(!) them.
The meaning (of the biozone definitions): As at(!) the "place of definition".
For GSSPs: "Comparably".

Some kilometers/miles away: Earlier/later (migration, diachroneity)

I think (written from rememberance but I have the slide): Orbulina universa, off E Australia,
has an expanded(!) age-range of several(!) million years, if viewed synoptically.
Worldwide: More.

If someone argues: Do "index fossils exist at all then"? with such long age-ranges?
The answer, given above, is simple:
The age-ranges expand.
The high(!) (meant serious) resolution of biostratigraphy comes from overalpping all(!),
species found in a sample.
This way, using all(!) species of a smaple, e.g. 100-200-400 (PForams, Coccos, Radios, Diatoms) the resolution increases drastically.

And if someone argues "what about Lingula sp." (Brachiopod)?
Is Lingula sp. an "Index-fossil"??????
The answer: Of course Lingula sp. is an "index fossil":
Lingula sp. is an "index fossil" for the Phanerzoic.
In the Pliocene, together with Globoratlia tr. .... etc. Lingula sp. might be useless.

When searching for the "base of the Cambrian" and the "apperance of the first Lingulids"
might be "very helpful".
So: Stratigraphy becomes a "matter of large numbers" (computationally) e.g. all(!) secies to consider.

And, yes, in DSDP/ODP sites PForams, Coccos, Radios, Diatoms viewed synoptically(!)
was(!) possible even in the 1990s.

The computers (on that) with the disks in them had been ordered to be thrown away (later).
The data of the fossils are, fortunately, rescued.
Look into the strat-directory of above-mentioned book.
If anyone who reads that book things "regarding form some things could have been better":
Sure.
Considering the circumstances under which it was made, it was a "miracle" that the bood exists.

Excellence(!) (meant serious) of the University of Muenster:
Nothing(!) was objected, including that I mentioned "all things in time".
They wrote: Dept. (number) "does onot know how to advance the issue any further".
E.g. how the Federal State of NRW "provides "that situation that would exist if bthe damage had not occurred - exept nobody can provide "that situation" (reviving dead people).

As it was (the turbulence) "in official function" I have to get from the State (not the university)
"that situation" (all the publications, other).

So: The University of Muenster is "really excellent" (compares to a bump into a car: If the matter is "not objected", e.g. that the bump took place) then "repair of the damage" must be provided "automatically".
If the driver who "bumped" says: Yes, the bump happened, but I am "unable to repair" then
"things are OK".

Ah ja: A new edition of above book, follow-up papers etc. as part of "that situation", which
"must fall from the sky" ("rectorate does not know how to advance the issue any further").

The good(!) thing for science: "The End of the CO2-Age".

The second method cuts emissions drastically and it saves(!) much money.
So: If anyone in the oil-industry is angry on me: All complaints to those who made the "institute-turbulence".

And some things (which I did not know before) even the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein has to  provide (good for science, e.g. good(!) for the university).
Some, most likely, the Federal State of Brandenburg (that situation ....).
Means: The university itself is "damaged".
As the institute-turbulence was done in "official function" (and not as "private vandalism")
the Federal State of NRW is liable, e.g. "provide "that situation" automatically").

So: See above hints (stratigraphy) and look into the strat-directory of the CD of the book
of IGCP341 (Smolka, Volkheimer, 2000, Springer Southern Hemisphere....).

Ah ja: The first contribution of the (method-book) was in the meantime tested from others(!) experimentally:
It appeared in Nature (making of "E. coli erlenmayeri", authors I can look up).

Kind regards

Peter P. Smolka
(Dr. Peter P. Smolka)







Charlotte Brunner schrieb am 2016-03-07:
> I have found graphic correlation helpful.  See an example in this paper: Dowsett, H.J., 1989, Application of the Graphic Correlation method to Pliocene marine sequences: Marine Micropaleontology, v. 14, no. 1-3, p. 3-32.

> From: Paleonet [mailto:paleonet-bounces at nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pierre & Peta Kruse
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 1:18 AM
> To: PaleoNet <PaleoNet at nhm.ac.uk>
> Subject: Paleonet: true strat ranges

> Dear colleagues
> I've been hunting for papers that provide a reasonably simple formula for calculating true stratigraphic ranges based on observed occurrences. Can anyone recommend a paper or provide a pdf?
> Thanks
> Pierre




More information about the Paleonet mailing list