| Introduction
This
"listing" of the terminology used by sequence stratigraphers
has been under constant development since we began this site
and the list is likely to remain incomplete. Compilation reflects
our personal interests, experience and the inadequate time
we are able to devote to building it. Sometimes what we have
produced is incorrect, poorly written or illustrated. Please
let us know if you find anything that you think is wrong or
could be improved and we will try to correct our errors. If
you have something that you think should be changed or could
be added, please mail this to us with text and .jpg or .gif
illustrations and we will put place these on the site and
acknowledge your contribution. We welcome your help. This
is our site but it is yours too!
We refer you to
the debate on the Formalization
of Sequence Stratigraphy methodology, surfaces,
units and terminology launched by Octavian Catuneanu and Ashton
Embry through the IWGSS (International Working Group on Sequence
Stratigraphy) and the International Sub-commission on Stratigraphic
Classification (ISSC) Task Group on Sequence Stratigraphy.
Comments are posted for these groups so their manuscripts
can be revised. As you can see differences in opinion exist.
These are a reflection of a healthy difference in our understanding
of this evolving science.
Philosophy on the use of terms
Krynine is alleged to have said that "stratigraphy is
the triumph of terminology over common sense". At one
time or another, anyone who has had anything to do with sequence
stratigraphy has probably sympathized with Krynine's position.
The science of sequence stratigraphy is replete with jargon.
The "standardized" terminology listed and defined
below, can be intimidating to learn. However it offers powerful
tools for describing surfaces, strata, terminations, and other
abstract concepts that are key to understanding the evolution
of stratigraphic architecture.
Our
personal advice to the users of sequence stratigraphy is that
they concentrate on understanding the principles of this topic
and how to use them. Never the less stratigraphy changes as
do the models that explain what we see in the rock record.
If our "current" terminology does not fit a particular
configuration of the rocks being examined, then we should
carefully define and describe this configuration, using terms
we believe meet the needs of the situation, and move on. Purists
may be disturbed by our usage, but so long as we have carefully
defined what we mean, others really should have no quarrel
with us. Science evolves and changes and we should accommodate
our language to meet these changes. Most people who are advocating
changes to the list below are serious scientists with genuine
arguments against some of the current usage within specific
geological settings.
In other words,
use the terminology that suits you best but define this terminology
as carefully as you can, preferably using colloquial language.
At the same time we do not to advocate arbitrarily changing
terms to give them a personalized gee-whiz pizzazz, anymore
than we would argue for Humpty Dumpty's position from Lewis
Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass: "When
I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - nothing
more nor less".
|
