Recent paleoecological studies have emphasized the recognition of successional stages of level‐bottom communities, but have neglected to point out techniques for distinguishing succession within a fossil community from the temporal and spatial replacement of one fossil community by another. The physical integrity of a marine level‐bottom community is discernible, in most instances, through careful temporal and spatial study, and one community can be distinguished from another by judicious application of the ‘end‐member’ concept. Community boundaries are only as distinct as the associated environmental stress gradient. Of first‐order significance in understanding fossil community succession and replacement is appreciation of the basic asymmetry of the community dynamics involved in transgression‐regression events. Of second‐order importance is appreciation of the nature of the onshore‐offshore environmental stress gradient, which, in turn, is controlled by the physical setting of transgression‐regression (e.g. progradation versus eustatic control; high topographic relief versus low topographic relief, etc.). The application of the preceding concepts is shown by detailed study of community succession and replacement in the Cambridge Limestone (Upper Pennsylvanian), Guernsey County, Ohio.