Biostratigraphy: Interpretations of Oppel's zones

Scott, G. H.

doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.013

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scott () claims that the definition of Oppelzone in Hedberg () is ambiguous, suggesting that this ‘equivocal status’ could be the reason for its removal in the revised ISG by Salvador (). Anyway, the problem remains for the assemblage zone, which seems to be some new name for the same Oppelian conception.…”

Section: The International Stratigraphic Guidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inherent fuzzy definition of the boundaries of the Oppelzone is maintained in the assemblage zone representing at the same time a weakness (because of subjectivity in determining them) and a main advantage (because of their flexibility in being applied to different palaeoenvironmental settings). Scott (2013) claims that the definition of Oppelzone in Hedberg (1976) is ambiguous, suggesting that this 'equivocal status' could be the reason for its removal in the revised ISG by Salvador (1994). Anyway, the problem remains for the assemblage zone, which seems to be some new name for the same Oppelian conception.…”

Section: The International Stratigraphic Guidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oppelzones and their heritage in current larger foraminiferal biostratigraphy

Pignatti

Papazzoni

2017

LET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Oppelzone remains a controversial topic in stratigraphy, despite the attempts to systematize biozonal units in the International Stratigraphic Guide (ISG). In the first edition of the ISG, the Oppelzone was regarded as a particular kind of biozone, although its boundaries were recognized as 'difficult to define empirically'. This is probably the main reason why the Oppelzone was removed from the second edition of the ISG. Here, we review briefly the history and significance of the Oppelzone, starting from Jurassic zonal biostratigraphy as introduced by Oppel himself, and based mainly on ammonites, to its present usage, distinguishing the multiple meanings of the unit - biostratigraphical, chronostratigraphical, or even as a time interval. We review the Oppelzone as integral part of the current biostratigraphy of Palaeogene-Miocene larger foraminifera (the Shallow Benthic Zones, SBZ). Here, different species concepts in individual systematic groups result either in Oppelian (e.g. nummulitids, alveolinids) or non-Oppelian (e.g. lepidocyclinids, miogypsinids and in part orthophragmines) biozones. In addition, various regional larger foraminiferal zonations have been established. These different kinds of biozones are subsumed under the biochronostratigraphical SBZ system in a similar way as regional ammonite zonations are integrated in the standard ammonite zonation. To overcome issues of fuzzy-defined boundaries, a novel research programme is needed to: (1) establish the most suitable markers for biozonal boundaries; (2) enhance correlation with different systematic groups (especially planktonic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils) and with other stratigraphical tools (magnetostratigraphy, radiometric dating, isotopic stratigraphy, etc.); and (3) extend morphometric criteria wherever possible to recognize the markers themselves

show abstract

Section: The International Stratigraphic Guidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The International Stratigraphic Guidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oppelzones and their heritage in current larger foraminiferal biostratigraphy

Pignatti

Papazzoni

2017

LET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This lack of explanations in support of Hedberg's figure 8, together with mistakes on the understanding of the historical framework of Oppel and Hedberg's contributions, led to a line of thinking (e.g. Berry ; McGowran , ; Scott ) that considers the Oppel Zone as traditionally based on assemblages but also on boundaries (Berry , p. 324, fig. ; McGowran , ; Scott , p. 266) and the Hedberg's review as a true formalization of a zone that is not consistent with the concept of the other biozones as well as with chronozones (Scott ).…”

Section: The Evolution Of the Concept Of Zonementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Berry ; McGowran , ; Scott ) that considers the Oppel Zone as traditionally based on assemblages but also on boundaries (Berry , p. 324, fig. ; McGowran , ; Scott , p. 266) and the Hedberg's review as a true formalization of a zone that is not consistent with the concept of the other biozones as well as with chronozones (Scott ). The latter author (; p. 269) even came to the wrong conclusion that the equivocal status of Hedberg's Oppel Zone was the reason for the rejection of this zone by Salvador ().…”

Section: The Evolution Of the Concept Of Zonementioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Fossils to Chronostratigraphy, 150 Years after Albert Oppel

Balini

Ferretti

Finney

et al. 2017

LET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 150th anniversary of the death of Albert Oppel (1831–65) provided the opportunity to celebrate this outstanding stratigrapher with a Thematic Issue dedicated to the importance of fossils for dating and correlating of sedimentary rocks. In this issue, we analyse Oppel's significant contribution to modern chronostratigraphy, before exploring the Phanerozoic through all its major fossil groups, to verify if fossils are still able to make a significant contribution to chronostratigraphy. The extraordinary merit of Oppel's work has been the demonstration that fossils can be used to sub‐divide sedimentary sequences into zones, which in turn might be organized in higher chronostratigraphical units. The zone for Oppel is characterized by the distinctive fossil content, and his view strongly influenced the development of the standard chronostratigraphical scale for about one century, until the introduction, in the 1950s, of the log‐based range chart as the common practice to study the fossil record of sedimentary successions. This approach forced the stratigraphers to shift the focus from the fossil content of the zones to their boundaries. This new view allowed for the introduction of new kind of zones with precisely defined boundaries based on bioevents and to the decline of the Oppel Zone. This turning point in the history of chronostratigraphy was fuelled by the International Commission on Stratigraphy programme of definition of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart based on the boundary stratotype and point (GSSP) concept, which started in 1973.

show abstract

“…at the lowermost documented occurrence of a specified taxon in a specified section), it was arguably the regional stratigraphic scale that was understood by Rozanov et al (1969) as a framework for the lower Cambrian biostratigraphy (Khomentovsky & Karlova, 2002. The lower Tommotian boundary was therefore meant to be the base of an Oppel zone (sensu Oppel, 1856-1858, translated by Arkell, 1933Mesezhnikov, 1969;Scott, 2013;Balini et al 2017;Page, 2017). In contrast, Missarzhevsky (1982Missarzhevsky ( , 1983Missarzhevsky ( , 1989 writing alone discussed the lower Tommotian boundary in terms of 'theoretical biozones' based on individual groups of small skeletal fossils, assuming that the organisms first appeared in a wide range of depositional environments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quo vadis, Tommotian?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of the Tommotian Regional Stage of the Siberian Platform has been closely linked to the idea of the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of animals and protists when the entire Earth system shifted rapidly into Phanerozoic mode. We conducted a multidisciplinary study of an informal ‘synstratotype’ of the lower Tommotian boundary in the upper Mattaia Formation, Kessyusa Group in the Olenek Uplift, NE of the Siberian Platform. The Mattaia Formation characterizes an upper shoreface to inner-shelf depositional setting and provides important faunal ties and correlation with carbonate-dominated and aliminosiliciclastic open-shelf areas. A section of the upper Mattaia Formation at Boroulakh, Olenek River is suggested here as a model for the Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point for the base of the Cambrian Stage 2. This level contains the lowermost occurrence of the cosmopolitan fossil helcionelloid mollusc Aldanella attleborensis. Section global markers near the base of the stage include a positive excursion of δ13C values reaching +5.4‰, a U–Pb zircon date of 529.7 ± 0.3 Ma, massive appearance of diverse small skeletal fossils (including Watsonella crosbyi), a sudden increase in diversity and abundance of trace fossils, as well as a conspicuous increase in depth and intensity of bioturbation. Coincidently, it is this level that has always been regarded as the lower Tommotian boundary on the Olenek Uplift.

show abstract

Biostratigraphy: Interpretations of Oppel's zones

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

Oppelzones and their heritage in current larger foraminiferal biostratigraphy

Oppelzones and their heritage in current larger foraminiferal biostratigraphy

The Contribution of Fossils to Chronostratigraphy, 150 Years after Albert Oppel

Quo vadis, Tommotian?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About