The GSSP Method of Chronostratigraphy: A Critical Review

Abstract

The use of boundary stratotypes to define chronostratigraphic units began in the 1960s, and, in the 1980s, these were called Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs). Approximately two-thirds of the GSSPs of the bases of the Phanerozoic stage (71 of 102 in September 2018) have been ratified by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. However, this apparent progress toward precise definition of a Phanerozoic chronostratigraphic timescale is underlain by multiple problems of philosophy and methodology that include: (1) inconsistency in how chronostratigraphic units are being named and defined; (2) arbitrary decisions as to GSSP level, many based on arbitrarily chosen points in hypothetical chronomorphoclines of microfossils; (3) hierarchical reductionism, which makes the stage base the same as the base of the series, system, erathem and eonothem, thereby trivializing the significance of the boundaries of these larger chronostratigraphic units; (4) stability achieved by the non-scientific process of designating a GSSP once ratified as immutable; (5) the unworkable concept of a standard set of global stages; (6) the fallacy that a GSSP location can somehow define a recognizable (correlateable) global time line; (7) imprecision in GSSP correlation because the primary signals are largely single taxon biotic events that are inherently diachronous due to the limitations of fossil distributions by sampling, facies and provincialism; and (8) the politics of the International Commission on Stratigraphy and the small groups of specialists who select and vote on GSSPs. Chronostratigraphy needs to return to the concepts of natural chronostratigraphy, with improvements based on modern techniques like quantitative biostratigraphy. We need to standardize the chronostratigraphic scale, and the International Commission on Stratigraphy needs to rethink the philosophy and practices by which this is being done, so that we can move forward to produce the most informative chronostratigraphy possible based on a consistent methodology that allows the updating and obtaining of high accuracy and precision as new data become available.

The Anthropozoic era revisited

“…lithology, fossils, physicochemical features). The basal level of this stratotype is known as the Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) and should be correlatable worldwide and globally synchronous (Salvador 1994; Murphy & Salvador 1999; Lucas 2018). To date, the AWG has been able to define a possible beginning of the Anthropocene – the mid‐20 th century (Fig.…”

Conodont faunas across the Kasimovian–Gzhelian boundary (Late Pennsylvanian) in South China and implications for the selection of the stratotype for the base of the global Gzhelian Stage

“…This boundary event may be an example of a widespread and correlatable ‘natural boundary’ (Walliser ; Lucas ) that could be used to best define the base of the Gzhelian. This boundary level may be correlated from the South China sections using either biostratigraphy or chemostratigraphy, and one of the South China sections would be an appropriate location for the GSSP.…”

Phanerozoic Chronostratigraphy: Top-Down Instead of Bottom-Up Boundary Definitions

“…Given that the hierarchical reductionism of the GSSP method equates the boundaries of chronostratigraphic boundaries larger than stages, to stage boundaries, why recognize and use larger chronostratigraphic divisions? Indeed, the term Phanerozoic and its subdivisions above the stage level have no particular significance other than as successively larger "pigeonholes" within which to bin stages [2,6].…”

“…It is through significant events that historians organize human history, and geological history should be no different. The reason periodization worked so well in stratigraphy is because Earth history is more than a succession of FADs of marine pelagic organisms or the other minor events used as primary signals of most stage-based GSSPs [2]. As Cloud [13] (pp.…”

“…Since the 1960s, the Phanerozoic chronostratigraphic scale has been defined/redefined by the method of Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs) (see [1][2][3][4][5][6] for reviews of the GSSP method). The GSSP method defines stage bases, and, where proximate, equates them to the bases of larger chronostratigraphic units.…”