under the non-bibliographic designation Lelhaia Semi- (Olenellid and Paradoxidid Provinces, etc.). The ‘supra-
nar, pending similar arrangements for international specific (usually gcneric) communities’ and the ‘one-
projects and organizations, IPA information, etc. phylum communities’ (particularly brachiopods) that
abound in recent literature will soon experience the
(2) In taking advantage of an early comment on the
same limitations and be found to conceal biosocio-
present article, the editor joins forces with the author logical reality.
in calling for the development of a more coherent
The editor regards ecostratigraphy as a development
biostratigraphical philosophy and a cleaning-up of the
within biostratigraphy rather than as a basis for a new
terminology of biozones. To a synecologist or eco-
terminological category besides biostratigraphy. The
stratigrapher, it is evident that there is a base for a
basic approach to the problem is the same, however.
hierarchy of three-dimensional units corresponding to
It is synthetic, in the former case by ‘integrating’ bio-
the well-developed hierarchies of two-dimensional units
and lithostratigraphy and bringing about an approxima-
that exist in particularly Recent phytosociology (whose
tion to chronostratigraphy (which would certainly
impact on Palaeozoic and Mesozoic palaeoecology
please the dissenting camps in ISSC work), and in the
seems to have been nil). It is difficult, however, to
find a scientific basis for linking a biostratigraphical latter case by ‘linking’ bio- and lithostratigraphy to
hierarchy with the biosystematic hierarchy. Classical the same scientific effect but with more split-up ter-
minological tools.
examples in this direction have a limited palaeobio-
geographical value rather than a truly ecological value Anders Marrinsson 1976 03 12