201
Marine Micropaleontology, 2 (1977): 201--206
© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - - P r i n t e d in The Netherlands
BOOK REVIEWS
Stratigraphy
International Stratigraphic Guide. Hollis D.
Hedberg (Editor). Wiley--Interscience, New
York, N.Y., 1976, $ 9.50, 200 pp.
The International Stratigraphic Guide
(I.S.S.C., 1976) proposes a c o m m o n language
for our descriptions of, and references to,
rock strata and their properties, including
their fossil content. It is " a guide to strati-
graphic classification, terminology and pro-
cedures" and has as its objective to p r o m o t e
international agreement on stratigraphic prac-
tice so as to improve the communication of
knowledge and principles between those who
are concerned with the history of the earth.
In other words, it is a grammar of the lan-
guage of stratigraphy.
The preparation and production of this
Guide by the International Subcommission
on Stratigraphic Classification (the I.S.S.C.,
a 125 m e m b e r subcommission of the Com-
mission on Stratigraphy of the International
Union of Geological Sciences) is an impres-
sive accomplishment. During the 24 years of
activity of the subcommission it appeared
more than once to the onlooker that dis-
cussions had gone off on trivia. However, the
chairman (H.D. Hedberg), vice chairman (A.
Salvador) and some key members of the sub-
commission showed wisdom, patience and an
untiring effort to communicate and brought
the membership at large back on the slippery
road, arrived at a consensus and produced
the Guide. Earlier versions of the Guide that
circulated among the subcommission mem-
bership and interested outsiders were loaded
with semantics stemming from personal and
national biases. Many of these flaws were
gradually omitted from the earlier pub-
lished reports (I.S.S.C., 1971) of which the
Guide is a condensation, and astonishingly
few of them have remained in the present,
refreshingly rewritten final version. Never-
theless, the manuscript has been well-accept-
ed by the membership, and of 83 voting
members (divided ovel 42 countries) 85
were for publication of the Guide in its
present form.
The Russian (2) and West-German (1)
votes were against publication, which is un-
fortunate because they represent a large
number of geologists. Apparently they can-
n o t accept the high priority the Guide gives
to the pragmatic distinction between dif-
ferent categories of stratigraphic classifi-
cation, such as litho-, bio-, and chronostrati-
graphy, that allows the stratigrapher so
clearly to classify his observations and inter-
pretations separately. The negative voters
would seem to prefer the original, nine-
teenth-century scope of the ordering en-
deavor called stratigraphy, in restricting it to
chronostratigraphy. In their view litho-,
bio-, and other stratigraphies, in the sense of
the Guide, are not worthy of the term strati-
graphy, as they are considered auxiliaries,
mere methods, that lead to the ideal strati-
graphy which is indivisable and requires only
one classification (see Erben, 1972; Zhamoi-
da et al., 1972). The disagreements may be
more academic than real.
Probably no other subcommission mem-
ber agrees with all parts of the Guide either,
and none of us, its users, will. However, in
its present form, the consensus is an excellent
basis for discussion. In fact, the I.S.S.C. wel-
comes dissenting views and will take them
202
into account in preparation of future editions
of the Guide. So, please, send y o u r opinions
to the new I.S.S.C. chairman, Dr. A. Salva-
dor, P.O. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001,
U.S.A.
The subject matters dealt with in the Guide
are readily accessible through a detailed table
of contents in the front and a most useful
index in the back of the book. The eight
chapters are: 1. Introduction; 2. Principles
of stratigraphic classification; 3. Definitions
and procedures; 4. Stratotypes; 5. Litho-
stratigraphic units; 6. Biostratigraphic units;
7. Chronostratigraphic units; 8. Relation
between litho-, chrono-, and other kinds of
stratigraphic units.
Each subject covered in the chapters stands
o u t under a separate heading and can be
read as a unit on its own. This most com-
mendable organization of the material makes
the Guide the handy reference b o o k it is in-
tended to be. A minor drawback is that, in
this manner, some duplication cou!d not be
avoided. The eight chapters are followed by
four appendices listing the membership,
reports and votes of the subcommission and
published National Stratigraphic Codes; by an
extensive bibliography (close to 1400 titles)
and the index. The fourteen figures and three
tables that illustrate the Guide are well-
chosen and constitute a most clarifying ad-
dition to the text.
The Guide is offered merely as an I.S.S.C.
recommended approach, n o t as a " c o d e "
like the Internal Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature. Nevertheless, Marine Micropaleon-
tology requests contributors to follow its
terminology and orthographic recommenda-
tions since these are a simple matter of con-
vention. It is further suggested that contri-
butors, who do n o t wish to follow recom-
mendations on items that are more a matter
of principle than of form, do specifically
state the reason(s) for the difference of their
approach.
The I.S.S.C. presents in its Guide a distil-
late of the reasonable and practical strati-
graphic principles and practices applied in
published and unpublished work by strati-
graphers in many countries. This reviewer,
however, found one serious exception: the
subcommission adopts and, in its Guide,
promotes the boundary stratotype concept
and in doing so adds in principle to its first
publication, that is directly ancestral to the
Guide (I.S.S.T., 1961).
Although it is being proposed as a com-
mendable attempt to solve present problems
of chronostratigraphic correlation and defini-
tion, the boundary stratotype concept in fact
is an escape from, rather than a solution to,
these problems. Namely, the subcommission
suggests defining stages, and consequently all
chronostratigraphic units, by boundary
stratotypes rather than in the traditional
manner by events (in practice mostly bio-
logic) as recognized in the geologic record in
relation to unit stratotypes. By implication,
the chronostratigraphic (and geochronologic)
scheme as we know it today is declared to
be ill-defined and obsolete, a ladder without
rungs, because, according to the Guide's
criteria, only very few units have been ade-
quately designated. Must we start all over
again?
This intolerance of the past probably finds
its origin in the fact that when geology asked
for higher stratigraphic resolution, the strati-
graphic scheme proved to be insufficiently
documented. Boundary questions had to
remain unsolved because stratotypes had not
been properly described and their positions
in newly developed "standard" zonal schemes
were largely unknown. As a consequence, the
opinion gained popularity that "the old type
sections are no good". This is certainly not
right, but something has to be (and fortun-
ately is being) done about it. The backward-
ness of the contribution of stratigraphy to
the geologic sciences, does not mean that the
traditional stratigraphic principles are wrong,
nor that the actual stratotypes are inade-
quate. If anything is wrong, it is with the
stratigraphers. In fact, until recently many
type sections of generally used stages had not
been referred to or studied even once after

their designation in the nineteenth century.
But work of the last ten years or so (largely
inspired by I.S.S.C. p u b l i c a t i o n s ) h a s dem-
monstrated that m a n y of the type sections,
once properly described, can very well serve
their function as reference points. Today,
agreement has been reached on the use of
many chronostratigraphic unit names and
many workers can agree on the scope of
quite a number of standard units (Stages)
for as far as todays resolution of paleonto-
logic and other tools allows. This is true both
for local applications and in the establishment
of a global standard chronostratigraphic
scale. Recent progress towards an orderly
system is rapid and it does very well
w i t h o u t boundary stratotypes 1 .
In this reviewer's opinion the acceptance of
the boundary stratotype concept, which ap-
pears so prominent in the Guide, does n o t
solve the problem of u n k n o w n stratotypes
b u t simply and effectively eliminates it. This
would be acceptable if something were to be
gained in the process, but alas, during each
field season imperfect humans will designate
new boundary stratotypes whereas difficul-
ties in correlation will remain the same be-
cause the introduction of the types does
not improve the resolution of our correlation
tools. Little wonder that similar arguments
arise as before, except that now there are
more controversies and there is no neutral
point of " p r i o r i t y " to fall back on. Quarrels
having to do with recently designated Neo-
gene boundary stratotypes amply demon-
strate the redeeming value of this pragmatic
concept.
The only stratigraphic boundary to be
defined in rock is that of a rock-stratigraphic
unit (lithostratigraphic unit). Biostratigraphic
units are to be defined in terms of fossils,
and n o t in rock. (The Guide's proposal to
designate stratotypes for assemblage-zones
also is n o t recommended.) And so chronostra-
1The chief editors of Marine Micropaleontology dis-
agree with the reviewer on this p o i n t and remain
firmly c o m m i t t e d to the concept o f the b o u n d a r y
stratotype.
203
tigraphic units are to be defined in terms of
time, and n o t in rock. As long as we are un-
able to do so at the degree of accuracy we
want, chronostratigraphic units can be pre-
liminary (and unavoidably subjectively) de-
fined in terms of events that can be recogniz-
ed in the geologic record. Traditionally,
events, in the irreversibly evolving organic
world, were considered to produce the most
practical and precise record for this purpose.
Today, the sequences of geomagnetic, estua-
tic, climatic and other events are becoming
better known and rightfully gain import-
ance in stratigraphy and in the establishment
of a scheme of natural events that serves as
a relative time frame in our a t t e m p t to un-
ravel the history of the earth. It is most
likely that boundary stratotypes will soon
turn out to be placed in awkward positions
with respect to a natural scheme and/or to
a linear numeric time-scale. Even proponents
of the concept could, therefore, consider it
an act of arrogance to designate them now.
To readers of Marine Micropaleontology
the chapter on biostratigraphy is most in-
teresting. This reviewer highly recommends
the Guide's proposal to always specifically
state what kind of a biostratigraphic unit
(zone) is being used in ones work, and he
has no objections to following the I.S.S.C.
definitions of the different kinds. Despite the
fact t h a t these definitions are the consensus
of a large number of prominent stratigraphers,
they would mean to m a n y of us a change of
habit, because some terms are applied in a
sense that is different from our present usage.
For instance, the " b i o z o n e " concept of many
authors, is referred to as " c h r o n o z o n e " in the
Guide, and is, as such, naturally n o t discussed
under biostratigraphy, but in the chrono-
stratigraphy chapter. The Guide uses "bio-
z o n e " as the general biostratigraphic term and
distinguishes the following kinds: assemblage-
zone (or cenozone), range-zone (or acrozone),
acme-zone (or peak-zone) and interval zone.
The Guide prefers the english terms whereas
this reviewer would tend to use the more in-
ternational ones derived from a classical
204
language. Four different kinds of range-zones
are discussed: the taxon-range-zone (or range-
zone sensu stricto) implying the range of one
taxon only; the concurrent-range-zone being
defined by the concurrent range of two or
more taxa, and the phylozone (or lineage-
zone) being the acrozone of a segment of a
known evolutionary line. Surprisingly, the
Guide treats the partial-acrozone (as used in
practice, n o t as originally defined; see
I.S.S.C., Reports 5, 1971, p. 21) separately
as interval-zone, and instead it discusses the
so-called Oppel-zone as the fourth kind of
acrozone. The term Oppel-zone in the past
has been used n o t only to cover a clear
concept ( s y n o n y m of concurrent-acrozone)
but also as a label for a non-descript, intuitive,
ill-defined "die Erfahrung hat uns gelehrt"
kind of zone. The Guide follows the latter
usage, rightly stating that " t h e concept cor-
responds to a widespread practice in bio-
stratigraphic z o n a t i o n " but u n f o r t u n a t e l y
w i t h o u t recommending that the practice be
allowed to die.
The chapter on biostratigraphy expands
further on helpful technicalities such as or-
thography, how to name a zone, etc., most of
which are in c o m m o n practice and with which
we can readily agree. The Guide here really
assists one to be consistent and not to care-
lessly neglect good conventions. I had some
problems, though, with the guidelines for
naming an interval-zone: ". .the names
given to interval-zones may be derived from
the names of the boundary horizons, the
name for the basal boundary preceding
t h a t for the upper b o u n d a r y " (p. 60). Ac-
cording to this, for instance, an interval-zone,
of which the base is defined by the extinction
level of species A and the top by the advent-
level of species B, should be called " A / B
Interval-zone". This name is quite misleading
since neither species A nor species B occurs in
the zone. I would much rather recommend
to follow the Guide's " . . . one may alter-
natively select the name of a taxon typical
of the zone, though not confined to it, and
use it as a h a n d y label" (p. 61) (authors have
referred to the p r o d u c t of this practice as
Partial-range-zone), and would suggest never
naming a zone after a fossil that is, by de-
finition, excluded from it. The Guide's
example Globigerinoides sicanus/Orbulina su-
turalis Interval-zone can simply be called Glo-
bigerinoides sicanus Interval-zone, being de-
fined as representing the range of G. Sicanus
from its advent-level to the advent-level of O.
suturalis.
In short, the use is recommended of the
following kinds of zone concepts: cenozone;
acrozone (including acrozone s.s., concurrent-
acrozone, and partial-acrozone or interval-
zone); phylozone (including concurrent-phy-
lozone and partial-phylozone); acme-zone. In
zoning an actual rock section, barren or non-
descript intervals can be referred to as inter-
zones.
The Guide has no glossary, but one can use
the index to find the definition of recom-
mended terms. For other biostratigraphic
terms a full glossary is given in I.S.S.C.
Report No. 5 (1971). It would be handy if
a future edition of the Guide reprinted this
glossary, expanding it to cover the other cate-
gories of stratigraphic units and to include a
translation in all official Int. Geol. Congr.
languages, as well. In small print this may add
some 25 pages. On the other hand, future
editions of the Guide could do without most
of the Introduction and the Appendices
which are of historical value only. And, with
exception for the few references cited in the
text, the same could be said for the biblio-
graphy which is a highly useful collection of
titles and a must for this first edition, but
could be kept up to date elsewhere. Alto-
gether, this would reduce the $9.50, 200-
page book to about 105 pages. Thus, even
with a 25-page glossary added, a new edition
can be cheaper and can therefore more
readily find its rightful place on every
geologist's reference book shelf.
References
Erben, H.K., 1972. Replies to opposing statements.
Newsl. Stratigr., 2(2): 79--95.

I.S.S.C. (International Subcommission on Strati-
graphic Classification), 1970a. Report 3. Preli-
minary Report of Lithostratigraphic Units. 24th
Int. Geol. Congr. Montreal, 30 pp. (pre-Congres
publication).
I.S.S.C., 1970b. Report 4. Preliminary Report on
Stratotypes. 24th Int. Geol. Congr., Montreal,
39 pp. (pre-Congres publication).
I.S.S.C., 1971a. Report 5. Preliminary Report on Bio-
stratigraphic Units. 24th Int. Geol. Congr., Mon-
treal, 50 pp. (pre-Congres publication).
I.S.S.C., 1971b. Report 6. Preliminary Report on
Chronostratigraphic Units. 24th Int. Geol. Congr.
Montreal, 39 pp. (pre-Congres publication).
I.S.S.C., 1972. Report 7. (a) Introduction to an In-
ternational guide to stratigraphic classification,
terminology, and usage. (b) Summary of an in-
ternational guide to stratigraphic classification
terminology, and usage. Lethaia, 5(3): 283--323.
I.S.S.C., 1976. International Stratigraphic Guide. A
Guide to Stratigraphic Classification, Terminology,
and Procedure. Wiley, New York, N.Y., 200 pp.
(Edited by H.D. Hedberg).
I.S.S.T. (International Subcommission on Strati-
graphic Terminology), 1961. Report 1. Principles
of Stratigraphic Classification and Terminology.
21st Int. Geol. Congr., Norden, Proc., Part 25,
38 pp.
Zhamoida, A.A.I., Kovalevsky, O.P., Menner, V.V.,
Moiseeva, A.I. and Yarkin, V.I., 1972. Main prin-
ciples of the draft of the U.S.S.R. stratigraphic
code. (Report at the meeting of the I.S.S.C.,
Montreal, August 1972, read and distributed by
V.V. Menner.) Interdepartmental Stratigraphic
Committee of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad, 14 pp. (in
English and Russian).
J.E. van Hinte
Esso Production Research -- European
B$gles (France)
Palynology
The N o r t h w e s t European Pollen Flora, I.
W. Punt (Editor). Elsevier, Amsterdam,
145 pp., $ 1 9 . 2 5 .
It has really been a pleasure to study this
volume including an introduction by C.R.
Janssen, W. Punt and Tj. Reitsma, with de-
scriptions of the pollen morphology of seven
families treated as follows: Caprifoliaceae by
W. Punt and Tj. Reitsma; Primulaceae by W.
Punt; J.S. de Leeuw-van Weenen and W.A.P.
205
van Oostrum; Adoxaceae by Tj. Reitsma and
A.A.M.L. Reuvers; Sparganiaceae and Typh-
aceae by W. Punt; Gentianaceae by W. Punt
and W. Nienhuis; as well Guttiferae by G.C.S.
Clarke. An index to taxa and terms is also
printed at the end of the volume.
Although the breadth of the subject is
wide, each family is documented very gener-
ously, i.e., the genera investigated are repre-
sented completely or almost in full.
The pollen descriptions are comparatively
consise but sufficiently informative. They
consist of the following groups of features:
pollen class, apertures, exine, ornamentation,
outlines and the data of the measurements.
The descriptions of the plates are also short
and clear. The terminology used for the pol-
len descriptions consists mainly of that sug-
gested by Reitsma (1970 Rev. Palaeobot.
Palynol., 10: 39--60) and is completed by
several other terms introduced by other
authors. Most of the terms used are well
known and previously defined, thus facilita-
ting the study of pollen descriptions.
Valuable contributions are those comments
succeeding the descriptions of pollen types in
which the pollenmorphological features in
general, as well as the pollenmorphological
affinities and differences, are discussed.
From the editorial point of view, the lay-
out of the book deserves to be complimented.
In spite of the fact that the volume includes
seven plant families described by several
authors, it exhibits a considerable deal of
uniformity in the presentation of the mate-
rial. The latter usually consists of a short
review of the literature, a small chapter on
the terminology used by the author, an enu-
meration of specimens examined, key to
pollen types, the descriptions of pollen types
or species, as well as the illustratory part, ac-
companied by a concise description of plates.
The illustrative part of the volume consist
of a total of 424 figures; 370 photomicro-
graphs are produced by means of a Leitz-
Ortholux microscope, whereas 54 figures are
SEM. The general quality level of the illustra-
tive material is very high. The pollen grains