Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Journal of the Geological Society

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Discussion on correlation of the Triassic–Jurassic boundary in England and Austria

John Cope writes: Hallam's (1990) article on the Triassic–Jurassic boundary raises many questions on stratigraphical practice and correlation. In addition to his arguments, there are also errors of fact which require a response.

The first observation to be made, with which Hallam would no doubt agree, is that it is good stratigraphical practice to define units only by their base, so that their tops are fixed automatically by the base of the succeeding unit of the same rank. This practice has been endorsed since 1967 in the various Geological Society guides to stratigraphical procedure. In fixing the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, therefore, we should be aiming to fix the base of the Jurassic System and not the top of the Triassic.

For international acceptance, a System boundary should be provided with a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) (Cowie et al. 1986). Such points have been fixed for some Systems (e.g. Silurian and Devonian) and have been ratified by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and the International Union of Geological Sciences (TUGS) (Bassett 1985). The essential point about a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point is that it must provide an internationally acceptable reference point from which accurate correlations can be made.

It may well be that we have not yet reached a point where such a decision can be made with respect to the base of the Jurassic System, but Hallam’s article contributes nothing to this choice, as he proposes a lithological boundary at which there is no

...

This 250-word extract was created in the absence of an abstract.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. P. Hesselbo, S. P. Hesselbo, S. A. Robinson, and F. Surlyk Sea-level change and facies development across potential Triassic-Jurassic boundary horizons, SW Britain Journal of the Geological Society, May 1, 2004; 161(3): 365 - 379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. HALLAM Estimates of the amount and rate of sea-level change across the Rhaetian Hettangian and Pliensbachian Toarcian boundaries (latest Triassic to early Jurassic) Journal of the Geological Society, October 1, 1997; 154(5): 773 - 779. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Further discussion on the correlation of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary in England and Austria Journal of the Geological Society, October 1, 1991; 148(5): 943 - 944. [Abstract] [PDF]