Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
Stratigraphyarrow_drop_down
Stratigraphy
Article . 2007 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
addClaim

A history of chronostratigraphy

Authors: Gian Battista Vai;

A history of chronostratigraphy

Abstract

Chronostratigraphy has a “prehistory" beginning with Leonardo’s and Steno’s twofold relative geologic time division. It developed further with Marsili’s (1728), Lehmann’s (1756), Arduino’s (1759-60) and Werner’s (1787) threefold, fourfold, and fivefold divisions respectively. Meanwhile, the initial steps were being taken in understanding Earth’s chronometry. Geological mapping exponentially increased the number of lithostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic units and forced the need for a common language and practice by international agreement. That objective became feasible with the establishment of the International Geological Congress (IGC), and the bipolar or dual classification of chronostratigraphic and chronologic units was formally established during the 2nd IGC in Bologna in 1881. Chronostratigraphic classification has displayed a remarkable nomenclatural stability, notwithstanding continuously changing criteria of use, correlation, improvement, and redefinition of the standard chronostratigraphic units. The development of chronostratigraphy was by scientific research and the necessary stability was through the IGC, as it appears from this review of the main chronostratigraphic resolutions and recommendations adopted by the IGC sessions from Bologna in 1881 to Sydney in 1976. An hierarchical classification and an historical approach underpin the evolution of chronostratigraphic classification. Five stages of evolution are outlined. Their succession illustrates changing paradigms, ongoing improvement by new tools of correlation, and the stability of names defined and used in a permanent common language. This flexibility should guide future developments in chronostratigraphy.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    21
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
21
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!