ISSN 0869-5938, Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, 2018, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 234–241. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.

, 2018.
Original Russian Text © V.G. Ganelin, Yu.B. Gladenkov, 2018, published in Stratigrafiya, Geologicheskaya Korrelyatsiya, 2018, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 115–123.

Geohistorical Stratigraphy and Stratigraphic Guides

V. G. Ganelin* and Yu. B. Gladenkov
Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pyzhevskii per. 7, Moscow, 119017 Russia
*e-mail: vigdal@yandex.ru
Received March 1, 2017; in final form, March 23, 2017

Abstract⎯A different understanding of the stratigraphic science methodology is considered. The classical
geohistorical content of stratigraphy is set against the latest formal classification approach recorded in the
International Stratigraphic Guide. Some provisions of the Stratigraphic Code of Russia and the International
Stratigraphic Guide are studied. The described confrontation between the two concepts can be expressed by
a formula: stratotype or limitotype.

Keywords: methodology, stratigraphy, stratigraphic code, classification, reconstruction, geohistorical stratig-

raphy, stratigraphic scales, stratigraphic unit, stage, zone
DOI: 10.1134/S0869593818020028

“In fact, stratigraphy is a mirror image of geological
history of a particular area or basin.”
V.V. Menner (1962, p. 302)
INTRODUCTION
Recently, two All-Russian stratigraphic meetings
were held in Moscow (2013) and in St. Petersburg
(2016). They were devoted to the problem of the Gen-
eral Stratigraphic Scale of Russia, methodological
issues of the development of regional scales, and the
relationship to the General and International Scales
(Obshchaya…, 2013, 2016). The reports that were read
at these meetings are a kind of inventory of the com-
prehensive stratigraphic material accumulated in
recent years in the vast geologically heterogeneous ter-
ritory of Russia. In addition, the meetings showed a
relatively diverse range of methodological opinions in
dealing with both more general and local stratigraphic
problems. Suggestions were made to discuss further
improvement of the Stratigraphic Code of Russia
(2006), as it celebrated its tenth anniversary last year.
Meanwhile, it has turned out that the ideas of the sci-
ence methodology are drastically different. The desire
to understand the origin of these differences has once
again raised the question: What is stratigraphy science,
what are the points of view concerning it, and what
idea most adequately corresponds to the actual stratig-
raphy? The answer to this question is hardly possible
without answers to a number of more particular ques-
tions, namely:
(1) What is the stratigraphy field of research?
(2) What is its object?
(3) What is the nature of the main stratigraphic
procedure?
(4) What is the subject of stratigraphy?
(5) What are its objectives?
(6) What is the goal of stratigraphy?
(7) Is stratigraphy an independent science or is it
merely an applied discipline serving the needs of geo-
logical practice?
Opinions concerning the listed questions are
diverse, but major differences lie between two strategi-
cally different concepts. The first of them is the con-
cept of numerous stratigraphies, originating from the
American Stratigraphic Code. It is the basis for two
editions of the International Stratigraphic Guide
(hereinafter referred to as the Guide) edited by
H. Hedberg (International…, 1976) and A. Salvador
(International…, 1994). A shortened version of the lat-
ter edited by M.A. Murphy and A. Salvador (Interna-
tional…, 1999). Another concept of “unified stratigra-
phy” is most fully considered in two editions of the
Stratigraphic Code of the USSR (Stratigraphic...,
1977, 1989) and in the Stratigraphic Code of Russia
(1992) (hereinafter referred to as the Code) edited by
A.I. Zhamoida (2006). Recently, Zhamoida (2011)
examined in detail and summarized the theoretical
foundations that contributed to the creation of the
Russian code.
Despite the seemingly opposite view of stratigra-
phy, both concepts are similar in one thing, in a tradi-
tional idea of the basic stratigraphic procedure as a
classification procedure. This fact indicates the full
extent for the formal and logical nature of the Interna-
tional Guide exerting simultaneously the similar
influence on many statements of the Russian Code,

234
 GEOHISTORICAL STRATIGRAPHY AND STRATIGRAPHIC GUIDES
which generally reflects a genetic rather than a formal
logical approach to resolving the stratigraphic antino-
mies.
When studying different interpretations of stratig-
raphy, it seems that their content largely defines a par-
ticular author’s understanding of the subject (subjec-
tive factor), rather than analysis of deep logic of this
science (objective factor), such as it has developed over
its long history.
In the Guide by Murphy and Salvador (Interna-
tional…, 1999, p. 256), “Stratigraphy, from Latin stra-
tum + Greek graphia, is the description of all rock bod-
ies forming the Earth’s crust and their organization into
distinctive, useful, mappable units based on their inher-
ent properties or attributes in order to establish their dis-
tribution and relationship in space and their succession
in time and to interpret geologic history.”
In contrast to Hedberg (International…, 1976)
defining stratigraphy as the science of rock layers
(which is important!), Murphy and Salvador (Interna-
tional…, 1994) do not mention any layers at all. Instead,
it turns out that stratigraphy, in addition to organization
of the rocks into distinctive mappable units, describes
these rocks. And “all the different classifications… are
used to achieve the same goals of stratigraphy: to
improve our knowledge and understanding of the
Earth’s rock bodies and their history” (International…,
1999, p. 256). These statements are surprising, because
the knowledge of rocks and their formation history is a
field of other sciences such as petrography and sedi-
mentology, rather than stratigraphy.
Systematic organization of rocks on the basis of
characteristics that can be used in stratigraphic work is
considered by both Salvador and Hedberg as the strati-
graphic classification, while the stratigraphic subdivi-
sion is considered as a classification unit. According to
these authors, the stratigraphic unit is “a body of rock
established as a distinct entity in the classification of
the Earth’s rocks based on any of the properties or
attributes or combinations thereof that rocks possess”
(International…, 1999, p. 257). Meanwhile, both edi-
tions of the Guide affirm the existence of many differ-
ent classifications depending on an attribute taken as
the basis.
The classification is known to be a procedure for
subdividing a set of objects into classes on the basis of
their common properties. The classification unit is a
taxon. In biology, in particular, species is a set of indi-
viduals (reproductive individuals), while genus is a set
of species, etc. If the stratigraphic subdivision is a clas-
sification unit (class, taxon), then a fair question
arises: How many objects does this subdivision unite?
What multitude of stratigraphic objects is represented,
for example, by the Assistens Formation in the Cana-
dian Arctic region? Mineral grains? Numerous layers?
Mineral grains or layers can hardly be considered as its
components. A layer in the formation is not an ele-
ment of the classified multitude, but is a component of
STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION
235
some integrity. The difference between the concepts
“element” and “component” is important for under-
standing the essence of the stratigraphic procedure, in
which the classification is by no means its main con-
tent. It can also be added that Salvador’s logic likely
does not differentiate the concepts “classification
object” and “classification unit.” The specific forma-
tion such as Assistens is not a classification unit, a
taxon, as one might think from the proposed defini-
tion, but is a classified object from a variety of strati-
graphic objects referred to the class (taxon) of “litho-
stratigraphic units.” The question concerning the
essence of this classified stratigraphic object will be
considered below.
The notion of numerous stratigraphic classifica-
tions hardly comes from thorough analysis of the
stratigraphic procedure. Rather, it is a course of logical
inferences being, unfortunately, far from the logic of
real stratigraphy. Meanwhile, the authors’ logic is fun-
damentally contradictory. In particular, lithostratigra-
phy in the second and abridged editions of the Guide
(International…, 1999, p. 259) is defined as “the ele-
ment of stratigraphy that deals with the description
and nomenclature of the rocks of the Earth based on
their lithology.” This part of the definition again
causes bewilderment, because it is known that rock
description and nomenclature is a scope of another
science such as lithology. As Zhamoida (2011, p. 44)
fairly said, “the rock properties proper are not of inter-
est to us if they do not suggest anything about the spa-
tiotemporal relations. All (absolutely all) rock proper-
ties are refracted by stratigraphy through the prism of
their spatiotemporal relations ….” This fact is
acknowledged by the authors of the Guide, adding to
the above-mentioned part of this definition the fol-
lowing phrase: “… and their stratigraphic relations”
(International…, 1999, p. 259). This addition is very
significant. However, the authors overlook the fact
that, according to their definition, stratigraphic rela-
tions are “relationship in space and succession in
time” (International…, 1999, p. 256). Forgetting it,
they postulate a multitude of classifications one of
which (“chronostratigraphy”) considers temporal
relationships as the basis, while the others consider
stratigraphic relationships as the basis. Hence, the
authors quite successfully confuse the reader and,
apparently, themselves. A while back, this very cir-
cumstance rightly horrified Schindewolf (1975), who
pointed out to the authors that the term “chronostra-
tigraphy” was a horrible pleonasm. It should also be
noted that temporal relationships are identified with
the help of the geohistorical reconstructions (superpo-
sition principle), paleontological data, etc., so that the
real identification of so-called “lithostratigraphic
units” (International…, 1999, p. 259) is related to the
use of comprehensive stratigraphic methods, which,
generally speaking, is reflected in the definition of
local stratigraphic units in the Stratigraphic Code of
Russia.
Vol. 26 No. 2 2018
236 GANELIN, GLADENKOV
When considering definitions and statements of the
Guide, it is hard to get rid of the impression that the
compilers of the manual, first of all, proceeded from
the fact that the main stratigraphic procedure was a
classification implemented by a formal logical
approach, without involvement of any genetic recon-
structions. It can be assumed that the authors ruled
out such theoretical reconstructions in favor of the
“scientific rigor,” believing them to be a source of sub-
jectivism. This is a frequent erroneous point of view
neglecting the fact that our vision is initially theoreti-
cal, and the attempts to drive theory out of science do
not make the science either rigorous or objective and
often still contain genetic reconstructions, but only in
a hidden, implicit form. In particular, Steno’s funda-
mental principle of stratigraphy (superposition princi-
ple) originates from the geohistorical reconstruction:
from the notion that the layers overlying each other are
two successive stages of sedimentogenesis, and for this
reason, the higher layer is younger.
In the Stratigraphic Code of Russia, there is no
definition of stratigraphy. However, an attempt was
made to give such a definition in the draft of the sec-
ond edition of the Code (Stratigraficheskii…, 1989).
According to this definition, stratigraphy is a “geology
division that studies a formation sequence of normally
layered rock units.” The following questions arise with
regard to this definition. What does “normally layered
rock units” mean? What are the criteria for determina-
tion of whether they are normally layered or not? After
thorough investigation, it turns out that there are no
other criteria, except for the genetic geohistorical fea-
ture. In simple terms, normally layered rock units are
those that reflect the sedimentogenesis staging (super-
position principle). It also turns out from the proposed
definition that the rock units, whose formation
sequence is studied by stratigraphy, exist as if a priori,
or they should be identified by another discipline, not
stratigraphy. The basic procedure of stratigraphic
research as identification of these very rock units (for-
mations, horizons, layers, etc.) is omitted in this defi-
nition. If identification of these rock units is still a
stratigraphic procedure, then the following question
arises: What are these rock units? The rocks may be
subdivided into units according to different features,
which means that we again come to the American con-
cept of multiple stratigraphy?! Obviously, the drafters
did not mean it and removed the above-mentioned
definition, having probably considered it to be inade-
quate. Meanwhile, the lack of a definition of this kind,
a holistic vision of the discipline considered in the
Guide, is a serious disadvantage of the Code.
The view that classification is a main procedure of
stratigraphy is common in Russian stratigraphy. The
terms “stratigraphy” and “stratigraphic classification”
are occasionally taken for synonyms. The mistake
becomes so profound that the authors propose to con-
struct a stratigraphic typification in the manner of a
biological classification and to consider a stratotype as
STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION
only a nomenclatural type (Lazarev, 1997; Krassilov
1977). In this respect, we should pay tribute to the
Stratigraphic Code of Russia, where the classification
covers only subordinate categories (categories!) of
stratigraphic units. In this case, the stratigraphic unit
is not considered as a taxonomic unit, in contrast to
the International Guide. In itself, a particular strati-
graphic unit is an individual. Indeed, the horizon is
not a set of formations, because it can include both the
whole formation and its part. Similarly, the stage is not
a set of horizons, etc. Specific bodies of the simultane-
ously subordinate categories, according to the logic of
the Code, are not taxa of classified sets, but represent
systems and their components. The stratigraphic clas-
sification only distributes these objects: the strati-
graphic units are subdivided into classes, i.e., catego-
ries. The stratigraphic unit categories of the Code form
a hierarchical taxonomic scale uniting the taxa: main
and special stratigraphic units. These taxa are subdi-
vided into subordinate categories such as general,
regional, and local; special units are subdivided into
many other categories considered further. The main
stratigraphic units are classified by geohistorical
approach. In particular, regional stratigraphic units
are considered as “the rock bodies formed at certain
stages of the geological history in a large area of the
Earth’s crust, reflecting the sedimentation features
and the succession of fauna and flora that inhabited
this site.” This statement, as well as the entire taxo-
nomic structure of the Code, defines in general geo-
historical understanding of the stratigraphic research,
in contrast to the formal classification approach of the
International Guide.
Still, the compilers of the Code did not avoid the
formal classification confusion reflected, in particu-
lar, in their definition of the term “stratigraphic unit”:
“the body of rocks making up a definite unity and dif-
ferent in features being indicative of their spatiotem-
poral relations, i.e., the formation sequence and posi-
tion in the stratigraphic section” (Stratigraficheskii…,
2006, p. 14). The criterion of “definiteness” of this
“unity” is not indicated in this case. This definition
fully corresponds to the American concept of multiple
stratigraphy. It is ill-considered not only in relation to
the fact that an intrusive body can also be attributed to
a stratigraphic unit. (Indeed, identification signs of an
intrusive dike are indicative of the fact that it was
formed later than the layers it intruded and before the
layers subjected to overlapping.) This is not the main
point. The considered definition is operational in its
essence, because it defines an object using the identi-
fication procedure. It is like defining time as some-
thing that we measure by hours. This definition con-
tains no essential characteristic of the object. Out-
wardly, this definition is strict and formal and
ostensibly does not use any historical genetic recon-
structions. Yet, the latter are present here in a hidden
form, because it is impossible to determine whether
the given feature makes it possible to determine the
Vol. 26 No. 2 2018
 GEOHISTORICAL STRATIGRAPHY AND STRATIGRAPHIC GUIDES
formation sequence or not without involving the pri-
mary geohistorical reconstructions such as Steno’s
layers, the superposition principle, and sedimento-
genesis staging.
If a particular stratigraphic subdivision is not a
classification unit (taxon), but it is an individual, then
what is the essence of this individual? The correct
answer to this question can be obtained only by careful
consideration of the logic of real stratigraphy, the one
that has been formed over the long history of its devel-
opment, the one that can be called classical in contrast
to the current trends in stratigraphy, which will be dis-
cussed below. This consideration leads to the conclu-
sion that stratigraphy is based on the geostrategic prin-
ciple beginning with Steno’s principle. According to
this principle, stratigraphy is a division of geology
which studies a stratified structure of the Earth’s crust
(stratisphere) to reveal integral natural historical rock
units, to establish their spatiotemporal relations, and to
construct on this basis the stratigraphic scales: local,
regional, and general (substrate) being the essential
basis for reconstruction of the relative geological time.
Divisions of these scales serve as the basis for spatio-
temporal localization of any objects of the geological
past. The proposed definition indicates as follows:
(1) a stratigraphic area such as stratisphere; (2) a stra-
tigraphy object such as integral natural historical rock
units; (3) a main stratigraphy procedure such as iden-
tification of these natural historical rock units (i.e.,
geohistorical reconstructions); (4) a stratigraphy sub-
ject as spatiotemporal relations of these rock units;
(5) a stratigraphy objective as construction of the
stratigraphic scales serving as the substrate basis for
the time reconstruction; and (6) a stratigraphy goal as
reconstruction of the past geological time, defining
stratigraphy as an independent science. The proposed
definition originates from analysis of real stratigraphy
created by the classical science that developed the
orderly concept of relative geological time. According
to it, the stratigraphic unit gives an idea of correspond-
ing segment of the past geological time. This fact pre-
determined creation of the geohistorical basis as a
whole. And it is surprising that the compilers of the
International Guide did not notice it.
Indeed, at the dawn of stratigraphy, the classics of
geology distinguishing the Silurian, Devonian, Perm-
ian, and other systems created the basis for ideas of rel-
evant segments of the global relative geological time.
These ideas finally took shape in Renevier’s chrono-
graph at the end of the nineteenth century. Analo-
gously, when justifying the regional stratigraphic units,
for example, Omolon, Gizhigin, and Khivach, we re-
create the past regional geological time. It can be said
that the goal of stratigraphy as a science is search for the
past geological time and its reconstruction. And, thus,
we understand that stratigraphy is a really important
independent science studying such a phenomenon as
time through investigation of the memorial protocols of
the past geological events. The idea of stratigraphic
STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION
237
units as of integral natural historical complexes—the
memorial protocols of unique rare events of the geolog-
ical past—is fundamental, and, perhaps, there is a rea-
son for the fact that spelling of the names of the regional
and derived common units in the English literature
begins with a capital letter, just as in proper names. Per-
haps, it is not accidental that the stage and the stratum
are designated by one word in English and French
(English, stage; French, etape). From these points of
view, the stratigraphy object—a stratigraphic unit—can
be defined as an integral natural historical body of rocks
reflecting the stage (epoch) of development of a system of
basins, a basin, or its part, which corresponds to the cat-
egory of the main stratigraphic units of the Stratigraphic
Code of Russia.1 And the main scientific procedure of
stratigraphy is identification and reconstruction of
these historical rock bodies and their spatiotemporal
relations. In this regard, it will be appropriate to recall
the statement of Leonov (1974, p. 482): “In terms of the
stratigraphy objectives, identification of natural geo-
stratigraphic units with a full geohistorical content is the
main goal of investigation. These units are of interest to
a stratigrapher, first of all, in terms of their own specific
features such as boundaries, composition, structure,
paleontological characteristics, mineral deposits, for-
mation setting, and, finally, their geological age.” The
geohistorical content of main stratigraphic units defin-
ing the spatiotemporal localization of any bodies of the
geological past inevitably requires a comprehensive
methodology of their identification using the entire set
of geohistorical reconstructions, as stipulated in the
Stratigraphic Code of Russia.
The stratigraphic unit is also understood to be any
other rock body of the stratisphere separated by the his-
torical principle. These special stratigraphic units of the
Code, identified by means of certain methods, reflect
periodization in development of an individual constit-
uent of the geological process, the temporal compo-
nent of which is or is not coincident with the basin
development stage in general. These units are based on
any one group of characteristics yielding many groups
of units, the most important of which include biostra-
tigraphic, magnetostratigraphic, chemostratigraphic,
etc. They are often used as auxiliary subdivisions in
addition to the main units in the sectional layering. It
is important to understand that these special strati-
graphic units are not independent. They are derived
from the main stratigraphic units, because they are not
able to function without reference to the latter. Special
units provide the need for relevant disciplines in the
historical aspect of the study of their objects: historical
biology (evolution), historical lithology, mineralogy,
1 According
to the proposed definition, an intrusive body, which
is a natural historical rock complex, is not a stratigraphy object,
because it does not belong to the stratisphere and does not serve
as a basis for reconstruction of the geological time. Meanwhile,
the рreconstructed natural historical stratigraphic complexes
provide the basis for spatiotemporal localization of this intrusive
body, as well as many other geological bodies.
Vol. 26 No. 2 2018
238 GANELIN, GLADENKOV
etc. In addition, some special units such as biostrati-
graphic and magnetostratigraphic play a crucial role in
general stratigraphy, being a major tool for temporal
correlation of spatially separated main stratigraphic
units. These units also have an applied meaning, occa-
sionally acting as a geological mapping object, for
example, biostratigraphic subdivisions under litholog-
ical monotony of the rock strata, lithostratigraphic
units when lithostratigraphic factors are ore-con-
trolling, etc.
This comprehension of stratigraphy gives grounds
for the logic of its further definitions, in particular,
understanding of the relationship between regional
and general stratigraphic units. Subdivision of the
main stratigraphic units into general, regional, and
local is an important feature of the Russian Strati-
graphic Code, which follows logically from the stratig-
raphy geohistorical concept. However, the definition
of a common stratigraphic unit in the Code almost
repeats that in the International Guide (Interna-
tional…, 1999, p. 266), where “chronostratigraphic”
unit2 is considered as follows: “chronostratigraphic
units are bodies of rocks, layered or unlayered, that
were formed during a specified interval of geologic
time.” This definition in no way reflects specific fea-
tures of the General Scale units. First of all, this is
because a criterion of “specificity” of this time period
remains unclear. The proposed definition is not spe-
cific to the General Scale units and can be attributed
equally to regional stratigraphic units and paleomag-
netic zone, as well as to any other so-called “chronos-
tratigraphic” subdivision. The indication in the Code
to the fact that these units are potentially global does
not explain much and can be attributed to any regional
unit or paleomagnetic zone.
Owing to the fact that the units of the classical
General (International)3 Stratigraphic Scale are based
on regional prototypes, geohistorical in their nature,
the general stratigraphic unit can be defined as follows:
it is a member of a hierarchically constructed consoli-
dated stratigraphic scale (General Stratigraphic Scale,
GSS) developed by synthesis of different regional scales
in such a way as to provide a continuous basis for recon-
struction of the planetary geological time. Each unit is
based on a selected regional stratigraphic subdivision of
2 As
for the note by Schindewolf (1975) that the term “chronos-
tratigraphy” is a horrible pleonasm, we should note that the
derivative term “chronostratigraphic unit” causes a lot of confu-
sion, because it is used in different senses. It is both any subdivi-
sion with isochronic boundaries and a synonym to the Interna-
tional (“Chronostratigraphic”) Scale unit; in addition, the
regional “chronostratigraphic units” are also indicated. Mean-
while, the “chronozone” in the Guide is not a member of the
“chronostratigraphic hierarchy” of the International Scale,
whereas in the Russian Code, “chronozone” is an elementary
GSS member.
3 Hereinafter, the term “General Stratigraphic Scale” (GSS) is
used as a consolidated scale which includes both the “Interna-
tional Stratigraphic Scale” (ISS) and the Russian “General
Stratigraphic Scale” owing to their functional identity.
STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION
large geological regions and includes all coeval sedimen-
tary deposits irrespective of their material composition
and paleontological content.
The discussion of whether the GSS units are natu-
ral or conditional is well known. Taking into account
the fact that their prototypes are regional units, they
are integral natural historical complexes and, conse-
quently, natural units. In the global aspect, these are
selected substrate carriers of the notion of global geo-
logical time. In this aspect, they are natural to the
same extent as Greenwich Mean Time. As in everyday
life, in geology, depending on the circumstances and
targets, we use local, regional, or universal (global)
geological time, but these time varieties are all derived
from regional stratigraphic units, and their role in stra-
tigraphy is paramount.
The difference in understanding of the essence of
the General Scale units is well defined in definitions of
the term “stage.” In the first and second editions of the
International Guide, stage is the main “chronostrati-
graphic” unit. But if in Hedberg (International…,
1976) the stage defines its geochronological equivalent
such as the age, then in Murphy and Salvador (Inter-
national…, 1999), vice versa. In their definition, stage
is something that includes all rocks of the age. No
Guide edition explains what is the age defining the
stage or what is the stage defining the age. Meanwhile,
it is indicated that the stage scope is defined by strati-
graphic units of its boundaries. This latter provision
requires special examination, which will be considered
in detail below.
According to the Stratigraphic Code of Russia
(Stratigraficheskii…, 2006, p. 21), the stage is “estab-
lished by the biostratigraphic data reflecting evolu-
tionary changes and (or) staging of the organic world,
and it is a set of chronozones united by some feature.
The stage should have a stratotype and a limitotype.”
It is unclear why the stage, in addition to a stratotype,
should also have a limitotype. A stratotype of the unit
is its stratostandard defining stratigraphic and,
accordingly, temporal volume of the unit. Obviously,
the stratotype’s function as a standard disappears if its
boundaries are not defined. For this reason, the rec-
ommendation to have a limitotype, in addition to a
stratotype, needs additional explanation. It could be
concluded from the definition proposed for the stage
that the stage is a biostratigraphic unit, if there were no
small-print note from which it follows that the stage
includes all coeval deposits, which is generally import-
ant, because this very fact defines the stage status as
the General Scale unit. Meanwhile, it follows from the
stated definition that an identification criterion of the
stage is a biostratigraphic unit. Hence, it is logical that
the stages may be classified by different fossil groups.
And it should be noted that the attempts to identify
such units—Brachiopoda stages, Ammonoidea stages,
etc.—find a place in the literature.
Vol. 26 No. 2 2018
 GEOHISTORICAL STRATIGRAPHY AND STRATIGRAPHIC GUIDES
The definition proposed by the Code ignores the
true essence of the stage laid in the classical scale of
the global relative geological time, where the age is
determined by the stage based on the regional strati-
graphic unit. From this point of view, the following
interpretation of the stage would be correct. Stage is a
unit of the General Stratigraphic Scale of the Phanero-
zoic, subordinated in its rank to series. The stage is
based on the selected regional subdivision of a certain
basin or a system of basins identified on the basis of the
comprehensive methodology of geohistorical recon-
structions. Being a member of GSS, the stage includes
all coeval deposits regardless of their material composi-
tion and paleontological content. The stratigraphic vol-
ume of the stage is dependent on its stratotype, which
serves as a unit stratostandard.
In the Code, the stage volume is defined as a “body
of chronozones,” which causes confusion, because the
category of “chronostratigraphic” units in the Code,
thank God, is not indicated at all. We might think that
the term is borrowed from the International Guide.
However, in the Guide, where this category is basic,
“chronozone” is not included in the taxonomic hier-
archy of “chronostratigraphic” units (ISS subdivi-
sions), and understanding of “chronozone” is quite
different therein than in the Code. In the Russian
Code, the General Scale zone named “chronozone,”
as opposed to the Guide, is an elementary component
of this scale. According to the Code, it “is established
by the biostratigraphic data and reflects a certain
development stage of one or more groups of fauna or
flora.” Meanwhile, it is indicated again in the note
that the chronozone includes all coeval units regard-
less of their material composition and paleontological
characteristics. Hence, according to the Code, “chro-
nozone” is a derivative of the biostratigraphic zone,
and the Russian Guide considers five types of such
zones. It is not indicated in the Guide which of them
should be the basis of “chronozone.” Owing to the fact
that zones make up stages, stages make up series, etc., it
can be assumed that the entire General Scale of the
Phanerozoic is basically biostratigraphic. Since zones
are independent in different fauna groups, continuing
this logic further, we can arrive at the possibility of
numerous General Scales, which is obviously nonsense.
The zone is a fundamental, elementary strati-
graphic unit subordinate to the stage. However, as
B.S. Sokolov wrote over thirty years ago (1980), the
substitution of concepts is common, and a role of
main zonal subdivision is attributed to biostratigraphic
zone, while such is only Oppel zone. According to Ste-
panov (1958), who proposed the term “Oppel zone,”
A. Oppel’s zone classification was based on horizons
of local schemes, whose paleontological characteris-
tics was based on a complex of species belonging to dif-
ferent groups. According to the absolutely fair note by
Sokolov, biozones based on orthogroups, introduced
into the stage scale, just destroyed its integrity. Bio-
zonal sequences in individual groups are a set of inde-
STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION
239
pendent scales that are not subordinate to the stages
and that have their own specific objectives and goals.
Only the smallest local geohistorical complex of
deposits, characterized by its specific biota, can form
the basis of the General Scale zone. In general, such
understanding of this stratigraphic unit is traditional
for Russian stratigraphy; it is enough to recall the
works by Stepanov (1958, 1967), Menner (1962),
Rauser-Chernousova (1967), Leonov (1974), and oth-
ers. Later, this problem was considered by the authors
of this paper (Ganelin, 1992; Gladenkov, 1980, 2004).
The term “lona” was introduced for a regional analog
of this unit in the second edition of the Code
(Stratigraficheskii…, 1992), which did not fully corre-
spond to the original author’s (G.Ya. Krymgolts)
meaning of this term. For this reason, “lona” was
fairly transferred to the category of biostratigraphic
units. Along with that, the idea of regional zone disap-
peared from the Russian Code, which can hardly be
considered as correct. The corresponding unit should
be revived in the regional category. The term “rena”
offered by Gladenkov (1980) for regional zone would
be appropriate for units of this type. In accordance
with the above-stated considerations, the following
definition of the General Scale zone can be proposed.
Zone is an elementary unit of the General Phanerozoic
scale, subordinate to stage. It is based on the regional
stratigraphic unit with the smallest volume in the typical
distribution area of the stage. The zone is characterized
by a fossil community that is characteristic only of a
given stratigraphic interval. Its name is given with
respect to the name of the most characteristic taxon (or
taxa) in the zonal community. The zone includes all
coeval units regardless of their spatial distribution and
paleontological characteristics. The zone should have a
stratotype being its stratostandard.
CONCLUSIONS
Thorough analysis of the logic of classical stratigra-
phy suggests that stratigraphy is infused with and based
on geological history starting from the fundamental
principle (Steno’s layers superposition principle) to
the final product (regional and general scales).
Although stratigraphy is not identical to historical
geology, it is hardly possible to draw a line between
them, and, perhaps, it is not worth trying. This unex-
pected conclusion may seem unusual, because
according to the still existing notion of absolute New-
tonian time, events occur in time which does not
depend on anything. According to this idea, the stra-
tigraphy objective is to ascertain temporal relations
between features of the geological past in this absolute
time, the physical astronomical time in this case.
However, everything fits together if we recall that his-
tory produces the time, but does not occur in the time.
Geological history generates the geological time and
serves as the basis for classical stratigraphy, which cre-
ated the idea of relative geological time. This relativis-
Vol. 26 No. 2 2018
240 GANELIN, GLADENKOV
tic principle, implicit in stratigraphy, was developed by
it independently, regardless of physics. In this aspect,
it is ahead of the modern natural science by more than
a century, and it laid the historical basis of geology in
general. Relativity of the “relative geological time”
and time relativity in the special theory of relativity is
one and the same relativity, which is the time relativity
to the events that produce it. This relativistic principle
has long been a part of modern natural science, but,
unfortunately, was hardly noticed by the geological
community, as evidenced by the latest stratigraphic
trends.
Unfortunately, these tendencies of modernist stra-
tigraphy are fixed in the recommendations of the
International Stratigraphic Guide and are actively put
in practice. The main antithesis of the concepts of
classical and modernist stratigraphy could be put in a
formula: a stratotype or a limitotype. According to the
first one, the interval of geological time (regional or
universal) is derived from the formation time of the
regional stratigraphic unit, whose temporal volume is
specified by its stratotype, which serves as a standard
for the temporal volume of the unit. According to the
second concept (“golden nails”), the stratigraphic
(“chronostratigraphic”) unit is derived from the time
interval located between the levels of two neighboring
limitotypes. The time of this interval is absolute, inde-
pendent of geological processes; it is a physical radio-
logical time. In the Guide, it is for some reason called
a geological time. Meanwhile, the volume of a strati-
graphic unit is given by the arithmetic difference
between radiological datings of preceding and subse-
quent limitotypes. The stratigraphic unit defines the
time in classical stratigraphy, whereas the time defines
the stratigraphic unit in modernist stratigraphy. Along
with that, the relevant recommendations are proposed
not only for units of the General (“Chronostrati-
graphic”) Scale (“gold nails”) but also for regional
units (“silver nails”). It is not hard to see that the con-
cept of limitotypes emasculates the classical content of
stratigraphy, leaving only the empty shell of histori-
cally formed names, and sometimes neglecting them.
Such a fate befell the Ordovician and Cambrian sys-
tems and, partly, the Permian.
What is the reason for appearance of this modernist
approach in stratigraphy? Is it caused by the needs of
this science or of geological practice? It seems that the
compilers of the Guide just misunderstood both the
ideology of real classical stratigraphy and the modern
concepts of natural science in general, as well as the
needs of geology, both theoretical and applied. First of
all, this fact affected the definition of stratigraphy,
where the authors misunderstood the purpose and sig-
nificance of stratigraphic science. Having represented
stratigraphy merely as a practical applied procedure,
they attempted to reflect its content by classification of
rock properties studied by stratigraphy. Considering
rocks as a stratigraphic research object, they failed to
see that stratigraphy factually dealt not with rocks, but
STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION
with rock complexes, and these complexes carried the
historical content. The authors did not understand
that removal of the historical basis from stratigraphy
resulted in removal of the historical basis from geology
in general and simultaneous detachment of stratigra-
phy from geology. This is unacceptable from both the-
oretical and applied points of view. Stratigraphy is not
a thoughtless aimless rock classification, but is a scien-
tific geohistorical analysis.
The necessity of introducing the physical time into
the spatiotemporal architecture of stratigraphy is obvi-
ous, because it provides the corresponding construc-
tions with metric characteristics. However, it should
not destroy the historical framework of this building.
The current practice of referencing the dates of physi-
cal time to the levels of paleontological and isotopic
transformations can compose the independent scale of
so-called priority metric levels, not necessarily con-
fined to boundaries of the GSS units. The number of
these levels will multiply with time. This scale will
serve as a measuring ruler, without destroying the his-
torical framework of the stratigraphic building created
throughout the centuries.
REFERENCES
Ganelin, V.G., Three conceptions of the theoretical stratig-
raphy and Stratigraphic Chart of the SSSR, Otech. Geol.,
1992, no. 3, pp. 77–82.
Gladenkov, Yu.B., Problems of formations, zones, and
horizons in stratigraphy, Stratigraficheskaya klassifikatsiya.
Kommentarii k nekotorym razdelam Stratigraficheskogo
kodeksa SSSR. Tr. Mezhved. Stratigr. kom. (Proc. Interde-
part. Stratigr. Com. “Stratigraphic Classification. Commen-
tary to Some Sections of the Stratigraphic Code of the USSR”),
Leningrad: Nauka, 1980, vol. 7, pp. 124–130.
Gladenkov, Yu.B., Biosfernaya stratigrafiya (Biosphere
Stratigraphy), Moscow: GEOS, 2004 [in Russian].
International Stratigraphic Guide: a Guide to Stratigraphic
Classification, Terminology, and Procedure, Hedberg, H.,
Ed., New York: Wiley, 1976.
International Stratigraphic Guide, 2nd ed., Salvador, A.,
Ed., Int. Union.Geol. Sci., Geol. Soc. Am., Inc., 1994.
International Stratigraphic Guide—An Abridged Version,
Murphy, M.A. and Salvador, A., Eds., Episodes, 1999,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 255–271.
Krassilov, V.A., Evolyutsiya i biostratigrafiya (Evolution and
Biostratigraphy), Moscow: Nauka, 1977 [in Russian].
Lazarev, S.S., Features of typification on stratigraphic clas-
sification, Stratigr. Geol. Correl., 1997, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 91–
104.
Leonov, G.P., Osnovy stratigrafii. T. 2 (Fundamentals of
Stratigraphy. Vol. 2), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1974 [in
Russian].
Menner, V.V., Biostratigraphic fundamentals of correlation
of marine, lagoon, and continental formations, in Tr. GIN
AN SSSR (Proc. Geol. Inst. USSR Acad. Sci.), 1962,
vol. 65.
Obshchaya stratigraficheskaya shkala Rossii. Metodicheskie
problemy razrabotki regional’nykh shkal (General Strati-
Vol. 26 No. 2 2018
 GEOHISTORICAL STRATIGRAPHY AND STRATIGRAPHIC GUIDES
graphic Scale and Methodological Problems of the Develop-
ment of Regional Stratigraphic Scales of Russia), St. Peters-
burg: Vseross. Nauchno-Issled. Geol. Inst., 2016 [in Rus-
sian].
Rauzer-Chernousova, D.M., On the zones of unified and
regional stratigraphic scales, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR. Ser.
Geol., 1967, no. 7, pp. 104–118.
Schindewolf, O., Stratigraphie und Stratotypes, Mainz: Ver-
lag, 1970.
Sokolov, B.S., About the fundamentals of stratigraphic
classification, in Stratigraficheskaya klassifikatsiya. Kom-
mentarii k nekotorym razdelam Stratigraficheskogo kodeksa
SSSR. Tr. Mezhved. Stratigr. kom. (Proc. Interdepartment.
Stratigr. Com. “Stratigraphic Classification. Commentary to
Some Sections of the Stratigraphic Code of the USSR”), Len-
ingrad: Nauka, 1980, pp. 7–11.
Stepanov, D.L., Principles and methods of biostrati-
graphic research, in Tr. Neft. nauchno-issled. Geologorazv.
Inst. (VNIGRI) (Proc. All-Russ. Petrol. Res. Explor. Inst.
(VNIGRI)), 1958, vol. 113.
Stepanov, D.L., On the main principles of stratigraphy, Izv.
Akad. Nauk SSSR. Ser. Geol., 1967, no. 10, pp. 103–114.
STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOLOGICAL CORRELATION
241
Stratigraficheskii kodeks SSSR. Vremennyi svod pravil i
rekomendatsii (Stratigraphic Code of the USSR. Temporary
Code of Rules and Recommendations), Leningrad: Vse-
ross. Nauchno-Issled. Geol. Inst., 1977 [in Russian].
Stratigraficheskii kodeks SSSR (proekt 2-go izdaniya)
(Stratigraphic Code of the USSR (Project of the 2nd Edi-
tion)), Leningrad: Vseross. Nauchno-Issled. Geol. Inst.,
1989 [in Russian].
Stratigraficheskii kodeks Rossii. Izd. vtoroe, dopolnennoe
(Stratigraphic Code of Russia, 2nd ed., with Amendments),
St. Petersburg: Vseross. Nauchno-Issled. Geol. Inst., 1992
[in Russian].
Stratigraficheskii kodeks Rossii. Izd. tret’e (Stratigraphic
Code of Russia, 3rd ed.), Zhamoida, A.I., Ed., St. Peters-
burg: Vseross. Nauchno-Issled. Geol. Inst., 2006 [in Rus-
sian].
Zhamoida, A.I., Eskiz struktury i soderzhaniya teoreticheskoi
stratigrafii (Sketch of the Structure and Content of the The-
oretical Stratigraphy), St. Petersburg: Vseross. Nauchno-
Issled. Geol. Inst., 2011 [in Russian].
Translated by E. Maslennikova
Vol. 26 No. 2 2018