Re: New Geologic Epoch

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > Other proposals to the ICS include mucking about with the
> > Carboniferous (again...)

How? Reversing the silly "subera" designation for the Mississippian and the 
Pennsylvanian that means the Carboniferous now has 5 epochs consisting of 1 
stage each (some of them very long!) and 1 epoch consisting of a whopping 2 
stages?

> > and the Cambrian (again...)

Well, in the Cambrian there isn't a lot to muck about with... 2/3 of the 
stages and half of the epochs don't even have accepted names yet...

> > and (one I would like to see passed!)
> > formal reorganization of a Lower (Berriasian-Aptian), Middle
> > (Albian-Turonian), and Upper (Coniacian-Maastrichtian) Cretaceous.

I'd love that, too (and the Permian has already undergone the shift from two 
to three subdivisions), except... there's that mass extinction at the 
Cenomanian-Turonian boundary, and none at the Turonian-Coniacian one, right?

> Could I add changing the Tithonian into the Portlandian, so there can be 
> an actual type locality?

Body stratotypes are no longer used. Instead, boundary stratotypes are used. 
It's a bit like rank-based vs phylogenetic nomenclature, except that the 
stratigraphers have (recently) completed the shift. Is the J-K boundary 
exposed in Portland?

You are, however, right that the Kimmeridgian-Tithonian and the 
Tithonian-Berriasian boundaries don't have stratotypes yet, though the first 
has two candidates (http://www.stratigraphy.org/gssp.htm).