Solutions in chronostratigraphy: the Paleocene/Eocene boundary debate,and Aubry vs. Hedberg on chronostratigraphic principles

In several recent papers, M.-P. Aubry et al. have argued that “Hedbergian” principles of chronostratigraphy are being violated by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) when selecting Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs) for the formal divisions of the geological time scale. The current debate over the definition of the Paleocene/Eocene (P/E) boundary has been a major focus of their arguments. Unfortunately, Aubry et al. have obscured matters by misusing the term “unit stratotype,” and by equivocally using the term “stage” for the very different concepts of “synthem” and “global chronostratigraphic stage.” The P/E boundary option most repugnant to Aubry et al. (Carbon Isotope Excursion (CIE)=P/E=Thanetian/Ypresian boundary) is perfectly compatible with H.D. Hedberg's views. In contrast, another option preferred by Aubry et al. (recognition of new ～1 m.y. duration age/stage between Thanetian and Ypresian) is inconsistent with Hedberg's views. Additional problems with the P/E boundary arguments of Aubry et al. include the fact that a “Ypresian unit stratotype” does not exist, the fact that the base of the Ypresian synthem is not immutable, and the fact that the nannofossil Tribrachiatus digitalis is of dubious relevance to the boundary debate.As for chronostratigraphy in general, Aubry et al. have misrepresented Hedberg's views by: (1) falsely claiming that the content of a stage is what determines its boundaries; (2) misunderstanding the general concept of the boundary stratotype; (3) distorting the “base defines boundary” principle; (4) falsely claiming that traditional (pre-GSSP) chronostratigraphic boundaries cannot be changed; (5) falsely implying that traditional stage unit stratotype boundaries can be adjusted by no more than 300,000 years when defining formal age/stage boundaries with GSSPs; (6) falsely claiming that the definition of a geochronologic/chronostratigraphic boundary should precede its correlation; (7) claiming that traditional unconformable “stage” boundaries may be suitable horizons for GSSPs; (8) distorting the meaning of “arbitrariness” in regard to the definition of geochronologic/chronostratigraphic boundaries; and (9) claiming that GSSPs are inherently unstable in that they are subject to redefinition whenever a more powerful element of correlation is discovered. If taken seriously, the unit stratotype-sanctifying chronostratigraphic philosophy of Aubry et al. would require the creation of perhaps dozens of new Phanerozoic ages/stages of relatively very short duration wherever there was a significant gap between two successive historical stage unit stratotypes. For all of these reasons, the arguments of Aubry et al. have no merit.