[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# Problems in chronostratigraphy: stages, series, unit and boundary stratotypes, global stratotype section and point and tarnished golden spikes

## Details

**Authors** Aubry, Marie-Pierre and Berggren, William A and Van Couvering, John A and Steininger, Fritz

**Year** 1999

**Publisher** Earth-Science Reviews

**Kind of work** article

**Discipline** Geology

**Secondary disciplines** Environment & Sustainability

**Applied** false

[Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(99)00008-2) 
10.1016/S0012-8252(99)00008-2

## In authors' words

### What they set out to do (purpose)

To examine the conceptual basis of chronostratigraphic units (stages, series, and their boundary stratotypes) and how they relate under the hierarchical principle of the International Stratigraphic Guide.

### Who or what was studied (sample)

The five inter-series boundaries of the Cenozoic, each compared with the lower boundary of the lowest standard stage above it.

### How they did it (methods)

Review and critical analysis of boundary definitions and proposed Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs) against the stage hierarchy.

### What they found (results)

Chronostratigraphy is conceptually more advanced in the Cenozoic than in the Mesozoic and Paleozoic, where biostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy are often confused. For the Eocene/Oligocene and Paleocene/Eocene boundaries, the proposed GSSPs differ so much from the bases of the Rupelian and Ypresian stages that the hierarchical rule would need relaxing. The authors argue that stage boundaries should not be defined a posteriori to fit series boundaries, and they propose formalizing series and subseries with GSSP-defined boundaries while keeping stages in a two-step hierarchical framework.

## Commentary

### In short

The authors examine how the boundaries between geological time units are defined and how stages nest within series. They find that the proposed boundary definitions for the Cenozoic often do not match the stage hierarchy, and they propose a revised two-step scheme.

### Response

The paper bears on the Distinctions and Systems patterns. Boundary stratotypes are explicit decisions about where one unit ends and the next begins, and the argument about stage and series boundaries is an argument about how a nested hierarchy of units can be kept consistent. The authors also separate chronostratigraphy from biostratigraphy, a further distinction. Caveats: the work is a conceptual and methodological review, not an empirical test, and it does not treat parts and wholes in the abstract sense. This record rests on the publisher page only, not the full text.

**Patterns it shows** D, S

**Added** 2026-11-02

**How to cite this** Aubry, Marie-Pierre and Berggren, William A and Van Couvering, John A and Steininger, Fritz (1999). Problems in chronostratigraphy: stages, series, unit and boundary stratotypes, global stratotype section and point and tarnished golden spikes. Earth-Science Reviews.