The Triassic chronostratigraphic scale: history and status

Abstract

AbstractThe Triassic chronostratigraphic scale is a hierarchy of three series, seven stages and 15 substages developed during nearly two centuries of research. The first geological studies of Triassic rocks began in Germany in the late 1700s and culminated in 1834 when Friedrich August von Alberti coined the term ‘Trias’ for the Bunten Sandsteins, Muschelkalk and Keuper, a thick succession of strata between the Zechstein and the Lias. Recognition of the Trias outside of Germany soon followed, and by the 1860s Austrian geologist Edmund von Mojsisovics began constructing a detailed Triassic chronostratigraphy based on ammonoid biostratigraphy. In 1895, Mojsisovics and his principal collaborators, Wilhelm Waagen and Carl Diener, published a Triassic timescale that contains most of the stage and substage names still used today. In 1934, Leonard Spath proposed a Triassic ammonoid-based biochronological timescale that differed little from that of Mojsisovics and his collaborators. In the 1960s, E. Timothy Tozer proposed a Triassic ammonoid-based timescale based on North American standards, and his timescale included proposal of four Lower Triassic stages (Griesbachian, Dienerian, Smithian and Spathian). The work of the Subcommission on Triassic Stratigraphy began in the 1970s and resulted in current recognition of seven Triassic stages in three series: Lower Triassic–Induan, Olenekian; Middle Triassic–Anisian, Ladinian; Upper Triassic–Carnian, Norian and Rhaetian. The 1990s saw the rise of Triassic conodont biostratigraphy so that four intervals that have agreed on Triassic GSSPs use conodont occurrences as defining features: bases of Induan, Olenekian, Anisian and Rhaetian. The bases of the Ladinian and Carnian are defined by ammonoid events. The base of the Norian remains undefined, but will most likely be defined by conodonts.Except for the Rhaetian, the Middle and Upper Triassic stages and substages have been fairly stable for decades, but there has been much less agreement on Lower Triassic chronostratigraphic subdivisions. Issues in the development of a Triassic chronostratigraphic scale include those of: stability and priority of nomenclature and concepts; disagreement over and changing taxonomy; the use of ammonoid v. conodont biostratigraphy; differences in the perceived significance of biotic events for chronostratigraphic classification; disagreements about the utility of relatively short stages; correlation problems between the Tethyan and Boreal realms (provinces); and competing standards from the Old and New worlds. Most of these issues have been resolved in the recognition of three Triassic series and seven stages. Further development of the Triassic chronostratigraphic scale needs to focus on definition and characterization of the 15 Triassic substages as these will provide a much more detailed basis for subdivision of Triassic time than do the seven stages.