Alternate geologic time tables

[Emperor Qianlong]

The names of geological time periods are mostly based on type localities where pioneer research was done, ie, mostly in Europe (to a lesser degree in North America) in OTL:

- Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian based on the regions in Britain.
- Carboniferous based on the vast coal deposits in Europe and North America. Note that for example in East Asia, you get at the same time large amounts of limestone deposits.
- Permian based on the region in Russia (a viable alternative name could have been "Dyassic", from the division of the Permian into "Rotliegend" and "Zechstein" in Germany).
- Triassic, from the division of the Triassic sediments in Germany into "Buntsandstein", "Muchelkalk" and "Keuper". Note that for example in the Alps, this division does not exist.
- Jurassic, from the Jura mountains in Switzerland.
- Cretaceous, from the chalck rocks found in much of Western Europe in Cretaceous strata).
- Tertiary and Quarternary come from the early research in the Paris basin. There also were a "Primary" and a "Secondary", but these are today called Paleozoic and Mesozoic.

So my idea is, how different could it be, and how different could stratigraphic table look based on the regions where the first research was done to study them? Also, a spinoff from that question: what terminology would geology/paleontology use in a TYORAS-style world?

I would imagine that regardless of the circumstances, some things would stay similar, for example it's tempting to use the Permian-Triassic and Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction events as boundaries between different ages. After all, these mark massive faunal turnovers, and after all index fossils are one of the key methods of stratigraphy. However, in some other cases the boundaries that geologists use in OTL are relatively arbitrary.

So, what do you think?

 

[Tony Jones]

It's a good question, and to be honest I don't know. I do mention in most of my ATLs that geological periods (as well as scientific units etc.) are called different things because of the different research that has been carried out, but I don't go so far as to specify them...

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

It's a good question, and to be honest I don't know. I do mention in most of my ATLs that geological periods (as well as scientific units etc.) are called different things because of the different research that has been carried out, but I don't go so far as to specify them...

Well, it's difficult. Certain places - such as the Paris basin for example where you have very long and complete sequences of sediments in a relatively small area - are just ideal for stratigraphy to kickstart. Much of the pioneer work of modern geology was done in the Paris basin, and there's similar that happened in Britain (particularly Scotland and Wales).

What I could imagine that if geolology was pioneered in China, (help from speakers of Chinese would be appreciated here) some geologically periods would be named really radically different because in China you have different sediments from that time.

For example, it would be (in my opinion) tempting to call the Jurassic in China "Carboniferous" (whatever the Chinese term for "coal-bearing age" is), while the Carboniferous age would be more likely to be called "Cretaceous" (again, whatever the Chinese term for "chalky age" would be ). Otherwise, my knowledge of the geology of China is too limited to go more into detail.

 

[Bill Cameron]

So, what do you think?

Qianlong,

So, the geological labels change but the geological facts don't. Where's the actual difference and what's the real point?

Whether the eras are called 'Throat Warbler Mangrove' or 'Ken Rowboat' doesn't mean a thing. They're still the same things. Evolutionists will talk about a "Pre-Mangrove Explosion" or the "Rowboat Extinction" and those terms will mean the same thing as the "Pre-Cambrain Explosion" or the "Permian Extinction" do now.

Nothing changes because only the labels changed.


Bill

P.S. Sorry for the Monty Python references.

 

[Tony Jones]

So, the geological labels change but the geological facts don't. Where's the actual difference and what's the real point?

...

Nothing changes because only the labels changed.

I disagree. Labels mean a lot, even if they are arbitary divisions in many cases.

If nothing else considering different names for things like this helps to define the style and flavour of an ATL, and how the facts are interpreted by the people of that ATL. Which means that something does change because peoples view of geological time is different. Which could conceivably give people there a different view of the universe, different philosophical implications, different philsophical movements driving politics, and so different governments, different wars and so on!

In my ATLs I also mention that scientific units and constants are called different things for the same reasons, as are various inventions, like RADAR, LASERs etc.

Again, it's all to do with the style and flavour of the ATL. After all, if, regardless of the changes in history, all inventions, scientific things and so on are called exactly the same as they are in OTL, how convincing is that? IMO not very.

 

[Bill Cameron]

I disagree. (snip) Again, it's all to do with the style and flavour of the ATL. After all, if, regardless of the changes in history, all inventions, scientific things and so on are called exactly the same as they are in OTL, how convincing is that? IMO not very.

Tony,

With regards to this topic, I value the opinion of a published author more highly. David Drake has a blurb about this very topic on his website and also in most of his Lt. Leary series of books.

Apparently, many fans took him to task for using kilometers, kilograms, and other 'OTL' measurement terms in a series set thousands of years in the future. Drake responded that he could have wasted time and energy developing alternate measurements and then finding ways to explain them in the text without reverting to the cliched "As you know, Jim..." moments or he could have used the same time and energy in writing a good story.

YMMV.

My point still stands. Different labels do not change actual facts. The speed of light in a vacuum is the speed of light in a vacuum whether it is measured in meters, feet, lances, knucklebones, or splondulicks.


Bill

 

[Mark]

It's not just the Paleozoic/Mesozoic and Mesozoic/Cenozoic boundaries that were identified by mass extinctions, but several of the period boundaries. So these boundaries will be the same whatever the names. Other boundaries are marked by smaller extinctions or other global phenomena (the Pliocene/Pleistocene for example). These will also be similar to the same as ours in an ATL.

In North America, there is no Carboniferous per se. We divide the same timespan into the Mississippian (approximately equal to the lower/early Carboniferous) and Pennsylvanian (approximately upper/late Carboniferous). And at finer timescales, things can be even more localized (they are often based on index species, few of which are global in extent). So stratigraphers make correlation charts (= more publications) and paleontologists and geologists use whatever divisions are useful to them.

So the Triassic would be a named period (bounded by extinctions), but the Barstovian North American Land Mammal Stage may not exist in ATLs.

 

[Tony Jones]

Apparently, many fans took him to task for using kilometers, kilograms, and other 'OTL' measurement terms in a series set thousands of years in the future. Drake responded that he could have wasted time and energy developing alternate measurements and then finding ways to explain them in the text without reverting to the cliched "As you know, Jim..." moments or he could have used the same time and energy in writing a good story.

In something set in the future I don't think it strains the bounds of credibility for the same units to still be used, so I think Mr Drake makes a valid point. For a world with an utterly different history, I think it does strain credibility.

Anyway, for ATLs you write, you're entirely at liberty to use OTL units as you wish. Others likewise are entirely at liberty not to if they wish, if they feel the effort makes the ATL more convincing to them and, in their opinion, to their readers.

My point still stands. Different labels do not change actual facts. The speed of light in a vacuum is the speed of light in a vacuum whether it is measured in meters, feet, lances, knucklebones, or splondulicks.

The facts don't change, it's true, but the interpretations of the facts by people do. And filtering the same facts through different interpretations is going to have an effect on history - I think OTL shows us that well enough!

 

[Tony Jones]

It's not just the Paleozoic/Mesozoic and Mesozoic/Cenozoic boundaries that were identified by mass extinctions, but several of the period boundaries. So these boundaries will be the same whatever the names. Other boundaries are marked by smaller extinctions or other global phenomena (the Pliocene/Pleistocene for example). These will also be similar to the same as ours in an ATL.

I don't dispute that these period boundaries may be used as boundaries in some ATLs for the same reasons as in OTL. But other markers may be used as well and/or instead of them in ATLs too. And period names will almost certainly be different.

 

[Bill Cameron]

The facts don't change, it's true, but the interpretations of the facts by people do. And filtering the same facts through different interpretations is going to have an effect on history - I think OTL shows us that well enough!

Tony,

You're not a scientist or an engineer are you? Tell me how to 'interpret' the speed of light in a vacuum differently and then explain how such an 'interpretation' would change anything. That's all that you're suggesting with different geological labels.

In the soft 'sciences' labels may make all the difference. In actual science labels mean nothing, the facts remain the same no matter what you call them.


Bill

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

Qianlong,

So, the geological labels change but the geological facts don't. Where's the actual difference and what's the real point?

Whether the eras are called 'Throat Warbler Mangrove' or 'Ken Rowboat' doesn't mean a thing. They're still the same things. Evolutionists will talk about a "Pre-Mangrove Explosion" or the "Rowboat Extinction" and those terms will mean the same thing as the "Pre-Cambrain Explosion" or the "Permian Extinction" do now.

Nothing changes because only the labels changed.


Bill

P.S. Sorry for the Monty Python references.

First of all Bill, you're essentially right. The labels change but the geological facts don't. The big difference is basically that you'd have a different history of the research into geology, and that you'd get different terminologies and in some cases different boundaries. The fact that Mark brought up about the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian in North America is an interesting example. I remember that some Central European stratigraphy uses similar terms called "Dinantian" and "Silesian".
in regard for mass extinctions, not all boundaries between periods are market by mass extinctions. Yes, there was a major extinction on the Triassic/Jurassic boundary, but there's no such thing on the Jurassic Cretaceous boundary. It would perhaps have been wiser to lump the Jurassic and the Early Cretaceous into one period, based on fauna and flora, but that didn't happen.

In general, I'd assume there would be definitely be something like a Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic in ATLs, but they could be called entirely differently, and my main idea behind creating this thread was asking for how different could the tables look like, and how differently could the periods be called, based on what type localities?

 

[Grand_Panjandrum]

'Throat Warbler Mangrove'

I do believe that it is written as [SIZE=-1]'Raymond Luxury-Yacht' [/SIZE]

 

[Tony Jones]

You're not a scientist or an engineer are you?

Both, in fact.

Tell me how to 'interpret' the speed of light in a vacuum differently and then explain how such an 'interpretation' would change anything. That's all that you're suggesting with different geological labels.

No, it isn't. See Emperor Qianlong's reply. Yes, things are in the same place in the rocks, but depending on the research (and even the politcal) context in which they are dug up they may be interpreted very differently.

The most extreme case I can think of off the top of my head would be something like a Young Earth Creationist government, in which science is filtered through religion, so that fossils are all considered in light of the biblical flood and Earth only being 6000 or so years old, regardless of what a truly objective scientific examination might show. In this case the things in the rocks are the same but what they would be interpreted as by mainstream 'science' would be very different!

However, I do agree that some things, like the speed of light in a vacuum, would be very hard to re-interpret...

No, it's not. In the soft 'sciences' labels may make all the difference. In actual science labels mean nothing, the facts remain the same no matter what you call them.

Again, I disagree. For example, wave-particle duality. The facts of particle behaviour are the same, but depending on the filter through which those facts are viewed you get different interpretations of those facts and thus, potentially, different technological applications of those facts, with all of the differences to history that could imply.

 

[Mark]

For those who would like to see the latest in geologic timescales, check out:

http://www.stratigraphy.org/ - The International Commission on Stratigraphy - The internationally accepted timescale.

http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pubs/ - look up Fact Sheet 2007-3015 for the US Geological Survey's latest timescale.

I should make a slight correction - The Carboniferous is recognized in North America, we just divide into two subsystems (a term that wasn't used in the late Pleistocene when I took historical geology). Also note that there are many regional schemes (like the North American Land Mammal Ages I mentioned before) in use because they are useful.

You can also find out why geologic maps use so many colors (besides the obvious that they look great that way).