Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:51:47.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resolving time in paleobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Anna K. Behrensmeyer and
David Schindel
Anna K. Behrensmeyer
Affiliation:
Paleobiology, NHB-E206 M.S. 121, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560
David Schindel
Affiliation:
Peabody Museum of Natural History, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, P.O. Box 6666, New Haven, Connecticut 06511
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Time is so fundamental to the everyday thinking of paleobiologists and geologists that it is seldom given close critical attention. Many of the currently debated issues in evolutionary history—catastrophic extinctions and punctuated vs. gradual morphological change, for instance—include assumptions about time and rate which are seldom made explicit. Methods now exist for calibrating evolutionary patterns through estimates of time components in the fossil and sedimentological records. There is a growing realization that increased precision in defining time frameworks can greatly clarify evolutionary problems. This has helped to stimulate renewed interest in the traditional topic of time and how it is represented in the biological and geological record.

Information

Type
Current Happenings
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Winter 1983, pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Contributions to the NAPC Convention

Arnold, A. J. 1982. The potential of biometric characters for increased stratigraphic resolution in the foraminiferal record (abstract). J. Paleontol. 56(supp. no. 2):1.Google Scholar
Badgley, C. 1982. How much time is represented in the present?: the development of time-averaged modern assemblages as models for the fossil record. Third N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. Proc. 1:23–28.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1982. Time sampling intervals in the vertebrate fossil record. Third N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. Proc. 1:41–45.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution: sampling, lineages, and faunal turnover. Third N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. 1:205–210.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 1982. Time scales of fossil accumulation: patterns from Miocene benthic assemblages. Third N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. Proc. 1:295–300.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1982. How much of the record is fossiliferous? (abstract.) J. Paleontol. 56(supp. no. 2):20.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. and Dingus, L. W. 1982. Expected completeness of sedimentary sections: estimating a time-scale dependent, limiting factor in the resolution of the fossil record. Third N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. Proc. 2:461–464.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1982. Time resolution in cyclic Pennsylvanian strata: implications for evolutionary patterns in Glabrocingulum (Mollusca:Archaeogastropoda). Third N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. Proc. 2:482a–e.Google Scholar
Webb, T. III. 1982. Temporal resolution in Holocene pollen data. Third N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. Proc. 2:569–572.Google Scholar
Wing, S. L. and Hickey, L. J. 1982. Time scales of megafloral assemblages (abstract). J. Paleontol. 56(supp. no. 2):30.Google Scholar

Related Publications

Barrell, J. 1917. Rhythms and the measurement of geologic time. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 28:745–904.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1982. Time resolution in fluvial vertebrate assemblages. Paleobiology. 8:211–227.Google Scholar
Cox, A. 1975. The frequency of geomagnetic reversals and the symmetry of the nondipole field. Rev. Geophys. and Space Phys. 13(3):35–51.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: patterns of evolution at the species level in Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1–28.Google Scholar
Malmgren, B. A. and Kennett, J. P. 1981. Phyletic gradualism in a late Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal lineage: DSDP site 284, southwest Pacific. Paleobiology. 7:230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElhinny, M. W. 1978. The magnetic polarity time scale: prospects and possibilities in magnetostratigraphy. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Studies in Geol. 6:57–65.Google Scholar
Opdyke, N. D., Kent, D. V., and Lowrie, W. 1973. Details of magnetic polarity transitions recorded in a high deposition rate deep-sea core. Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. 20:315–324.Google Scholar
Sachs, H. M. and Hasson, P. F. 1979. Comparison of species vs. character description for very high resolution biostratigraphy using cannartid radiolarians. J. Paleontol. 53:1112–1120.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. J. Geol. 89:569–584.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1980. Microstratigraphic sampling and the limits of paleontological resolution. Paleobiology. 6:408–426.Google Scholar
Schindel, D. E. 1982. Resolution analysis: a new approach to the gaps in the fossil record. Paleobiology. 8:340–353.Google Scholar
Wing, S. L. 1980. Fossil floras and plant-bearing beds of the central Bighorn Basin. In: Gingerich, P. D., ed. Early Cenozoic Paleontology and Stratigraphy of the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. Univ. Mich. Pap. on Paleontol. 24:119–125.Google Scholar