Super-informative! I suppose there is some kind of international standards-setting geologist body. Why can't America just adapt the international geology taxonomic conventions? Time we went to the metric system too!
Yes, nowadays we have the International Commission on Stratigraphy which approves such things. North American usage is approved along with Carboniferous, in part because the two packages in North America are indeed quite distinct, plus there was long, ingrained historical usage, and in the 1880s especially, American geologists did have a strong impact on the science in general. I think there are a few cases world-wide of similar dual recognition, but no others at the Period level, I think. In some cases, where the stage/age boundary is well-defined in one region, it may be non-existent or poorly defined in others, so even when there is an international standard for the boundary, it may in practice be something else (not dramatically else) in multiple places. Re the metric system, yes, of course.
Super-informative! I suppose there is some kind of international standards-setting geologist body. Why can't America just adapt the international geology taxonomic conventions? Time we went to the metric system too!
Yes, nowadays we have the International Commission on Stratigraphy which approves such things. North American usage is approved along with Carboniferous, in part because the two packages in North America are indeed quite distinct, plus there was long, ingrained historical usage, and in the 1880s especially, American geologists did have a strong impact on the science in general. I think there are a few cases world-wide of similar dual recognition, but no others at the Period level, I think. In some cases, where the stage/age boundary is well-defined in one region, it may be non-existent or poorly defined in others, so even when there is an international standard for the boundary, it may in practice be something else (not dramatically else) in multiple places. Re the metric system, yes, of course.