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?
- 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?