Bull. Soc. belge Géologie T. 83 fasc. 4 pp. 235- 253 Bruxelles 1974 THE CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS OF THE UPPER CARBONIFEROUS IN EUROPE R.H. WAGNER * ABSTRACT: The history is traced of the various chronostratigraphic units recognised in the Upper Carboniferous of western Europe, and their stratotypes are discussed. A correlation is given for the chronostratigraphic units in the Middle and Upper Carboniferou& series of Russia, in the light of pre­ dominantly marine successions in N.W. Spain, and suggestions are made for an integrated scheme of major units. Introduction In western Europe the classification of Carboniferous strata was further taken in The main chronostratigraphic divisions of hand by the Congrès pour !'Avancement des the Carboniferous in Europe were established Etudes de Stratigraphie Carbonifère which by MUNIER CHALMAS & DE LAPPARENT(1893), met in Heerlen in 1927, 1935, 1951 and who distinguished three marine stages charac­ 1958. The 1927 congress sanctioned the use terised by different faunas, viz. Dinantienl, of Namurian, a stage introduced by PURVES Moscovien2 and Ouralienl, and two stages, in 1883 and which corresponds to the West­ Westphalien1 and Stéphanien, characterised phalien inférieur of MUNIER CHALMAS & by coal-measures facies. Most of the names DE LAPPARENT. It also introduced the A, had been used before (see footnotes), but B and C divisions for the remaining West­ the 'Note sur la Nomenclature des Terrains phalian (i.e. the Westphalien supérieur of sédimentaires' provided the first formai MUNIER CHALMAS & DE LAPPARENT). The framework for a subdivision into stages of the 1935 congress expanded the Westphalian Carboniferous System. MuNIER CHALMAS & upwards by recognising the presence of a DE LAPPARENT gave precedence to the marine Westphalian D division, and subdivided the stages, Moscovian and Uralian, and regarded Namurian into A, B and C. A subdivision Westphalian and Stephanian as the equivalent of the Stephanian Stage into Stephanian A, units in non-marine facies. This marked a B and C appeared in PRUVOST 1934, and was duality which was to remain in all subsequent proposed in JoNGMANS & PRUVOST (1950). classifications3. This usage was followed by different authors and became finally incorporated in the (*) Department of Geology, The University, stratigraphie scheme published in the Compte Mappin Street, Sheffield Sl 3JD, England. rendu of the 7th Carboniferous Congress Paper presented in Brussels in November 1973. which was held in Krefeld (1971). 1 ( ) First named by DE LAPPARENT & MUNJER It should be noted that the stratigraphie CHALMAS in DE LAPPARENT (1892) 'Traité de scheme elaborated by the Heerlen congresses Géologie'. Ouralien replaced Gshelien which was based entirely on the knowledge gained in had been introduced by NIKITIN (1890). The latter name has been maintained in the present-day Russian classification. & HAVLENA (1962), who introduced the term ( 2) Name introduced by NIKITIN (1890). Sorabian for the non-marine equivalent of ( 3) lt was taken to its logical extreme by REMY the Dinantian. 235 north-western Europe, showing paralic and Carboniferous System has been adopted non-marine developments of the Upper (GEORGE & WAGNER 1972, p. 142) (Table 1). Carboniferous. Little or no notice was taken of the marine Carboniferous in Russia, where a separate classification became established. Major subdivisions Although papers on the predominantly marine Carboniferous in Russia did appear in the The main feature of this classification is the Compte-rendus of successive congresses, there recognition of two subsystems, the Dinantian was no serious attempt at incorporating this (or Lower Carboniferous) and the Silesian information for an integrated European sche­ (or Upper Carboniferous). The name Silesian me of Carboniferous stratigraphie classifica­ was introduced in Heerlen (1958) and the tion. Similarly, comparisons were made with decision to recognise a Silesian division the United States, but without making an equal in rank to the Dinantian was ratified attempt at an integrated scheme. in Copenhagen, 1960 (VAN LECKWIJCK With the establishment of the Commission 1964a). These main divisions of the Car­ on Stratigraphy of the International Geologi­ boniferousinEurope are comparable although cal Congress at Algiers, 1952, it was also not wholly correlatable to Mississippian decided to constitute a Subcommission on and Pennsylvanian, two systems of the Ameri­ Carboniferous Stratigraphy which would work can Palaeozoic which, together, equal the alongside the other subcommissions dealing Carboniferous System of Europe. At the with the other systems, and with the Sub­ meeting in Heerlen, 1958, it was recommended commission on Stratigraphie Classification that these major subdivisions of the Car­ (originally called the Subcommission on boniferous System should not be regarded as Stratigraphie Nomenclature). The Subcom­ subsystems, but this recommendation was mission on Carboniferous Stratigraphy, under deleted at Copenhagen. It therefore became its Chairman, Prof. W.P. VAN LECKWIJCK, inferred that Dinantian and Silesian, as well presented its first two reports in the Compte as Mississippian and Pennsylvanian should rendu of the Carboniferous Congress of 1958 be regarded as subsystems, since the congress and in the Proceedings of the International re-affirmed that the Carboniferous should be Geological Congress held at Copenhagen in maintained as a single system. 1960. This Subcommission was subsequently The rank of the Dinantian and Silesian made accountable to the International Union divisions as subsystems was further confirmed of Geological Sciences. Its meetings were indirectly when the subordinate units Tour­ not necessarily coïncident with those of the naisian, Viséan, Namurian, Westphalian and International Congress on Carboniferous Stephanian were admitted as series. The first Stratigraphy and Geology, and the initiative unit to be regarded as such was the Namurian for making recommendations on the classifi­ which accommodated a number of stages as cation of Carboniferous stratigraphie units introduced by BISAT (1924), HUDSON & COT­ passed from the Congress to the Subcommis­ TON (1943), HUDSON (1945) and HODSON sion. However, in practice, the latter took (1957) (see 'Interim Report of the Namurian care to hold its general meetings in conjunc­ Working Group' by W.H.C. RAMSBOTTOM tion with the Carboniferous Congress and its 1969). Once the Namurian had been recogni­ reports were read during the closing sessions sed as a series (VAN LECKWIJCK 1964b), of the congress at Paris (1963), Sheffield it became inevitable that the Westphalian (1967) and Krefeld (1971). Additional meetings and Stephanian should also be regarded as of the Subcommission were held in Copenha­ series. Their major subdivisions (stages), gen (1960), Sheffield (1965), Liège (1969), carrying the informai connotations A, B, C Spain (1970) and Czechoslovakia (1973). and D, are in due time to be renamed in the Reports were issued for ail these meetings. more formai manner, just Iike the stages At present, the following classification of the within the Namurian Series. One newly 236 TABLE 1 Chronostratigraphic units of the European Carboniferous. SYSTEM SUBSYSTEM SERIES STAGE { Stophacian C Stephanian B Stephanian f Stephanian A 1 Cantabrian 1 IWestphalian D Westphalian C SILESIAN ~ Westphalian l Westphalian B 1 Westphalian A 1 1 1 Yeadonian 1 Marsdenian CARBONIFEROUS 1 Kinderscoutian l Namurian Alportian Chokierian Arnsbergian Pendleian .................. DINANTIAN { Viséan Tournaisian .................. described stage, the Cantabrian, the basal (and which has been accepted as a stratotype unit of the Stephanian Series, constitutes a by the Subcommission on Carboniferous precedent for the formai naming of stages now Stratigraphy in Sheffield 1967) does not coïn• marked A, B and C. cide with the Heerlen definition. This has Since the Dinantian was regarded as created obvious difficulties which have not equivalent in rank to the Silesian, it also been removed by recent proposais to recognise became inevitable to recognise the Tournai­ stages with German stratotypes for the zones sian and the Viséan as series. However, no I, II and III (PAPROTH et al. 1971, SCHMIDT stages were recognised within these series. 1972). One reason for the failure to designate general­ The level of subdivision within the Dinan­ ly agreed stages for the Tournaisian and tian is obviously not as high as that reached Viséan series may be that these units were within the Silesian, and the question may well subdivided into the goniatite zones I (Gatten­ be asked whether these two units should dorfia Stufe), II (Pericyclus Stufe) and III really be regarded as being of the same rank. (Goniatites Stufe), as proposed by ScHINDE­ In this respect, it may be significant that WOLF & PAECKELMANN and accepted by the MUNIER CHALMAS & DE LAPPARENT (1893) second Heerlen congress (JoNGMANS & intended the Dinantian to be equivalent in GoTHAN 1937). On the basis of the decisions rank to the Westphalian and the Stephanian. taken at that congress, the Tournaisian/ Also in terms of absolute time, it appears that Viséan boundary would lie within zone II. the Dinantian unit is more nearly equivalent On the other hand, the boundary between to any of the component series of the Silesian these two units as recognised in Belgium than to the latter unit in its entirety. FRANCIS & 237 TABLE 2 Correlation of major chronostratigraphic units in the Carboniferous of Western Europe