HARRY E. WHEELER Dept. Geology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Baselevel, Lithosphere Surface,
and Time-Stratigraphy
Abstract: Certain ideas pertaining to baselevel
appear to be valid. Among these are the notions:
that it is an imaginary surface delimiting the depth
of erosion potential (Powell, 1875); that it em-
bodies the concept of balance or equilibrium (Rice,
1897); and that it is a nearly horizontal surface as
significant to sedimentation as it is to erosion (Bar-
rell, 1917). Contrary to Barrell, baselevel as a
surface is a forceless abstraction which is without
control over geological processes; and contrary to
Hayes (1899) and Dunbar and Rodgers (1957), the
notion of a horizontal baselevel plane gives rise to
needless inconsistencies.
Baselevel relates directly to deposition and
erosion, which occur only at the lithosphere sur-
face; therefore, the baselevel surface configuration
may be conceived only in its relationship to the
lithic surface. This and the seemingly valid notions
of Powell, Rice, and Barrell permit only a single,
abstract, ever-present (worldwide), baselevel
"sphere" constantly undulating in response to the
ever-changing, erosion and deposition-controlling,
supply-energy patterns as they impinge on the
lithosphere surface. Baselevel rises above the lithic
CONTENTS
Elusive baselevel concept 599
Law of lithosphere surface relationships . . . . 602
Baselevel as a worldwide abstract surface . . . . 603
Baselevel transit 603
Baselevel transit cycle 604
Physical stratigraphic manifestation ol baselevel
transit 605
Area-time configurations of baselevel transit . . 606
Positive, negative, and neutral aspects of time-
stratigraphy 607
Acknowledgments 608
References cited 608
ELUSIVE BASELEVEL CONCEPT
Powell (1875, p. 203) first used the term
base-level for an "... imaginary surface
below which the rocks cannot be de-
graded." Although he introduced the addi-
tional notion of sea level as a "grand base-
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 75, p. 599-610, 2 figs., July 1964
599
surface wherever deposition begins and drops
beneath it wherever erosion commences, thus
making at any place alternate upward and down-
ward transits, and thereby providing a baselevel
transit cycle.
The preserved record of the depositional phase
of the principal baselevel transit cycles in earth
history comprises the major unconformity-bounded
sequences. The equally important but nonrecorded
parts of the cycle constitute the lacuna, which
consists of the hiatus and the degradation vacuity.
The degradation vacuity may also be combined
with its corresponding sequence to reconstitute
the holostrome or original depositional cyclic
phase. Significantly, the boundaries separating all
of these abstract time-stratigraphic entities are
traces of the area-time migration of either the up-
ward or downward transits of baselevel (migration
of the intersections of baselevel and the lithosphere
surface).
Configurational relationships imply the existence
of positive, negative, and neutral aspects of time-
stratigraphy.
Figure
1. A, Profile showing inconsistencies of "hori-
zontal plane" concept of baselevel; B,
Profile showing the undulating, universal,
abstract surface concept of baselevel . . . 601
2. A, Section showing physical relationships of suc-
cessive unconformity-bounded sequences;
B, Area-time projection of 2A, showing
lithosphere surface-moment and baselevel
transit migration patterns in time-stra-
tigraphy 606
level," the fact that this particular judgment
has not stood the test of time need not detract
from the significant implications of his basic
concept. Barrell (1917), however, has been
credited in recent years, not only with broad-
ening the baselevel concept to include sedimen-
tation and stratigraphy as well as physiography,
600 H. E. WHEELER-BASELEVEL, LITHOSPHERE SURFACE, TIME-STRATIGRAPHY
but also with elucidating its meaning. Without
diminishing the obvious significance of Bar-
rell's specific contribution (or of his ideas on
rhythms), a review of his application of the
term baselevel does not indicate an altogether
clear and consistent connotation. Barrell (1917,
p. 778) stated:
"Thus the sediments [are] deposited with respect
to a nearly horizontal controlling surface. This
surface of control is baselevel [which is] of more
inclusive content than the sense in which it has
generally been used by physiographers as a level
limiting the depth of fluvial erosion. Sedimentation
as well as erosion is controlled by baselevel [which]
is that surface toward which external forces strive,
the surface at which neither erosion nor sedimen-
tation takes place." (Bracketed words are author's.)
It should be noted that Barrell referred to
baselevel in the singular; whether by intent
or not, he implied the existence of only one
baselevel surface. Also, he conceived it as a
nearly horizontal surface. Thus he did not
envisage baselevel as comprising multiple hori-
zontal planes, as others have repeatedly in-
terpreted or implied. Finally, he extended its
meaning to include depositional as well as
erosional relationships, although this was actu-
ally implied much earlier by Rice (1897, p.
140) who stated that baselevel is ". . . the
condition of balance between erosion and
deposition."
Beyond these significant points, however,
Barrell also stated in the preceding that base-
level is a "controlling" surface, and that both
sedimentation and erosion are "controlled"
by it. He thus gave baselevel (which as a
surface is a pure abstraction) an intrinsic
quality and force which it does not possess.
Deposition-erosion patterns can be delineated
without reference to baselevel; but all intrinsic
points on the baselevel surface are definable
only in terms of erosion-deposition boundaries
on the lithosphere surface. Obviously, there-
fore, the factors which control changes in the
erosion-deposition patterns are the same as
those responsible for configuration changes of
the abstract baselevel surface. Although base-
level is indeed important, it exists as a surface
only in the human mind; it controls nothing.
Moreover, Barrell's only graphic illustration
(1917, p. 796, Fig. 5) purporting to show
baselevel relationship is not validly conceived.
Careful examination reveals that baselevel is
not shown in this frequently cited diagram.
Wheeler and Murray (1957) were also con-
fused in the use of the term "baselevel control"
in their discussion of cyclothem development.
Their inclusion of the word "control" was
improper.
Dunbar and Rodgers (1957) appear to have
followed the notion of Hayes (1899) in im-
plying that baselevel intersects the surface as a
"horizontal plane." They further stated that
from the stratigrapher's point of view it is the
"baselevel of aggradation," whereas from an-
other " . . . viewpoint it is the baselevel of
erosion." Many inadequacies of concept and
practice stem from the popular notion that
stratigraphy is the science of past sedimentation,
to the exclusion of degradation; but if time is
properly incorporated in the system, the
stratigrapher must concern himself with the
interpretation of degradational as well as
aggradational patterns. Conversely, the geo-
morphologist who ignores depositional phe-
nomena is equally delinquent. Thus there need
be no complication of the concept to change
with the kind of hat the geologist is wearing
at the moment. It is true, as is more explicitly-
pointed out further on, that there is a baselevel-
related cycle with two phases—one phase
initiated by the change from deposition to
erosion, and the other by the inevitably follow-
ing change from erosion to deposition. Al-
though the two "changes" differ in direction
and manifestation, each of the two should be
seen in the same light by any geologist.
The notion that baselevel is a "horizontal
plane" also leads to disparities that preclude
meaningful comprehension and consistent ap-
plication of the concept. Such horizontality
would demand countless numbers of "base-
levels," each of which would come into "being"
and cease to "exist" with each change in the
constantly fluctuating deposition-erosion pat-
terns. Moreover, the obvious complexities of
subaerial patterns have led to the prevailing
contradictory notion that most "nonmarine"
baselevel changes belong to a stratigraphically
unimportant category because they are "tem-
porary."
No less disturbing is the fact that many of
these "horizontal baselevels" are improperly
positioned relative to deposition and erosion.
The lower part of the profile in Figure 1A is
taken with slight modification from Dunbar
and Rodgers (1957, p. 129), in which "base-
level" A-A' is shown as a horizontal plane
intersecting the surface at locality 1. The upper
part of the profile is added to show a segment
of nonmarine deposition between localities 2
and 3. The segment between 1 and 2, and that
 ELUSIVE BASELEVEL CONCEPT 601

above 3 are undergoing erosion. If the notion
of A-A' is valid, then B-B' and C-C' must
also be accepted. At locality 2, however, as is
often the case with lava flows, dunes, and
deposition along drainage profiles, such a hori-
zontal surface as C-C' does not properly obtain,
for deposition would occur above such a ' 'base-
level" and erosion below it. And where, one
couraged the search for a consistent concept
with their further statement that where deposi-
tion occurs more rapidly than subsidence (as at
locality 2 in Fig. 1A), deposits "accumulate
above baselevel." However, although they
recognized this as a contradiction, they sought
justification of such "suprabaselevel" deposi-
tion on the grounds that it is "temporary."

•-B

Figure 1. A. Profile showing inconsistencies of "horizontal plane" concept of baselevel. B,

Profile showing the undulating, universal, abstract surface concept of baselevel.

must ask, is the point of change from "supra-
baselevel" to "sub-baselevel" between localities
1 and 2, or 2 and 3? It is evident that the
"horizontal plane" concept of baselevel gives
rise to inconsistencies. As shown later, the
Barrellian concept of baselevel as a "nearly
horizontal surface" avoids these discrepancies.
Among other authors of recent textbooks,
Termierand Termier (1963) discussed baselevel
in terms of cases rather than fundamentals; and
Krumbein and Sloss (1951; 1963) essentially
accepted Barrell. Although Krumbein and
Sloss logically followed Rice (1897) to make
the pertinent point that baselevel is a "condi-
tion of equilibrium," they have in effect dis-
At this point a number of questions arise:
What is the meaning of "temporary" and
what is its duration? Which of such deposits
are not at least occasionally found as parts of
that which is generally regarded as the "per-
manent" (presently preserved) stratigraphic
record, regardless of age? Must a separate set
of stratigraphic principles be conceived in order
to deal with them? What known stratigraphic
succession anywhere in the world implies the
existence of a "permanent" baselevel? Finally,
the most important question, is there a base-
level concept which is valid regardless of scale,
duration, or the applicable field, be it geo-
morphology, sedimentation or stratigraphy? In
602 H. E. WHEELER—BASELEVEL, LITHOSPHERE SURFACE, TIME-STRATIGRAPHY
other words, is it necessary to depart from
those elements of the Powell-Rice-Barrell con-
cept which seem to be based on sound logic?
The writer has attempted to assemble a number
of extremely simple, though (hopefully) funda-
mental concepts which appear to provide at
least partial answers to some of these questions
and perhaps a few others. Although the view-
point of this approach is primarily stratigraphic,
the relationships envisaged here appear to be
compatible when applied to other appropriate
geological fields.
LAW OF LITHOSPHERE
SURFACE RELATIONSHIPS
Wheeler (1959) has cited the U.S.S.R.
Stratigraphic Committee (Rotay and others,
1956) and Dunbar and Rodgers (1957) as
pointing out that all surface-accumulated rocks,
whether they be sedimentary or not, form the
stratigraphic record, and that all subsurface-
emplaced rocki, whether or not they consist
of "sedimentary materials" (igneous intru-
sions, metamorphic bodies, veins, sandstone or
evaporite intrusions, and cavern deposits) are
nonstratigraphic in their relationships to en-
closing rocks. Only by making this distinction
can a consistent system of universally opera-
tive stratigraphic concepts, principles, and
laws be derived. In this essential sense, con-
trary to the implication of the American
Stratigraphic Commission (1961) all rocks of
the Earth's crust do not constitute stratigraphic
units or entities.
Once this restriction is accepted, not only
docs the law of superposition become uni-
versally effective, but in addition, it will be
true that any stratigraphically denned point
at the base, the top, or within any strata! suc-
cession either was located on the lithosphere
surface or was directly related to that surface
at the time of its origin. The base of a detrital
particle, organic fragment or lava flow, for
example, rests upon the lithosphere surface
(depositional interface) at the moment of its
emplacement. Such a particle fragment or
layer may or may not be in "depositional
continuity" with the underlying surface on
which it rests; and regardless of whether such
entities are followed in "continuity" by others
or whether they subsequently are wholly or in
part removed, the lithosphere surface is always
at hand, either as a surface of deposition or of
erosion. Moreover, in such a world of "pure"
stratigraphy the ceaseless alternation of deposi-
tion and hiatus prevails throughout, regardless
of the scale at which one may choose to inter-
pret or recognize "continuity" and "discon-
tinuity."
In these terms it is true that many fossils and
lithic entities do not occur in precisely proper
depositional succession, even though no "re-
working" or structual derangement has oc-
curred. Boring animals, for example, live be-
neath the lithosphere surface in rocks of any
older age, but their stratigraphic significance is
not diminished when they are properly referred
to the inevitable overlying surface (and deposi-
tional interface) to which they directly relate;
or a regolith or a residual soil, though non-
depositional, relates temporally to the surface
beneath which it is formed and thus also to the
base of the stratal unit which directly succeeds
it, rather than to the older rock body which it
occupies and of which it is composed. This leads
to the simple and universally valid concept that
any physical or biostratigraphic datum or any
temporally conceived surface in any stratal
succession at any specific locality has meaning
only in the sense that it either coincides with
the lithosphere surface or is directly relatable
to that surface at the time of its origin. And
it is equally obvious that any "continuous"
stratal accumulation is a "complete" physical
manifestation of a succession of lithosphere
surface-moments.
But what of stratigraphic discontinuities as
manifestations of nondeposition and accom-
panying erosion? Here we pass into the realm
of no less important but completely abstract,
area-time framework, in which a discontinuity
takes on "area-time" configuration in the form
of the lacuna, which in turn, consists of hiatus
and degradation vacuity (formerly and inac-
curately termed "erosional vacuity"; Wheeler,
1958). Here again, however, though now under-
going erosion, it is the evolution of the litho-
sphere surface which not only determines the
configuration of the hiatus and consequent
degradation vacuity, but which also culminates
in the depositional interface at the base of the
next succeeding deposit at any given locality.
It is true, of course, that subsurface events may
have a profound effect upon the evolution of
the lithosphere surface, but the consequent
subsurface-emplaced bodies themselves do not
belong to the stratigraphic succession in this
properly restricted sense. Any ultimate inter-
pretation of the occurrence of events in area-
time (geologic history) must attempt to en-
visage the successive lithosphere surfaces rela-
tive to all other geological entities, as the
only universal physical geologic "datum" sur-
faces with direct stratigraphic implication.
 LAW OF LITHOSPHERE SURFACE RELATIONSHIPS 603

Insofar as this logic is sound, it implies the and two undergoing deposition. As demon-
existence of the following stratigraphic princi- strated, the concept of a "horizontal baselevel"
ple, which may be called the law of surface in the case of C-C' in Figure 1A is invalid
relationships: time as a stratigraphic dimension because deposition occurs above such a "base-
has meaning onlv to ihe extent that any given level" and erosion below it. However, if Bar-
moment in the Earth's history may be conceived rell's concept that baselevel is a "nearly hori-
as precisely coinciding with a corresponding zontal surface" is applied, it is evident that the
worldwide lithosphere surface and all simultane- true baselevel surface must have a downgrade
ous events either occurring thereon or directly slope, the inclination of which exceeds the
related thereto. surface slope in the manner of D-D'. From
At any given moment the Earth's lithic this it may be readily seen that this D-D' sur-
surface is divisable into innumerable areas, face will merge with the B-B' surface in the
each of which is characterized by one or the up-grade direction, and with the A-A' surface
other of two processes—deposition and erosion. in the down-grade direction; and if this logic
The boundary between any two of these areas is sound, an undulating surface approximated
is at baselevel. by B-D-D'-A' represents the gross (not de-
tailed) form of baselevel for the moment under
BASELEVEL AS A WORLDWIDE consideration. A segment of this worldwide
ABSTRACT SURFACE abstract baselevel surface is shown as X—X' in
To satisfy the stated objections to the several Figure IB. It is intrinsically represented, how-
conflicting notions of baselevel and its be- ever, only at points 1, 2, and 3 on the profile.
havior, and to agree with the law of surface Baselevel at any moment may thus emerge
relationships and its implications, the writer from or drop beneath the lithosphere surface
suggests the simple notion of a single, ever- at many places on any profile; and at any point
present (worldwide), abstract, baselevel it may remain above or below the surface
"sphere" constantly undulating or "vibrating" either momentarily or for long intervals, re-
in response to the ever-changing patterns of gardless of whether the depositional environ-
supply of material available for potential ments involved are marine, nonmarine or
accumulation and the wave and current energy mixed. In its detailed configuration, baselevel
which acts upon it. This baselevel rises above may be envisaged generally as an intensely
the surface wherever accumulation is initiated, active surface, and with the lithosphere surface
and drops beneath the surface as erosion com- in virtually all areas lying within the field of
mences, without regard for whether the ma- amplitude of its incessant "vibrations." It
terial supplied is volcanic or sedimentary, drops below the lithosphere surface wherever
marine or nonmarine, chemical, biogenic, or particles, however small, are removed from
detrital, or for the nature of the erosive process this surface and rises above as they come to
or depositional environment. It seems useful rest, however temporarily. Neither erosion nor
to envisage excessive supply as having a buoy- deposition are continuous processes anywhere;
ant effect, and excessive transport energy as thus the greater part of the baselevel surface
having a depressant effect on baselevel. Base- is beneath the lithic surface wherever the net
level thus intersects the lithosphere surface effect is degradation; whereas it is mostly above
at all points of equilibrium, and its momentary the lithic surface where aggradation dominates.
"depth" beneath or "height" above the sur- Because the geologist must generalize these
face at any locality depends, not on the kind inordinate complexities, he recognizes only the
of material available, but on the relative dominant process; thus he may conveniently
"values" of supply and energy. (This does not imagine baselevel to be wholly below or wholly
deny the importance of subsidence as a factor above the lithosphere surface, except where he
in deposition; but from the viewpoint of the may envisage the intersection of these two
basic concepts or principles involved, subsi- surfaces. In fact, the momentarily existing
dence is only one of the many factors which points of intersection between baselevel and
influence the supply-energy relationship.) the lithosphere surface are of special sig-
Figure 1 may be a help to better understand nificance.
the foregoing. Both cross sections show the
same seawardly inclined lithosphere surface BASELEVEL TRANSIT
profile (S-S1), at a particular "moment," from As implied in the law of surface relation-
an upland area to beneath sea level, along ships, all events of stratigraphic significance
which two segments are undergoing erosion impinge upon the lithosphere surface; and it
604 H. E. WHEELER—BASELEVEL, LITHOSPHERE SURFACE, TIME-STRATIGRAPHY
goes without saying that no such events are of
greater stratigraphic import than the changes
from deposition to erosion or the reverse, for
they are essential components of all discon-
tinuities.
The intrinsic equilibrium boundaries on the
lithic surface are always at baselevel and
always coincide with the intersection of that
surface with the abstract baselevel surface.
As a consequence of the constant shifting of
the deposition-erosion patterns the inter-
sections are shifted with them, thus forcing,
at any given point involved, either an upward
or a downward transit of baselevel through the
lithosphere surface. As a depositional surface
expands, the baselevel transit is upward; as an
erosion surface expands, the transit is down-
ward. To avoid continued confusion between
the concept of this intersection and that of
baselevel itself, and because of the special
significance of this intersection in certain
aspects of time-stratigraphy, such a momen-
tary equilibrium line or contour on the litho-
sphere surface is hereafter referred to as base-
level transit contour. Such contours, of course,
do not imply equal elevation.
BASELEVEL TRANSIT CYCLE
If in an erosional environment at a given
locality, the supply-energy "ratio" increases
sufficiently to induce deposition, baselevel is
forced upward across the lithosphere surface
at that point at the moment deposition begins,
thus initiating the first or depositional phase of
a new cycle. This cyclic phase continues until
the supply-energy "ratio" is decreased suf-
ficiently to stop deposition and induce erosion,
at which time baselevel makes its downward
transit of the surface, thus beginning the second
or hiatal cyclic phase. Whenever the supply-
energy relationship is again reversed to the
degree that baselevel is raised to the surface
the cycle is completed, and as it rises above the
surface the initial phase of another new cycle
commences.
Although in less explicit terms, this kind of
cycle involving any two successive (and there-
fore opposite-direction) transits of baselevel
through the lithic surface was defined by
Wheeler (1959) as the "stratigraphic cycle."
However, it is now evident, as it then should
have been, that there are other cycles which
are no less stratigraphic, and which may involve
baselevel oscillation, but whose patterns may
lie entirely within either the supra or the sub-
baselevel phase of the cycle considered herein.
In other words, such cycles differ in the im-
portant respect that no baselevel-lithosphere
surface intersection or transit takes place.
Because this distinction is significant when
expressed in terms of the occurrence of events
in area-time (geologic history), the kind of
cycle under present discussion may be more
appropriately called the baselevel transit cycle
(Wheeler, in press).
In concept these cycles may be of any con-
ceivable size. Their depositional phases may
range in magnitude from the area and thickness
of a clay particle to a "continuously deposited"
pan-continental sequence thousands of meters
in thickness; and their nondepositional phases
may range from similarly minute areas through
a few successive moments of time, to vast
interregional hiatuses with durations measured
in many millions of years. Those of greater
magnitude, of course, may occur as cyclic
entities only in a relative sense in which the
lesser ones are deemed nonexistent or ignored.
Such appeal to the principle of "existen-
tialism" is admissable, however, only insofar
as the cycles of great magnitude may generally
differ in scale from the "insignificant" ones by
at least several orders of magnitude.
Dunbar and Rodgers (1957, p. 134) empha-
size this ordinate distinction in their discussion
of diastems and unconformities:
"As clearly seen by James Hutton, an uncon-
formity records a change in the overall conditions
. . . involving, at the least, regional uplift and
erosion if not tectonic disturbance or metamorphism
of the rocks that were formed before the break.
Diastems, on the contrary, are smaller breaks that
occur without any basic change in the general
regimen . . . breaks resulting from fluctuations
of stage... . The distinction can thus be generalized
from the sediments [and discontinuities] of shallow
marine waters to sediments [and volcanic accumula-
tions (and associated breaks)] of all environments.
Of course, there are many borderline cases where
. . . judgments by competent observers will differ,
but the two main groups of breaks are different
enough in character [magnitude] and origin to
warrant separation." (Bracketed words are au-
thor's.)
Although an appreciable range of magnitude
characterizes each of these two categories, they
generally differ, not only in magnitude, but
also in the marked difference in the degree of
their deformation and consequent erosional
differentials. In other words, the widespread
 BASELEVEL TRANSIT CYCLE
depositional "constants" which commonly
characterize the major "conformable" suc-
cessions are seldom "damaged" to any ap-
preciable extent by the erosional effects of the
myriads of included diastems or lesser baselevel
transit cycles, whereas the original depositional
patterns which represent the subbaselevel
phases of the major cycles are markedly frag-
mented by differential erosion during their
ensuing hiatal or suprabaselevel phases. Ap-
preciation for this distinction has led to the
delineation of the preserved record represent-
ing the depositional phase of several of the
major North American baselevel transit cycles
as sequences (Sloss and others, 1949; Sloss,
1963; Wheeler, 1956; 1960a; 1960b; 1963;
Shannon, 1962; Wheeler and Mallory, 1963).
In addition to naming the sequences, the
designations of which apply equally well to
their respective holostromes or depositional
cyclic phases, Wheeler (1963) extended the
common practice of naming the major
"breaks," the names in each case applying
equally well to the unconformity, the hiatus
or nondeposition-erosion cyclic phase, and the
orogeny, if any. Thus any contiguous pair such
as Sauk-Owl Creek, Tippecanoe-Wallbridge,
and Piankasha-Acadian, when viewed in area-
time, represents a complete cycle.
The significant question here, however, is
not whose current interpretations and nomen-
clatural treatment are the more valid, but
rather the correctness and implications of this
general approach to stratigraphic integration
and historical interpretation, as opposed to the
traditional one in which the preserved record
and deposition tend to be regarded as synony-
mous, and in which the arbitrary "standard"
column is generally regarded as essentially
complete.
It should be borne in mind that these, like
all stratigraphically derived cycles, are ulti-
mately based on the preserved record; but
they may be delineated only in the area-time
dimensional framework, and thus they and
their component baselevel-related patterns
exist only as abstractions or products of the
scientific mind. Nevertheless, cycles of this
kind are universally present in the sense that
any stratal succession constitutes the preserved
record of the depositional phase of one or more
of them. They are also universally present in
the further sense that although the stratal
record may be removed at any place, such
cyclic patterns, insofar as they may be inter-
605
preted from surrounding relationships are
nonetheless present. In fact, where there are
no adequate bases for the interpretation of the
baselevel transit cycles, the succession of most
geologic events can never be known.
PHYSICAL STRATIGRAPHIC
MANIFESTATION OF
BASELEVEL TRANSIT
The only physical record of baselevel transit
in the preserved stratal succession is discon-
tinuity. Any point on any of the countless
discontinuities, whether it is a minute bedding
"break" or a great unconformity, implies at
least two transits of baselevel—one downward
followed by one upward. The phrase "at least
two transits" is necessary because any given
discontinuity may at some points involve the
elimination from the record of any number of
preexisting discontinuities and their implied
transits. In every case, however, only the final
upward transit is physically recorded. This
stratigraphic deficiency may be largely re-
sponsible for the erroneous notion that the
stratigrapher and the geomorphologist are
justified in taking differing views of baselevel.
Figure 2A shows two sequences (A and B)
separated by an unconformity, the "magni-
tude" of which increases to the left from zero
value at point x. A\ to A$, B\ to 83, and K\
to Kg are lithosphere surface-moments equally
spaced in time. At any point the unconformity
records the upward baselevel transit (across
the lithosphere surface) at the moment de-
gradation of Sequence A ceases and the deposi-
tion of B begins. It should be noted, however,
that although any point on the unconformity
is a physical manifestation of baselevel, the
unconformity as a stratigraphic surface is not
baselevel; it is, rather, the physical surface
created by the area-time migration of the up-
ward baselevel transit contour.
Although it must be inferred and cannot be
ignored in any adequate consideration of the
succession of processes or events, the preceding
downward baselevel transit and the ensuing
hiatal cyclic phase are totally unrecorded.
From these considerations it seems obvious
that an adequately dimensioned stratigraphic
system—one which is somewhat more sophisti-
cated than most of those in current use—is
needed to permit (and induce), where possible,
the interpretation of locally unrecorded phe-
nomena and events, not to mention more
realistic interpretation of the actual record.
606 H. E. WHEELER—BASELEVEL, LITHOSPHERE SURFACE, TIME-STRATIGRAPHY

y
_HIATUS
' (Nondeposltion-erosion
cyclic phase)
k LACUNA
("Missing
lnterval")J/

DEGRADATIONJ
VACUITY '
A4d
HOLO
~ S T R O M E (Deposltlonal cyclic phase)

S E Q U E N C E A (Preserveddeposition)

A2

>. B A S E L E V E L
T R A N S I T CYCLE

— Migration of upward baselevel transit

H I A T U S (Nondeposition-erosion phase of preceding cycle)

Figure 2. A, Section showing physical relationships of successive unconformity-bounded

sequences. B, Area-time projection of A showing lithosphere surface-moment and base-
level transit migration patterns in time-stratigraphy.

are transposed to the area-time section, Figure

AREA-TIME CONFIGURATIONS
OF BASELEVEL TRANSIT
Because geologists have not succeeded in
developing a means for the graphic portrayal
of relationships in the space-time continuum,
the area-time section is used. Without dis-
cussing the procedures or justifying the tem-
poral interpretations in this idealized case,
all "data" in the spatial section, Figure 2A,
2B, in which the vertical dimension is time
and in which, therefore, all lithosphere surface-
moments expressing the succession of events
are horizontal and parallel. Thus, in the
"volume" that this section represents, all
"hectare-years" in the stratigraphic develop-
ment of Figure 2A are completely represented.
Figure 2B shows that the unconformity
separating Sequences A and B has dual manifes-
 AREA-TIME CONFIGURATIONS OF BASELEVEL TRANSIT
tation: first, as the final subcrop degradation
surface (s-x1); and second, as its counterpart
(«-*'), the surface representing intial deposi-
tion of Sequence B. This unconformity plays
this same dual role, of course, but as a single
surface in the spatial section. These two pro-
jections of the unconformity, insofar as they
involve only successive sequences, delineate
the lacuna (u-x'-s) or "missing interval." (If
and where this unconformity truncates the
unconformity at the base of Sequence A, so
that B rests on any pre-A sequence, the missing
interval has been called total vacuity.) The
time value of the lacuna at any given point
on an unconformity represents the temporal
interval between the moments of deposition
of the highest locally preserved particle of the
preceding (underlying) sequence and the basal
particle of the next succeeding (overlying)
sequence, whereas the area-time (three dimen-
sional) configuration of the lacuna is deter-
mined by its temporal value at all points. The
base of the lacuna is thus seen as a projection
of the degradation aspect of the unconformity
surface, and its top as the aggradational aspect.
Both top and bottom at any given point, how-
ever, are established by the same momentary
upward baselevel transit; the lacuna's ultimate
configuration is defined by the area-time
migration of its upward transit contour.
The lacuna obviously consists of two separate
parts: that representing the degraded strata
formerly belonging to Sequence A, which part
has been defined as the degradation vacuity
(d-x'-s); and that representing the nondeposi-
tional and erosional cyclic phase or hiatus
(u-x'-d), during which the degradation vacuity
was "developed." The inferred existence of
these two area-time entities demands the
futher inference of a conceptually paramount
but completely abstract surface on which no
intrinsic points remain in the preserved record.
This surface (d-x') denotes the migration of
the downward baselevel transit contour, and
it bounds at any point the close of original
Sequence A (holostrome) deposition and the
beginning of the erosion which characterizes
the hiatus (u-x'-d). Here again, though com-
pletely abstract and inferential, is the area-time
flow of the intersection of the mobile litho-
sphere and baselevel surfaces.
All horizontal lines shown in this area-time
section represent "selected" lithosphere sur-
face-moments throughout. For example, t\,
/8, and /9 are preserved depositional surfaces
throughout, segments of which are given A,
B, and K numbers to indicate their positions
607
in the respective sequences. Surface-moments
/2, /3, and /4, however, although representing
original deposition throughout, have degrada-
tion vacuity segments indicating subsequent
removal during the A-B Hiatus. The litho-
sphere surface-moment f] is depositional to the
right of transit point y' and erosional in the
hiatal area to the left, where it carries the label
H5, thus implying that baselevel, in its up-
ward transit, intersects the lithic surface at
point y' at moment {]. Similarly, /5 has its
K5, A5, A5d, and HI segments.
By referring now to the unconformity at
the base of Sequences A and K in its upward
transit area-time projection, the constitution
of the holoslrome (or depositional cyclic phase)
and of the complete baselevel transit cycle, as
time-stratigraphic entities, is evident. More-
over, these, like all time-stratigraphic units
that are wholly or partly abstract, are bounded
by abstract surfaces defined by the area-time
migration of either the upward or downward
transit contours.
As a final comment on the derivation of
these time-stratigraphic entities, in view of the
dual aspect of the baselevel transit contour, it
would be possible to ignore the baselevel aspect
and accordingly couch the discussion entirely
in terms of the area-time migration of the
deposition-erosion boundaries on the litho-
sphere surface. Although this somewhat simpler
treatment would suffice in these particular
cases, the writer concludes that it would be
unwise to do so because of the greater signifi-
cance of the baselevel aspect in cases involving
nontransit variations. In other words, this
treatment is employed in the hopeful interest
of establishing a universally valid and useful
baselevel concept, especially since other prob-
lems in sedimentation, stratigraphy, and related
tectonics are best treated from the viewpoint
of the baselevel relations. But even in time-
stratigraphy it would be unwise to avoid the
role of baselevel, for the fact is most impressive
that the constantly varying undulations of the
baselevel surface relative to the ever-changing
lithosphere surface may be seen as a consistent
function of the ebb and flow of depositional
and erosional environments in the space-time
continuum.
POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND
NEUTRAL ASPECTS OF
TIME-STRATIGRAPHY
Because stratigraphy has been largely
equated with the depositional record of the
geological past, the few generally acknowl-
608 H. E. WHEELER—BASELEVEL, LITHOSPHERE SURFACE, TIME-STRATIGRAPHY

edged stratigraphic principles and concepts Sequence B aggradation), the degradation

(e.g., superposition) have concerned only its
accumulative aspect; i.e., strata, fossils, and
time are conveniently conceived as "accumu-
lating" together. It is true that much attention
has been given to discontinuities, but the
degradational aspect of most unconformities
has commonly been either ignored or has been
carelessly lumped with hiatus and relegated at
best to a nondefmitive role. Adequate con-
sideration of erosion includes recognition of its
dual nature—the temporal progression of the
erosional process, and the simultaneous tem-
poral regression of its stratigraphic conse-
quences (degradation).
The hiatus in Figure 2B is readily seen as the
area-time in which nondeposition and erosion
proceeds through lithosphere surface-moments
H I , HI, and H3, following the close of deposi-
tion of original Sequence A. In terms of such
progression alone, the consequent degradation
vacuity seems out of place, for it occupies an
earlier interval than that during which the
erosion took place; but from the viewpoint
of the previously deposited strata removed, it
is quite properly situated. From the viewpoint
of the progression of both the event and its
consequent surfaces, however, no anomaly
exists if degradation is recognized as being
stratigraphically negative, just as it has long
been envisaged as being geomorphologically
negative. For example, the positive and nega-
tive aspects of erosion progress in opposite
directions from downward baselevel transit
point d. In the hiatus the erosional event occurs
throughout surface-moment HI, its beginning
having migrated to transit point z\ while the
same surface-moment from the stratigraphic
degradation viewpoint is D\ which is also
effective only to point z. As the event con-
tinues to H2 and occurs throughout that part
of the hiatus shown, its negative aspect re-
regresses to D2 which also extends throughout.
As erosion at moment H3 has again been re-
stricted to the segment to the left of upward
transit point y' (in consequence of advancing
vacuity has "grown" in area-time value but
has been reduced in surface extent to D3 to
the left of point y". Finally, although u and s
are identical points representing the upward
transit of baselevel, and are therefore on the
same unconformity, u indicates local termina-
tion of the erosional event, whereas s marks
local cessation of Sequence A degradation.
These relationships, of course, also explain
the discrepant or "out-of-phase" position of
the surface represented by s-x'. As a surface
its area-time genetic position is identical with
u-x', for they both constitute a single uncon-
formity surface (uds-x in Fig. 2A) and both
manifest the same migration of the same up-
ward transit contour. The seeming incongruity
of the negative positioning of the degradational
aspect of the unconformity is nevertheless
completely logical when viewed in the light
of the negative character of degradation.
Accepting the standard assumptions that,
in the sense of their stratigraphic implications,
time is a progressively (positively) flowing con-
stant and deposition or surface accumulation
is an upwardly (positively) progressing varia-
ble; and accepting the implication that de-
gradation is a negatively directed variable, we
must accept the further implication that non-
deposition and its inevitable companion, the
erosional process as an event, are physical
nonentities and therefore of zero value in the
sense that stratal record is neither created nor
destroyed in that part of the irreversible
temporal stream which they occupy. The de-
gradation vacuity also has zero physical value,
but for a totally different reason. Its entire
area time value originally consists of deposition,
positive character of which is cancelled out
by the negative value of subsequent degrada-
tion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The manuscript was read by J. C. Ludwick,
S. C. Porter, and L. L. Sloss, for whose criticism
the writer is most grateful.

REFERENCES CITED
American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature, 1961, Code of stratigraphic nomenclature: Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 45, p. 645-665
Barrell, J., 1917, Rhythms and the measurement of geologic time: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 28, p.
745-904
Dunbar, C. O., and Rodgers, J., 1957, Principles of stratigraphy: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 356 p.
Hayes, C. W., 1899, Physiography of the Chattanooga district in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama: U.
S. Geol. Survey Ann Rept., pt. 2, 58 p.
 REFERENCES CITED 609

Krumbein, W. C., and Sloss, L. L., 1951, Stratigraphy and sedimentation: San Francisco and London,
W. H. Freeman, 497 p. (2d ed., 1963, 660 p.)
Powell, J. W., 1875, Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and its tributaries: Washington, D. C.,
Smithsonian Inst., 291 p.
Rice. W.N., Editor, 1897, Revised text-book of geology [by J. D. Dana]: New York, American Book Co.,
482 p.
Rotay, A. P., and others, 1956, Stratigraphic classification and terminology: Moscow, State Sci.-Tech.
Publ. House for Lit. on Geol. and Min. Research (Translated by J. Rodgers, 1958)
Shannon, J. P., Jr., 1962, Hunton Group (Silurian-Devonian) and related strata in Oklahoma: Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 46, p. 1-29
Sloss, L. L., 1963, Sequences in the Cratonic Interior of North America: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v.
74, p. 93-114
Sloss, L. L., Krumbein, W. C., and Dapples, E.G., 1949, Integrated facies analysis, p. 94-124 in Longwell,
Chester R., Chairman, Sedimentary facies in geologic history: Geol. Soc. America Mem. 39, 172 p.
Termier, H., and Termier, G., 1963, Erosion and sedimentation: London and New York, Van Nostrand,
433 p.
Wheeler, H. E., 1956, Role of marine-nonmarine time-scale disparities in the interpretation of Cordilleran
Tertiary history (Abstract): Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 67, p. 1742
1958, Time-stratigraphy: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 42, p. 1047-1063
1959, Stratigraphic units in space and time: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 257, p. 692-706
1960a, Early Paleozoic tectono-stratigraphic patterns in the United States: 21st. Internal. Geol.
Congr. Rept., pt. 8, p. 47-56
1960b, Paleozoic-Mesozoic framework of the Cordilleran Geosyncline (Abstract): Geol. Soc. America
Bull., v. 71, p. 2083
1963, Post-Sauk and pre-Absoroka Stratigraphic patterns in North America: Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull., v. 47, p. 1497-1526
in press, Baselevel transit cycle (Symposium on cyclic sedimentation): Kans. Geol. Survey Bull. 169
Wheeler, H. E., and Mallory, V. S., 1963, Regional Tertiary Sequences in the Pacific Northwest, p. 73-74
in The Geological Society of America, Abstracts for 1962: Geol. Soc. America Special Paper 73, 356 p.
Wheeler, H. E., and Murray, H. H., 1957, Baselevel control patterns in cyclothemic sedimentation: Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 41, p. 1985-2011

MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY, DECEMBER 26, 1963