The Validity Of Age-Formational Mapping In Complex Areas Of The Northeastern United States

Although there are many geologic situations which might be discussed at a session such as this, as I considered the problem, it became apparent to me that I should discuss a situation which has been of concern to me, and should be of concern to the geologic community. As a result, the questions which I will pose, and the criticisms, have not been arrived at quickly or easily, but have accumulated through time, to the point where I feel discussion is necessary. Very briefly let me say that my criticism of geologic mapping, of conclusions reached, and objectives or lack of such, results from my association with many areas where such studies have been completed, and resultingly my inability to comprehend the system of evidence or logic which supports extensive age-formational designations. The heart of the problem is that many conclusions resulting in geologic designations are based on weak or non-existent evidence, and such should be catagorized as hypotheses. Although the geologic community as a group does not approve or disapprove of such designations, it is evident that many or most of such designations attain a "status", and arc accepted as more or less valid statements. As will be shown, the amount of specific lithologic data provided in some quadrangle mapping projects is exceedingly slim. However, of concern herein is that the type of information presented at any stage is sufficient to warrant conclusions drawn. To see the magnitude of the problem, it is probably necessary to review some basic fundamentals upon which our geologic systems are established. The United States Geological Survey has defined a "formation" as the broad unit of geologic mapping consisting of a large and persistent stratum of one kind of rock. Obviously such a designation allows that a formation could be considered "time variant" in a horizontal as well as in a vertical context. However, other definitions enable a formation to mean units