PERSPECTIVE

FACIES MODELING AND SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY 1

ROGER G. WALKER
Department of Geology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4MI, Canada

From my perspective, it seems useful to think again Subdivision

about the relationship between sedimentology and stra-
tigraphy, or more specifically, between aspects of facies,
architectural elements, and facies modeling (Walker
1984a; Miall 1985) and the new genetic stratigraphic
schemes (sequence stratigraphy, genetic stratigraphic se-
quences, allostratigraphy). Smith (1985) suggested that a
JSP Perspective might he "opinion-oriented," challenge
"existing viewpoints" and "take a hard l o o k . . , at some
popular model and conventional wisdom." I will attempt
to do all of the above, showing (not surprisingly) that
many basic ideas have been recycled over the years and
clothed in new terminology. My ideas have been stimu-
lated particularly by Plint's work on Cardium Formation
erosion surfaces (PEnt et al. 1986), Bhattacharaya's work
on sequences in the Dunvegan Formation (Bhattacharaya
1988), the work of several people from Exxon on sequence
stratigraphy (Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier et
al. 1988), and a commentary on the Exxon work by Gal-
loway (1989).
Sequence stratigraphy, as presented by the Exxon group
(Van Wagoner et al. 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988;
Posamentier et al. 1988), is a theoretical concept which
was introduced without specific worked-out examples. I
will apply their ideas in some detail to a Cretaceous sit-
uation in order to examine whether interpretations are
driven by the theoretical model, or whether specific sit-
uations highlight weaknesses in the model (and thus can
be used as feedback, with a view to strengthening the
model in the real world of applications).
THE STRATIGRAPHICRECORD
Mother Nature presents us with layer upon layer of
stratified r o c k - - m o r e than we can comprehend at once.
In the most general sense, stratigraphy involves the sub-
division of these rocks into bite-sized pieces. In a mea-
sured section, it is obvious that each measured piece is
in some way different from the pieces above and below.
These pieces of different aspect are in effect facies (Walker
1984b); each piece is separated from the next by a sharp
or gradational contact. These simple pieces can be re-
assembled in various ways, serving the needs of corre-
lation, sedimentological interpretation, facies modeling,
study of relative sea-level fluctuations, etc. The bite-sized
pieces are normally descriptive, but their re-assembly
usually involves interpretation.
' Manuscript received 30 November 1989; revised 22 January 1990.
I have discussed at length the problems involved in the
scale of facies subdivision (Walker 1984b, p. 1-2), as-
suming that a different scheme appropriate for each geo-
logical situation would be created by each worker (here
termed a local scheme, as in Fig. 1; see de Raaf et al.
1965 and Walker 1983 for examples). However, there are
now two facies schemes that are being applied universally;
the turbidite scheme o f Mutti and Ricci-Lucchi (1972)
and the fluvial scheme of Miall (1978). Universal schemes
ideally reflect our collective increased understanding of
the deposits of certain environments, and universal
schemes for other environments are probably not far away;
the disadvantage of such schemes is the possibility of
"force-fitting" particular local situations into the scheme.
Regardless of whether an existing universal scheme is
used or an appropriate local scheme devised, we subdi-
vide the stratigraphic record into a collection of units
(facies) separated by sharp or gradational contacts (Fig.
1; de R a a f e t al. 1965). Contacts may be sharp for purely
sedimentological reasons (e.g., fluvial crevasse splay
sandstones on floodplain mudstones) or because of major
changes in depositional environment caused, for exam-
ple, by relative sea level fluctuations. The significance
accorded the contacts is one of the main problems in
stratigraphy and sedimentology.
Re-assembling the Stratigraphic Pieces
In many local studies, facies descriptions may be so
complex that they go beyond our interpretive abilities.
The first way to simplify a complex scheme is to group
facies perceived to be similar and/or genetically related;
this can be done by using local criteria or by reference to
an existing universal scheme. A good example of a local
facies scheme for deltaic sediments is that of Collinson
(1969). He grouped 14 facies into five interpretive asso-
ciations which consisted of "groups of facies genetically
related to one another and which have some environ-
mental significance" (Collinson 1969, p. 207). This con-
cept o f facies associations has been recycled into the more
general idea of architectural elements (Allen 1983), dis-
cussed below.
Individual facies can also be re-assembled into existing
universal associations, such as the slope, fan, and basin
floor associations of Mutti and Ricci-Lucchi (1972) or
the fluvial architectural elements of Allen (1983). The
strength of recognizing facies associations or architectural
elements is that each facies may now be placed in context

JOURNAL OV SEDnde~rARY P e ' r R o ~ v , VOL. 60, No. 5, SeYre~meR, 1990, r. 777-786

Copyright © 1990, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 0022-4472/90/0060-777/$03.00
 ROGER G. WALKER

LAGOONAL
CLAM BEDS
PARALLEL LAM.

SWALEY
CROSS STRAT.

HCS SANDSTONES
INTERBEDDED WITH
BIOTURBATED
MUDSTONES

WAVE RIPPLED
V. FINE SANDSTONES

BIOTURBATED
MUDSTONES

FIG. 1.- Hypothetical vertical facies sequence, with interpretations suggested to right.

with others perceived to be genetically related. Each facies
therefore contributes to the interpretation of the others.
FACIES SUCCESSIONS
The term "sequence" now appears to be used in a large
scale context, that of seismic sequences and sequence stra-
tigraphy. It was first used in a large-scale sense by Sloss
(1963) for the six craton-wide stratigraphic sequences of
the North American continent. However, Teichert (1958,
p. 2723) points out that "in the German literature succes-
sions of vertical facies became known as Faziesreihen . . .
this concept will be known in this paper as facies se-
quence" (Teichert's italics). Teichert does not specify a
scale, but it appears to be closer to that of an outcrop
rather than an entire craton. Thus Sloss has changed the
meaning of a pre-existing useful term; however, because
of current usage, I reluctantly cede the term "sequence"
to the seismic and sequence stratigraphers and will define
it later. Thus what used to be termed "facies sequences"
will hereafter be called "facies successions."
Facies can be placed in relative context by the recog-
nition of progressive facies successions-those in which
some or many rock properties change systematically up-
section. In Figure 1, most of the facies contacts are shown
as gradational except for the base of the shoreface, which
is shown as sharp and loaded (e.g., McCrory and Walker
1986; Rosenthal and Walker 1987).
The building of vertical successions has been discussed
by Johannes Walther (in Middleton 1973) and more re-
cently emphasized by de Raaf et al. (1965) and Visher
(1965). The ideas were reiterated by Busch (197 1) under
the heading of "genetic increments of strata" (GIs). These
were defined as "intervals of strata representing one cycle
of sedimentation in which each lithological component
["facies" in my terminology] is related genetically to all
others." Busch's GIs take on a genetic implication that
was not present in the facies successions of de Raaf et al.
(1965). It is implicit (de Raaf et al. 1965) or explicit
(Busch 1971) that any progressive facies succession with
dominantly gradational facies contacts is the result of one
related set of depositional conditions.
Experience has shown that in a broad sense there are
only a limited number of progressive facies successions.
Historically, the comparison of many different examples
of one type of succession (ancient and modern) has led
to generalizations that form the bases of facies models.
FACIES MODELS
The term "facies model" continues to give trouble; it
is used in the literature both for a summary of a local
situation and for a conscious attempt at generalization
using the combined features of many local examples
(Walker 1984b). Both usages are well established; I prefer
the generalization and will use the term in this way
 PERSPECTIVE
throughout the paper. G. V. Middleton (pers. comm.,
1990) has questioned some of the purposes of facies mod-
eling; stimulated by his comments, I suggest that the pro-
cess of facies modeling is useful as a deliberate attempt
to synthesize information in a particular system. The re-
sulting model is perhaps of most use to students (using
this term in a very broad sense). A model is of less use
to a "professional"--one who has worked in the system,
and understands both its beauty and its warts.
In my discussion of general facies models (Walker
1984b), I emphasized that good models can only be con-
structed by the careful comparison of many modern and
ancient examples. The examples must be from a homo-
geneous population; a poor model with limited predictive
power will result if end-member examples of (say) mean-
dering and braided rivers are carelessly or unthinkingly
mixed together to make a "generic river" model. I also
commented that models could be expressed "as idealized
sequences of facies, as block diagrams, and as graphs and
equations" (Walker 1984b, p. 5). I considered it obvious
that three-dimensional control (block diagrams) was pref-
erable to two-dimensional control (vertical sequences).
Most workers in the field have tried to record vertical
and lateral facies changes (given appropriate outcrop or
ability to correlate), and I do not feel as strongly as Miall
does (1985, p. 263) that vertical profiles have been over-
emphasized.
There are many problems involved in the construction
of facies models, including the choice of environment to
model and the scale at which to model it. I speculated it
1984 that "as very large scale systems are studied in more
detail (e.g., submarine fans), models for sub-components
of the system may emerge" (Walker 1984b, p. 7). What
constitutes a system and a sub-environment are matters
of opinion (and may depend on the scale of the study),
but it must be emphasized that a model can only predict
within the framework of the model. Thus a model for the
channel-levee complexes on submarine fans cannot pre-
dict beyond the channel-levee complexes, for example to
basin plain facies. It may therefore be preferable to try
and model entire depositional systems rather than sub-
components, despite my 1984 comments cited above.
I strongly retain the idea that facies models are abso-
lutely necessary in stratigraphy and sedimentology, and
hence that efforts to improve existing models and con-
struct new ones are worthwhile. Models alone give us a
norm, without which we are unable to assess the signif-
icance of a new example. Models alone embody the pre-
dictive capability ofsedimentology (Walker 1984a). How-
ever, before suggesting new approaches to facies modeling,
I will consider the topic of "architectural element anal-
ysis" (Miall 1985).
ARCHITECTURALELEMENTANALYSIS(AEA)
Alien (1983) first introduced the concept of architec-
tural elements, which can be considered as a general-
ization of the concept of facies associations (Collinson
1969). Miall (1985, p. 297) has gone one step farther in
suggesting that the elements can be used in stratigraphic
779
analysis, and claims that this analysis, unlike facies mod-
eling, "reverts to the purely descriptive." Architectural
elements are associations of facies, or individual facies,
separated by bounding surfaces. In the case of fluvial
deposits, Miall (1985, p. 269) suggests eight basic ele-
ments which he described carefully; however, the de-
scriptions also embody some interpretation. These basic
elements were given genetic names; "'channels, gravel bars
and bedforms, sandy bedforms, foreset macroforms (now
termed downstream accretion, Miall 1988), lateral accre-
tion deposits, sediment gravity flows, laminated sand
sheets, and overbank fines." The analysis of these ele-
ments involves the "ways in which they may combine
and interbed with each other"; these ways are "almost
infinitely variable" (Miall 1985, p. 297). This type of
analysis used to be called "vertical and lateral facies re-
lationships" and is an extremely valuable and necessary
part of stratigraphy and sedimentology. Miall (1985, p.
299) concludes that "the architectural elements have be-
come the norm for purposes o f comparison, the frame-
work and guide for future observations, the predictor in
new geological situations, and the basis for hydrodynamic
interpretations.'" In my opinion, this sentence reveals two
fundamental flaws in architectural element analysis.
First, if the combinations of elements are "almost in-
finitely variable," and the elements have become the basis
for prediction, it follows that prediction can only be at-
tempted within an element. Recognition of a downstream
accretion element, for example, allows prediction of facies
only within the downstream accretion element, but it is
impossible to predict where to look for channels, gravel
bars and bedforms, or lateral accretion deposits.
Second, AEA offers no overall point of reference (norm)
for a depositional system as a whole. Each combination
of architectural elements (each individual example) is
treated as unique, and in the absence of a norm, there is
no way of knowing whether the individual example is
similar to, or greatly different from, other examples. This
is sedimentological anarchy.
Finally, it is obvious that AEA requires three-dimen-
sional outcrop of a kind rarely encountered; it is almost
impossible to do in the subsurface where bounding sur-
faces are hard or impossible to define in cores.
The fact that certain facies, facies associations, or ar-
chitectural elements occur universally allows comparison
and interpretation of many local examples--classical tur-
bidites form a good example. The description of archi-
tectural elements embodies the search for the basic build-
ing blocks of sedimentology, world-wide, Archean to
Recent. This is the strength of architectural elements, not
their "analysis.'"
FUTURE DIRECTIONSIN FACIESMODELING
In the past, the basic approach to facies modeling has
consisted of 1) subdividing all depositional environments
into a relatively small number of basic types (sandy rivers,
deltas, shelf etc.) and then 2) describing those environ-
ments as carefully as possible by comparing recent ex-
amples with those interpreted to be their ancient coun-
780 R O G E R G. W A L K E R
terparts (Walker 1984a). This comparison results in
general statements about the environment that form the
basis for a model. In attempting to divide up environ-
ments, Galloway (pers. comm. 1989) doubts that a few
models "can reasonably reflect the diversity of deposi-
tional systems/facies that e x i s t . . . [and thus he has] em-
phasized the system approach -- a few basic geomorphic
and process-defined depositional systems, each with a
spectral array of styles (tide, wave, river dominated del-
tas), and each composed of a predictable suite o f facies."
However, although an environment is a geomorphic
entity influenced by internal sedimentological processes,
its preservation in the geological record is strongly influ-
enced by outside controls such as the rate and type of
sediment supply, tectonics, and relative sea-level fluctua-
tions. Facies models as presently formulated attempt to
recognize those outside controls, but generally in an in-
adequate way. For example, in my submarine fan model
(Walker 1984c), static plan views are emphasized. Only
one hopelessly overgeneralized and unrealistic vertical
section attempts to show what might happen during fan
progradation. New submarine fan models must attempt
to relate in time and space all of the autocyclic and al-
locyclic elements, such as basin floor sheet sands, chan-
nel-levee complexes (with or without depositional lobes
at the end), rates and types of sediment supply, and fluc-
tuations o f relative sea level.
In other environments, the need for more responsive,
less static, facies models will even influence the choice of
environment modeled. For example, the stratigraphic se-
quence shown in Figure 1 is increasingly commonly rec-
ognized in the geological record. Facies are described next
to the graphic log, and interpreted in the second column
(where the term "shelf" is an abbreviation for any open,
shallow marine environment). The facies succession rep-
resents the progradation of a storm-dominated shoreface
into a storm-dominated offshore area. It now seems ap-
propriate to model this as one system, rather than setting
up models for barrier islands (incorporating some dis-
cussion of the shoreface) and separate models for the shelf
(subdivided into storm- and tide-dominated). Similarly,
tide-dominated deltas and offshore tidal sand bars should
probably be considered as part of one system, rather than
modeling tide-dominated deltas as one third of the overall
deltaic system (river- and wave-dominated deltas make
up the other two thirds), and offshore tidal sand bodies
as one half of the shelf and shallow marine system (the
other half being storm-dominated) (Walker 1984a).
This idea can be traced back a long way--at least to
the depositional systems of Fisher and McGowen (1967).
Depositional systems are "three-dimensional assem-
blages of process-related facies that record major paleo-
geomorphic basin elements" (Galloway 1989, p. 126). A
"linkage of contemporaneous depositional systems" can
be termed a "systems tract" (Brown and Fisher 1977).
They took the idea beyond that of depositional environ-
ments, recognizing regional or basinwide unconformities,
and stating that "[seismic] reflection-bounded units com-
posed of contemporaneous depositional systems (systems
tracts) a r e . . , called 'seismic-stratigraphic units'" (Brown
and Fisher 1977, p. 215).
Future facies modeling must emphasize these contem-
poraneous, linked depositional environments, and their
response to tectonics and changes of relative sea level.
This will combine the strengths of classical facies mod-
eling with the recognition that widely spaced and "dis-
tinct" geographic environments (summarized as models)
can be rapidly superimposed as part of one transgressive
or regressive system.
THE NEW STRATIGRAPHIES
There are currently at least four stratigraphies that at-
tempt to subdivide rocks into genetic packages based on
bounding unconformities or discontinuities. They are
largely conceptual, with little or no consideration of 1)
scale of application, 2) actual geological examples (al-
though Galloway 1989, provides some), or 3) the rela-
tionship between the different schemes. They all derive
from seismic stratigraphy (Vail and Mitchum 1977), in
which large scale subdivision is based upon discordances
between seismic markers (toplap, downlap, otflap). Seis-
mic sequences between markers are "generally tens to
hundreds of meters thick" (Mitchum et al. 1977, p. 56);
examples from West Africa average 600-700 m (Todd
and Mitchum 1977, p. 157; Mitchum and Vail 1977, p.
137). The concepts of seismic stratigraphy have evolved
into those of sequence stratigraphy (Van Wagoner et al.
1988; Posamentier et al. 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988)
with additional geological rather than seismic emphasis.
The scale implied by sequence stratigraphy is not explic-
itly discussed by the authors mentioned above, but Jervey
(1988, p. 41, 56, 68) indicates thicknesses in the 100-300
m range. This glossing over of the scale problem by the
Exxon group creates problems with terms such as "sig-
nificant hiatus" and "relatively conformable," because
these terms have very different connotations in different
scales of study. The scale of a "genetic stratigraphic se-
quence" is not specifically discussed by Galloway (1989),
although his Tertiary G u l f Coast examples are several
hundred meters thick even before they expand downdip
due to growth faulting. The differences between sequence
stratigraphy and genetic stratigraphic sequences are subtle
and will be discussed below. Seismic- and sequence-strati-
graphic schemes suggest that the bounding unconformi-
ties result from widespread changes of relative sea level
and have generated considerable discussion concerning
the influence (dominance?) of global sea-level fluctua-
tions. Problems concerning the global universality of
coastal onlap curves have been succinctly reviewed by
Miall (1986).
Seismic stratigraphy, sequence stratigraphy and genetic
stratigraphic sequences are not formally recognized by
the North American Commission on Stratigraphic No-
menclature (NACSN 1983). The fourth scheme, allostra-
tigraphy, is formally recognized. It is similar in concept
to sequence stratigraphy in that the stratigraphic units are
unconformity bounded. Specifically, allostratigraphy rec-
ognizes a body of sedimentary rock "defined and iden-
tified on the basis of its bounding discontinuities"
(NACSN 1983). Formal names (Alloformations, Allo-
members) can be assigned, and the subdivisions are sim-
 PERSPECTIVE
IT
" 5 ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~
SYSTEMS TRACT
FIo. Z--Definition of terms used in the text, based on facies geometries and relationships in the Cardium Formation. SE, subaerial erosion;
IT, initial transgression; RT, resumed transgression; Mar.FS, marine flooding surface; MaxFS, maximum flooding surface. Stipple indicates coastal
and nearshore marine facies in three sandier-upward prograding parasequences. Parasequences comprise floodplain rocks to left of stipple, and
offshore marine rocks to right.
ilar in scale to lithostratigraphic formations and members
(and are commonly much smaller than the subdivisions
in the first three stratigraphies discussed above). The basic
conceptual ideas of sequence stratigraphy have been out-
lined by Van Wagoner et al. (1988, p. 39; Fig. 2). The
fundamental unit of sequence stratigraphy is the se-
quence, which is bounded by unconformities and their
correlative conformities. A sequence can be divided
into systems tracts, which are defined by their position
within the sequence, and by the stacking patterns of
parasequence sets and parasequences bounded by ma-
rine flooding s u r f a c e s . . , a parasequence is a relatively
conformable succession of genetically related beds or
bedsets bounded by marine flooding surfaces... [which
are surfaces] across which there is evidence of an abrupt
increase in water depth.
It is clear that there are problems with the application of
these essentially theoretical ideas of stratigraphy: no scale
is suggested; "relatively unconformable" is undefined; the
meaning of "genetically related" is not explained; many
successions of marine rocks (e.g., thick Lower Paleozoic
quartzites in many parts of the world) do not contain
parasequences; and no guidance is given with respect to
distinguishing parasequence bounding surfaces from se-
quence-bouding unconformities. Finally, sequence stra-
tigraphy, with its emphasis on bounding unconformities
and marine flooding surfaces, cannot easily be applied to
non-marine rocks (if at all).
Some of the concepts and terminology are shown in
Figure 2. Here, three prograding parasequences make up
a parasequence set, with stipple indicating shoreface and
inner shelf sands. Subaerial erosion (SE) is illustrated by
incised fluvial channels (also stippled). The sequence
bounding unconformities that initially formed subaerially
were subsequently modified by marine erosion--either
by continuous transgression (IT = initial transgression)
or by transgression punctuated by stillstand and shoreface
incision ( I T / R T = initial t r a n s g r e s s i o n / r e s u m e d
transgression). Marine flooding surfaces (Mar.FS) bound
the parasequences and the m a x i m u m flooding surface
(Max.FS) separates the two systems tracts.
781
HIGHSTAND
.SYSTEMSTRACT
It appears that a parasequence is similar in scale and
concept to the facies sequence of Teichert (1958), to
Busch's (197 l) GIS (genetic increment of strata), and to
the facies (sequence) succession of de R a a f et al. (1965)
(recycled terminology again). A parasequence (Fig. 2) is
the result of a set of related depositional conditions--for
example, a shoreface progradation, giving a facies succes-
sion of offshore mudstones, interbedded HCS sandstones
and bioturbated mudstones, shoreface deposits (cross
bedded and/or swaley cross stratified), and foreshore par-
allel laminations (Fig. l). Such a succession could vary
from 5 to about 50 m thick and might be capped by
marine transgressive strata above a Marine Flooding Sur-
face (Mar.FS, Fig. 2) that initiates another set of depo-
sitional conditions. If so, the parasequence is limited by
bounding discontinuities, and hence can be formally named
in an allostratigraphic scheme (see, for example, Plint et
al. 1986, 1987; Bergman and Walker 1988).
GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS IN STRATIGRAPHY
Another problem with the Exxon stratigraphic schemes
is that the exact meaning of the phrase "'genetically related
strata" is never spelled out. Genetic relationships can be
hypothesized on at least two scales, with different impli-
cations of the term genetic. On the small scale, for ex-
ample, a 20-30-m-thick prograding, coarsening-upward
succession may contain facies that are genetically related
1) by being laterally gradational before progradation
stacked the facies vertically, and 2) by being deposited
during one set ofprograding depositional conditions (Figs.
1, 2). Under these conditions, the term "genetically re-
lated" embraces sedimentological parameters such as the
rate and type of sediment supply, the wave and tide cli-
mate of the basin, salinity, etc. These may remain fairly
constant during the progradational event. On the large
scale o f sequence stratigraphy or genetic stratigraphic se-
quences, the facies are genetically related only because
they are assumed to have been deposited during one com-
plete cycle of relative sea level fluctuation. The resulting
sequence can be subdivided into systems tracts (Posa-
mentier et al. 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Fig. 2),
782 ROGER G. WALKER
but the sedimentological controls operating in the trans-
gressive tract (for example, low or zero rate of sediment
input, and reworking of older deposits into transgressive
tidal sand wave complexes) may be quite different from
those operating in the subsequent highstand systems tract
(for example, high rates o f sediment supply, prograding
river-dominated deltas, and offshore sand transport dom-
inated by storms).
There are at least three reasons for studying stratigraph-
ic relationships on the large scale of sequence stratigraphy
and genetic stratigraphic sequences. The first is to attempt
inter-regional or global correlations ofstratigraphic pack-
ages using global eustatic sea level curves as a basis for
the correlation. The second is to develop a time-strati-
graphic framework for the rocks under study. The third
is to treat the geometry of the unconformities in the sense
of a broadly defined predictive model, such that (for ex-
ample) a type 1 sequence boundary (Van Wagoner et al.
1988) on the shelf predicts a lowstand fan and lowstand
wedge at the base of slope. In this large scale sense, the
depositional systems are genetically related within sys-
tems tracts, and some of the systems tracts might also be
genetically related within the cycle of relative sea level
fluctuation (for example, transgressive overlain by high-
stand systems tracts). However, I emphasize the word
might here because it is very important to emphasize the
extent to which depositional patterns can and will change
across unconformities and across m a x i m u m flooding sur-
faces.
BOUNDARIES OF GENETIC PACKAGES
I will use a well worked out, but relatively small scale,
example to examine how sequence stratigraphy and/or
genetic stratigraphic sequences can be used to study rocks
in the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway (Fig. 3, Car-
dium Alloformation; Plint et al. 1986, 1987; Bergman
and Walker 1987, 1988; Pattison 1988; Walker and Eyles
1988; Leggitt el al. 1990). I will look at the choice of
boundaries of genetic packages, particularly contrasting
the approach associated with workers from Exxon (se-
quences bounded by unconformities; Vail and Mitchum
1977; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier el al. 1988)
and the Galloway (1989) approach (genetic stratigraphic
sequences bounded by flooding surfaces; Figs. 2, 3).
Erosion surface E5 (Bergman and Walker 1988) rests
exclusively on marine rocks, with no evidence ofsubaerial
exposure. Surface E4 rests partly on marine (Pattison
1988), and partly on non-marine rocks (Plint et al. 1986).
The regional development of both erosion surfaces sug-
gests that marine rocks have been subaerially exposed by
a fall of relative sea level and that the subaerial erosion
surface has subsequently been transgressed; where marine
rocks rest on older marine rocks, all evidence of exposure
has been eroded away, including any incised streams. It
is therefore not clear whether they are type 1 or type 2
sequence boundaries (even if this terminology can be used
in basins which do not have distinct shelf/slope breaks).
Transgression was interrupted by short periods of relative
stillstand, when the northeast-facing asymmetrical scours
(Fig. 3), interpreted as shorefaces, were incised (Bergman
and Walker 1988; Walker and Eyles 1988). Sand and
gravel were supplied to the shorefaces during stillstand.
When transgression resumed, the upper parts of the shore-
face succession, including the beach, were truncated, and
coarse sediment was spread southwestward as a lag. Two
transgressive surfaces can therefore be recognized; an ini-
tial transgression (IT) and a resumed transgression (RT).
The preserved shoreface deposits between IT and RT can
be up to 18 m thick in the Carrot Creek Allomember (Fig.
3), which is defined by the "bounding discontinuities" IT
and RT. These were originally termed E5 (the initial ero-
sion surface) and T5 (implying transgression, which we
now recognize is also erosive in many places). Away from
the incised shorefaces, IT and R T become the same sur-
face (IT/RT; location 1 in Fig. 3), which is overlain by a
thin transgressive pebble lag. This lag is physically con-
tinuous with the Carrot Creek shoreface, and hence (de-
spite being so thin) it is also termed the Carrot Creek
Allomember. Eagle-eyed readers will notice that in the
shoreface (location 2, Fig. 3), the allomember is defined
by IT below and RT above; in the transgressive veneer,
IT and R T are the same surface and the pebbles overlie
I T / R T (location 1, Fig. 3). If allostratigraphie concepts
are strictly applied, the pebble veneer should belong to a
separate and younger allomember from the shoreface con-
glomerate. Here, the scale problem becomes important
again, because in practical terms, this violation of prin-
ciples is at such a small scale that little is served by giving
the veneer a separate allomember name, so long as the
violation is understood and appreciated.
At both the Burnstick and Carrot Creek horizons (Fig.
3), the shoreface conglomerates and transgressive veneers
are abruptly overlain by mudstones at locations 1 and 2
in Figure 3. Without chemical or micropaleontological
analysis, we cannot easily determine from cores exactly
where the m a x i m u m flooding surface (MFS) occurs. It is
stratigraphically convenient to assume that it occurs at
the top of the coarse conglomeratic layer, because in sub-
surface applications of these ideas, correlation depends
on well log picks. The conglomerate/mudstone contact
can easily be picked from resistivity and g a m m a ray logs,
and thus for practical purposes it can be equated with the
MFS in this Cardium example. Indeed, in some areas the
g a m m a ray log shows a "'hot" (radioactive) marker that
can represent the MFS.
One added complication can be seen at location 3 (Fig.
3), where pebbly mudstones occur stratigraphically ad-
jacent to shoreface conglomerates. The pebbly mudstones
are interpreted to have formed at about the time that
renewed transgression (RT) began. During the initial stages
of RT, some of the shoreface gravel was moved south-
westward as transgressive lags, but some gravel was moved
by storms offshore (northeastward), where it mixed both
physically and biologically (by bioturbation) with trans-
gressive m u d to form pebbly mudstones. Thus at location
3 (Fig. 3) the RT surface separates conglomeratic shore-
face from pebbly mudstone, and MFS is drawn imme-
diately above the last pebbly horizon. The pebbly mud-
stones thin and disappear basinward, where the RT and
MFS surfaces blend together.
The progradational systems tract (Raven River Allo-
 PERSPECTIVE 78 3

MFS ] AIIomember
,l

~..--N E5

Roven River ~'~

RT (T4) ~ m
-.-. o-.-..._. -

"°b'::" o:~ z - - -. RT (T4) I

IT Burnstick ~" ~.>

* "~'2-~:-°°~"
: 2~ -z. MFS T4
AIIornember I ° - °- °- ° - °- . . . . . 1,
. ¢
Hornbeck IT/RT ¢
AIIomember Burnsfick E4
, AIIomember
I
Fro. 3.--Relationship of depositional facies, erosion surface geometry and sequence boundaries, based on the Cardium Formation. MFS,
maximum flooding surface; RT, resumed transgression; IT, initial transgression. Note that the RT surface in the northeast becomes the IT surface
as transgression proceeds to the southwest. E4, T4, E5, T5 refer to original Cardium terminology (Hint et al. 1986). Cardium Allomembers are
named (after Plint et al. 1986) and sequence boundaries according to Galloway (1989) and Exxon workers are shown.

member) comprises a sandier-upward succession of black
mudstones, bioturbated silty mudstones, and HCS sand-
stones interbedded with bioturbated mudstones. In the
scheme associated with Exxon, log markers within this
prograding package should downlap onto MFS (Fig. 2),
but this cannot be demonstrated in the Cardium.
The Cardium depositional scheme has been explained
briefly above, in order that the following points can be
made. First, a stratigraphic sequence (in the Exxon sense)
could be drawn from IT to IT (or E4 to E5), whereas a
Galloway (1989) genetic stratigraphic sequence could be
drawn from MFS to MFS. ! quote Galloway (1989, p.
132) extensively to illustrate a problem I perceive in his
scheme:
Distinct shelf-system deposits, including sand-rich fa-
cies, are most likely formed during transgression and
flooding (Swift and Rice 1984). Because shelf deposits
are derived from reworked transgressed or contem-
porary retrogradational deposits, their distribution
commonly reflects the paleogeography of the precursor
depositional episode. These deposits are best included
in and mapped as a facies element of the underlying
genetic stratigraphic sequence.
Up to this point, I have deliberately avoided the term
"depositional episode." It was probably first used by Fra-
zier (1974), who used both "depositional event" and "de-
positional episode." Galloway's episode appears to be
equivalent to Frazier's event (compare Frazier's figure 2
with Galloway's figure 3), and Galloway's "'depositional
episode" gives rise to a "genetic stratigraphic sequence"
(caption of Galloway's (1989) figure 2). Because I am
discussing Galloway's ideas below, I am forced to use this
confusing terminology.
The Cardium conglomerates are "contemporary retro-
gradational deposits," deposited in incised shorefaces, but
these shorefaces do n o t appear to "reflect the paleogeog-
raphy of the precursor depositional episode." If Gallo-
way's scheme is applied to the Cardium, it is not even
clear what the "precursor episode" represents; it could
be the shelf HCS sandstones that underlie the conglom-
784 R O G E R G. W A L K E R

erates (upper part of Raven River Allomember, Fig. 3), can never be conclusively proven to have existed by
or it could be the floodplain depositional episode (now direct observation. In contrast, the surface of marine
eroded away) that immediately preceded transgression. erosion is real and is a dominant bounding stratigraphic
Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) has suggested that the pre- element . . . I think it is fair to argue that an Exxon
cursor episode would include "deposition of the shoreface sequence cannot be legitimately drawn in your figures
units, as well as the fluvial or valleys fills that [you] infer [Fig. 3]. There is n o s u b a e r i a l u n c o n f o r m i t y and there-
to have been present." fore no "depositional sequence" boundary p r e s e r v e d in
Finally, if I quote Galloway in a Cardium context, I the Cardium stratigraphic record as you have inter-
cannot agree that "'these deposits [the Cardium shoreface preted it.
conglomerates] are best included in and mapped as a
The problem here lies with the broad concept of sequence
facies element of the underlying genetic stratigraphic se-
boundaries as expressed by Exxon geologists and the ab-
quence [Raven River HCS shallow marine sandstones]";
sence of a clear statement that subaerial erosion surfaces
they have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying
are sometimes (commonly? always?) extensively modi-
deposits.
fied or destroyed by subsequent transgression. But re-
The second point that follows from this brief consid-
gardless of the extent of modification, the Cardium ero-
eration of the Cardium is a very simple and very general
sion surfaces c a n conclusively be proven to exist; one c a n
one, namely that there is unlikely to be a direct sedi-
do Exxon stratigraphy in the Cardium if one so wishes
mentological genetic relationship between rocks below
(Fig. 3).
and above an unconformity, and below and above an
Finally, D. J. Cant (pers. comm., 1990) has raised the
MFS (where a "sedimentologically genetic" relationship
interesting question as to whether one can distinguish
implies c o m m o n rates and types of sediment input, com-
different types of bounding surface given information (core
mon wave, tidal and current conditions, salinities etc.).
or outcrop) only from the basin center. If far enough from
The stratigraphic sequence (in the Exxon sense) is not
the basin margin, in cratonic or foreland basins without
sedimentologically genetic because it spans an MFS (the lowstand submarine fans, bounding discontinuities may
Burnstick conglomerates are n o t genetically related to the
exist as (unrecognizable) correlative conformities, and
sandier-upward Raven River succession), nor is Gallo-
m a x i m u m flooding surfaces may simply be pauses in de-
way's sequence sedimentologically genetic because it spans
position within an already-slowly-deposited fine grained
an unconformity (the Raven River succession is not ge-
succession. One is left with the uncomfortable feeling that
netically related to the Carrot Creek shoreface conglom-
sequence stratigraphy may be very difficult in such situ-
erates). The changes that take place both at unconformi-
ations, just as it is in thick non-marine successions.
ties and MFS's may be profound and involve changes in
basin size and depth (affecting major factors such as tidal
range and the fetch of waves), gradients (both basin floor SYSTEMS TRACTS AND FACIES MODELING
and floodplain), rates of sediment supply, salinities (influx
The sediment packages between unconformities and
of fresh water, basin restriction), and many other factors.
MFS's, or MFS's and unconformities are essentially sys-
Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) agrees with the use of al-
t e m s tracts (Fig. 2). In Figure 3, the Burnstick and Carrot
lostratigraphic units for the Cardium but maintains that
Creek Allomembers are both transgressive systems tracts,
" m a n y (most?) transgressive units reflect, with modifi-
and the Raven River is a prograding or highstand systems
cation, in their facies distribution the depositional en-
tract. The systems tract concept can clearly be applied on
vironments/facies transgressed.'" Our differences of opin-
m a n y different scales. The concept unites a group of con-
ion perhaps concern how much "modification" has taken
temporaneous depositional systems. Each system (delta,
place during transgression, and hence the extent to which
barrier island, etc.) could be individually modeled, but
the underlying systems and transgressive systems are sed-
my suggestion is that under the influence of progressive
imentologically genetically related.
relative sea-level change one system can quickly evolve
I therefore emphasize again that the only genetic factor
into another. For example, in m a n y alleged tide-domi-
that operates at the Exxon or Galloway scale is the as-
nated "deltas," the bulk of the sandy deposits appear to
sumed relationship between a sequence, or genetic strati-
consist of submerged tidal sand ridges--the Klang (Ma-
graphic sequence, and one cycle of relative sea level fluc-
laysia) and Ord (Australia) are good examples (Coleman
tuation. As defined above, a sedimentologically genetic
and Wright 1975). These systems are not adequately
package cannot extend farther than 1) unconformity to
modeled at the moment, because the deltaic part (the
overlying MFS, or 2) MFS to overlying unconformity.
irregular progradation of the shoreline) falls into one
In correspondence, Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) has
model, and the submerged tidal ridges fall into another
raised another interesting point with respect to the choice
(tide-dominated shelves). I f the submerged tidal ridges
of unconformity versus MFS in the Cardium (Fig. 3). He
began life as deltas, and have been submerged by Holo-
suggests that cene transgression, it may be more appropriate to for-
interestingly the Exxon sequence model can be used mulate a model for a "transgressive tidal shelf/tidal delta
for the C a r d i u m . . . only if one is willing to have the systems tract.'"
principal stratigraphic boundary (subaerial Other examples spring to mind; for example, prograd-
unconformity) be a surface that no longer exists and ing storm dominated shoreface/offshore systems (Fig. 1;
 PERSPECTIVE 785

McCrory and Walker 1986; Rosenthal and Walker 1987; unit to model, because I suspect that there are fewer basic
Plint and Walker 1987), or transgressive barrier island systems tracts than there are depositional systems. Clear-
systems that involve lagoonal muds and sands, washover ly, environments can be separated or linked at many dif-
deposits, and lower shoreface storm sands m o v e d sea- ferent scales. Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) comments
ward as the barrier transgresses landward (Rampino and that
Sanders 1980).
shorezone and shelf systems . . . [commonly evolve]
from progradational to transgressive. If overall paleo-
CONCLUSIONS
geography and marine process framework remain sim-
Although local facies schemes will continue to flourish, ilar, I have found it useful to view the depositional
it is clear that more and more facies and facies associa- product as that of a single, evolving system. If the
tions (architectural elements) are being recognized as hav- changes are significant, it becomes useful to separate
ing universal application--classical turbidites, fluvial lat- progradational vs. transgressive systems as separate en-
eral accretion deposits, and swaley cross-stratified tities. There is nothing intended in my sequence model
shorefaces are three examples. Defining more of these to prevent one doing this where it is useful
universal architectural elements is an important goal. On
The /f ("if overall paleogeography and marine process
a broader scale, the sedimentological approach to stra-
framework remain similar") is a big IF, and I suspect that
tigraphy involves the search for genetically related groups
one will normally wish to treat the progradational and
of rocks. The new genetic stratigraphic schemes attempt
transgressive systems separately.
to do this, and, as emphasized by Posamentier (pers.
Modeling involves the search for the items shared in
comm., 1989), they can be applied at any scale. However,
c o m m o n between similar ancient and modern systems
because they are also enmeshed with concepts of cycles
tracts, the recognition of the role of relative sea-level
of sea-level fluctuation, they do not necessarily identify
sedimentologically genetically related groups of rocks (as fluctuation, the establishment of a norm, and the artic-
ulation of the model in such a way that it can be used
defined above). The best descriptive working scheme is
allostratigraphy, in which units bounded by discontinu- predictively. These are also the ways in which sedimen-
tology and genetic stratigraphy are converging, and they
ities can be formally recognized on any scale (NACSN
present challenges for the large-scale understanding of the
1983), even down to separating as distinct allo-units the
sedimentary record.
transgressive lag above I T / R T (Fig. 3) from the shoreface
conglomerate between IT and RT (if this is perceived as
desirable and geologically useful). But regardless of con- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
trois, be they sedimentological or related to cycles of sea-
level fluctuation, both allostratigraphy and sequence stra- The ideas in this paper have been stimulated by dis-
tigraphy help to establish a relative time-stratigraphic cussions with many friends. I particularly thank Janok
framework for sedimentary rocks, and both recognize the Bhattacharaya, Bill Galloway, Andrew Miall, Dale Leck-
significance of hiatuses of various temporal and spatial ie, Guy Plint and Henry Posamentier for reading a first
extents. draft of the manuscript, and Doug Cant and Gerry Mid-
Choices of sequence boundaries may be constrained by dleton for subsequent comments. They have all contrib-
the demands of a particular investigation and by the con- uted valuable insights and suggestions. I have tried not
ceptual preferences of an individual worker. Thus Posa- to misinterpret any of their ideas, and I am solely re-
mentier (pers. comm., 1989) prefers to use the uncon- sponsible for the wording and emphasis given in the text
formity over the MFS as the boundary, on the grounds except where direct quotations are given. Operating and
that reservoir facies typically overlie the unconformity, Strategic Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engi-
whereas the MFS is associated with the source of hydro- neering Research Council of Canada have funded work
carbons, and the seal of the reservoir. In contrast, Gal- in western Canada, where some of the ideas have been
loway (1989, p. 138-140) gives a series of reasons for his developed and tested.
preference of the MFS instead of the unconformity. These
reasons stem from the fact that he "emphatically [does REFERENCES
not] think that sea level is the principal control of se- ALLEN,J. R. L., 1983, Studies in fluviatile sedimentation: bar complexes
quence d e v e l o p m e n t . . . [hence] I prefer the condensed and sandstone sheets (low-sinuosity braided streams) in the Brown-
section/MFS" (Galloway, pers. comm., 1989). My own stones (L. Devonian), Welsh Borders: Sed. Geol., v. 33, p. 237-293.
suggestion is to recognize that both schemes have similar BEROmAN, K. M., AND WALKER, R. G., 1987, The importance of sea
strengths and weaknesses; for smaller scale sedimento- level fluctuations in the formation o f linear conglomerate bodies:
Carrot Creek Member, Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway, Alberta,
logical purposes, neither is appropriate. Canada: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 57, p. 651-665.
Concepts of depositional systems and facies models BERGMAN, K. M., AND WAtJ~R, R. G., 1988, Formation of Cardium
both involve an initial choice--what is to be modeled. erosion surface E5, and associated deposition of conglomerate; Carrot
Will it be an entire delta, or is a distributary mouth bar Creek field, Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway, Alberta, in James,
D. P., and Leckie, D. A., eds., Sequences, Stratigraphy, Sedimentol-
a big-enough and separate-enough entity to recognize and ogy; Surface and Subsurface: Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol., Mere. 15, p.
model as a depositional system by itself? The choices may 15-24.
be a little simpler if systems tracts are taken as the basic BnAr'rACH,~JtAyA,J., 1988, Autocyclic and allocyclic sequences in fiver-
786 R O G E R G. W A L K E R
and wave-dominated deltaic sediments of the U pper Cretaceous Dun-
vegan Formation, Alberta; core examples, in James, D. P., and Leckie,
D. A., eds., Sequences, Stratigraphy, Sedimentolngy; Surface and Sub-
surface: Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol., Mem. 15, p. 25-32.
BROWN, L. F., JR., AND FISHER, W. L., 1977, Seismic-stratigraphic in-
terpretation ofdepositional systems: examples from Brazilian rift and
pull-apart basins, in Payton, C. E., ed., Seismic Stratigraphy--Ap-
plications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: A.A.P.G., Mem. 26, p. 213-
248.
BUSCH, D. A., 1971, Genetic units in delta prospecting: A.A.P.G. Bull.,
v. 55, p. 1137-1154.
COLEMAN, J. M., AiqDWmorIT, L. D., 1975, Modern river deltas: vari-
ability of processes and sand bodies, in Broussard, M. L., ed., Deltas,
Models for Exploration: Houston Geol. Soc., p. 99-149.
COLLINSON,J. D., 1969, The sedimentology of the Grindslow Shales
and the Kinderscout Grit: a deltaic complex in the Namurian of
northern England: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 39, p. 194-221.
DE RAAF, J. F. M., READING, H. G., Ai~rDWALKER, R. G., 1965, Cyclic
sedimentation in the Upper Carboniferous of North Devon, England:
Sedimentology, v. 4, p. 1-52.
FISHER, W. L., ANn McGOWEN, J. H., 1967, Depositional systems in
the Wilcox Group of Texas and their relationship to occurrence of
oil and gas: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs., Trans., v. 17, p. 105-125.
FRAZmR, D. E., 1974, Depositional episodes: their relationship to the
Quaternary stratigraphic framework in the northwestern portion of
the Gulf basin: Austin, TX, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geol.
Circular 74-l, 28 p.
GALLOWAY, W. E., 1989, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin anal-
ysis I; architecture and genesis of flooding-surface bounded deposi-
tional units: A.A.P.G. Bull., v. 73, p. 125-142.
J~RVEV, M. T., 1988, Quantitative geological modeling of siliciclastic
rock sequences and their seismic expression, in Wilgus, C. K. et al.,
eds., Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM Spec. Publ.
42, p. 47-69.
L ~ r r r , S. M., WALKER, R. G., AND E'~tasS, C. M., 1990, Control of
reservoir geometry and stratigraphic trapping by erosion surface E5
in the Pembina--Carrot Creek area; Upper Cretaceous Cardium For-
mation, Alberta, Canada: A.A.P.G. Bull., v. 74.
McCRoRY, V. L. C., AiqD WALKER, R. G., 1986, A storm and tidally
influenced prograding shoreline--Upper Cretaceous Milk River For-
mation of southern Alberta: Sedimentology, v. 33, p. 47-60.
MInLL, A. D., 1978, Lithofacies types and vertical profile models in
braided river deposits: a summary, in Miall, A. D., ed., Fluvial Sed-
imentology: Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol., Mere. 5, p. 597-604.
--, 1985, Architectural element analysis: a new method of facies
analysis applied to fluvial deposits: Earth-Sci. Rev., v. 22, p. 261-
308.
--, 1986, Eustatic sea level changes interpreted from seismic stra-
tigraphy: a critique of the methodology with particular reference to
the North Sea Jurassic record: A.A.P.G. Bull., v. 70, p. 131-137.
--, 1988, Facies architecture in clasfic sedimentary basins, in Klein-
spehn, K. L., and Paola, C., eds., New Perspectives in Basin Analysis:
New York, Springer Verlag, p. 67-81.
MIOOL~rON, G. V., 1973, Johannes Walther's law of the correlation of
facies: G.S.A. Bull., v. 84, p. 979-988.
MITCnUM, R. M., JR., VAIL, P. R., AND THOMPSON,S., III, 1977, Seismic
stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 2: depositional se-
quence as a basic unit for stratigraphic analysis, in Payton, C. E., ed.,
Seismic Stratigraphy--Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration:
A.A.P.G., Mem. 26, p. 53-62.
MITCrIUM, R. M., JR., AND VAIL, P. R., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and
global changes o f sea level, part 7: seismic stratigraphic interpretation
procedure, in Payton, C. E., ed., Seismic Stratigraphy--Applications
to Hydrocarbon Exploration: A.A.P.G., Mere. 26, p. 135-143.
Mufti, E., AND Ricci-Luccm, F., 1972, Le torbiditi dell'Appennino
settentrionale: introduzione all'analisi di facies: Mem. Geol. Soc. Ita-
liana, v. 1 I, p. 161-199. English translation by T. H. Nilsen, 1978,
Intl. Geol. Review, v. 20, p. 125-166.
NORTH AMERICAN COMMISSION ON STRAT1GRA.PHICNOMENCLATURE,
1983, North American stratigraphic code: A.A.P.G. Bull., v. 67, p.
841-875.
PA'I-rISON,S. A. J., 1988, Transgressive, incised shoreface deposits of
the Burnstick Member (Cardium "B'" sandstone) at Caroline, Cross-
field, Garrington and Lochend; Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway,
Alberta, Canada, in James, D. P., and Leckie, D. A., eds., Sequences,
Stratigraphy, Sedimentology; Surface and Subsurface: Can. Soc. Pe-
trol. Geol., Mem. 15, p. 155-166.
PLlr,rr, A. G., ~ WALKER, R. G., 1987, Cardium Formation 8. Facies
and environments of the Cardium shoreline and coastal plain in the
Kakwa field and adjacent areas, northwestern Alberta: Bull Can.
Petrol. Geol., v. 35, p. 48-64.
PUNT, A. G., WALKER, R. G., AND BEROMAN, K. M., 1986, Cardium
Formation 6. Stratigraphic framework of the Cardium in subsurface:
Bull. Can. Petrol. Geology, v. 33, p. 213-225.
PUNT, A. G., WALKER, R. G., AND BEaGMAN, K. M., 1987, Cardium
Formation 6. Stratigraphic framework of the Cardium in subsurface:
Reply: Bull. Can. Petrol. Geology, v. 35, p. 365-374.
POSAMENTmR, H. W., JERVEY, M. T., AND VAIL, P. R., 1988, Eustatic
controls on elastic deposition I--conceptual framework, in Wilgus,
C. K. et al., eds., Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM
Spec. Pubi. 42, p. 109-124.
POSAME~rrlER,H. W., AND VAIL, P. R., 1988, Eustatic controls on elastic
deposition II--sequence and systems tract models, in Wilgus, C. K.
et at., eds., Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM Spec.
Publ. 42, p. 125-154.
RAMPINO, M. R., AND SANDERS,J. E., 1980, Holocene transgression in
South-Central Long Island, New York: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 50, p.
1063-1080.
ROSENTHAL, L. R. P., AND WALKER, R. G., 1987, Lateral and vertical
facies sequences in the Upper Cretaceous Chungo Member, Wapiabi
Formation, southern Alberta: Can. Jour. Earth Sci., v. 24, p. 771-
783.
SLOSS, L. L., 1963, Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America:
G.S.A. Bull., v. 74, p. 93-114.
SMITH, N. D., 1985, Editorial: new features in JSP: Jour. Sed. Petrology,
v. 55, p. 455.
SwIvr, D. J. P., AND RICE, D. D., 1984, Sand bodies on muddy shelves:
a model for sedimentation in the Cretaceous western seaway, North
America, in Tillman, R. W., and Siemers, C. T., eds., Siliciclastie
Shelf Sediments: SEPM Spec. Publ. 34, p. 43--62.
TEICNER'r, C., 1958, Concepts of facies: A.A.P.G. Bull., v. 42, p. 2718-
2744.
TODD, R. G., AND Mrrca-ruM, R. M., JR., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy
and global changes of sea level, part 8: identification of Upper Triassic,
Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous seismic sequences in Gulf of Mexico
and offshore West Africa, in Payton, C. E., ed., Seismic Stratigraphy--
Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: A.A.P.G., Mem. 26, p.
145-163.
VAIL, P. R., Arm MiTCa-nJM,R. M., JR., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and
global changes of sea level, Part 1: overview, in Payton, C. E., ed.,
Seismic Stratigraphy--Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration:
A.A.P.G., Mere. 26, p. 51-52.
VAN WAOONER,J. C., POSAMENTmR,H. W., MITer-tOM, R. M., VAIL,P.
R., SARG,J. F., Lotrrrr, T. S., AND HARDm,raOL, J., 1988, An overview
of the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy and key definitions, in
Wilgus, C. K. et al., eds., Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach:
SEPM, Spec. Publ. 42, p. 39--45.
VISHER, G. S., 1965, Use of the vertical profile in environmental re-
construction: A.A.P.G. Bull., v. 49, p. 41-61.
WALKER, ~ G., 1983, Cardium Formation 3. Sedimentology and stra-
tigraphy in the Caroline--Garrington area: Bull. Can. Petrol. Geology,
v. 31, p. 213-230.
---, 1984a, Facies models: Geol. Assoc. Canada, Geosci. Canada
Reprint Series 1,317 p.
---, 1984b, General introduction: facies, facies sequences and facies
models, in Walker, R. G., ed., Facies models: Geol. Assoc. Canada,
Geosci. Canada Reprint Series 1, p. 1-9.
, 1984c, Turbidites and associated coarse elastic deposits, in
Walker, R. G., ed., Facies Models: Geol. Assoc. Canada, Geosci.
Canada Reprint Series 1, p. 171-188.
WALKER,R. G., AND EYLF.S,C. H., 1988, Geometry and facies of stacked
shallow marine sandier upward sequences dissected by erosion sur-
face; Cardium Formation, Willesden Green, Alberta: A.A.P.G. Bull.,
v. 72, p. 1469-1494.