Newsl. Stratigr. 22 (1) 1-6 - Berlin • Stuttgart, 29. 5.

1990

The Art of Tilting at Windmills:

the Moral of the Mid-Cretaceous

by R i c h a r d A. R e y m e n t and P e t e r B e n g ts o n *

“Take care your worship, those things over

there are not giants but windmills.”
C ervantes : Don Q u ijo te , 1.8.

Abstract. K em per & W o l f a r t (1989) incorrectly infuse the expression “mid-Cretaceous” with singu­
lar stratigraphical overtones. This leads them to an ignoratio elenchi type of argument in which they
demolish a terminology that has never existed. O ur riposte takes the form of a review of the use of the
expression “mid-Cretaceous” in recent years in the light of the historical development of IGCP Project 58
“Mid-Cretaceous Events”.

Zusammenfassung. K em per & W o l f a r t (1989) geben dem Ausdruck “mid-Cretaceous” unrichtig

einen eigenartigen stratigraphischen Inhalt. Dies fiihrt sie zu einer Art ignoratio elenchi Argumentierung,
bei der sie eine Terminologie zerstoren, die nie existiert hat. Unserer Antwort geben wir die Form einer
Ubersicht iiber die Verwendung des Ausdrucks “mid-Cretaceous” in den letzten Jahren im Hinblick auf
die historische Entwicklung des IGCP Projekts 58 “Mid-Cretaceous Events”.

1 Introduction

In an article seething with indignation, K e m p e r & W o l f a r t (1989) sing out in a tirade of self-
righteous denunciation of Philistines who wish to destroy the Holy Writ of Stratigraphy.
Among other geo-felons, we are pilloried for our fell deeds. Knowingly and wittingly, they
insinuate, IGCP Project 58 “Mid-Cretaceous Events” was deviously devised to subvert purity
of stratigraphical intent, with the ultimate end in view of what? fuzzy finding?, starting a new
fad?, deceiving the tiro?
In view of the sense of boundless outrage pervading K e m p e r’s and W o l f a r t ’s note, it is of
interest to see just how much substance and veracity, if any, there really is in their turgidly
delivered ban.

2 Origin of “Mid-Cretaceous Events”

That which subsequently became IGCP Project 58 “Mid-Cretaceous Events” was originally
proposed to the Board of the IGCP as “Turonian Zonation”. The initiative to the topic
derived from the recognition of numerous events, geodynamic and biological, that took place

* Authors’ address: R ichard A. R eyment and P eter Bengtson , Paleontologiska institutionen, Box
558, S-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden.

1 Newsletters 22 (1)
0078-0421/90/0022-0001 $ 1.50
© 1990 Gebriider Borntraeger, D-1000 Berlin • D-7000 Stuttgart
2 R. A. R eyment and P. B engtson

during Turonian time and the need for a comprehensive evaluation of them. The proposal was
well received by the IGCP Board, but the topic was not deemed sufficiently broad to warrant
acceptance. At the suggestion of the Board meeting in Vienna in 1974, and formulated by the
Chairman, Sir K in g s le y D u n h a m , the proposal was elaborated so as to embrace the medial
portion of the Cretaceous period and to be primarily concerned with dating of events. After
extended discussions by the Board, a non-committal, descriptive project title was suggested by
the Chairman, Professor D u n h a m , namely, M id -C retaceo u s Events (abbreviated MCE).
One could perhaps also have used the expression “medial Cretaceous”, “middle Cretaceous”,
or whatever, but this is what the Board agreed on as being sensible. In so doing it was not
activated by murky motives such as catch-phraseology, bandwagon-jumping, or sneaky fund­
ing formulations. And to formalize a stratigraphic term “Mid-Cretaceous Epoch” or “Mid-
Cretaceous Series” was never even remotely considered.
Right from the outset, MCE produced a regularly issued newsletter, soon baptised MCE
N ew s ( B e n g ts o n , 1976), which continued to appear until 1985 and still exists for special
occasions. All information relating to the project has appeared in this newsletter. One of the
benefits accruing from MCE N ew s was the journal C retaceous R esearch, which was
launched in 1980 as a natural forum for debating all questions concerning the entire Creta­
ceous System and, naturally, any stratigraphical vexations that might arise.
In the autumn of 1974, the main guidelines of MCE were drawn up in Paris, with the
participation of 30 international experts. The title of the project was formalized in a democra­
tic manner and the French version of the title agreed upon - rendered both as «Evenements de
la Partie centrale du Cretace» (cf. M id -C retaceo u s Events N ew sletter, 1974, French
version) and «Evenements du Cretace moyen» (cf. Conseil du PICG, 1974, p. 10). K e m p e r
and W o l f a r t can rest assured that none of the scientists at the Paris meeting was a rogue, an
opportunist, acting against his better judgement, or in any other way renowned for dubious
science and furtive self-aggrandisement. We think that the list of participants guarantees the
objectiveness of the group: B. A m a rd (France), P. Y. B e r t h o u (France), E. v o n B r a u n
(IGCP Secretariat), M. C o l l i g n o n (f) (France), F. D e la n y (ICG, Paris), R. V. D i n g l e
(U.K.), A. V. D h o n d t (Belgium), FI. F a u r e (France), J. M. H a n c o c k (U.K.). J. A. J e l e tz k y
( f ) -(Canada), D .L . J o n e s (U.S.A.), H . K o llm a n n (Austria), J. L a u v e r j a t (France), J.P.
L e f r a n c (France), J. M a r ^ a is (IGCP Board), R. O b e r h a u s e r (Austria), C . P o m e r o l
(France), R.A. R e y m e n t (Sweden), E.A. T a i t (U.K.), G. T h o m e l (France), J. W ie d m a n n
(F.R.G.).
It was in the interest of stra tig ra p h ic a l term in o lo g ical sta b ility that the non­
committal expressions “mid-Cretaceous” and «Cretace moyen» were selected, again, after
exhaustive discussions. The Paris meeting did, however, discuss just how extensive the time-
interval of interest was to be. It was agreed that too stringent a formality in defining the
chronological and chronostratigraphical scope of the project should be avoided. In conse­
quence of this there exists no definition of the expression “mid-Cretaceous” as used by MCE,
a fact vehemently criticised by K e m p e r and W o l f a r t . T o MCE workers the interval covered
by the expression “mid-Cretaceous” comprises approximately the Aptian or Albian to Turo­
nian or Coniacian, depending on what is deemed practical in each particular case. This infor­
mal usage is evident from the several thousand publications that have emanated from the MCE
project (e.g. International Geological Correlation Programme, 1980, 1983, 1986).
 The Moral of the Mid-Cretaceous 3

The Paris meeting also considered what was to become a key problem in MCE work, viz.
that of dating of the sequences studied. The group was of the general opinion that before the
geological and biological events could be given reasonably accurate datings, it was necessary to
obtain international agreement on biostratigraphical details and to promote biostratigraphical
studies in poorly understood areas. Regional reports were therefore to be presented at the
second meeting of the Project Working Group, in Uppsala in 1975; these were subsequently
published in 1978 (R e y m e n t & T h o m e l, 1978). (Additional regional reports were published
in 1981 and 1986 (R e y m e n t & B e n g ts o n , 1981,1986) to provide up-to-date biostratigraphical
coverage of most of the important mid-Cretaceous areas of the world.)

3 Aims and achievements of “Mid-Cretaceous Events”

Although the project came to be concerned with establishing biostratigraphical frameworks

for dating events (B e n g ts o n , 1977; R e y m e n t, 1980, 1984), biostratigraphy was not the prime
goal of MCE. Indeed, the IGCP Board made it quite clear in Vienna that it was not interested
in supporting a programme devised for the sole purpose of studying Cretaceous biostratigra­
phy, and this was never ever suggested by the ad hoc group underwriting the promotion of
MCE. What MCE was to do was (R e y m e n t, 1978):
(1) to date major events occurring during an important period in the history of the Earth.
Major epicontinental transgressions and regressions, evolution of oceans, biological changes,
and sedimentary developments were given pride of place;
(2) to produce a scenario for correlating between events, to attempt to find a causal
relationship between major happenings.
While on the subject of project aims, we wish to recall that one of the most successfully
treated topics was that of carbon-rich sediments. K em p er and W o l f a r t take exception to the
concept of “black shales” (K em p er & W o l f a r t , 1989, pp. 175-176) and take out their ire on
recusants, with the same level of objectivity as was characteristic of the Spanish Inquisition. In
actual fact, those scientists working on carbon-rich sediments within the framework of MCE
have produced the most informative material on the subject to date. K em p er and W o l f a r t
have presumably never seen the volume “Nature and Origin of Cretaceous Carbon-rich
Facies” ( S c h l a n g e r & C it a , 1982). They are now consumed with zeal for correcting the
erroneous picture allegedly painted by MCE, to wit, that “black shales” are restricted to the
mid-Cretaceous. Don Quijote could hardly have done better. If, however, they had bothered
to consult the above publication, they would have learnt that for the participants in MCE, at
least (some 350 scientists), strata rich in carbonaceous material occur throughout geological
time and that “dark (commonly black), organic, carbon-rich shales and mudstones are present
in relatively greater amounts and are spread more widely geographically in the Lower
Palaeozoic record than they are in the rock record of younger geological intervals” (W ild e &
B e r r y 1982, p. 209). How well does this rhyme with the assertion that the concept of “‘black
shales’ ... appears like a twin of the ‘Mid-Cretaceous’” (K em p er & W o l f a r t , 1989, p. 175),
whatever that is meant to imply?
We agree with K e m p e r and W o l f a r t that the term “anoxic” is in effect a “junior
synonym” of “anaerobic” and thus undesirable in efficient scientific communication (cf.
4 R. A. R eyment and P. Bengtson

B e n g ts o n , 1988, p. 39). However, to reject the term “black shales” in favour of “anaerobic
[sediments]”, as suggested implicitly by those authors, shows that they have not properly
understood the underlying concepts. “Black shales” is a descriptive term, and as such useful
for field purposes, or when the origin of the rock cannot be reliably determined. “Anaerobic”,
on the other hand, is a genetic term, which should be applied to a rock or sediment only after
due analysis and interpretation.
MCE went on to hold specialist meetings, e.g., in Hokkaido (1976) and Nice (1976) and
sessions at the International Geological Congresses (Sydney 1976, Paris 1980), etc. The meet­
ings have been fully reported in MCE N ew s and elsewhere (e.g., B e n g ts o n , 1980, 1981;
R e y m e n t, 1980). All were attended by numerous experts of international renown. There were
also several field meetings, such as Hokkaido (1976), southeastern France (1976), Spain and
Portugal (1977), Texas and Mexico (1977), mid-western [sic] United States (1977), Great
Britain (1979).

4 Semantics, Terminology and the Mentality of MCE Workers

Here we stray into the maze of English semantics and the intricacies of the In te rn a tio n a l
S tratig rap h ic G uide ( H e d b e r g , 1976) that seem to dog the logic of K e m p e r’s and W o l-
f a r t ’s article. As has been made clear on numerous occasions in MCE situations (e.g., R ey ­
m e n t & B e n g ts o n , 1976, p. 4), the combination “mid-Cretaceous” (or “middle Cretaceous”,
which some workers prefer for positions in sequence) is not a formal geochronological or
chronostratigraphical term. The function of the prefix “mid[dle]” is to indicate an ap p ro x i­
m ate position within the Cretaceous Period or System, just as this note is being written in
“mid-May” and will be submitted for publication in “ early June”. K em p er and W o l f a r t
argue that scientific language must be precise and the terms accurately defined. We fully agree.
However, they seem to overlook the fact that scientific language is not only composed of
strictly defined terms. Even K e m p e r and W o l f a r t should recognize that there are abundant
occasions in scientific communication when it is not possible, or even desirable, to use a
precise term. Consider expressions like “uppermost Albian”, “red limestone”, “larger
Foraminifera”, “shallow water”, and even “ammonite”, all of which are indispensable parts of
geological language but nevertheless lack definitions or are convenient portmanteau terms.
The use of precisely defined terms requires precise data and agreement on the definition,
which often do not exist. We only need to think of the ongoing arguments over the placement
of stage boundaries - a seemingly perpetual bone of contention.
Some informal expressions as, for example “mid-Cretaceous”, are being extensively used
for the simple and logical reason that they fill a need. It is out of all proportion to attribute the
use of “mid-Cretaceous” to second thoughts by the users. The In te rn a tio n a l S tratig ­
rap h ic G uide recognizes the need for informal expressions (H e d b e rg , 1976, p. 13) and
recommends that, in order to avoid doubts, such expressions should be written with lower­
case initial letters (H e d b e rg , 1976, pp. 68-69, 73). Yes, we are aware that many workers
ignore this simple and useful rule - examples can even be found in MCE publications - but it is
surely not because of an underlying desire to upset the well-established, formal bipartite
division of the Cretaceous!
 The Moral of the Mid-Cretaceous 5

K e m p e r’s & W o l f a r t ’s claim (1989, p. 176) that the combination “mid-Cretaceous”

hinders scientific progress is thus entirely unfounded, and their accompanying statement that
the expression was “uncritically accepted by many specialists who ought to have known
better” is an affront to MCE workers. Do K e m p e r and W o l f a r t dispose of inside knowledge
on how the participants in MCE think, thought, and reacted? Do they really believe that these
people, several hundred of our foremost specialists on the Cretaceous, use the combination
“mid-Cretaceous” as a “gimmick expression^] with considerable success for the establishment
of research projects” (K e m p e r & W o l f a r t , 1989, p. 176). This statement, defamatory in its
formulation, downclasses the majority of workers on the Cretaceous - presumably with the
exclusion of K e m p e r and W o l f a r t - to a level of collective dishonesty and generalizes grossly
all funding bodies to rubber-stamping convocations of puppets. No, Messrs K e m p e r and
W o l f a r t , research funding just does not occur in this soulless, machine-like manner, not in
the F.R.G., nor in Sweden, not in the U.K., nor the U.S.A., not in France, and definitely not
in the IGCP Board; to this can any of us who have been concerned with fund-granting bodies
in these connections attest. People in such bodies are not the witless automatons they are often
imagined to be by unsuccessful applicants for grants.
What other points need to be addressed? “On an occasion of this kind it becomes more
than a moral duty to speak one’s mind. It becomes a pleasure.” So spake O s c a r W ild e .
Semantic and terminological confusions such as: confounding the common adjective qualifier
“mid[dle]” (K em p er & W o l f a r t , 1989, p. 174) with the formal stratigraphic term component
“Middle”; “obscure-integrating” (whatever that is) and “understanding natural laws”
(K em p er & W o l f a r t , 1989, p. 172); and confusing descriptive and genetic terms (“black
shales” vs. “anaerobic”), all this is plain jabberwocky. What kind of a geologist can possibly
think that “mid-Cretaceous” and “black shales” are “extraordinarily modern terms” (K e m p e r
& W o l f a r t , 1989, p. 172)? And who legalizes stratigraphical subdivisions (K e m p e r &
W o l f a r t , 1989, p. 174) - some court in Strasbourg, perhaps? As M a r t i n F. G la e s s n e r has
said at IGCP Board meetings - there were no Bavarian brass bands playing to inform the
organisms it was time to die out and let a new stage start.

5 In Guise of a Conclusion

Critical appraisal is the very stuff of scientific progress, but criticism must be founded on fact,
otherwise it degenerates into a farce. In P l a t o ’s R epublic (Book 3) the sentiment is expres­
sed: - “I wonder if we could contrive ... some magnificent myth that would in itself carry
conviction to our whole community”. To accuse a whole body of scientists of indulging in just
this kind of exercise is not only presumptuous but exceedingly tedious in its fatuousness.

Acknowledgements. We wish to thank Dr. Jurgen S c h o b e l, Uppsala, for the abstract in

German.
6 R. A. R eyment and P. B engtson

References

B engtson , P. (1976): MCE News. - Lethaia 9(4): 376, Oslo.

- (1977): Mid-Cretaceous Events. - Lethaia 10(1): 58, Oslo.
- (1980): Cretaceous transgressions and regressions in focus. - Cretaceous Research 1(1): 86-88,
London.
- (1981): Sweden hosts mid-Cretaceous conference. - Episodes 1981(4): 24, Ottawa.
- (coord.) (1988): Geologisk ordlista - Glossary of Geology. 482 pp. -T N C 86; Tekniska nomenklatur-
centralen, Stockholm.
[Conseil du PICG] (1974): Deuxieme session du Conseil; Vienne, 22-26 avril 1974. - Correlation Geolo-
gique 2: 1-36, Paris.
H edberg , H. D. (ed.) (1976): International Stratigraphic Guide. - 200 pp. Wiley, New York.
International Geological Correlation Programme (1980): IGCP Catalogue [I], 1973-1979. - 184pp.
Unesco, Paris.
- (1983): IG CP Catalogue II, 1978-1982. - 790 pp. Unesco, Paris.
- (1986): IG CP Catalogue III, 1983-1985. - 150 pp. Unesco, Paris.
K em per , E. & R. W olfart (1989): The Mid-Cretaceous story. - Newsl. Stratigr. 20(3): 171-176, Berlin/
Stuttgart.
[R eyment , R. A.] (1978): Mid-Cretaceous Events: Project 58. - In: Bassett, M. G. (ed.): International
Geological Correlation Programme IGCP, Scientific achievements 1973-1977: 58-59, Paris.
- (1980): Mid-Cretaceous Events - IGCP project 58. - Nature and Resources 16(2): 28-34, Paris.
- (1984): The events of the mid-Cretaceous. - In: Seibo ld , E. & J. D. M eulenkamp (eds.): Stratigraphy
quo vadis?: 45-48, Tulsa, Oklahoma. (AAPG Studies in Geology 16; IUGS Special Publication 14.)
[R eyment , R. A. & P. B engtson ] (1976): Agreement on the te rm ‘mid-Cretaceous’.-M C E News 3(2): 4,
U
- (e , 981): Aspects of Mid-Cretaceous Regional Geology. - 327 pp. Academic Press, London.
- (compilers) (1986): Events of the Mid-Cretaceous: final report on results obtained by IGCP Project
No. 58, 1974-1985. - 209 pp., 21 pis. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
R eyment , R. A. & G. T h om el (eds.) (1978): Evenements de la partie moyenne du Cretace - Mid-
Cretaceous Events, Uppsala 1975 - Nice 1976. - Annales du Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Nice 4
[for 1976]: I.1-XXXV.3, Nice.
Schlanger , S. O. & M. B. C ita (eds.) (1982): Nature and Origin of Cretaceous Carbon-rich Facies. -
229 pp. Academic Press, London.
W ild e , P. & W. B. N. B erry (1982): Progressive ventilation of the oceans - potential for return to anoxic
conditions in the post-Paleozoic. - In: Schlanger , S. O. & M. B. C ita (eds.): Nature and Origin of
Cretaceous Carbon-rich Facies: 209-224. Academic Press, London.