News and Gossip, p.60 - 73.

Journal of Nannoplankton Research , 20 , 2, 1998.

MRC program, representative sets of samples are identified
for each site and multiple preparations are made forforaminifera, radiolaria , diatoms and calcareous
nannofossils. For more information see:
http://v.ww-odp.tamu.t.'tlu/mrc/mrcJlage.HTML

MRCs. A listing of samples is available on the WWW.
2. -600 narinofossil preparations from ODP Legs 132 to
138- not at all nannofossil MRCs, but nearly completed.
Jeremy Young
jy@nhm. ac.uk

Which are the full MRC sites?
The following five sites have collections of bothnannofossils and the other three microfossil groups.
US East Coast- Smithsonian Institute. Contact Dr. Brian
Huber (huber.brian@nmnh.si. edu)
US Gulf Coast - ODP. Contact Dr. John Firth(john_jirth @odp. tamu.edu)
Western Europe- Natural History Museum, Base!. Contact
Dr.
MichaelKnappertsbusch(knappertsbus@ubaclu. unibas. eh)
JaJlan -National Science Museum, Tokyo. Contact Dr.
Yoshihiro Tanimura (tanimura@kahaku.go.jp)
New Zealand- Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences,Ltd., Lower Hutt. Contact Dr. Percy Strong(p.strong@gns. cri.nz)

STILL AVAILABLE
Duplicate copies of some reprints from the Loeblich &Tappan collection are still available, while supplies last. A
list of available reprints is posted on the UCMP website at:
http:llwww.ucmp.berkcley.edu/collcctionslmiueps.html
Subjects covered include foraminifera , calcareous
nannoplankton, acritarchs and tintinnids. For more
information see the website or contact me.
Karen L. Wetmore, }.:fuseum of Paleontology,
1/01 VLSB #4780,
University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, CA 94720-4780
karenw@.ucmp 1. berkeley. edu

Which are the satellite MRCs with nannofossil
collections?
The nannofossil MRCs will only have nannofossil
collections and will play roles in developing thenannofossil collection. This is intended to include:
preparation of further sample sets (both FSU and Parma
have made commitments in this area); enhancement of
database infonnation on the MRC sample-sets (in particularadding information on the nannofossil assemblages in theslides); identifying and preparing additional sample setsof special value for nannofossil research (e.g. topotype
samples and samples with exceptional nannofossil
preservation); promotion of use of the nannofossil MRCs.
The Nebraska and FSU sites both have diatom MRC
collections as well as the nannofossils.
University of Nebraska, USA- contact Dr. David Watkins(dwatkins@unl. edu)
Universita degli Studi di Parma, Italy- contact Dr. Giuli<maVilla (geo!OJ @ipruniv.cce. unipr. it)
Florida State University, Tallahassec, USA- contact Dr.
Sherwood W. Wise or Dr. Thomas Janacek(wise@g~v.ftu. edu)
The Natural History Museum, London- contact Dr. Jeremy
Young (jy@nhm. ac. uk)

NEW BOOK NEWSAs you may be aware, there have been a few problems
associated with getting hold of copies of Calcareous
Nannofossil Biostratigraphy (Ed. P.R. Bown), a review ofwhich appears in this issue. This situation arose because
Chapman & Hall were taken over by Kluwer Academic
around the time the book went to press. If you want a
copy, then the following information may help. The bookis part of the British Micropalaeontology Society Series
and is published by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht who have a website giving more information at:htt)l://www. wkap.nl/book.htm/0-412-78970-1
Ordering can be done via the Web, or through thefollowing:
The Americas: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Order
Dept. , PO Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 020180358, USA Tel.: (781) 871-6600; fctx: (781) 871-6528; e-mail:k/uwer@wkap. eo m
Rest of the World: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
AH Dordrecht, The
Book Dep(, PO Box 322 , 3300
Netherl<mds. Tel.: (+31) 78 63923 92; fax: (+ 31) 78 654 64 74;
e-mail: services@.wkap. nf
BOOK REVIEW #1
Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigrallhy
Edited by Paul R. Bown (1998)
Published by Chap man & Hall/Kiuwer Academic
Publishers
British Micropalaeontological Society Publication
Series: 328Jlll·
Printed by Cambridge University Press
Hardbound ISBN 0-412-78970-1
NLG 235.00 I GBP £79.00 I USD $1 27.00
Reviewed by Katharina von Sa/is, Geologica/Jnstitute,
ETH-Z, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Who can use the collections?
Anyone. A basic condition of ODP providing MRC
collections is that they should be freely available to thescientific community. Obviously, though, the relevant hostscientists should be contacted before visiting the centres.
Also, note that the collections cannot be loaned, only
studied at the host institutes. For the MRC at the NHM,
financial support for visits by European workers cancurrently be applied for via the EU Large Scale Facility(LSF) scheme (see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/scienccl
science_marketing/bioresource!).

The successor to A.R. Lord's (Ed., 1982).A StratigraphicalIndex of Calcareous Nannofossils has appeared in 1998
under the new title , Calcareous Na nnofossil
Biostratigraphy, as part of the publication series of the
British Micropalaeontological Society, from Chapman &What material is in the nannofossil MRCs?
The following sets of slides:
1. 3000 slidesfromDSDPLegs 1-36, Sites 1-329. Thisscunple
set has been entirely prepared, and is held in all nannofossil

64

Journal of Nannoplankton Resea rch, 20, 2, 1998.

News and Gossip, p. 60 - 73.

by which time nannoplankton were producing biogenic
carbonate in rock-fanning proportions". According to Noelet al. ( 1994, and papers cited tl1erein), already the limestonesof the Lias consisted mainly of calcareous nannofossils,
namely Schizosphaerel/a, and small coccoliths were rockbuilding during the Middle Jurassic.
The range of nearly 80 species is given in a figure
and correlated with the stages and the boreal ammonite
zones.
A short paper on . Calcareous nannofossils fromthe Upper Kinuneridgian-Volgian of Gorodische, Russia 'by Bown is included as an appendix in this chapter. Itfeatures distribution charts and a discussion on thestratigraphic problems of the uppermost Jurassic, as wellas the discussion about Stephanolithion species and thedescription of a new species, Staurolithites lumina .
The atlas of species features SEM and LM
photomicrographs, most ofthem of excellent quality, andthe ranges of the species where illustrated by SEM.
The LOWER CRETACEOUS chapter wascomposed by Bown, Rut ledge, Crux & Gallagher. Also thischapter concentrates on the zonal subdivision, using a BC
system (after Rutledge & Bown, in prep.: for comments,
see below). The correlation of calcareous nannofossil
events with both stages. CC and NK/NC coccolith zones,
boreal and tethyan ammonite zones andmagnetostratigraphy are given in two very useful figures
including also Indian Ocean nannofossil events. For the
Barremian-Aptian interval, a high-resolution subdivisionof the BC zones is given for the northern North Sea. The
stratigraphic ranges of nearly 70 selected species, bothgeneral, endemic boreal and predominantly tethyan fonns, are correlated to stages and boreal ammonite zones in a
figure. The atlas of species consists of high quality SEM
and LM pictures - a joy to study - and gives the ranges ofthe species where illustrated by SEM.
Bumett wrote the UPPER CRETACEOUS chapter
with contributions from Gallagher & Hampton. Since she
is very much involved in the work for new definitions of
the Cretaceous stage boundaries, the historical part of thechapter is longer than in the previous chapters. The
Cretaceous nannofossil succession is described and thechanges in dominance of genera/families through tile Late
Cretaceous and across the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary
is illustrated. Five nannofloral palaeobiogeographic
provinces are distinguished : boreal , intermediate N,
tethyan, intermediateS and austral. For the description of
the zonal system, the author discontinues the use of"taxonomic epithets" for the , formally-describedalphanumeric biozones ", and uses a new system of UC(Upper Cretaceous) zones extending from UCO starting in
the Upper Albian and ending with UC20 at the top of theMaastrichtian. Some subzones and marker events are
additionally given a combination of two letters for theprovince in which they are valid. The thus assembled
figures will be very useful in stratigraphic work worldwide.
Equally useful are the remarks about diachronous
occurrences in the different provinces of many of themarkers generally used. In ten often very fully packed pages
with figures, the marker events are shown for the different

Hall (recently taken over by Kluwer Academic Publishers),
with Paul R. Bown as the new editor. Where the old bookwas blue, the new is black, the new being only slightly
larger but considerably thicker. What was included on 192
pages in 1982, now takes up 316 pages.
The book is clearly structured and starts, after
CONTENTS, PREFACE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS anda TECHNICALNOTEANDABBREVIATIONS, \vithan
INTRODUCTION by Bown & Young. We here learn about
what calcareous nannofossils are and read about
haptophyte algae cytology, scales as diagnostic features ,coccolith morphology and formation, life cycles, coccolith
function , as well as coccolithophore ecology anddistribution . The outline of calcareous nannofossil
taxonomy and classification is illustrated on an ordinal
leveL and a phylogcnetic model (families) based on the
two authors ' recent publications on the theme is given.
Not surprisingly, the authors here come to the conclusion(p.l5), that " the integration of the order-level classification
between living and fossil material is a problem which needs
to be addressed". This first chapter is rounded off with ashort outline of the geological history of calcareous
nannofossils and half a page on their use iiJ biostra tigraphy
with the conclusion than "the large volume of subsequent
work [to Lord. 1982; Haq, 1983 ; Perch-Nielsen. 1985a. b:
Siesser, 1993] means that the comprehensive reviews andnew data presented here should be of great value, for bothnannofossil specialists and end users of nannofossil data" .
How right they are.
The second chapter is entitled TECHNIQUES andalso was written by Bown & Young. Here they give soundand very useful advice for sample collection, preparation
techniques, means of observation. data collection andpresentation.
Both chapters are very helpful for all who want to
update their outdated knowledge about coccolithophorids
and their significance, treatment and applications.
Bown wrote the short chapter about the TRIASSIC.
giving a comprehensive overview, including a threefold
subdivision , and the necessary illustrations both as
dra\vings. LM and SEM photomicrographs. This chapter,and most of the following ones, are built up along thesame pattern with an introduction, important references,
nannofossil succession, biostratigraphy, biogeography
and an atlas of species with the plates. Some chaptershave additional sections on global correlation .
magnetobiochronology, or notes on taxonomic problems
and conclusions.
The JURASSIC chapter was written by Bown &Cooper and features mainly the description of the boreal
zones and subzones following mainly Bown ( 1987) and
Bown et al. ( 1988; NJl-NJl8) and t110sefrom Italy/S France
and Portugal. These descriptions are accompanied by zonal
schemes that show the correlation between the areas, andwith the boreal ammonite zones and the Jurassic stages.
For the tethyan Upper Jurassic, the zones NJ 19(T), NJ20(T)and NJK are discussed and correlated to themagnetostratigraphy in the Tithonian and Jurassic/
Cretaceous boundary interval. Here I have to make a noteas to the statement on p.35: " .. .latest Jurassic (Tithonian)65

Journal of Nannop lankton Research , 20, 2, 1998.

News and Goss ip, p. 60 - 73.

provinces and correlated to stages, ammonite/macrofaunalzones as well as the traditional CC and NC zones, among
others. The correlation to the planktonic foraminiferal
marker events is given together with themagnetostratigraphy by including the integrated zonationofBralower et al. (1995). The summary figure ofthe Upper
Cretaceous nannofossil biozonation acts as an anchor for
us oldies to the ,good old times' when we hoped that one
set of coccolith zones- unlike planktonic foraminifera zones- would be applicable worldwide.
The K!f boundary is discussed at the end of theCretaceous chapter which, thus, also includes illustrationsof Tertiary species in its atlas of species, not counted in
the count below.
The claim by the author, that "Most of the Upper
Cretaceous calcareous nannofossils are listed andillustrated in Plates 6.1 to 6.15" is no exaggerdtion. I counted
some 400 species names, of which 65 were indicated not tobe figured. Most of the mainly LM photographs are ofvery good quality, the fossils of1en shown at different
angles to the polarisers. The ranges of the figured species
are given in terms of stages.
After all of the data and illustrations presented inthis chapter, one wonders and rejoices about the author's
statement on p.l34: " .. .further biostratigraphic refinement
is still possible". I am sure we will, eventually, ,beat theammonites', and not only in the Upper Cretaceous.
Varol assembled the chapter on the PALAEOGENE,
concentrating on the economically important North Sea
area, and sharing with the readers the impressive resultsof his findings from this region. The correlation schemes
between the various existing zonations and the old stage
stratotypes do not contain the zonal definitions. On theother hand, the three figures with the nannofossil zones
and events for the North Sea area show a sequence of
events and the 36 partly new NNTp/e/o-zones based onthem, correlated with the timcscale, the NPs and the stages.
This overview lacks, for the obvious reason that this partof the section is not developed in a suitable facies in the
North Sea area, the calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy
for most of the Upper Paleocene and the presently muchdebated Paleocene/Eocene boundary interval. It will ,however, be very helpful for all those having the privilegeof working in the North Sea area.
The specimens illustrated in the atlas of species by
excellent LM photographs all stem from North Sea wellsections, but no ranges are given.
Young wrote the NEOGENE chapter with theobjective to "provide an up-to-date guide to Neogene
nannofossil taxonomy and biostratigraphy in a succinct [I
had to look up this word in the dictionary... ] and usefulformat" . For the discussion he "subdivided [the Neogene]
into eight intervals (A-H) of l-5Ma duration, based on themost important events". These intervals, which should berecognisable also in poorly fossiliferous materials, are thencorrelated to the classical NN and CN zonations and themagnetostratigraphy, age and stages (but not theplanktonic foraminifera zonation(s)) in a very usefulsummary figure which will entice a few older colleagues toinvest in new and stronger glasses.

66

Instead of a simple range-chart, Young presents us
with figures including both ranges and simple line-drawingsof the species of the Helicosphaeraceae, Syracosphaeraceae, Pontosphaeraceae, Calcidiscaceae,
Coccolithaceae, Noelaerhabdaceae, Discoasteraceae,
Sphenolithaceae, Triquetrorhabdulaceae, and some otherforms. All ranges are correlated to the zonal schemes andhis A-H intervals. The need for new glasses becomes evenmore urgent here.
In the notes on taxonomic problems, we learn that
Wallich 's original slides ( 1877 !) have been relocated at the
Natural History Museum in London and that we now use
Helicosphaera carteri (instead of the younger H.
kamptneri), that the genus ,Pyrocyclus' represents
specimens of abraded Reticu/ofenestra species, andseveral additional interesting and important observations.
The atlas of species includes not only a wealth ofLM photographs- including m<my showing different levelsof focus of the same specimen -but also very welcome
notes for the identification/differentiation of the shown
genera and species and their ranges in terms ofNN-zones.
An appendix gives the origin of the specimens illustrated
in a novel and space-saving manner. The quality of theillustrations is partly very good but many pictures seem tolack contrast and appear rather grey. Most of us willdefinitely need the new glasses (see above) to read thenames under the photographs.
Hine & Weaver illustrate the QUATERNARY
biostratigraphy with reports on DSDP Site 610 in the
Rockall Trough and three piston-cores froilJ the flank ofKings Trough, from where a sequence of seven acmeintervals (QAZ7 to 1- here the numbering starts at the top)
is described. They stress the possibility of high-resolution
stratigraphy through a combination of isotope- andmagnetostratigraphy and semi-quantitative analysis ofnannofossil assemblages, leading to the recognition ofacme intervals. In two figures, the ranges of selected
species are given and correlated to the Gartner. NN and
CN zonal schemes, time and magnetostratigraphy. The
authors conclude that high-resolution stratigraphy can beaccomplished up to --65°N, while it is hampered by barren
intervals reflecting ice-cover or suppressed productivity
during deglaciation at higher latitudes.
Selected species (20) are well illustrated both by
LM and SEM on the two plates, their ranges being given
in a figure in the text and with the SEM pictures. I havesome doubts, however, about the correctness of somemagnifications, though. P lacunosa larger than C.
leptoporus and nearly as large as C. pelagicus (Pl.9.1)
make me wonder just as much as an E. huxleyi of the same
size as G. caribbeanica (Pl.9 .2).
Hine & Weaver report that " apart from theNoelaerhabdaceae, more than 30 accessory taxa are
regularly recorded in standard smear slides". We can only
regret the fact that so few of the over 200 described living
species fossilise at all!
TI1e REFERENCES are many and I have not checked
if they are all referred to in the text. I did, however, noticethat at least one reference in the text of a chapter did notoccur here (de Kaenel, in press: p.35). Also, I missed aJournal of Nannoplankton Research, 20, 2, 1998.

News and Gossip, p. 60 - 73.

reference or two to the work by van Niel ( 1992a, b, 1994 ), Europe is, however, still present but this differs from one
who studied the nannoconids in the North Sea area and • chapter to the other.
Range-charts of the most important species, but
contributed much to our understanding of this genus andalso of any other species, are a very practical feature its wider than previously/usually advertised distribution
some chapters contain one, others not. After having read,in the North Sea area .
on p.27: "given a good distribution chart there is no need
The TAXONOMIC INDEX is a very useful feature.
for detailed text description of assemblages, instead thisThe genera are listed in alphabetical order and with thepart of a report c~m concentrate on outlining general results,
species they contain, indicating also the author(s) of both.
problems
and areas of uncertainty", I had expected many
Family names are arranged in between, and references arecomprehensive
range-charts witJ1 indications for the ranges
made to the chapters, pages and plates where the units areofthemarkerspeciesinstead of the 'classical' definition
treated/illustrated. Personally, I would have liked also toanddescriptionofzones.
I would have wished for all
have an index where all species are arranged in alphabeticalchapters
toincluderange-charts
but realise that, given theorder- the brain of a long-time nannofossil specialist does
di!Terent ranges in different regions and environments, tJ1e
not always remember the actual genus assignment of abook probably would not have appeared still in !Jus century.
species that has changed its genus-assignment several
The possibility to compose figures by computer
times over the past 30 years. Also, the taxonomic index isare wonderful and have been used to good avail in the
not completely reliable. Ca/cica/athina alta, for example,
present book. The relatively small format of the printed
is indexed as shown on Plate 6.3, while it is printed on 6.4.
pages led, however, to strong reductions , especially toAlso, the one-page SUBJECT INDEX is a nicefigures with a lot of information, which rendered the lettersservice to the reader looking for certain themes and givesso small that they cannot be read without a magnifying
a quick overview of all the themes treated in this splendid glass or after mechanical magnification by a copy-maclline.
volume other than what it promises, the calcareous
I have no solution for this problem, since I want all thenannofossil biostratigraphy. We here find reference to, for
information given and also appreciate to have it in one
example, image-capture, the use of the gypsum plate, or to
figure.
organic scales in Haptophyte algae and the Ypresian Stage.
There are some things that could have been
But why not to the Aptian, Barremian or all other stages?
st<mdardised in all chapters. Imagine tl1at all tJ1e signs used
Actually, also an index of abbreviations would have beenin figures to mark a FO or LO were the same? Dream that
appreciated - it sometimes takes much imagination andthe authors had met and decided to invent a new ' standard'zonal system with a logical combination of letters andtime to find the various abbreviations somewhere in thenumbers, small or large letters for the subdivisions? Many
text of the chapter where they are used. (Editors note will wish that more authors would have added taxonomic
most abbreviations appear at the front of the book).
remarks to their illustrations, so that one would not need
The book features three empty, white pages andanother source in order to learn about the differences
two grey ones at the end. What a nice service for the
between the different species of a genus. Others will longreaders to have space to add their own observations rightthere and to communicate them to the authors or the editor for consistent mention of the known range of eachillustrated species. Colleagues working for the oil industry
in order to be included into the next edition of the ' black
book'. Since there is no indication as to the magnitude of will miss an 'upside-down ' zonal system based on LOs, as
it had been proposed by previous authors for thethis first edition, it is only my guess that there will be
Cretaceous over a decade ago. Others again will not always
further editions and that some of such remarks will be
understandthe numbering system applied on some plates
included in them.
- once they have found out which plate they are actuallylooking at. Obviously, some technical editing process
Further remarks:
missed the lack of numbers on each plate.
Mostly it was a pleasure to review this book, but there
In publications such as this, where most authors
were some frustrations, too. The most important is theinclude personal , not yet published results into theirfact, that only in one chapter did an author write the names
chapter(s), or use not yet published information fromof the fossils right under the illustration. This practicalcolleagues, it is always a problem to know whetJ1er a plannedfeature, which was pioneered in the calcareous nannofossil
paper (in prep.) will be published in time or not. Strategies
and some other chapters in Bolli et al. (1985), has sincefor how to deal with tllis vary, but it certainly is a no-no in
only been taken up by very few brave colleagues who
any reviewed journal. Too many authors here used an ' in
could convince their editor(s), that, yes, it was possible toprep.' reference (Bergen in tJ1e Jurassic; Rut ledge & Bown
print such plates.
in the Lower Cretaceous ; Burnett et al. in the Upper
For many of us, the title of the book suggests its
Cretaceous; Varol & Young in the Cenozoic chapter- sorry
content to cover the whole biostratigraphy of calcareous
if I nlissed any... ). Since tJ1ere is no guarantee that ' in prep.'
nannofossils, from the Triassic to the Recent and for thepapers will ever materialise, I assume we should consider
whole world. Those of us who remember the title andBown et al. (Chapter 5) as authors for the many new BC
content of its predecessor by Lord ( 1982) are cautious andzones and subzones, and not the ' pre-cited' Rutledge &positively surprised that the new book does, in fact, include
Bown.
more about the worldwide calcareous nannofossil
Small irritations occurred when reading
biostratigraphy than the old one. Some bias on northern Reticu/ofenestra umbilica i_n stead of R. umbilicus (the67Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 20, 2, 1998.

News and Gossip, p. 60 - 73.

Latin word means navel and does not follow the gender ofthe genus; many of us have made.tbis mistake for decades).
Or when the FO of Scapho/ithus fossilis is given as
Hauterivian on p.l04 but with an illustrated specimen
shown from the Valanginian on p.ll8. Or when the ranges
are only indicated for those species which are illustrated
with the SEM, but not next to their LM equivalents. Since
most people are doing stratigraphy work with the LM, tllis
may be an educational trick that forces stratigraphers also
to look at the splendid SEM-pictures of the species theyuse? Or when several authors followed after the templatethat read 'author'. And when, on p.47, Hallam(l975) should
be more recent thanHallcun (1975). I take the latter as British
humour, which non-British people have little chance ofunderstanding. William Smith may have been the father ofHistorical Geology (p.34- who was William Snlitl1, and when
did he live? Not all of us know our history of geology). But
some of us learned that Nikolaus Steno from Denmark was
the father of the law of superposition in the 17th century.
After these minor negative points, I would like tocontinue with some of the many very positive items. The
electronically-produced plates in tl1e Neogene chapter are
a revelation and will, I assume, serve as models in many
future publications- hopefully with somewhat larger lettersused for the fossil names. The use of the same magnification
for LM illustrations at 2300x must be considered a major
break-through for the UCL-school of calcareous
nannofossil specialists. They have resisted for many years
to give up unequal magnifications for LM photographs asused in Lord ( 1982) and other papers by the UCL school.
The high quality of most illustrations is partly due to thewell-preserved material the authors had at hand- I would
like to join my thanks to those the autl10rs already bestowed
on the providers of such material. It seems not fair that thepositive points fill much less space than the negative ones.
Yet it is a sign that there is still work out there to do and bepresented as papers, books and. I predict. on the WWW.
The list ofWWW-addresses given on p.28 will be longer
next time and hopefully also include the IN A-site at http://gs.ucsd.edu/ina/ and the possibility of publishing in
Paleontologia Electronica (http://www-odp.tamu.edu/
llalco/).

Some statistics. ..
In the PREFACE, there is a statement that I wanted tocheck:" ... including over 2000 individual photographs, andas such we believe this to be the most comprehensive
atlas of calcareous nannofossils ever produced". In fact,
the different chapters dealing with actual calcareous
nannofossils are all well illustrated. Some more tlum others,some including only LM or only SEM illustrations, mostincluding a fair number ofboth. I have counted them (sorry
ifi made a small mistake here or there) in order to know
how many there are. Then I divided this number with themillion years of the geological interval they represent inorder to choose the king or queen of illustrations/m.y. Outof curiosity, I did the same for Lord (1982) and for thenanno-chapters in Bolli et al. ( 1985). Here are the results:
In conclusion, Jeremy Young, the author of the
Neogene chapter, has presented the most views of

68

BOLLI etal. (1985)

LORD(1982)..J

CHAPTER
Introduction
Triassic
Jurassic
Lr. Cretaceous
Up. Cretaceous
Palaeogene
NeogeneQuaternary
Cenozoic

TOTAL

m.y.•
20..
68
39
31
41
22
2
65
230

LM SEM<....

BOWN (1998)

,.:.

,.:.

,.:.

....~UJ....~UJ

~

..J
..J

..J
..J

....0

"' TOTAL "'
1.0
4.6
7.4

30
60
90

60
120
140

90t
180
230

60
240

60
380

120 1.8
~ 2.7

~

LM

28

1.4

1039

7.5

1456

22.4
11.0 2005

illa.

12
234
265
646
159
660
29

SEM TOTAL
12
11
159
120
38

9
349

12
23
393
385
664
159
660
38
857

ill!

"'
..J
..J

1.1
5.8
9.9
22.1
3.9
30.0
19.0
13.2
10.2

Table 1: Number of illustrations in Lord (1982), Bolli et al. (1985)
and this book. *Duration according to International Stratigraphic
Chart, JUGS, prdiminary edition, 1998. **For the Triassic, anestimate of 20m.y. was assumed for the time of existence of
calcareous nannofossils. t = including a lso illustrations of Triassic
forms.

calcareous nannofossils per m. y. He used only LM picturesand ,the plates were produced using NIH-Image, an image
analysis program written by Wayne Rasband of the
National Institute of Health" . Tllis progrdm allowed Youngto get around the physical cutting and pasting and also
motivated him to follow Perch-Nielsen ( 1985) by putting
the name of the fossil directly belO\v its illustration .
Congratulations and THANK YOU!
As for "the most comprehensive atlas of calcareous
nannofossils ever produced", tllis statement does not hold,since Perch-Nielsen (in Bolli et al., 1985) produced~ 180
photographs more than are included in the ' black book '(Table l ). There are other differences, too. While Bolli etal. ( 1985) mixed LM, TEM and SEM in the same ' plate/figure', and spread them throughout the text between therelevant words, all plates are arranged at the end of thevarious chapters in Bown ( 1998), a trait taken over fromLord ( 1982).
A look at the text shows major differences in theway the various, time-intervals were treated. An overview
is given in Table 2.
The printed pages arc of different surface area,
especially between Lord and Bown on one side and Bolli
et al. on the other: 286.16cm 2 and 29l.56cm 2 , against
365 50cm2 in the latter. We thus have to correct the Bollipages with a factor of 1.26 to get an equivalent page/m.y.
value.
It is surprising how similar the values are whencomparing the number ofpages/m.y. for the different timeintervals for the Mesozoic. It increased from 0. 7p/m.y. in
1982, to0.8p/m.y. in 1985, to l.lp/m.y. in 1998. The increase
happened both for the various parts of the Mesozoic andfor the Mcsozoic as a whole, and represents the increasein knowledge that has occurred over the years. This ismost pronounced for the Triassic/Jurassic, where progress
was most conspicuous. For the Cenozoic the changes weredramatic, leading from 0.5p/m.y. to 2.5p/m.y. in 1985 andback to 1.3 p/m.y. in 1998. This is 'understandable when
one considers that the title of the 1982 chapter read:"Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils - a reconnaissance".
This was due to the fact that pre-Quaternary Cenozoic
sediments are less well-represented in Great Britain and by

Journa l of Nann opl ankton Resea rch, 20, 2, 1998 .

News and Gossip, p. 60 - 73.

L ORD (1 982)

BOLLI eta/. •(1 985)the ge nu s Nann oconus (calcareous na nn ofossil, incerlae
sedis)• Call. de Micropal., 913 : 29-48 .

BOWN (1998)

Noel, D. , B usso n, G., Cornee, A. & Mangin, A.-M. 1994 . Le
nannoplancton ca lc ai re et la formation des alte rn a ncescalcai res-ma rn es dan s le Lias des bassins de Marches-Ombrie(Italic). Ril~ It. Paleonl. Strat., 99/4 : 515-550.

ID"!

CHAPTERINTRO.ITECH.

m .v. PAGES

P/m.y.

PAGES

X

"-

P/m.y.

PAGES

0.8

28
5
52
57
46
68
171

10

Triassic

20#
Jurassic
68
TRIASSIC+JURASSIC 88
Lr. Cretaceous
39
Up. Cretaceous
31
MESOZOIC#
158
Palaeogene
41
Neogene22
Quaternary
2
CENOZOIC65
REFERENCESINDEXES
TOTAL
223

13
41

55
109

0.15
1.05
1.77
0.70

98

123t

25
41

18
31
8
9
167

0.50

127

16ot

17
242

21t

2.5

305.0

84
19
13
315

P/m.y.

0.25
0.76
0.65
1.18
2.19
1.10
0.61

BOOK REVIEW #2
Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy - a bookreview with a gender Jlerspcctive and a retrospection on
who was runningiNA
Reviewed bv Katharina von Sa/is, Geological Institute,
EJ'H-Z. CH-8 092 l iirich, Switzerland

1.86
9.00
1.30

Table 2: Co mpari son of numb er o f pa ges and pa ges per milli on
years represented in the three work s di scussed. *Onl y the pages _of
the ca lcareous nannofossi l cha pt ers. #Only that part of the Tn ass1c/
Mesozoic co nt ain ing cal car<!o us nannofoss ils. t umber of pages
when the size of the pages is taken into cons iderati on.

the fact that very few British nannopalaeontologists at thetime were involved in consulting for oil exploration firms
or engaged in the Deep Sea Drilling Project. The many
pages on the Cenozoic in 1985 were due to the personal
experience and preference of its author.
The total number of pages has nearly doubled from1982 to 1998, but is only a little higher than in the Bolli etal. (1985) volwne.
In conclusion:
Bown 's ( 1998) ' black book ' is an absolute ' must' for all
who perform biostratigraphy with calcareous nannofossils.
It replaces completely its predecessor (Lord, 1982) and toa very large extent the nanno-chapters in Bolli et al. ( 1985).
The editor and authors are to be congratulated to haveundertaken the task of giving us again an overview of the'stateoftheart' .

THANK. YOU.
Referenc es
Bolli , H .M. , Sa unders, J.B . & Perch-Nielsen , K. (Eds). 1985.
Plankton Stratigraphy . Cambridge University Press.
Calcareous nannofossils o n pages 329-554 . 1006- 1022 .
Bown, P.R. 1987 . Taxonomy, biostratig raphy, and evoluti on oflate Triassic-Early Jura ssic calcareous nannofossils. Spec.
Papers in Palaeont., 38: 1-11 8.
Bown, P.R. (Ed.). 1998. Calcareous Nmmofossil Biostratigraphy.
Chapman & Hall : 1-3 15 .
Bown, P.R. , Cooper, M.K. E. & Lord , A. R. 1988. A calcareousna nn ofoss il bio zonation sc he m e for th e ear ly to mid
Mesozoic. Ne wsletters on Stratigraphy, 20: 9 1-1 14.
B ralower, T.J ., Leck ie, R .M. , Sliter, W.V. & T hi erstein , H .R.
1995. Geochronology, time scales and global stratigraphic
correlation . SEPM Spec. Pub/., 54 : 65-79.
Lord , A.R. (Ed.). 1982. A Stratigraphical Index of Calcareous
Nannofossils. Ellis Horwood Ltd .: 1-192 .
N iel, B.E. van 1992a. New observations on the morphology of

Nm moconus. Knihovnicka Zemni plyn Nafta, Afisc. 14all:
73-85.
Niel, B .E. van 1992b. Early Cretaceous Namwco1ms (ca lca reous
nannofossil , incertae sedis) in NW Europe. U niversi ty College
London . Unpublished thesi s: 378pp.
N iel, B .E. van 1994. A review ofthe terminology used to describe

69

For the past seven yea rs I have, besides my work as ageologisllnannopalaeontologist, been involved in workfor equal opportunities for men and women at the Swiss
Federal Institute ofTechnology in Zurich (ETH-Z) . Here,of the - 12 000 students, some 25% are female while - 10%of the lecturers and 5% of the professors are female. The
fact that the nwnber of women has increased in many fields
of natural sciences over the past decades also in
Switzerland, is a positive development from the times, inthe early ,si:-..ties, when I was the only female student in the
Geology Departmen t of the Univers ity of Be rne .
Unfortunately, however, over the past 35 years, womenoften have not been able to get permanent positions intheir profession and they only rarely became professors.
Also, for some time now, I have tried to find thegender aspect, the women 's view, in earth sciences andhave not found much . I have, however, lived in thisenvironment with open eyes through the past nearly 40
years and ha ve experienced discrimination andencouragement as a woman tl1at men did not e:-..'Perience inthe same way. On the occasion of the ,International
Conference on the History of Geology' being held in
Switzerland in September, 1998, I boldly prepared an
abstract and presented, together with a female colleague
who had studied in the early 1960s in Zurich, a poster withthe title , Women in Earth Sciences in Zurich/Switzerland:
why women did not contribute much to earth sciences
uniil recently' (von Sal is & Franks-Dollfus, 1998). I decided
to give thi~ aspect some consideration as soon as I had
read the acknowledgements in Paul Bown's (Ed., 1998),Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy', the ,black
book', when reviewing it. I eventually decided to do this in
two contributions- a nonnal review (von Salis, tll.is volume)and in the present essay. Since this would have been very
short had I restricted my comments to the ,black book', I
decided to add some remarks about women and men in
INA and present some preliminary conclusions.
A look at the acknowledgements:
Ma ybe I have found myse lf a new sport:,acknowledgement-scrutinising with a gender
perspective' . The idea is to find out who thanks whom,
and why, and if the work of women thereby is hidden inacknowledgements instead of paying credit by including
them as co-authors. There are very famous precedents forsuch cases. Albert Einstein's wife, herself a mathematician,contributed much of the mathematics to his papers -later,