A publication of SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology

The

SEDIMENTARYRecord

The

SEDIMENTARYRecord

Volume 4, No. 1March 2006

INSIDE: CHARLES D.WALCOTTPLUS: PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS: PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF SEPM

2006 ELECTION RESULTS PUBLISHING ETHICS

A publication of SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology

The Sedimentary Record

2 | March 2006


March 2006 | 3

4 Charles D.Walcott: A Few Comments onStratigraphy and Sedimentation

9 2006 New Council Members

10 President’s CommentsPlanning for the Future of SEPM?

11 2006 SEPM Sustaining Members

11 Council Comments

CONTENTS

EditorsLoren E. Babcock, Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 <[email protected]>Stephen A. Leslie, Department of Earth Science, University ofArkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204<[email protected]>Marilyn D. Wegweiser, Bucking Dinosaur Consulting; P.O. Box 243; Powell, WY, 82435; <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

SEPM Staff6128 East 38th Street, Suite #308,Tulsa, OK 74135-5814Phone (North America): 800-865-9765 Phone (International): 918-610-3361

Dr. Howard Harper, Executive Director<[email protected]> Theresa Scott, Associate Director & Business Manager<[email protected]>Bob Clarke, Publications Coordinator<[email protected]>Michele Woods, Membership Services Coordinator<[email protected]> Edythe Ellis, Administrative Assistant <[email protected]>

SEPM CouncilWilliam A. Morgan, President<[email protected]>Robert Dalrymple, President-Elect<[email protected]>Lesli J. Wood, Secretary-Treasurer<[email protected]>Serge P. Berne, International Councilor<[email protected]>Steven Holland, Councilor for Paleontology<[email protected]>Ron Steel, Councilor for Sedimentology<[email protected]>Vitor Abreu, Councilor for Research Activities<[email protected]>Kitty Lou Milliken, Co-editor, JSR<[email protected]>Colin P. North, Co-editor, JSR<[email protected]>Christopher G. Maples, Editor, PALAIOS<[email protected]>Laura J. Crossey, Co-editor, Special Publications<[email protected]>Donald McNeill, Co-editor, Special Publications<[email protected]>Tim Carr, President, SEPM Foundation<[email protected]>

www.sepm.org

On the Cover: Charles D. Walcott standing on the Burgess Shalequarry with a railroad pry bar, Fossil Ridge, between MountWapta and Mount Field, British Columbia, 1912. Photographfrom Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Group 95, Box 24.See article by Yochelson.

The Sedimentary Record (ISSN 1543-8740) is published quarterly by theSociety for Sedimentary Geology with offices at 6128 East 38th Street,Suite 308,Tulsa, OK 74135-5814, USA.

Copyright 2006, Society for Sedimentary Geology.All rights reserved. Opinionspresented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.

The Sedimentary Record is provided as part of membership dues to theSociety for Sedimentary Geology.


4 | March 2006

Charles D. Walcott:A Few Comments onStratigraphy andSedimentation Ellis L. YochelsonDepartment of PaleobiologyNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashington, DC, 20013-7012and U. S. Geological Survey (retired)[email protected]

ABSTRACTThroughout his career, Charles D.Walcott was a prodigious scien-tist.Although perhaps best known for his contributions to ourunderstanding of the Cambrian System, including discovery of theBurgess Shale Biota,Walcott made other important contributionsto stratigraphy and sedimentology that have had a lasting impact.Some contributions seem to have been quite deliberate, whereasothers may have been less conscious. Examples of his deliberatescientific efforts are: measuring and describing more than 8250 m(25,000 ft) of strata in Utah and Arizona; interpreting the origin oflimestone breccia and conglomerate within a limestone matrix;calculation of geologic time from rates of sedimentary deposition;and consideration of the Ozarkian and Canadian as time periods.An interesting contribution that may have been less obvious is theobservation that limestones could form quickly in shallow marinewater.

INTRODUCTIONThe name Charles Doolittle Walcott (1850-1927) is immortalized inthe geologic community as the discoverer of the Burgess Shale in1910 (Walcott, 1911), a Cambrian deposit of exceptional preserva-tion (Cover Photo, Figures 1, 2) whose study has altered forever theway that paleontologists interpret the fossil record (e.g., Whittington,1985; Conway Morris, 1989, 1998; Gould, 1989; Briggs et al., 1994;Yochelson, 2001). Paleontologists are aware of the importance ofWalcott’s description of the Burgess Shale fossils, beginning in 1911(Walcott, 1911), and also of his numerous and important contribu-tions to the study of early Paleozoic trilobites and brachiopods (seefor citations Briggs et al., 1994; Yochelson, 2001). Walcott not onlydescribed many of the early Paleozoic trilobite genera and speciesknown from North America up through the 1920s, but also was thefirst to clearly describe the appendages of trilobites (Walcott, 1876,1918).

The science of paleontology includes two important components, bios-tratigraphy and paleobiology. Walcott practiced both, but the emphasisthroughout his career was on biostratigraphy. Apart from the BurgessShale, he collected primarily to interpret the relative ages of rocks instratigraphic sections that he measured. Furthermore, he identified col-lections submitted by many others to aid their mapping and structural-geologic interpretations. Taphonomy as a subdiscipline of paleontologyhad not developed until the latter half of the twentieth century, butWalcott nevertheless developed arguments and conclusions that wecould, in retrospect, regard as early taphonomic work (e.g., Walcott,1898).

Other contributions of Walcott’s that had longstanding effects on thescience of geology were removal of “the Taconic period” from the geo-logic column; clarification and correction of what constituted LowerCambrian and Middle Cambrian rocks in North America; definitionof the base of the Cambrian System in North America at the lowestoccurrence of the trilobite Olenellus; and strengthening of a three-folddivision of the Cambrian System (see Yochelson, 2001). The practiceof using Lower, Middle, and Upper Cambrian was accepted worldwidefor more than a century. Ultimately, the tripartite division of theCambrian System was abandoned (Geyer and Shergold, 2000; Peng etal., 2004; Babcock et al., 2005), in large part because of the addition tothe Cambrian of a thick succession of strata below the first appearanceof trilobites (Landing, 1994; Palmer, 1998; Geyer and Shergold, 2000;Peng et al., 2004; Babcock et al., 2005).

In 1902, colleagues thought of Walcott as the third most importantgeologist in America (behind G. K. Gilbert and T. C. Chamberlin; seeYochelson, 2001). Unfortunately, much of the rationale for that viewhas disappeared from geologic consciousness. The purpose of thispaper is to review some of Walcott’s less well remembered contribu-tions to the science of geology in an effort to characterize the manwhose work has touched the careers of all sedimentary geologists thathave followed him. Walcott’s work as a field geologist was impressive,and his field studies are an appropriate place to begin documentationof his importance.


March 2006 | 5

PHANEROZOIC ANDOLDER ROCKSIn 1879, during his first season with the U. S.Geological Survey, C. D. Walcott started withLocke Level and barometer in the Paleogenelake beds of the Bryce Canyon region ofsouthwest Utah and measured downward tothe Cambrian, which was exposed near thelevel of the Colorado Canyon at the mouth ofKanab Canyon. This was 4290 m (13,000 ft)of section!

During 1881 and 1882, Walcott measuredsections and collected fossils throughout thePaleozoic section in the Eureka, Nevada, min-ing district. He published descriptions of thefossils in order to date the various units. Allthe fossils are reasonably well located strati-graphically, but only the descriptions of thefossils were published (Walcott, 1884). Oldthough it may be, this monograph is one ofthe principal sources of information onPaleozoic megafossils from the Great Basin.

In 1882-1883, Walcott “offset” his Kanab,Utah, section, about 70 km to the east andwent into the Grand Canyon for 79 days. Hebegan measuring downward at the Cambrianand added another 3960 m (12,000 ft) of sed-imentary rocks, plus 330 m (1,000 ft) of vol-canics, to his section (Yochelson, 1998). So faras I know, Walcott measured more of a contin-uous stratigraphic section than anyone, and Iam unaware of anyone who measured 8 km (5miles) of section.

Walcott’s work in the Grand Canyon (Figure3) serves as an exemplar of intellectual contri-butions that slip into sedimentary geology lit-erature almost unnoticed. Based on a fewscraps of fossils, primarily stromatolites,Walcott originally dated most of the GrandCanyon section as Cambrian (Walcott, 1883).Within a few years, he reconsidered andtermed them “pre-Cambrian” (Walcott,1886a, 1886b). Previous to this time,Archean was the name used for rocks below

the Cambrian. Archean strata were metamor-phics and intrusive igneous rocks that lookedas though they were ancient and highlyaltered. That a thick sequence of non-meta-morphosed sedimentary rocks, preserving stro-matolites, mudcracks, and other features typi-cal of Phanerozoic strata could actually existbelow the Cambrian was a novel concept forthe developing geologic time scale. Within afew years, the time term “Algonkian” was pro-posed for a large succession of these pre-Cambrian rocks (see for history Van Hise,1892). A major philosophical advance marksthe difference between references to the pre-Cambrian of the late1880s and the current useof the word Precambrian, but neverthelessWalcott’s recognition of a fossiliferous “pre-Cambrian” represented a sea change for thetime.

Three less far-reaching examples of Walcott’scontribution to sedimentary geology are dis-cussed below. Unfortunately, just as the signif-icance of his use of pre-Cambrian has beenoverlooked, these examples also have largelyfaded from the collective memory of geolo-gists.

CONGLOMERATES, BRECCIA,AND LIMESTONEDuring 1882 and 1883, Walcott made two,short, intensive trips to examine the Cambrianaround York, Pennsylvania (Walcott, 1892).One result was his observation of limestoneconglomerates and breccias within the early-middle Cambrian limestone sequence(Walcott, 1894). A prevailing view in stratig-raphy at the time was the importance of anunconformity. If an angular unconformitycould not be observed, a conglomerate wascommonly interpreted as evidence of a signifi-cant time break in the geologic history of anarea.

By documenting the presence of conglomer-ates and breccias within a sequence of appar-ently continuous sedimentation, Walcott wasdirecting caution to interpretation of one ofthe basic tenets of field geology. Following hispublication (Walcott, 1894), there was noobvious discussion either for or against theconcept that a conglomerate or breccia neces-sarily indicates a major unconformity. In part,this may have been because the only mecha-nism that he could propose for the transportof large blocks was rafting by sea ice, and thatlong-held concept was falling into decline.Walcott’s understanding of limestone con-glomerates was more than half a centurybefore the idea of turbidity currents sweepingdown continental slopes became an acceptedconcept.

Figure 1: Charles D. Walcott digging snow out of the Burgess Shale quarry. Fossil Ridge,between Mount Wapta and Mount Field, Canadian Rocky Mountains, British Columbia,1917. Photograph from Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Group 95, Box 24.


6 | March 2006

In regard to the far smaller chips of lime-stone, Walcott had a simpler mechanism. Heobserved on a Rhode Island beach that mod-ern sediments could form a hard crust rapidlywhich would then be broken into pieces andtransported by the incoming tide (Walcott,1895). The implication that limestone couldform in exceedingly shallow water, harden rap-idly, and be broken and transported was notpursued by him, nor did it register with othergeologists of the time. In terms of understand-ing the formation of limestones, howeverWalcott’s casual observation was decades aheadof its time.

GEOLOGIC TIMEThanks to the efforts of Lord Kelvin, the ageof the Earth was a major concern from the1860s onward. Kelvin’s ever decreasing timescale caused serious problems for the geologiccommunity. Geologists had notions of rates ofdeposition and erosion, but as an eminentphysicist, Kelvin had real numbers and formu-las to bolster his arguments. Walcott (1893)approached the problem by considering indetail how much limestone, shale, and sand-stone, was deposited in the western UnitedStates during the Paleozoic and proceedingfrom there. The method was not unique, buthis analysis was the most sophisticated in thisparticular line of inquiry. He gave no detailson where he obtained data for the Cenozoicand Mesozoic, although it can be assumedthat his measurements came from his 1879work on the Colorado Plateau.

Walcott’s (1893) suggested age was a mini-mum of 25 to 30 million years, and a maxi-mum of 60 to 70 million years for the post-Archean interval. “In conclusion, geologictime is of great but not of indefinite duration.I believe that it can be measured by tens ofmillions, but not by single millions or hun-dreds of millions, of years.” This seemed togenerate no discussion in literature from geol-ogists, and one may assume from this thatgeologists were generally satisfied with hisconclusion. Shortly thereafter, radioactivedecay was discovered and, about a decade afterWalcott published, the first radiometric dateswere being discussed. Apparently his effortwas never cited in a textbook and it rapidlyfaded from view, now being only an historicalcuriosity.

One aspect of Walcott’s exercise, however,should not be ignored. His figures for theduration of the three eras of the Phanerozoicmay be treated as a ratio of Paleozoic toMesozoic to Cenozoic. This ratio (12:5:2) wasstrikingly different from what was then cur-rent in the literature, but is almost identical to

that derived from the latest radiometric dates(Yochelson, 1989).

OZARKIAN AND CANADIANIn 1907, Walcott left the directorship of theU.S. Geological Survey and became Secretaryof the Smithsonian Institution. From his posi-tion with the Smithsonian, he then proceededto do field work in western Canada for almosttwo decades. If one ignores the Burgess Shaleand a few other geologic distractions, he basi-cally began study at the base of the LowerCambrian, systematically measuring sectionsand documenting fossils. Then he studiedMiddle Cambrian strata in a similar manner,proceeding on to the Upper Cambrian andthen the Ordovician. He just also touched onthe Silurian when he died in 1927. Manyyears later, a team of geologists from theGeological Survey of Canada, with stronglogistical support, including helicopters,restudied these rocks. Walcott had gotten toall the best sections and had correctly inter-preted the basic stratigraphic framework (J. D.Aitken, personal communication, 1993).About the time that Walcott began work inCanada, E. O. Ulrich began to forcefully pushhis concept of two new geologic systems, theOzarkian and Canadian, to fit between morerestricted concepts of the Cambrian andOrdovician (Weiss and Yochelson, 1995).Several eminent geologists of the past genera-tion have indicated to me in informal conver-sations that the Canadian might have beenaccepted as a system by North American geol-ogists, but Ulrich’s insistence on a still older“system” and his attacks on other worker effec-tively doomed his efforts.

Walcott’s was essentially the only prominentgeologist who used both of the proposed sys-tems in his publications. One may guess thatthroughout his career he was attuned to everfiner divisions of geologic time and thus wasof an open mind in further dividing thePaleozoic.

One aspect of Ulrichian geology was that itwas based on “layer cake” stratigraphy. Stratawere presumed to remain essentiallyunchanged in sedimentary character through-out the length of their outcrop. The notion ofa facies change in sedimentation of a strati-graphic unit was not acceptable. In Ulrichs’sview, seas from one direction deposited sedi-ment and then withdrew, to be followed byseas from another direction depositing a dif-ferent type of sediment. It was in this mannerthat a change along strike from limestone toshale could be explained away. Ulrich’s prosewas not easy to comprehend. What may bethe best exposition of Ulrichian notions is pre-

sented in a summary paper by Walcott (1927).Like many of the other examples of Walcott’swork given above, one cannot judge whateffect, if any, it had at the time, but Ozarkianand Canadian have disappeared as geologicperiods.

LEGACY AND CONCLUSIONSCharles Doolittle Walcott was a workaholicwho never paused between manuscripts. Interms of volume of paleontological publica-tion, he probably ranks among the three mostproductive paleontologists of the nineteenthor twentieth centuries (together with JoachimBarrande and James Hall). His laboratoryinvestigations were closely linked to his fieldwork. In the years since Walcott’s work waspublished, stratigraphic investigations havebeen refined, with new terms added, but thesubdivisions he identified and the thicknesseshe measured remain virtually unchanged.Likewise his paleontological work has beenclosely reexamined, yet the basic structure ofhis conclusions remain little changed. Despitemy investigations, I am still unable to fullyexplain how he was able to publish so muchresearch of such a high quality.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFor about half a century, I have been, off andon, pursuing the life and scientific efforts ofC.D. Walcott. I thank Chip Clark for provid-ing the photograph of Olenoides, and theSmithsonian Institution Archives for permit-ting the use of archival photographs ofWalcott. Use of the photos was arranged byEllen Atlers. I also thank the anonymousreviewers and editors for helping to improvethe manuscript and prepare it for publication.

REFERENCESBABCOCK, L.E., PENG, S.C., GEYER, G., and SHERGOLD,

J.H., 2005. Changing perspectives on Cambrian chronostratigraphy and progress toward subdivision of the Cambrian System: Geosciences Journal, v. 9, p. 101-106.

BARNES, L.G., 1979, Fossil enaliarctine pinnipeds(Mammalia: Otariidae) from Pyramid Hill, Kern County,California. Contributions in Science, Natural HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County, v. 318, p. 1-41. BRIGGS,D.E.G., ERWIN, D.H., and COLLIER, F.J., 1994. The fossilsof the Burgess Shale: Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C.

CONWAY MORRIS, S., 1989. Burgess Shale faunas and the Cambrian explosion: Science, v. 246, p. 339-346.

CONWAY MORRIS, S., 1998. The crucible of creation: The Burgess Shale and the rise of animals: Oxford University Press, Oxford.

GEYER G., and SHERGOLD, J., 2000. The quest for internationally recognized divisions of Cambrian time: Episodes, v. 23, p. 188-195.

GOULD, S.J., 1989. Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history: Norton, New York.


March 2006 | 7

Figure 2: Slab of Burgess Shale (Cambrian) showing two trilobites, Olenoides serratus Walcott, both retaining their calcifiedexoskeleton and their nonbiomineralized (originally chitinous) appendages. Exoskeleton of the specimen at lower right = 8 cm.Photograph by Chip Clark.


8 | March 2006

LANDING, E., 1994. Precambrian-Cambrian boundary global Stratotype ratified and a new perspective of Cambrian time: Geology, v. 22, p. 179-182.

PALMER, A. R., 1998. A proposed nomenclature for stages and series for the Cambrian of Laurentia: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 35, p. 323-328.

PENG, S.C., BABCOCK, L.E., ROBISON, R.A., LIN, H.L.,REES, M.N., and SALTZMAN, M.R., 2004. Global Standard

Stratotype-section and Point (GSSP) of the Furongian Series and Paibian Stage (Cambrian): Lethaia, v. 37, p. 365-379.

VAN HISE, C.R., 1892, Correlation papers - Archean and Algonkian: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 86, 549 p.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1876. Preliminary notice of the discovery of the remains of the natatory and branchial appendages of trilobites (advance printing [New York State Museum Annual Report, 1879]).

WALCOTT, C.D., 1883. Pre-Carboniferous strata in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, Ariz.: American Journal of Science, ser. 3, v. 26, p. 437-442, 484.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1884. Paleontology of the Eureka district: U. S. Geological Survey Monograph 7, 298 p.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1886a. Classification of the Cambrian system of North America: American Journal of Science, ser. 3, v. 32, p. 138-157.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1886b. Second contribution to the studies on the Cambrian faunas of North America. Cambrian faunas of North America: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 30, 369 p.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1892. Notes on the Cambrian rocks of Pennsylvania and Maryland, from the Susquehanna to the Potomac: American Journal of Science (third series), v. 44, p. 52-57.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1893. Geologic time, as indicated by the sedimentary rocks of North America: Journal of Geology, v.1, p. 639-676). [See Yochelson, 2001 for location and dates of subsequent reprintings].

WALCOTT, C.D., 1894. Paleozoic intraformational conglomerates: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 5, p. 191-198.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1895, The Cambrian rocks of Pennsylvania: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 134, 43 p.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1898, Fossil medusae: United States Geological Survey Monographs, no. 30, p. 1-201.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1911. Middle Cambrian Merostomata. Cambrian geology and paleontology II: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Contributions, v. 57, p. 17-40.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1918. Appendages of trilobites. Cambrian geology and paleontology IV: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Contributions, v. 67, p. 115-216.

WALCOTT, C.D., 1927, No. 4- Pre-Devonian sedimentation in southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, v. 74 (40, p. 147-143.

WEISS, M. AND YOCHELSON, E.L., 1995. Ozarkian and Canadian systems: Gone and nearly forgotten, in Cooper, J.D.,Droser, M.L., and Finney, S.C. (eds.) Ordovician Odyssey: Short papers for the Seventh International Symposium on the Ordovician System: Pacific Section of the Society of Sedimentary Geology (SEPM), p. 41-44.

WHITTINGTON, H.B., 1985. The Burgess Shale: Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

YOCHELSON, E.L.., 1989, “Geologic time” as calculated by C. D. Walcott: Earth Sciences History, v.8, p. 150-158.

YOCHELSON, E.L. 1998, Charles Doolittle Walcott, Paleontologist: Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio, 44242, 510 p.

YOCHELSON, E. L. 2001, Smithsonian Institution Secretary, Charles Doolittle, Walcott: Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio, 44242, 589 p.

Accepted 28 February 2006

Figure 3. Charles D. Walcott standing on Cambrian strata looking into the Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1915.Photograph from Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Group 95, Box 24.


March 2006 | 9

SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology 2006 New Council MembersPresident-Elect: Mary Kraus, University of Colorado, Boulder, ColoradoSecretary-Treasurer: John Robinson, Consultant, Littleton, ColoradoResearch Councilor: Christopher Fielding, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NebraskaInternational Councilor: Cam Nelson, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New ZealandPALAIOS Co-Editors: Stephen Hasiotis and Edith Taylor, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KansasSEPM Foundation President: Timothy Carr, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas

...and thanks to the outgoing council members for their serviceBill Morgan (ConocoPhillips)Lesli Wood (BEG, Texas)Vitor Abreu (ExxonMobil)Serge Berne (IFREMER)Christopher Maples (Desert Research Inst)

...and welcome to potential volunteer members

SEPM is always in need of member volunteers for standing committee and ad hoc special assignments. If you are interested in helping SEPM in its activities please contact:Robert Dalrymple (2006-2007 SEPM President - [email protected]) orHoward Harper (SEPM Executive Director - [email protected]).

SEPM 2005 Foundation Contributors$100 +C.S. Venable BarclayGerald BaumDonald BoydTim CarrDavid EbyWilliam FisherSteve FranksGerald Friedman

Bob GinsburgJonathan GoodwinBrian GreenwoodSusan LongacreRobert MabySal MazzulloHeather McDonaldJames McGhayDon McNeill

Mark Moody-StuartEd PicouJack PierceJanet PitmanJohn RobinsonJohn WarmeLynn WatneyRobert Weimer

SEPM Council and staff have accomplishedmany goals this past year. Council made theonline versions of JSR and Palaios the versionsof record and requested that members sub-scribe to the online versions, if feasible.Headquarters added two new staff members,Bob Clarke and Edythe Ellis. A new websitedesign that is nearing completion will providemore up-to-date information on SEPM activi-ties and have a web forum discussion page. Inaddition to these non-recurring activities,there were the regular activities and events towhich members are long accustomed - thepublication of journals and SpecialPublications, and the convening of the AnnualMeeting and several Research Conferences.Discussing and acting on these activitiesrequired a considerable amount of time andenergy on the part of the staff and Council,leaving little opportunity to discuss longerrange issues at the two Council meetings heldduring the year.

Given the pace of change today, a periodiclook at the direction and future issues affect-ing the Society is crucial to effective planningand setting of long-range goals for the SEPMstaff. The last SEPM strategy meeting wasorganized by Peter McCabe and DagNummedal in February 2002. Because mostof the key issues identified in that meeting hadbeen addressed (including the establishment ofa Society magazine, The Sedimentary Record),the time was right to hold another strategymeeting to plan for the future of the Society.In January, I convened a two-day meeting atthe Bureau of Economic Geology in AustinTexas. Howard Harper, Theresa Scott, andother staff members helped considerably withorganizing the meeting and collecting back-ground information on the Society’s activitiesand membership base. Use of the BEG’s facili-ties was facilitated by Lesli Wood and gra-ciously provided by Scott Tinker, the Bureau’sdirector and a long-time member and sup-porter of SEPM.

The two main topics of discussion were:1.) increasing our membership base and2.) defining the future objectives of theSociety’s publications.

The Society faces several challenges withregard to its membership. Approximately 75%of the membership is over 40. The staff hasmade recruitment of student members a priority and has been very successful over the

past two years, but retaining those memberswhen they become eligible for full member-ship is difficult. Retaining the Society’s oldermembers who may want to maintain ties toSEPM but in a less active role is also a chal-lenge. Another priority is increasing the mem-bership base from outside the U.S. Here arejust a few of the recommendations put for-ward at the meeting to address membershipconcerns.

• Establish a “ramped” fee for student mem-bers after they graduate, as a transition to thecost of full membership.

• Encourage student involvement in Societyactivities by appointing at least one student toeach of the Society’s committees.

• To retain older members, establish a lowercost membership category that would notinclude a subscription to one of the Society’sjournals, but would include a subscription toThe Sedimentary Record and other benefits.

• Utilize Sustaining Members as an advisorybody for Council.

• Remove the requirement for two referencesfor full membership, which is a hindrance forpotential international members.

• Investigate the financial feasibility of link-ing the cost of membership for those in devel-oping nations to the World Bank cost of livingindex.

• As part of the new website, offer a web-forum on sedimentary geology as a service tothe membership and to attract interest inSEPM.

SEPM’s publications are the public face ofthe Society, and their reputation is a signifi-cant reason that SEPM is held in such highesteem by the community of sedimentarygeologists. Continuing a record of scientificexcellence is, therefore, essential to theSociety’s long-term standing as a leader inadvancing the science. At the same time, theSociety must manage costs associated withonline and print publications. To address theseissues, participants at the strategy meetingmade several recommendations, including thefollowing.

• Establish publications subcommittees thatwould proactively identify topics and potentialauthors for the Society’s various publications.Examples include:

- Identify topics suitable for graduate level text books for the “Concepts” series.- Establish a field-trip guide series.

- Identify topics in sedimentary geology that have declined in prominence in SEPM publications (e.g., paleo-oceanography and glaciology).• Assign session chairs at the Annual

Meeting the responsibility for identifying talksor posters which have potential as journal arti-cles.

• Establish an e-publications transition com-mittee to monitor the Society’s e-publishingbusiness plan and advise Council on the rapid-ly changing developments in e-publishing.

Many additional topics were addressed atthe meeting, but there was considerableenthusiasm for enhancing member knowl-edge-sharing opportunities by organizing anannual research conference (“TwenhofelConference”) with a theme broad enough toattract a larger audience (100- 300 registrants)than the typical research conference and hold-ing a “field festival” in an area conducive tomultiple field trips.

Some of the recommendations stemmingfrom the strategy meeting are being carriedout now; others must be further studied byCouncil and Staff and are likely to be imple-mented in the near future; a few, if approvedby Council, will require a vote of the member-ship. Taken together, they provide SEPM witha direction for the next several years that willcontinue the Society’s preeminence in the fieldof sedimentary geology.

My thanks to those who participated in themeeting (listed below). Their enthusiasm forthe mission of SEPM and their willingness togive of their time have helped to ensure abright future for the Society.Vitor Abreu Don McNeillBrad Prather Edie TaylorJohn Anderson Bill MorganRick Sarg Lesli WoodBob Dalrymple Colin NorthTheresa Scott Laura ZahmHoward Harper Judy ParishRon Steel

If you have thoughts on the future directionof the Society, Council would be pleased tohear from you.

Bill MorganPresident, Society for Sedimentary Geology(SEPM)[email protected]

PRESIDENT’S COMMENTS

Planning for the Future of SEPM?


10 | March 2006


March 2006 | 11

Publishing EthicsSEPM is fortunate to receive a large num-ber of high-quality submissions to itsjournals. This is because authors recog-nize that science published in SEPM’sjournals receives extensive critical reviewthat strives to select only the best cutting-edge science for publication. However, arecent instance in which an article whichappeared in another major publicationwas largely reprinted in JSR has alertedthe SEPM community that not allauthors are willing to abide by the widely-accepted conventions for submittingmanuscripts to the Society’s journals.

Scientific publishing is an expensiveundertaking. Not only in the fiscal senseof the cost of production and mailing,but also in the sense of the huge, mostlyvolunteer effort that goes into manuscripthandling and review. For non-profit soci-ety publishers such as SEPM, the fiscalcosts of publishing represent the singlelargest expense shouldered by the organi-zation. Because it is in the Society’s inter-est to extract the maximum value for thisexpense, it is absolutely essential that ourlimited resources support only the mosthigh-value science. To identify the mostworthy science results, SEPM publica-tions are founded on the practice of peerreview, entailing the efforts of editors,associate editors, reviewers, and ultimate-ly, readers (who are sometimes compelledto write discussions!). A typical paper inJSR for example has been scrutinized byat least four individuals. The reviewersprovide detailed commentary on the sig-nificance of the work, the quality of thedata, and its presentation. An associateeditor also reviews the manuscript andreviews the work of the reviewers. An edi-tor evaluates the full package of materialand makes the decision to publish, or not.No paper appears in JSR without at leastone round of revisions in response toreviewer comments. It is not unusual forthe review package to approach or exceedthe length of the manuscript itself, repre-senting many hours of labor foundedupon years of scholarship. The value ofsuch a time-consuming filter is that it

promotes selection of the most com-pelling science, increases the quality ofthat science and its presentation, and pro-vides to the reader a level of trust in thematerial. Readers choose journals thatpractice peer review because they haveconfidence that the material has a highprobability of being new, valuable, andworthy of the time they will invest inreading it.

Obviously, in the system describedabove it is the expectation that authorswill only submit previously unpublishedmaterial and material that is not undersimultaneous consideration by other pub-lishers. To do otherwise would placeunjustified burdens on the limitedresources of the scientific publishingworld and would be a breach of that com-munity’s trust. All authors submittingpapers to SEPM publications must attestexplicitly that they are following theserules.

Authors who violate SEPM’s stated sub-mission policies, in essence, divertresources that could have been directed topublishing truly new results. Publishingduplicated materials also has the potentialto place the Society in the uncomfortableposition of having printed (even if unwit-tingly) another publisher’s copyrightedmaterial. Re-use of previously publishedfigures and verbatim text without cita-tion, even by the original author, is aform of plagiarism that risks sanctions.Lesser forms of duplication such as shin-gling (publishing highly overlappingpapers) also detract from the value ofpublication outlets and must be avoided.Readers should know that SEPM is unwa-vering in its intention to only publishnew results that pass the rigorous scrutinyof peer-review. Fortunately, the vastmajority of participants in the publishingprocess understands and supports thishonor system. Otherwise the systemcould not function. Abuse of this systemis a drain on SEPM’s resources and doesthe membership a disservice.

Kitty Milliken & Colin North, Co-editors, JSR

2006 SEPMSustainingMembersJohn B. AndersonSue BilbeyTimothy LawtonThomas E. EwingWerner BuggischBenedikt L. LehnerAlexander NagyCynthia VennDominic YapRobert LanderDavid L. RodlandVitor AbreuFranklin G. Yoris-VillasanaGeorge H. KeilJutta WinsemannAlan BresslerJulie TherienRichard G. BromleyMarshall C. CarothersKenneth W. CiriacksDavid EbyRobert N. GinsburgMary J. KrausR. P. MajorJames MarkelloWilliam A. MorganDag NummedalEdward B. PicouWalter C. PuseyJ. Frederick SargJon L. ThompsonPeter R. VailJohn R. SuterEdward L. SimpsonJohn D. BlochDonald F. McNeillChristopher G. MaplesNeil A. H. PickardWladyslaw P. Karpeta

COUNCIL COMMENTS

Documents

A publication of SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology