Who needs (lower Paleozoic) biostratigraphy?

In the 1970s, comic genius George Carlin pushed the limits of censorship with a popular routine regarding the seven words you cannot say on television. Similarly, one can argue that geologists currently seeking grants from major funding sources, at least in the USA, are well advised to avoid using certain words or phrases in their proposals: regional , taxonomy , geologic mapping , and, perhaps the worst of the lot, biostratigraphy . This is quite unfortunate because, in reality, we have barely begun to tap the correlation potential of species range data within Cambrian and Ordovician strata, especially those provided by the rapid evolution of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites through the early Paleozoic. Other groups have considerable biostratigraphic value in certain intervals and paleogeographic settings, but none rivals the aforementioned big three in their broad temporal and spatial range of utility. Over 95% of the lower Paleozoic system, series, and stage boundaries in current geologic time scales are zonal boundaries based on key trilobite, conodont, or graptolite species (Gradstein et al., 2004; Webby et al., 2004; Babcock and Peng, 2007). Consequently, the examples I provide to argue that the need for focused biostratigraphic research has never been greater, all involve use of the big three (especially trilobites, my specialty) in the Cambrian–Ordovician of Laurentian North America. A biostratigrapher specializing in a different taxonomic group, paleogeographic setting, or time interval, however, could probably make at least as strong a case for the untapped potential within his or her group. If biostratigraphy is so important, then why has it fallen into such disfavor, as reflected in limited prospects for funding of purely biostratigraphic research and diminishing representation of this discipline in the geoscience faculty of academic institutions and government agencies? Flessa and Smith (1997) and Plotnick (2008) presented disconcerting data …