THE PARASEQUENCE DEFINITION-ARE TRANSGRESSIVE DEPOSITS
INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
R.W.C. ARNOTT
Department of Geology, University of Ottawa and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, KIN 6N5 Canada
ABS~A~r: In only a few decades sequence stratigraphy has become one
of the cornerstones of modern stratigraphy. Although the sequence is the
principal stratigraphic unit, parasequences are the fundamental composite
building blocks. By definition, parasequences are typically upward-shoal-
ing successions that are bounded by flooding surfaces that form in response
to relatively rapid rises of relative sea level. In that definition little provision
is made for significant transgressive deposition during the time of flooding,
but transgressive deposits do exist in the geological record. Because these
deposits lie above the flooding surface and derive much of their sediment
from ~ansgressive erosion of the underlying progradational succession,
should the parasequence boundary not be moved from the underlying flood-
ing surface upward to the top of the transgressive unit? By doing so, the
underlying progradational unit and the overlying transgressive unit would
constitute one complete regressive-transgressive succc~ion. Nonetheless,
although appealing, the typical inability to easily, accurately, and consis-
tently identify the uppermost surface of the transgressive unit makes it an
untenable surface for stratigraphic purposes. As suggested by earlier work-
ers, therefore, the flooding surface, a readily identifiable surface that caps
the progradational package and consistently underlies transgressive de-
posits, is the most appropriate surface to bound the parnsequenec.
In any event, to ignore transgressive deposits is to ignore an important
component of the geological record-a record that not only provides insight
into transgressive depositional processes but also is one that can be eco-
nomically important. As a result, transgressive deposits need to be included
in the parasequenee definition, possibly only implicitly, but certainly not
explicitly excluded. Furthermore, the notion that parasequences typically
indicate progradationni deposition excludes examples where upward-fining
transgressive deposits (related to upward deepening) are present and lie
below the upward-shoaling (progradational) part of the same parasequence.
INTRODUCTION
During the last thirty years, and particularly the last decade, sequence
stratigraphy has evolved into one of the cornerstones of modem stratig-
raphy (Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier et al. 1988; Van Wagoner
et aL 1990). However sequence stratigraphy is only one of a number of
available stratigraphic tools; others include genetic sequence stratigraphy
(Galloway 1989), allostratigraphy (e.g., Walker 1990), and transgressive-
regressive stratigraphy (e.g., Embry 1993), but the fact remains that se-
quence stratigraphy is the most widely used, parlicularly by workers in
the petroleum industry. Although it has been argued that some if not most
of the present sequence stratigraphic concepts and associated terms are
not new (e.g., Sloss 1988;Weimer 1993), one of the strengths of the current
synthesis is that it provides a concise and comprehensive framework of
stratigraphic concepts and terminology. Also, the emphasis placed on
chronological rather than lithologic equivalence allows stratal observations
made in one area to be related to those in other areas.
Sequence stratigraphy is based mainly upon the recognition of bounding
surfaces that are interpreted to have chronostratigraphic significance(Van
Wagoner et al. 1988; Van Wagoner et al. 1990). In this framework the
depositional sequence is the fundamental unit and is bounded by uncon-
formities or their correlative conformities. Sequences boundaries are sur-
faces that in places show evidence of subaerial and/or submarine erosion
and a basinward shift oflithofacies (Posamentier et al. 1988; Posamentier
et al. 1992;Van Wagoner et al. 1988; Van Wagoner et al. 1990). Sequences,
JOURNALOFSEDIMENIARYRES~RCH,VOL.B65, No. 1, FERrUARV,1995, e. 1.-6
Copyright © 1995, SEPM (Societyfor SedimentaryGeology) 1073-1318/95/0B65-1/$03.00
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/65/1b/1/2811455/1.pdf
by Lund Univ Geobiblioteket user
in turn, are composed of parasequences that stack to form parasequence
sets. Typically parasequences are of the order of a few meters to a few
tens of meters thick (e.g., Van Wagoner et al. 1990, table 1), and hence
are similar in scale to the thickness of many outcrops. As a result, the
parasequence is a convenient unit for field observations. Van Wagoner et
al. (1988, 1990) defined a parasequence as a "relatively conformable suc-
cession of genetically related beds or bedsets bounded by marine-flooding
surfaces or their correlative conformities." Parasequences show an up-
ward-shoaling character that can generally be detected in the weathering
profile of an outcrop or the character of a geophysical log (Fig. 1). The
lithologic characteristics and areal extent ofa parasequence can be influ-
enced by a number ofautocyclic and allocyclicprocesses. Generally, locally
developed parasequences are controlled by autocyclic processes, such as
local sediment supply. More regionally extensive parasequences, on the
other hand, respond to larger-scale allocyclic processes, for example re-
gional tectonism and eustasy.
Parasequences are bounded by flooding surfaces. These surfaces form
during episodes of rising relative sea level when the rate of new (deposi-
tional) space created exceeds the ability of incoming sediment to fill it
(Posamentier et al. 1988). Across flooding surfaces there is stratigraphic
evidence indicating an increase in water depth-typically deeper-water
mudstones at the base of the overlying parasequence superposed on sand-
stone-dominated lithologies at the top of the older, underlying parase-
quence. Commonly, however, a transgressive unit is developed between
the top of the underlying parasequence and the upward-shoaling (progra-
rational) part of the overlying parasequence (e.g., Arnott 1987, 1993).
Typically the transgressive unit is thin, commonly only a few pebble
diameters thick, but as discussed below, can in some cases be thicker.
Presently, however, the definition of a parasequence (e.g., Van Wagoner
et al. 1990, p. 8) makes little provision for well-developed transgressive
deposits. The question to be addressed briefly here is: do these strata have
sequence stratigraphic significance,and if so should they be accounted for
in the definition of the parasequence?
TRANSGRESSIVEPROCESSES
During transgression, shorelines move landward. Depending mainly on
the rate of rise of relative sea level, how transgression takes place can vary
significantly, and this in turn can profoundly affect the characteristics of
the preserved stratigraphic record. In the literature three mechanisms have
been proposed to explain sand deposition during transgression: (1) shore-
face retreat (Swift 1975);(2) in-place drowning (Sanders and Kumar 1975);
and (3) transgressive submergence (Penland et al. 1988). While any one
or a combination of these processes is operating, the shelf is becoming
starved of new sediment-one of the principal reasons being that as the
shelf area expands the volume of new sediment being supplied per unit
area decreases. Becauseof the reduced sediment influx, one of the principal
sources of sand (_+ gravel) for transgressive deposition is cannibalization
of previously deposited sediment.
SHOREFACE RETREAT
When the rate of relative sea level rise is moderate to low the shoreline
transgresses landward by shoreface erosion (Swift 1975). This can be lik-
ened to a bulldozer blade, the base of which approximates the depth of
fair-weather wave base {commonly 5-15 m), the result being that some
 2 R.W.C ARNOTT

Fro. Z-Map showingthe locationof the two case studyareas: (1) Falher "D"
Pool of the Falher Member(Lower Cretaceous) in northwesternAlberta-north-
easternB.C.,(2) RockcliffeFormation(MiddleOrdovician)in the cityof Ottawa,
Ontario.

et al. 1988, figs. 13, 15). Sediment continues to be eroded by shoreface

erosion from the seaward side of the shoal and transported to the crest
Ftr. I.-Two stackedparasequencescroppingoutalongtheMissouriRivernorth and landward side. Accordingly, shoal sediments tend to become coarse-
of Great Falls {personfor scale);arrow points to the floodingsurface separating skewed as they are progressively winnowed of fine sediment, and in fact
the parasequences.Hypotheticalgamma-raylog is shownat the fight(sandstones could be termed lag deposits. Presumably, if local progradation resumed,
typicallyemit less radioactivitythan shales; therefore, as sandstonecontent in- the coarse transgressive shoal deposits would be buried beneath the sub-
creases the log profile deflects toward the left). In each parasequencenote the
sequent upward-shoaling succession.
increasein the sandstone:shaleratio reflectedin the weatheringprofile.
Van Wagoner et al. (1990) suggested that transgressive lags are rarely
part of the underlying deposit is reworked. During reworldng, fine-grained associated with floodingsurfaces not coincident with sequence boundaries.
sediments are selectively winnowed while coarse-grained sediments are Furthermore, these authors stated that if such lags are observed they are
preferentially concentrated and subsequently accumulated on the ravine- generally thin, "commonly less than 2 ft (0.61 m) thick". However, trans-
ment surface (commonly coinciding with the flooding surface). This de- gressive lags depend only on the nature of the erosive processes associated
posit is called a transgressive lag-a residuum of coarse-grained material with marine flooding, which in turn does not necessitate a prior relative
left behind after fine material has been selectively winnowed (Bates and sea level fall. In addition, these deposits can occasionally attain thicknesses
Jackson 1980, p. 346). of the order of a few meters (see below); it is also important to note that
transgressive deposits need not always be coarse-grained lags. Recently,
IN-PLACEDROWNING Posamentier and Allen (1993) described relatively fine-grained transgres-
sive deposits they termed the "healing phase deposits". During trans-
This describes a process whereby a transgressive barrier/lagoon system gression these strata are deposited in a relatively distal shelf setting and
initially aggrades upward in response to rising relative sea level but is onlap the last clinoform surface of the older prograding shoreline. The
subsequently overcome (Sanders and Kumar 1975). As a result, the shore- term healing is used to imply that transgressive deposition serves to infill
line steps abruptly landward, stranding the lagoon/barrier complex on the the steeply dipping part of the shelf inherited from the earlier prograda-
shelf. Depending on the degree of subsequent marine reworking, some if tional phase, and to reestablish a lower-gradient, equilibrium shelf profile.
not most of the several-meter-thick transgressive harrier complex will be It is important to note that emplacement of the healing-phase deposits is
preserved. coeval with deposition of shallower-water, coarse-grained transgressive
lag deposits.
TRANSGRESSIVESUBMERGENCE
CASESTUDIES
Recently, Penland et al. (1988) developed the concept of transgressive
submergence to address various aspects of the Holocene Mississippi River (1) The Falher Member of the Spirit River Formation (Lower Creta-
delta complex poorly explained by shoreface retreat or in-place drowning. ceous) is a major natural-gas producing unit in northwestern Alberta (Fig.
As pointed out by these authors, transgressive submergence is most ef- 2). The Falher"D" Pool contains gas reserves estimated at 160 Bcf(billion
fective in low-gradient coastal areas with a deltaic supply, undergoing rapid ft3) or 4.5 × 109 m' (Aruolt 1993). In this pool well-sorted conglomerates
relative sea level rise and subject to active marine (physical) processes. In abruptly overlie an upward-shoaling,sandstone-dominated succession(Figs.
this model, following an episode of delta-lobe abandonment, sediment is 3A-D) and are the principal gas-producinglithofacies(Amott 1993). Where
reworked by shoreface erosion and spread laterally to form a barrier-island they are well developed, conglomerates are commonly 2--4 m thick. Pre-
complex. Subsequently, because of subsidence and consequent shoreline viously, the well-sorted conglomerates of the Father Member were inter-
detachment, the barrier is progressively degraded, eventually becoming preted as beach gravels deposited at the top of a normal prograding shore-
submerged and forming a subtidal shelf shoal several meters thick (Penland line succession(e.g., Cant 1984). More recently, however,the conglomerates

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/65/1b/1/2811455/1.pdf

by Lund Univ Geobiblioteket user
 PARASEQUENCE DEFINITION AND TRANSGRESSIVE DEPOSITS
in the Falher "D" interval have been interpreted as transgressive lags
associated with local transgression (Arnett 1993). In this model, following
local delta-lobe abandonment thick, locally developed deltaic deposits,
composed mainly of sand with a minor proportion of gravel, were eroded
by shoreface retreat. Sand-size sediment became winnowed and trans-
ported from the area. Gravel-sized sediment, abundant only where dis-
tributary channels and mouth bars previously existed, became locally
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/65/1b/1/2811455/1.pdf
by Lund Univ Geobiblioteket user
3
FiG. 3.--A) Hummocky-cross-stratified lower-
most fine to very fine sandstone at the base of
an upward-shoaling parasequence; note the shal-
low-dipping sets separated by a low-angle trun-
cation surface, the onlap of laminae onto the
scour surface, and the upward-fanning of lami-
nae- characteristic features of HCS. These de-
posits are indicative ofa lower-shoreface depo-
sitional environment (core located at 6-30-69-
13W6; core is 10 cm in diameter). B) Medium-
scale cross-stratified upper fine to medium sand-
stone (core located at l 1-7-68-12W6; core is l0
cm in diameter). The coarse sandstone bed at
the base of the photo and the pebbly sandstone
at the top most probably represent two discrete
storm deposits. Medium-scale cross-stratified
medium sandstone represents normal upper-
shoreface depositional conditions. C) Well-sort-
ed, granule sandstone/fine-pebble clast-support-
ed conglomerate. This lithofacies is interpreted
as a shallow subtidal transgressive deposit and
represents the primary reservoir lithofacies (core
located at I 1-7-68-12W6; core is 10 cm in di-
ameter). Within the "D" Pool these transgres-
sive deposits are commonly 2....4 m thick. D)
The sharp contact (demarcated by the arrow)
between poorly sorted distfibutary-channel de-
posits and the well-sorted reservoir strata (core
located at 7-4-68-11W6; each core is 10 cm in
diameter). The contact represents a transgressive
surface of erosion (ravinement surface), which
in this example coincides with the flooding sur-
face (see Amott 1993 for discussion of lithofa-
cies and paleogeographic reconstruction). The
distributary-channel deposits are at the top of
the underlying parasequence and represent the
main source of pebble-size sediment during
transgression and development of the well-sort-
ed, conglomeratic transgressive deposit.
concentrated to form shallow subtidal shoals that developed on the ttood-
ing/ravinement surface. Locally these transgressive deposits are 2.-4 m
thick and represent the principal hydrocarbon-producing lithofacies.
(2) The Rockcliffe Formation (Middle Ordovician) is well exposed
throughout the city of Ottawa, Ontario (Fig. 2). In most places it is a
siliciclastic unit comprising a number of stacked, upward-coarsening ma-
rine successions. At one locality, a thick succession of fine-grained, small-
 4 R.W.C ARNOTT

FiG. 4.--A) Two stacked parasequences in the Rockcliffe Formation (knapsack for scale). The shale-dominated unit near the base of the uppermost, upward-
coarsening parasequence underlies the recessive, snow-covered slope in the center of the photo. The resistant sandstone in the lower part of the photo lies at the top
of the underlying parasequence. B) Small-scale (wave-ripple) cross-stratified fine sandstone near the top of the older parasequence. C) Interbedded silty shale and fine
to pebbly medium sandstone unit lying above the small-scale cross-stratified sandstone in B. This latter unit is 1.2 m thick and is interpreted to be a transgressive
deposit The flooding surface separating the units is indicated by the arrow. D) Detailed view of the transgressive unit. Because of the abundant shale interbeds the
transgressive unit weathers more recessively than the sandstone unit at the top of the underlying parasequence (see B). Note the thick silty shale bed (28 cm thick)
beneath the ruler. E) Close-up of the uppermost pan of the transgressive unit shown in D. The lower arrow points to the sharp contact between the thick shale bed
in D and the overlying intensely bioturbated, pebbly medium sandstone. The upper arrow points to the contact with the base of the recessively weathered (snow-
covered), shale-rich part of the upper parasequenee (see A). F) Hummocky-cross-stratified medium sandstone (arrows) interbedded with silty shales and siltslones in
the upper part of the upper parasequenc¢. Note the soft-sediment deformation in the silty shales below the uppermost HCS bed. The recessively weathered shale
sharply overlying the uppermost HCS bed marks the base of a third upward-coarsening succession (not discussed in this paper).

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/65/1b/1/2811455/1.pdf

by Lund Univ Geobiblioteket user
 PARASEQUENCE DEFHvTTIONAND TRANSGRESSIVE DEPOSITS 5

scale (wave-tipple) cross-stratified sandstone is overlain by a 1.2 m suc-

cession of interbedded silty shale and fine to pebbly medium sandstone
(Figs. 4A-C). In the latter unit shale interbeds thicken stratigraphically
upward. Sandstone interbeds, on the other hand, show litlle upward change
in thickness, although burrowing intensity increases and in the uppermost
beds completely obliterates all primary physical sedimentary structures.
This unit is overlain by a recessively weathered unit of shale several meters
thick with rare interbeds of hummocky-cross-stratified medium sandstone;
this unit coarsens stratigraphically upward (Fig. 4C).
This outcrop is interpreted to expose parts of two parasequences: the
wave-ripple cross-stratified sandstones are at the top of the older paras-
equence and the thick shales crop out near the base of the overlying
upward-coarsening parasequencc. The flooding surface separating the par-
asequences is interpreted to be at the base of the 1.2 m thick interbedded
unit, which in turn is interpreted to be a transgressive deposit. This in-
terpretation is based on two criteria: (1) straligraphic position of the unit
between two upward-coarsening successions, and (2) sedimentological
characteristics, namely the upward increase in shale-bed thickness and
intensity ofbioturhation in sandstone beds. Upward-thickening shale beds
are interpreted to indicate progressive deepening and (local?) sediment
starvation as transgression proceeded. Similarly, the upward increase in
burrowing intensity in sandstone beds is believed to be the result of trans-
gression. Because of lowered sedimentation rates, sand interbeds, most
likely deposited during significant storm events, were left exposed at or
near the seafloor surface for progressivelylonger periods of time, and hence
were reworked more extensively by burrowing animals.
F~. 5.-An upward-shoalingparasequeneeoverlainby a coarse-grainedtrans-
DISCUSSION gressivelag deposit. The two stratal packagesare separated by a floodingsurface
(arrow) coinciding~th the transgressiveerosion (ravinement)surface. The top
In the current definition of a parasequencc no provision is made for of the lag deposit, althoughreadily identifiable,may not coincidewith the point
transgressive deposits, which, if present, lie above the upper-bounding of maximumtransgression(i.e., maximumlocalwaterdepth). This point may be
flooding surface. Van Wagoner et al. (1990) justified this by suggesting somedistanceabovein the shaleunit, and thereforewouldbe ditficultto identify.
that transgressive deposits on flooding surfaces not coincident with se-
quence boundaries are uncommon in the geological record, and when
present are only thinly developed (up to several tens of centimeters thick). younger, upward-shoaling succession marks the termination of (local?)
However, as illustrated by the two case studies, transgressive deposits transgression and the onset of renewed progradation, and hence might be
associated with parasequence flooding surfaces can in some cases be thickly a better location to bound the parasequence. However, as noted above,
developed and in some cases economically important. Similarly, the Ho- although this surface marks the maximum landward incursion of the de-
Iocene transgressive shelf shoals in the Mississippi River delta plain (Pen- pocenter, in not all cases does it coincide with the maximum water depth
land et al. 1988) and the healing-phase deposits of Posamentier and Allen attained during transgression. On the basis of micropaleontological and
(1993) also indicate that transgressive deposits can be significantly thick. Rock-Evaluation data, the maximum depth is commonly some distance
Together these observations suggest that the definition of a parasequence above the upper contact of the coarse-grained strata within the overlying
might need modification in order to account for well-developed trans- shale package (D.A. Leckie, personal communication). As a result, it be-
gressive deposits, but the question is how, and also, is it necessary? comes very ditficult to easily and consistently identify the surface marking
To evaluate the possibilities, consider the two idealized successions the maximum water depth and the transition from transgressive to re-
shown in Figures 5 and 6. In Figure 5 the transgressive unit consists of a gressive sedimentation.
single coarse-grained lag deposit (similar to the Falher example). In the In the example shown in Figure 6 the transgressive deposit is charac-
current definition of a parasequence the transgressive unit is included in terized by a succession of interbedded sandstone and shale (similar to the
the overlying, or younger, parasequence, for the followingreasons: deposits Rockcliffe example). The sandstone interbeds show an overall upward
lie above the flooding surface, and they indicate an increase in water depth thinning related to progressive starvation of sediment on the shelf (e.g.,
(in relation to the pebbly sandstones at the top of the underlying parase- Posamentier and Chamberlain 1993, fig. 9). Again, identifying the top of
quence). The upper contact with the thick shale unit at the bottom of the the transgressive unit is difficult: is it taken at the top of the uppermost
overlying upward-shoaling succession marks the maximum landward in- sandstone bed, or at the top of a thicker sandstone bed stratigraphically
cursion of the depocenter during transgression, and hence the most starved lower in the succession, or at some indefinite position in the overlying
of sediment the area became before renewed progradation. It might seem shale package? In this situation, choosing the position of the surface is
more intuitive and sedimentologically sensible to include the transgressive highly subjective, and as a result would be variously picked by different
unit with the older, underlying parasequence, because progradation of that persons.
upward-shoaling succession was terminated by the same transgressive In conclusion, it would appear that although appealing, the inability to
event that deposited the transgressive unit. As such, it might appear that easily, accurately, and consistently identify the top of the transgressive
there is a better genetic link made between these two depositional units, unit renders it untenable as an important stratigraphic bounding surface.
because together they constitute a complete regressive-transgressivecou- The flooding surface, on the other hand, is the least subjective surface of
plet (although the age of the regressive and transgressive deposits may all. This readily identifiable surface consistently underlies the transgressive
differ by millions of years). The contact with the shales at the base of the deposits, and also marks a fundamental sedimentological change, in this

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/65/1b/1/2811455/1.pdf

by Lund Univ Geobiblioteket user
 6 R.W.C ARNOTT
,'.7 . : : "* ." : "~" .'." :.1['|
•
:.. :.: .':.'.-':..:: ...-.::
• • •/._.,.
Fi6. 6 . - A n upward-shoaling parasequence overlain by an interbedded sand-
stone/shale transgressive unit. Again, the flooding surface (arrow) is easily iden-
tified, but the top of the transgressive unit is more problematic: is the top taken
to be the upper surface of the thinnest coarse-grained bed, or at the top of an
underlying 13ed? Moreover, is the lop of the transgressive unit in the shale unit
above the uppermost coarse-grained bed?
case a change from regressive to transgressive depositional conditions. As
a result, the most appropriate surface to bound the parasequence is the
flooding surface-a conclusion reached earlier by Van Wagoner el al.
(1988, 1990). Consequently, it would appear that no specific provision
needs to be made for transgressive deposits in the parasequence definition.
Nevertheless, to consciously dismiss transgressive deposits as Van Wag-
oner et al. (1990) do is to ignore an important component of the sedi-
mentary record. Although typically thinly developed, transgressive de-
posits are the main source of geological data for unraveling the history of
transgression and transgressive deposition. Moreover, when more thickly
developed, as shown by the Faiher example, transgressive deposits can be
significant hydrocarbon reservoirs. For all these reasons, transgressive
strata must surely be accounted for in the parasequence definition, perhaps
only implicitly, but most certainly not explicitly excluded. Finally, irre-
spective of their thickness, transgressive deposits lie above the flooding
surface, and by definition, therefore, lie at the base of the overlying par-
asequence. As a result, the notion that parasequences typically indicate
upward-shoaling progradational deposition, and typically coarsen upward,
excludes examples where upward-deepening, upward-fining transgressive
deposits lie below the upward-coarsening pan of the same parasequence.
Including the transgressive deposits in the underlying parasequence vio-
lates the current definition of a parasequence. Finally, it is important to
note that the parasequence concept has been addressed in the context of
wave-dominated shoreface successions only. Although similar arguments
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/65/1b/1/2811455/1.pdf
by Lund Univ Geobiblioteket user
might be raised from other depositional settings, they are beyond the scope
of this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I 'thank Drs. Henry Posamentier, Dale Leckie, Doug Cant, Jon Dudley, and
Journal editor John Southard for their helpful suggestions of an earlier version of
this manuscript. Also I acknowledge and thank the graduate students of GEO
5131 for their probing questions concerning parasequences when trying to apply
classroom theory to the "real" geological record. Finally, I thank the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada for its continued support of my
research.
REFERENCES
ARsorr, R.W.C., 1987, Sedimentologyof an ancient dastic nearshoresequence, LowerCreta-
ceous BootleggerMember,north-centralMontana [unpublishedPh.D. thesis]:Universityof
Alberta, Edmonton,Alberta, 267 p.
ARson, R.W.C., 1993, Sedimentologicaland sequencestmngraphicmodel of the Falher"D"
Pool, LowerCretaceous, northwesternAlberta: Bulletin of Canadian PetroleumGeology,v.
41, p. 453.-.463.
BATES,R.L., A~DIAC~SO~,J.A., EDS.,1980,GlossaryofGeology,2nd Edition:AmericanGeological
Institute, Falls Church, Virginia, 751 p.
CANT,DJ., 1984, Developmentofshoreline-shelfsandbodiesin a Cretaceousepeiricscadeposit:
Journal of Sedimenha~ Petrology,v. 54, p. 541-556.
EMsRY,A.F., 1993,Transgressive-regressive(T-R}sequenceanalysisof the Jurassicsuccession
of the SverdrupBasin,Canadian Arctic Archipelago:CanadianJournal of Earth Sciences,v.
30, p. 301-320.
G^LLOWAV,W.E., 1989, Genetic stmtigraphicsequences in basin analysis l: architecture and
genesisof flooding-surfacebounded depositionalunits: AmericanAssociationof Petroleum
GeologistsBulletin, v. 73, p. 125-142.
PE~t~D, S., BovD,R., A~t~SUTtR,J.R., 1988,Transgressivedepositiooalsystemsof the Missis-
sippi River delta plain: a model for barrier shoreline and shelf development: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology,v. 58, p. 932-949.
POS,~ME~XE~,H.W., ANDALLEN,G.P., 1993, Variability of the sequence straatigraphicmodel:
effects of Inca[basin factors: SedimentaryGeology,v. 86, p~91-109.
PO~hMtgrIER,H.W., ANnCHAMBEe~I~.C.J., 1993,Sequence-stmtigraphicanalysisof VikingFor-
mation Iowstandbeach depositsat Joarcam Field, Alberta,Canada, in Posamentier,H.W.,
Summerhayes,C.P., Haq, B.U., and Allen, G.P., eds., Sequence Stratigraphyand Facies
Associations:International Associationof SedimentologistsSpecial Publication 18, p. 469-
485.
POSAME~E~,H.W., ANDVAIL,P.R., 1988, Euslatic controlson elastic depositionlI-sequence
and systemstract models, in Wilgns,C.K., Hastings,B.S., Kendall,C.G.St.C., Posamenticr,
H.W., Ross,C.A., and Van Wagoner,J.C. eds., Sea-LevelChanges:An IntegratedApproach:
SEPM Special Publication42, p. 125--154.
POSAMtr,rnE~, H.W., ALLEr,,G.P., JAMES,D.P., ANDTESSON,M., 1992, Forced regressionsin a
sequence stratigraphicframework:concepts, examples,and exploration significance:Amer-
ican Associationof Petroleum GeologistsBulletin, v. 76, p. 1687-1709.
POSAME~SR,H.W., JE~V~,M.T., AnnVAIL,P.R., 1988, Euslatic controlson elastic deposition
l-conceptual framework,in Wilgus,C.K., Hastings,B.S., Kendall,C.G.St.C., Posamentier,
H.W., Ross,C.A, and Van Wagoner,J.C. eds., Sea-LevelChanges:An IntegratedApproach:
SEPM Special Publication42, p. 109-124.
SANDERS,J.E., and Ku~Ae, N., 1975, Evidence of shorefaceretreat and in-place "drowning"
during Holocenesubmergenceof barriers,shelfoffFireIsland,New York:GeologicalSociety
of America Bulletin, v. 86, p. 65-76.
SLoss,L.L., 1988,Fortyyearsof sequencestratigraphy:GeologicalSocietyof America Bulletin,
•~. 100, p. 1661-1665.
Swan, D.J.P., 1975, Barrier-islandgenesis: evidence from the central Atlantic Shelf, eastern
U.S.A.: SedimentaryGeology,v. 14, p. 1.-.43.
VaN W ~ e ~ , J.C., Mn~u~, R.M., C~Mnor~,K.M., Asp lb.aMA~tAN,V.D., 1990, Siliciclastic
SequenceStratigraphyin Well Logs,Coresand Outcrops:AmericanAssociationof Petroleum
Geologists,Methods in ExplorationSeries 7, 55 p.
Va~ WACON~,J.C., Posx~a~, H.W., MHC,UM,R.M., VaiL,P.R., S ~ , J.F., Lou~n,T.S., ~D
Ha~DES~Ot,J., 1988, An overviewof the fundamentalsof sequence stratigraphyand key
definitions, in Wilgns,C.K., Hastings,B.S., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Posamentier, H.W., Ross,
C.A., and Van Wagoner,J.C. eds., Sea-LevelChanges:An IntegratedApproach:SEPMSpecial
Publication 42, p. 39..-45.
WA~a~, R.G., 1990, Faciesmodelingand sequencestratigraphy:Journal of Sedimenlary Pe-
trology, v. 60, p. 777-786.
W s ~ , R.J., 1993, Sequenceslratigraphy-a historical l~'spective: AmericanAssocmtionof
Petroleum GeologistsBulletin, v. 77, p. 1578.
Received 14 April 1994; accepted 9 August 1994.