[taxesareforever]

From your referenced article: Once one has discovered that fossil A always comes before fossil B which always come before fossil C, etc., then when one finds an example of fossil B one can conclude that it probably is from a time intermediate to that of fossils A and C.

So, I guess you must believe that if a like fossil is discovered it automatically is catalogued in reference to previous fossils. Don't take into account cataclysmic actions such as volcanoes or tsunamis which could lead to fossils thousands of years apart but yet entered into the evo database as the same time.

[Dimensio]

So, I guess you must believe that if a like fossil is discovered it automatically is catalogued in reference to previous fossils.

Only in relevant terms, and only if found consistently with the previously established pattern. The pattern described requires that fossil A always comes before fossil B and that fossil B is always found to come before fossil C. Should a geologist uncover an example where fossil C appeared during or after the time of fossil B, the existing established lineage is overturned.

Don't take into account cataclysmic actions such as volcanoes or tsunamis which could lead to fossils thousands of years apart but yet entered into the evo database as the same time.

On the contrary. Such "catacylsmic actions" leave distinct marks in the geologic record, and thus fossils found in affected layers can be regarded with such upheaval in mind.