Quaternary: Status, rank, definition, survival

Marie Pierre Aubry*, William A. Berggren, John Van Couvering, Brian McGowran, Brad Pillans, Frits Hilgen

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    38 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The long controversy over the term 'Quaternary' as a chronostratigraphic unit may be reaching an apotheosis, judging from recent papers (Pillans and Naish, 2004; Gibbard et al., 2005; and references therein). The debate is no longer centered on whether there should be a place in the geological time scale for a unit termed 'Quaternary' - despite its dubious past, it cannot be denied that a large body of earth-historical research is strongly identified with this term. The challenge now concerns an appropriate rank and definition of Quaternary with regard to other chronostratigraphic units. Several options have been proposed (Pillans and Naish, 2004), and Gibbard et al. (2005) encourage a debate on these before decision is reached. In this brief note, we describe an arrangement not previously considered that seems advantageous. It is instructive, however, to first review the Pleistocene Series and Neogene System, the two units that are directly affected by introduction of the Quaternary into the chronostratigraphic hierarchy.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)118-120
    Number of pages3
    JournalEpisodes
    Volume28
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2005

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Quaternary: Status, rank, definition, survival'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this