|
|||||
|
|
What status for the Quaternary? |
|
| Authors: | PHILIP L. GIBBARD ALAN G. SMITH JAN A. ZALASIEWICZ TIFFANY L. BARRY DAVID CANTRILL ANGELA L. COE JOHN C. W. COPE REW S. GALE F. JOHN GREGORY JOHN H. POWELL PETER F. RAWSON PHILIP STONE COLIN N. WATERS |
| Affiliation: | a Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKb Department of Earth Sciences, Sedgwick Museum, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKc Department of Geology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UKd Department of Earth Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UKe Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Swedenf School of Earth Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKg School of Environmental Science, Greenwich University, UKh Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, London, UKi Kronos Consultants, St. Albans, Herts, UKj Department of Paleontology, Natural History Museum, London, UKk Britsh Geological Survey, keyworth, Nottingham, UKl Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, London, UKm British Geological Survey, Edinburgh, UK |
| Abstract: | The status of the Quaternary, long regarded as a geological period effectively coincident with the main climatic deterioration of the current Ice Age, has recently been questioned as a formal stratigraphic unit. We argue here that it should be retained as a formal period of geological time. Furthermore, we consider that its beginning should be placed at the Gauss-Matuyama magnetic chron boundary at about 2.6 Ma, rather than at its current position at about 1.8 Ma. The Quaternary would be formally subdivided into the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs. The global chronostratigraphical correlation table proposed is enclosed at the back of this issue. |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 InformaWorld 等数据库收录！ | |