The Neogene and Quaternary : chronostratigraphic compromise or non-overlapping magisteria?

Author Posting. © Micropaleontology Press, 2009. This article is posted here by permission of Micropaleontology Press for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Stratigraphy 6 (2009): 1-16.The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) together with its subcommissions on Neogene Stratigraphy (SNS) and Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) are facing a persistent conundrum regarding the status of the Quaternary, and the implications for the Neogene System/Period and the Pleistocene Series/Epoch. The SQS, in seeking a formal role for the Quaternary in the standard time scale, has put forward reasons not only to truncate and redefine the Neogene in order to accommodate this unit as a third System/Period in the Cenozoic, but furthermore to shift the base of the Pleistocene to c. 2.6 Ma to conform to a new appreciation of when “Quaternary climates” began. The present authors, as members of SNS, support the well-established concept of a Neogene extending to the Recent, as well as the integrity of the Pleistocene according to its classical meaning, and have published arguments for workable options that avoid this conflict. In this paper, we return to the basic principles involved in the conversion of the essentially marine biostratigraphic/ biochronologic units of Lyell and other 19th-century stratigraphers into the modern hierarchical arrangement of chronostratigraphic units, embodied in the Global Standard Stratotype-section and Point (GSSP) formulation for boundary definitions. Seen in this light, an immediate problem arises from the fact that the Quaternary, either in its original sense as a state of consolidation or in the more common sense as a paleoclimatic entity, is conceptually different from a Lyellian unit, and that a Neogene/Quaternary boundary may therefore be a non sequitur. Secondly, as to retaining the base of the Pleistocene at 1.8 Ma, the basic hierarchical principles dictate that changing the boundary of any non-fundamental or “higher” chronostratigraphic unit is not possible without moving the boundary of its constituent fundamental unit. Therefore, to move the base of the Pleistocene, which is presently defined by the Calabrian GSSP at 1.8 Ma, to be identified with the Gelasian GSSP at 2.6 Ma, requires action to formally redefine the Gelasian as part of the Pleistocene. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the subject under discussion is chronostratigraphy, not biostratigraphy. Both systems are based on the fossil record, but biostratigraphic units are created to subdivide and correlate stratigraphic sequences. The higher-level units of chronostratigraphy, however, were initially selected to reflect the history of life through geological time. The persistence of a characteristic biota in the face of environmental pressures during the last 23 my argues strongly for the concept of an undivided Neogene that extends to the present. Several ways to accommodate the Quaternary in the standard time scale can be envisaged that preserve the original concepts of the Neogene and Pleistocene. The option presently recommended by SNS, and most compatible with the SQS position, is to denominate the Quaternary as a subperiod/subsystem of the Neogene, decoupled from the Pleistocene so that its base can be identified with the Gelasian GSSP at c. 2.6 Ma. A second option is to retain strict hierarchy by restricting a Quaternary subperiod to the limits of the Pleistocene at 1.8 Ma. As a third option, the Quaternary could be a subera/suberathem or a supersystem/ superperiod, decoupled from the Neogene and thus with its base free to coincide with a convenient marker such as the base of the Pleistocene at 1.8 Ma, or to the Gelasian at 2.6 Ma, as opinions about paleoclimatology dictate. If no compromise can be reached within hierarchical chronostratigraphy, however, an alternative might be to consider Quaternary and Neogene as mutually exclusive categories (climatostratigraphic vs. chronostratigraphic) in historical geology. In this case, we would recommend the application of the principle of NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magisteria, in the sense of the elegant essay by the late Stephen J. Gould (1999) on the mutually exclusive categories of Religion and Science. In this case the Quaternary would have its own independent status as a climatostratigraphic unit with its own subdivisions based on climatic criteria

What, if anything, is Quaternary?

The formal recognition of Quaternary as a Period/ System was approved by IUGS in June 2009, in accordance with a proposal originated by INQUA. There are reasons to believe that this will have destabilizing consequences for the geological time scale. Until now, the primary divisions of the stratigraphic record, at the Period level and above, have been based on the progressive change of Earth’s biota. The Quaternary, on the other hand, is a paleoclimatic concept based on glacial-interglacial variability, expressed in lithological change. The IUGS vote holds that this paradigm now supersedes the biochronological identity of the Neogene Period/System. Furthermore, to accommodate the most recent INQUA opinion about “when the Ice Ages began”, the ICS agreed to relocate the base of the Pleistocene to 2.59 Ma from 1.81 Ma, enlarging the epoch by 43% and again without regard for its original paleontological definition, or for the vast literature in other fields of Pleistocene research. If history is a guide, the resulting disruption in late Cenozoic marine and vertebrate paleontology, human evolution, paleoceanography and paleoclimatology will be widely resisted, with potential impact on the authority of IUGS. The consequence of abandoning basic principles in order to satisfy the interest of a special group deserves a wider consideration than it has so far received

Foraminifera and biostratigraphy of the Australian Maastrichtian and Paleocene

Typewritten391 leaves : plates, mapsThesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, Dept. of Geology, 196

Comments on some southern Australian foraminifera and description of the new genus Parredicta

Volume: 119Start Page: 99End Page: 11

Planktonic foraminiferal stratigraphy and datum levels of ODP Leg 182 sites

Planktonic foraminifers from Ocean Drilling Program Leg 182, Holes 1126B and 1126C, 1128B and 1128C, 1130A and 1130B, 1132B, and 1134A and 1134B confirm the neritic record that during the early Miocene the Great Australian Bight region was in a cool-temperate regime with abundant Globoturborotalita woodi. Warm marine environments started to develop in the later part of the early Miocene, and the region became warm temperate to subtropical in the early middle Miocene with abundant Globigerinoides, Orbulina, and Globorotalia, corresponding to global warming at the Miocene climatic optimum. Fluctuations between cool- and warm-temperate conditions prevailed during the late Miocene, as indicated by abundant Globoconella conoidea and Menardella spp. A major change in planktonic foraminiferal assemblages close to the Miocene/Pliocene boundary not only drove many Miocene species into extinction but also brought about such new species as Globorotalia crassaformis and Globoconella puncticulata. Warm-temperate environments continued into the early and mid-Pliocene before being replaced by cooler conditions, supporting numerous Globoconella inflata and Globigerina quinqueloba. Based on data from this study and published results from the Australia-New Zealand region, we established a local planktonic foraminifer zonation scheme for separating the southern Australian Neogene (SAN) into Zones SAN1 to SAN19 characterizing the Miocene and Zones SAN20 to SAN25 characterizing the Pliocene. The Neogene sections from the Great Australian Bight are bounded by hiatuses of ~0.5 to >3 m.y. in duration, although poor core recovery in some holes obscured a proper biostratigraphic resolution. A total of 15 hiatuses, numbered 1 to 15, were identified as synchronous events from the base of the Miocene to the lower part of the Pleistocene. We believe that these are local manifestations of major third-order boundaries at about (1) 23.8, (2) 22.3, (3) 20.5, (4) 18.7, (5) 16.4, (6) 14.8, (7) 13.5, (8) 11.5, (9) 9.3, (10) 7.0, (11) 6.0, (12) 4.5, (13) 3.5, (14) 2.5, and (15) 1.5 Ma, respectively. This hiatus-bounded Neogene succession samples regional transgressions and stages of southern Australia and reveals its stepwise evolutionary history