Redefinition of Quaternary, Pleistocene, Neogene & Pliocene

[Junxuan Fan]

7. SQS_response27Feb09

[Junxuan Fan]

22.a. Waters_GSLSC 03-16-09

[Junxuan Fan]

24. Gibbard_Tertiary03-18-09

[Junxuan Fan]

24.a. Tertiary proposal

[Junxuan Fan]

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:09:08 -0700
To: ICS-fullcommission
From: Stan Finney <scfinney@csulb.edu>
Subject: Q-N documents and voting date
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

To: ICS voting members

1) Frits Hilgen asked that the initiation of voting be delayed a couple of days to give supporters of the "Neogene" proposal time to craft a final statement. Some of those who wish to contribute to it have been traveling and thus available. Frits indicated that the statement will be submitted to me on the 20th (Friday), when I will distribute it. To give all voting members time to read this statement, I have decided to not send out ballots until the end of the day or the 23rd (Monday) or the morning of the 24th (Tuesday). Once ballots are sent, I ask that you give them your immediate attention and to return them as soon as possible. Given the three possible position, reaching a final decision will require at least two and possible three rounds of voting.

2) All documents, proposals, comments, and other statements distributed during our discussion session (now comprising 24 documents or groups of documents) are now posted on the ICS website (stratigraphy.org) where they can be viewed; all can be downloaded should you wish to do so.

Stan


--
*************************************************************
Stanley C. Finney, Chair
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University - Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840 USA
Phone: (562) 985-8637
FAX: (562) 985-8638
e-mail: scfinney@csulb.edu
Co-Director, Environmental Science & Policy Program
Chair, International Commission on Stratigraphy (IUGS)

[Junxuan Fan]

Dear Stan,

please find attached as promised our last comments for the open discussion. As you will see we propose a stepwise approach of our proposal as it should be considered on its merits apart from the complications of the various compromise options. These merits are the core of the proposal (with the Neogene up to the Recent, two Paleogene and Neogene Periods in the Cenozoic, and the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary at 1.8 Ma) as mentioned in the first paragraph of the letter. Only in a second step, in close consultation with the Quaternary community, should the question be addressed on how best to incorporate the Quaternary in a Cenozoic that has only two periods, Paleogene and Neogene.

The reason for the proposed approach might be clear because otherwise we are simply penalized for attempting to find an inclusive compromise ...

best wishes,

Frits

[Junxuan Fan]

26.a.SNS - last comments

[Junxuan Fan]

To: ICS Voting Members

Attached is a message from Frits Hilgen and a statement from the primary proponents of the "Neogene" proposal. Here they ask that the question of integrating the Quaternary into their preferred time scale scheme not be considered at this time. They ask that the "Neogene" proposal be considered as consisting only of the following: Neogene extending to the Recent, two Paleogene and Neogene Periods in the Cenozoic, and the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary at 1.8 Ma. And, they state that the scheme for incorporating Quaternary into their preferred time scale be deferred to a later date; thus, meaning that they do not wish to present such a scheme to the voting members now. I have difficulty with this because to me this is a significant change to their proposal immediately before the vote, and it appears to arise from the complexities of trying to incorporate the Quaternary into their "Neogene" proposal, as I pointed out in my statement of 03-12-09 (#18). The Neogene group has published a number of papers with variations on their proposal since 2005. They were invited to present their proposal at the discussion meeting in Oslo and also allowed to submit a formal written proposal, which they did and which we have had under consideration. And, it is only the submitted proposals, and the present, existing situation (Pleistocene defined by Vrica GSSP, Quaternary ratified as a period by IUGS EC) that were available for deliberation during the discussion period. Furthermore, in their proposal, the Neogene proponents already presented two alternative schemes for incorporating the Quaternary into their preferred time scale. I must ask what other scheme is possible, and, if another is, why hasn't it been presented before and why isn't it being presented now, or does it even exist?

The ballot for the first round of voting will be distributed Monday evening. It will include three proposals: present situation, "Quaternary" proposal, and "Neogene" proposal. Should the "Neogene" proposal be approved, following rounds of voting will take place to chose between "Neogene"alternatives.

Best wishes,
Stan
--
*************************************************************
Stanley C. Finney, Chair
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University - Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840 USA
Phone: (562) 985-8637
FAX: (562) 985-8638
e-mail: scfinney@csulb.edu
Co-Director, Environmental Science & Policy Program
Chair, International Commission on Stratigraphy (IUGS)

[Junxuan Fan]

Dear ICS Voting Members:

I have been in discussions over the weekend with John Van Couvering (representing Frits Hilgen) with regard to the proponents of the "Neogene" proposal requesting that the essence of the "Neogene" proposal be limited to 1) the Cenozoic being composed only of the Paleogene and Neogene periods/systems with the Neogene extending to the present and 2) the base of the Pleistocene Epoch/Series fixed by the Vrica GSSP. Should the "Neogene" proposal be approved by the ICS full commission, the "Neogene" proponents state that they would then enter into discussions with supporters of the Quaternary to find a compromise solution for including the Quternary in the time scale. I have refused this request because the Neogene and Quaternary subcommissions considered and voted on the "Neogene" proposal with a specific recommendation on the rank and extent of the Quaternary and with a division of the Pliocene into two epochs/series. And, we have been considering this proposal, along with the "Quaternary" proposal and the '"status quo" position for more than one month. The goal of the process that started with the open discussion meeting at the IGC in Oslo and the directive that was given to ICS by the IUGS EC has always been to determine the rank and extent of the Quaternary and the Pleistocene. The proponents of the "Neogene" proposal participated in these discussions and submitted a proposal with positions on the rank and extent of the Quaternary and the Pleistocene. To now want to change that proposal, when the time has come for ending the discussion and distributing the ballot, is unacceptable to me.

However, I made a mistake in my explanation of the "Neogene" proposal in my summary of the various proposals, which was distributed on 12 March (see 18. Finney's Views_02-12-09 posted on ICS website). In my explanation, I reviewed the implications to the rank and categories in the time scale for two alternatives of the "Neogene" proposal. In reading that proposal again today, I find that it recommends only one position on the rank and extent of the Quaternary, i.e., as a subperiod/subsystem, and also recommends subdivision of the Pliocene into two epochs/series termed Early/Lower Pliocene and Late/Upper Pliocene. Below I include a copy of the abstract of the "Neogene" proposal with the statements that present the recommendation underlined. My mistake arises from the fact that the "Neogene" proposal describes two possible alternatives for including the Quaternary in the "Neogene" scheme, and so do some of the papers submitted for distribution in support of the "Neogene" proposal. In addition, both schemes are shown together on the 2nd page of the proposal immediately following the title page and before the abstract. Yet, upon re-reading the "Neogene" proposal today, I find that it clearly recommends the single scheme mentioned above (see below). Nowhere in the "Neogene" proposal is there presented a scheme without the Quaternary. The second scheme that I described in my 12 March summary is much more complex than the one recommended because it involves not only subdivision of the Pliocene Epoch/Series into two epochs/series, but also replacement of the Neogene Period/System with two periods/systems. Thus, I ask that you disregard that part of my summary and focus instead on the simpler scheme, which was actually proposed.

Ballots will be sent out late this evening, Monday, 23rd March.

Best wishes,

Stan


Abstract copied from "Neogene" Proposal:
We propose that the Cenozoic Era comprises the Paleogene and Neogene Periods and that the Quaternary be a Sub-Period spanning the past 2.6 Myr. Our objective is an inclusive compromise respecting both the predominantly marine tradition of the Neogene, well-established as spanning the Miocene-Recent, and the predominantly continental tradition of the Quaternary, recently the subject of another expansion back in time, this time to 2.6 Ma (base of Gelasian Age).

There are several solutions, as tabulated here, but there are broadly three alternatives. (i) The Quaternary is equivalent to the Late Neogene. (ii) In a flexible chronostratigraphic hierarchy, the Quaternary (and Tertiary, if retention of this obsolete entity is desired) is (are) elevated to Sub-Era whilst the Paleogene and Neogene are Periods of the Cenozoic, not of the Tertiary. (iii) The Neogene comprises only the later Tertiary (Miocene and earlier Pliocene).

Our objectives, of respecting the two traditions, of inclusive compromise, and of conserving both Neogene and Quaternary, are met in both options (i) and (ii). Option (iii), favoured in the Quaternary community, meets none of our objectives and renders the Neogene irrelevant.

Although we reject that option of a decapitated Neogene, we appreciate those arguments by the Quaternarists based on Quaternary being very special - emergence of Homo (Pleistocene), explosion in technology and society (Holocene), even human impact (Anthropocene); and the correspondingly exponential increase in publications and citations as we approach the present. These very arguments can ensure that chronostratigraphic precedent and stability are not threatened by arrangements in the youngest 0.07% of the stratigraphic record, such as the flexible hierarchy in option (ii).

However, we recommend option (i) in this proposal. The Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary remains at 1.80 Ma as currently defined but the Pliocene Epoch is split into an Early Pliocene and a Late Pliocene Epoch reminiscent of Lyell (1833). This action maintains hierarchy in the global chronostratigraphic scale.



--
*************************************************************
Stanley C. Finney, Chair
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University - Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840 USA
Phone: (562) 985-8637
FAX: (562) 985-8638
e-mail: scfinney@csulb.edu
Co-Director, Environmental Science & Policy Program
Chair, International Commission on Stratigraphy (IUGS)

[Junxuan Fan]

28. Berggren_03-23-09