Talk:Quaternary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Quaternary is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
If anyone knows where the link to Arithmetic should go to, feel free to fix it. There does not currently appear to be a general Wikipedia article on arithmetic. Probably there is one under a synonym, but I can't think what it might be.
Perhaps the arithmetic version of quaternary might do better separate from the era? Whall we vote on disambiguation? Emperorbma
[edit] Status of the Quaternary
The exclusion of the Quaternary as a formal unit from the 'International Stratigraphic Chart' was premature and in fact an illegal action. The status of the Quaternary was subjected to a moratorium that had not been ended at the time the new chart was published (It still has not been ended).
So, the Quaternary is a unit that is not outdated at all, on the contrary.
Steps have been taken now to formalize 'Quaternary' as a full formal chronostratigraphic unit (as a system) that is underlain by the Neogene. So, the Neogene does NOT include the Quaternary. The base of the Quaternary should be the base of the Gelasian, that is assigned at its GSSP. The Gelasian will be included in the Pleistocene.
In this proposal the Cenozoic is subdivided into the Paleogene, the Neogene, and the Quaternary (that is in accordance with common use in many countries). The Quaternary includes the Pleistocene and the Holocene. The subdivision of the Pleistocene will be: Gelasian, Calabrian, Ionian and a 'Stage 4'. The latter has still to be defined. This subdivision is separate from the glacial/interglacial subdivision of the Quaternary.
I propose not to adjust wiki pages relating to Quaternary according to the above information because this still has to be ratified by IUGS (believed to be a formality). However, it seems quite sensible to me to delete or edit remarks accordingly (on all pages) that suggest that Quaternary should be 'outdated' (or something alike), which is definitely not true considering the 'illegal' status of the 'International Stratigraphic Chart'.--Tom Meijer 13:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anthropocene
As far as I know (but I can be mistaken) the term 'Anthropocene' was proposed by Russian geologists and was never used by others. --Tom Meijer (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not true as noted in the Wikepedia article on the Anthropocene. Go look at:
Zalasiewicz, Jan, and others, 2008, Are we now living in the Anthropocene?. GSA Today. vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 4-8. Geological Society of America. doi:10.1130/GSAT01802A.1
This article states that Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize–winning chemist, proposed, because of the global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development, proposed that we had left the Holocene and had entered a new Epoch, which he called the Anthropocene. Paul H. (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gelasian
In the Quaternary as it is described on the page, the Gelasian can't be a part of it. On the present page the Quaternary has a lower boundary at 1.8 Ma. This is where the Gelasian ends. So, in the present definition that is presented on this page, the Gelasian is in the Pliocene (Tertiary or Neogene). However, it should be noted that British geologists, as most other European (and many other) geologists consider the date of 2.6 Ma as the lower boundary of the Quaternary. They never accepted the error that was made in the Pleistocene GSSP where the boundary was placed at a level that was not intended by the decision of the 1948 International Geological Congress. In the British/Dutch 'tradition' the Gelasian, that was btw introduced very late in Italy (Note: rather well defined and used stages already existed long before this introduction in the North Sea Basin!) should be included in the Quaternary as a stage in the Lower or Early Pleistocene. In the not accepted (by the Quaternary community represented by INQUA) concept with the lower boundary at 1.8, the inclusion of the Gelasian in the Quaternary is not correct.--Tom Meijer (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
