DOCSLIB.ORG

PHANEROZOIC and PRECAMBRIAN CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHANEROZOIC and PRECAMBRIAN CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY 2016 PHANEROZOIC and PRECAMBRIAN CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY 2016 Series/ Age Series/ Age Erathem/ System/ Age Epoch Stage/Age Ma Epoch Stage/Age Ma Era Period Ma GSSP/ GSSA GSSP GSSP Eonothem Eon Eonothem Erathem Period Eonothem Period Eon Era System System Eon Erathem Era 237.0 541 Anthropocene * Ladinian Ediacaran Middle 241.5 Neo- 635 Upper Anisian Cryogenian 4.2 ka 246.8 proterozoic 720 Holocene Middle Olenekian Tonian 8.2 ka Triassic Lower 249.8 1000 Lower Mesozoic Induan Stenian 11.8 ka 251.9 Meso- 1200 Upper Changhsingian Ectasian 126 ka Lopingian 254.2 proterozoic 1400 “Ionian” Wuchiapingian Calymmian Quaternary Pleisto- 773 ka 259.8 1600 cene Calabrian Capitanian Statherian 1.80 Guada- 265.1 Proterozoic 1800 Gelasian Wordian Paleo- Orosirian 2.58 lupian 268.8 2050 Piacenzian Roadian proterozoic Rhyacian Pliocene 3.60 272.3 2300 Zanclean Kungurian Siderian 5.33 Permian 282.0 2500 Messinian Artinskian Neo- 7.25 Cisuralian 290.1 Tortonian Sakmarian archean 11.63 295.0 2800 Serravallian Asselian Meso- Miocene 13.82 298.9 r e c a m b i n P Neogene Langhian Gzhelian archean 15.97 Upper 303.4 3200 Burdigalian Kasimovian Paleo- C e n o z i c 20.44 306.7 Archean archean Aquitanian Penn- Middle Moscovian 23.03 sylvanian 314.6 3600 Chattian Lower Bashkirian Oligocene 28.1 323.2 Eoarchean Rupelian Upper Serpukhovian 33.9 330.9 4000 Priabonian Middle Visean 38.0 Carboniferous 346.7 Hadean (informal) Missis- Bartonian sippian Lower Tournaisian Eocene 41.0 358.9 ~4560 Lutetian Famennian 47.8 Upper 372.2 Ypresian Frasnian Units of the international Paleogene 56.0 382.7 Thanetian Givetian chronostratigraphic scale with 59.2 Middle 387.7 Paleocene Selandian Eifelian estimated numerical ages. 61.6 393.3 Colors are according to the Danian Emsian 66.0 Devonian 407.6 Commission for the Geological Maastrichtian Lower Pragian 72.1 410.8 Map of the World. Campanian Lochkovian Subdivisions of the Phanero- 84.2 419.2 Santonian Pridoli zoic (~541 Ma to Present) and Upper 86.5 423.0 Coniacian Ludfordian the base of the Ediacaran are P h a n e r o z i c P 89.8 Ludlow 425.6 Turonian h a n e r o z i c P Gorstian defined by a basal Global 93.9 427.4 Boundary Stratotype Section Cenomanian a l e o z i c P Homerian 100.5 Wenlock 430.5 and Point (GSSP ), whereas Albian Sheinwoodian the Precambrian units are 113.1 Silurian 433.4 Aptian Telychian Cretaceous formally subdivided by absolute 126.3 438.5 Barremian Llandovery Aeronian age (Global Standard Lower 130.8 440.8 Hauterivian Rhuddanian Stratigraphic Age, GSSA). 134.7 443.8 Stratigraphic information and Valanginian Hirnantian 139.4 445.2 details on international and Berriasian Upper Katian 145.0 453.0 regional geologic units can be Tithonian Sandbian 152.1 458.4 found on the websites of the Upper Kimmeridgian Darriwilian Geologic TimeScale Founda- 157.3 Middle 467.3 Oxfordian Dapingian tion 163.1 Ordovician 470.0 M e s o z i c Callovian Floian https://engineering.purdue.edu/s 166.1 Lower 477.7 tratigraphy and Bathonian Tremadocian Middle 168.3 485.4 the ICS www.stratigraphy.org. Bajocian Stage 10 170.3 489.5 Aalenian Jiangshanian This chart was drafted by Gabi Ogg Jurassic Furongian 174.2 494 Toarcian Paibian 183.7 497 Pliensbachian Guzhangian Lower 191.4 500.5 Sinemurian Series 3 Drumian 199.4 504.5 Hettangian Stage 5 201.4 509 Rhaetian Cambrian Stage 4 ~ 209.6 Series 2 514 Upper Norian Stage 3 ~ 228.5 ~ 520 Triassic Carnian Stage 2 237.0 Terre- ~ 530 neuvian * Anthropocene under discussion Fortunian 541.0.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wright and Cherns Supplementary Data Flat
    Wright and Cherns Supplementary Data Flat pebble conglomerates from subtidal settings (Fig. 2) PROPOSE SHELF D AGE LOCATION FORMATION SETTING PROCESS AUTHOR(S) Subtidal within Mesoproteroz China, Hebei Gaoyuzhuang storm wave oic Province Formation base storms Luo et al. 2014 Proterozoic, NW Canada, Pre-Marinoan Mackenzie mid to outer glaciation Mountains Keele Fm ramp storms Day et al. 2004 Bertrand-Sarfati Gourma, bottom & Moussine- Vendian West Africa slope currents' Pouchkine 1983 Low energy Narbonne et al. Ediacaran South Africa Swartpunt Fm deeper ramp storm 1997 Canadian MacNaughton et Ediacaran Arctic Gametrail Fm subtidal ramp storms al. 2008 shallow Kyrshabakty carbonate high energy Heubeck et al. Ediacaran Kazakhstan Formation platform events 2013 Ediacaran - Lower carbonate Grotzinger & Cambrian Oman Ara Group platform Al-Rawahi 2014 Lower South Sellick Hill Mount & Kidder Cambrian Australia Formation subtidal storms 1993 Lower Bayan Gol Fm, shallow Cambrian W Mongolia Zavkhan Basin subtidal storms Kruse et al. 1996 Lower Shuijingtuo Ishikawa et al. Cambrian South China Fm subtidal 2008 Middle Canadian Dewing & Cambrian Arctic ramp Nowlan 2012 British Middle Columbia, Cambrian Canada Jubilee Fm Pope 1990 1 Middle Pratt & Cambrian Argentina La Laja Fm subtidal shelf tsunamis Bordonaro 2007 low energy Middle shallow Cambrian Australia Ranken Lst subtidal storms Kruse 1996 Middle Wyoming, Upper Gros Cambrian USA Ventre Shale Csonka 2009 middle upper Middle W Utah, upper Wheeler, carbonate belt - Cambrian USA Marjum fms subtidal shelf Robison 1964 Middle- Upper Supratidal to Cambrian NW China subtidal fpc storms Liang et al. 1993 Ust’- Brus,Labaz, Middle Orakta, Cambrian - Kulyumbe, Lower Ujgur and Iltyk Kouchinsky et Ordovician Siberia fms al.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of Natural History
    Timeline of natural history This timeline of natural history summarizes significant geological and Life timeline Ice Ages biological events from the formation of the 0 — Primates Quater nary Flowers ←Earliest apes Earth to the arrival of modern humans. P Birds h Mammals – Plants Dinosaurs Times are listed in millions of years, or Karo o a n ← Andean Tetrapoda megaanni (Ma). -50 0 — e Arthropods Molluscs r ←Cambrian explosion o ← Cryoge nian Ediacara biota – z ←Earliest animals o ←Earliest plants i Multicellular -1000 — c Contents life ←Sexual reproduction Dating of the Geologic record – P r The earliest Solar System -1500 — o t Precambrian Supereon – e r Eukaryotes Hadean Eon o -2000 — z o Archean Eon i Huron ian – c Eoarchean Era ←Oxygen crisis Paleoarchean Era -2500 — ←Atmospheric oxygen Mesoarchean Era – Photosynthesis Neoarchean Era Pong ola Proterozoic Eon -3000 — A r Paleoproterozoic Era c – h Siderian Period e a Rhyacian Period -3500 — n ←Earliest oxygen Orosirian Period Single-celled – life Statherian Period -4000 — ←Earliest life Mesoproterozoic Era H Calymmian Period a water – d e Ectasian Period a ←Earliest water Stenian Period -4500 — n ←Earth (−4540) (million years ago) Clickable Neoproterozoic Era ( Tonian Period Cryogenian Period Ediacaran Period Phanerozoic Eon Paleozoic Era Cambrian Period Ordovician Period Silurian Period Devonian Period Carboniferous Period Permian Period Mesozoic Era Triassic Period Jurassic Period Cretaceous Period Cenozoic Era Paleogene Period Neogene Period Quaternary Period Etymology of period names References See also External links Dating of the Geologic record The Geologic record is the strata (layers) of rock in the planet's crust and the science of geology is much concerned with the age and origin of all rocks to determine the history and formation of Earth and to understand the forces that have acted upon it.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Gssps Render Dual Time-Rock/Time Classification and Nomenclature Redundant?
    Do GSSPs render dual time-rock/time classification and nomenclature redundant? Ismael Ferrusquía-Villafranca1 Robert M. Easton2 and Donald E. Owen3 1Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, México, DF, MEX, 45100, e-mail: [email protected] 2Ontario Geological Survey, Precambrian Geoscience Section, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, B7064 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5, e-mail: [email protected] 3Department of Geology, Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas 77710, e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: The Geological Society of London Proposal for “…ending the distinction between the dual stratigraphic terminology of time-rock units (of chronostratigraphy) and geologic time units (of geochronology). The long held, but widely misunderstood distinc- tion between these two essentially parallel time scales has been rendered unnecessary by the adoption of the global stratotype sections and points (GSSP-golden spike) principle in defining intervals of geologic time within rock strata.” Our review of stratigraphic princi- ples, concepts, models and paradigms through history clearly shows that the GSL Proposal is flawed and if adopted will be of disservice to the stratigraphic community. We recommend the continued use of the dual stratigraphic terminology of chronostratigraphy and geochronology for the following reasons: (1) time-rock (chronostratigraphic) and geologic time (geochronologic) units are conceptually different; (2) the subtended time-rock’s unit space between its “golden spiked-marked”
    [Show full text]
  • MARS DURING the PRE-NOACHIAN. J. C. Andrews-Hanna1 and W. B. Bottke2, 1Lunar and Planetary La- Boratory, University of Arizona
    Fourth Conference on Early Mars 2017 (LPI Contrib. No. 2014) 3078.pdf MARS DURING THE PRE-NOACHIAN. J. C. Andrews-Hanna1 and W. B. Bottke2, 1Lunar and Planetary La- boratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, [email protected], 2Southwest Research Institute and NASA’s SSERVI-ISET team, 1050 Walnut St., Suite 300, Boulder, CO 80302. Introduction: The surface geology of Mars appar- ing the pre-Noachian was ~10% of that during the ently dates back to the beginning of the Early Noachi- LHB. Consideration of the sawtooth-shaped exponen- an, at ~4.1 Ga, leaving ~400 Myr of Mars’ earliest tially declining impact fluxes both in the aftermath of evolution effectively unconstrained [1]. However, an planet formation and during the Late Heavy Bom- enduring record of the earlier pre-Noachian conditions bardment [5] suggests that the impact flux during persists in geophysical and mineralogical data. We use much of the pre-Noachian was even lower than indi- geophysical evidence, primarily in the form of the cated above. This bombardment history is consistent preservation of the crustal dichotomy boundary, to- with a late heavy bombardment (LHB) of the inner gether with mineralogical evidence in order to infer the Solar System [6] during which HUIA formed, which prevailing surface conditions during the pre-Noachian. followed the planet formation era impacts during The emerging picture is a pre-Noachian Mars that was which the dichotomy formed. less dynamic than Noachian Mars in terms of impacts, Pre-Noachian Tectonism and Volcanism: The geodynamics, and hydrology. crust within each of the southern highlands and north- Pre-Noachian Impacts: We define the pre- ern lowlands is remarkably uniform in thickness, aside Noachian as the time period bounded by two impacts – from regions in which it has been thickened by volcan- the dichotomy-forming impact and the Hellas-forming ism (e.g., Tharsis, Elysium) or thinned by impacts impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3.Pdf
    A Geoconservation perspective on the trace fossil record associated with the end – Ordovician mass extinction and glaciation in the Welsh Basin Item Type Thesis or dissertation Authors Nicholls, Keith H. Citation Nicholls, K. (2019). A Geoconservation perspective on the trace fossil record associated with the end – Ordovician mass extinction and glaciation in the Welsh Basin. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Chester, United Kingdom. Publisher University of Chester Rights Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Download date 26/09/2021 02:37:15 Item License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10034/622234 International Chronostratigraphic Chart v2013/01 Erathem / Era System / Period Quaternary Neogene C e n o z o i c Paleogene Cretaceous M e s o z o i c Jurassic M e s o z o i c Jurassic Triassic Permian Carboniferous P a l Devonian e o z o i c P a l Devonian e o z o i c Silurian Ordovician s a n u a F y r Cambrian a n o i t u l o v E s ' i k s w o Ichnogeneric Diversity k p e 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 S 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 n 23 r e 25 d 27 o 29 M 31 33 35 37 39 T 41 43 i 45 47 m 49 e 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 Number of Ichnogenera (Treatise Part W) Ichnogeneric Diversity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 n 23 r e 25 d 27 o 29 M 31 33 35 37 39 T 41 43 i 45 47 m 49 e 51 53 55 57 59 61 c i o 63 z 65 o e 67 a l 69 a 71 P 73 75 77 79 81 83 n 85 a i r 87 b 89 m 91 a 93 C Number of Ichnogenera (Treatise Part W)
    [Show full text]
  • Dating the Paleoproterozoic Snowball Earth Glaciations Using Contemporaneous Subglacial Hydrothermal Systems
    Dating the Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth glaciations using contemporaneous subglacial hydrothermal systems D.O. Zakharov1, I.N. Bindeman1, A.I. Slabunov2, M. Ovtcharova3, M.A. Coble4, N.S. Serebryakov5, and U. Schaltegger3 1Department of Earth Sciences, 1272 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA 2Institute of Geology, Karelian Research Centre, RAS, Pushkinskaya 11, Petrozavodsk 185910, Russia 3Department of Earth Sciences, University of Geneva, 13, Rue des Maraîchers, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland 4Geological Sciences Department, Stanford University, 367 Panama Street, Stanford, California 94305, USA 5Institute of Petrography, Mineralogy and Geology of Ore Deposits, RAS, Staromonetny per. 35, Moscow 119017, Russia ABSTRACT on the continent during the early Paleoproterozoic. As the Baltic Shield The presence of Paleoproterozoic glacial diamictites deposited was located at low latitudes (latitudes 20°–30°; Bindeman et al., 2010; at low latitudes on different continents indicates that three or four Salminen et al., 2014) when the low-δ18O hydrothermally altered rocks worldwide glaciations occurred between 2.45 and 2.22 Ga. During formed, reconstructed low δ18O (as low as −40‰) of original meteoric that time period, the first atmospheric oxygen rise, known as the water suggest low-latitude, snowball Earth glaciations, which is in line Great Oxidation Event (GOE), occurred, implying a potential con- with deposition of glacial diamictites at low latitudes (Evans et al., 1997). nection between these events. Herein we combine triple oxygen iso- Thus, by applying precise U-Pb geochronology to intrusions with low- tope systematics and in situ and high-precision U-Pb zircon ages of δ18O signatures from the Baltic Shield, we can directly date the presence mafic intrusions to date two episodes of snowball Earth glaciations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Community Effort Towards an Improved Geological Time Scale
    A community effort towards an improved geological time scale 1 This manuscript is a preprint of a paper that was submitted for publication in Journal 2 of the Geological Society. Please note that the manuscript is now formally accepted 3 for publication in JGS and has the doi number: 4 5 https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-222 6 7 The final version of this manuscript will be available via the ‘Peer reviewed Publication 8 DOI’ link on the right-hand side of this webpage. Please feel free to contact any of the 9 authors. We welcome feedback on this community effort to produce a framework for 10 future rock record-based subdivision of the pre-Cryogenian geological timescale. 11 1 A community effort towards an improved geological time scale 12 Towards a new geological time scale: A template for improved rock-based subdivision of 13 pre-Cryogenian time 14 15 Graham A. Shields1*, Robin A. Strachan2, Susannah M. Porter3, Galen P. Halverson4, Francis A. 16 Macdonald3, Kenneth A. Plumb5, Carlos J. de Alvarenga6, Dhiraj M. Banerjee7, Andrey Bekker8, 17 Wouter Bleeker9, Alexander Brasier10, Partha P. Chakraborty7, Alan S. Collins11, Kent Condie12, 18 Kaushik Das13, Evans, D.A.D.14, Richard Ernst15, Anthony E. Fallick16, Hartwig Frimmel17, Reinhardt 19 Fuck6, Paul F. Hoffman18, Balz S. Kamber19, Anton Kuznetsov20, Ross Mitchell21, Daniel G. Poiré22, 20 Simon W. Poulton23, Robert Riding24, Mukund Sharma25, Craig Storey2, Eva Stueeken26, Rosalie 21 Tostevin27, Elizabeth Turner28, Shuhai Xiao29, Shuanhong Zhang30, Ying Zhou1, Maoyan Zhu31 22 23 1Department
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Analysis of Article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth Is Young" by Jeff Miller
    1 Critical analysis of article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young" by Jeff Miller Lorence G. Collins [email protected] Ken Woglemuth [email protected] January 7, 2019 Introduction The article by Dr. Jeff Miller can be accessed at the following link: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5641 and is an article published by Apologetic Press, v. 39, n.1, 2018. The problems start with the Article In Brief in the boxed paragraph, and with the very first sentence. The Bible does not give an age of the Earth of 6,000 to 10,000 years, or even imply − this is added to Scripture by Dr. Miller and other young-Earth creationists. R. C. Sproul was one of evangelicalism's outstanding theologians, and he stated point blank at the Legionier Conference panel discussion that he does not know how old the Earth is, and the Bible does not inform us. When there has been some apparent conflict, either the theologians or the scientists are wrong, because God is the Author of the Bible and His handiwork is in general revelation. In the days of Copernicus and Galileo, the theologians were wrong. Today we do not know of anyone who believes that the Earth is the center of the universe. 2 The last sentence of this "Article In Brief" is boldly false. There is almost no credible evidence from paleontology, geology, astrophysics, or geophysics that refutes deep time. Dr. Miller states: "The age of the Earth, according to naturalists and old- Earth advocates, is 4.5 billion years.
    [Show full text]
  • “Anthropocene” Epoch: Scientific Decision Or Political Statement?
    The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement? Stanley C. Finney*, Dept. of Geological Sciences, California Official recognition of the concept would invite State University at Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90277, cross-disciplinary science. And it would encourage a mindset USA; and Lucy E. Edwards**, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, that will be important not only to fully understand the Virginia 20192, USA transformation now occurring but to take action to control it. … Humans may yet ensure that these early years of the ABSTRACT Anthropocene are a geological glitch and not just a prelude The proposal for the “Anthropocene” epoch as a formal unit of to a far more severe disruption. But the first step is to recognize, the geologic time scale has received extensive attention in scien- as the term Anthropocene invites us to do, that we are tific and public media. However, most articles on the in the driver’s seat. (Nature, 2011, p. 254) Anthropocene misrepresent the nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, which is produced by That editorial, as with most articles on the Anthropocene, did the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and serves as not consider the mission of the International Commission on the basis for the geologic time scale. The stratigraphic record of Stratigraphy (ICS), nor did it present an understanding of the the Anthropocene is minimal, especially with its recently nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart proposed beginning in 1945; it is that of a human lifespan, and on which the units of the geologic time scale are based.
    [Show full text]
  • Golden Spikes, Transitions, Boundary Objects, and Anthropogenic Seascapes
    sustainability Article A Meaningful Anthropocene?: Golden Spikes, Transitions, Boundary Objects, and Anthropogenic Seascapes Todd J. Braje * and Matthew Lauer Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 June 2020; Accepted: 7 August 2020; Published: 11 August 2020 Abstract: As the number of academic manuscripts explicitly referencing the Anthropocene increases, a theme that seems to tie them all together is the general lack of continuity on how we should define the Anthropocene. In an attempt to formalize the concept, the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) is working to identify, in the stratigraphic record, a Global Stratigraphic Section and Point (GSSP) or golden spike for a mid-twentieth century Anthropocene starting point. Rather than clarifying our understanding of the Anthropocene, we argue that the AWG’s effort to provide an authoritative definition undermines the original intent of the concept, as a call-to-arms for future sustainable management of local, regional, and global environments, and weakens the concept’s capacity to fundamentally reconfigure the established boundaries between the social and natural sciences. To sustain the creative and productive power of the Anthropocene concept, we argue that it is best understood as a “boundary object,” where it can be adaptable enough to incorporate multiple viewpoints, but robust enough to be meaningful within different disciplines. Here, we provide two examples from our work on the deep history of anthropogenic seascapes, which demonstrate the power of the Anthropocene to stimulate new thinking about the entanglement of humans and non-humans, and for building interdisciplinary solutions to modern environmental issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Soils in the Geologic Record
    in the Geologic Record 2021 Soils Planner Natural Resources Conservation Service Words From the Deputy Chief Soils are essential for life on Earth. They are the source of nutrients for plants, the medium that stores and releases water to plants, and the material in which plants anchor to the Earth’s surface. Soils filter pollutants and thereby purify water, store atmospheric carbon and thereby reduce greenhouse gasses, and support structures and thereby provide the foundation on which civilization erects buildings and constructs roads. Given the vast On February 2, 2020, the USDA, Natural importance of soil, it’s no wonder that the U.S. Government has Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) an agency, NRCS, devoted to preserving this essential resource. welcomed Dr. Luis “Louie” Tupas as the NRCS Deputy Chief for Soil Science and Resource Less widely recognized than the value of soil in maintaining Assessment. Dr. Tupas brings knowledge and experience of global change and climate impacts life is the importance of the knowledge gained from soils in the on agriculture, forestry, and other landscapes to the geologic record. Fossil soils, or “paleosols,” help us understand NRCS. He has been with USDA since 2004. the history of the Earth. This planner focuses on these soils in the geologic record. It provides examples of how paleosols can retain Dr. Tupas, a career member of the Senior Executive Service since 2014, served as the Deputy Director information about climates and ecosystems of the prehistoric for Bioenergy, Climate, and Environment, the Acting past. By understanding this deep history, we can obtain a better Deputy Director for Food Science and Nutrition, and understanding of modern climate, current biodiversity, and the Director for International Programs at USDA, ongoing soil formation and destruction.
    [Show full text]
  • International Chronostratigraphic Chart
    INTERNATIONAL CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CHART www.stratigraphy.org International Commission on Stratigraphy v 2015/01 numerical numerical numerical Eonothem numerical Series / Epoch Stage / Age Series / Epoch Stage / Age Series / Epoch Stage / Age Erathem / Era System / Period GSSP GSSP age (Ma) GSSP GSSA EonothemErathem / Eon System / Era / Period EonothemErathem / Eon System/ Era / Period age (Ma) EonothemErathem / Eon System/ Era / Period age (Ma) / Eon GSSP age (Ma) present ~ 145.0 358.9 ± 0.4 ~ 541.0 ±1.0 Holocene Ediacaran 0.0117 Tithonian Upper 152.1 ±0.9 Famennian ~ 635 0.126 Upper Kimmeridgian Neo- Cryogenian Middle 157.3 ±1.0 Upper proterozoic ~ 720 Pleistocene 0.781 372.2 ±1.6 Calabrian Oxfordian Tonian 1.80 163.5 ±1.0 Frasnian 1000 Callovian 166.1 ±1.2 Quaternary Gelasian 2.58 382.7 ±1.6 Stenian Bathonian 168.3 ±1.3 Piacenzian Middle Bajocian Givetian 1200 Pliocene 3.600 170.3 ±1.4 Middle 387.7 ±0.8 Meso- Zanclean Aalenian proterozoic Ectasian 5.333 174.1 ±1.0 Eifelian 1400 Messinian Jurassic 393.3 ±1.2 7.246 Toarcian Calymmian Tortonian 182.7 ±0.7 Emsian 1600 11.63 Pliensbachian Statherian Lower 407.6 ±2.6 Serravallian 13.82 190.8 ±1.0 Lower 1800 Miocene Pragian 410.8 ±2.8 Langhian Sinemurian Proterozoic Neogene 15.97 Orosirian 199.3 ±0.3 Lochkovian Paleo- Hettangian 2050 Burdigalian 201.3 ±0.2 419.2 ±3.2 proterozoic 20.44 Mesozoic Rhaetian Pridoli Rhyacian Aquitanian 423.0 ±2.3 23.03 ~ 208.5 Ludfordian 2300 Cenozoic Chattian Ludlow 425.6 ±0.9 Siderian 28.1 Gorstian Oligocene Upper Norian 427.4 ±0.5 2500 Rupelian Wenlock Homerian
    [Show full text]