22 by Martin J. Head1, Marie-Pierre Aubry2, Mike Walker3,4, Kenneth G. Miller2, and Brian R. Pratt5 A case for formalizing subseries (subepochs) of the Cenozoic Era(a) 1 Department of Earth Sciences, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada. Corresponding author, E-mail:
[email protected] 2 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway NJ 08854, USA. E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected] gers.edu 3 School of Archaeology, History and Anthropology, Trinity Saint David, University of Wales, Lampeter, Wales, SA48 7ED, UK. E-mail: m.
[email protected] 4 Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales, SY23 3DB, UK 5 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK7N 5E2, Canada. E-mail:
[email protected] (Received: December 17, 2015; Revised accepted: August 12, 2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2017/v40i1/017004 Subseries/subepochs (e.g., Lower/Early Eocene, Upper/ into the Cenozoic time scale only in the 1970s, with the boundaries of Late Pleistocene) have yet to be formally defined despite stages adjusted to fit subseries, not the other way around. Aubry (2016) their wide use in the Cenozoic literature. This has led to provides a comprehensive history of the subdivision of series for the concerns about the stability of their definition and uncer- Cenozoic and their relationship to stages, the broader history of chro- tainty over their status that has led to inconsistencies in nostratigraphy having been outlined by Aubry et al. (1999) and Vai capitalization.