Reprinted from Episodes (2006, v. 29, no. 1, p. 43-45) GeoArabia, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2006. Gulf PetroLink, Bahrain A stable Cenozoic geologic time scale is indispensable Amos Salvador stable, standard geologic time scale is review covers 19 journals of extensive distribution, A indispensable for the clear and precise plus a considerable number of geologic maps, time communication among geologists; it is a basic tool scales, geology textbooks and the GeoRef. Together of geologic work. Considerable progress has been with an additional investigation of the mid‑20th made to achieve such a stable time scale. However, century geologic literature, it clearly reveals that during the last few years several proposals have the geologic time scale most widely accepted and been made to modify the Cenozoic section of the used has the Cenozoic Erathem/Era comprising the geologic time scale that threaten to destabilize it. Tertiary and the Quaternary systems/periods, with Seven articles published in Episodes since 2000 the Tertiary comprising the Paleogene and Neogene that could contribute to this destabilization are subsystems/subperiods. The Paleogene includes the discussed. They provide excellent examples of the Paleocene, Eocene, and Oligocene series/epochs, profusion of different terminologies, hierarchies, the Neogene comprises the Miocene and Pliocene and stratigraphic relationships that have been series/epochs, and the Quaternary includes the proposed: to eliminate the Tertiary and the Pleistocene and Holocene series/epochs (Figure 1). Quaternary or to raise their rank to suberathems; to extend the Neogene to the present, to make the However, during the last few years several Quaternary a formal subsystem of the Neogene, proposals have been made to modify this widely or consider it an informal stratigraphic unit; to accepted Cenozoic time scale, each contributing in eliminate the Holocene, and to decouple the base of different ways to destabilize it. Only those proposals the Pleistocene from the base of the Quaternary. If published in Episodes during the last 6 years will adopted, these proposals would cause nothing but be discussed in this note. They provide an excellent great confusion and controversy. They disregard example of the profusion of different terminologies, the clear preferences of geologists the world over as hierarchies and stratigraphic relationships proposed reflected by the terminology they have been using to modify the Cenozoic time scale. for many decades. Common sense would dictate the continued use of this terminology in its current, Proposed modifications to the Cenozoic widely accepted form. time scale INTRODUCTION Gradstein (2000) presented a Cenozoic time scale in which the Tertiary was eliminated and the Cenozoic There is no doubt that a stable standard geologic is shown as composed of the Paleogene, Neogene time scale – an international Standard Global and Quaternary systems/periods. Chronostratigraphic (Geochronologic) Scale – with precise numerical dates for its units and their Gradstein and Ogg (2002) and Gradstein et al. boundaries, to which every geologist in the world (2004) offered Cenozoic time scales in which both can refer, is a basic tool of geology, and indispensable the Tertiary and the Quaternary were left out, the for the advancement of geologic studies. Such a scale Cenozoic including the Paleogene and Neogene makes it possible for all geologists to communicate clearly and precisely among themselves and, as Erathem System and Subsystem Series a result, to cooperate effectively in working to (Era) (Period and Subperiod) (Epoch) decipher the geologic history of the Earth. Holocene Quaternary Notable progress has been made during the last 50 Pleistocene years in reaching such a stable standard geologic Neogene Pliocene time scale thanks to the work of the International Cenozoic Miocene Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) of the IUGS. Tertiary Oligocene Paleogene Eocene Regarding the Cenozoic time scale, the current Paleocene preference of the vast majority of geologists has been documented by an extensive review of the geologic Figure 1: The most widely accepted Cenozoic literature published since 1980 (Salvador, 2006). This time scale in current use. 155 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geoarabia/article-pdf/11/4/155/4565356/salvador.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 Salvador systems/periods, and the Neogene extending To eliminate the Tertiary and the Quaternary from to the present. Ogg (2004) also extended the the Cenozoic time scale clearly ignores reality. Neogene to the present but stated (p. 126) that the As systems of the Cenozoic Erathem, they are Quaternary “remains a very useful climate‑based too deeply rooted in the geologic literature to be chronostratigraphic term” that would be defined willfully eradicated. “as a ‘composite epoch’ (equal to the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs plus the Gelasian stage of As I recently documented (Salvador, 2006), Tertiary the Pliocene; or simply the geologic time interval is a stratigraphic term that has been used, and ‘younger than 2.6 Ma’)”. He added (p. 126): “This continues to be extensively used, with the same ‘composite epoch’ would have no formal placement meaning in all countries and regions of the world in the hierarchy of chronostratigraphic units”. from which I obtained information. Since 1980, Tertiary was used in the title, time scales, or in the Pillans (2004) also proposed to eliminate the Tertiary, legends of maps and cross sections of 3,037 articles and to extend the Neogene System to the present. in the 19 geologic journals reviewed. In the last 10 He retained the Quaternary as a formal subsystem years, 1,257 articles used Tertiary (Salvador, 2006, of the Neogene and included in it the Gelasian Stage p. 25). Tertiary was used in all geologic maps I of the Pliocene and the Pleistocene and Holocene reviewed, and in the vast majority of time scales. series. Aubry et al. (2005) presented a Cenozoic time In all cases, Tertiary was used as the lower system/ scale that includes the Tertiary and the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic Erathem/Era. as sub‑erathems/sub‑eras of the Cenozoic Erathem/ Era ‑ thus acknowledging the universal acceptance Past attempts to abandon the Tertiary have been and use of the Tertiary and the Quaternary by ignored. Recent attempts will also be ignored. The geologists from around the world. The Paleogene Tertiary has been, and continues to be, an extremely and the Neogene were shown as systems/periods, useful stratigraphic unit for discussing and with the Neogene extending to the present. The mapping stratigraphy at a local or regional scale, Holocene was apparently eliminated as the upper in surface or subsurface studies, in biostratigraphy, series of the Quaternary/Neogene. The base of the magnetostratigraphy, sequence stratigraphy and Quaternary was decoupled from the base of the many other fields of stratigraphic investigation. The Pleistocene, and the Quaternary, a unit of superior use of Tertiary by geologists from all over the world rank was shown as contained entirely within the has not declined in the last 25 years and does not Neogene, a unit of inferior rank. look like it is going to anytime soon. The Tertiary has passed with high marks the test of use over Finally, Suguio et al. (2005) proposed to eliminate the time. This is the reality of the status of the Tertiary in Tertiary and the Quaternary, to extend the Neogene stratigraphic terminology. to the present including the Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene but also omitting the Holocene and Gradstein and Ogg (2002) Gradstein Gradstein et al. (2004) Pillans Aubry et al. Suguio et al. extending the Pleistocene to the present. They added (2000) Ogg (2004) (2004) (2005) (2005) (p. 199) that it may be possible “to consider the Quaternary as an informal chronostratigraphic unit, RY RY HOLOC. HOLOC. HOLOC. whose beginning could be located at the base of the OCENE ? ? ? . Gelasian Stage, coincident with the commencement TERNA TERNA T. QUA of the Pleistocene Epoch at about 2.6 My”. Figure PLEIST PLEIST PLEIST PLEIST PLEIST QUA 2 shows the subdivisions by different authors QUA mentioned above. NEOGENE NEOGENE NEOGENE Are these proposed modifications PLIOCENE PLIOCENE PLIOCENE PLIOCENE PLIOCENE sensible and necessary? NEOGENE NEOGENE Y This profusion of proposals for different TIAR terminologies, hierarchies, and stratigraphic MIOCENE MIOCENE MIOCENE MIOCENE MIOCENE relationships does not help to achieve a stable, TER standard geologic time scale for the Cenozoic, particularly because most of the proposals ignore the terminology, hierarchies, and stratigraphic LEOGENE LEOGENE LEOGENE LEOGENE LEOGENE OLIGOCENE OLIGOCENE OLIGOCENE OLIGOCENE OLIGOCENE relationships that geologists worldwide have PA PA PA PA PA accepted and used for many decades, and continue Figure 2: The subdivision of Cenozoic time scale by to use today. different authors. 156 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geoarabia/article-pdf/11/4/155/4565356/salvador.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 A stable Cenozoic geologic time scale is indispensable In the review of the geological literature mentioned the geologic literature (Salvador, 2006), none of the above, I also found that Paleogene and Neogene publications extended the Neogene to the present. have seen increasing use during the last 25 years, mostly as sub‑systems/sub‑periods of the Tertiary So what would be preferable? System/Period, but also as systems of the Cenozoic when Tertiary has not been used. This