Examining the case for the use of the Tertiary as a formal period or informal unit

Knox, R.W.O'B.; Pearson, P.N.; Barry, T.L.; Condon, D.J.; Cope, J.C.W.; Gale, A.S.; Gibbard, P.L.; Kerr, A.C.; Hounslow, M.W.; Powell, J.H.; Rawson, P.F.; Smith, A.G.; Waters, C.N.; Zalasiewicz, J.

Knox, R.W.O'B.; Pearson, P.N.; Barry, T.L.; Condon, D.J.; Cope, J.C.W.; Gale, A.S.; Gibbard, P.L.; Kerr, A.C.; Hounslow, M.W.; Powell, J.H.; Rawson, P.F.; Smith, A.G.; Waters, C.N.; Zalasiewicz, J.. 2012 Examining the case for the use of the Tertiary as a formal period or informal unit. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 123 (3). 390-393. 10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.05.004

[A][B][+][-]

Abstract

The ‘Tertiary’, omitted from IUGS-approved timescales since 1989, is still in common use. With the recent re-instatement of the Quaternary as a formal unit, the question arises as to whether the Tertiary too should be reinstated as a formal period, with the ‘Paleogene’ and ‘Neogene’ being downgraded to sub-periods. This paper presents arguments for and against this proposal, stemming from discussions by members of the Geological Society Stratigraphy Commission. It is intended to stimulate discussion of the topic in the wider community.

Documents