[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Geological timescale
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> David Marjanovic
> > So have we seen the last of Tertiary and Quaternary?
As Fangorn says, let's not be too hasty. Almost all the planet had already
abandoned the T and the Q a decade or three ago. However, the US Geological
Survey still accepts them (as well as the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian as
formal periods), so expect to see these remain in the American technical
> And the Vendian has been abandoned
> http://www.stratigraphy.org/prec.htm. :.-(
That was a decision I had already heard about. Bother. I still prefer
Vendian to Ediacaran.
> It's interesting they didn't introduce
> the Middle
> Cretaceous; as used in Glut's Supplement 3 (Albian + Cenomanian), it would
> make quite some sense, being bounded by two noteworthy mass extinction
The Middle Cretaceous has NEVER been formally defined and accepted by
stratigraphers, so Glut was rather foolishly following a number of
> BTW, the Holocene now began 11,500 years ago, not 10,000.
> I still haven't found why the K-T boundary is given as 65.5 +- 0.3. I
> suspect the discrepancy between U/Pb in zircons vs Ar...
As I said, Wait For The Paper... I mean, Book.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796