[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Resurrection of the Quaternary (was RE: Precisely Dating The KT Boundary)

Combined comments:

Bad, BAD Cenozoic stratigraphers! We let you get away with too much for too long! And now you want a period (or Sub-Era) whose
boundaries are NOT CONGRUENT with Stage boundaries!?!?

Oh, they are congruent with stage boundaries (Piacenzan-Gelasian). However, they still aren't congruent with epoch boundaries (it's within the Pliocene). Apparently the terrestrial and the marine Quarternary Researchers used the term in different ways, and here we get the marine one, based on the start of the ice age series...

I thought "P" was for "Permian". Wouldn't it be the K/Pg boundary? (Or
why not just the M/C boundary?)

Because C is the Carboniferous... :-°

Is the global Iridium layer unique? If so, I suggest "IL" as a substitute for "K/T" to avoid future modifications to stratigraphic nomenclature. Or, if not unique, but sufficiently unusual, then "IL1, 2, 3...". This assumes of course that no forward-looking scientists are going to change the names of the elements...

More and more such iridium-enriched layers are being discovered (IIRC all of them associated with at least stage boundaries and extinction events). The numbering would have to be revised all the time, or become very confusing.

No, iridium is not going to change the way e. g. columbium became niobium.