[Aqualist] abolition of the 'Quaternary System' by the ICS of IUGS - do something positive.

[James Shulmeister]

Apologies for Cross-posting,
 
If you are not yet aware of the background to the threat to the Quaternary System/Period please have a read through the correspondence from John Clague (president of INQUA) and Brad Pillans, that I have appended to the bottom of this email. Brad has proposed a compromise that would probably be acceptable to most of us but there is no guarantee that the International Commission on Stratigraphy of IUGS will listen UNLESS they are under the gun to do so. Quaternary workers form a significant percentage of all geologists (and please note that Quaternarists also include many non-Geologists).  We can exert pressure on IUGS to accept Brad's compromise (as an absolute minimum) by petitioning our national Geoscience Societies. 
 
I will send a letter to the Geological Society of New Zealand asking them to petition IUGS to 'save the Quaternary'. The draft text is below. I am sure that the arguments could be put more elegantly and I invite feedback on content. I also offer this letter to you either to sign on to, or to copy and modify for you to submit yourself to your own Geological Society. 
 
 
"Dear Committee of the Geological Society of New Zealand,
 
I/we note with dismay that the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) plans do discontinue the formal stratigraphic use of the Quaternary Period/System.  
 
The term 'Quaternary' has been in use since the 19th century and is widely understood by Geologists and non-Geologists to cover the last roughly two million years, a period which is marked by both rapid fluctuations in the climate and the noticeable impact of hominids on the planet.   The term Quaternary has a very wide currency. There are numerous national and international journals (Quaternary Research, J. Quaternary Science and Quaternary International to name just three), several departments of Quaternary science and these include biology and anthropology, as well as Earth Science. In fact, one of the defining aspects of the science of the Quaternary, is its multidisciplinary nature.
 
The abolition of the Quaternary as a formal stratigraphic unit by the ICS is unworkable because the Quaternary is MORE than simply another time/stratigraphic division - the term Quaternary defines a body of scientists and work that includes many geologists but extends far beyond the boundaries of traditional Geology. The abolition is inequitable because it has been proposed against the wishes of the vast majority of scientists who work in the Quaternary, including the peak body for those scientist who work in the Quaternary, INQUA.
 
The abolition will cause massive confusion in the literature as there is an enormous volume of published material which uses the Quaternary as a stratigraphic system/period. We note that for radiocarbon we still use Libby half-lives specifically because of the confusion that would have been caused if the half-life had been changed after a few decades of usage. Furthermore, the new terminology will simply not be followed by non-geologically based Quaternarists and indeed, I/we have no intention of recognising the abolition of the term and will continue to use it both as a formal stratigraphic term and most importantly as the definition of my/our science.
 
While most of us would prefer for the usage of the Quaternary to continue without modification, we are amenable to a compromise proposal developed by  Dr Brad Pillans (INQUA Stratigraphy & Chronology Commission) to convert the Quaternary to a sub-system/sub-period under the Neogene. This proposal is appended.
 
We call on the New Zealand Geological Society to strongly represent our views to IUGS. I/we call on NZGS to support Dr Bradley Pillans compromise on a Quaternary sub-System/sub-Period to ICS and IUGS.
 
Yours sincerely,"
 
 
 
 
 
Jamie Shulmeister
Associate Professor (Quaternary Geology)
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Canterbury
Christchurch
Private Bag 4800
New Zealand
 
fax +64-3-364 2769
work phone +64-3-364 2762
Home phone +64-3-351 1244
 
APOLOGIES FOR CROSS-POSTING
 
Colleagues -
 
The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), under the auspices of IUGS and ICSU, is revising the Geological Time Scale. A proposed revision of great consequence to the Quaternary community is an extension of the Neogene System to the present. The Pleistocene and Holocene would be retained as Series, but the Quaternary would be eliminated as a System. An argument made by ICS is that the "Quaternary" and "Tertiary" are archaic terms. Elimination of Quaternary as a System is clearly a highly charged issue, but ICS seems determined to make the change, whether or not Quaternarists agree.
 
INQUA does not accept the elimination of the word "Quaternary" from the Geological Time Scale. Accordingly, its Commission on Stratigraphy and Geochronology has suggested a compromise to the INQUA Executive Committee that may or may not be acceptable to both the larger Quaternary community and ICS (see following letter and proposal from Brad Pillans). The gist of the proposal is to define a Quaternary Subsystem that encompasses the present Pleistocene and Holocene Series, as well as the Gelasian Stage (2.6-1.8 Ma). Under this proposal, the boundaries of the Pleistocene and Holocene would remain unchanged.
 
The INQUA Executive Committee ask for your feedback on this important issue. Please send your comments to John Clague (jclague at sfu.ca) and Brad Pillans (brad.pillans at anu.edu.au).
 
 
INQUA Executive Committee:
John J. Clague
Nicholas Shackleton
Peter Coxon
Margaret Avery
Allan Chivas
Jan Piotrowski
Denis-Didier Rousseau
An Zhiseng
 
___________________________________________
 
Dear Colleagues,
 
The Geological Time Scale (GTS) is one of the great achievements in Earth Sciences. Recent revisions, and proposed revisions, are part of the ongoing mandate of the International Commission on Stratigraphy
(ICS) - see <http://www.stratigraphy.org/>www.stratigraphy.org.
 
One of the proposed revisions of the GTS is to extend the Neogene System (Period*) up to the present, thereby subsuming what is currently the Quaternary System (Period). While some may see this as a threat to the Quaternary, I see it as a wonderful opportunity to redefine the Quaternary in the way that we have wanted for some time, namely to extend the base downwards from 1.81 Ma (Plio/Pleistocene
boundary) to 2.6 Ma (base of Pliocene Gelasian Stage).
 
Let me speak plainly when I say that we (INQUA) have little hope of retaining the Quaternary System, above the Neogene System, as it is at present. The weight of support is too great, from within ICS, for extending the Neogene up to the present. Furthermore we have no hope of changing the Plio/Pleistocene boundary; we tried that in 1997-98, resulting in a most acrimonious debate between INQUA and ICS.
 
I believe that our best, and only reasonable course of action, is to grasp the opportunity presented to us, and redefine the Quaternary as a Subsystem within the extended Neogene System, with base at 2.6 Ma. Indeed, I have been asked to submit such a proposal to ICS. The proposal below is a draft for comment/discussion and, perhaps, for endorsement by INQUA. As recommended by ICS, I have tried to keep the document short and to-the-point.
 
A strength of the proposal, I think, is that it decouples the base of the Quaternary from the "blood sweat and tears" of the Plio/Pleistocene boundary.
 
The views expressed are my own, but I sense that they will be widely supported by Quaternary scientists. After all, this is a chance to extend our time domain by 800,000 years!
 
To reiterate, this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity - we are unlikely to get another opportunity to define the Quaternary the way we want it.
 
Brad Pillans, President INQUA Stratigraphy & Chronology Commission
 
_____________________________________________________
 
* "Period" is the geochronologic unit equivalent of the chronostratigraphic unit "System".
 
 
PROPOSAL TO REDEFINE THE QUATERNARY
 
In the revised geological time scale (GTS2004) Lourens et al. propose to extend the Neogene System (Period) up to the present, thereby making the Quaternary System (= Pleistocene + Holocene Series) redundant. See Figure 1.
 
Here I propose that the Quaternary be redefined as a Subsystem
(Subperiod) of the Neogene, and that its base be defined at the base of the Pliocene Gelasian Stage at 2.6 Ma (GSSP ratified - Rio et al. 1998. Episodes 21, 82.). After recent discussions by the ICS executive, in consultation with the IUGS executive, they have requested that the various formal stratigraphic groups of ICS and INQUA be asked to consider the proposal.
 
In support of the proposal for a Quaternary Subsystem (Subperiod), I note the following:
 
1.      There is overwhelming support from INQUA members, who I have
talked with, to retain the Quaternary as a formal chronostratigraphic unit.
2.      There is precedence for naming Subsystems in the GTS,
specifically the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Subsystems of the Carboniferous.
3.      Redefinition of the Quaternary will make use of an existing
GSSP (Gelasian Stage).
4.      Decoupling the base of the Quaternary from the
Plio-Pleistocene boundary (1.8 Ma) would, I believe, bring an end to the long-running arguments over the position of the Plio/Pleistocene boundary.
5.      A majority of INQUA members appear to favour a "long"
Quaternary (2.6 Ma) over a "short" Quaternary (1.8 Ma). In essence, the preference for a "long" Quaternary reflects perceived continuity of character over that time. For example, around 2.6 Ma, Chinese loess deposition becomes widespread and is substantially different in character to the underlying Red Clay (e.g. Ding et al. 1997. Quaternary International 40, 53).
6.      Around 2.6 Ma, deep sea oxygen isotope records show the
culmination of a series of cycles of increasing glacial intensity, also associated with the first major inputs of ice rafted debris to the North Atlantic. For many this marks the beginning of the "Quaternary ice ages". It also marks a change from precession-dominated to obliquity-dominated climate forcing.
 
In summary, the extension of the Neogene System (Period) upwards provides an ideal opportunity to redefine the Quaternary, as a Subsystem (Subperiod) of the Neogene. The proposal for a Quaternary Subsystem is consistent with popular usage, does not require a new GSSP, and will end the arguments about the Plio/Pleistocene boundary.
 
 
 
 
Jamie Shulmeister
Associate Professor (Quaternary Geology)
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Canterbury
Christchurch
Private Bag 4800
New Zealand
 
fax +64-3-364 2769
work phone +64-3-364 2762
Home phone +64-3-351 1244
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/aqualist/attachments/20040427/63c451a8/attachment-0001.htm