Author/Authors :
Knox، نويسنده , , R.W.O’B. and Pearson، نويسنده , , P.N. and Barry، نويسنده , , T.L. and Condon، نويسنده , , D.J. and Cope، نويسنده , , J.C.W. and Gale، نويسنده , , A.S. and Gibbard، نويسنده , , P.L. and Kerr، نويسنده , , A.C and Hounslow، نويسنده , , M.W. and Powell، نويسنده , , J.H. and Rawson، نويسنده , , P.F. and Smith، نويسنده , , A.G. and Waters، نويسنده , , C.N. and Zalasiewicz، نويسنده , , J.، نويسنده ,
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.
