Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy
You are in: Home
Retention of the term ‘Quaternary’
Today the term Quaternary (Desnoyers, 1829) is virtually identical in meaning to the term Pleistocene, although the Pleistocene (Lyell, 1839) is defined as having ended 10 000 radiocarbon years ago and is followed by the Holocene Series (which replaced ‘Recent’ in 1885) in which we still live. However, the term Quaternary has remained current because it efficiently describes the whole period, i.e. Pleistocene and Holocene. Retention of this term, determined by historical priority and long usage, is therefore essential because it identifies this specific period.
Of equal importance is that a substantial user community identifies itself with this period and considers itself distinct from the pre-Quaternary geological community. A vast number of Quaternary researchers are not geologists and do not approach stratigraphical nomenclature from the same theoretical base. Therefore, any move to ‘deformalise’ the term Quaternary will be met with considerable resistance. Worse still such a move might well be perceived as another example of an international body attempting to dictate to Quaternary workers how their period should be divided, without understanding their needs and considering their opinions.
It is also important to stress that there are numerous institutions, learned societies and journals, not to mention geological surveys around the world who use the term Quaternary both in their names or in a formal chronostratigraphical sense. It is simply impractical and unrealistic to attempt to cease recognition of the term Quaternary as a formal time division.
Irrational pedantry should be avoided; stratigraphical nomenclature should be about defining usable terminology, not adhering rigidly to rules for their own sake. It is infinitely more sensible to recognise that the term Quaternary is going to continue in use and therefore to define it clearly and unequivocally.
Recently there has been pressure from the ICS Executive committee to redefine the term Quaternary as a Subsystem of the Neogene System. This suggestion runs contrary to over 150 years of usage and is objected to by INQUA, most national bodies, particularly geological surveys, as well as Quaternary workers from around the world. There is currently no agreement to accept this redefinition.
Therefore the term Quaternary remains a System, the base of which is coeval with the Pleistocene, and which extends to the present day. The Neogene System terminates at the base of the Quaternary. This situation holds until further notice.
_______________________________________
"We should ... oppose changes in the nomenclature, unless they are absolutely essential, and we should accept the smaller subdivisions in stratigraphy for reasons of convenience" (Rhodes W. Fairbridge (Ed.) 1968 The Encyclopedia of Geomorphology. Reinhold Book Co.: New York, p. 914).
Details on the ICS-INQUA joint 'task force' working group on the Quaternary
More on the history of terminology
Forscherstreit um das Quartär
- discussion on the suppression of the Quaternary from the Swiss newspaper
'Der Bund' - Friday 22 April 2005.'Eine internationale Kommission hat das jüngste Zeitalter der Erdgeschichte kurzerhand abgeschafft – der Widerstand ist gross'.
Discussion on the status of the Quaternary
- in Quaternary Perspectives (INQUA newsletter), for download here from within the latest issue of Quaternary International (Vol 122 (1), p. 123-133; via ScienceDirect - Elsevier)
- in Episodes (IUGS newsletter), not for download at present.
Picture from 'Der Bund' 22 April 2005.
International Commission on Stratigraphy
Page last saved: 11th December 2008 by Webmaster