Short historical overview about the roots and chance of Quaternary and some connecting term

Abstract

One of the most important questions in recent geochronological debate is the hierarchical rank of the Quaternary in
the geological time scale. The effort of International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) has been stronger and stronger
in urging the deletion of the Quaternary from the time scale, regarding it as an anachronistic term; the Neogene could then
be extended to the present. The International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) has responded to this, standing by
the Quaternary as a system, and it has cooperated with the ICS in the creation of different versions in order to frame the
Quaternary into a geochronological system.
Two versions remained from the numerous on offer in 2007:
— In the ICS point of view is that the Quaternary system should be regarded as a “sub-era”, which correlates with the
late Neogene period. The lower boundary of the sub-era is joined to the beginning of Gelasian Stage (2,6 ma BP). The
upper boundary of the Neogene should be extended to the recent.
— The INQUA would like to extend the lower boundary of the Pleistocene and Quaternary at the expense of the
Gelasian Stage of Pliocene. The Quaternary should stay as a system in the geochronological time scale.
Besides retaining the term quaternary the other effort of INQUA has been to extend the boundary of the Pleistocene
(both Quaternary) to 2.6 ma BP. One of the most important arguments is that the beginning of the Quaternary and
Pleistocene is indicated by the first craggy climatic change. Thus the beginning of the Pleistocene and the beginning of
Quaternary are inseparable indicate a “moment” in the geochronology. There are important roles for the historical
development and the interlocking of the terms “ice age”, “Pleistocene” and “Quaternary” in the latter discussion.
The Quaternary Subcomission of the National Commisson on Stratigraphy of the Hungarian Academy of Science has
determined that the boundary of the Quaternary and Pleistocene should be at 2,58 ma BP, based on the findings of
numerous studies carried out in Hungary. In Hungary the interpretation of the Quaternary and the Pleistocene was the
same as that of the INQUA version, even before the international debate began.