The Neogene: Origin, adoption, evolution, and controversy
Introduction
In the late 19th Century and for the first two-thirds of the 20th Century, the term “Neogene” was almost universally used to refer to the later part of the Tertiary Period, consisting of the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, and excluding the succeeding Quaternary Period (itself consisting of the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs; see Fig. 1). Since the 1950s, however, several authors have advocated that the Neogene be extended to the present. Among them are Neaverson (1955), Denizot (1957), Banner and Blow (1965), Dott and Batten (1971), Berggren and Van Couvering (1974), Jenkins et al. (1985), Berggren et al., 1985, Berggren et al., 1995a, Berggren et al., 1995b, Steininger (2002), and Prothero and Dott (2004). In particular, the review paper of Berggren (1998) seems to have played a major role in convincing the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to extend the Neogene to the present and to eliminate the Tertiary and Quaternary as ranked units (Gradstein et al., 2004a, Gradstein et al., 2004b, Lourens et al., 2004). However, this restructuring of the Cenozoic time scale was greeted with a storm of protest (Salvador, 2004, Giles, 2005), and several new proposals for the subdivision of the Cenozoic were subsequently made (Pillans and Naish, 2004, Gibbard et al., 2005, Aubry et al., 2005, Suguio et al., 2005, Gradstein, 2005).
In response to this controversy, Salvador, 2006a, Salvador, 2006b demonstrated that “Tertiary” is still used more frequently than either Paleogene or Neogene in stratigraphic publications, and that “Quaternary” is probably used more than any other standard global geochronologic unit. Gibbard et al. (2005) and Zalasiewicz et al. (2006) presented additional arguments for the retention of the Tertiary and Quaternary. Walsh (2006) also showed that if Tertiary and Quaternary are to be formally ranked, then the only subdivision consistent with the principles of hierarchical classification is one in which the Cenozoic is composed of the Tertiary and Quaternary, the Tertiary is composed of the Paleogene and Neogene, and the Quaternary is composed of the Pleistocene and Holocene.
Because previous analyses of the “Neogene” have been highly influential and yet incomplete in my view, the main purpose of this paper is to more fully document the origin and evolution of this term. Although detailed discussions of the history of a geochronologic term as presented in Berggren (1998), Steininger (2002), and this paper may seem unimportant, they are worthwhile if they can clarify the nature of more fundamental disagreements. In the case of the Neogene and Quaternary, these disagreements involve the roles of climatic, mammalian biochronologic, and marine biochronologic criteria in the definition and ranking of some of our most important Cenozoic standard global geochronologic units. In presenting a more comprehensive history of usage of the Neogene, I wish to better illuminate this debate.
Section snippets
Moriz Hörnes and the fossil molluscs of the Vienna Basin
In the middle of the 19th century, Wilhelm von Haidinger2, Director of the Foundation of the kaiserlich-königlichen geologischen Reichsanstalt in Vienna, asked Moriz Hörnes3
Hörnes’ concept of the beginning of the Neogene
Hörnes, 1851b, Hörnes, 1853a biochronological definition of the beginning of the Neogene was a bit imprecise, simply because the definition of the beginning of the Miocene was inherently imprecise at that time. In addition, Hörnes, 1853a, Hörnes, 1854a emphasized that the Neogene strata of central Europe were always found to overlie the Eocene strata with an angular unconformity, a relationship later illustrated by von Hauer (1858, p. 108) and R. Hoernes (1903, p. 925). Thus, as noted by
The evolving definitions of “Tertiary” and “Pliocene” in the 1840s
Given Hörnes, 1851b, Hörnes, 1853a definition of the Neogene as “young Tertiary” and as a “merging of Miocene and Pliocene deposits,” it is necessary to understand contemporary definitions of “Tertiary,” “Pliocene,” and related terms in order to appreciate his meaning (Fig. 3). Lyell’s (1833, p. 53) original definition of the Pliocene (consisting of the Older Pliocene and Newer Pliocene) specifically excluded the “Recent” interval, the latter being defined as “[the time] which has elapsed since
Adoption of “Neogene” in the German language literature of the second half of the 19th century
Starting in the mid-1850s, the term “Neogene” was frequently used by Austrian, German, Hungarian, Yugoslav, and Czech geologists, and it almost always excluded the “Diluvium” and “Alluvium” (e.g., Czjzek, 1854, Stur, 1855, Lipold, 1856, Peters, 1856, Lipold, 1857, Peters, 1857, Rolle, 1857, Stache, 1858, von Zollikofer, 1859, Jokély, 1861, Stur, 1864). Lipold (1856) and von Zollikofer (1859) are especially notable in that on their geologic maps and cross-sections, they clearly separated the
Adoption of “Neogene” beyond Austria and Germany
As documented above, the term “Neogene” was commonly used in German language geological journals and textbooks starting in the 1850s, but this usage generally spread to other countries two or three decades later. In any given country, the adoption of a given geochronologic term was probably determined by several factors, including the usage of such terms on national geologic maps, in standard textbooks, and in the articles and treatises of prominent workers in that country. An evaluation of
Co-evolution of the Neogene, Quaternary, and Pleistocene
After its adoption by most 19th Century stratigraphers in the sense of Miocene + Pliocene, excluding the Diluvium, Quaternary, and Pleistocene, the term Neogene continued to evolve in meaning. This evolution occurred mostly in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. Interestingly, the impetus for this evolution can be traced all the way back to Forbes (1846). Five years before Moriz Hörnes coined the term “Neogene,” Forbes (1846, p. 403) stated:
“I have selected the word “glacial,” in order
The recommendation of Denizot (1957)
In his brief discussion of the Neogene in the Lexique Stratigraphique International, Denizot (1957, p. 140–141) stated:
“The stratigraphic grouping instituted by Hoernes is based in paleontology; appearence of new forms over the Oligocene fauna, forms that persist, as they evolve, toward present times. It is essentially the combination of the Miocene and Pliocene systems but with much lack of precision concerning its limits. It is certain that the Neogene fauna has its roots in the Aquitanian,
Challenging the monopoly of marine biochronology
How can we resolve the dilemma of the Neogene divide in Cenozoic chronostratigraphy? It appears that we must begin by challenging the central assumption in the arguments of Denizot (1957) and Berggren (1998), which is the view that marine biochronology should hold a monopoly in the determination of Phanerozoic standard global geochronologic boundaries. In order to do this, however, we must start in an unlikely place.
Miscellaneous points
Even if we agree that marine biochronology should not be granted a monopoly in the definition of Phanerozoic standard global geochronologic boundaries, additional points relevant to the formal definition of the Neogene must be addressed.
Is period/system status for both Tertiary/Quaternary and Paleogene/extended Neogene possible?
At first glance, a solution that would grant formal period/system status to both the Tertiary/Quaternary and the Paleogene/extended Neogene seems to have merit. This
Necessity of the traditional Cenozoic classification
All participants in the current debate are aware that the scope of the Neogene is inextricably tied to the scopes of the Quaternary, Pliocene, and Pleistocene. It is therefore important to note that recent arguments in favor of a monopoly for marine biochronology in the definition and ranking of our standard global time units were implicitly criticized long ago. Joseph Prestwich (1886, p.81; 1888, p.12) was one of the first British stratigraphers to accept the non-Lyellian, Continental term
Conclusions
A major argument used in recent debates on the structure of the Cenozoic time scale has involved the original definition of the Neogene. Some have claimed, first, that the Austrian paleontologist Moriz Hörnes defined this term so as to extend to the present; and second, that we must follow this alleged original definition today. Both claims are contested here. Although Hörnes’ discussions were somewhat inconsistent, his biochronological concept of the end of the Neogene was for the most part
Acknowledgements
I thank Amos Salvador (University of Texas, Austin) for discussions, French translations, and incalculable assistance in researching the Neogene problem. I thank Stephan Hoernes (Emeritus Professor of Geochemistry and Experimental Petrology at the University of Bonn) for information and for permission to use the portrait of his great-great grandfather, Moriz Hörnes. Leonard Wilson (University of Minnesota) generously provided information on the 1856 meeting between Hörnes and Charles Lyell,
This paper is published posthumously following the untimely death of Stephen L. Walsh on 1 August 2007. The manuscript was originally submitted to and revised by Steve himself for the Journal of Quaternary Science. However following his death it was felt to be more appropriate to a wider geological audience. This publication was made possible through the considerable support of Tony Hallam, Chris Caseldine and the staff of Earth-Sciences Reviews, especially Frans Koning, which we warmly
References (334)
- et al.
A calibrated mammal scale for the Neogene of Western Europe: state of the art
Earth-Science Reviews
(2001) - et al.
Recent progress in world-wide Tertiary stratigraphical correlation
Earth-Science Reviews
(1966) Some thoughts on the Neogene/Palaeogene boundary
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
(1970)Sur les déviations de quelques cours d’eau pendant la période quaternaire
Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae
(1909)Glaciers and the evidences of their having once existed in Scotland, Ireland, and England
Proceedings of the Geological Society of London
(1841)- et al.
The Pliocene–Pleistocene boundary
Episodes
(1985) I terreni miocenici tra il Parma e il Baganza (Prov. di Parma)
Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana
(1913)- Anonymous 1852. [Review of:] “die fossilen Mollusken des Tertiär-Beckens von Wien, hgg. von der k. k. Geologischen...
Mitteilungen über das Quartär des Emmentales
Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae
(1909)- et al.
Quaternary evolution of the Corinth Rift and its implications for the Late Cenozoic evolution of the Aegean
Geophysical Journal International
(1996)
The Neocene stratigraphy of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California
California Academy of Sciences Proceedings, 2nd series
Where should the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Paleocene/Eocene boundary be located?
Bulletin de la Société géologique de France
The homeless GSSP: the dilemma of the Paleocene–Eocene boundary
Tertiary Research
Should the Golden Spike glitter?
Episodes
Quaternary: status, rank, definition, and survival
Episodes
The Pliocene–Pleistocene boundary in the British deposits
Relationships of Neogene planktonic foraminifera to paleoceanography and correlation
The classification and stratigraphical distribution of the Globigerinaceae. Part 1
Palaeontology
Progress in the foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the Neogene
Nature
Index to Volumes I–L of the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
Tertiary boundaries and correlations
The Cenozoic Era: Lyellian (chrono)stratigraphy and nomenclatural reform at the millenium
The late Neogene
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Neogene magnetobiostratigraphy of deep-sea drilling project Site 516 (Rio Grande Rise, South Atlantic)
Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project
Paleogene geochronology and chronostratigraphy
Late Neogene chronology: new perspectives in high-resolution stratigraphy
Geological Society of America Bulletin
A revised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy
Eléménts de Paléontologie
Die Conchylien des norddeutschen Tertiärgebirges
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft
Über die Stellung der hessischen Tertiärbildungen
Ueber die Abgrenzung der oligocänen Tertiärzeit
On the classification of sedimentary strata
The Geological Magazine (Decade III)
Origin and evolution of the foraminiferal genus Orbulina d’Orbigny
Micropaleontology
Age, correlation, and biostratigraphy of the upper Tocuyo (San Lorenzo) and Pozón formations, eastern Falcón, Venezuela
Bulletins of American Paleontology
Late middle Eocene to Recent planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy
Oligocene to Holocene low latitude planktic foraminifera
Quaternary Geology: A Stratigraphic Framework for Multidisciplinary Work
On the correlation and classification of Quaternary deposits and land-sea correlations
The Quaternary is here to stay
Journal of Quaternary Science
Lyell and the dilemma of Quaternary glaciation
Lethaea Geognostica, oder Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der für Gebirgs-Formationen bezeichnendsten Versteinerungen, zweite Auflage
Lethaea Geognostica, oder Abbildung und Beschreibung der für Gebirgs-Formationen bezeichnendsten Versteinerungen, dritte stark vermehrte Auflage
Dritter Band. 4. Caeno-Lethaea: VI. Theil: Mollassen-Periode
Untersuchungen über die Entwickelungs-Gesetze der organischen Welt wahrend der Bildungs-Zeit unserer Erd-Oberfläche
A Neogene globigerinacean biochronologic time scale of the Southwestern Pacific
Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project
A College Text-book of Geology
A Trip Through Time: Principles of Historical Geology
Elemente der Geologie
A correlation of Tertiary rocks in the British Isles
Cited by (13)
Remote sensing approaches for mapping Quaternary deposits: A synthesis
2022, Physics and Chemistry of the EarthCitation Excerpt :Meanwhile, the term ‘Quaternary’ was suggested for the time period when these unconsolidated materials were deposited, according to the developing stratigraphic hierarchy. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the deposits of this period were often shown on maps as ‘diluvium’ and ‘alluvium’, or ‘old’ and ‘new’ alluvium (e.g., Catt et al., 2006; Walsh, 2008; Gürbüz and Kazancı, 2017). There was an enthusiastic discussion about the origins of Quaternary deposits, as their importance was noted since the beginning of interest in the topic.
The Monte San Nicola section (Sicily) revisited: A potential unit-stratotype of the Gelasian Stage
2022, Quaternary Science ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Consequently, both the Pliocene Series and the Neogene Period were truncated at the top of the Piacenzian Stage, and the Gelasian Stage was reclaimed as the basal chronostratigraphic unit of the Quaternary. Since the beginning of the Quaternary coincides with the base of the Pleistocene (Walsh, 2008), the base of the Gelasian presently marks the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch as well (Gradstein et al., 2020). Although there is still no unanimous view on the solution, we welcome the renewed popularity of the Gelasian Stage within the scientific community over the past few years.
Formal subdivision of the Quaternary System/Period: Past, present, and future
2015, Quaternary InternationalCitation Excerpt :Forbes (1846) meanwhile had proposed equating the term Pleistocene (or Glacial Epoch) with the Diluvium, thus linking the Pleistocene with glaciation as had already been done for the Quaternary. The term Quaternary became firmly established during the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, as described in detail by Walsh (2008). The linkage between the base of the Pleistocene and that of the Quaternary was reaffirmed during the 18th International Geological Congress in London in 1948, where it was agreed to place the “Pliocene–Pleistocene (Tertiary–Quaternary) boundary … at the horizon of the first indication of climatic deterioration in the Italian Neogene succession.” (
Neotropical biodiversity: Timing and potential drivers
2011, Trends in Ecology and EvolutionGlobal stages, regional stages or no stages in the Plio/Pleistocene?
2010, Quaternary InternationalNeogene and Quaternary coexisting in the geological time scale: The inclusive compromise
2009, Earth-Science Reviews
This paper is published posthumously following the untimely death of Stephen L. Walsh on 1 August 2007. The manuscript was originally submitted to and revised by Steve himself for the Journal of Quaternary Science. However following his death it was felt to be more appropriate to a wider geological audience. This publication was made possible through the considerable support of Tony Hallam, Chris Caseldine and the staff of Earth-Sciences Reviews, especially Frans Koning, which we warmly acknowledge.
Steve Walsh received a B.S. degree in Geology in 1987 at San Diego State University, California, USA and worked in various capacities in the Department of Paleontology of the San Diego Natural History Museum from 1988. A brief foray into graduate school proved too stifling to Steve and instead he set out on his own course of study. Initially, his research interests focused on Paleogene stratigraphy and mammal faunas of southern California and the western United States and through his prodigious field and laboratory efforts he built-up a large and comprehensive collection of small fossil mammals from the region. In later years he turned more and more to his new passion for the theoretical foundations of biostratigraphy, biochronology and chronostratigraphy, even teaching himself German so he could read the primary literature in that language. A consummate scholar and philosopher, Steve viewed his science in a fairly strict Popperian sense and challenged others to aspire to a higher level of objectivity. Needless to say he did not suffer fools gladly. It seems clear that Steve was just finding his voice as a mature earth scientist and the strides he was taking were leading him in new directions of discovery. We can only imagine what great things he might yet have accomplished and we hope that this paper serves as an appropriate memorial to our colleague and friend.
- 1
Deceased. For correspondence contact Philip Gibbard ([email protected]) or Tom Deméré ([email protected]).
- 2
Cambridge Quaternary, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EN, England, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
- 3
Department of Paleontology, San Diego Natural History Museum, 1788 El Prado, San Diego, CA 92101, USA. E-mail: [email protected]