You are on page 1of 86

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

126 0.0 140.1 37.0 345.781 Tithonian Upper Kimmeridgian Oxfordian Callovian 145. Numerical ages of the unit boundaries in the Phanerozoic are subject to revision.1 Tournaisian 359.7 ±1.0 311.7 ±4.7 397.7 284. Colors are according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).5 374.3 ±2.3 436.5 189.9 ±2.1 40.9 ±0.7 Meso zoic Jurassic 1.6 ±0.4 428.0 237.ICS Eonothem Eon Erathem Era System Period Series Epoch Stage Age INTERNATIONAL STRATIGRAPHIC CHART International Commission on Stratigraphy Eonothem Eon Erathem Era System Period GSSP Stage Age Age Ma Eonothem Eon Erathem Era System Period Eonothem Eon Erathem Era System Period Series Epoch Series Epoch GSSP GSSP Quaternary * Holocene Upper Pleistocene 0.0 ±0.6 478.8 ±0.6 ±0.6 ±0.5 ±0.2 48.8 416.5 455.0 ±2. et al.0 164.6 ±1.43 Stenian Mesoproterozoic Ectasian Calymmian Statherian Paleoproterozoic Orosirian Rhyacian Siderian Neoarchean Phanerozoic Cenozoic Paleogene Neogene Pliocene Piacenzian Zanclean Middle Bathonian Bajocian Aalenian Toarcian Pliensbachian Sinemurian Hettangian Rhaetian Norian Carnian Lower Messinian Tortonian Miocene Serravallian Langhian Burdigalian Aquitanian Oligocene Chattian Rupelian Priabonian Eocene Bartonian Lutetian Ypresian Thanetian Paleocene Selandian Danian Maastrichtian Campanian Upper Santonian Coniacian Turonian Cenomanian Albian Aptian Lower Barremian Hauterivian Valanginian Berriasian Pridoli Lower Ludlow Ludfordian Gorstian Homerian Sheinwoodian Telychian Phanerozoic Paleo zoic Ordovician Silurian 196.806 2.0 ±2. Ogg.8 299.7 268.8 303.4 ±1.2 ±2.G. Cambridge University Press).8 ±0.5 ±2.0 ±1.6 ±0. The listed numerical ages are from 'A Geologic Time Scale 2004'.5 ±1.4 ±0.8 99. Each unit of the Phanerozoic (~542 Ma to Present) and the base of Ediacaran are defined by a basal Global Standard Section and Point (GSSP ).6 Ediacaran Neoproterozoic Cryogenian Tonian 542 ~630 850 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2050 2300 2500 Middle Lower Gelasian Precambrian Archean Proterozoic 161.4 ±0.7 ±0..6 ±1.4 ±0.0 130.7 ±4.org).1 ±1.7 85.7 ±0.5 426.0 150.3 ±2.0 175.0 ±1.7 275.0 183.8 443.7 251.7 488.G.5 ±0.2 ±4.7 265.6 ±0. whereas Precambrian units are formally subdivided by absolute age (Global Standard Stratigraphic Age.6 460.9 439. Most sub-Series boundaries (e.0 145.8 411.5 ±0.0 ±2.2 ±2. Details of each GSSP are posted on the ICS website (www. (2004.0 ±1.8 ±1.5 136.3 70. J.8 ±2.g.0 245.2 65.4 ±0.7 421.2 ±3. International chronostratigraphic units.6 Wenlock Phanerozoic Triassic 23.0 125.03 28. rank.5 249.6 ±3.0 Pennsylvanian Upper Middle Lower Mississippian Upper Serpukhovian Middle Lower 542.0118 0.6 ±1.5 171. A.9 ±0. Gradstein.0 ±2. names and formal status are approved by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and ratified by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS).2 55.0 ±0.6 203.0 Middle 391. * proposed by ICS GSSP GSSA Stage Age Age Ma Age Ma Age Ma .0 Upper Famennian Frasnian Givetian Eifelian Emsian Pragian Lochkovian 359.0 ±2.3 326.9 ±1.1 33.8 ±0.8 ±0.6 ±0.9 112.8 ±1.588 3.6 385.7 ±2.4 ±2.6 ±1.2 Upper 2800 Llandovery Aeronian Rhuddanian Hirnantian Mesoarchean 3200 Middle Lower Ladinian Anisian Olenekian Paleoarchean 3600 Upper Stage 6 Stage 5 Darriwilian Stage 3 Stage 2 Tremadocian Stage 10 Stage 9 Paibian Induan Changhsingian Wuchiapingian Capitanian Eoarchean Lower limit is not defined Lopingian Middle Paleo zoic Carboniferous Permian 61.7 260.6 468.0 ±1.0 228.1 318.0 167. Smith.2 ±2.8 ±4.6 83. GSSA). Middle and Upper Aptian) are not formally defined.2 ±0. Copyright © 2005 International Commission on Stratigraphy Subdivisions of the global geologic record are formally defined by their lower boundary.0 ±1.9 306. Some stages within the Ordovician and Cambrian will be formally named upon international agreement on their GSSP limits.0 ±1.7 407.5 ±4.2 ±2.7 ±1.7 270.97 20.65 15.2 ±2.0 ±1.7 89.7 294.2 58.5 ±4.7 ±0.246 11.5 Devonian 155.6 ±0.5 ±2.600 5.5 445.3 ±1.5 This chart was drafted by Gabi Ogg.5 216.8 418.stratigraphy.0 199.7 ±3.0 ±1.3 ±2.4 253.6 ±2.M.5 ±2.6 422.5 ±1.0 Guadalupian Wordian Roadian Kungurian Lower Furongian Cisuralian Artinskian Sakmarian Asselian Gzhelian Kasimovian Moscovian Bashkirian Visean Mesozoic Cretaceous Cambrian Stage 7 Series 3 Stage 6 Stage 5 Series 2 Lower Series Stage 4 Stage 3 Stage 2 Stage 1 501. by F.332 7.6 471.608 13.0 93.1 ±1.0 ±0.3 ±1.

USA. • A detailed database of high-resolution radiometric ages that includes “best practice” procedures. • Detailed integrated stratigraphy for Upper Paleozoic through Lower Mesozoic. Purdue University. Key features of the new scale are outlined. M. V. Cenozoic. is a joint undertaking of F. Note: This article summarizes key features of Geologic Time Scale 2004 (~ 500 p. The construction of Geologic Time Scale 2004 (GTS2004) incorporated different techniques depending on the data available within each interval. P. J. many developments have taken place: (1) Stratigraphic standardization through the work of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) has greatly refined the international chronostratigraphic scale. A.H.gradstein@nhm.Ogg 2 1.g.Smith. Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences.Hilgen. G.Bleeker.R. Email: felix. L.Villeneuve.Gradstein 1 and J. Permian/Triassic. traditional European-based stages have been replaced with new subdivisions that allow global correlation.Lourens.uio. Geological Museum.. • Improved and standardized dating of several ‘neglected’ intervals (e. K.A.Davydov.J. H. • On-line stratigraphic databases and tools (e.van Kolfschoten. U.J. In some cases. AND WHERE NEXT! F. Paleozoic Abstract A Geologic Time Scale (GTS2004) is presented that integrates currently available stratigraphic and geochronologic information. L. J. and Carboniferous through Triassic). A. under auspices of the International Commission on Stratigraphy.Robb.Röhl. J.Ogg. and how it can be improved Since Geologic Time Scale 1989 by Harland and his team. Indiana 47907-1397.M.Sanfilippo. A modified version of the time scale to accompany the standardization (boundary definitions and stratotypes) of all stages is planned for the year 2008. House (†).R. S.G. H-P.Raffi.Brinkhuis.Hooker. . M.G. full error analysis.Powell. and Anisian/Ladinian boundaries.Howarth. R.Shergold. R.Agterberg.Melchin.McArthur.Strauss.A. J.Veizer. West Lafayette. J.Monechi. Mesozoic.J. University of Oslo.Cooper. Norway. Upper Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous. I. The geochronological science community and ICS are focusing on these issues. CHRONOS network). and (3) The methods of effectively joining the two scales. (2) New or enhanced methods of extracting high-precision age assignments with realistic uncertainties from the rock record. The Geologic Time Scale Project.M. F.Luterbacher. zircon statistics and possible reworking) across Devonian/Carboniferous.A.no 2.Schmitz. and D. J. Cambridge University Press).Gradstein. • Resolving age dating controversies (e. geochemists working with radiogenic and stable isotopes.Gibbard. Th. J. N-0318 Oslo. Construction involved a large number of specialists. M. These have led to improved age assignments of key geologic stage boundaries and other global correlation horizons.g. including contributions by past and present subcommissions officers of ICS. Introduction The geologic time scale is the framework for deciphering the history of the Earth and has three components: (1) The international stratigraphic divisions and their correlation in the global rock record.Wardlaw. • Orbital tuning of polarity chrons and biostratigraphic events for the entire Cenozoic and part of Cretaceous. and geomathematicians Anticipated advances during the next four years include: • Formal definition of all Phanerozoic stage boundaries.Ali. (3) Statistical techniques of compiling integrated global stratigraphic scales within geologic periods.Van Dam. . Keywords: timescale.Shackleton. N. J.J. HOW.GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE 2004 – WHY. J.P.Hinnov.G.Shields. H. B. F.Laskar.Plumb. chronostratigraphy. L.Wilson. stratigraphers using diverse tools from traditional fossils to astronomical cycles to database programming.g.J.. B. A. how it was constructed.Knoll. monitor ages and conversions. (2) The means of measuring linear time or elapsed durations from the rock record. W..

whereas in 1990 about 15% were still invalid • The last 23 million years (Neogene) is now orbitally tuned with 40 kyr accuracy • High-resolution cycle scaling now exists for Paleocene. Overview Since 1989. and mid Triassic • Superior stratigraphic reasoning in Mesozoic integrates direct dating. 2000). which in turn was preceeded by GTS1982 (Harland et al.. 1990). there have been major developments in time scale research. like for the Ordovician and Permian Periods. and are summarized in figure 1. albeit partially rather uncertain timescale. GTS2004 also succeeds the International Stratigraphic Chart of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). including: (1) Stratigraphic standardization through the work of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) has greatly refined the International Chronostratigraphic Scale. using high-resolution zonal composites • A ‘natural’ geologic Precambrian time scale is going to replace the current artificial scale • More accurate and more precise age dating exists with over 200 Ar/Ar and U/Pb dates that incorporate external error analysis (note that only a fraction of those dates were available to GTS89) • Improved mathematical/statistical techniques combine zones. The compilation of GTS2004 has involved a large number of geoscience specialists. documented in detail in Gradstein et al. lower Jurassic. Fossil event databases with multiple stratigraphic sections through the globe can be integrated into high-resolution composite standards that scale the stages. methodology and standardization of chronostratigraphic units imply that no geologic time scale can be final. 1982). The set of chronostratigraphic units (stages.Continual improvements in data coverage. Numerous high-resolution radiometric dates have been generated that has led to improved age assignments of key geologic stage boundaries. (3) Statistical techniques of extrapolating ages and associated uncertainties to stratigraphic events have evolved to meet the challenge of more accurate age dates and more precise zonal assignments. scheduled for the year 2008. mid-Cretaceous. and geomathematicians. will pave the way for an updated version of GTS2004. which constitute the main framework for Geologic Time Scale 2004 are shown in the International Geologic Time Scale of figure 2. polarity chrons. issued four years ago (Remane. geochemists working with radiogenic and stable isotopes. listed above. The main steps involved in the GTS2004 time scale construction were: Step 1. traditional European or Asian-based geological stages have been replaced with new subdivisions that allow global correlation. In some cases. . Why a new geologic time scale in the year 2004 may be summarized as follows: • Nearly 50 of 90+ Phanerozoic stage boundaries are now defined. including contributions by past and present chairs of subcommissions of ICS. periods) and their computed ages and durations. (2004) is the successor to GTS1989 (Harland et al. The methods used to construct Geologic Time Scale 2004 (GTS2004) integrate different techniques depending on the quality of data available within different intervals. stratigraphers using diverse tools from traditional fossils to astronomical cycles to database programming. This brief overview of the status of the Geologic Time Scale in 2004 (GTS2004). at the same time as the use of global geochemical variations. zonal scaling and orbital tuning for a detailed. (2) New or enhanced methods of extracting linear time from the rock record have enabled high-precision age assignments. versus < 15 in 1990 • International stage subdivision are stabilizing. Construct an updated global chronostratigraphic scale for the Earth’s rock record Step 2. Identify key linear-age calibration levels for the chronostratigraphic scale using radiometric age dates. Milankovitch climate cycles.. stages and ages to calculate the best possible time scale. and/or apply astronomical tuning to cyclic sediment or stable isotope sequences which had biostratigraphic or magnetostratigraphic correlations. once resolved. seafloor spreading (M-sequence). • Superior stratigraphic scaling now exists in the Paleozoic. with estimates of uncertainty on stage boundaries and durations At the end of this brief document a listing is provided of outstanding issues that. and magnetic reversals have become important calibration tools.

to one with many dates with greatly varying analytical precision (like GTS89. Cande & Kent. 28. 1993. In addition to selecting radiometric ages based upon their stratigraphic control and analytical precision.. but generally not from the high-resolution ion microprobe (HR-SIMS. integrating multiple types of stratigraphic information in order to construct the chronostratigraphic scale. and more uncertainty. . is the one that is evolving most rapidly since the last decade. 1992. in effect. The first step.. An exception is the Carboniferous Period. Step 5.28 Ma for TCR (Taylor Creek sanidine) and 28. Phanerozoic time scale building went from an exercise with very few and relatively inaccurate radiometric dates.. as used by Holmes (1947.1 ± 4. Obradovich. No glauconite dates are used. B.. 1960). Historically. Calculate or estimate error bars on the combined chronostratigraphic and chronometric information In order to obtain a time scale with estimates of uncertainty on boundaries and on unit durations. Peer review the geologic time scale through ICS. it summarizes and synthesizes centuries of detailed geological research.g. Step 4. Stratigraphically constrained radiometric ages with the U-Pb method on zircons were accepted from the isotope dilution mass spectrometry (TIMS) method.. Hilgen et al.6 Ma for MMhb-1 (Montana hornblende). This new philosophy of combing high resolution with precise ages is also adhered to in this scale. also known as “SHRIMP”) that uses the Sri Lanka (SL)13 standard. Next came studies on relatively short stratigraphic intervals that selected a few radiometric dates with high internal analytical precision (e.Step 3. Cooper. Interpolate the combined chronostratigraphic and chronometric scale where direct information is insufficient. where there is a dearth of TIMS dates.34 ± 0. 1999) or measured time relative to the Present using astronomical cycles (e.02 ± 0. is the most time-consuming. 1999. identifying which radiometric and cyclestratigraphic studies would be used as the primary constraints for assigning linear ages. 1994). 40Ar-39Ar radiometric ages were re-computed to be in accord with the revised ages for laboratory monitor standards: 523.28 Ma for FCT (Fish Canyon sanidine). The second step. we also applied the following criteria or corrections: A. 1995. 1995.g. Shackleton et al. Systematic (“external”) errors and uncertainties in decay constants are partially incorporated. 2000). or to some extent Gradstein et al.

resulting in 2-sigma (95% confidence) error bars for the estimated chronostratigraphic boundary ages and stage durations. Ages and durations of Neogene stages derived from orbital tuning are considered to be accurate to within a precession cycle (~20 kyr). Late Cretaceous.0 Ma. A chi-square test was used for identifying and reducing the weights of relatively few outliers with error bars that are much narrower than could be expected on the basis of most ages in the data set. Astronomical tuning of cyclic sediments was used for Neogene and Upper Triassic. For the Carboniferous through Permian a composite standard of conodont. 3. base-Permian. In the final stage of analysis. In this connection we mention that biostratigraphic error is fossil event and fossil zone dependent. Detailed direct ammonite-zone ages for the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior of the USA were obtained by a cubic spline fit of the zonal events and 25 40Ar-39Ar dates. and base-Oligocene. and ammonoids events from many classical sections was calibrated to a combination of U-Pb and 40Ar-39Ar dates with assigned external error estimates. Ripley’s MLFR algorithm for Maximum Likelihood fitting of a Functional Relationship was used for error estimation. During this process the ages were weighted according to their variances based on the lengths of their error bars. the older astronomical scale provides linear-duration constraints on polarity chrons. The Neogene astronomical scale is directly tied to the Present. With zone thickness taken as directly proportional to zone duration. and 65. (2004). biostratigraphic zones and entire stages. Proportional scaling relative to component biozones or subzones. rather than to the analytical precision of the laboratory measurements. but most other period or stage boundaries prior to the Neogene lack direct age control. The Devonian stages were scaled from approximate equal duration of a set of high-resolution subzones of ammonoids and conodonts. assuming that all cycles are correctly identified. plays a key role for most of GTS2004. This detailed and high-resolution interpolation process incorporated several techniques. In intervals where none of the above information under Items 1 – 4 was available it was necessary to return to the methodology employed by past geologic time scales. depending upon the available information: 1. Therefore. and also shown on the ICS official web pages under www. Carboniferous-Permian. and that the theoretical astronomical-tuning for progressively older deposits is precise. The actual geomathematics employed for above data sets (Items 1. . and there are direct age-dates on base-Carboniferous.The bases of Paleozoic.stratigraphy. The base-Turonian age is directly bracketed by this 40Ar-39Ar set. 251.4 Ma. and Middle Jurassic. the assigned uncertainties are conservative estimates based on variability observed when applying different assumptions (see discussions in the Triassic. high precision zircon and sanidine age dates. Mesozoic and Cenozoic are bracketed by analytically precise ages at their GSSP or primary correlation markers – 542 ± 1. This procedure directly scaled all stage boundaries and biostratigraphic horizons. and ages of other stage boundaries and stratigraphic events are estimated using calibrations to this primary scale. the third step. 5.org. This procedure was necessary in portions of the Middle Triassic. linear interpolation. the detailed composite sequence was scaled using selected. The uncertainties on older stage boundaries generally increase owing to potential systematic errors in the different radiometric methods.5 ± 0. Ages of biostratigraphic events were assigned according to their calibration to these magnetic polarity time scales. fitted to an array of high-precision dates (more dates are desirable). and Paleocene. Devonian. or proportionally scaled using paleontological subzones. A composite standard of conodont zones was used for Early Triassic. and Paleogene involved cubic spline curve fitting to relate the observed ages to their stratigraphic position. base-Jurassic. Seafloor spreading interpolations were done on a composite marine magnetic lineation pattern for the Upper Jurassic through Lower Cretaceous in the Western Pacific.3 and 5) constructed for the Ordovician-Silurian. These uncertainties are discussed and displayed in the time scale charts as part of Gradstein et al.3 Ma –. Ordovician and Silurian interval was derived from 200+ sections in oceanic and slope environment basins using the constrained optimization (CONOP) method. 4. Stratigraphic uncertainty was incorporated in the weights assigned to the observed ages during the spline-curve fitting. and portions of the Lower and Middle Jurassic. fusulinid. In Mesozoic intervals that were scaled using the seafloor spreading model. Jurassic and Cretaceous chapters of GTS2004). 2. middle part of Cretaceous.0 ± 0.2. and for the Upper Cretaceous through lower Neogene in the South Atlantic Oceans. A composite standard of graptolite zones spanning the uppermost Cambrian. rather than age dependent.

Carnian. and Anisian/Ladinian boundaries.24 ± 0. and extend tuning ‘down’ in Cretaceous. Good examples of high-resolution studies are Bowring et al. created under the auspices of the International Commission on Stratigraphy. . Acknowledgements We thank our collaborators in GTS2004. 23 . Regional and philosophical arguments between stratigraphers should be actively resolved to reach consensus conclusions with focus on the global correlation implications. and at the same extend the astronomical tuning into progressively older sediments. Achieve more detailed composite standard zone schemes for Upper Paleozoic and Lower Mesozoic. (2000) for Messinian. Aptian. Chevron-Texaco.65. concurrent with consensus on all stage boundary stratotypes. but also actively considers definition of subdivisions within the many long stages itself. base Carboniferous (Kellwasser extinction event. as one of the ‘events’ that improved cooperation and consensus on various geochronologic and stratigraphic issues directly relevant to GTS2004. In this respect. Statoil. We like to single out the NUNA 2003 conference. including Upper Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous (M-sequence spreading and ‘tuned’ stages). either through more sampling or reevaluation of different laboratory techniques. Exxon and BP provided vital funding to this large and long-lasting project.5 Ma. c. for their expertise and support to achieve the new time scale. Achieve full error propagation on all published. A new version of the present time scale may be in place at the time of the 33rd International Geological Congress in 2008. Aptian. Stratigraphic standardization precedes linear time calibration. Paleogene and parts of Cretaceous are prime candidates for a high-resolution orbital time scale. Achieve consensus values for decay constants in the K-Ar istopes family. led by Mike Villeneuve (Ottawa). Carnian. Directly link polarity chrons and cycles for the 13 . Permian/Triassic. high-resolution ages. Amthor et al.23 Ma orbitally tuned scale. Norian. Achieve a consensus Ar/Ar monitor age (? 28. Anisian and Visean. (2004). and intra Permian. and Hilgen et al. and within Albian. Despite the challenges ICS is optimistic that the consensus process to define and subdivide all stages and periods should be completed in a timely manner. Albian. Ladinian. Visean. e. Striking examples of such long stages currently lacking internal standardization are Campanian. it presents a formidable challenge to stratigraphers with its long interval of limited biostratigraphic resolution and high continental partitioning. it is of vital importance to geochronology that ICS not only completes the definition of all Phanerozoic stage boundaries. (1989) for basalTriassic. b. i. Undertake detailed age dating of several rather ‘neglected’ intervals. d.01 Ma from orbital tuning). Among long periods the Cambrian stand out as rather undivided. glaciation). presented in detail in Gradstein et al. although chaos theory appears to limit the ultimate resolution achieved in the Neogene.GTS Quo Vadis? The changing philosophy in time scale building has made it more important to undertake high-resolution geochronologic study of critical stratigraphic boundaries. The philosophy is that obtaining high-precision age dating at a precisely defined stratigraphic boundary avoids stratigraphic bias and its associated uncertainty in rock and in time. (2003) for basal-Cambrian. may be summarized as follows: a. Achieve formal definition of all Phanerozoic stage boundaries. f. We note with satisfaction that the geochronological science community and ICS are actively focussing on the challenging stratigraphic and geochronologic issues listed. Resolve the seemingly intractable zircon controversies across Devonian/Carboniferous. g. Orbitally tune the Paleogene time scale. create listings in a master file. Norian. h. Future challenges to time scale building. and interior definition of long stages.

M. R. W. H... in Caldwell. J.Schmitz. Agterberg. A. and Wang. 1998: U/ Pb zircon geochronology and tempo of the end-Permian mass extinction. B. Mont Tremblant.. Thierry. G. p. F. S. J. Krijgsman. F. I. Crowhurst.. Schroder. J. S.Wilson. and Laskar. Cox. p. Cambridge University Press.References Amthor. Gradstein. S. J..G. M.V.. S.J.Veizer. A. Grotzinger.. Harland.nunatime. Meijer.V. M. Hilgen. H-P. W... A. Erwin.. Rio de Janeiro 2000.Röhl.Bleeker. J. G. J. J.Van Dam. G. p. P.. 1994: A Mesozoic time scale.Hilgen. L. E. U. 2000: International Stratigraphic Chart. L. Pickton. Ogg. p. D.Melchin.R. IUGS and UNESCO. p. W.Powell. V. 183-216. March 15-18.Strauss. Geological Association of Canada. 1992: A new geomagnetic polarity time scale for the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic.Knoll. ~ 500 p. M.van Kolfschoten. R..J. Weedon. 2000: Integrated stratigraphy and astrochronology of the Messinian GSSG at Oued Akrech (Atlantic Morocco). R... Quebec. G... M.Gradstein. 43 (1/2). G. V.Agterberg. Journal of Geophysical Research. M. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Langereis. 431-434.Laskar. J.. 24051-24074.. Obradovich. A. N.Robb. J. Z..Monechi. and Kent. 31 (5). G. H. C. and Walters. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Bowring.. 97. D.Lourens.. 1947: The construction of a geological time-scale.R. 1993: A Cretaceous time scale. Craig. A.. D.Davydov. G..Wardlaw. Science. Harland. J. J. and D. G. A.. calibration and application of geological timescales. 1982: A geologic time scale 1982.. Martin.. Th.ca. Cambridge University Press. W. H. p.Brinkhuis. Y. J. Journal of Geophysical Research. D.A.. A. P. 99 (B12). 136. Davidek. Cooper. L. J. M. A.Sanfilippo.. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. J. B. A. Ramezani. Canada.. W. L. . Remane. 1999: The Ordovician time scale . NUNA Conference. Cox. Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society. W. Transactions Geological Society of Glasgow.. A. See http://www. Bowring. p.Hooker.McArthur. F.J. K.J. V.. 495-510.P.. 280. Santarelli.. A. House (†).Villeneuve. 5366. and Kent... 117152.. Cande. 21.Ali.. 1995: Revised calibration of the geomagnetic polarity timescale for the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic.Cooper. 131 p. Evolution of the Western Interior Basin. 263 p. W. W. p. 2003: New Frontiers in the fourth dimension: generation. T.. 1999: Astronomical calibration of Oligocene-Miocene time. P.Plumb. F.A. J. Bissoli.Luterbacher...A. Special Paper 39.. E. Cambridge University Press.C. Krijgsman. Shackleton. F.G. J. Llewellyn. E.. Smith.Ogg. B. J. p. 2004: A Geologic Time Scale 2004. 2003: Extinction of Cloudina and Namacalathus at the Precambrian boundary in Oman. and Matter. C. J. Cande. 6093-6095. J. J. and Kauffman. L. 1960: A revised geological time-scale. G... S. Lourens. Geological Association of Canada.H.. 1-4. S. P. 379-396. (357).J. A. J.G.G. Holmes. Holmes. Iaccarino. R. van Veen... 100. R.. A. P.. G. eds. W.Gibbard. A. v. Armstrong. and Huang.Smith. and Zachariasse. NUNA. Geology.Shields. D.. L.Howarth. F. P. A..B. 1990: A geologic time scale 1989. Jin. no. 2003. p.. 182. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1907-1929.. J. J. S.Shergold. and Villa. A. Hardenbol. 1995: Extending the astronomical (polarity) time scale into the Miocene.L. 17. p 16.. Martin. 237-251.Shackleton. N. 1039-1045.. Negri.Hinnov.. F. p. Sponsored by ICS. 13917-13951. R. C. K. Hilgen.Raffi.calibration of graptolite and conodont zones: Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geologica.. S. Smith. 31st International Geological Congress.A.E. p. with Explanatory Note Paris.. and Smith.

2 Devonian Silurian Ordovician 416 443.1 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 Carboniferous Kasimovian Asselian Gzhelian Miocene Middle Early Serravallian 2.5 3.0 M5/ M10 M11 136.7 2.5 6.35 11.9 4.59 C31 C32 70.4 318.4 299.8 253.6 8.5 E9 E8 E7 228.0 7.3 326.6 260.y. et al. AGE Period (Ma) 70 75 80 Epoch Stage Pliocene C2 5 E Zanclean Messinian C3 3.org .5 99.2 215 220 Late C24 55.0 4.0 235 240 Middle Anisian C28 C29 65.5 5.4 10.6 6.0 3 439.92 265 Permian L Gelasian Piacenzian 1.43 2.2 455.8 385.78 2.2 2 7.2 C21 48.5 10.8 245 250 For details see "A Geologic Time Scale 2004" by F.61 Turonian Cenomanian Cretaceous Normal-Polarity Super-Chron ("Cretaceous Quiet Zone") Santonian Coniacian C34 2.32 15.4 5. G.8 284.9 303. land.2 Middle Bathonian England France 161.8 2.3 "Sayan (Rn)" 391.9 Pragian Lochkovian Ludfordian Gorstian Homerian Sheinwoodian 425 430 435 440 445 450 455 460 465 470 475 480 485 490 495 505 510 515 520 525 530 535 540 Ludlow Wenlock Llandovery Bajocian Aalenian Toarcian Southern 167.0 2.2 (Ma) m.8 155.4 3. no reproduction of any parts may take place without written permission by the ICS.5 199.5 155 160 Late Kimmeridgian Oxfordian Callovian Jurassic 35 L Priabonian Bartonian 3.6 422.8 89. G.7 Spain Southern 171.03 Early Aptian (ISEA) mixed polarity Visean mixed polarity Pleistocene C1 1.37 M0r 125. Austria and Turkey Albania.8 436. Ogg.1 255 Lopingian Wuchiapingian Illawara 0 Holocene Polarity Chron C30 PALEOZOIC AGE Duration (Ma) 65.4 M12/ M15 140.60 23. Spain.2 M16 M17 355 Tournaisian 5.8 Triassic Carnian 225 L Thanetian C25 58.1 471.3 360 365 370 375 380 385 390 395 400 405 410 415 420 Famennian Late Frasnian Middle Givetian Eifelian Emsian Early Pridoli mixed polarity mixed polarity 15.6 12.0 2.9 426.0 M1 M3 130.0 237.8 3. AGE Period (Ma) Epoch Stage Changhsingian Polarity Chron AGE Duration 251.5 85.5 407.5 Cretaceous 145.6 Switzerland S-Switzer.0 6. 65 Early Triassic Olenekian Induan 4.05 C5 13.9 230 E14 216.5 E13 E12/ E10 11.5 Jurassic 199.5 3. Poland Canadian Arctic Early 29 Paleocene 542.2 C18 C19 40.7 5.3 1.5 5.5 m.3 93.73 1. Greece.2 311.0 60 M Selandian E Danian 3.4 18.3 14.7 418.y.7 251. 125 Barremian 130 135 140 145 150 25 C7 Devonian Hauterivian Valanginian Berriasian Tithonian Oligocene L Chattian C8 C9 C10 C11 28.3 150.3 165 170 C17 37.y.01 1.3 Cambrian 542 Ma Copyright © 2004 International Commission on Stratigraphy .6 E18 E17 E16 E15 Early Tremadocian Furongian 50 Cambrian C22 500 Paibian E Ypresian 55 C23 12.0 3.6 270.2 6.9 345.65 2.3 3.9 7.2 468.0 4.stratigraphy.7 Ordovician Silurian M18/ M21 M22 M23/ M25 M26/ M32 M33/ M37 145.9 3.ICS GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE PHANEROZOIC Stage Polarity Chron CENOZOIC AGE Period Epoch (Ma) Quaternary MESOZOIC AGE Duration (Ma) m.9 10.6 4.60 5. A.8 397.0 13. Italy.9 2.8 478.6 421.0 2.7 C26 C27 61. N-Italy Switzerland Telychian Aeronian 175 180 185 175.0 6.2 268.1 4.7 501 10 513 Paleogene 183.0 8.2 164.4 112. This chart is copyright protected.7 488.8 5.3 428.25 Neogene L Cretaceous 95 Pennsylvanian 10 Tortonian C4 4.46 120 M"-1r" Early E Aquitanian C6 20.7 445.0 249.6 9.1 460.5 3. (2004) with Cambridge University Press. M.81 0.France.7 1. Smith.0 260 270 275 280 285 290 295 Campanian Guadalupian Capitanian Wordian Roadian C33 Kungurian Kiaman Cisuralian Sakmarian Late reversed polarity Late 85 90 Artinskian 7.0 443.6 12.81 Maastrichtian 5.1 8.7 4.6 1.4 3.6 306.6 5 275. Gradstein.7 6.9 Middle 7. and the official website of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) under www.2 3.9 359.7 mixed polarity 30 E Rupelian C12 C13/ C16 33.0 Eocene M Lutetian C20 8.6 E24/ 203.6 Permian 251 Carboniferous 299 359.33 1.4 Rhuddanian Hirnantian no data 40 Late Darriwilian 9.3 13.7 6.8 6.6 189.8 416.9 83.7 488.6 4.97 100 105 110 115 Moscovian Bashkirian Serpukhovian Mississippian 15 Langhian Albian Middle Late M "Donetzian" Burdigalian 20 4.4 265.3 Neogene Paleogene 0 23 65.9 5.0 E6/E2 Greece.0 245.5 4. J.0 Ladinian 9.4 5.2 411.7 2.2 4.8 5.2 294.5 5.3 374.6 Early Pliensbachian Sinemurian Hettangian Rhaetian Norian Middle 190 195 200 205 210 45 western Austria 196.