Geologic Time Scale 2020 Felix M.

Gradstein
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/geologic-time-scale-2020-felix-m-gradstein/
Geologic Time Scale 2020
Geologic Time Scale 2020

Edited by

Felix M. Gradstein
James G. Ogg
Mark D. Schmitz
Gabi M. Ogg
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2020, Felix M. Gradstein, James G. Ogg, Mark D. Schmitz and Gabi M. Ogg. Published by Elsevier BV.
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and
our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can
be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as
may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any
information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they
should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional
responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for
any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any
use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

This Volume (1) ISBN: 978-0-12-824362-6

Volume 2 ISBN: 978-0-12-824363-3
Set ISBN: 978-0-12-824360-2

For Information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Front cover of Volume 1: Toarcian boundary stratotype section, Peniche, Portugal. Photograph by F.M. Gradstein.

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisitions Editor: Amy Shapiro
Editorial Project Manager: Susan Ikeda
Production Project Manager: Kiruthika Govindaraju
Cover Designer: Mark Rogers
Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India
Quotes
To place all the scattered pages of Earth history in their proper chronological
order is by no means an easy task.
Arthur Holmes

The fascination in creating a new geologic time scale is that it evokes images of
creating a beautiful carpet by many skilled hands. All stitches must conform to a
pre-determined pattern, in this case the pattern of physical, chemical and biological
events on Earth aligned along the arrow of time.
This book—Foreword
 Contents

Volume 1 3H. Larger benthic foraminifera 88

Contributors xi M.D. Simmons
Editors’ Biographies xv 3I. Dinoflagellates 99
Preface xvii R.A. Fensome and D.K. Munsterman
Abbreviations and acronyms xix
3J. Plants, spores, and pollen 109
H. Kerp, G. Mangerud and
Part I S.R. Gradstein
Introduction 1 3K. Cretaceous microcrinoids 122
1. Introduction 3 A.S. Gale

F.M. Gradstein 3L. Three major mass extinctions and

evolutionary radiations in
2. The Chronostratigraphic Scale 21 their aftermath 125
S. Esmeray-Senlet
F.M. Gradstein and J.G. Ogg
4. Astrochronology 139
J. Laskar
Part II
Concepts and Methods 33 5. Geomagnetic Polarity Time
Scale 159
3. Evolution and Biostratigraphy 35
J.G. Ogg
Coordinated by F.M. Gradstein

3A. Trilobites 36 6. Radioisotope Geochronology 193

S. Peng, L.E. Babcock and P. Ahlberg M.D. Schmitz, B.S. Singer and A.D. Rooney
3B. Graptolites 43
J. Zalasiewicz, M. Williams and A. Rushton 7. Strontium Isotope Stratigraphy 211
3C. Chitinozoans 50 J.M. McArthur, R.J. Howarth, G.A. Shields
A. Butcher and Y. Zhou
3D. Conodonts 56
C.M. Henderson 8. Osmium Isotope Stratigraphy 239
3E. Ammonoidea 61 B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink and G.E. Ravizza
A.S. Gale, D. Korn, A.J. McGowan,
J. Cope and C. Ifrim 9. Sulfur Isotope Stratigraphy 259
3F. Calcareous nannofossils 69 A. Paytan, W. Yao, K.L. Faul and E.T. Gray
D.K. Watkins and I. Raffi
10. Oxygen Isotope Stratigraphy 279
3G. Planktonic foraminifera 74
M.R. Petrizzo, B.S. Wade and E.L. Grossman and M.M. Joachimski
F.M. Gradstein

vii
viii Contents

11. Carbon Isotope Stratigraphy 309 Part III

B.D. Cramer and I. Jarvis Geologic Periods: Planetary and
Precambrian 441
12. Influence of Large Igneous Provinces 345
R.E. Ernst, D.P.G. Bond and S.H. Zhang 15. The Planetary Time Scale 443
H. Hiesinger and K. Tanaka
13. Phanerozoic Eustasy 357
M.D. Simmons, K.G. Miller, D.C. Ray, 16. Precambrian (4.56 1 Ga) 481
A. Davies, F.S.P. van Buchem and B. Gréselle
R. Strachan, J.B. Murphy, J. Darling, C. Storey
and G. Shields
14. Geomathematics 401
14A. Geomathematical and Statistical 17. The Tonian and Cryogenian Periods 495
Procedures 402
G. Halverson, S. Porter and G. Shields
F.P. Agterberg, A-C. Da Silva and
F.M. Gradstein
18. The Ediacaran Period 521
14B. Global Composite Sections
and Constrained Optimization 425 S.H. Xiao and G.M. Narbonne
P. Sadler
 Contents ix

Volume 2 26. The Jurassic Period 955

Abbreviations and acronyms xi S.P. Hesselbo, J.G. Ogg and M. Ruhl

Part IV 27. The Cretaceous Period 1023

Geologic Periods: Phanerozoic 563 A.S. Gale, J. Mutterlose and S. Batenburg
19. The Cambrian Period 565
28. The Paleogene Period 1087
S.C. Peng, L.E. Babcock and P. Ahlberg
R.P. Speijer, H. Pälike, C.J. Hollis, J.J. Hooker
20. The Ordovician Period 631 and J.G. Ogg

D. Goldman, P.M. Sadler and S.A. Leslie 29. The Neogene Period 1141
21. The Silurian Period 695 I. Raffi, B.S. Wade and H. Pälike

M.J. Melchin, P.M. Sadler and B.D. Cramer 30. The Quaternary Period 1217
22. The Devonian Period 733 P.L. Gibbard and M.J. Head

R.T. Becker, J.E.A. Marshall and A.-C. Da Silva 31. The Anthropocene 1257
23. The Carboniferous Period 811 J. Zalasiewicz, C. Waters and M. Williams

M. Aretz, H.G. Herbig and X.D. Wang

Appendix 1: Recommended color
24. The Permian Period 875 coding of stages 1281
C.M. Henderson and S.Z. Shen Appendix 2: Radioisotopic ages used
in GTS2020 1285
25. The Triassic Period 903
Index 1351
J.G. Ogg and Z.-Q. Chen

Senior authors
Felix M. Gradstein, Geological Museum, University of
Oslo, P.O. Box 1172 Blindern, N-0318 Oslo, Norway,
felix.gradstein@gmail.com
James G. Ogg, State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas
Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Institute of
Sedimentary Geology, Chengdu University of
Technology, Chengdu, 610059, China, jogg@purdue.edu
Mark D. Schmitz, Department of Geosciences, Boise
State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho,
83725-1535, USA, markschmitz@boisestate.edu
Gabi M. Ogg, Geologic TimeScale Foundation, 1224 N.
Salisbury St., West Lafayette, Indiana, 47906, USA,
gabiogg@hotmail.com
Frits P. Agterberg, Geological Survey of Canada, 601
Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OE8, Canada,
Frits.Agterberg@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
Markus Aretz, Laboratoire Géosciences Environnement,
Université de Toulouse, CNRS, IRD, UPS, 31400
Toulouse, France, markus.aretz@get.omp.eu
Thomas R. Becker, Geologisch-Paläeontogisches Institut,
Westfalische Wilhelm-Universität, Correnstrasse 24,
D-48149 Münster, Germany, rbecker@uni-muenster.de
Anthony Butcher, School of the Environment,
Geography and Geosciences, University of
Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3QL, UK, anthony.
butcher@port.ac.uk
Bradley D. Cramer, Earth and Environmental Sciences,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 52242, USA,
bradley-cramer@uiowa.edu
Richard E. Ernst, Department of Earth Sciences,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6,
Canada, richard.ernst@ernstgeosciences.com
Selen Esmeray-Senlet, Chevron Energy and Technology
Company, 1500 Louisiana St., Houston, Texas, 77002,
USA, selenesmeray@chevron.com
Rob A. Fensome, Geological Survey of Canada
(Atlantic), Natural Resources Canada, Dartmouth, Nova
Scotia, B2Y 4A2, Canada, rob.fensome@canada.ca
Contributors
Andrew S. Gale, School of the Environment, Geography
and Geosciences, University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth, PO1 3QL, UK, andy.gale@port.ac.uk
Philip L. Gibbard, Department of Geography,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK,
plg1@cam.ac.uk
Daniel Goldman, Department of Geology, University of
Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, 45469, USA, dgoldman1@u-
dayton.edu
Ethan L. Grossman, Department of Geology &
Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, 77843-3115, USA, e-grossman@ta-
mu.edu
Galen P. Halverson, Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, H3A
0E8, Canada, galen.halverson@mcgill.ca
Charles M. Henderson, Department of Geoscience,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4,
Canada, cmhender@ucalgary.ca
Stephen P. Hesselbo, Camborne School of Mines,
University of Exeter, Penryn, TR10 9FE, UK, S.P.
Hesselbo@exeter.ac.uk
Harald Hiesinger, Institut für Planetologie, Westfälische
Wilhelms-Universität Münster, D-48149 Münster,
Germany, hhies_01@uni-muenster.de
Hans Kerp, Institut für Geologie und Paläontologie,
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, D-48143 Münster,
Germany, kerp@uni-muenster.de
Jacques Laskar, IMCCE, Observatoire de Paris, 77 Av.
Denfert-Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France, jacques.las-
kar@obspm.fr
John M. McArthur, [Chemostratigraphy coordinator
for GTS2020], Department of Earth Sciences, University
College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT,
UK, j.mcarthur@ucl.ac.uk
Michael J. Melchin, Department of Earth Sciences, St.
Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia,
B2G 2W5, Canada, mmelchin@stfx.ca
xi
xii Contributors
Adina Paytan, Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156
High St, Santa Cruz, California, 95064, USA, apayta-
n@ucsc.edu
Shanchi Peng, Nanjing Institute of Geology and
Palaeontology, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, 39
East Beijing Road, Nanjing, 210008, China, scpeng@-
nigpas.ac.cn
Maria Rose Petrizzo, Department of Earth Sciences
“Ardito Desio”, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via
Mangiagalli, 34 20133 Milano, Italy, mrose.petriz-
zo@unimi.it
Bernhard Peucker-Ehrenbrink, Woods Hole Oceano-
graphic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
02543-1541, USA, behrenbrink@whoi.edu
Isabella Raffi, Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Geologia,
Università “G. d’Annunzio” di Chieti-Pescara, I-66013
Chieti Scalo, Italy, raffi@unich.it
Peter M. Sadler, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of California, Riverside, Riverside,
California, 92521, USA, peter.sadler@ucr.edu
Matthew R. Saltzman, School of Earth Sciences, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210-1398, USA,
saltzman.11@osu.edu
Graham A. Shields, Department of Earth Sciences,
University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK,
g.shields@ucl.ac.uk
Michael D. Simmons, Halliburton, 97 Milton Park,
Abingdon, OX14 4RY, UK, mike.simmons@hallibur-
ton.com
Robert P. Speijer, Department of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, K.U. Leuven, B-3001
Leuven, Belgium, Robert.Speijer@ees.kuleuven.be
Rob Strachan, School of the Environment, Geography
and Geosciences, University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth, PO1 3QL, UK, rob.strachan@port.ac.uk
David K. Watkins, Department of Earth & Atmospheric
Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska,
68588-0340, USA, dwatkins1@unl.edu
Shuhai Xiao, Department of Geosciences, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 4044
Derring Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia, 24061-0420, USA,
xiao@vt.edu
Jan Zalasiewicz, Department of Geology, University of
Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK, jaz1@leicester.ac.uk
Co-authors
Per Ahlberg, Department of Geology, Sölvegatan 12,
SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden, per.ahlberg@geol.lu.se
Loren E. Babcock, School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USA, bab-
cock.5@osu.edu
Sietske J. Batenburg, Geosciences Rennes, Université
de Rennes, UMR 6118, 35000 Rennes, France, sbaten-
burg@gmail.com
David P.G. Bond, Department of Geography,
Environment and Earth Sciences, University of Hull,
Hull, HU6 7RX, UK, d.bond@hull.ac.uk
Zhong-Qiang Chen, State Key Laboratory of
Biogeology and Environmental Geology, School of
Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences,
Wuhan, 430074, China, zhong.qiang.chen@cug.
edu.cn
John Cope, Department of Natural Sciences, National
Museum Wales, Cardiff CF10 3NP, UK, john.
cope@nmgw.ac.uk
Anne-Christine Da Silva, Pétrologie sédimentaire, B20,
Géologie, Université de Liège, B-4000 Liège,
Belgium, ac.dasilva@uliege.be
James Darling, School of the Environment, Geography
and Geosciences, University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth PO1 3QL, UK, james.darling@port.ac.uk
Andrew Davies, Halliburton, Milton Park, Abingdon,
OX14 4RW, UK, andrew.davies@halliburton.com
Kristina L. Faul, Chemistry Department, Mills College,
5000 MacArthur Blvd, Oakland, California, 94613,
USA, kfaul@mills.edu
Stephan R. Gradstein, Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Department Systématique et Evolution, 57
rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France, grad-
stein@mnhn.fr
Ellen T. Gray, Earth and Planetary Science, University
of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California,
95064, USA, eltgray@gmail.com
Benjamin Gréselle, Halliburton, Milton Park,
Abingdon, OX14 4RW, UK, benjamin.greselle@halli-
burton.com
Martin J. Head, Department of Earth Sciences, Brock
University, St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada,
mjhead@brocku.ca
Hans-Georg Herbig, Universität zu Köln, Institut für
Geologie und Mineralogie, 50674 Köln, Germany, her-
big.paleont@uni-koeln.de
Andrew C. Hill, Centro de Astrobiologı́a (INTA-CSIC),
Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial, 28850
Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain, andrew.hill@-
cliffsnr.com
Christopher J. Hollis, GNS Science, Lower Hutt, 5040,
New Zealand, c.hollis@gns.cri.nz

Jerry J. Hooker, Department of Palaeontology, Natural
History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, UK, j.hoo-
ker@nhm.ac.uk
Richard J. Howarth, Department of Earth Sciences,
University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK,
r.howarth@ucl.ac.uk
Christina Ifrim, Institut für Geowissenschaften,
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im
Nuenheimer Feld 234, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany,
christina.ifrim@geow.uni-heidelberg.de
Ian Jarvis, Department of Geography, Geology and
the Environment, Kingston University London,
Kingston upon Thames KT1 2EE, UK, I.
Jarvis@kingston.ac.uk
Michael M. Joachimski, GeoZentrum Nordbayern,
Lithosphere Dynamics, Friedrich-Alexander-
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen,
Germany, michael.joachimski@fau.de
Clark M. Johnson, Department of Geoscience,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1215 W Dayton St.,
Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA, clarkj@geology.
wisc.edu
Dieter Korn, Leibniz Institute for Research on Evolution
and Biodiversity, Humboldt University Berlin, 10115
Berlin, Germany, dieter.korn@mfn-berlin.de
Stephen A. Leslie, Department of Geology and
Environmental Science, James Madison University,
MSC 6903, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 22807, USA,
lesliesa@jmu.edu
Breandán A. MacGabhann, Earth and Ocean Sciences,
National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway,
Ireland, b.macgabhann1@nuigalway.ie
Gunn Mangerud, Department of Earth Science,
University of Bergen, N-5020 Bergen, Norway, Gunn.
Mangerud@uib.no
John E. Marshall, National Oceanography Centre
Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK, jeam@so-
ton.ac.uk
Alistair J. McGowan, BioGeoD, 23 Glendinning
Crescent, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 6DR, UK, bio-
geod@gmail.com
Ken G. Miller, Department of Earth & Planetary
Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey,
08854, USA, kgm@rutgers.edu
Dirk K. Munsterman, T.N.O. Princetonlaan 6, 3508 TA
Utrecht, The Netherlands, Dirk.munsterman@tno.nl
Brendan J. Murphy, Department of Earth Sciences, St
Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia,
B2G 2W5, Canada, bjmurphy@stfx.ca
Contributors xiii
Joerg Mutterlose, Institut fuer Geologie, Mineralogie
und Geophysik, 44801 Bochum, Germany, joerg.mut-
terlose@rub.de
Guy M. Narbonne, Department of Geological Sciences
& Geological Engineering, Queen’s University,
Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada, narbonne@geol.
queensu.ca
Heiko Pälike, MARUM Center for Marine
Environmental Science, Universität Bremen, D-28359
Bremen, Germany, hpaelike@marum.de
Susannah M. Porter, Department of Earth Science,
University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara,
California, 93106-9630, USA, porter@geol.ucsb.edu
Gregory E. Ravizza, Department of Geology &
Geophysics, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu,
Hawaii, 96822, USA, ravizza@hawaii.edu
David C. Ray, Halliburton, 97 Milton Park, Abingdon,
OX14 4RY, UK, david.ray@halliburton.com
Alan D. Rooney, Department of Geology and
Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut, 06520-8109, USA, alan.rooney@yale.edu
Micha Ruhl, Department of Geology, Trinity College,
Dublin 2, Ireland, Micha.Ruhl@tcd.ie
Adrian Rushton, Department of Earth Sciences, The
Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, UK,
awarparadox@waitrose.com
Shu-Zhong Shen, Nanjing Institute of Geology and
Palaeontology, 39 East Beijing Road, Nanjing, 210008,
China, szshen@nigpas.ac.cn
Brad S. Singer, The Department of Geoscience,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin,
53706-1692, USA, bsinger@geology.wisc.edu
Craig Storey, School of the Environment, Geography
and Geosciences, University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth PO1 3QL, UK, craig.storey@port.ac.uk
Ken Tanaka, 4214 N Fanning Dr., Flagstaff, Arizona,
86004, USA, tanaka@npgcable.com
Frans S. Van Buchem, Halliburton, Milton Park,
Abingdon, OX14 4RW, UK, frans.vanbuchem@halli-
burton.com
Bridget S. Wade, Department of Earth Sciences,
University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK,
b.wade@ucl.ac.uk
Xiangdong Wang, Nanjing University, School of Earth
Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing, 210023, China,
xdwang@nju.edu.cn
Colin N. Waters, Department of Geology, University of
Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK, cw398@leicester.
ac.uk
xiv Contributors
Mark Williams, School of Geography, Geology and the
Environment, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1
7RH, UK, mri@leicester.ac.uk
Weiqi Yao, Department of Earth Sciences, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, mri@leicester.
ac.uk
Shuan-Hong Zhang, Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese
Academy of Geological Sciences, No. 11 South
Minzudaxue Road, Beijing, 100081, China, tozhang-
shuanhong@163.com
Ying Zhou, London Geochemistry and Isotope Centre,
Institute of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University
College London and Birkbeck, Gower Street, London,
WC1E 6BT, UK, y.shields-zhou@ucl.ac.uk
With contributions by:
Alan G. Beu, GNS Science, Lower Hutt 5040, New
Zealand, a.beu@gns.cri.nz
Martin Crundwell, GNS Science, Lower Hutt 5040,
New Zealand, m.crundwell@gns.cri.nz
Linda A. Hinnov, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic,
and Earth Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia, 22030, USA, lhinnov@gmu.edu
Chunju Huang, School of Earth Sciences, China
University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China,
huangcj@cug.edu.cn
Haishui Jiang, State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and
Environmental Geology, School of Earth Sciences,
China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074,
China, jiangliuis@163.com
Wouter Krijgsman, Department of Earth Sciences,
Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 17, 3584 CD
Utrecht, The Netherlands, W.Krijgsman@uu.nl
Theodore Moore, Department of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 48109, USA, tedmoore@umich.edu
Michael Orchard, Geological Survey of Canada, 101-
605 Robson Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B
5J3, Canada, morchard@nrcan.gc.ca
J. Ian Raine, GNS Science, Lower Hutt, 5040, New
Zealand, i.raine@gns.cri.nz
Raffaele Sardella, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra,
“la Sapienza” Università di Roma, 00185 Roma, Italy,
raffaele.sadella@uniroma1.it
Yuliia Vernyhorova, Institute of Geological Sciences,
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv
01601, Ukraine, juliy.vern@gmail.com

Felix M. Gradstein is Professor Emeritus at Oslo
University, Norway, and visiting Research Fellow at the
University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom. From 2000 to
2008, he was chair of the International Commission on
Stratigraphy. Under his leadership, major progress was
made with the formal definition of chronostratigraphic units
from Precambrian through Quaternary. For his fundamental
work concerning the Geologic Time Scale, geochronology
in general, quantitative stratigraphy, and micropaleontology,
the European Geosciences Union awarded him the Jean
Baptiste Lamarck Medal in 2010. He is Chair of the
Geologic TimeScale Foundation and teaches courses in
quantitative stratigraphy and the geologic time scale. Now
that he has free time again, after completing this book with
his outstanding coeditors and coauthors, he studies the early
evolution of planktonic foraminifera.
James G. Ogg is Professor at Purdue University, Indiana,
United States, now retired/adjunct. He is also currently a vis-
iting distinguished professor at Chengdu University of
Technology and at China University of Geoscience
(Wuhan). He served as Secretary General of the
International Commission on Stratigraphy (2000 08) and
currently is executive director of the Geologic TimeScale
Foundation and coordinator of TimeScale Creator service
(https://timescalecreator.org/). His Mesozoic Stratigraphy
Lab group has worked on aspects of climate cycles, magnetic
polarity correlations, and integration of stratigraphic infor-
mation. Their TimeScale Creator array of visualization tools
Editors’
Biographies
and extensive databases in global and regional Earth history
was used to generate many of the diagrams in this book.
Mark D. Schmitz is Professor of Geochemistry at Boise
State University, Idaho, United States. He has extensive
research interests in the development and application of
radiogenic isotope geochemistry and high-precision
U Pb geochronology to problems of Earth systems evo-
lution. He has been an active member of the Earth Time
community and was coeditor and author for the Geologic
Time Scale 2012. He seeks to enrich the radioisotopic cal-
ibration of the time scale through targeted dating of strati-
graphically important volcanic event beds and the
construction of robust chronostratigraphic models through
geologic time. His extensive database with over 300 stan-
dardized radiogenic isotope ages (mainly U/Pb and Ar/
Ar) is vital to this book.
Gabi M. Ogg applied micropaleontology to Jurassic
Cretaceous correlations before concentrating on public
outreach in geosciences. She coordinated the extensive
array of graphics in this book and is the webmaster for
the Geologic TimeScale Foundation (https://timescale-
foundation.org) and for the TimeScale Creator visualiza-
tion and database suites (https://timescalecreator.org). In
addition to coauthoring the Concise Geologic Time Scale
(GTS2016) and The Geologic Time Scale (GTS2012)
books, she has produced numerous posters and time scale
cards for public audiences.
xv

This study presents the academic science community,
industry, and schools with the new geologic time scale for
c. 4 billion years of Earth history. A chapter also is devoted
to time scales for our Moon and neighboring planets. This
book details many recent advances in stratigraphy, the sci-
ence of the layering of strata and its content, in evolution
and biostratigraphy, in astrochronology, in geomagnetics,
in radiogenic and stable isotope chronology, and in age and
duration calculations using orbital tuning and geostatistics.
The new scale closely links radioisotopic and orbitally
tuned age dates and tries to provide comprehensive error
analysis on the ages of a majority of boundaries for the
geologic divisions of time. Much benefit is derived from
the steady increase in formal definition of geologic stage
boundaries such that we have more stability in their defini-
tion than in 2012. This book thus presents Geologic Time
Scale 2020 (GTS2020), as the successor of GTS2012.
Besides being utilized as a scholarly and convenient
standard, GTS2012 also provided fruit and gave impetus
to a large body of new research in the fields of radio-
metrics, chronostratigraphy, orbital tuning, and other
Earth Science specialties. One of the most rewarding
aspects of science is always to see result becoming the
springboard for exciting new developments, and unex-
pected new answers.
As a fruit of these intense developments, we now
proudly present “The Geologic Time Scale 2020” build-
ing on a tremendous amount of new information, much of
it generously assembled and contributed by the large team
of specialists.
The fascination in creating a new geologic time scale
is that it evokes images of creating a beautiful carpet by
many skilled hands. All stitches must conform to a prede-
termined pattern, in this case the pattern of physical,
chemical, and biological events on the Earth aligned
along the arrow of time. It is thus, that this, new scale is a
tribute to the truly close cooperation achieved by this new
slate of outstanding coauthors. We also consider the new
time scale a tribute to the scientific competence harbored
and fostered by the global geoscience community.
We are deeply grateful to all coauthors and contribu-
tors, who without reservation accepted the challenge to be
Preface
part of this dedicated team, slowly (!) stitching and weav-
ing this carpet of time and its events that portray Earth’s
unique and splendid history.
The Norwegian Arctic explorer, scientist, and statesman
Fridtjof Nansen is quoted as once saying “The difficult is
what takes a little time; the impossible is what takes a little
longer.” To be frank, there were times when we encoun-
tered seemingly impossible obstacles in what otherwise
seemed to be fairly smooth long-distance sailing from one
specialty island to the next one, and staying in touch
through a dense network of emails. To says it simple: the
challenge with the construction of a detailed geologic time
scale spanning almost 4 billion years of Earth history is
that it should not have glaring gaps in time coverage.
Looking back at the 8 years it took to complete
GTS2020, it is almost funny to consider that chapters of this
book covering the oldest rocks and “some time before,” that
is, Precambrian and Planetary were completed first, fol-
lowed by Late Proterozoic and Precambrian, whereas
Mesozoic and particularly Paleogene and Neogene book
chapters were last. We might consider that the younger
record on the Earth is more complete, more easily accessi-
ble, and more easily decipherable but also creates high-
resolution data swamping.
Whatever the timing and delays in bringing some
chapters to market, we are grateful that all authors, with-
out exception, have strived to keep to the final deadline
agreed upon by Elsevier Publishing. To achieve clarity
and uniformity in scientific and artistic presentation, Gabi
M. Ogg drafted most of the figures. Christopher Scotese
kindly provided paleogeographic map reconstructions
with the chapters. The Elsevier Production Manager,
Kiruthika Govindaraju, was very patient in shepherding
the new GTS book through a seemingly endless type-set-
ting and proofing process.
Felix M. Gradstein, James G. Ogg,
Mark D. Schmitz and Gabi M. Ogg
Oslo, Norway; W. Lafayette, IN, USA; and
Boise, ID, USA. 8 September 2020
xvii
 Abbreviations
and acronyms

ORGANIZATIONS GEOSCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS

CGMW Commission for the Geological Map of the World CA-TIMS Chemical abrasion—thermal ionization mass
DNAG Decade of North American Geology spectrometry (in U Pb dating)
DSDP Deep Sea Drilling Project FAD First appearance datum
GSC Geological Survey of Canada FOD First occurrence datum
ICS International Commission of Stratigraphy FCT (FCs) Fish Canyon Tuff sanidine monitor standard (in
IODP International Ocean Drilling Project Ar Ar dating)
IGC International Geological Congress GPTS Geomagnetic polarity time scale
IGCP International Geological Correlation Project GSSP Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point
INQUA International Quaternary Association GSSA Global Standard Stratigraphic Age (in Precambrian)
IUGS International Union of Geological Sciences HO Highest occurrence level
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry HR SIMS High-resolution secondary ion mass spectrometry (in
ODP Ocean Drilling Project U Pb dating)
SNS Subcommission (of ICS) on Neogene Stratigraphy ID-TIMS Isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry
PGS Subcommission (of ICS) on Paleogene Stratigraphy (in U Pb dating)
SQS Subcommission (of ICS) on Quaternary Stratigraphy LAD Last appearance datum
STS Subcommission (of ICS) on Triassic Stratigraphy LA- Laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass
SOS Subcommission (of ICS) on Ordovician Stratigraphy ICPMS Spectrometry (in U Pb dating)
SCS Subcommission (of ICS) on Cambrian Stratigraphy LO Lowest occurrence level
UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural LOD Last occurrence datum
Organization LA2004 Laskar 2004 numerical solution of orbital
USGS United States Geological Survey periodicities
LA2010 Laskar 2010 numerical solution of orbital periodicities
(Laskar et al., 2011)
MMhb-1 McClure Mountain hornblende monitor standard (in
TIME SCALE PUBLICATIONS Ar Ar dating)
NDS82 Numerical Dating in Stratigraphy (Odin et al., 1982) SL13 Sri Lanka 13 monitor zircon standard (in HR SIMS
GTS82 A Geologic Time Scale (Harland et al., 1982) dating)
DNAG83 Geologic Time Scale, Decade of North American TCs Taylor Creek Rhyolite sanidine monitor standard (in
Geology (Palmer, 1983) Ar Ar dating)
KG85 Kent and Gradstein (1985)
EX88 Exxon 1988 (Haq et al., 1988)
GTS89 A Geologic Time Scale 1989 (Harland et al., 1990)
OB93 Obradovich (1993)
SYMBOLS
JGR94 Journal of Geophysical Research 1994 (Gradstein et al., ka 103 years ago (kilo annum)
1994) kyr 103 years duration
SEPM95 Society for Sedimentary Geology 1995 (Gradstein et al., Ma 106 years ago (mega annum)
1995) Myr 106 years duration
GO96 Gradstein and Ogg (1996) Ga 109 years ago (giga annum)
GTS2004 Gradstein, Ogg and Smith (2004) Gyr 109 years duration
GTS2008 Ogg, Ogg and Gradstein (2008) SI Le Système Internationale d’Unités
GTS2012 Gradstein, Ogg, Schmitz and Ogg (2012) a annus (year)
GTS2016 Ogg, Ogg and Gradstein (2016) s second

xix
 F.M. Gradstein
Introduction
Chapter outline
1.1 The Geologic Time Scale
1.2 A Geologic Time Scale GTS2020
1.2.1 Recent developments
1.2.2 Methods and ages
1.3 How this book is arranged?
1.3.1 Conventions and standards
Abstract
The Geologic Time Scale (GTS) is the framework for decipher-
ing and understanding the history of our planet. The steady
increase in data, development of better methods and new proce-
dures for actual dating and scaling of the rocks on Earth, and a
refined relative scale with more defined units are stimulating the
need for a comprehensive review of the GTS. This review is
called GTS2020, of which GTS2012 is the ancestor. Relative to
its ancestor, the scope of the GTS2020 study is considerably
expanded, and stratigraphic resolution has further improved.
GTS2020 is laid out in two volumes. Volume 1 deals with prin-
ciples and methods and Volume 2 with the stratigraphy and time
scale units itself, for a total of 31 chapters, 14 Subchapters, and
2 Appendices. All information is clearly visualized in over 500
figures and tables.
1.1 The Geologic Time Scale
The Geologic Time Scale (GTS) is the framework for deci-
phering and understanding the long and complex history of
our planet, Earth, the third planet in the constellation
around the Sun and the fifth largest after Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune. As Arthur Holmes, the Father of the
GTS once wrote (Holmes, 1965) “To place all the scattered
pages of Earth history in their proper chronological order is
by no means an easy task.” Ordering these pages, and
understanding the physical, chemical and biological pro-
cesses that acted on them since Earth appeared and solidi-
fied, requires a detailed and accurate time scale. The time
scale is the tool “par excellence” of the geological trade,
and insight in its construction, strength, and limitations
Geologic Time Scale 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824360-2.00001-2
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Chapter 1
3 1.4 Historical overview of geologic time scales 12
4 1.4.1 Paleozoic scales 12
4 1.4.2 Mesozoic scales 14
10 1.4.3 Cenozoic scales 16
11 1.5 The World Geologic Time Scale 18
11 Bibliography 19
greatly enhances its function and its utility. All Earth scien-
tists should understand how the time scale is constructed
and how the myriad of physical and numerical data in it
are calibrated, rather than merely using the numbers in
them, plucked from a convenient wall chart or laminated
wallet card. This calibration to linear time of the succes-
sion of events recorded in the rocks on Earth has three
components:
1. the international stratigraphic divisions and their cor-
relation in the global rock record,
2. the means of measuring linear time or elapsed dura-
tions from the rock record, and
3. the methods of joining the two scales, the stratigraphic
one and the linear one.
For clarity and precision in international communication
the rock record of Earth’s history is subdivided into a “chrono-
stratigraphic” scale of standardized global stratigraphic units,
such as “Carboniferous,” “Eocene,” “Zigzagiceras zigzag
ammonite zone,” or “polarity Chron M19r.” Unlike the con-
tinuous ticking clock of the “chronometric” scale (measured
in years before the year CE 2000), the chronostratigraphic
scale is based on relative time units in which global reference
points at boundary stratotypes define the limits of the main
formalized units, such as “Permian.” The chronostratigraphic
scale is an agreed convention, whereas its calibration to linear
time is a matter for discovery or estimation (Fig. 1.1).
In contrast to the Phanerozoic that has an agreed-upon
chronostratigraphic scale with formal stage boundary
stratotypes, Precambrian stratigraphy is formally classified
chronometrically, that is, the base of each Precambrian
3
4 PART | I Introduction
FIGURE 1.1 The construction of a geologic time scale is the merger of
a chronometric scale (measured in years) and a chronostratigraphic scale
(formalized definitions of geologic stages, biostratigraphic zonation
units, magnetic polarity zones, and other subdivisions of the rock
record).
eon, era, and period is assigned a numerical age
(Table 1.1). In Chapter 16, Precambrian (4.56 Ga to
1 Ga), this Precambrian scale is outlined in some detail.
Moon, Earth’s only satellite, the Sun, and the universe
surrounding the Sun system play crucially important roles
in geology (think of tidal movements, global climatic
change, and Milankowić cyclicity, and meteorite
TABLE 1.1 Current framework for subdividing Earth stratigraphy.
Age in Ma Eon
To be discovered by correlation
from GSSPs and dating. Base of Phanerozoic Mesozoic
Phanerozoic dated at 538.8 Ma.
Age of basal Proterozoic defined
as 2500 Ma Proterozoic
Age of basal Archaen not defined
Archean
impacts). Earth GTS is a component of a much broader
and longer scale, the Astronomic Geologic Scale. Hence,
this book also devotes an important planetary chapter to
GTSs for our satellite Moon, our neighboring planets
Venus and Mars, and the more distant planets. In the last
decade, geologic research on these fascinating celestial
bodies has much expanded and improved.
1.2 A Geologic Time Scale GTS2020
1.2.1 Recent developments
For the last few years, there have been several major
developments that directly bear and have considerable
impact on the international GTS.
1. Stratigraphic standardization through the work of the
International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) is
steadily refining the international chronostratigraphic
scale. Of the 100 stage or series units in the
Phanerozoic Eonothem a majority (75) now have rati-
fied boundary definitions, versus fewer than 45 in
2004 and just over 30 in the year 2000. Details on the
new and existing stage boundary definitions are pre-
sented in Chapter 2, The Chronostratigraphic Scale.
2. In many cases traditional European-based geologic
stages have been replaced with new subdivisions that
allow global correlation. The Tonian, Cryogenian, and
Ediacaran Periods are “filling up” with stratigraphic
information and the latter has a formal lower boundary
definition (see Chapter 18: The Ediacaran Period).
New stages have been introduced in Cambrian and
Ordovician that allow global correlations, in contrast
to British, American, Chinese, Russian, or Australian
regional stages. Long ratified stage definitions in
Silurian and Devonian are undergoing long overdue
revision to better reflect the actually observed fossil
Era Definition of base
Cenozoic Boundaries defined in rock
(chronostratigraphically) by
Paleozoic GSSPs
Neoproterozoic Boundaries defined in time
Mesoproterozoic (chronometrically) by arbitrary
Paleaoproterozoic assignment of numerical age
Neoarchean Boundaries defined in time
Mesoarchean (chronometrically) by arbitrary
Paleoarchean assignment of numerical age
Eoarchean

and rock record. The Cretaceous, for a long time the
only period in the Phanerozoic without a formal defi-
nition for its base, has a realistic and practical biomag-
netostratigraphic proposal for its lower boundary (see
Chapter 27: The Cretaceous Period). Curiously, the
largest formal stratigraphic knowledge gap is from
Callovian to Aptian for which only one Global
Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) has
been defined (Hauterivian). A similar, albeit slightly
shorter GSSP gap exists in Pennsylvanian (Late
Carboniferous) through Early Permian.
All Paleocene (Danian, Selandian, Thanetian),
three Eocene (Ypresian, Lutetian, and Priabonian) and
all Oligocene (Rupelian, Chattian) stages are now
defined in the Cenozoic, and all but two Neogene
Stages (Langhian and Burdigalian) have been defined
and ratified. The Pleistocene and Holocene each are
formally divided into several units, and the
Anthropocene is eagerly working towards potential
formal chronostratigraphic recognition.
3. New or enhanced methods of extracting linear time
from the rock record have enabled age assignments
with a precision of 0.1% or better, leading to
improved age assignments of key geologic stage
boundaries, and intrastage levels. A good protocol
exists to assign uncertainty to age dates (see
Chapter 6: Radioisotope Geochronology), and cali-
brate the two principal radiogenic isotope techniques
using potassium argon and uranium lead isotopes.
Improved analytical procedures for obtaining ura-
nium lead ages from single zircons have shifted pub-
lished ages for some stratigraphic levels to older ages
by more than 1 Myr (e.g., at the Permian/Triassic
boundary). Similarly, an astronomically assigned age
for the neutron irradiation monitor for the 40Ar 39Ar
dating method makes earlier reported ages older by
0.64%. Also, the rhenium osmium (187Re 187Os)
shale geochronometer has a role to play for organic-
rich strata with limited or no potential for ash bed dat-
ing with the uranium lead isotopes. Details on the
improved radiogenic isotope methods are in
Chapter 6, Radioisotope Geochronology.
4. A welcome practice is that, instead of micro- and
macrofossil events, also global geochemical excur-
sions are defining criteria for chronostratigraphic
boundaries, like the Corg positive anomaly at the
Paleocene/Eocene boundary. Carbon isotope excur-
sions are close proxies for base Cambrian, base
Triassic, base Jurassic, base Aptian, and base
Turonian. The famous iridium anomaly is at the
Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary. More GSSPs should
use global geochemical events.
5. Milankowić orbital climate cyclicity tunes the Neogene
GTS, scaling it in over 50 405-kyr Astrochrono Zones
Introduction Chapter | 1 5
(see Chapter 29: The Neogene Period). For the first
time the classical seafloor spreading and magnetochro-
nology methods play only a minor role in scaling the
Paleogene. It is now almost completely orbitally tuned
(see Chapter 28: The Paleogene Period). Hence, mag-
neto- and biochronology are refined and stage boundary
ages strengthened. Parts of Jurassic and Cretaceous
benefit from cycle scaling for sets of “floating” stages,
providing detailed estimates of stage duration.
Chapter 4, Astrochronology, provides an in-depth
review of Astrochronology for the construction of an
orbitally tuned GTS.
6. Improved scaling of stages is feasible with composite
standard techniques on fossil zones, as a means of
estimating relative zone durations. A good example is
the Ordovician Silurian interval with a refined grap-
tolite composite standard with more and better age
dates. Since radioisotopic dates often are now more
accurate than zonal or fossil event assignments, the
uneven spacing and fluctuating accuracy and precision
of both radioisotopic dates and zonal composite scales
demands special statistical and mathematical techni-
ques to calculate the GTS. This is outlined in-depth in
the important Chapter 14, Geomathematics, on time
scale geomathematics and geostatistics.
7. The assignment of error bars to ages of stage bound-
aries, first advocated by Gradstein et al. (1994)
attempts to combine the most up-to-date estimate of
uncertainty in radioisotopic dating and in stratigraphic
scaling into one number. Although stratigraphic rea-
soning to arrive at uncertainties plays a role, geos-
ciences are no less than physics and chemistry when it
comes to assigning realistic error bars to its vital num-
bers. The geomathematical and geostatistical methods
employed to construct GTS2020 are outlined in
Chapter 14, Geomathematics.
Continual improvements in data coverage, methodol-
ogy, and standardization of chronostratigraphic units
imply that no GTS can be final. The new GTS2020 pro-
vides detailed insight in the most up-to-date GTS and is
the successor to GTS2012 (Gradstein et al., 2012),
GTS2004 (Gradstein et al., 2004) and GTS1989 (Harland
et al., 1990).
The set of chronostratigraphic units (stages, eras) and
their computed ages that constitute the main framework
for GTS2020 is shown in Fig. 1.2, with detailed descrip-
tions and stratigraphic scales in appropriate chapters.
About 30% of Phanerozoic stage boundary ages have a
change of their lower boundary by more than 0.5 Myr,
and in some cases much more (shown in red) (see
Table 1.2).
The time scale project leading to GTS2020 com-
menced in 2016, and in total involved over 99 scientists.
6 PART | I Introduction

FIGURE 1.2 The new Geologic Time Scale.

 Introduction Chapter | 1 7

TABLE 1.2 Modified ages of stage boundaries in this book relative to ‘A Geologic Time 2012’ (GTS2012). A majority
of age changes involve a combination of better cycle stratigraphy, more radioisotopic dates, higher stratigraphic
resolution, change in stage boundary definition and/or new composite standard and spline fits. Stages or series that
changed boundary age by 0.5 Ma or more in GTS2020 are shown in red.

Age/Stage GTS2012 GTS2020 GTS2020 Snapshot comments on selected levels

uncertainty
in myr (95%)
Quaternary TOP 0 (2000)
Meghalayan 0.043 New Holocene stage
Northgrippian 0.082 New Holocene stage
Greenlandian 0.012 0.012 Base of Holocene Epoch
Upper 0.126 0.126
Pleistocene
Chibanian 0.78 0.78
Calabrian 1.81 1.81
Gelasian 2.59 2.58 Revised correlation of GSSP horizon to astronomical cycles
Neogene Piacenzian 3.60 3.60
Zanclean 5.33 5.33
Messinian 7.25 7.25
Tortonian 11.63 11.63
Serravallian 13.82 13.82
Langhian 15.97 15.99 Enhanced magneto-cyclostratigraphic accuracy
Burdigalian 20.43 20.45 ,, ,,
Aquitanian 23.03 23.04 ,, ,,
Paleogene Chattian 28.1 27.3 Ratified GSSP uses a higher marker and with revised
magneto-cyclostratigraphic correlation
Rupelian 33.9 33.9
Priabonian 37.8 37.7 Enhanced magneto-cyclostratigraphic accuracy
Bartonian 41.2 41.0 ,, ,,
Lutetian 47.8 48.1 ,, ,,
Ypresian 56.0 56.0
Thanetian 59.2 59.2
Selandian 61.6 61.7 Enhanced magneto-cyclostratigraphic accuracy
Danian 66.0 66.0 0.1 Precise lower stage boundary age date
Cretaceous Maastrichtian 72.1 72.2 0.2
Campanian 83.6 83.7 0.5
Santonian 86.3 85.7 0.2 Revised marker and cyclostratigraphy
Coniacian 89.8 89.4 0.2 Revised radioisotopic dating and cyclostratigraphy
Turonian 93.9 93.9 0.2 Precise lower stage boundary age date
Cenomanian 100.5 100.5 0.1 ,, ,,
Albian 113.0 113.2 0.3 Ratified GSSP uses slightly older marker
Aptian 126.3 121.4 0.6 New radioisotopic dating and magnetostratigraphy near
base-Aptian boundary.

(Continued )
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
political significance, so as to denote nothing whatever
besides this beneficent Christian action upon the people. For
natural morality and the precepts of the Gospel, for the very
reason that they transcend the chances of human existence,
must necessarily be independent of any particular form of
civil government and adapt themselves to all, so long as there
is nothing to conflict with virtue and right. They are,
therefore, and remain in themselves, absolutely external to
all conflict of parties and vicissitudes of occurrence, so
that, under whatever kind of government, people may and ought
to abide by these precepts, which bid them love God above all
and their neighbors as themselves. This has ever been the
morality of the Church: by it Roman Pontiffs have constantly
dealt with states whatever might be their executive
government. And this being so, the mind and action of
Catholics, when devoted to promoting the good of the lower
orders, cannot by any possibility aim at embracing and
introducing any one form of government in preference to
another.

"Just in the same way must Christian Democracy repudiate the

other ground of offense, which arises from paying so much
regard to the interests of the lower classes as to seem to
pass over the higher, who are nevertheless of equal importance
to the preservation and development of the State. The
Christian law of charity, which we have just mentioned,
forbids this. It is large enough to embrace all ranks as the
aim and the task of those who would have the common people in
a Christian spirit on the one hand suitably relieved, and, on
the other, preserved against the contagion of socialism. …

"We have recalled these various topics on which we have before

this found occasion to dilate according to our ability, and we
trust that all dispute over the name of Christian Democracy
may now be laid aside, as well as any suspicion of dangerous
signification attaching to it. This trust we rightly cherish.
For making exception of the ideas of certain persons regarding
the force and virtue of this kind of Christian Democracy,
ideas which are not free from extravagance or error, surely
there will be no single person to find fault with an endeavor,
conformably to the law of nature and of God, to do merely
this, to make the lives of laborers and artisans more
tolerable, and gradually to give them the opportunity of
self-culture, so that at home and in the world they may freely
fulfil the obligations of virtue and religion, may feel
themselves to be men, and not mere animals, Christian men, not
pagans, and so strive with more felicity and earnestness to
attain that 'one thing needful,' that final good, for which we
came into the world. This is belonging to one and the same
family, the offspring of the same all-beneficent Father,
redeemed by one Saviour and called to the same eternal
inheritance. …

"God forbid that under the name of Christian democracy should

lie the surreptitious aim of throwing off all obedience and
turning away from those in lawful authority. The law of
nature, no less than that of Christ, enjoins respect for all
such as in their several degree hold office in the State, and
further enjoins obedience to their lawful commands. This is
the only attitude worthy of a man and a Christian, and ought
to be taken up heartily and as a matter of duty, 'for
conscience's sake,' as the Apostle himself has admonished,
when he ordained: 'Let every soul be subject to the highest
powers.' …

"We spoke just now advisedly of virtue and religion. For it is

the opinion of some, which is caught up by the masses, that
the social question, as they call it, is 'economical' merely.
The precise opposite is the truth—that it is first of all
moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be
expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of
religion. … Without the instincts which Christian wisdom
implants and keeps alive, without providence, self-control,
thrift, endurance and other natural qualities, you may try
 your hardest, but prosperity you cannot provide. That is the
reason why we have never encouraged Catholics to form
associations for the assistance of the poor, or introduce
other schemes of the kind, without at the same time warning
them that such things must not be attempted without the
sanction of religion, without its inclusion and aid. … It is a
laudable charity not merely to relieve the temporary needs of
the poor, but to have an organized system of relief; this will
be a more real and reliable assistance. It must be considered
still more laudable to desire to instill into the minds of the
mechanic and of the laborer notions of thrift and prudence, so
that they may at least in part make provision for their
declining years. It is an aim which not only relieves the cost
of the wealthy, but it is a moral step for the poor
themselves; it encourages them to approve their position,
while it keeps them away from temptations, checks
self-indulgence and leads them on to virtuous behavior. …

"Finally, we again enjoin with greater insistence that

whatever schemes people take up in the popular cause, whether
individually or in association, they should remember that they
must be entirely submissive to episcopal authority. Do not let
them be beguiled by an excessive ardor for charitable
enterprise, which, if it induces any relaxation of due
obedience, is itself false, unproductive of solid benefit and
displeasing to God. Those who please God are those who are
ready to give up their own ideas and listen to the bidding of
the rulers of the Church, absolutely as to His own."

Catholic Union and Times,

February 21, 1901.

{351}

PARIS: A. D. 1897.
Burning of the Charity Bazaar.
 An awful destruction of life was caused on the 4th of May by
fire breaking out in a charity bazaar, held in the Rue Jean
Goujon, at Paris. Temporary structures had been erected, of
wood and other combustible materials, to represent a street of
Old Paris shops, and the flames ran through them like
wildfire. The place was thronged with people, mostly of the
aristocratic class and more than 200 are said to have
perished.

PARIS: A. D. 1900 (April-November).

Exposition.

See (in this volume)

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1900 (September).

Gigantic banquet to the Mayors of France.

See (in this volume)

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (SEPTEMBER).

PARIS, Treaty of (1898), between the United States and Spain.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).

PARKHURST, Reverend Dr. Charles:

His attack on the Tammany administration of New York City.

See (in this volume)

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1894-1895.

PARLIAMENT, The British:

Ceremonious opening by King Edward VII.

See (in this volume)

 ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, Austrian.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1895-1896.

----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL

AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS: Start--------

PARTIES:
Afrikander Bund, or Bondsmen.

See (in this volume)

SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE COLONY):
A. D. 1881-1888; 1898; 1898(MARCH-OCTOBER);
and 1900 (DECEMBER).

PARTIES:
Agrarian Protectionists, German.

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D. 1895-1898.

PARTIES:
Anti-Imperialists.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
Anti-Semites.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1895-1896, and after;
FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899, and after;
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).
PARTIES:
Blancos, or Whites.

See (in this volume)

URUGUAY: A. D. 1896-1899.

PARTIES:
The Bond.

See above,
AFRIKANDER BUND.

PARTIES:
Centre (Catholic, of Germany).

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D.1898 (JUNE).

PARTIES:
Christian Social party.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Clerical party, Austria.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Colorados, or Reds.

See (in this volume)

URUGUAY: A. D. 1896-1899.
PARTIES:
Deutsch Fortschrittliche.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
"Fanatics."

See (in this volume)

BRAZIL: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
"Free Silver" Democracy.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
Fuyu-to (Liberals).

See (in this volume)

JAPAN: A. D. 1890-1898.

PARTIES:
German Democrats.

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).

PARTIES:
German Liberal party, Austria.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
German People's party.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Gold Democrats.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
Hintchak, The.

See (in this volume)

TURKEY: A. D. 1895.

PARTIES:
Historic Christian party.

See (in this volume)

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Kai-shin-to (Progressives).

See (in this volume)

JAPAN: A. D. 1890-1898.

PARTIES:
Kensei-to (Constitutional party).

See (in this volume)

JAPAN: A. D. 1898-1899.
PARTIES:
Labor party, French (Parti Ouvrier).

See (in this volume)

FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (APRIL-MAY).

PARTIES:
Liberal Democrats (German).

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).

PARTIES:
Liberal Unionists (German).

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).

PARTIES:
Lincoln party.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER), SILVER REPUBLICAN.

PARTIES:
Little England party.

See (in this volume)

LITTLE ENGLAND PARTY.

PARTIES:
Middle-of-the-Road Populists.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
 A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
National Democratic party.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
National Liberals (German).

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).

PARTIES:
National party, 1896 and 1900.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
National Silver party.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
New Radical party.

See (in this volume)

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (MAY).
PARTIES:
Old Czechs.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Pan-Germanic Union.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1901.

PARTIES:
Patriotic League.

See (in this volume)

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
Polish Club.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Progressives (Kaishin-to).

See (in this volume)

JAPAN: A. D. 1890-1898.

PARTIES:
Progressives (Cape).

See (in this volume)

SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE COLONY):
A. D. 1898; and 1898 (MARCH-OCTOBER).
PARTIES:
Protestant Anti-Revolutionists.

See (in this volume)

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Rikken Seiyu-kai
Association of Friends of the Constitution.

See (in this volume)

JAPAN: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

PARTIES:
Siah Chai, The.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).

PARTIES:
Silver Republicans.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
Socialist parties.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897;
FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (APRIL-MAY);
GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1895, and 1898 (JUNE);
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
"Sound Money" Democrats.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
United Christian party.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES:
United Irish League.

See (in this volume)

IRELAND: A. D. 1900-1901.

PARTIES:
"Vegetarians."

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).

PARTIES:
Verfassungstreue Grossgrundbesitz.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Volkspartei.

See (in this volume)

 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PARTIES:
Young Czechs.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.

PATRIARCHATE: Re-established at Alexandria.

See (in this volume)

PAPACY: A. D. 1896 (MARCH).

PATRIOTIC LEAGUE.

See (in this volume)

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

{352}

PAUNCEFOTE, Sir Julian:

British commissioner to the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume)

PEACE CONFERENCE.

----------PARTIES: End--------

----------PEACE CONFERENCE.: Start--------

PEACE CONFERENCE:

On the 24th of August, 1898, without previous heralding or

intimation, Count Mouravieff, the Russian Minister for Foreign
Affairs, placed copies of the following momentous proposal
from the Tsar in the hands of all the foreign representatives
attending his weekly reception at St. Petersburg:
"The maintenance of universal peace and a possible reduction
of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations
represent, in the present condition of affairs all over the
world, the ideal towards which the efforts of all Governments
should be directed. This view fully corresponds with the
humane and magnanimous intentions of His Majesty the Emperor,
my august Master. Being convinced that this high aim agrees
with the most essential interests and legitimate aspirations
of all the Powers, the Imperial Government considers the
present moment a very favourable one for seeking, through
international discussion, the most effective means of assuring
to all peoples the blessings of real and lasting peace, and
above all of limiting the progressive development of existing
armaments. During the last twenty years aspirations towards
general pacification have particularly asserted themselves in
the consciences of civilized nations. The preservation of
peace has been made the aim of international policy; for the
sake of peace the Great Powers have formed powerful alliances,
and for the purpose of establishing a better guarantee of peace
they have developed their military forces in an unprecedented
degree, and continue to develop them without hesitating at any
sacrifice. All these efforts, however, have not yet led to the
beneficent results of the desired pacification. The ever
increasing financial burdens strike at the root of public
prosperity. The physical and intellectual forces of the
people, labour and capital, are diverted for the greater part
from their natural application and wasted unproductively.
Hundreds of millions are spent in acquiring terrible engines
of destruction which are regarded to-day as the latest
inventions of science, but are destined to-morrow to be
rendered obsolete by some new discovery. National culture,
economical progress, and the production of wealth are either
paralysed or developed in a wrong direction. Therefore, the
more the armaments of each Power increase, the less they
answer to the objects aimed at by the Governments. Economic
disturbances are caused in great measure by this system of
excessive armaments, and the constant danger involved in this
accumulation of war material renders the armed peace of to-day
a crushing burden more and more difficult for the nations to
bear. It consequently seems evident that if this situation be
prolonged, it will inevitably lead to that very disaster which
it is desired to avoid, and the horrors of which make every
humane mind shudder by anticipation. It is the supreme duty,
therefore, at the present moment of all States to put some
limit to these unceasing armaments, and to find means of
averting the calamities which threaten the whole world. Deeply
impressed by this feeling, His Majesty the Emperor has been
pleased to command me to propose to all Governments who have
Representatives at the Imperial Court the meeting of a
Conference to discuss this grave problem. Such a Conference,
with God's help, would be a happy augury for the opening
century. It would concentrate in one powerful effort the
strivings of all States which sincerely wish to bring about
the triumph of the grand idea of universal peace over the
elements of trouble and discord. It would, at the same time,
cement their agreement by a united affirmation of the
principles of law and equity on which rest the security of
States and the welfare of peoples."

Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications

(Papers by Command: Russia, Number 1, 1899).

Having allowed his supremely noble proposition to stand before

the world for consideration during a period of four months,
and having received from almost every governing authority a
formal expression of willingness to join in the Conference
recommended, the sovereign of Russia pursued his grand design,
on the 11th of January, 1899, by the following communication
to the foreign representatives at his court:

"When, in the month of August last, my August master

instructed me to propose to the Governments which have
Representatives in St. Petersburg the meeting of a Conference
with the object of seeking the most efficacious means for
assuring to all peoples the blessings of real and lasting
peace, and, above all, in order to put a stop to the
progressive development of the present armaments, there
appeared to be no obstacle in the way of the realization, at
no distant date, of this humanitarian scheme. The cordial
reception accorded by nearly all the Powers to the step taken
by the Imperial Government could not fail to strengthen this
expectation. While highly appreciating the sympathetic terms
in which the adhesions of most of the Powers were expressed,
the Imperial Cabinet has been also able to collect, with
lively satisfaction, evidence of the warmest approval which
has reached it, and continues to be received, from all classes
of society in various parts of the globe. Notwithstanding the
strong current of opinion which set in favour of the ideas of
general pacification, the political horizon bas recently
undergone a sensible change. Several Powers have undertaken
fresh armaments, striving to increase further their military
forces, and in the presence of this uncertain situation, it
might be asked whether the Powers considered the present
moment opportune for the international discussion of the ideas
set forth in the Circular of the 12th (24th) August. In the
hope, however, that the elements of trouble agitating
political centres will soon give place to a calmer disposition
of a nature to favour the success of the proposed Conference,
the Imperial Government is of opinion that it would be
possible to proceed forthwith to a preliminary exchange of
ideas between the Powers, with the object:

(a.) Of seeking without delay means for putting a limit to the

progressive increase of military and naval armaments, a question
the solution of which becomes evidently more and more urgent
in view of the fresh extension given to these armaments; and

(b.) Of preparing the way for a discussion of the questions

relating to the possibility of preventing armed conflicts by
the pacific means at the disposal of international diplomacy.
{353}

In the event of the Powers considering the present moment

favourable for the meeting of a Conference on these bases, it
would certainly be useful for the Cabinets to come to an
understanding on the subject of the programme of their
labours. The subjects to be submitted for international
discussion at the Conference could, in general terms, be
summarized as follows:

"1. An understanding not to increase for a fixed period the

present effective of the armed military and naval forces, and
at the same time not to increase the Budgets pertaining
thereto; and a preliminary examination of the means by which a
reduction might even be effected in future in the forces and
Budgets above-mentioned.

"2. To prohibit the use in the armies and fleets of any new
kind of fire-arms whatever and of new explosives, or any
powders more powerful than those now in use either for rifles
or cannon.

"3. To restrict the use in military warfare of the formidable

explosives already existing, and to prohibit the throwing of
projectiles or explosives of any kind from balloons or by any
similar means.

"4. To prohibit the use in naval warfare of submarine

torpedo-boats or plungers, or other similar engines of
destruction; to give an undertaking not to construct vessels
with rams in the future.

"5. To apply to naval warfare the stipulations of the Geneva

Convention of 1864, on the basis of the Additional Articles of
1868.
"6. To neutralize ships and boats employed in saving those
overboard during or after an engagement.

"7. To revise the Declaration concerning the laws and customs

of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels, which
has remained unratified to the present day.

"8. To accept in principle the employment of good offices, of

mediation and facultative arbitration in cases lending
themselves thereto, with the object of preventing armed
conflicts between nations; to come to an understanding with
respect to the mode of applying these good offices, and to
establish a uniform practice in using them.

"It is well understood that all questions concerning the

political relations of States and the order of things
established by Treaties, as generally all questions which do
not directly fall within the programme adopted by the
Cabinets, must be absolutely excluded from the deliberations
of the Conference. In requesting you, Sir, to be good enough
to apply to your Government for instructions on the subject of
my present communication, I beg you at the same time to inform
it that, in the interest of the great cause which my august
master has so much at heart, His Imperial Majesty considers it
advisable that the Conference should not sit in the capital of
one of the Great Powers, where so many political interests are
centred which might, perhaps, impede the progress of a work in
which all the countries of the universe are equally
interested."

General assent being given to the suggestions here offered,

the next step toward realization of the grand project was
taken, by an arrangement with the government of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands, in accordance with which an invitation was
addressed from The Hague, in April, to many governments, both
the greater and the less of the political world, in the
following terms:
"For political reasons the Imperial Russian Government
considered that it would not be desirable that the meeting of
the Conference should take place in the capital of one of the
Great Powers, and after securing the assent of the Governments
interested, it addressed the Cabinet of The Hague with a view of
obtaining its consent to the choice of that capital as the
seat of the Conference in question. The Minister for Foreign
Affairs at once took the orders of Her Majesty the Queen in
regard to this request, and I am happy to be able to inform
you that Her Majesty, my august Sovereign, has been pleased to
authorize him to reply that it will be particularly agreeable
to her to see the proposed Conference meet at The Hague.
Consequently, my Government, in accord with the Imperial
Russian Government, charges me to invite [the Government
named] to be good enough to be represented at the
above-mentioned Conference, in order to discuss the questions
indicated in the second Russian Circular of the 30th December,
1898 (11th January, 1899), as well as all other questions
connected with the ideas set forth in the Circular of the 12th
(24th) August, 1898, excluding, however, from the
deliberations everything which refers to the political
relations of States or the order of things established by
Treaties. My Government trusts, that [the Government named]
will associate itself with the great humanitarian work to be
entered upon under the auspices of His Majesty the Emperor of
All the Russias, and that it will be disposed to accept this
invitation, and to take the necessary steps for the presence
of its Representatives at The Hague on the 18th May next for
the opening of the Conference, at which each Power, whatever
may be the number of its Delegates, will only have one vote."

Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications

(Papers by Command: Miscellaneous,
Number 1, 1899, pages 3-4 and 8).

In response to this definite invitation, the governments of