RE: paleonet Ediacaran Period

["Breandán" <macgabhb@xxxxxx>]

I think the decision to call it the Ediacaran Period is disgusting. It's
ignoring the priority of the Vendian and Sinian, which have been used since
1954 and 1922 respectively in Russia and China. Ediacaran was first suggested
as a Series/Epoch by Harland in the 70s, and wasn't suggested as a
Period/System until Cloud&Glaessner and Jenkins' papers in the early 80s.
Vendian has been in common use as the Period/System, while Sinian has been
extensively used to refer to an era, c800Ma to 543Ma, including the Riphean
and Vendian systems, which was what Harland et al proposed in A Geological
Timscale. Why did the ICS STPS feel the need to change the familiar and widely
used names? You are rendering useless half a century of research. I can see no
good reason for this, except perhaps to assert Western superiority over
Russians and Chinese. Besides, Ediacaran is a taphonomic name to describe the
Vendian fossils. Confusion will result. Not much admittedly, but it's better
not to have it at all. It's not a suitable name.

Also, the base of the Marino cap carbonate ignores all ICS guidelines for GSSP
location, and requires a belief that the neoproterozoic glaciations were
worldwide, which has not been conclusively demonstrated. It's the stupidest
GSSP decision yet.

I'll continue to use the Sinian era and Vendian system, and I'm sure I won't
be the only one.

Breandán Anraoi MacGabhann

____________________________________________
A slimy young worm in the making
Found a gal he considered worth taking.
But she cried in despair:
“The Precambrian air
Is too stuffy—my neuron is aching!”
--Rasmussen et al. (2002) Science 298 p58-9
____________________________________________
Breandán Anraoi MacGabhann
Department of Geology
University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Republic of Ireland