RE: paleonet Ediacaran Period

[Leigh Van Valen <leigh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree fully.  If one packs the committee with one's biased 
supporters, its foregone conclusion is not representative of overall 
informed opinion.
  -Leigh

>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.