1993
DOI: 10.1016/0012-821x(93)90166-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A critical re-evaluation of the Miocene/Pliocene boundary as defined in the Mediterranean

Abstract: A critical re-evaluation of the Miocene/Pliocene (M/P) boundary as defined--informally--in the Mediterranean is presented. We show that ages reported earlier for this boundary (ranging from 4.81 to 4.93 Ma) do not imply any diachroneity of the basal Zanclean lithohorizon which reflects the Pliocene flooding of the Mediterranean and defines the M/P boundary. These ages most likely represent an artefact resulting from intraformational variations in sedimentation rate and inconsistent interpretation of coluor var… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Concerning the latter, the problem of the selection of an appropriate Global Standard Stratotype-section and Point (GSSP) of the Zanclean Stage strongly depends upon the demonstration of the absence of a significant hiatus across the Messinian/Zanclean boundary. This boundary was formally proposed in the Capo Rossello section by Cita (1975a) and subsequently proved to correlate with the fifth precession-related astronomical cycle below the Thvera magnetic event (Zijderveld et al, 1991;Hilgen, 1991b;Hilgen and Langereis, 1993). From a biostratigraphic point of view, the Messinian/Zanclean boundary is usually regarded as poorly constrained in the Mediterranean area, because of the basically nonmarine nature of the upper Messinian sediments (e.g., Arenazzolo Formation in Sicily) and of the lack of globally recognized nannofossil and foraminiferal bioevents in the very basal Zanclean.…”
Section: Background and Objectivesmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Concerning the latter, the problem of the selection of an appropriate Global Standard Stratotype-section and Point (GSSP) of the Zanclean Stage strongly depends upon the demonstration of the absence of a significant hiatus across the Messinian/Zanclean boundary. This boundary was formally proposed in the Capo Rossello section by Cita (1975a) and subsequently proved to correlate with the fifth precession-related astronomical cycle below the Thvera magnetic event (Zijderveld et al, 1991;Hilgen, 1991b;Hilgen and Langereis, 1993). From a biostratigraphic point of view, the Messinian/Zanclean boundary is usually regarded as poorly constrained in the Mediterranean area, because of the basically nonmarine nature of the upper Messinian sediments (e.g., Arenazzolo Formation in Sicily) and of the lack of globally recognized nannofossil and foraminiferal bioevents in the very basal Zanclean.…”
Section: Background and Objectivesmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…earlier than the Zanclean GSSP. The related time-interval should be about 130 kyr, taking the 6.5 dark-light cycles of the Arenazzolo Formation as precessional cycles just as those of the immediately overlying Trubi Formation (Hilgen and Langereis, 1993). Hence, the base of the Arenazzolo Formation would date from ca.…”
Section: Eraclea Minoa Is the Only Mediterranean Section Wherementioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, the top of the Messinian lower evaporites has been astronomically calibrated at 5.61 F 0.02 Ma (Krijgsman et al, 1999b). Considering an age of 5.32 F 0.02 Ma for the end of the Messinian Stage (Hilgen, 1991;Hilgen and Langereis, 1993;Berggren et al, 1995), more recently updated to 5.33 F 0.02 Ma (Lourens et al, 1996;Krijgsman et al, 1999a,b), the duration of the latest Messinian postdating the salinity crisis is about 280 kyr.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%