<p><strong>Remarks on the age of Dominican amber</strong></p>

Abstract

Amber from the Dominican Republic is famous for the high quality, frequency, and diversity of organic fossils found as inclusions in this mineral (Grimaldi, 1996; Poinar & Poinar, 1999). However, its geological age of origin remains a continuing source of controversy. Over the years a wide variety of age estimates have been made for occurrences of Dominican amber, ranging from Cretaceous (Brouwer & Brouwer, 1982) to Late Eocene (Lambert et al., 1985) to pre-Lower Miocene (Baroni-Urbani & Saunders, 1982). Some authors have also favored a spread of ages that covers much of the Cenozoic (e.g., 40 or 45 Ma to 15 Ma; Poinar & Poinar, 1999). Iturralde-Vinent & MacPhee (1996) attempted to resolve discrepancies in age assignments by taking a multi-pronged analytical approach which yielded a best-fit estimate of mid-Miocene age (20–15 Ma). This estimate has been widely accepted and additionally corroborated by new studies (Iturralde-Vinent, 2001; Ortega-Ariza et al., 2015). However, Braga et al. (2012) have challenged the assessment of Iturralde-Vinent & MacPhee (1996) by arguing for a Pliocene–early Pleistocene date for the amber-bearing Yanigua Formation. Here we address the sources of disagreement and suggest a solution.