The stratigraphical position and the use of the term Eopleistocene in Serbian geological literature

Abstract

When the Calabrian Stage was included in the Quaternary frame by the decision of the 18th IGC (1948), it implied changes in the stratigraphical scale subdivision. At the beginning of the 1970s after the addition of the Calabrian Stage to the Quaternary and the lowering of the Quaternary boundary, it became evident that in the new scheme a gap of nearly 1 My was created in the case of fluvial and fluvio-lacustrine formations. The time frame of the Pleistocene could not include the oldest Quaternary fluvial and fluvio-lacustrine formations because of the lowering the Quaternary boundary to nearly 1.8 Ma, as was done in marine (Calabrian Stage) and terrestrial formations (Villafranchian Stage). This was one of the main reasons why the term Eopleistocene was implemented into the Serbian Quaternary stratigraphical terminology in 1972 and it was used in a semi-official way until 2010. In 2009, with the official ratification of the ICS (IUGS) of the lowering of the Neogene/Quaternary, i.e. Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary to 2.58 Ma, the use of the Eopleistocene in the Serbian stratigraphical terminology lost its meaning.The use of the term Eopleistocene in the Serbian stratigraphical scheme cannot be accepted in the sense of modern stratigraphical principles, because the mixing of the discriminatory concepts of the Alpine morphostratigraphical model with regional (exUSSR) climatostratigraphic and/or biostratigraphical units was obvious. As a term, Eopleistocene also caused a number of unclear and undefined problems/misunderstandings with regard to relations: Eopleistocene–Pleistocene, Eopleistocene–Lower Pleistocene, Eopleistocene-Alpine morphostratigraphical stages. With the developments and changes in the Quaternary stratigraphy, the Serbian Eopleistocene should be interpreted and replaced with (upper part of) Lower Pleistocene, because the base of the Eopleistocene had been identified at nearly 1.8 Ma and the Lower/Middle Pleistocene (Brunhes-Matuyama) boundary does not correspond with the Eopleistocene–Neopleistocene boundary.