What is the boundary for the quaternary period and Pleistocene epoch? The contribution of turnover patterns in large mammalian complexes from North-Western mediterranean to the debate

Abstract

Assuming that the Quaternary has to be recognized as a formal chronostratigraphic/geochronological unit (having a Sub-Erathem/Sub-Era rank, as recommended by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), or better a System/ Period rank, as suggested by several scientists), what boundary should be chosen? Should the lower boundary of the Quaternary coincide with the base of the Gelasian Stage (2.6 Ma) as proposed by the ICS? If so, should the Quaternary and Pleistocene lower boundaries be the same or should be different? To contribute to the debate, the Villafranchian large mammal fossil record from the North-Western Mediterranean region have been revised in order to correlate the diversity and structural dynamics of reconstructed faunal complexes with the changes in environmental conditions occurring from the Middle Pliocene to the Early Pleistocene.According to the results obtained, two major faunal renewals are detectable at the transition from the early to middle Villafranchian [~2.7-2.5 Ma, about at the time of the transition from the Middle (Zanclean Stage) to the Late Pliocene (Gelasian Stage)], and from the middle to late Villafranchian (~2.0-~1.9 Ma, shortly before the official Plio-Pleistocene boundary). The faunal renewal from the early (V1) to the middle (V2) Villafranchian faunal complexes (that means from the MN16a “zone”/Triversa FU to MN16b “zone”/Montopoli FU) is linked to the Middle Pliocene climate worsening, in turn related to the onset of bipolar glaciations followed by glacial-interglacial cycles of moderate amplitude (orbital periodicity of 41 ka). The resulting increase in aridity and more intense seasonality caused the disappearance of several forest-dwelling taxa, especially small carnivores and arboreal-scansorial taxa, whereas new large grazers, mixed feeders or even browsers appeared. This renewal (already called the “Equus-elephant event”) can be regarded as a true turnover phase, due to the high percentage of last and new appearances, and to the important ecological structural changes in faunal complexes, involving mainly the herbivore guild. These faunal changes indicate that forests or woodlands gradually gave way to more open environments (including Artemisia steppe) alternating with warm-temperate deciduous forests. Moreover, this event can be considered as the starting point for a dispersal phase leading to a progressive standing richness increase during the following Pliocene (middle Villafranchian, V3). Around 2.0-1.8 Ma (late Villafranchian, V4), despite the extinction of some small browsing and grazing ­ruminants, diversity notably increased due to the progressive appearance of a number of carnivores. Indeed, the so-called “wolf-event” involved several large and small Carnivora, such as the powerful scavenger Pachycrocuta brevirostris, the jaguar-like Panthera gombazsoegensis, and coo­perative foraging canids. On the other hand, minor phyletic adjustments and some new appearances (especially grazers) affected herbivore guild. This relatively long dispersal phase, and correlated moderate turnover pulses, seems to be less important than the early/middle Villafranchian ­renewal phase, especially as far as France and the Italian peninsula are concerned. As a result, taking into account the importance of faunal renewal at the Middle to Late Pliocene transition, it seems more reasonable to extend the base of the Pleistocene downwards from 1.81 Ma (official Plio/Pleistocene boundary) to 2.6 Ma (base of Pliocene Gelasian Stage). Accordingly, the base of the Gelasian seems to be the most appropriate lower boundary for both the Quaternary Period and Pleistocene Epoch.