|WikiProject Glaciers||(Rated Stub-class)|
Correlation with the Netherlands subdivision
I should not say that the Beestonian is equavalent to the Bavelian, Waalian and Eburonian (super)stages from the Netherlands Quaternary subdivision. The Beestonian has been defined as one single cold stage. That cold-climate sediments from other sites (from different/other cold stages) have been assigned to the Beestonian as well is irrelevant. The definition states that the Beestonian is a single cold stage. Sediments from elsewhere that have another age but have nevertheless included in the Beestonian should be assigned to another stage with a name of its own. The Beestonian doubtlessly correlates with a single cold stage in the Netherlands somewhere between the first 'Cromerian' interglacial and the Late Tiglian warm stage. This is a very long period that includes a number of cold and warm stages. Because the completeness of the Netherlands Quaternary record is doubtful, it is not wise to state that one cold stage is equivalent to three (super)stages that are composed of warm and cold stages and from which it is also doubtful if these represent the entire stretch of time.
The notion that the stratigraphical age of glacial stages can be determined with help of (whatever) paleontology is incorrect. Cold climate fossils (palynology, malacology, foraminifera, etc.) are generally age indifferent. Cold stages can be recognized as cold by means of their fossils but these fossils have no bearing for the age of the sediments. Besides, most sediments that have been deposited during cold stages do not bear fossils at all. Therefore, the age of most cold stages can only be determined on the basis of sediments from under- or overlying warm stages (if no hiatus exists between the warm and the cold sediments!). Many cold stages have hardly chronostratigraphical significance if only based on paleontology.--Tom Meijer (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)