Remarks on the age of Dominican amber
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.