This review clearly demonstrates that there is currently a considerable divergence of opinion concerning the nature of the transitional geomagnetic field and the status of geomagnetic excursions. Further work needs to be undertaken not only to obtain a large number of high quality records, but also to come to a better understanding of the mechanisms that give rise to remanence acquisition in sediments and the processes that act to compromise the fidelity of sedimentary records. A greater spatial distribution of sampling sites is needed, particularly more sites from the southern hemisphere. In terms of obtaining further records to test reversal models, three potential alternatives are evident [ Clement and Constable, written comm., 1993]. Large-scale efforts need to be made to: 1) obtain as many records as possible of the Matuyama-Brunhes transition to map the field configuration during that polarity transition; 2) obtain as many records as possible from multiple reversals, with records of sequential polarity transitions from a site wherever possible, and 3) study a limited number of transitions in as many places as possible. The latter two options would yield the most information for testing for persistent features that may be associated with transitional fields. Further criteria should be added, such as recovering ``normal'' field behavior for about 25 kyr before and after each transition, and records with accumulation rates > 5 cm/kyr should be targetted. There is, of course, a trade-off between high temporal resolution and the effects of reductive diagenesis which are usually significant in rapidly deposited sediments.
Acknowledgments. The birth of my daughter, Genevieve Joanna, and the advent of the 1994 World Cup of Soccer provided me with the necessary diversion to write this paper. I am grateful to Ken Verosub, Carlo Laj, and two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to improve this paper. I also thank Cathy Constable for providing a preprint of an ``in press'' manuscript.