共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 549 毫秒
1.
2.
Our recent comprehensive review of the Permian-Early Triassic tetrapod tracksites from South Africa includes a revision of the ichnotaxonomy and the incorporation of a large quantity of new material. The paper also discusses, in light of the revised ichnotaxonomy and palaeontology of several sites, trackmaker attribution and the biostratigraphy of Permian-Early Triassic tetrapod tracks. Precise information about the fossiliferous localities was provided where possible and when sites were relocated. Three footprint associations were described (FA I-III) and highlight their potential stratigraphic value. The youngest (FA III) was recognized at four different localities and is likely Induan in age. A recent comment by Gastaldo and Neveling (2019) regarded one of these FA III localities, the Bethel tracksite, which received criticism for its unclear geographic placement and its stratigraphic position. Further comments included a discussion of the possible palaeoecological interpretation of this tracksite. In replying to these queries, we provided more precise geographic and stratigraphic information, confirming the occurrence of this tracksite ~15 m above the faunal transition which we consider to be currently coinciding with the Permian-Triassic boundary (PTB). Palaeoecological inferences are herein further clarified. 相似文献
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mikhail Ezersky et al. have published the article “Geophysical prediction and following development sinkholes in two Dead Sea areas, Israel and Jordan” (February 2013) in which the paper “Salt karst and tectonics: sinkholes development along tension cracks between parallel strike-slip faults, Dead Sea, Jordan” published by Closson D, Abou Karaki N, Hallot F in 2009 (Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 34(10), 1408–1421) is questioned. In this short paper, we propose some clarifications and discuss the criticisms of these authors. 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
《International Geology Review》2012,54(1):123-125
The authors by their own statement do not intend to make a general criticism of the work but which only to point out these specific errors: 1) There is no justification in assigning all the massifs to the junction zone of East and West Sayans. It is incomprehensible to include such dissimilar massifs as the gabbros of Kazyr and the granitic Kryzhin range, both because of age and form; 2) There are no chromite deposits in the West Sayans; 3) The use of an effusive-schist formation in the Upper Proterozoic is incorrect; it should read series; 4) What do Ordovician faults have to do with the Lysansk massifs? 5) There are serious errors and omissions in the petrography of the Lysansk complex, on which the authors elaborate; 6) The TiO2 deposits in gabbros were discovered not in 1956, as claimed, but in 1954 by two other geologists; 7) The sequence of the emergence of secondary minerals from a magmatic melt “can only be visualized;” 8) They object to “superimposing” an autometamorphic phase on the mineralization; 9) They object to the concepts of the origin of Lysansk intrusions, as being “in the dogmatic form of an article of faith.” — M.A. Klugman 相似文献
17.
18.
19.