David Tyler wrote:
>"... Tertiary rocks have several traits besides fossils which
>mark them as different. ...."
>[snip]
>
>Sure. In many ways, this parallels the point I am making. Your
>comments identify ways in which correlations can be established.
>
>The main reason why I am taking the position that I have in this
>thread is that I'm sensing that the Geological Column concept
>needs to be defended/explained in a more rigorous and systematic
>way.
>
I don't know how much exposure you have had to seismic data, but it can be
very useful in establishing the geologic column.
I would also suggest that the defence of the column you want and
chronostragigraphy has been done by the Committe on Stratigraphy of the
National REsearch Council which published their results from the 40s- 60s.
The group formed a subcommitte on each age and they were responsible for
correlation from basin to basin. This is applicable to the US. for an example
see "Correlation of the Ordovician Formations of North America" Bulletin GSA
March 1954pp247-298. There is also the extremely detailed descriptions of the
various formations published by the USGS (Bulletin 1200)
glenn
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm