Re: Baumgardner

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:27:19 -0800

At 06:11 AM 2/9/98 -0600, Glenn wrote:
>While the Cambrian/Precambrian unconformity is widespread, it is not
universal:
>
>"There is no angular unconformity at the base of the Cambrian, and,
indeed, it
>is possible that the boundary of the system lies within the Arumbera
Sandstone.
>this formation is a fine to medium-grained quartzose sandstone which
varies in
>thickness from 250 to 850 m. " ~D. A. Brown, K. S. W. Campbell and K. A. W.
>Crook, The Geological Evolution of Australia and New Zealand, (New York:
>Pergamon Press, 1968), p. 55.
>*

In Grand Canyon, there is a syncline in the eastern limb where the
Precambrian sediments are in apparent conformable contact with the Cambrian
Tapeats, from which they are indistinguishable lithologically. However, as
one moves laterally, the beds of the Precambrian rise up to cut the
Tapeats, and the unconformity becomes obvious. Also there are lots of
formations in the west (California, Nevada, Utah, etc,) which are
designated Precambrian/Cambrian or Precambrian? because until a trilobite
or some other metazoan fossil is located, the rocks are considered
Precambrian. This "logic" would be tautologic but for the occurrence
nearly everywhere of the boundary unconformity.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu