|
Conference Reports and Discussions |
P. Richards writes: Frostick et al. 1992 provide a very readable and concise account of the Triassic evolution of the Beryl Embayment area. The account is an analysis of a sedimentary succession often glossed over by previous workers, and they should be commended for attempting to explain the nature of these sediments. However, I have serious reservations concerning some of their lithostratigraphic correlations, and the assumptions that they make from them and from some of their other data. Most seriously, their correlation of Lomvi Formation sediments appears to lead Frostick et al. to erroneous implications and assumptions.
Firstly, I would like to draw attention to Frostick et al.’s misrepresentation of the Triassic lithostratigraphic scheme postulated by Lervik et al. (1989; not 1990 as Frostick et al. quote), since this has profound implications for many other aspects of the paper. In their fig. 2, Frostick et al. depict the Lervik et al. view of Triassic lithostratigraphy as showing two divisions of the Lomvi Formation, labelled Upper Lomvi and Lower Lomvi formations on the figure. Lervik et al. 1989 did not make such a subdivision of the Lomvi Formation. Frostick et al. appear to have erroneously interpreted Lervik et al.’s Unit 4 (on Lervik et al.’s fig. 9) as part of the Lomvi Formation whereas Lervik et al. (p. 182) clearly stated that this unit formed the lowest part of the overlying Lunde Formation.
Extending their miscorrelation of the lowermost Lunde Formation with the Lomvi Formation, Frostick et al. depict, on their
...
This 250-word extract was created in the absence of an abstract.
