Where are the women in geology?
Where are the women in geology?
复制标题
地质学领域的女性在哪里？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
N. Haile
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Haile
136组（Lulworth和Durlston）以及最近对Purbeck组传统成员的“集成化”，无论是对理解还是对比都有所提高。诺埃尔引用了费斯特关于蕨类植物的研究；费斯特的观点确实很有趣，但如果一个人试图完善长期存在的普贝克介形虫对比，那么船形动物是最没用的普贝克化石之一，而且船形动物也不能帮助确定海洋波特兰-贝里亚序列的J-C边界，因为它们不存在；即使在非海相层序中，这些藻类也受相控制（在多塞特，费斯特只取样了少量的普贝克层位）。基底Berriasian GSSP与Dorset剖面的对比不依赖于英国地质调查局（British Geological Survey）地图分类的人工制品，而是依赖于磁地层学，限制了不同的菊石、介形虫和芽孢虫的对比。目前J-C边界有两个“领跑者”：格兰迪斯分区的基地或亚阿尔卑斯分区的基地，雅可比分区的基地是一个不太可能的竞争者。可悲的是，从berria（通过Jura）到Dorset的间接相关性在更高的地层水平上比这两个亚带具有更好的分辨率，并且，如上所述，恐龙囊和介形虫各自表明不同的相关性。然而，Durlston湾的Purbeck剖面显示了一个壮观的磁地层学（从M20到M14），并且（假设Berrias和Duriston磁带编号的一致分配），亚阿尔卑斯亚带的底部似乎落在Marly淡水层（M17r），中间软岩层（M19n - m18r）的大亚带的底部，以及塞普里斯弗利斯通（M19n）的雅可比亚带的底部。如果英国地质调查局认为Berriasian grandis亚带的基底与塞浦路斯Freestones相关联，那么他们可能已经把注意力转移了，就像以前煤渣床被提升时一样。
136 formations (Lulworth and Durlston) nor recent ‘lumping’ of the Purbeck Formation’s traditional members advances either understanding or correlation. Nowell cites Feist’s work on charophytes; Feist’s opinions are indeed interesting, but charophytes are one of the least useful Purbeck fossils, if one is trying to refine long-standing Purbeck ostracod correlations, and charophytes cannot help place the J–C boundary in marine Portlandian–Berriasian sequences, because they are absent; even in non-marine sequences these algae are facies controlled (and in Dorset Feist sampled only a mere handful of Purbeck horizons). The correlation of a basal Berriasian GSSP with the Dorset sections is not dependent on the artefacts of British Geological Survey map classification, but on magnetostratigraphy constraining differing ammonite, ostracod and palynomorph correlations. There are currently two ‘front runners’ for the J–C boundary: the base of the grandis subzone or the base of the subalpina subzone, the base of the jacobi subzone being a less likely contender. Sadly, indirect correlations from Berrias (via the Jura) to Dorset have better resolution at higher stratigraphic levels than these two subzones, and, as stated, dinocysts and ostracods each suggest different correlations. However, Durlston Bay’s Purbeck section yields a magnificent magnetostratigraphy (from M20 to M14), and (assuming the consistent assignment of magnetozone numbering at Berrias and Duriston) it seems that the base of the subalpina subzone falls in the Marly Freshwater beds (M17r), the base of the grandis subzone in the middle Soft Cockle beds (M19n–M18r), and the base of the jacobi subzone in the Cypris Freestones (M19n). If the BGS believes that the base of the Berriasian grandis subzone correlates with the Cypris Freestones, then they may have taken their eye off the ball, as previously when the Cinder Bed was promoted.