[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

re: length of Cambrian vs. Cretaceous

To: Multiple recipients of list <dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu>
Subject: re: length of Cambrian vs. Cretaceous
From: @lepomis.psych.upenn.edu, @uga.cc.uga.edu:Schwimm@USCN.BITNET (Paleontology Columbus College, Georgia)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 12:56:47 -0500
Reply-to: @lepomis.psych.upenn.edu, @uga.cc.uga.edu:Schwimm@USCN.BITNET
Sender: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu

On Tony Fiorillo's comment:

Well, actually, no. The Cretaceous was significantly longer.  The base of the
Cambrian has been considerbly "younged" and is maximally recognized at
558 MA, with some workers placing the "golden spike" in the Lena River
section in Siberia, the proposed stratotype, as young as ca. 538 MA.
THis is really screwing up the relative early-middle-late Cambrian
concepts.  Nevertheless, the Cretaceous was significantly of longer
duration--forget 570MA as the base of thje Cambrian.

david schwimmer
schwimm@uscn.cc.uga.edu

Prev by Date: Re: geologic periods
Next by Date: Re: geologic periods
Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: geologic periods
Next by thread: re: length of Cambrian vs. Cretaceous
Indexes: