Re: New Geologic Epoch

[K and T Dykes <ktdykes@arcor.de>]

<<GAINING GROUND?!? The paper came out this week! How can it gain ground if 
it
hasn't had time to be evaluated!>>

Well, if it didn't have any published ground at all, then getting planted 
into a published flower bed must involved some amount of gained ground.  Of 
course, whether the plant after the possible gales and frost...

<<Other proposals to the ICS include mucking about with the Carboniferous 
(again...) and the Cambrian (again...) and (one I would like to see passed!) 
formal reorganization of a Lower (Berriasian-Aptian), Middle 
(Albian-Turonian), and Upper (Coniacian-Maastrichtian) Cretaceous.>>

That'd ruin some not very knowledgeable people's "gap in the fossil record 
for the whole Middle Cretaceous".  This 'argument' is popular in parts of 
Middle Dakota, apparently.  Could I add changing the Tithonian into the 
Portlandian, so there can be an actual type locality?  Of course, the fact I 
might just happen to be a Dorset produced fossil myself is naturally 
completely irrelevant.