Comments on the paper published by Sial et al (2016), Mercury enrichments and Hg isotopes in Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary successions: Links to volcanism and palaeoenvironmental impacts. Cretaceous Research, v. 66, pp. 60–81

Sanjay K Mukhopadhyay,Sucharita Pal,J.P Shrivastava

doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2016.12.006

Comments on the paper published by Sial et al (2016), Mercury enrichments and Hg isotopes in Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary successions: Links to volcanism and palaeoenvironmental impacts. Cretaceous Research, v. 66, pp. 60–81

Sanjay K Mukhopadhyay, Sucharita Pal + Show 1 more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2016.12.006

Copy DOI

Journal: Cretaceous Research	Publication Date: Feb 16, 2017
Citations: 4

Affiliation: Geological Survey of India, University of Delhi

#Um Sohryngkew River Section #Cretaceous Research + Show 8 more

Abstract
Full-Text PDF
Similar Papers

Abstract

The paper published by Sial et al. (2016) contains geochemical information which does not fit into the scheme of the existing planktonic foraminiferal succession across the K/Pg boundary in the Um Sohryngkew River section, Meghalaya India, worked out by either Mukhopadhyay (2008) or Pandey (1981, 1990). The K/Pg boundary reported by Sial et al. (2016) is not compatible with any of these two. In this perspective some of the controversies are highlighted.

Full Text