Reply to A. S. Dyke's discussion

Abstract

In our opinion the amino acid data are consistent with the till/nonglacial stratigraphy. We reject Dyke's proposal that the plotting of data in 0.04 increments is appropriate as an unwarranted interpretation that errors are cumulative. We also see no grounds for accepting his alternative interpretation that the groups of amino acid ratios reflect various transport (read temperature) histories of a single population of Bell Sea shells. It is our opinion that the relative sequence of marine incursions in Hudson Bay is reliable and we repeat that the evidence favors one or more deglacial events. We stress that the ages of the units between the Tyrrell Sea and Bell sea end membrers are interpolated and that the chronology of events is currently based on the assumption that the Bell Sea represents marine incursion at the onset of marine isotope stage 5. Dyke has raised a number of points which have concerned us since we started our joint research on the aminostratigraphy of the Hudson Bay Lowlands. The answer to many questions will come, not from the amino acid results per se, but from detailed litho-, and biostratigraphic logging of the thousands of kilometers exposed along the large rivers that drain into James Bay and southwestern Hudson Bay. This work is presently going on. Let us say in conclusion that analysis of a further 63 shells and shell fragments resulted in a virtually identical frequency distribution to that discussed in our paper. We are currently evaluating the stratigraphic integrity of these results. Field expeditions by the Geological Survey of Canada in 1982 and 1983 into the Hudson Bay Lowlands were specifically designed to log new sections and make additional shell collections. We hope to report on these new data in due course.