Abstract
Alvarez [1986] recently summarized in Eos the evidence for the hypothesis that an impact was actually responsible for the terminal Cretaceous events. Alvarez reviewed the physical and chemical evidence for an impact; at the same time, he provided an interesting account of how quickly ideas evolved after the original discovery, by himself and his colleagues [Alvarez et al., 1980], of a conspicuous iridium anomaly at the Cretaceous‐Tertiary boundary (also known as the KTB). An alternate hypothesis is a volcanic (either quiet basaltic or violent siliceous) origin for the KTB [e.g, Officer and Drake, 1983, 1985]. Alvarez summarized his observations with a table [Alvarez, 1986, Table 1, p. 649] in which each hypothesis is tested against the following evidence: iridium, spherules, shocked quartz, soot, and worldwide distribution. The “yes” and “no” answers to these tests are, of course, a function of present data and knowledge. The purpose of this article is to stress that answers have changed rapidly in recent years and may still evolve, and also that Alvarez's declaration that the case for a volcanic cause is extinct may be somewhat premature.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.