Journal Of Palaeogeography Research Articles

A review on the definitions of terms of sedimentary facies

In recent years, in some papers and manuscripts published in and submitted to the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition and English Edition), the authors named the rocks or rock types as “microfacies” or “lithofacies”, named the microfeatures in thin-sections under microscope as “microfacies”, and named the macrofeatures of rocks as “macrofacies”. I wrote two short papers “Words of the Editor-in-Chief — Rocks are not microfacies” (Feng, Journal of Palaeogeography 19(5):II 2017) and “Words of the Editor-in-Chief — Rocks are not lithofacies” (Feng, Journal of Palaeogeography 20(3):452–452, 2018) which were in Chinese and published in the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition). However, they did not attract much attention of readers in China and outside China. In addition, in 1980s, some Chinese sedimentologists proposed “subfacies” and “microfacies” based on the macrofeatures of rocks from outcrops and drilling cores. However, the definition of this “microfacies” is totally different from the “microfacies” proposed by foreign sedimentologists in 1940s based on the microfeatures in thin-sections under microscope.These problems appeared repeatedly and forced me, as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition and English Edition), to observe the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” , to write new papers “A review on the definitions of terms of sedimentary facies” both in Chinese and in English, to clarify the definitions of the terms of sedimentary facies, i.e., “facies”, “lithofacies”, two “microfacies”, “macrofacies”, “subfacies”, etc. I hope that the new papers will attract attention of readers worldwide and they can write papers and participate in the discussion and contending of these problems, strive for getting some common understandings, and therefore promote the progress and development of sedimentology and palaeogeography.

Reply to discussions by Zavala (2019) and by Van Loon, H\xfceneke, and Mulder (2019) on Shanmugam, G. (2018, Journal of Palaeogeography, 7 (3): 197\u2013238): \u2018the hyperpycnite problem\u2019

In this reply, I respond to 18 issues associated with comments made by Zavala (e.g., inverse- to normally-graded sequence, origin of massive sands, experimental sandy debris flows, tidal rhythmites, facies models, etc.), and 10 issues associated with comments made by Van Loon et al. (e.g., 16 types of hyperpycnal flows, anthropogenic hyperpycnal flow, etc.).

Words of the Editor-in-Chief \u2014\u2014 some ideas about the comments and discussions of hyperpycnal flows and hyperpycnites

I basically agree with the viewpoints of Shanmugam (Journal of Palaeogeography 7(3):197-238, 2018) and Zavala (Journal of Palaeogeography 8(3), 2019) who cited, refined and interpreted the definitions of hypopycnal flow, homopycnal flow and hyperpycnal flow. I appreciate two typical case studies of hyperpycnal flows induced by the Yellow River and Yangtze River, and the Gaoping River. The former is a normal type while the latter is catastrophic. They make up a complete knowledge about hyperpycnal flows and hyperpycnites. According to the interpretation of the word “hyperpycnal” from Greek to English, the “hypopycnal flow” should be “less density flow” or “lower density flow” (“低密度流”), the “homopycnal flow” should be “equal density flow” (“等密度流”), and the “hyperpycnal flow” should be “higher density flow” or “over density flow” (“高密度流” or “超密度流”). Some geologists called the “hypopycnal flow” as “异轻流” (“abnormally light flow”) and called the “hyperpycnal flow” as “异重流” (“abnormally heavy flow”). There are at least more than 10 names or terms about the “density flows” and the “deposits of density flows”. It is a problem indeed. In addition, the density could be changed by salinity, temperature and pressure of water. Therefore, the term “density flow” may be problematic either. Another problem is that reliable and irrefutable identification markers of ancient heperpycnites are lacking. We should observe the policy of “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” to discuss these problems and to promote progress and development of hyperpycnal flows and hyperpycnites.

The hyperpycnite problem: comment

A recent review article (“The hyperpycnite problem”) by Shanmugam (Journal of Palaeogeography 7(3):197–238, 2018) in this journal has some shortcomings, comes to scientifically incorrect conclusions, and calls for student education in a way that would significantly diminish the students’ changes for a geological career. Having studied--and still studying--hyperpycnites in the field, it seems only appropriate to inform the readers of this journal about our concerns regarding the review article mentioned above.Actually, the article by Shanmugam (Journal of Palaeogeography 7(3):197–238, 2018) is not a review paper but rather a comment, criticizing all researchers who have come to the conclusion, on the basis of both field research and theory, that hyperpycnal flows result in sediments (hyperpycnites) with characteristics that make it possible to distinguish them from deposits formed in another way. This is also the essence of Shanmugam’s comment: as he states himself, he is “an ardent critic of all genetic facies models”.

Glossary: A supplement to “Submarine fans: A critical retrospective (1950–2015)” in the Journal of Palaeogeography (2016, 5[2

In this Glossary, selected terms and concepts associated with submarine fans are defined.

Palaeogeography of China

Palaeogeography is a science that studies the features and evolution of physical geography in geological history and human history. The palaeogeography of China has multiple disciplines and multiple types of palaeogeographic map. These perfectly reflect “a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought content”. The palaeogeography of China has three characteristics. The first is multiple disciplines flourishing simultaneously. The second is that lithofacies palaeogeography is in a leading position. The third is that palaeogeography of China is closely connected with industrial practice. It is why palaeogeography, especially lithofacies palaeogeography of China, can flourish continually. We have two journals of palaeogeography, i. e. Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition) and Journal of Palaeogeography (English Edition). The former primarily publishes articles of Chinese authors regarding Chinese palaeogeography and related disciplines and has a foothold in China. The latter will publish the articles of both Chinese and international authors and caters to foreign readers. These two journals will cooperate together and display their own expertise, which will effectively make a great contribution to the development and innovation of Chinese palaeogeography and international palaeogeography.

Review of research in internal-wave and internal-tide deposits of China: Discussion

This discussion of a review article by [27], published in the Journal of Palaeogeography (2(1): 56– 65), is aimed at illustrating that interpretations of ten ancient examples in China and one in the central Appalachians (USA) as deep-water deposits of internal waves and internal tides are unsustainable. This critical assessment is based on an in-depth evaluation of oceanographic and sedimentologic data on internal waves and internal tides derived from 332 print and online published works during 1838–January 2013, which include empirical data on the physical characteristics of modern internal waves and internal tides from 51 regions of the world’s oceans [108]. In addition, core and outcrop descriptions of deep-water strata from 35 case studies worldwide carried out by the author during 1974–2011, and a selected number of case studies published by other researchers are evaluated for identifying the sedimentological challenges associated with distinguishing types of bottom-current reworked sands in the ancient sedimentary record. The emerging conclusion is that any interpretation of ancient strata as deposits of internal waves and internal tides is premature.

Reply to Shanmugam, G. “Review of research in internal-wave and internal-tide deposits of China: Discussion”

We are glad to know that our paper “Review of research in internal-wave and internal-tide deposits of China” (Gao et al., 2013) published in Journal of Palaeogeography has attracted close attention of international peers, and we noted that Shanmugam has provided a critical assessment of our paper. He claimed that “interpretations of ten ancient examples in China and one in the central Appalachians (USA) as deep-water deposits of internal waves and internal tides are unsustainable”, among many other comments and criticisms, and he concluded that “any interpretation of ancient strata as deposits of internal waves and internal tides is premature”. This article is aimed at responding to his major criticisms. We believe that constructive discussions will benefit the development of the study in internal-wave and internal-tide deposits. Unfortunately, Shanmugam seems not to follow this line of scientific criticism, but is trying to reject all research results in this subject based on his illogical and inconsistent reasoning, and distortion of others’ points of view. In this article, with facts and evidences, we will refuse the main wrong assertions of Shanmugam’s, for example, “the use of bidirectional cross-bedding as evidence for deposition by baroclinic currents in outcrop studies is sedimentologically erroneous ” and “any interpretation of ancient strata as deposits of internal waves and internal tides is premature”. We will also use typical characteristics of the ancient examples to demonstrate that they are certainly not turbidites, or contourites, or tsunami-related deposits, but internal-wave and internal-tide deposits as the most plausible to defend the rationality of our interpretation in our previous papers.

3D palaeogeographic reconstructions of the Phanerozoic versus sea-level and Sr-ratio variations: Discussion

Veacute;rard et al. (2015, Journal of Palaeogeography, 4(1): 64-84) claim that their global geodynamic model allows one to reconstruct the surface features of topography on land and in adjacent oceans (i.e., paleobathymetry) anywhere on the globe and at any geological time during the past 600 million years (Ma). Such a grand model requires a rigorous scrutiny. The purpose of this discussion is to illustrate that the model suffers from (1) the selective omission of real-world datasets that do not fit the model, (2) the inclusion of datasets without revealing their original sources or without citing relevant peer-reviewed publications, (3) the emphasis on ‘unpublished’ internal company datasets that disallow open access to the international scientific community, and (4) the use of poorly understood concepts without providing the basic conceptual clarity. These deficiencies undermine the credibility of the heuristic model.

Journal of Palaeogeography (English Edition) will be published in the first quarter of 2012

Journal of Palaeogeography (English Edition) will be published in the first quarter of 2012