• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Facies >Discussion of “The bioeroded megasurface of Oura (Algarve, south Portugal): implications for the Neogene stratigraphy and tectonic evolution of southwest Iberia” by Cachao et al. (Facies 55(2): 213–225, DOI 10.1007/s10347-008-0172-2)
【24h】

Discussion of “The bioeroded megasurface of Oura (Algarve, south Portugal): implications for the Neogene stratigraphy and tectonic evolution of southwest Iberia” by Cachao et al. (Facies 55(2): 213–225, DOI 10.1007/s10347-008-0172-2)

机译：Cachao等人讨论了“欧拉的生物侵蚀大表面（葡萄牙南部阿尔加威）：对西南伊比利亚西南地区新近系地层和构造演化的影响”。 （图55（2）：213–225，DOI 10.1007 / s10347-008-0172-2）

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

With reference to the above cited paper, we were surprised to see that the authors present four isotopic ages obtained in diVerent localities from that of the Wgured section (Oura Neogene section, Fig. 2) and use them to support very speculative (and most likely erroneous) conclusions. None of the four numerical dates presented were obtained from the Oura section. Instead, they derive from diVerent outcrops and diVerent sections, with no direct correlations. In addition, no reference to isotopic dates from the Oura section published in Pais et al. (2000) was made despite the paper was cited by Cach?o et al. (2009). Also, some paleontological and biostratigraphic data (Antunes et al. 1981) concerning the Oura section are not discussed.
机译：参考以上引用的论文，我们很惊讶地看到作者展示了与Wgured断层（Oura Neogene断层，图2）不同的位置获得的四个同位素年龄，并用它们来支持投机性（而且很可能是错误的结论。所提供的四个数字日期均未从Oura部分获得。相反，它们来自diVerent露头和diVerent部分，没有直接相关性。另外，在Pais等人发表的Oura部分中没有提及同位素日期。尽管Cach？o等人引用了该论文，但他（2000年）还是做出了这一结论。 （2009）。而且，没有讨论有关欧拉剖面的一些古生物学和生物地层学数据（Antunes等，1981）。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号