| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
I have not looked into this problem in detail but a few obvious suggestions arise; 1. Some discrepancies will arise from use of unsatisfactory markers in the Standard Nanno zonation - Varol 1989 (in Crux & van Heck (eds) is in many ways a better scheme. 2. An obvious area you should try to compare your resutls with is Tunisia where ther is a large literature, note in particular a recent ms by Kouwenhoven et al. in Marine Micropaleontology (1997, 29/3-4). Contacting the Utrecht group would surely be valuable. 3. Nanno workers who have recently looked at Palaeocene strat., include Aubry (of course), Wei, de Kaenel, Varol. 4. It might be useful to repost your query to the coccoliths and micropal listservers (details available on the paleonet WWW site) Jeremy Young >Correlation of foram + nannozones (Paleocene) > >Currently, I am working at a paper (part of my PhD) which deals with >the correlation of the biozones of planktonic foraminifera and >calcareous nannofossils in the Paleocene of Sinai (Egypt). I >realized that there are many different correlation schemes in >the literature. I found an interesting discussion in Berggren et al. >(1995). I am now interested in additional references and points for >discussion. For our study in Sinai, the correlation seems to be consistent. >The discrepancies with the results from other areas may include >paleoecological effects, different search intensity of the different >foram+nanno-workers, problems with identification, undeciphered hiatuses >etc. Any suggestions? >Sebastian Luening >University of Bremen >e-mail: luening@uni-bremen.de ________________________________________________ Dr. Jeremy R. Young Tel: +44 (0)171 938 8996 Palaeontology Dept. Fax: +44 (0)171 938 9277 The Natural History Museum INTERNET: j.young@nhm.ac.uk LONDON, SW7 5BD, UK E-Mail Program used: Eudora
Partial index: