While the mere fact that one series of rocks lies unconformably on
another proves the lapse of a considerable interval between their
respective dates, the relative length of this interval may sometimes
be proved by means of fossil evidence, and by this alone. Let us
suppose, for example, that a certain group of formations has been
disturbed, upraised, denuded and covered unconformably by a second
group. In lithological characters the two may closely resemble each
other, and there may be nothing to show that the gap represented by
their unconformability is of an important character. In many cases,
indeed, it would be quite impossible to pronounce any well-grounded
judgment as to the amount of interval, even measured by the vague
relative standards of geological chronology. But if each group
contains a well-preserved suite of organic remains, it may not only be
possible, but easy, to say exactly how much of the geological record
has been left out between the two sets of formations. By comparing the
fossils with those obtained from regions where the geological record
is more complete, it may be ascertained, perhaps, that the lower rocks
belong to a certain platform or stage in geological history which for
our present purpose we may call D, and that the upper rocks can in
like manner be paralleled with stage H. It would be then apparent that
at this locality the chronicles of three great geological periods E,
F, and G were wanting, which are elsewhere found to be intercalated
between D and H. The lapse of time represented by this
unconformability would thus be equivalent to that required for the
accumulation of the three missing formations in those regions where
sedimentation was more continuous.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account