1933
DOI: 10.1130/gsab-44-423
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification and Nomenclature of Rock Units

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

1959
1959
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Siwalik Group Lewis (1937, p. 197) proposed a classification for the Siwalik Group following the principles of stratigraphic classification of Ashley and others (1933). His classification, generally accepted by the writers, has been modified to comply with the Stratigraphic Code of Pakistan.…”
Section: Mitha Khatak Formationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Siwalik Group Lewis (1937, p. 197) proposed a classification for the Siwalik Group following the principles of stratigraphic classification of Ashley and others (1933). His classification, generally accepted by the writers, has been modified to comply with the Stratigraphic Code of Pakistan.…”
Section: Mitha Khatak Formationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The system of rock-unit classification and naming employed by Iraq Petroleum Company geologists is advocated in the code of rules compiled by Ashley and others (1939) as supplemented in recent papers and rulings of the Commission on Stratigraphy.…”
Section: Philosophy Of Nomenclaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter objective needs no special justification, for, because it aims at the understanding of the lateral relationships and extent of rock units information that has great economic and scientific value it is one of the prime objectives of most stratigraphic work. Similarly, no special defense is required for the formal recognition of unmappable members and tongues because this is common, approved practice (Ashley and others, 1933). In some fringe areas, such as northwestern Wyoming, where the three Permian formations intertongue but are not mappable separately, we do not propose that all the formations be mapped separately.…”
Section: Plan and Justificationmentioning
confidence: 94%