In replying to Mountjoy's discussion [ibid., p. 340-345], the authors explain why they interpret the Jasper Lake Member as a facies of the Shunda Formation. They note the reduced thickness of the Shunda Formation up to the top where the member occurs; that the lithology of the lower Shunda in these occurrences is characteristic of a more basinal facies and indicates a trend to an environment favorable to encrinite deposition; and that correlation by paleontologic data lends support. Mountjoy suggested that lithologic differences should keep the Jasper Lake Member out of the Shunda and that its inclusion violated both the Shunda definition and the Code of Stratigraphic Nomenclature, but one code article supports the inclusion and the Committee found no violations in the paper.

You do not currently have access to this article.