Abstract

V. P. Wright & T. J. Faulkner write: Anderson & Goodwin (1990) have applied their punctuated aggradational cycle hypothesis to the Courceyan (Early Carboniferous) Shipway Limestone–Brofiscin Oolite sequence of the Gower, south Wales. While we freely admit to being converts to the idea that much of the sedimentary record contains abundant evidence of small-scale cyclicity, we totally disagree with their interpretation that this sequence is peritidal.

We have a number of small queries about their paper. They made no reference to two detailed papers describing the sections they discuss, namely those of Wu (1982) and Faulkner (1988). Also we have problems in reconciling their observations with our own, and with those of Ramsay (1987) and Wu (1982). For example, Anderson & Goodwin (p. 516) described the Shipway Limestone as a grainstone sequence while Faulkner (1988, fig. 4) identified very few grainstones in this interval. The log offered by Anderson & Goodwin (fig. 5) contained symbols not given on the key and failed to record the abundant crinoid material at many levels in the sequence, a fact not mentioned in their paper.

More significantly, they made no attempt to explain why they have re-interpreted the sequence as a peritidal deposit, which is at such variance to the offshore–shoreface interpretations offered by Wu (1982), Wright (1986), Ramsay (1987) and Faulkner (1988). They presented no evidence for peritidal conditions during deposition. The sequence does not contain any evidence of exposure features and if deposition took place predominantly in lower intertidal settings with low exposure indices,

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.