After a few days, I received some emails from readers, they agreed with my viewpoint. and mine were published in the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition), Xi et al. and minein the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition) in the same issue in order to attract the attention of readers.ĭr. Meanwhile, I wrote a short paper “Words of the Editor-in-Chief - Rocks are not microfacies” (Feng 2017, in Chinese) and planned for publishing both the papers of Xi et al. Xi and expressed my viewpoint that the 10 “microfacies” in their manuscript are not “microfacies” but 10 rocks or rock types. The authors considered 10 rock types as 10 “microfacies” and indicated that the 10 “microfacies” are identified based on the “standard microfacies” in the Chinese version of the book “Carbonate Facies in Geologic History” by Wilson ( 1975a, b) of which the chief translator was me. In 2017, the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition) received a manuscript by Xi et al. At that time, I thought it may be the difference of academic viewpoints between us, I could not force them to change their points of view. However, they did not accept my suggestion. I suggested the authors to utilize “rocks” or “rock types”, “microfeatures of rocks” and “macrofeatures of rocks” instead of “lithofacies”, “microfacies” and “macrofacies” respectively. In 2015, in the papers published in the Journal of Palaeogeography (English Edition), the authors named the rocks as “lithofacies”, named the microfeatures of rocks as “microfacies”, and named the macrofeatures of rocks as “macrofacies”. I suggested them to utilize rocks or rock types instead of “microfacies”. ![]() ( 2014) published in the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition), the authors named the rocks as “microfacies”. ![]() I hope that the new papers will attract attention of readers worldwide and they can write papers and participate in the discussion and contending of these problems, strive for getting some common understandings, and therefore promote the progress and development of sedimentology and palaeogeography. , “facies”, “lithofacies”, two “microfacies”, “macrofacies”, “subfacies”, etc. These problems appeared repeatedly and forced me, as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition and English Edition), to observe the policy of “ A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend”, to write new papers “A review on the definitions of terms of sedimentary facies” both in Chinese and in English, to clarify the definitions of the terms of sedimentary facies, i.e. However, the definition of this “microfacies” is totally different from the “microfacies” proposed by foreign sedimentologists in 1940s based on the microfeatures in thin-sections under microscope. In addition, in 1980s, some Chinese sedimentologists proposed “subfacies” and “microfacies” based on the macrofeatures of rocks from outcrops and drilling cores. However, they did not attract much attention of readers in China and outside China. I wrote two short papers “Words of the Editor-in-Chief - Rocks are not microfacies” (Feng, Journal of Palaeogeography 19(5):II 2017) and “Words of the Editor-in-Chief - Rocks are not lithofacies” (Feng, Journal of Palaeogeography 20(3):452–452, 2018) which were in Chinese and published in the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition). ![]() In recent years, in some papers and manuscripts published in and submitted to the Journal of Palaeogeography (Chinese Edition and English Edition), the authors named the rocks or rock types as “microfacies” or “lithofacies”, named the microfeatures in thin-sections under microscope as “microfacies”, and named the macrofeatures of rocks as “macrofacies”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |