Re: extinction

["Dewey M. McLean" <dmclean@vt.edu>]

Response to Phil Bigelow's post of Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:39:34.

Phil wrote concerning the Exxon group paper titled "Sequence 
stratigraphic setting of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in central 
Alabama," of which Peter Vail was one of the authors:

"To *describe* a section of strata doesn't not necessarily mean that the
describer *understands* what he is describing! ;-)  Keep in mind that,
prior to the discovery of the K-T iridium layer, stratigraphers didn't
have ANY experience working with world-wide chron-layers.  This means
that, prior to Alvarez et al.'s first paper, Dr. Vail had no experience
with the subject.  This is not an indictment of Vail, it's just a
reality."


The Exxon sequence stratigraphy group was perhaps the single most 
advanced group in existence on the topic of understanding short- and 
long-range stratigraphy. They operated via integration of a huge 
global data base from oil wells, seismic data, multidisciplinary 
paleontological data, stratigraphy, sedimentology, oceanography, 
geochemistry, paleogeography, geophysics, etc. Peter Vail directed 
this entire operation. He understood with splendid precision what he 
was doing.

For you to state that Vail does not understand how to do stratigraphy 
is a disgusting insult to a forefront creative, accomplished, 
revered, and honored, scientist who has done much for the science of 
geology.

Your "stratigraphers didn't have ANY experience...prior to 
Alvarez..." exposes a shocking ignorance of reality on your part.

Re chron-layers, recall that some K-T sections have multiple iridium 
spikes. Which spikes at individual localities might you correlate 
with spikes at other localities? Does one spike at a given locality 
correlate with a Maastrichtian spike at another locality, or a K-T 
boundary spike, or a Tertiary spike?

Phil, a simplistic recitation on your part that you _believe_ that 
the K-T has only one "real" spike that has been reworked is not good 
enough. You must back up your contention with hard data from the K-T 
transition geobiological record. Until you do that, your _belief_ 
cannot be seriously considered as a meaningful contribution to K-T 
science.

Cordially,
Dewey McLean