|
Dr P. E. KENT congratulated Mr Stoneley on having given a clear exposition of a most complicated area, and said he wished to raise three points.
Firstly, could the author comment on the mechanism by which coarser sediments became emplaced seawards of the ‘eugeosyncline’. Had he envisaged the possibility that transcurrent movement of major faults might have produced a misleading distribution of facies belts?
Secondly, he inquired whether the straightness and large size of such features in the Tertiary basin as the Sullivan anticline might be taken to indicate belts on which major sole-thrusts reached surface, such thrusts being controlling features of a different order to the majority of dislocations in the sedimentary basin?
Finally, he asked if Mr Stoneley would comment on the very striking narrowing of the sedimentary belt eastwards towards Lituya Bay. Topographically there was no major change in the upthrown block along the strike, and equal volumes of sediments should have been derived from the metamorphics in the east as in areas further west towards the Malaspina and Bering glaciers. Was any important part of the sedimentary belt now submerged beneath the Pacific Ocean?
Replying to Dr Kent, the AUTHOR said it was only in part of the Poul Creek Formation of the Yakataga district that the sediments were known to become coarser southwards towards the coast. These were most probably derived from an easterly direction, since the Poul Creek Formation was absent from the Malaspina Glacier region, either through non-deposition or through subsequent erosion, and
...
This 250-word extract was created in the absence of an abstract.
