Dickinsonia tenuis reported by Retallack et al. 2021 is not a Fossil, Instead an Impression of an Extant ‘fallen beehive’ by S.K. Pandey, Shamim Ahmad and Mukund Sharma. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v.99, 2023, pp.311-316

Authors

  • Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-1070
  • Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-023-2427-5

Keywords:

No keywords.

Abstract

We consider existing reliable data indicate the depositional age of the uppermost sandstone (Maihar Sandstone) of the Vindhyan Supergroup to be closer to 1000 Ma. We consider the penultimate statement by Pandey et al. (2023) “… the Maihar Sandstone is deposited within the Ediacaran Period” (our italics) is erroneous. In this note, we address both the dubious geochronology and the dubious biostratigraphy called on by Pandey et al. (op. cit.), and comment on the impropriety of changing extant stratigraphy on the basis of either.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Published

2023-12-20

How to Cite

Bickford, M. E., & Basu, A. (2023). Dickinsonia tenuis reported by Retallack et al. 2021 is not a Fossil, Instead an Impression of an Extant ‘fallen beehive’ by S.K. Pandey, Shamim Ahmad and Mukund Sharma. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v.99, 2023, pp.311-316. Journal of Geological Society of India, 99(7), 1033–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-023-2427-5

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)