This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colorado Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Qyd:@ Abyssal:@ Georgialh: I have made many edits to articles covering the Colorado/Kansas members of the Colorado Group, but I until this week I had not critically examined it. My observation, in short, is that the article, as originally posted, covers the Canadian classification and rather omitt the prior use in the United States.
The 1856, Meek and Hayden described their “Upper Missouri” series; Dakota, Benton, Niobrara, Pierre, and Fox Hills.
In 1876, Hayden grouped the three marine units (Benton, Niobrara, and Pierre) under the name Colorado, but this group was soon revised to just the lower two. As the Benton was replaced with Graneros, Greenhorn, and Carlile, these units took the Benton's place in the Colorado Group.
However, the classification is problematic. By the 1960, Donald E. Hattin, who litterally wrote the books on the members of the Colorado Group in Kansas suggested that the Colorado Group classification had no pracical use.
On one hand, the terrestrial Dakota (et.al.), and the marine Graneros, Greenhorn, and Carlile, and Niobrara each have different facies and distinct topographical expressions; but on the other hand, they are all found together in their outcrop and their collective topographical sequence (examples, the Smoky Hills, Dakota Hogback, the upper plains Arkansas/Cimarron Valley). In this presenation, they are often accompanied by the Ogallala, while the marine Pierre is often off somewhere else with the more terrestrial Fox Hills doing its own subdued thing.
So, the first impression is that the Colorado Group, at least in Kansas and Montana [1], is falling out of use. [2] [3]
Is the same happening with the Canadian usgage?
The real question I have is how to handle the article's present Canada-centric coverage of the Colorado Group, paricularly when I really don't know where the Colorado name is being retained, even whether it is actually a particularly important, current name presently in Canada.
IveGoneAway ( talk) 22:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the inclusion of all Cretaceous rocks in Russell County within the Colorado Group, Hattin (personal communication) suggests that the term Colorado Group be discontinued because the units are too lithologically diverse to be included within one group. As a result, the term Colorado Group is not used in this report.
This concept of Colorado Group has continued to the present day, but in Kansas and most of Colorado lithologic heterogeneity of included strata renders the group of questionable validity and of little practical value.
I wanted to capture these potential citations while I have them up (from Favel Formation):
From this, usage seems to be current, in at least Canadian publications on the Williston (the Williston seems a particular point of historic insertion of Colorado/Kansas usage into Canada):
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |last1=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)IveGoneAway ( talk) 13:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC) 13:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colorado Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Qyd:@ Abyssal:@ Georgialh: I have made many edits to articles covering the Colorado/Kansas members of the Colorado Group, but I until this week I had not critically examined it. My observation, in short, is that the article, as originally posted, covers the Canadian classification and rather omitt the prior use in the United States.
The 1856, Meek and Hayden described their “Upper Missouri” series; Dakota, Benton, Niobrara, Pierre, and Fox Hills.
In 1876, Hayden grouped the three marine units (Benton, Niobrara, and Pierre) under the name Colorado, but this group was soon revised to just the lower two. As the Benton was replaced with Graneros, Greenhorn, and Carlile, these units took the Benton's place in the Colorado Group.
However, the classification is problematic. By the 1960, Donald E. Hattin, who litterally wrote the books on the members of the Colorado Group in Kansas suggested that the Colorado Group classification had no pracical use.
On one hand, the terrestrial Dakota (et.al.), and the marine Graneros, Greenhorn, and Carlile, and Niobrara each have different facies and distinct topographical expressions; but on the other hand, they are all found together in their outcrop and their collective topographical sequence (examples, the Smoky Hills, Dakota Hogback, the upper plains Arkansas/Cimarron Valley). In this presenation, they are often accompanied by the Ogallala, while the marine Pierre is often off somewhere else with the more terrestrial Fox Hills doing its own subdued thing.
So, the first impression is that the Colorado Group, at least in Kansas and Montana [1], is falling out of use. [2] [3]
Is the same happening with the Canadian usgage?
The real question I have is how to handle the article's present Canada-centric coverage of the Colorado Group, paricularly when I really don't know where the Colorado name is being retained, even whether it is actually a particularly important, current name presently in Canada.
IveGoneAway ( talk) 22:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the inclusion of all Cretaceous rocks in Russell County within the Colorado Group, Hattin (personal communication) suggests that the term Colorado Group be discontinued because the units are too lithologically diverse to be included within one group. As a result, the term Colorado Group is not used in this report.
This concept of Colorado Group has continued to the present day, but in Kansas and most of Colorado lithologic heterogeneity of included strata renders the group of questionable validity and of little practical value.
I wanted to capture these potential citations while I have them up (from Favel Formation):
From this, usage seems to be current, in at least Canadian publications on the Williston (the Williston seems a particular point of historic insertion of Colorado/Kansas usage into Canada):
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |last1=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)IveGoneAway ( talk) 13:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC) 13:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)