RE:Gumsley revisionThanks gentlemen. Glad you see the significance.
Sorry if I don't always respond. Have to work today, but had a sec to.
I see I should have said 2 ton samples, not 5 ton. Iskyhigh wrote: The above model of a simple polar crossing at ca 2772 Ma generates specific correlations of unconformitybounded sequences in the lower Fortescue Group, especially in the Marble Bar Sub-basin (Figure 11). The correlations adopted herein are identical to those suggested by Strik (2004) and would require revision to geological quadrangle maps published by the GSWA (e.g. Hickman, 2010, 2013; Hickman & Van Kranendonk, 2008). On those maps that include the Marble Bar Sub-basin, the ‘Kylena Formation’ (correlated paleomagnetically to Package 1 of Strik et al., 2003) would need to be reassigned to the Mount Roe Basalt. If new lithostratigraphic designations for the immediately underlying ‘Hardey Formation’ sandstone unit and lower Package 0 lavas are desired, then local names from the Marble Bar Sub-basin would need to replace ‘Mount Roe Basalt’ as currently mapped in that area.
From Page 126:
Gumsley_2017_.pdf The 5-ton samples from Beatons could be very interesting.