| Reference Type | Journal (article/letter/editorial) |
|---|
| Title | Ludlovian Classification—A Reply |
|---|
| Journal | Geological Magazine |
|---|
| Authors | Holland, C. H. | Author |
|---|
| Lawson, J. D. | Author |
| Walmsley, V. G. | Author |
| Year | 1962 (October) | Volume | 99 |
|---|
| Issue | 5 |
|---|
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) |
|---|
| DOI | doi:10.1017/s0016756800059665Search in ResearchGate |
|---|
| Generate Citation Formats |
|---|
| Mindat Ref. ID | 249218 | Long-form Identifier | mindat:1:5:249218:0 |
|---|
|
| GUID | 0 |
|---|
| Full Reference | Holland, C. H., Lawson, J. D., Walmsley, V. G. (1962) Ludlovian Classification—A Reply. Geological Magazine, 99 (5) 393-398 doi:10.1017/s0016756800059665 |
|---|
| Plain Text | Holland, C. H., Lawson, J. D., Walmsley, V. G. (1962) Ludlovian Classification—A Reply. Geological Magazine, 99 (5) 393-398 doi:10.1017/s0016756800059665 |
|---|
| In | (1962, October) Geological Magazine Vol. 99 (5) Cambridge University Press (CUP) |
|---|
| Abstract/Notes | AbstractThe revised classification of the Ludlovian rocks is defended. It is maintained that there is no need for separate rock-stratigraphical and biostratigraphical classifications. The nine new divisions are, therefore, combined units; their number is justified by the detailed mapping and their names are dictated by the requirements of the rocks and not by an arbitrary code of rules. The old classification, using Aymestry Limestone, is considered to be still usable as a crude rock-stratigraphical classification. |
|---|
These are possibly similar items as determined by title/reference text matching only.
