首页> 外文期刊>Journal of South American earth sciences >Reply to Jenchen, U.: Comment to Hernandez-Ocana, Maria I., Chacon-Baca, Elizabeth, Quiroz-Barroso, Sara A., Eguiluz-de Antunano, Samuel, Torres-de la Cruz, Felipe, and Chavez-Cabello, Gabriel (2019): A Paleogene ichnological record from the Wilcox Formation: Ophiomorpha and Venericardia (Venericor) zapatai in the Burgos Basin, northern Mexico
【24h】

Reply to Jenchen, U.: Comment to Hernandez-Ocana, Maria I., Chacon-Baca, Elizabeth, Quiroz-Barroso, Sara A., Eguiluz-de Antunano, Samuel, Torres-de la Cruz, Felipe, and Chavez-Cabello, Gabriel (2019): A Paleogene ichnological record from the Wilcox Formation: Ophiomorpha and Venericardia (Venericor) zapatai in the Burgos Basin, northern Mexico

机译:对美国詹森的答复:对埃尔南德斯·奥卡纳,玛丽亚·I,查孔·巴卡,伊丽莎白,基洛兹·巴罗佐,萨拉·A,埃基卢兹·德·安图纳诺,塞缪尔,托雷斯·德拉克鲁兹,费利佩和查韦斯·卡贝洛的评论加布里埃尔(2019):威尔科克斯地层的古近代成年记录:墨西哥北部布尔戈斯盆地的麦冬和蛇眼(Venericor)zapatai

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The Jenchen's comment appears to assume that Venericardia and Ophiomorpha were the main objectives in our work and that we used random criteria to assign genera. However our paper addressed the presence of previously reported V. and Oph. from new localities rather than a taxonomic determination. Our descriptions of shells are based on the separate evaluation of observed macroscopic and microscopic features for taphonomic rather than taxonomic purposes. Based on this erroneous assumption, Jenchen disproves our methodology and data processing. Since Jenchen statements (ten remarks) are reiterative and redundant, we have simplified them and focus on the four main points: geological setting (three remarks), presentation of studied section (one remark), Ophiomorpha isp. (two remarks), and Venericardia (Venericor) zapatai (three remarks). In the following lines well argue why most of these comments lack robust scientific support and are rather suggestions on how our results should be worked, interpreted and presented. We expect to answer every remark. Due to the redundancy of his 3rd and 4th points, we simplified our clarifications in the same order. Since there seems to be a mistaken assumption in some of the commentaries embodied in the 2nd and 3rd sections of Jenchen's comment, the 5th section turns out to be invalid. We conclude answering his remarks concerning our treatment of data from sections 6th and 7th, and include some recommendations as well.
机译:Jenchen的评论似乎假设我们的主要目标是心包和心房颤动,并且我们使用随机标准来分配属。但是,我们的论文解决了先前报道的V.和Oph的存在。来自新的地区,而不是分类学上的决心。我们对壳的描述是基于对观测到的宏观和微观特征进行单独评估的,以用于分类学而非分类学目的。基于这个错误的假设,Jenchen证明了我们的方法和数据处理。由于仁臣声明(十句话)是重复性和多余的,因此我们将它们简化了,并集中在四个要点上:地质背景(三句话),研究断面的呈现(一句话),蛇形眼。 (两个评论)和Venericardia(Venericor)zapatai(三个评论)。在接下来的几行中,很好地解释了为什么这些评论大多数都缺乏强有力的科学支持,而只是关于如何处理,解释和展示我们的结果的建议。我们希望回答每一个评论。由于他的第三和第四点的冗余,我们以相同的顺序简化了说明。由于在詹琴评论的第二和第三部分所体现的某些评论中似乎有一个错误的假设,因此第五部分原来是无效的。我们总结了他关于我们在第6和第7节中处理数据的评论,并提出了一些建议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号