The presence of the coccolith Micula prinsii is not indicative of Paleocene deposits but of Uppermost Maastrichtian marine deposits (see e.g., Pospichal 1996), so Shukla and Shukla must be misinformed. As pointed out by Hansen et al (2001) the marine K/T boundary occurs right after the disappearance...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.561.3017 http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/dec2002/Esb1469b.pdf |
| Summary: | The presence of the coccolith Micula prinsii is not indicative of Paleocene deposits but of Uppermost Maastrichtian marine deposits (see e.g., Pospichal 1996), so Shukla and Shukla must be misinformed. As pointed out by Hansen et al (2001) the marine K/T boundary occurs right after the disappearance of Upper Maastrichtian planktonic foraminifera and coccoliths. The marine boundary denition is in this connection of interest only, as far as there is presence of two Ir anomalies at El Kef shortly after the extinction level. The presence of Ir-anomalies has no bearing upon the terrestrial boundary as earlier pointed out by us. We also noted that Ir anomalies have been recorded at other levels than the K/T boundary, and that Ir anomalies are not |
|---|