COMMENTS ON “BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC INVESTIGATION AND DEPOSITIONAL MODEL OF THE LATE THANETIAN RANIKOT AND THE YPRESIAN LAKI FORMATIONS IN THE SUBSURFACE OF THE SOUTHERN INDUS BASIN, PAKISTAN”
{"title":"COMMENTS ON “BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC INVESTIGATION AND DEPOSITIONAL MODEL OF THE LATE THANETIAN RANIKOT AND THE YPRESIAN LAKI FORMATIONS IN THE SUBSURFACE OF THE SOUTHERN INDUS BASIN, PAKISTAN”","authors":"Maqsood ur Rahman","doi":"10.26480/itechmag.04.2022.22.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note aims to criticize the identification of key larger benthic foraminifera (LBF) at species or genus rankand the biostratigraphic interpretations. The species figured in the under-discussion paper are largely misidentified. The authors did not follow the fundamental principles for the identification of the LBF. Usingthe misidenti fied species led to the incorrect establishment of the shallow benthic zones (SBZ). Consequently,pro vided the wrong biostratigraphic age to the Lower Eocene succession of the Southern Indus Basin. Themicropaleontological analysis coupled with microfacies description that suffers from the misidentification of most key-index taxa is useful for the definition of a precise depositional environment. The stratigraphic nomenclature is also wrong throughout the article where the authors confused the Group and Formation. The italic and non-italic protocols for the species and genus rank are also wrong throughout the article. Therefore, this note highlights the errors which have been made regarding the age, depositional model, and nomenclature of the Lower Eocene succession of the Southern Indus Basin.","PeriodicalId":215601,"journal":{"name":"INWASCON Technology Magazine","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INWASCON Technology Magazine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26480/itechmag.04.2022.22.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This note aims to criticize the identification of key larger benthic foraminifera (LBF) at species or genus rankand the biostratigraphic interpretations. The species figured in the under-discussion paper are largely misidentified. The authors did not follow the fundamental principles for the identification of the LBF. Usingthe misidenti fied species led to the incorrect establishment of the shallow benthic zones (SBZ). Consequently,pro vided the wrong biostratigraphic age to the Lower Eocene succession of the Southern Indus Basin. Themicropaleontological analysis coupled with microfacies description that suffers from the misidentification of most key-index taxa is useful for the definition of a precise depositional environment. The stratigraphic nomenclature is also wrong throughout the article where the authors confused the Group and Formation. The italic and non-italic protocols for the species and genus rank are also wrong throughout the article. Therefore, this note highlights the errors which have been made regarding the age, depositional model, and nomenclature of the Lower Eocene succession of the Southern Indus Basin.