Yes! The Springdale Sandstone is now accepted as a member of the Kayenta Formation by the Utah Geological Survey and has been mapped as such on all the new Geological Maps for southwestern Utah, including all the 71/2' maps for Zion, The type area. See: http://geology.utah.gov/maps/geomap/interactive/viewer/index.html
All the UGS maps are free to down load on line including all the Arcview shape files. So have fun!
-Switch and rephrase the last two sentences
-Provide brief justification for your taxonomic identification
-Who says the Kayenta Formation is Sinemurian? Myself and others suggest (and have good evidence to support) that it could also include the Pliensbachian.
-The Kayenta Formation has been studied and explored for a lot longer than 1942. Dutton first mapped those strata in 1882 and Ward revised them in 1901 and 1905. It's true that the 40s saw the first major collection of body fossils in the Dilophosaurus skeletons near Moenave, AZ.
-Gold Tooth Springs isn’t a place. Gold Spring?
-You don’t need to quote “silty facies” because it’s a formal lithostratigraphic name (Harshbarger et al., 1957). You can say the Silty Facies of the Kayenta Formation. You do this here (page-line):1-34, 2-20, 2-31, 2-35, 3-3, 3-11, 3-13, Figure 2.
Materials and Methods
-“Curated there in perpetuity” is redundant after mentioning that the fossils have been accessioned.
-What are “standard field paleontology surface collection techniques”? These vary widely from person to person, even within a single crew.
-Use “Paraloid B-72” to indicate the grade name. For clarification, see Amy Davidson’s email to the Preplist at: https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/private/preplist/2014-August/003151.html
-Mention that Washington County is in Utah
-The debate as to whether or not the Springdale Sandstone Member is the base of the Kayenta Formation or the top member of the Moenave Formation is not resolved, and it being part of the Kayenta isn’t even the most recent opinion (Steiner and Tanner, 2014).
-The J-0 unconformity is not the same as the J-sub-K unconformity. As defined, the J-0 unconformity is at the base of the Glen Canyon Group (or Nugget Sandstone), be that the Wingate Sandstone or Moenave Formation depending on your location (Pipiringos and Peterson, 1978; Peterson and Pipiringos, 1979; even though they fail to realize that Gregory’s Division A actually includes the Wingate). The J-sub-K underlies the Kayenta Formation but is above the Wingate. This is where you get back to the Springdale Sandstone problem, because it is supposed to also be above the J-sub-K (Riggs and Blakey, 1993; Lucas and Tanner, 2006). You even mention that the Springdale unconformably overlies the Whitmore Point Member.
-Be very careful about not generalizing the lithology of the Kayenta Formation when describing it near your locality. Even from Kanab to Ward’s Terrace, the Silty Facies changes dramatically, and being a mixed fluvial-eolian system can be expected to be extremely time-transgressive as well as facies-transgressive. It doesn’t necessarily correlated well with places like Gold Spring, where tetrapod trackways or fish aren’t as common. At the time, Utah was much closer to the oceans and was probably wetter than conditions at Gold Spring.
-This paragraph reads awkwardly, reconsider rewriting.
-I’m not left convinced that these fossils are from a single taxon. Didn’t you collect pieces over three years? The fact that the Kayenta here isn’t full of fossils is the strongest evidence for that claim, but you don’t mention over how much area these remains were collected. With their fragmentary nature and difficulty of identifying elements, identifying duplication seems trivial.
-I will reserve most of my opinion on what these elements are for another forum. But I will say, you need to use apomorphy-based identifications (Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, 2007). You mention that “no unambiguous autapomorphies are recognized”, but the lack of autapomorphies found in other taxa doesn’t an identification make. It’s completely fine to say cf. Sphenosuchia, but that’s a big difference from calling it Sphenosuchia indet. Even if you have to resort to calling it “Archosauria” or even “Reptilia”, you’re still reporting the first archosaurs or reptile remains for that part of the formation. You’re reporting this as a single individual, but if it’s not, you should ID (based on apomorphies) each bone individually (eg. if that’s a ventral keel on a cervical vertebra [Fig. 7.4], you’re looking at Archosauriformes).
-What is the red bar beside the Kayenta Formation in the strat column?
-Figure 4.2 and 4.3 are a little dark. I can’t tell if those pits are cranial ornamentations or dissolution pits from weathering.
-Figure 6.1 is very blurry, do you know any directions on the element?
-Figure 13.5-8 are blurry
A few minor stylistic suggestions:
1) I would expand the abstract to include more information on the specimen itself; because many people may read only the abstract, and because the paper really is focusing on one specimen, it is important to make this piece of text as informative as possible.
2) In the figures, there is no need to include a number in figures showing only a single element. Also, I would slim down the scale bars' height, and maybe even do away with the current scale bars altogether and replace them with a single one centimeter scale bar. This would more efficiently use figure space and would be a little more visually attractive (in my opinion). If possible, I would go to a solid (white or black) background, rather than the gradients used here, and also reduce the size of the numbers in each figure. Also consider combining or reorganizing figures - perhaps all of the osteoderms together, for instance. Rather than splitting a single bone across multiple plates, I would recommend putting all views of each bone together.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily