In earlier presentations (for example, Droste, Shaver, and Lazor, 1975; Droste, Rexroad, and Shave, 1980) we have stressed that advancement of tectono-sedimentational knowledge of the southern Great Lakes area has been conditioned by (1) the provincialism of most studies and (2) the tendency to think of ancient Paleozoic regional structure too much in terms of present regional structure. The first conditioning method above has been a necessary first step in overall study of this area as most individual geologists concentrated in one basin or another or in outcrop geology. As a result, necessarily somewhat independent and contradictory geologic histories have evolved for the Illinois Basin and the two other basins of special concern here, the Michigan and Appalachian Basins. Moreover, some classically generated concepts for the areas of the Cincinnati, Kankakee, Findlay, and Algonquin Arches and the Niagara Escarpment have remained too long uncoordinated with basin-developed knowledge. In this realization we have suggested that regional studies in the Indiana area, extended among three basin and integrating classic outcrop geology, are important keys to improved, integrated regional concepts.
Droste, J. B., and Shaver, R. H., 1983, Atlas of Early and Middle Paleozoic paleogeography of the southern Great Lakes area: Indiana Geological Survey Special Report 32, 32 p., 47 figs.
You may also like:
Can't find what you're looking for? Feel free to contact us directly:
Indiana Geological and Water Survey
420 N. Walnut St.
Bloomington, IN 47404
IGS Return Policy
- Original sales receipt required.
- Returns accepted within 30 days of purchase date.
- Refund will be issued by the same method of payment as purchased.
- Products must be returned in the same new condition as purchased.
- Refunds on custom orders and digital products are NOT allowed.
- Customers are responsible for paying shipping costs to return products.