The cross-bedded Coconino Sandstone (lower Permian, Arizona) is often used as a “type” ancient eolian sandstone. Previous field and laboratory work by the author have revealed data that instead support a marine origin for this sandstone. Using primarily the COSUNA data compiled by the AAPG in the 1980s, Permian and Pennsylvanian sandstones were correlated across western and central United States with special emphasis on lower Permian formations. It was found that the Coconino could be correlated as a diachronous sand body from southern California to North Dakota, and from Texas to Idaho, an area of approximately 2.4 million km2. Formations included the Glorieta Sandstone (New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma), the Lyons Sandstone (Colorado), the Wood River Formation (Idaho), the Weber Formation (Utah), the Tensleep Sandstone and Casper Formation (Wyoming), the Minnelusa Formation (Montana, South Dakota) and the Broom Creek Formation (North Dakota). A literature review of these sandstones revealed many common characteristics with the Coconino including paleocurrent directions, the presence of dolomite and tetrapod footprints. Textural similarities were also recognized in the field and under the microscope including angular grains, poor to moderate sorting and mica. The sandstones are usually found below a chemically rich marine rock layer containing gypsum, phosphate, salt or limestone, and zircons show common Appalachian sources. A literature review of Permian cross-bedded sandstones in Canada, Europe, South America, and Saudi Arabia revealed similar characteristics to these western United States sandstones.
Several implications are discussed, including: 1) The similarities of other Permian cross-bedded sandstones to the Coconino imply that they are also likely marine sandstones. 2) Consistent paleocurrents are best explained by marine processes, not subaerial ones. 3) Provenance studies of the Coconino equivalents show a large portion of the sand originated from eastern North America. Combined with paleocurrent data, it appears a massive amount of sand was transported across the continent by marine currents and not by rivers or wind. 4) Some creationists have denied the validity of the geological column. While a single “blanket” sandstone is not a column, many “blankets” stacked on top of one another, are a column. 5) Similar Permian sandstones around the world not only strengthen the validity of the geological column, but they argue that these sandstones were also made by similar processes as the Coconino during a singular period of time.
Sand waves may not be an exact analogue of how the “blanket” of the Coconino and other sandstones were deposited, but we envisage something similar depositing shallow marine sands all over the Pangean supercontinent as it was underwater during the Flood.
In the first chapter of his insightful book, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Derek Ager (1981) discusses a concept which he refers to as the persistence of facies. What Ager means by this is that during certain periods of geologic time, specific facies inexplicably appear around the world over and over again. For example, he talks about the basal Cambrian sandstones, the Cretaceous chalks, the Permo-Triassic redbeds, the Carboniferous coals and the Mississippian limestones. Although Ager was clearly a catastrophist but not a creationist, he understood that his data and ideas could have implications for those who were looking for evidence to support Noah’s Flood (see p. 20 for example). This is because deposits like this imply similar events and processes occurring over widespread areas. Pennsylvanian-Permian-Triassic sandstones are a clear example of some of the persistent facies that can be found worldwide during this interval. A few examples would be the Coconino Sandstone of Arizona, the Tensleep Sandstone of Wyoming the Lyons Sandstone of Colorado, the Rotliegendes Sandstone of Germany, the Hopeman, Corrie, and Corncockle Sandstones of Scotland, the Penrith, Bridgnorth and Yellow Sands Sandstones of England, part of the Champenay Formation of France, the Pirambóia Formation of Brazil and the Andapaico Formation of Argentina (see Brookfield 1978; Clemmensen and Hegner 1991; Duncan 1830; Glennie 1972; Hurst and Glennie 2008; Karpeta 1990; Limarino and Spalletti 1986; Maithel, Garner, and Whitmore 2015; McKee and Bigarella 1979; Newell 2001; Steele 1983; Swezey, Deynoux, and Jeannette 1996; Waugh 1970a, 1970b). Conventional geology has usually explained the persistence of facies, not in terms of Ager’s catastrophism, but in terms of similar climatic conditions over widespread areas united by a common paleogeography (see Blakey and Ranney 2018, for example). In the case of the Pennsylvanian and Permian sandstones of the western United States, they are explained as desert sand dune deposits occurring on the western side of the Pangean continent. Or, if they have marine fossils, as many of them do, shallow marine sands proximal to the Pangean coast.
The Coconino Sandstone is one of the more well-known Permian sandstones of the western United States. It is part of familiar cliff exposures in places like Grand Canyon and Sedona, Arizona (fig. 1). It consists almost entirely of large cross-beds (fig. 2) composed of moderately- to poorly-sorted, subangular, fine-grained sand (fig. 3). Whitmore et al. (2014) gave a comprehensive report on the petrology of the formation showing that the commonly held beliefs that the Coconino contains well-rounded, well-sorted sand grains were false. Maximum thickness is reached near Pine, Arizona where it is about 300 m thick; in areas like the Grand Canyon, it averages around 90 m thick. The eminent Grand Canyon geologist, Edwin McKee was the first geologist to do an extensive study of the formation early in his career (McKee 1934). McKee maintained an eolian interpretation for the Coconino throughout his prestigious career (McKee and Bigarella 1979). The Coconino has become somewhat of a “type” example of what an ancient eolian sandstone is supposed to look like.
The goal of this particular project was to correlate the Coconino Sandstone from Arizona to surrounding western states. It is well known that many Pennsylvanian to lower Permian sandstones occur in this area; but understanding how they correlate with one another has sometimes proved difficult primarily because of their lack of fossils (see the discussion in Baars 1979 and Dunbar et al. 1960). The problems with correlation of Permian units not only occur in the western United States, they occur worldwide (Baars 1979). With that in mind, the lithological equivalents in this paper should be seen as general trends based on contained fossils (which are sparse), presumed conventional age, and the presence of these sandstone formations often directly below rocks of chemical origin (most commonly limestone, dolomite, gypsum, salt, and phosphate). At their edges, these sandstones often change in character quickly and often grade into various siltstones, mudstones, limestones, dolomites, and rocks of chemical origin. One should not interpret the sandstones contained within the maps and cross-sections of this paper as identical in nature to the Coconino. The Coconino is an end member of a continuum from a relatively pure cross-bedded quartz arenite to planar-bedded feldspathic sandstones with diverse mineralogies and intervening silts and muds.
Because the data were primarily gathered from AAPG’s (American Association for Petroleum Geology) COSUNA (Correlation of Stratigraphic Units of North America) project for the correlations (where each column in the charts is only a generalization of the stratigraphy in any one particular area), this project is only an attempt at correlating the sandstone units across the western United States. More detailed columns that are spaced closer and show the detailed stratigraphy could be gathered in the future for an extension of this project. However, this project will show there are many close relationships between the Pennsylvanian and Permian sandstones of the western United States.
Many of the relationships shown in this paper have been known for years (see for example, Blakey, Peterson, and Kocurek 1988; Dunbar et al. 1960; Mallory 1972b; McKee and Oriel 1967; Rascoe and Baars 1972). This paper attempts to:
- include some further data not mentioned in these other projects,
- show the units are widespread across the western United States as a single lithostratigraphic sand body, where other projects have simply showed relationships of sandstones mostly across state borders,
- demonstrate the consistency and importance of paleocurrents in these formations,
- interpret the results within a catastrophic framework, and
- compare the western USA sandstones with some sandstones in South America and Europe.
- Finally, a correlation project like this clearly strengthens the reality of the geological column over the area covered.
Some creationists have denied the reality of the global geological column (Oard 2010a, 2010b; Reed and Froede 2003; Woodmorappe 1981). But patterns documented in this paper and in larger projects like COSUNA, and in Clarey’s intercontinental correlations (Clarey and Werner 2018), clearly demonstrate the reality of the column, despite claims otherwise.
Stratigraphic charts and electronic data sheets compiled for the COSUNA project by the AAPG in the 1980s were used to gather the primary data for this project (Adler 1986; Ballard, Bluemle, and Gerhard 1983; Bergstrom and Morey 1984; Hills and Kottlowski 1983; Hintze 1985; Kent, Couch, and Knepp 1988; Mankin 1986). Sixty-four columns from the COSUNA data and some other sources (Adkison 1966; Dunbar et al. 1960; Hintze 1988; Langenheim and Larson 1973; Maher 1960; Mallory 1972b; McKee and Oriel 1967; Stokes 1986) were drafted for stratigraphic correlation.
Often charts from sources like this are time-stratigraphic, so these columns were redrawn to show their lithostratigraphic characteristics and rock thicknesses (instead of time duration). Within the drafted columns, lithology is shown in two different ways: by color and by symbol. Colors represent general overall lithology (yellow = sandstone, for example) and the symbols illustrate the more varied lithology and sedimentology that might occur within a particular formation. When numerous lithologies occurred in a single formation, only a generalized section was drawn to illustrate the varied facies present, as in columns 63 and 64 (Nevada) for the Pequop Formation. Columns focus on sandstones conventionally assigned to Pennsylvanian through early Permian age. Several units above and below the sandstones in this age range were usually included in the columns. To gain confidence in the correlations, not only were the lithologies and conventional “stages” of the rocks considered, but gypsum-carbonate beds, or other chemically rich units just above the sandstones, were used as marker beds and were correlated across the area as well. Priority was given to lithostratigraphic correlation over chronostratigraphic correlation when a choice needed to be made between the two. A table that compares North American and global chronostratigraphic units in use when the COSUNA project was published, with currently recognized international standards (International Commission on Stratigraphy) can be found in the Appendix 1. For consistency, chronostratigraphic stage names used with the COSUNA project (Childs et al. 1988), and almost exclusively used in the literature gathered for this project, were maintained. No attempt was made to make conversions between the two conventions because some of the differences are quite large. The stratigraphic columns were “hung” on the Pennsylvanian-Permian boundary. Some of the units were examined in the field (fig. 4) and sampled during previous studies by the current author (Whitmore et al. 2014; Whitmore and Garner 2018) and his team. Primary literature on global Permian sandstone units was collected, but more attention was paid to those in the western United States. Cross-bed dips and azimuths for some of these formations were measured in the field and others were collected from various sources in the literature (Brand, Wang, and Chadwick 2015; Knight 1929; Lawton, Buller, and Parr 2015; Opdyke and Runcorn 1960; Peterson 1988; Poole 1962; Reiche 1938).
It was found that the Coconino could be correlated with sandstones occurring on both the east and west sides of the Rocky Mountains and into the Great Basin of California, Nevada, and Utah. Units could be traced from California to the Dakotas and from Texas to Idaho (fig. 5). Outcrops were absent in the general area of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains (Uncompahgre Uplift). Some details on many of the correlated sandstone units are reported in Appendix 2. Details on some other sandstone units in Canada, South America, Europe and Saudi Arabia are reported in Appendix 3. Eastern European sandstones could potentially be correlated with each other in a separate project. Cross-bed dips for some of the formations are illustrated in fig. 6. Paleocurrent patterns for some of these sandstones are shown in fig. 7. Paleocurrent directions for most Pennsylvanian and Permian sandstones in the United States are consistently to the south (fig. 7). Detrital zircon studies have been completed on some of these formations showing that much of the sand for these formations originated in the Appalachian area; those results are discussed below.
Permian (P) Units
- Pabo – Abo Fm
- Padm – Admiral Fm
- Pbc – Broom Creek Fm
- Pblc – Bell Canyon Fm
- Pblf – Blaine Fm
- Pblg – Blaine Gyp
- Pbrc – Brushy Canyon Fm
- Pbs – Bone Spring Ls
- Pbur – Bursum Fm
- Pbwd – Brown and White Dol
- Pcas – Cassa Fm
- Pch – Cedar Hills Fm
- Pcha – Chase Grp
- Pchc – Cherry Canyon Fm
- Pclf – Clear Fork Grp
- Pcm – Cedar Mesa Ss
- Pcma – Cimarron Anh
- Pco – Cutoff Sh
- Pcoc – Coconino Ss
- Pcon – Concha Ls
- Pdc – De Chelly Ss
- Pdic – Diamond Creek Ss
- Pdun – Duncan Ss
- Pear – Earp Fm
- Pec – Epitaph Fm and Colina Ls
- Pelc – Elephant Canyon Fm
- Pflp – Flowerpot Sh
- Pfv – Furner Valley Ls
- Pges – Goose Egg Fm and Satanka Sh
- Pglo – Glorieta Ss
- Pgmpc – Grandeur Mbr of Park City Grp or Fm
- Pgs – Goat Seep Ls
- Phal – Halqaito Fm
- Phen – Hennessey Sh
- Pher – Hermit Fm
- Phsc – Hudspeth Cutoff Fm
- Phsp – Harper Salt Plain Fm
- Phue – Hueco Fm
- Ping – Ingleside Fm
- Pkai – Kaibab Fm
- Pkmn – Kirkman Ls
- Pkmn – Kirkman Ls
- Plor – Loray Fm
- Plue – Lueders Ls
- Plyf – Lykins Fm and Forelle Ls
- Plyk – Lykins Fm
- Plyn – Lyons Ss and Satanka Sh
- Pmcl – Moore County Ls
- Pmink – Minnekahta Ls
- Permian (P) units, cont.
- Pminl – Minnelusa Fm
- Pmpm – Meade Peak Mbr of Phosphoria Fm
- Pnin – Ninnescah Sh
- Pop – Opeche Sh
- Por – Organ Rock Sh
- Powl – Owl Canyon Fm
- Ppak – Pakoon Ls
- Ppcg – Park City Grp or Fm
- Ppcph – Park City and Phosphoria Fm
- Ppcs – Pole Creek Sequence
- Ppeq – Pequop Fm
- Pph – Panhandle Ls
- Ppho – Phosphoria Fm
- Pply – Plympton Fm
- Pque – Queantoweap Ss
- Pris – Riepe Spring Ls
- Prit – Riepetown Ss or Fm
- Prv – Rain Valley
- Psad – San Andres Dol
- Psan – San Andres Fm
- Psc – Stone Coral Fm
- Psh – Schnebly Hill Fm
- Pshe – Shedhorn Fm
- Pspl – Salt Plain Fm
- Psrr – Scherrer Fm
- Ptor – Toroweap Fm
- Ptub – Tub Ss Mbr of Clear Fork Grp
- Pund – undifferentiated
- Pval – Valera Fm
- Pvp – Victoria Peak Ls
- Pwel – Wellington Fm
- Pwr – White Rim Ss
- Pyes – Yeso Fm
Permian/Pennsylvanian (ℙP) Units
- ℙPcas – Casper Fm
- ℙPfne – Fountain and Ingleside
- ℙPfnt – Fountain Fm
- ℙPjgsc – Juniper Gulch Member of Snaky Canyon Fm
- ℙPminl – Minnelusa Fm
- ℙPsdc – Sangre de Cristo Fm
- ℙPsup – Supai Fm
- ℙPtc – Trail Canyon Fm
- ℙPweb – Weber Fm
- ℙPwls – Wells Fm
- ℙPwor – Wood River Fm
Pennsylvanian (ℙ) Units
- ℙabm – Alaska Bench Mbr of Amsden Fm
- ℙams – Amsden Fm
- ℙbmf – Bingham Mine Fm
- ℙbmsn – Bloom Mbr, Snaky Canyon Fm
- ℙbup – Butterfield Peaks Fm
- ℙesp – Esplanade Ss
- ℙels – Ely Ls
- ℙfbk – Fairbank Fm
- ℙfnt – Fountain Fm
- ℙgpsn – Gallagher Peak Ss, Snaky Canyon Fm
- ℙhay – Hayden Fm
- ℙhel – Helgar Canyon Fm
- ℙhms – Hermosa Fm or Grp, undivided
- ℙhon – Honaker Trail Fm
- ℙhor – Horquilla Ls
- ℙmad – Madera Ls
- ℙminl – Minnelusa Fm
- ℙmor – Morgan Fm
- ℙqua – Quadrant Ss
- ℙrdt – Roundtop Fm
- ℙrdv – Round Valley Ls
- ℙrec – Reclaimation Fm
- ℙsdc – Sangre de Cristo Fm
- ℙsup – Supai Fm or Grp
- ℙten – Tensleep Fm
- ℙtf – Tyler Fm
- ℙtfag – Tyler Fm of Amsden Grp
- ℙtus – Tussing Fm
- ℙwc – West Canyon Ls
- ℙweb – Weber Fm
- ℙwen – Wendover Fm
1. Depositional environment of the sandstones
The author has been part of a team that has been studying the Coconino Sandstone. In our studies we have examined many dozens of outcrops, have collected hundreds of samples (cutting corresponding thin sections for microscope work), and have studied numerous samples with XRD (X-ray diffraction) and SEM (scanning electron microscopy). In the summary of our findings (Whitmore and Garner 2018) and in other papers (Whitmore et al. 2014, 2015) we have presented numerous evidences that the Coconino is not an eolian deposit, but clearly a marine sandstone. Data that we have presented in support of a subaqueous origin of the Coconino includes:
- The sandstone is only poorly- to moderately-sorted and is only occasionally well-sorted,
- the grains of the Coconino can best be described as subangular to subrounded,
- K-feldspar is a common accessory mineral and is often more angular than the quartz, despite it being softer on Mohs Scale (see Whitmore and Strom 2017, 2018),
- muscovite, despite being extremely soft, was present in almost every thin section and our experimental results show that it disappears quickly in simulated eolian settings (Anderson, Struble, and Whitmore 2017),
- features resembling primary current lineation (parting lineation) are commonly found on most foreset surfaces,
- avalanche tongues, a feature common on steep slopes of eolian sand dunes, are missing in the Coconino; instead laminae can be followed in a straight line along exposed bounding surfaces,
- cross-bed dips average about 20° and our hundreds of measurements agree with hundreds of other measurements made by Reiche (1938) and Maithel (2019),
- large folds similar to parabolic recumbent folds (which are penecontemporaneous with cross-bed formation and cannot form from slumping dunes) are present in several places in the Sedona area,
- dolomite (we believe it is primary) occurs in many places and forms in the Coconino including as beds, ooids, clasts, rhombs and cement, and
- the expected sedimentary details commonly found in eolian sands (as far as grainfall, grainflow and ripple structures [Hunter 1977, 1981]) are for the most part absent or have been difficult to recognize in the Coconino (Maithel 2019).
- Outside of our work, Brand (Brand 1979; Brand and Tang 1991) has reported compelling evidence from vertebrate trackways in the Coconino, whose characteristics seem to be best explained by underwater origin.
Although we have not studied the other sandstones correlated in this paper to the degree that we have studied the Coconino, similar features are present in many of them that also point toward a subaqueous origin. We describe muscovite and angular K-feldspars in some of these sandstones in the United States along with Permian sandstones in the United Kingdom (Borsch et al. 2018; Maithel, Garner, and Whitmore 2015; Whitmore and Strom 2018). Fig. 8 illustrates just a small sampling of the mica and angular K-feldspar present in these sandstones. Mica is an indicator of aqueous processes because it deteriorates in a matter of days with continuous eolian activity (Anderson, Struble, and Whitmore 2017) and angular K-feldspars are important because they become quickly rounded only with hundreds of meters of eolian transport (Whitmore and Strom 2017).
Dolomite has been found to form in small quantities in specialized desert settings (Arvidson and Mackenzie 1997; Bontognali et al. 2010; Wright 1999), but it is not an analog for much more extensive dolomite ooids, clasts, widespread cement and even dolomite beds that can be found within some of the formations in this report (fig. 9). The formation of dolomite is one of the biggest geological mysteries, because its formation requires fluids (Lippman 1973), high temperatures (>100°C) and/ or high pressures (Arvidson and Mackenzie 1997). Water circulation must be constant and there must be a steady supply of Mg2+ and CO32- ions (Morrow 1988). These conditions must all be met in order for the mineral to form; conditions that are much more likely in a marine setting rather than a sabkha or a desert. Although dolomite has been found in sabkhas (Bontognali et al. 2010), these environments also have specific sedimentary features which seem to be missing in the studied sandstones (Kendall 2010).
The following Pennsylvanian and Permian sandstones were found to have considerable amounts of dolomite within them: Broom Creek (Condra, Reed, and Scherer 1940; McCauley 1956), Casper (Agatston 1954), Cassa Group (Condra, Reed, and Scherer 1940; McCauley 1956), Coconino (Whitmore et al. 2014), Diamond Creek (Bissell 1962), Fairbank Formation (McCauley 1956), Fort Apache Member of the Schnebly Hill Formation (Blakey 1984, personal observations), Ingleside Formation (Maughan and Ahlbrandt 1985), Quadrant (James 1992; Saperstone and Ethridge 1984), Scherrer Formation (Luepke 1971), Tensleep (Agatston 1954; James 1992; Mankiewicz and Steidtmann 1979), Toroweap Formation (Rawson and Turner-Peterson 1980), Tubb Sandstone Member of the Clear Fork Group and Abo Formation (Hartig et al. 2011), Weber (Driese 1985), and the Yeso Formation (Baars 1979).
In addition the following Pennsylvanian and Permian sandstones (or the carbonate beds within the sandstones) in this report have fusulinids or other types of marine fossils: Bingham Mine Formation (Tooker and Roberts 1970), Broom Creek (Condra, Reed, and Scherer 1940), Brushy Canyon Formation (Harms 1974), Bursum Formation (Myers 1972), Casper Formation (Hoyt and Chronic 1962), Hudspath Cutoff Formation (Roberts et al. 1965), Scherrer Formation (Luepke 1976), Tensleep (Verville 1957; Verille, Sanderson, and Rea 1970), Toroweap (Rawson and Turner-Peterson 1980), and the Weber Formation (Bissell 1964b).
We have found what we interpret as parabolic recumbent folds in the Coconino and in the Toroweap (Whitmore, Forsythe, and Garner 2015). Rawson and Turner-Peterson (1980, 349) report recumbent folds in the cross-beds of the Toroweap and we think the ones they mention are some of the same ones we have also identified. McKee and Bigarella (1979, 202) picture a fold from Wupatki National Monument that we also believe is a parabolic recumbent fold when we field checked it (Whitmore, Forsythe, and Garner 2015). These specific types of folds have not been reported in the other formations is this paper, as far as we know. The significance of these folds is that they only form penecontemporaneously during the process of subaqueous cross-bed formation. Knight (1929) describes some folds that might be parabolic recumbent folds in the Casper Formation of Wyoming. The present author tried to locate these during the 2011 field season, but the location that Knight described is located on inaccessible private property. Knight described trough cross-bedding in the Casper; it is interesting that trough cross-bedding is also present in the Pennsylvanian Sharon Conglomerate (Formation) of northeast Ohio where these types of folds are dramatically displayed (Wells et al. 1993), and have been field checked by the author. One small fold that resembles a parabolic recumbent fold was found in the Tensleep Sandstone (fig. 10) in Wyoming.
Brand has done exceptional work in interpreting the tetrapod footprints found in the Coconino (Brand 1979; Brand and Tang 1991). He experimented with salamanders—observing their tracks in dry sand, damp sand, and subaqueous sand. Based on his experimental observations, the subaqueous salamander tracks were the most similar to the Coconino tracks. Marchetti et al. (2019) disagreed with Brand (1979) after completing their own set of laboratory experiments. They interpret the Coconino trackways as indicative of tracks being made in dry sand. However, from personal observations of trackways in the Coconino, the trackways Marchetti et al. made in dry laboratory sand lack the digit details that are in the Coconino and in Brand’s underwater experiments. Francischini et al. (2019) have recently discussed the possibility of some of the Coconino tracks belonging to diadectomorphs, their first known (and unexpected) occurrence in “eolian” environments. Toepelman and Rodeck (1936) describe some tracks from the Lyons Sandstone of Colorado, which is sometimes known as the “twin of the Coconino” (McKee and Bigarella 1979). Mancuso et al. (2016, 374) report similar tracks “essentially belonging to the ichnogenus Chelichnus” from the Weber, Coconino, De Chelly, Lyons, Cedar Mesa, and Casper Formations. They also report occurrences in two Permian cross-bedded sandstones from Argentina and four sandstones from Europe. Studies and observations like Brand’s on the Coconino have not been completed on these other sandstones to see if the trackways have the same characteristics as those in the Coconino; perhaps because the trackways are not as common in these other sandstones. However, based on similar characteristics of these other sandstones with the Coconino, it is predicted some of the same subaqueous interpretations could be reached.
Average degrees of foreset dips in modern eolian settings can be in the mid-20s and even lower. For example, Ahlbrandt and Fryberger (1980) reported average dips from foresets of three dune types in the Nebraska Sandhills (fig. 11 A–C): 22° for barchans (n = 149), 24° for transverse ridge dunes (n = 72) and 16° for blowout dunes (n= 120). However, a significant percentage of the foresets had dips greater than 25° (about 37% for barchans, about 52% for transverse ridge and about 13% for blowout dunes, with many dips in the 30° range. There is a significant difference between the foreset dips of modern dunes, like those in the Nebraska Sand Hills, and those of supposed ancient eolian facies. In supposed ancient eolian facies, individual dips are only rarely greater than 25° (see fig. 6 A–O), while those preserved in Nebraska have frequent dips greater than 25°. This is graphically illustrated in fig. 12 where some ancient cross-bed dips are compared with the Nebraska Sand Hills. Some have claimed that cross-bed dips of supposed eolian sandstones have average angles in the low 20s because of compaction during diagenesis (see discussion on page 280 of Walker and Harms 1972, for example). However, when these sandstones are examined under the microscope, there is little evidence for the severe compaction that is probably needed to reduce the dips from the angle of repose to the low 20s. We have done some preliminary investigation on this problem (Emery, Maithel, and Whitmore 2011), but more work is needed. At this juncture, we believe that if these sandstones were eolian, they would contain a significant number of dips greater than 25°, more in line with the data from the Nebraska Sand Hills.
One of the most basic and overlooked observations that one can make when standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon is the significance of the planar contacts between rock layers that can be traced as far as the eye can see. Ariel Roth (2009) calls them “flat gaps.” Between some of the layers, like the Hermit Formation and Coconino Sandstone (fig. 1E), a sharp, flat contact can be found. Both of the formations are supposed to be formed in terrestrial settings: a floodplain for the Hermit and an erg for the Coconino. Yet, the contact between the formations is everywhere flat, even where the contact is transitional in the eastern end of Grand Canyon (Whitmore and Peters 1999). From a conventional view, there must be a significant amount of missing time (5–10 Ma?) because just 125 km south of Grand Canyon, one can find about 300 m of Schnebly Hill Formation sandwiched in between the Hermit and Coconino (Blakey and Knepp 1989). In Holbrook, the Schnebly Hill is even thicker! Time must have passed between the deposition of the Hermit and the Coconino to allow for the thick Schnebly Hill Formation to be deposited, assuming the top of the Hermit is isochronous. Especially in a terrestrial setting one might expect gullies, valleys, and canyons to be cut into the Hermit before the Coconino was deposited. While the example might seem extreme, there is more than 1.5 km of relief in the landscape of the Grand Canyon, perhaps made in six million years or less according to the most recent conventional estimates. In Death Valley, the relief is even greater when you consider the height of the mountain ranges to the west. In just about any terrestrial setting considered, there are often elevation changes of several meters over short distances. Exceptions might be a lake bed, but no one is suggesting that for the Hermit/Coconino contact. And yet, the contact between the two formations is flat. While flat surfaces are uncommon in terrestrial settings, they are quite common on the seafloor. So, it is not surprising that we see flat contacts between marine layers, which are most of the rocks in Grand Canyon, even from a conventional perspective. There is still missing time in between many of these layers from a conventional view, sometimes in excess of 100 Ma, but at least that is easier to explain in a marine setting. Thus, the flat contact between the Hermit and Coconino is best interpreted in a marine setting. This is not only true for the Coconino, but for all of the other supposed “erg” deposits that correlate with the Coconino. They have flat basal contacts as well.
In modern desert settings, like Death Valley or the Sahara, sand dunes are not the most common topographic feature. Actually, sand dunes comprise a very small percentage of the surface area of most deserts (Wilson 1973). Covering the floor of most deserts is bedrock, coarse alluvium (desert pavement), or fine-grained playa deposits with various salts and desiccation features. It is significant that these kinds of features are either missing or poorly defined beneath what are considered to be ancient eolian deposits. Some have suggested that the sand-filled cracks that can be found at the Hermit/Coconino contact are desiccation cracks that have been filled with sand from the Coconino, but the Hermit lacks the appropriate clays for them to be desiccation cracks and the sand-filled cracks have features of sand injectites, not desiccation cracks (Whitmore and Strom 2010).
In summary, the grain sorting, grain rounding, angular K-feldspar, muscovite, primary current lineation, lack of avalanche tongues, shallow cross-bed dips, parabolic recumbent folds, frequent dolomite, general lack of specific eolian sedimentary patterns, fossil footprint characteristics, flat contacts, the presence of marine fossils and facies, and the observation that these formations can be correlated with each other are difficult to explain if the rocks represent a fossil erg, but fit nicely with a marine depositional environment. Some have suggested the cross-bedded sandstones described in this study formed in a coastal setting and correlate directly with associated marine sands (see for example Rawson and Turner-Peterson 1980; Blakey and Ranney 2008), but the diagnostic sedimentary structures (like those typical of beach facies) that would support this hypothesis have yet to be reported.
A number of paleocurrent studies have been completed on the upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic sandstones of the western United States, most with the goal of determining wind directions of the giant ergs believed to have been present during the time they were deposited (Brand, Wang, and Chadwick 2015; Marzolf 1983; Opdyke and Runcorn 1960; Parrish and Peterson 1988; Peterson 1988; Poole 1962; Reiche 1938; Saperstone and Ethridge 1984). Some of these paleocurrent patterns are illustrated in fig. 7; many of these authors have noted a general trend of these current indicators from north to south. Statistics probably should be developed to determine the relative strength of the current patterns in a uniform way; some of the azimuths on fig. 7 indicate multiple dozens of measurements, while others indicate only a few measurements. However, it still appears that there is some kind of trend. Much has been written about the consistent southerly-directed cross-bed dip pattern in many of these formations. But, should cross-bed azimuths be expected to show the same directional pattern for eolian dunes across a wide geographical area like western North America during the Permian? In looking at wind data for the Sahara and all of its many ergs (fig. 13), wind directions and dune azimuths are extremely variable across the area, even when considering the same latitude. The varied directions are caused by various topographic obstacles that shift the wind (Mainguet 1978). Note the large circular gyre in the middle of the area; this means winds are blowing every single direction when the whole area is considered.
If one examines the tectonic elements of the western United States during the late Paleozoic (fig. 14) it is difficult to image why all the cross-bed dips trend in the same direction, if the subaerial topography was so variable. Across the area there are multiple uplifts and basins which should have caused shifts in wind patterns. Blakey (2009) and Blakey and Ranney (2008, 2018) have drawn paleogeographic maps that illustrate their interpretation of what western Pangea may have looked like during the Late Paleozoic from a conventional viewpoint. Would not a paleogeography like this have caused multiple prevailing wind directions similar to what is observed in the Sahara today? Most significantly, in the middle of this ancient area is the Uncompahgre Uplift also known as the Ancestral Rocky Mountains, within which all of the units described in this paper are absent. Features like this should cause marked changes in cross-bed azimuths because of wind direction shifts around this feature. Additionally, it becomes problematic how the sand in a giant erg like this could survive during the forthcoming marine transgression. Recall, covering the Permian sands are formations like the Kaibab Limestone, the Phosphoria Formation, the Blaine Formation and other marine deposits, many containing gypsum. In order for a giant erg to be preserved, the whole area needs to undergo slow subsidence, without erosion. Rodriguez-López et al. (2014, 1493) state it like this: “Long-term preservation of aeolian accumulations in the ancient record requires that the body of strata is placed below some regional baseline, beneath which erosion does not occur (Kocurek and Havholm 1993). Thus, the rate of generation of accommodation space and the rate at which aeolian accumulations fill that space is a fundamental control on preserved architectural style (e.g. Howell and Mountney 1997).”
Cross-bed data from the sources listed above are not specific enough to decide between aqueous or an eolian origin. It is predicted that if this could be done, that not much of a difference would be seen between the two sets of data. (Note: Rawson and Turner-Peterson  were trying to accomplish something similar to this, because they compared cross-bed dip angles and azimuths in the Toroweap and Coconino and used the similar measurements to argue that parts of the Toroweap were eolian.) However, from a conventional view, there should be a difference. Cross-bed azimuths in eolian settings should be fairly indicative of wind regime, especially for transverse-type dunes.
However, if this area were primarily underwater, as we might predict with a Flood model, we might expect many of the currents to trend in the same general direction, only occasionally being deflected by obstacles such as the Uncompahgre Uplift. In the analysis of paleocurrent trends for major periods of geological time, it can be discerned from the data of Brand, Wang, and Chadwick (2015) that whole-continent paleocurrent patterns existed in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, but not so much in the Cenozoic, where the currents are highly variable in the American West (personal communication with A. Chadwick, 2017). During the Flood itself, we might expect paleocurrents to be driven primarily by tectonic forces or strong tidal activity and uplifts, which were probably of greater influence than the wind (Genesis 7:11, 8:1). As the mountainous regions of the continents rose while the Flood was ending, a more variable pattern in paleocurrents should arise—which we see in Brand et al.’s data for the Cenozoic. The currents would be variable because water (this author believes rivers) would flow in all directions away from a topographic high.
Strong ocean currents can produce large sand waves, which can have similar characteristics (size, shape, cross-beds, etc.) as eolian dunes (Barnard et al 2006; Cartwright and Stride 1958; Poppe et al. 2006, 2007, 2011). The Coconino and other associated cross-bedded sandstones may not have been deposited precisely by sand waves, but this would be a working model to consider. Although there are factors that can deflect ocean currents, just like wind currents can be deflected, it might be expected that cross-bedded features produced by ocean currents would be more consistent over a broader area. It is much easier to deflect an air current than a water current because of the amount of mass that needs to be redirected. It would be interesting to collect cross-bed data from the sandstones in this study and compare cross-bed azimuths for those beds that are clearly marine (that have fusulinids, for example) with those that are thought to be eolian. It is predicted that the azimuths would not be significantly different if the cross-beds were made by the same mechanism.
Furthermore, it might be predicted from a conventional paradigm that offshore current features would have different cross-bed azimuths than onshore eolian features. This is because ocean currents are deflected to the right of prevailing wind directions (in the northern hemisphere) due to the Coriolis Effect. Ekman (1909) was able to show net water deflection could be as much as 90° to the right of prevailing winds. Thus, if the conventional paradigm is correct, with rock units having both offshore dune features (to explain abundant fusulinids and dolomite in the sand, for example) and onshore eolian deposits, the offshore features should have consistent cross-bed azimuths to the right of the eolian features and should be separated by distinctive beach facies. To the author’s knowledge, this has yet to be demonstrated in the literature for any of the deposits discussed in this paper. Instead, consistent cross-bed dips for all of the formations suggest a singular, subaqueous origin.
3. Provenance studies
Johansen (1988) suggested a northwestern North American cratonic source for the upper Paleozoic sandstones in western United States. However, more recent provenance studies with detrital zircons have been completed on some of the sandstones in the present study. Link et al. (2014) studied the Wood River Formation (Idaho), the Tensleep Sandstone (Wyoming) and the Weber Sandstone (Utah, Colorado). They concluded that “a continental-scale system transported most of the sand grains in the Wood River and Tensleep Sandstone” (133). This sand arrived from the northeast and likely had its origin from the Grenville Province of eastern North America. There were also significant zircon contributions from the Yavapai-Mazatzal provinces of northwest Colorado, the Copper Basin Group of Idaho and from an area in the western Cordillera, especially for the Weber Sandstone.
Soreghan and Soreghan (2013) examined zircons from the Permian Delaware Basin, and of particular interest for this paper, the Brushy Canyon Formation. The authors state that there has been a long belief that the clastic sediments that fill the Delaware Basin originated from the Ancestral Rocky Mountains. However, their zircon studies show origin from Paleozoic, Neoproterozoic, and Mesoproterozoic (Grenville) sources. They conclude (798) the sediment may have come from the Ouachita system, recycled Appalachian material, and sources now in Mexico and Central America.
Dickinson and Gehrels (2003) and Gehrels et al. (2011) examined zircons from many of the formations in Grand Canyon including the Pennsylvanian and Permian Esplanade Sandstone, Hermit Formation, Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap Formation, and Kaibab Limestone. Zircon-age results showed similar patterns for all of the Permian units in Grand Canyon and the authors concluded that an Appalachian source was most likely for the zircons found in these units.
Lawton, Buller, and Parr (2015) studied zircons from Diamond Creek, Castle Valley, White Rim, and Cutler Group sandstones. They found that the Cutler Group strata were mostly sourced from the Uncompahgre Uplift, a source not more than 40 km away. However, the Diamond Creek, Castle Valley, and White Rim Sandstones all showed a significant proportion of zircons that were likely sourced from Appalachian and eastern Laurentian sources, not unlike the other cross-bedded sandstones in this study. The authors suggest that sand was carried by transcontinental rivers from Appalachia to the western edge of Laurentia where these sandstones accumulated.
The four studies cited above all agree that sand for these western United States Permian sandstones originated from various source rocks in the Appalachian area and then was transported westward by rivers. Some of the sand was sourced locally from the Ancestral Rocky Mountains (Uncompahgre Uplift), but it is surprising that more sand did not originate from there. From the data collected thus far from zircon studies, the Uncompahgre Uplift only contributed sediment to formations that were most near to it (Weber and Cutler). Other formations have primary contributions from the Appalachian area, even though that source is much more distant than the Uncompahgre Uplift. Authors have primarily suggested fluvial and eolian transport of sand from the Appalachians to the western margin of Pangea. Eolian transport seems unreasonable because of the micas and angular feldspars that are found in some of these formations. Micas and angular K-feldspars could survive fluvial, or even marine transport intact; but it seems likely they could not arrive this way from simple eolian transport because of the abrasion that easily happens to these minerals in eolian settings (Borsch et al. 2018; Whitmore and Strom 2017, 2018). Fully marine currents, as indicated by the paleocurrent data (Brand, Wang, and Chadwick 2015), seem to be a more attractive option for transportation of distant sand.
4. The reality of the geological column
Some creationists have denied the reality of the geological column (Oard 2010a, 2010b; Reed and Froede 2003; Woodmorappe 1981). But patterns demonstrated in this paper, as well as in larger projects like COSUNA and Clarey’s intercontinental correlations (Clarey and Werner 2018), clearly demonstrate that some rock layers are “blankets” that cover wide areas of the continents. (Note: The “blankets” being referred to here are high above modern sea levels, and not like the widespread deposits close to modern sea level as in the carbonates surrounding Africa as in fig. 9b of the Tejas sequence of Clarey and Werner 2018.) The Coconino and the formations that have been demonstrated to correlate with it, are one of these “blankets.” This has been recognized for many years. Donald Baars published a paper titled “Permian blanket sandstones of Colorado Plateau” in 1961. The Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region (edited by Mallory 1972a) is a resource that shows how not only the Permian units can be traced over the Rocky Mountain region, but many of the other Paleozoic and Mesozoic formations as well (the “blankets” are not so widespread in the Cenozoic). Multiple rock units that can be traced over wide areas are the very essence of the definition of an ordered “geological column” and demonstrate that similar processes were happening over wide geographic areas at some particular points in time. When widespread rock layers can be correlated with one another, it seems as though an “event” is the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the rocks. Rock layers like the Coconino and its equivalents should be viewed as diachronous layers, in the sense that the northern units are mostly Pennsylvanian and the southern units are early Permian in age. In the case of the Coconino, it appears the northern part was deposited first (and is slightly older), followed by the southern part (which is slightly younger) as evidenced by regional cross-bed trends (which have a southerly direction).
5. Significance of these sandstones worldwide
Many of the Permian sandstones that can be found around the world (Appendix 3) have the same characteristics as the Permian sandstones of the western United States including footprints, association with deposits of a chemical nature (dolomite, halite, gypsum), large cross-beds with dips in the low 20s, laminated sands, textural characteristics, mica (Borsch et al. 2018) and angular K-feldspars (Whitmore and Strom 2018). Many times, these formations are directly associated with marine deposits that lead many of the authors to suggest the eolian sandstones were deposited in coastal environments. From the data gathered in Appendix 3, it appears there were four areas of primary sand deposition during the Permian: western United States, maritime Canada-western Europe, Brazil-Argentina and Saudi Arabia (fig. 15).
It was observed that many of the sandstones listed in Appendix 3 have similar characteristics as those found in the Coconino (Whitmore and Garner 2018). While working on the Coconino project many of the sandstones described in Appendix 3 from western North America and Europe were visited and sampled. In addition, our study of the literature, outcrop observations and examination of thin sections shows that these formations have many similarities to the Coconino.
While some criteria have been established to recognize ancient eolian sandstones (Hunter 1977; McKee and Bigarella 1979), this study found that most papers ignore the fine details, and instead attribute an eolian origin on the basis of just a few characteristics. The most commonly cited evidence for an eolian origin are “steep” cross-bed dips and large-scale cross-beds. Rarely is any petrographic data presented, but often claims of exceptional sorting, exceptional rounding, and grain frosting are presumably made based on only hand sample observation with a low-power loupe. While precursory observations are necessary in any study, most do not realize they may have missed details such as mica and angular K-feldspar which are clear indicators of subaqueous transport and deposition (Borsch et al. 2018; Whitmore and Strom 2017, 2018). In the large amount of literature that was examined for this present paper, petrographic analysis and the presence of mica or angular K-feldspar was only rarely mentioned. In our limited study outside of the Coconino it appears marine indicators may be fairly common in all of these sandstones.
It has been argued by many that Pangea, during the Permian, was a dry and arid supercontinent (Blakey and Ranney 2018, Chapter 6). The evidence for this rests primarily with the eolian-like sandstones described in this paper and the presence of halite, gypsum, phosphate, and anhydrite that are often associated with these cross-bedded sandstones. These deposits are often interpreted as “evaporites” formed by the evaporation of sea water in large marine basins forming the minerals in an arid environment. The closest modern analogy might be the sabkhas around the edges of the Persian Gulf. It is beyond the scope of this paper to argue for a marine origin for these minerals, but it is interesting that many of these minerals, along with dolomite, are often associated with the Permian cross-bedded sandstones. Hovland et al. (2006) and Hovland, Rueslåtten, and Johnsen (2014) have argued that some of these kinds of deposits, especially halite, could be explained by the presence of supercritical water rising from volcanic vents on the seafloor.
Although clear stratigraphic connections cannot be made between the four areas highlighted on fig. 15, the upper Paleozoic sandstones clearly fit Ager’s definition of persistence of facies. They have many common features including bedding style, petrographic details, paleontology (or lack thereof), color and associated rock units of chemical origin. It is believed that there is no other interval in the geological column where all of these features come together. It is similar to the Cretaceous chalks, the Carboniferous coals, the Mississippian limestones, the basal Cambrian sandstones, etc. A feature that may tie the four widely separated areas together are paleocurrents. At least for the western sandstones in the United States the paleocurrents are fairly uniform. As was demonstrated from the Sahara (fig. 13) wind currents are highly variable, even across the same latitude because of various topographic barriers that the air needs to move around. However, with water currents, a more uniform direction might be expected and this could potentially be the one thing that unites these sandstones together and would be inexplicable with an eolian paradigm. Modern deposits that are similar to what the Coconino “blanket” may represent (but probably not exactly analogous) are sand waves. Sand waves contain large cross-beds and form on continental shelves in areas where there are strong currents. The data is sparse for the types of sediment and the cross-bed angles within sand waves (Garner and Whitmore 2011), but there is reason to suspect that modern sand waves have similar cross-bed dips to those found in the Permian sandstones.
The Coconino Sandstone of Arizona is one of the most well-known cross-bedded sandstones and historically has formed the basis for comparison for all other ancient “eolian” deposits. Edwin McKee was the first to publish an in-depth study of the Coconino (1934) and near the end of his career used it as an example to establish criteria for the identification of an eolian sandstone (McKee and Bigarella 1979). The present author has completed further study on the Coconino (summarized in Whitmore and Garner 2018) which included extensive microscopic study, techniques that were not refined when McKee studied the sandstone in 1934 and were not relied upon in his report with Bigarella of 1979. Based on thin section study, outcrop observations and other data, the author believes that the marine origin for the Coconino can now be firmly established and is the best explanation for this iconic sandstone.
During our study of the Coconino, similar sandstones were visited in the field and sampled, both in the United States and Europe as a basis for comparison to the Coconino. In this paper it has been shown that the Coconino can be correlated as a single lithostratigraphic package across the western United States. Thin sections, outcrop observations, the literature and now these correlations—all suggest that the Coconino is a “blanket” sandstone that was deposited in a marine setting that reached from California to North Dakota and from Texas to Idaho. Details that suggest a marine origin for the Coconino were also found in many of these other sandstones, although these other sandstones were not studied in such great detail. It was found that paleocurrent directions are fairly uniform throughout the western U.S. in the Permian sandstones, an observation that would be difficult to explain from the conventional eolian perspective, but would make much more sense if the deposits were marine. The establishment of this “blanket” sandstone along with other blanket layers of the western United States refute those who would suggest the geological column is imaginary.
A survey was completed not only of Permian sandstones in the United States, but for those around the world. Microscopic thin sections of European sandstones showed many of the same characteristics that we found in sandstones of the western United States: mica, angular K-feldspars, dolomite, angular sand grains, poor sorting, and other characteristics not usually found in modern eolian sands. Additionally, details like paleontology, associated deposits, cross-bed angles (much less than the angle of repose) and other features show these deposits are similar to the Coconino and probably had a similar origin. It is argued that Permian sandstones are exceptional examples of what Ager (1981) called the phenomenon of the persistence of facies.
Modern marine sand waves occur in multiple areas on continental shelves where there are strong currents. They are the same scale as modern desert dunes and also contain cross-beds and migrate with a current as do eolian dunes. Sand waves may not be an exact analogue of how we believe the “blanket” of the Coconino was deposited, but we envisage something similar depositing shallow marine sands all over the Pangean continent as it was underwater during the Flood.
Ray Strom, Paul Garner, and others have been significant contributors to the Coconino project that we started so many years ago. This paper is just a small part of the larger project. Countless hours have been spent in the field, the lab, and in the office— of which Ray and Paul have been an integral part. Cedarville University provided logistical support and funding to complete this particular paper. Institute for Creation Research and Calgary Rock and Materials Services Inc. contributed significantly, especially in funding the field work and thin section production that has been such an important part of the Coconino project as a whole. The helpful comments and rewording suggestions from the reviewers were much appreciated.
Adkison, W. L. ed. 1966. Stratigraphic Cross Section of Paleozoic Rocks Colorado to New York. Tulsa, Oklahoma: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Adler, Frank J. 1986. Correlation of Stratigraphic Units in North America—Mid-Continent Region [MC] Correlation Chart. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Agatston, R. S. 1952. “Tensleep Formation Of The Big Horn Basin.” Wyoming Geological Association Guide Book, 44– 48. 7th Annual Field Conference, Southern Big Horn Basin, Wyoming.
Agatston, Robert S. 1954. “Pennsylvanian And Lower Permian Of Northern And Eastern Wyoming.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 38, no. 4 (April): 508–583.
Ager, Derek V. 1981. The Nature of the Statigraphical Record. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: MacMillan Press.
Ahlbrandt, Thomas S., and Steven G. Fryberger. 1980. “Eolian Deposits In The Nebraska Sand Hills.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1120A: 1–24.
Anderson, Calvin J., Alexander Struble, and John H. Whitmore. 2017. “Abrasion Resistance Of Muscovite In Aeolian And Subaqueous Transport Experiments.” Aeolian Research 24 (February): 33–37.
Andrews, Sarah A., and Lindi S. Higgins. 1984. “Influence Of Depositional Facies On Hydrocarbon Production In The Tensleep Sandstone, Big Horn Basin, Wyoming: A Working Hypothesis.” In The Permian and Pennsylvanian Geology of Wyoming. Edited by J. Goolsby and D. Morton, 183–197. Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association, 35th Annual Field Conference Guidebook.
Arthurton, R. S., I. C. Burgess, and D. W. Holliday. 1978. “Permian and Triassic.” In The Geology of the Lake District. Edited by Frank Moseley, 189–206. Yorkshire Geological Society, Occasional Publication No. 3.
Arvidson, Rolf S., and Fred T. Mackenzie. 1997. “Tentative Kinetic Model For Dolomite Precipitation Rate And Its Application To Dolomite Distribution.” Aquatic Geochemistry 2, no. 3: 273–298.
Baars, D. L. 1961. “Permian Blanket Sandstones Of Colorado Plateau.” In Geometry of Sandstone Bodies. Edited by James A. Peterson and John C. Osmond, 179–207. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Baars, D. L. 1962. “Permian System Of Colorado Plateau.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 46 (February): 149–218.
Baars, Donald L. 1974. “Permian Rocks Of North-Central New Mexico.” In Ghost Ranch Central Northern New Mexico. Edited by C. T. Siemers, 167–169. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 25th Field Conference.
Baars, D. L. 1979. “The Permian System.” In Permianland. Edited by D. L. Baars, 1–6. Guidebook of the Four Corners Geological Society, 9th Field Conference.
Baars, D. L. 2010. “Geology Of Canyonlands National Park, Utah.” In Geology of Utah’s Parks and Monuments. 3rd edition. Edited by Douglas A. Sprinkel, Thomas C. Chidsey Jr., and Paul B. Anderson, 61–83. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological Association and Bryce Canyon Natural History Association, Utah Geological Association Publication 28.
Baars, D. L., and W. R. Seager. 1970. “Stratigraphic Control Of Petroleum In White Rim Sandstone (Permian) In And Near Canyonlands National Park, Utah.” The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 54, no. 5 (May): 709–718.
Baetcke, Gustav Berndt. 1969. “Stratigraphy Of The Star Range And Reconnaissance Study Of Three Selected Mines.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah.
Baker, Arthur A. 1946. “Geology Of The Green River Desert-Cataract Canyon Region, Emery, Wayne, And Garfield Counties, Utah.” Bulletin of the U.S. Geological Survey 951: 1–122.
Baker, A. A., J. W. Huddle, and D. M. Kinney. 1949. “Paleozoic Geology Of North And West Sides Of Uinta Basin, Utah.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 33, no. 7 (July): 1161–1197.
Ballard, William W., John P. Bluemle, and Lee C. Gerhard. 1983. Correlation of Stratigraphic Units in North America (COSUNA) Project—Northern Rockies/Williston Basin Region Correlation Chart. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Baltz, Elmer H. 1965. “Stratigraphy And History Of Raton Basin And Notes On San Luis Basin, Colorado-New Mexico.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 49, no. 11 (November): 2041–2075.
Baltz, Rachel May. 1982. “Geology Of The Arica Mountains.” Master’s Thesis, San Diego State University.
Barnard, Patrick L., Daniel M. Hanes, David M. Rubin, and Rikk G. Kvitek. 2006. “Giant Sand Waves At The Mouth Of San Francisco Bay.” EOS 87, no. 29 (18 July): 285–289.
Beard, L. S., R. E. Anderson, D. L. Block, R. G. Bohannon, R. J. Brady, S. B. Castor, E. M. Duebendorfer et al. 2007. “Preliminary Geologic Map Of The Lake Mead 30’ × 60’ Quadrangle, Clark County, Nevada And Mohave County, Arizona.” U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 2007-1010.
Bergstrom, D. J., and G. B. Morey. 1984. Correlation Of Stratigraphic Units In North America. Northern Mid-Continent Region Correlation Chart. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Billingsley, George H., and Jeremiah B. Workman. 2000. “Geologic Map Of The Littlefield 30’ × 60’ Quadrangle, Mohave County, Northwestern Arizona.” U.S. Geological Survey Geological Investigation Series, Map I-2628.
Bissell, Harold J. ed. 1959. Geology of the Southern Oquirrh Mountains and Fivemile Pass—Northern Boulter Mountains Area, Tooele and Utah Counties, Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological Society, Guidebook to the Geology of Utah Number 14.
Bissell, Harold J. 1962. “Permian Rocks Of Parts Of Nevada, Utah And Idaho.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 73, no. 9 (September 1): 1083–1110.
Bissell, H. J. 1964a. “Ely, Arcturus, And Park City Groups (Pennsylvanian-Permian) In Eastern Nevada And Western Utah.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 48, no. 5 (May): 565–636.
Bissell, H. J. 1964b. “Lithology And Petrography Of The Weber Formation, In Utah And Colorado.” In Guidebook to the Geology and Mineral Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah’s Hydrocarbon Storehouse. Edited by Edward F. Sabatka, 67–91. Salt Lake City, Utah: Intermountain Association of Petroleum Geologists, 13th Annual Field Conference.
Bissell, Harold J., and Orlo E. Childs. 1958. “The Weber Formation Of Utah And Colorado.” In Symposium on Pennsylvanian Rocks of Colorado and Adjacent Areas. Edited by B. F. Curtis and H. L. Warner, 26–30. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists.
Blakey, Ronald C. 1980. “Pennsylvanian And Early Permian Paleogeography, Southern Colorado Plateau And Vicinity.” In Paleozoic Paleogeography of the West-Central United States. Edited by T. D. Fouch and E. R. Magathan, 239–257. Denver, Colorado: The Rocky Mountain Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 1.
Blakey, Ronald C. 1984. “Marine Sand-Wave Complex In The Permian Of Central Arizona.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 54, no. 1 (March 1): 29–51.
Blakey, Ronald C. 1988. “Basin Tectonics And Erg Response.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4 (April): 127–151.
Blakey, Ronald C. 1990. “Stratigraphy And Geologic History Of Pennsylvanian And Permian Rocks, Mogollon Rim Region, Central Arizona And Vicinity.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 102, no. 9 (September 1): 1189–1217.
Blakey, Ronald C. 2003. “Supai Group And Hermit Formation.” In Grand Canyon Geology. 2nd ed. Edited by Stanley S. Beus, and Michael Morales, 136–162. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blakey, Ronald C. 2009. “Paleogeography And Geologic History Of The Western Ancestral Rocky Mountains, Pennsylvanian-Permian, Southern Rocky Mountains And Colorado Plateau.” In The Paradox Basin Revisited: New Developments in Petroleum Systems and Basin Analysis. Edited by W. S. Houston, P. Moreland, and L. Wray, 222– 264. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists. 2009 Special Publication.
Blakey, Ronald C., and Larry T. Middleton. 1983. “Permian Shoreline Eolian Complex In Central Arizona: Dune Changes In Response To Cyclic Sea-Level Changes.” In Eolian Sediments and Processes. Edited by M. E. Brookfield and T. S. Ahlbrandt, 551–581. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Developments in Sedimentology 38.
Blakey, Ronald C., and Rex Knepp. 1989. “Pennsylvanian And Permian Geology Of Arizona.” In Geologic Evolution of Arizona. Edited by J. P. Jenney, and S. J. Reynolds, 313– 347. Tucson, Arizona: Arizona. Arizona Geological Society. Arizona Geological Society Digest 17.
Blakey, Ron, and Wayne Ranney. 2008. Ancient Landscapes of the Colorado Plateau. Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon Association.
Blakey, Ronald C., and Wayne D. Ranney. 2018. Ancient Landscapes of Western North America: A Geologic History with Paleogeographic Maps. Springer Nature.
Blakey, Ronald C., Fred Peterson, and Gary Kocurek. 1988. “Synthesis Of Late Paleozoic And Mesozoic Eolian Deposits Of The Western Interior Of The United States.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4 (April): 3–125.
Bolyard, Dudley W. 1959. “Pennsylvanian And Permian Stratigraphy In Sangre De Cristo Mountains Between La Veta Pass And Westcliffe, Colorado.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 43, no. 8 (August): 1896–1939.
Bontognali, Tomaso R. R., Crisógono Vasconcelos, Rolf J. Warthmann, Stefano M. Bernasconi, Christophe Dupraz, Christian J. Strohmenger, and Judith A. McKenzie. 2010. “Dolomite Formation Within Microbial Mats In The Coastal Sabkha Of Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates).” Sedimentology 57, no. 3 (April): 824–844.
Borsch, K., John H. Whitmore, Raymond Strom, and George Hartree. 2018. “The Significance Of Micas In Ancient Cross-Bedded Sandstones.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism. Edited by J. H. Whitmore, 306–326. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Brand, Leonard, Mingmin Wang, and Arthur Chadwick. 2015. “Global Database Of Paleocurrent Trends Through The Phanerozoic And Precambrian.” Scientific Data 2: 150025. DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.25.
Brand, Leonard. 1979. “Field And Laboratory Studies On The Coconino Sandstone (Permian) Vertebrate Footprints And Their Paleoecological Implications.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25–38.
Brand, Leonard, and Thu Tang. 1991. “Fossil Vertebrate Footprints In The Coconino Sandstone (Permian) Of Northern Arizona: Evidence For Underwater Origin.” Geology 19, no. 12 (December): 1201–1204.
Brill, Kenneth G. Jr. 1952. “Stratigraphy In The Permo-Pennsylvanian Zeugogeosyncline Of Colorado And Northern New Mexico.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 63, no. 8 (August 1): 809–880.
Brookfield, M. E. 1977. “The Origin Of Bounding Surfaces In Ancient Aeolian Sandstones.” Sedimentology 24, no. 3 (June): 303–332.
Brookfield, M. E. 1978. “Revision Of The Stratigraphy Of Permian And Supposed Permian Rocks Of Southern Scotland.” Geologische Rundschau 67, no. 1 (February): 110–149.
Butler, W. C. 1971. “Permian Sedimentary Environments In Southeastern Arizona.” Arizona Geological Society Digest 9: 71–94.
Calder, J. H., D. Baird, and E. B. Urdang. 2004. “On The Discovery Of Tetrapod Trackways From Permo-Carboniferous Redbeds Of Prince Edward Island And Their Biostratigraphic Significance.” Atlantic Geology 40, nos. 2–3 (October 10): 217–226.
Cartwright, D., and A. H. Stride. 1958. “Large Sand Waves Near The Edge Of The Continental Shelf.” Nature 181, no. 4601 (4 January): 41.
Caselli, Alberto Tomás, and Carlos Oscar Limarino. 2002. “Sedimentología Y Evolución Paleoambiental De La Formación Patquía (Pérmico) En El Extremo Sur De La Sierra De Maz Y Cerro Bola, Provincia De La Rioja, Argentina.” [“Sedimentology And Paleoenvironmental Evolution Of The Permian Patquia Formation At The Southern End Of Sierra de Maz and Cerro Bola, La Rioja Province, Argentina”]. Revista de la Asociacion Geologica Argentina 57, no. 4 (December): 415–436.
Castor, S. B., J. E. Faulds, S. M. Rowland, and C. M. dePolo. 2000. Geologic map of the Frenchman Mountain Quadrangle, Clark County, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Map 127.
Chan, Marjorie A. 1989. “Erg Margin Of The Permian White Rim Sandstone, SE Utah.” Sedimentology 36, no. 2 (April): 235–251.
Childs, O. E., R. A. Knepp, S. J. Reynolds, G. Haxel, S. Thompson, III, and J. Wright. 1988. “Correlation Of Stratigraphic Units Of North America (COSUNA) Documentation Records For Southern Arizona And Vicinity.” Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-3.
Chure, Daniel J., George F. Engelmann, Thomas Roger Good, Geoffrey Haymes, and Robin Hansen. 2014. “The First Record Of Vertebrate Tracks From The Eolian Weber Sandstone (Pennsylvanian-Permian), Northeastern Utah: A Preliminary Report.” In Fossil Footprints of Western North America. New Mexico Museum of Natural History Bulletin 62: 95–102. Edited by Martin G. Lockley, and Spencer G. Lucas.
Clarey, Timothy L., and Davis J. Werner. 2018. “Global Stratigraphy And The Fossil Record Validate A Flood Origin For The Geologic Column.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, 327–350. Edited by J. H. Whitmore. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Clemmensen, Lars B., and Jan Hegner. 1991. “Eolian Sequence And Erg Dynamics: The Permian Corrie Sandstone, Scotland.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61, no. 5 (September 1): 768–774.
Clemmensen, Lars B., and Kjell Abrahamsen. 1983. “Aeolian Stratification And Facies Association In Desert Sediments, Arran Basin, (Permian), Scotland.” Sedimentology 30, no. 3 (June): 311–339.
Condon, Steven M. 1997. “Geology Of The Pennsylvanian And Permian Cutler Group And Permian Kaibab Limestone In The Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah And Southwestern Colorado.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2000: P1–P46.
Condra, G. E., E. C. Reed, and O. J. Scherer. 1940. Correlation of the Formations of the Laramie Range, Hartville Uplift, Black Hills, and western Nebraska. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division.
Correa, Gustavo A., Maria L. Carrevedo, and Pedro R. Gutiérrez. 2012. “Paleoambiente Y Paleontología De La Formación Andapaico (Paleozoico Superior, Precordillera Central, Argentina).” [“Paleoenvironment And Paleontology Of The Andapaico Formation (Upper Paleozoic, Central Precordillera, Argentina)”]. Andean Geology 39, no. 1 (January): 22–52.
Cramer, Howard Ross. 1971. “Permian Rocks From The Sublett Range, Southern Idaho.” The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 55, no. 10 (October): 1787–1801.
Curry, William H. III 1984. “Paleotopography At The Top Of The Tensleep Formation, Bighorn Basin, Wyoming.” In The Permian and Pennsylvanian Geology of Wyoming. Wyoming Geological Association 35th Annual Field Conference Guidebook. Edited by J. Goolsby and D. Morton, 199–211. Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association.
Darton, N. H., 1904. “Comparison Of The Stratigraphy Of The Black Hills, Bighorn Mountains And Rocky Mountain Front Range.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 15, no. 1 (January 1): 394–401.
Delorenzo, Kayo, Nardi Dias, and Claiton M. S. Scherer. 2008. “Cross-Bedding Set Thickness And Stratigraphic Architecture Of Aeolian Systems: An Example From The Upper Permian Pirambóia Formation (Paraná Basin), Southern Brazil.” Journal of South American Earth Sciences 25, no. 3 (May): 405–415.
Dickinson, William R., and George E. Gehrels. 2003. “U-Pb Ages Of Detrital Zircons From Permian And Jurassic Eolian Sandstones Of The Colorado Plateau, USA: Paleogeographic Implications.” Sedimentary Geology 163, nos. 1–2 (15 December): 29–66.
Dinterman, P. A. 2001. “Regional Analysis Of The Depositional Environments Of The Yeso And Glorieta Formations (Leonardian), New Mexico.” Master’s Thesis, New Mexico State University.
Doe, T. W., and R. H. Dott Jr. 1980. “Genetic Significance Of Deformed Cross Bedding—With Examples From The Navajo And Weber Sandstones Of Utah.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 50, no. 3 (September 1): 793–812.
Doelling, Hellmut H., Robert E. Blackett, Alden H. Hamblin, J. Douglas Powell, and Gayle L. Pollock. 2003. “Geology Of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah.” In Geology of Utah’s Parks and Monuments. Utah Geological Association Publication 28. 2nd ed. Edited by D. A. Sprinkel, T. C. Chidsey Jr., and P. B. Anderson, 189–231. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological Association and Bryce Canyon Natural History Association.
Donnell, John R. 1958. “The Weber Sandstone In The White River Uplift.” In Symposium on Pennsylvanian Rocks of Colorado and Adjacent Areas. Edited by B. F. Curtis and H. L. Warner, 95–98. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists.
Driese, Steven G. 1985. “Interdune Pond Carbonates, Weber Sandstone (Pennsylvanian-Permian), Northern Utah And Colorado.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 55, no. 2 (March 1): 187–195.
Dunbar, Carl O. Arthur A. Baker, G. Arthur Cooper, Philip B. King, Edwin D. McKee, Arthur K. Miller, Raymond C. Moore et al. 1960. “Correlation Of The Permian Formations Of North America.” Bulletin of the American Geological Society of America 71, no. 12 (December): 1763–1806.
Duncan, Henry. 1830. “An Account Of The Tracks And Footmarks Of Animals Found Impressed On Sandstone In The Quarry Of Corncockle Muir, In Dumfriesshire.” Transactions of the Royal Society, Edinburgh 11: 194–209.
Ekman, Vagn Walfrid. 1909. “On The Influence Of The Earth’s Rotation On Ocean Currents.” Arkiv För Matematik, Astronomi Och Fysik 2, no. 11: 1–51.
Elias, Andreia R. D., L. F. De Ros, Ana M. P. Mizusaki, and Sylvia M. C. Anjos. 2004. “Diagenetic Patterns In Eolian/ Coastal Sabkha Reservoirs Of The Solimoñes Basin, Northern Brazil.” Sedimentary Geology 169, nos. 3–4 (15 July): 191–217.
Emery, Matthew K., Sarah A. Maithel, and John H. Whitmore. 2011. “Can Compaction Account For Lower-Than-Expected Cross-Bed Dips In The Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona?” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 43, no. 5: 430.
Francischini, Heitor, Paula Dentzien-Dias, Spencer G. Lucas, and Cesar L. Schultz. 2018. “Tetrapod Tracks In Permo–Triassic Eolian Beds Of Southern Brazil (Paraná Basin).” PeerJ 6: e4764. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4764.
Francischini, Heitor, Spencer G. Lucas, Sebastian Voigt, Lorenzo Marchetti, Vincent L. Santucci, Cassandra L. Knight, John R. Wood, Paula Dentzien-Dias, and Cesar L. Schultz. 2019. “On The Presence Of Ichniotherium In The Coconino Sandstone (Cisuralian) Of The Grand Canyon And Remarks On The Occupation Of Deserts By Non-Amniote Tetrapods.” Paläontologische Zeitschrift (13 May). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542-019-00450-5.
Fryberger, Steven G. 1979. “Eolian-Fluviatile (Continental) Origin Of Ancient Stratigraphic Trap For Petroleum In The Weber Sandstone, Rangely Oil Field, Colorado.” The Mountain Geologist 16: 1–36.
Fryberger, Steven G. 1984. “The Permian Upper Minnelusa Formation, Wyoming: Ancient Example Of An Offshore-Prograding Eolian Sand Sea With Geomorphic Facies, And System-Boundary Traps For Petroleum.” In The Permian and Pennsylvanian Geology of Wyoming. 35th Annual Field Conference Guidebook. Edited by J. Goolsby and D. Morton, 241–271. Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association.
Garner, Paul A., and John H. Whitmore. 2011. “What Do We Know About Marine Sand Waves? A Review Of Their Occurrence, Morphology And Structure.” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 43, no. 5: 596.
Gehrels, George E., Ron Blakey, Karl E. Karlstrom, J. Michael Timmons, Bill Dickinson, and Mark Pecha. 2011. “Detrital Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Of Paleozoic Strata In The Grand Canyon, Arizona.” Lithosphere 3, no. 3 (June 1): 183–200.
Gibling, Martin R., N. Culshaw, M. C. Rygel, and V. Pascucci. 2008. “The Maritimes Basin Of Atlantic Canada: Basin Creation And Destruction In The Collisional Zone Of Pangea.” In The Sedimentary Basins of the U.S. and Canada. Sedimentary Basins of the World Volume 5. Edited by Andrew D. Miall, 211–244. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Gilluly, James, J. R. Cooper, and J. S. Williams. 1954. “Late Paleozoic Stratigraphy Of Central Cochise County Arizona.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 266: 1–49.
Glennie, K. W. 1972. “Permian Rotliegendes Of Northwest Europe Interpreted In Light Of Modern Desert Sedimentation Studies.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 56, no. 6 (June): 1048– 1071.
Gregory, J. W. 1915. “The Permian And Triassic Rocks Of Arran.” Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 15: 174–187.
Harms, J. C. 1974. “Brushy Canyon Formation, Texas: A Deep Water Density Current Deposit.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 85, no. 11 (November): 1763–1784.
Hartig, Katherine A., Gerilyn S. Soreghan, Robert H. Goldstein, and Michael H. Engel. 2011. “Dolomite In Permian Paleosols Of The Bravo Dome CO2 Field, U.S.A.: Permian Reflux Followed By Late Recrystallization At Elevated Temperature.” Journal of Sedimentary Research 81, no. 4 (April): 248–265.
Hills, J. M., and F. E. Kottlowski. 1983. Correlation of Stratigraphic Units in North America—Southwest/ Southwest Mid-Continent Region [SSMC] Correlation Chart. American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Hintze, L.F. 1985. Correlation of Stratigraphic Units in North America (COSUNA)—Great Basin Region [GB] Correlation Chart. American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Hintze, L. F. 1986. “Stratigraphy And Structure Of The Beaver Dam Mountains, Southwestern Utah.” In Thrusting and Extensional Structures and Mineralization in the Beaver Dam Mountains, Southwestern Utah. 1986 Annual Field Conference. Edited by Dana T. Griffen, and William Revell Phillips, 1–26. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological Association.
Hintze, Lehi F. 1988. Geologic History Of Utah. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. Geology Studies Special Publication 7.
Hoare, R. D., and J. D. Burgess. 1960. “Fauna From The Tensleep Sandstone In Wyoming.” Journal of Paleontology 34, no. 4 (July): 711–716.
Hovland, M., H. Rueslåtten, H. K. Johnsen, B. Kvamme, and T. Kuznetsova. 2006. “Salt Formation Associated With Sub-Surface Boiling And Supercritical Water.” Marine and Petroleum Geology 23, no. 8 (September): 855–869.
Hovland, Martin, Håkon Rueslåtten, and Hans Konrad Johnsen. 2014. “Buried Hydrothermal Systems: The Potential Role Of Supercritical Water, ‘ScriW,’ In Various Geological Processes And Occurrences In The Sub-Surface.” American Journal of Analytical Chemistry 5, no. 2 (January): 128–139.
Howell, John A., and Nigel P. Mountney. 1997. “Climatic Cyclicity And Accommodation Space In Arid To Semi-Arid Depositional Systems: An Example From The Rotliegend Group Of The UK Southern North Sea.” In Petroleum Geology Of The Southern North Sea: Future Potential. Geological Society Special Publication 123. Edited by Karen P. Ziegler, Peter Turner, and Stephen R. Daines, 63–86. Bath, United Kingdom: Geological Society of London.
Hoyt, John Harger and John Chronic. 1961. “Wolfcampian Fusulinid From Ingleside Formation, Owl Canyon, Colorado.” Journal of Paleontology 35, no. 5 (1 September): 1098.
Hoyt, John H. and John Chronic. 1962. “Atokan Fusulinids From The Casper Formation, East Flank Of the Laramie Mountains, Wyoming.” Journal of Paleontology 36, no. 1 (January): 161–164.
Hubert, John F. 1960. “Petrology Of The Fountain And Lyons Formations, Front Range, Colorado.” Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines 55, no. 1: 1–242.
Hunter, Ralph E. 1977. “Basic Types Of Stratification In Small Eolian Dunes.” Sedimentology 24, no. 3 (June): 361–387.
Hunter, Ralph E. 1981. “Stratification Styles In Eolian Sandstones: Some Pennsylvanian To Jurassic Examples From The Western Interior U.S.A.” In Recent and Ancient Nonmarine Depositional Environments: Models for Exploration. Edited by F. G. Ethridge, and R. M. Flores, 315–329. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 31.
Hurst, Andrew, and Kenneth W. Glennie. 2008. “Mass-Wasting Of Ancient Aeolian Dunes And Sand Fluidization During A Period Of Global Warming And Inferred Brief High Precipitation: The Hopeman Sandstone (Late Permian), Scotland.” Terra Nova 20, no. 4 (August): 274–279.
Irwin, C. Dennis. 1971. “Stratigraphic Analysis Of Upper Permian And Lower Triassic Strata In Southern Utah.” The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 55, no. 11 (November): 1976–2007.
Irwin, C. Dennis. 1976. “Permian And Lower Triassic Reservoir Rocks Of Central Utah.” In Geology of the Cordilleran Hingeline. Edited by J. Gilmore Hill, 193–202. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists.
Irwin, James Haskell, and Robert B. Morton. 1969. “Hydrogeologic Information On The Glorieta Sandstone And The Ogallala Formation In The Oklahoma Panhandle And Adjoining Areas As Related To Underground Waste Disposal.” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 630.
Isaacson, Peter E., Steven L. Bachtel, and Mark D. McFaddan. 1983. Stratigraphic Correlation of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Rocks of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho: Idaho Department of Lands. Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Information Circular 37.
James, W. C. 1992. “Sandstone Diagenesis In Mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate Sequences: Quadrant And Tensleep Formations (Pennsylvanian), Northern Rocky Mountains.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62, no. 5 (September 1): 810–824.
Johansen, Steven J. 1988. “Origins Of Upper Paleozoic Quartzose Sandstones, American Southwest.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4 (April): 153–166.
Jones, Fábio Herbert, Claiton Marlon dos Santos Scherer, and Juliano Kuchle. 2016. “Facies Architecture And Stratigraphic Evolution Of Aeolian Dune And Interdune Deposits, Permian Caldeirão Member (Santa Brígida Formation), Brazil.” Sedimentary Geology 337 (15 May): 133–150.
Kamola, Diane L., and Marjorie A. Chan. 1988. “Coastal Dune Facies, Permian Cutler Formation (White Rim Sandstone), Capitol Reef National Park Area, Southern Utah.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4 (April): 341–356.
Karpeta, W. P. 1990. “The Morphology Of Permian Palaeodunes—A Reinterpretation Of The Bridgnorth Sandstone Around Bridgnorth, England, In The Light Of Modern Dune Studies.” Sedimentary Geology 69, nos. 1–2 (November): 59–75.
Kendall, A. C. 2010. “Marine Evaporites.” In Facies Models 4. GEOtext 6. Edited by Noel P. James, and Robert W. Dalrymple, 505–539. Newfoundland, Canada: Geological Association of Canada.
Kent, Harry C., Elton L. Couch and Rex A. Knepp. 1988. Correlation of Stratigraphic Units in North America—Central and Southern Rockies Region Correlation [CSR] Chart. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Kerr, Dennis R., and Robert H. Dott Jr. 1988. “Eolian Dune Types Preserved In The Tensleep Sandstone (Pennsylvanian-Permian), North-Central Wyoming.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4 (April): 383–402.
Kerr, Dennis R., David M. Wheeler, David J. Rittersbacher, and John C. Horne. 1986. “Stratigraphy And Sedimentology Of The Tensleep Sandstone (Pennsylvanian And Permian), Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming.” Earth Science Bulletin 19, nos. 1–2: 61–77.
Kiersnowski, H., and Arkadiusz Buniak. 2016. “Sand Sheets Interaction With Aeolian Dune, Alluvial And Marginal Playa Beds In Late Permian Upper Rotliegend Setting (Western Part Of The Poznań Basin, Poland).” Geological Quarterly 60, no. 4: 771–800.
King, Philip B. 1948. “Geology Of The Southern Guadalupe Mountains, Texas.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 215: 1–183.
Knight, Susan H. 1929. “The Fountain And The Casper Formations Of The Laramie Basin.” University of Wyoming Publications in Science (Geology) 1: 1–82.
Kocurek, Gary. and Karen G. Havholm. 1993. “Eolian Sequence Stratigraphy—A Conceptual Framework.” In Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy: Recent Developments and Applications, 393–409. AAPG Memoir 58. Edited by Paul Weimer and Henry Posamentier. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Kocurek, Gary, and Brenda L. Kirkland. 1998. “Getting To The Source: Aeolian Influx To The Permian Delaware Basin Region.” Sedimentary Geology 117, nos. 3–4 (May): 143–149.
Koelmel, M. H. 1986. “Post-Mississippian Paleotectonic, Stratigraphic, And Diagenetic History Of The Weber Sandstone In The Rangely Field Area, Colorado. In Paleotectonics and Sedimentation in the Rocky Mountain Region, United States. Edited by James A. Peterson. AAPG Memoir 41: 371–396. Tulsa, Oklahoma: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Krainer, K., and S. G. Lucas. 2015. “Type Section Of The Lower Permian Glorieta Sandstone, San Miguel County, New Mexico.” In Guidebook 66—Geology of the Las Vegas Area. 66th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Edited by Jennifer Lindline, Michael Petronis, and Joseph Zebrowski, 205–210. Socorro, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society, .
Krapovickas, V., A. C. Mancuso, A. B. Arcucci, and A. T. Caselli. 2010. “Fluvial And Eolian Ichnofaunas From The Lower Permian Of South America (Patquía Formation, Paganzo Basin).” Geologica Acta 8, no. 4: 449–462.
Lane, Donald W. 1973. The Phosphoria and Goose Egg Formations in Wyoming. Preliminary Report No. 12. Laramie, Wyoming: The Geological Survey of Wyoming.
Langenheim, Ralph L. Jr., and E. R. Larson. 1973. Correlation of Great Basin Stratigraphic Units, Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 72. Reno, Nevada: MacKay School of Mines, University of Nevada.
Larsen, Bjørn T., Snorre Olaussen, Bjørn Sundvoll, and Michel Heeremans. 2008. “The Permo-Carboniferous Oslo Rift Through Six Stages And 65 Million Years.” Episodes 31, no. 1 (March): 52–58.
Lavoie, D., N. Pinet, J. Dietrich, P. Hannigan, S. Castonguay, A. P. Hamblin, and P. Giles. 2009. “Petroleum Resource Assessment, Paleozoic Successions Of The St. Lawrence Platform And Appalachians Of Eastern Canada.” Geological Survey of Canada Open File 6174.
Lawton, Timothy F., Cody D. Buller, and Todd R. Parr. 2015. “Provenance Of A Permian Erg On The Western Margin Of Pangea: Depositional System Of The Kungurian (Late Leonardian) Castle Valley And White Rim Sandstones And Subjacent Cutler Group, Paradox Basin, Utah, USA.” Geosphere 11, no. 5 (October 1): 1475–1506.
Lee, W. T. 1927. “Correlation Of Geologic Formations Between East-Central Colorado, Central Wyoming And Southern Montana.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 149: 1–80.
Lee, W. T., and G. H. Girty. 1909. The Manzo Group of the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 389: 1–141.
Lessentine, Ross H. 1965. “Kaiparowits And Black Mesa Basins: Stratigraphic Synthesis.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 49, no. 11 (November): 1997–2019.
Limarino, C. O., and L. A. Spalletti. 1986. “Eolian Permian Deposits In West And Northwest Argentina.” Sedimentary Geology 49, nos. 1–2 (August): 109–127.
Link, Paul K., Robert C. Mahon, Luke P. Beranek, Erin A. Campbell-Stone, and Ranie Lynds. 2014. “Detrital Zircon Provenance Of Pennsylvanian To Permian Sandstones From The Wyoming Craton And Wood River Basin, Idaho, U.S.A.” Rocky Mountain Geology 49, no. 2 (January 1): 115–136.
Lippman, F. 1973. Sedimentary Carbonate Minerals. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Loope, David B. 1984. “Eolian Origin Of Upper Paleozoic Sandstones, Southeastern Utah.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 54, no. 2 (June 1): 563–580.
Lovell, M. A., P. D. Jackson, P. K. Harvey, and R. C. Flint. 2006. “High Resolution Petrophysical Characterization Of Samples From An Aeolian Sandstone: The Permian Penrith Sandstone of NW England.” In Fluid Flow and Solute Movement in Sandstones: The Onshore UK Permo-Triassic Red Bed Sequence. Geological Society of London Special Publication 263. Edited by R. D. Barker, and J. H. Tellam, 49–63. Bath, United Kingdom: The Geological Society Publishing House.
Luepke, Gretchen. 1971. “A Re-Examination Of The Type Section Of The Scherrer Formation (Permian) In Cochise County, Arizona.” Arizona Geological Society Digest 9: 245–257.
Luepke, Gretchen. 1976. “Archaeocidaris Spines From The Permian Scherrer Formation, Southeastern Arizona.” Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 11, no. 3 (October): 87–88.
Macfarlane, P. Allen, J. Combes, S. Turbek, D. S. Kirschen, and S. Yoder. 1993. [2010 update by J. J. Woods]. “Thickness Of The Cedar Hills Sandstone Aquifer” [Map]. Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report 93-1A, Plate 16.
Mack, G. H. 1977. “Depositional Environments Of The Cutler-Cedar Mesa Facies Transition (Permian) Near Moab, Utah.” The Mountain Geologist 14, no. 2 (April): 53–68.
MacLachlan, James, and Alan Bieber. 1963. “Permian And Pennsylvanian Geology Of the Hartville Uplift—Alliance Basin—Chadron Arch Area.” In Guidebook to the Geology of the Northern Denver Basin and Adjacent Uplifts. Guidebook to the Fourteenth Field Conference. Edited by Dudley W. Bolyard, and Philip J. Katich, 84–94. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists.
Mader, Detlef, and Michael John Yardley. 1985. “Migration, Modification And Merging In Aeolian Systems And The Significance Of The Depositional Mechanisms In Permian And Triassic Dune Sands Of Europe And North America.” Sedimentary Geology 43, nos. 1–4 (April): 85–218.
Maher, John C. ed. 1960. Stratigraphic Cross Section of Paleozoic Rocks West Texas to Northern Montana. Tulsa, Oklahoma: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Maher, John C. 1954. “Lithofacies And Suggested Depositional Environment Of Lyons Sandstone And Lykins Formation In Southeastern Colorado.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 38 (October): 2233– 2239.
Maher, John Charles, and Jack B. Collins. 1953. “Permian And Pennsylvanian Rocks Of Southeastern Colorado And Adjacent Areas.” U.S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM 135.
Mainguet, Monique. 1978. “The Influence Of Trade Winds, Local Air-Masses And Topographic Obstacles On The Aeolian Movement Of Sand Particles And The Origin And Distribution Of Dunes And Ergs In The Sahara And Australia.” Geoforum 9, no. 1: 17–28.
Maithel, S. A. 2019. “Characterization Of Cross-Bed Depositional Processes In The Coconino Sandstone.” PhD Dissertation. Loma Linda, California: Loma Linda University School of Medicine in conjunction with the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
Maithel, Sarah A., Paul A. Garner, and John H. Whitmore. 2015. “Preliminary Assessment Of The Petrology Of The Hopeman Sandstone (Permo-Triassic), Moray Firth Basin, Scotland.” Scottish Journal of Geology 51, no. 2 (November): 177–184.
Mallory, William W. ed. 1972a. Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists.
Mallory, W. W. 1972b. “Regional Synthesis Of The Pennsylvanian System.” In Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region. Edited by W. W. Mallory, 111–127. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists.
Mancuso, Adriana Cecilia, Veronica Krapovickas, Claudia Marsicano, Cecilia Benavente, Dario Benedito, Marcelo De La Fuente, and Eduardo G. Ottone. 2016. “Tetrapod Tracks Taphonomy In Eolian Facies From The Permian Of Argentina.” Palaios 31, no. 8 (August): 374–388.
Mankiewicz, David, and James R. Steidtmann. 1979. “Depositional Environments And Diagenesis Of The Tensleep Sandstone, Eastern Big Horn Basin, Wyoming.” In Aspects of Diagenesis. Special Publication No. 26. Edited by Peter A. Scholle, and Paul R. Schluger, 319–336. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
Mankin, Charles J. 1986. Correlation of Stratigraphic Units in North America. Texas-Oklahoma Tectonic Region [TOT] Correlation Chart. American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Marchetti, Lorenzo, Sebastian Voigt, Spencer G. Lucas, Heitor Francischini, Paula Dentzien-Dias, Roberto Sacchi, Marco Mangiacotti, Stefano Scali, Andrea Gazzola, Ausonio Ronchi, and Amanda Millhouse. 2019. “Tetrapod Ichnotaxonomy In Eolian Paleoenvironments (Coconino And De Chelly Formations, Arizona) And Late Cisuralian (Permian) Sauropsid Radiation.” Earth-Science Reviews 190 (March): 148–170.
Marzolf, John E. 1988. “Controls On Late Paleozoic And Early Mesozoic Eolian Deposition Of The Western United States.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4 (April): 167–191.
Maughan, Edwin K., and Albert E. Roberts. 1967. “Big Snowy And Amsden Groups And The Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Boundary In Montana.” USGS Professional Paper 554-B: 1–27.
Maughan, E. K., and R. F. Wilson. 1960. “Pennsylvanian And Permian Strata In Southern Wyoming And Northern Colorado.” In Guide to the Geology of Colorado. Edited by R. J. Weimer, and J. D. Haun, 34–42. Denver, Colorado: Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, and Colorado Scientific Society.
Maughan, Edwin K., and Thomas S. Ahlbrandt. 1985. “Pennsylvanian And Permian Eolian Sandstone Facies, Northern Colorado And Southeastern Wyoming.” In Rocky Mountain Section Field Trip Guide. Edited by D. L. Macke, and E. K. Maughan, 99–113. Denver, Colorado: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Rocky Mountain Section; Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Section; Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, National Energy Minerals Division.
Mazzullo, Jim, Ariel Malicse, and Joel Siegel. 1991. “Facies And Depositional Environments Of The Shattuck Sandstone On The Northwest Shelf Of The Permian Basin.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61, no. 6 (November): 940–958.
McCauley, Victor T. 1956. “Pennsylvanian And Lower Permian Of The Williston Basin.” In Williston Basin Symposium. Proceedings of the 1st International Williston Basin Symposium, 150–164. Bismarck, North Dakota: North Dakota Geological Society and Saskatchewan Geological Society.
McKee, Edwin D. 1934. “The Coconino Sandstone—Its History And Origin.” In Papers Concerning the Palaeontology of California, Arizona and Idaho, 77–115. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication 440.
McKee, Edwin D. 1982. “The Supai Group Of Grand Canyon.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173:1-504.
McKee, Edwin D., and Joao J. Bigarella. 1979. “Ancient Sandstones Considered To Be Eolian.” In A Study of Global Sand Seas. Edited by Edwin D. McKee, 187–238. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1052.
McKee, E. D., and S. S. Oriel eds. 1967. “Paleotectonic Investigations Of The Permian System In The United States.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 515.
McKeever, Patrick J. 1991. “Trackway Preservation In Eolian Sandstones From The Permian Of Scotland.” Geology 19, no. 7 (July 1): 726–729.
McKelvey, V. E. et al. 1959. The Phosphoria, Park City And Shedhorn Formations In The Western Phosphate Field. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 313-A:1-47.
McKnight, Edwin T. 1940. “Geology Of Area Between Green And Colorado Rivers Grand And San Juan Counties Utah.” Bulletin of the U.S. Geological Survey 908: 1–147.
McNair, Andrew H. 1951. “Paleozoic Stratigraphy Of Part Of Northwestern Arizona.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 35, no. 1 (March): 503–541.
Meibos, Lynn C. 1981. “Structure And Stratigraphy Of The Nephi NW 7½-Minute Quadrangle, Juab County, Utah.” Brigham Young University, Geology Studies 30, no. 1: 37–58.
Melton, Frank A. 1925. “Correlation Of Permo-Carboniferous Red Beds In Southwestern Colorado And Northern New Mexico.” Journal of Geology 33, no. 8 (November– December): 807–815.
Melvin, John, Ronald A. Sprague, and Christian J. Heine. 2010. “From Bergs To Ergs: The Late Paleozoic Gondwanan Glaciation And Its Aftermath In Saudi Arabia.” In Late Paleozoic Glacial Events and Postglacial Transgressions in Gondwana. Edited by Oscar R. López-Gamundí, and Luis A. Buatois, 37–80. Denver, Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 468.
Middleton, Larry T., David K. Elliott, and Michael Morales. 2003. “Coconino Sandstone.” In Grand Canyon Geology. 2nd ed. Edited by Stanley S. Beus, and Michael Morales, 163–179. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, F. K., and McKee, E. H. 1971. “Thrust And Strike-Slip Faulting In The Plomosa Mountains, Southwestern Arizona.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 82, no. 3 (March): 717–722.
Mitchell, Gary C. 1985. “The Permian-Triassic Stratigraphy Of The Northwest Paradox Basin Area, Emery, Garfield, And Wayne Counties, Utah.” The Mountain Geologist 22, no. 4 (October): 149–166.
Moore, Raymond C., John C. Frye, J. M. Jewett, Wallace Lee, and Howard G. O’Connor. 1951. The Kansas Rock Column. University of Kansas Publications, State Geological Survey of Kansas, Bulletin 89.
Morrow, D.W. 1982. “Diagenesis 1. Dolomite–Part 1: The Chemistry Of Dolomitization And Dolomite Precipitation.” Geoscience Canada 9, no. 1 (March): 5–13.
Mountney, Nigel P., and Alison Jagger. 2004. “Stratigraphic Evolution Of An Aeolian Erg Margin System: The Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone, SE Utah, USA.” Sedimentology 51, no. 4 (August): 713–743.
Myers, Donald A. 1972. “The Upper Paleozoic Madera Group In The Manzano Mountains, New Mexico.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1372-F: 1–13.
Needham, C. E., and Robert L. Bates. 1943. “Permian Type Sections In Central New Mexico.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 54, no. 11 (November 1): 1653–1668.
Newell, A. J. 2001. “Bounding Surfaces In A Mixed Aeolian-Fluvial System (Rotliegend, Wessex Basin, SW UK).” Marine and Petroleum Geology 18, no. 3 (March): 339–347.
Nielson, R. LaRell. 1994. “Stratigraphic Analysis Of The Diamond Creek Sandstone (Permian) In Central Utah.” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Rocky Mountain Section 26, no. 6: 57.
Nielson, R. Larell. 1999. “Stratigraphy And Origin Of Breccia Deposits In The Kirkman Formation, Central Utah.” In Geology of Northern Utah and Vicinity. Utah Geological Association Publication 27. Edited by Lawrence E. Spangler, and Constance J. Allen, 111–121. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological Association.
Oard, Michael J. 2010a. “Is The Geological Column A Global Sequence?” Journal of Creation 24, no. 1 (April): 56–64.
Oard, Michael J. 2010b. “The Geological Column Is A General Flood Order With Many Exceptions.” Journal of Creation 24, no. 2 (August): 78–82.
Ogilvie, S., K. Glennie, and C. Hopkins. 2000. “Excursion Guide 13: The Permo-Triassic Sandstones Of Morayshire, Scotland.” Geology Today 16, no. 5 (September–October): 185–190.
Ohlen, H. R., and L. B. McIntyre. 1965. “Stratigraphy And Tectonic Features Of Paradox Basin, Four Corners Area.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 49, no. 11 (November): 2020–2040.
Opkyke, N. D., and S. K Runcorn. 1960. “Wind Direction In The Western United States In The Late Paleozoic.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 71, no. 7 (July): 959–972.
Parrish, Judith Totman, and Fred Peterson. 1988. “Wind Directions Predicted From Global Circulation Models And Wind Directions Determined From Eolian Sandstones Of The Western United States.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4 (April): 261–282.
Peacock, J. D. 1966. “VII.—Contorted Beds In The Permo-Triassic Aeolian Sandstones Of Morayshire.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Great Britain 24: 157–162.
Peacock, J. D., N. G. Berridge, A. L. Harris, and F. May. 1968. The Geology of the Elgin District. South Kensington, London: Institute of Geological Sciences.
Peirce, H. W., N. Jones, and R. Rogers. 1977. A Survey of Uranium Favorability of Paleozoic Rocks in the Mogollon Rim and Slope Region—East Central Arizona. State of Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, Circular 19. Tucson, Arizona: State of Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology.
Peterson, Fred. 1988. “Pennsylvanian To Jurassic Eolian Transportation Systems In The Western United States.” Sedimentary Geology 56, nos. 1–4: 207–260.
Peterson, James A. 1980. “Permian Paleogeography And Sedimentary Provinces, West Central United States.” In Paleozoic Paleogeography of the West-Central United States. Edited by T. D. Fouch, and E. R. Magathan, 271– 292. Denver, Colorado: The Rocky Mountain Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 1.
Pike, James D., and Dustin E. Sweet. 2018. “Environmental Drivers Of Cyclicity Recorded In Lower Permian Eolian Strata, Manitou Springs, Colorado, Western United States.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 499 (15 June): 1–12.
Piper, D. J. W. 1970. “Eolian Sediments In The Basal New Red Sandstone Of Arran.” Scottish Journal of Geology 6 (1 November): 295–308.
Poland, Zachary A., and Alexander R. Simms. 2012. “Sedimentology Of An Erg To An Erg-Margin Depositional System, The Rush Springs Sandstone Of Western Oklahoma, U.S.A.: Implications For Paleowinds Across Northwestern Pangea During The Guadalupian (Middle Permian).” Journal of Sedimentary Research 82, no. 5 (May): 345–363.
Poole, F. G. 1962. “Wind Directions In Late Paleozoic To Middle Mesozoic Time On The Colorado Plateau.” In Short Papers in Geology Hydrogoloy, and Topography Articles 120–179, 147–151. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 450-D.
Poppe, L. J., J. F. Denny, S. J. Williams, M. S. Moser, N. A. Forfinski, H. F. Stewart, and E. F. Doran. 2007. “The Geology Of Six Mile Reef, Eastern Long Island Sound.” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1191.
Poppe, L. J., K. Y. McMullen, S. D. Ackerman, D. S. Blackwood, J. D. Schaer, M. R. Forrest, A. J. Ostapenko, and E. F. Doran. 2011. “Sea-Floor Geology And Topography Offshore In Eastern Long Island Sound.” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1150.
Poppe, L. J., M. L. DiGiacomo-Cohen, S. M. Smith, H. F. Stewart, and N. A. Forfinski. 2006. “Seafloor Character And Sedimentary Processes In Eastern Long Island Sound And Western Block Island Sound.” Geo-Marine Letters 26 (June): 59–68.
Pryor, Wayne A. 1971. “Petrology Of The Permian Yellow Sands Of Northeastern England And Their North Sea Basin Equivalents.” Sedimentary Geology 6, no. 4 (December): 221–254.
Rascoe, Bailey Jr., and Donald L. Baars. 1972. “Permian System.” In Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region. Edited by W. W. Mallory, 143–165. Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists.
Rawson, Richard R., and Christine E. Turner-Peterson. 1980. “Paleogeography Of Northern Arizona During The Deposition Of The Permian Toroweap Formation.” In Paleozoic Paleogeography of the West-Central United States. Edited by T. D. Fouch, and E. R. Magathan, 341– 352. Denver, Colorado: The Rocky Mountain Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 1.
Read, Charles B., and Gordon H. Wood. 1947. “Distribution And Correlation Of Pennsylvanian Rocks In Late Paleozoic Sedimentary Basins Of Northern New Mexico.” Journal of Geology 55, no. 3, part 2 (May): 220–236.
Reed, John K., and Carl R. Froede Jr. 2003. “The Uniformitarian Stratigraphic Column: Shortcut Or Pitfall For Creation Geology?” Creation Research Society Quarterly 40, no. 2 (September): 90–98.
Reeves, Frank. 1931. “Geology Of The Big Snowy Mountains, Montana.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 165: 135–149.
Reiche, Parry. 1938. “An Analysis Of Cross-Lamination The Coconino Sandstone.” Journal of Geology 46. no. 7 (October– November): 905–932.
Richards, R. W., and G. R. Mansfield. 1912. “The Bannock Overthrust. A Major Fault In Southeastern Idaho And Northeastern Utah.” Journal of Geology 20, no. 8 (November–December): 681–709.
Roberts, Ralph J., M. D. Crittenden Jr., E. W. Tooker, H. T. Morris, R. K. Hose, and T. M. Cheney. 1965. “Pennsylvanian And Permian Basins In Northwestern Utah, Northeastern Nevada And South-Central Idaho.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 49, no. 11 (November): 1926–1956.
Rodríguez-López, Juan Pedro, Lars B. Clemmensen, Nick Lancaster, Nigel P. Mountney, and Gonzalo D. Veiga. 2014. “Archean To Recent Aeolian Sand Systems And Their Sedimentary Record: Current Understanding And Future Prospects.” Sedimentology 61, no. 6 (October): 1487–1534.
Ross, Marcus R., William A. Hoesch, Steven A. Austin, John H. Whitmore, and Timothy L. Clarey. 2010. “Garden Of The Gods At Colorado Springs: Paleozoic And Mesozoic Sedimentation And Tectonics.” In Through the Generations: Geologic and Anthropogenic Field Excursions in the Rocky Mountains from Modern to Ancient. Edited by Lisa A. Morgan, and Steven L. Quane, 77–93. Denver, Colorado: Geological Society of America. Field Guide 18.
Roth, Arial A. 2009. “‘Flat Gaps’ In Sedimentary Rock Layers Challenge Long Geologic Ages.” Journal of Creation 23, no. 2 (August): 76–81.
Sando, William J., and Charles A. Sandberg. 1987. “New Interpretations Of Paleozoic Stratigraphy And History In The Northern Laramie Range And Vicinity, Southeast Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1450: 1–39.
Sando, William J., Mackenzie Gordon Jr., J. Thomas Dutro Jr. 1975. “Stratigraphy And Geologic History Of The Amsden Formation (Mississippian And Pennsylvanian) Of Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 848: A1–A83.
Saperstone, Herb I., and Frank G. Ethridge. 1984. “Origin And Paleotectonic Setting Of The Pennsylvanian Quadrant Sandstone, Southwestern Montana.” In The Permian and Pennsylvanian Geology of Wyoming. 35th Annual Field Conference Guidebook. Edited by J. Goolsby, and D. Morton, 309–331. Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association.
Scott, George L., and William Eugene Ham. 1957. Geology and Gypsum Resources of the Carter Area, Oklahoma. Norman, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey. Circular 42.
Shotton, F. W. 1937. “The Lower Bunter Sandstones Of North Worcestershire And East Shropshire.” Geological Magazine 74, no. 12 (December): 534–553.
Shotton, F. W. 1956. “Some Aspects Of The New Red Desert In Britain.” Geological Journal 1, no. 5: 450–465.
Siemers, W. Aaron, Thomas M. Stanley, and Neil H. Suneson. 2000. “Geology Of Arcadia Lake Parks—An Introduction And Field-Trip Guide.” Oklahoma Geology Notes 60, no. 1 (Spring): 4–17.
Skipp, Betty, and Theodore R. Brandt. 2012. Geologic Map of the Fish Creek Reservoir 7.5´ Quadrangle, Blaine County, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map 3191.
Skipp, B., R.D. Hoggan, D.L. Schleicher, and R.C. Douglass. 1979. “Upper Paleozoic Carbonate Bank In East-Central Idaho─Snaky Canyon, Bluebird Mountain, And Arco Hills Formations, And Their Paleotectonic Significance.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1486: 1–78.
Smith, George Varty. 1884. “On Further Discoveries Of The Footprints Of Vertebrate Animals In The Lower New Red Sandstone Of Penrith.” Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 40, nos. 1–4 (January): 479–481.
Soreghan, Gerilyn S., and Michael J. Soreghan. 2013. “Tracing Clastic Delivery To The Permian Delaware Basin, U.S.A.: Implications For Paleogeography And Circulation In Westernmost Equatorial Pangea.” Journal of Sedimentary Research 83, no. 9 (September 1): 786–802.
Spalletti, Luis A., Carlos Oscar Limarino, and Ferran Colombo. 2010. “Internal Anatomy Of An Erg Sequence From The Aeolian-Fluvial System Of The De La Cuesta Formation (Paganzo Basin, Northwestern Argentina).” Geologica Acta 8, no. 4: 431–447.
Stanesco, J. D. 1991. “Sedimentology And Cyclicity In The Lower Permian De Chelly Sandstone On The Defiance Plateau: Eastern Arizona.” The Mountain Geologist 28, no. 4 (October): 1–11.
Steele, Brenda A. 1987. “Depositional Environments Of The White Rim Sandstone Member Of The Permian Cutler Formation, Canyonlands National Park, Utah.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1592: 1–20.
Steele, Grant. 1960. “Pennsylvanian-Permian Stratigraphy Of East-Central Nevada And Adjacent Utah.” In Guidebook to the Geology of East-Central Nevada. Eleventh Annual Field Conference of the Intermountain Association of Petroleum Geologists. Edited by Jerome W. Boettcher, and William W. Sloan Jr, 91–113. Salt Lake City, Utah and Ely, Nevada: Intermountain Association of Petroleum Geologists and Eastern Nevada Geological Society.
Steele, Richard P. 1983. “Longitudinal Draa In The Permian Yellow Sands Of North-East England.” In Eolian Sediments and Processes. Edited by M. E. Brookfield, and T. S. Ahlbrandt, 543–550. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier. Developments in Sedimentology 38.
Steele-Mallory, B. A. 1982. “The Depositional Environment And Petrology Of The White Rim Sandstone Member Of The Permian Cutler Formation, Canyonlands National Park, Utah.” U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-204.
Steidtmann, James R. 1974. “Evidence For Eolian Origin Of Cross-Stratification In Sandstone Of The Casper Formation, Southernmost Laramie Basin, Wyoming.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 85, no. 12 (December 1): 1835–1842.
Stokes, William Lee 1986. Geology of Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Museum of Natural History and Utah Geological and Mineral Survey.
Swezey, Christopher, Max Deynoux, and Daniel Jeannette. 1996. “Sandstone Depositional Environments Of The Upper Permian Champenay Formation, Champenay Basin, Northeastern France.” Sedimentary Geology 105, nos. 1–2 (August): 91–103.
Thompson, M. L., and Harold W. Scott. 1941. “Fusulinids From The Type Section Of The Lower Pennsylvanian Quadrant Formation.” Journal of Paleontology 15, no. 4 (July): 349–353.
Thompson, Warren O. 1949. “Lyons Sandstone Of Colorado Front Range.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 33, no. 1 (January): 52–72.
Thompson, W. O., and J. M. Kirby. 1940. “Cross Sections From Colorado Springs To Black Hills Showing Correlation Of Paleozoic Stratigraphy.” In Guide Book, Fourteenth Annual Field Conference, The Kansas Geological Society, 142–148. Wichita, Kansas: The Kansas Geological Society.
Toepelman, W. C., and H. G. Rodeck. 1936. “Footprints In Late Paleozoic Red Beds Near Boulder, Colorado.” Journal of Paleontology 10, no. 7 (October): 660–662.
Tooker, E.W., and Ralph J. Roberts. 1970. “Upper Paleozoic Rocks In The Oquirrh Mountains And Bingham Mining District, Utah.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 629: A1–A76.
Tubbs, Robert E. Jr. 1989. “Depositional History Of The White Rim Sandstone, Wayne And Garfield Counties, Utah.” The Mountain Geologist 26, no. 4 (October): 101–112.
Verille, G. J., G. A. Sanderson, and B. D. Rea. 1970. “Missourian Fusulinids From The Tensleep Sandstone, Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming.” Journal of Paleontology 44, no. 3 (1 May): 478–479.
Versey, H. C. 1925. “The Beds Underlying The Magnesian Limestone In Yorkshire.” Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 20, no. 2 (1 January): 200–214.
Verville G. J. 1957. “Wolfcampian Fusulinids From The Tensleep Sandstone In The Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming.” Journal of Paleontology 31, no. 2: 349–352.
Verville, George J., and Eric E. Thompson. 1963. “Desmoinesian Fusulinids From The Minnelusa Formation In The Southern Black Hills, South Dakota.” In Northern Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana Guidebook. 1st Joint Field Conference. Edited by Gerald C. Cooper, Donald F. Cardinal, Howard W. Lorenz, and John R. Lynn, 61–66. Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association and Billings Geological Society.
Walker, T. R., and J. C. Harms. 1972. “Eolian Origin Of Flagstone Beds, Lyons Sandstone (Permian), Type Area, Boulder County, Colorado.” The Mountain Geologist 9, nos. 2–3 (April–July): 279–288.
Waugh, B. 1970a. “Formation Of Quartz Overgrowths In The Penrith Sandstone (Lower Permian) Of Northwest England As Revealed By Scanning Electron Microscopy.” Sedimentology 14, nos. 3–4: 309–320.
Waugh, Brian. 1970b. “Petrology, Provenance And Silica Diagenesis Of The Penrith Sandstone (Lower Permian) Of Northwest England.” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 40, no. 4 (December 1): 1226–1240.
Wells, Neil A., Susan S. Richards, Shengfeng Peng, Sharon E. Keattch, Jeffrey A. Hudson, and Catherine J. Copsey. 1993. “Fluvial Processes And Recumbently Folded Crossbeds In The Pennsylvanian Sharon Conglomerate In Summit County, Ohio, U.S.A.” Sedimentary Geology 85, nos. 1–4 (May): 63–83.
Whelan, J. A. 1982. Geology, Ore Deposits And Mineralogy Of The Rocky Range, Near Milford Beaver County, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Special Studies 57.
Whitmore, John H., and Paul A. Garner. 2018. “The Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona, USA): Implications For The Origin Of Ancient Cross-Bedded Sandstones.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism. Edited by J. H. Whitmore, 581–627. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Whitmore, John H., and Ray Strom. 2010. “Sand Injectites At The Base Of The Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona.” Sedimentary Geology 230, nos. 1–2 (October): 46–59.
Whitmore, John H., and Ray Strom. 2017. “Rounding Of Quartz And K-Feldspar Sand From Beach To Dune Settings Along The California And Oregon Coastlines: Implications For Ancient Sandstones.” Answers Research Journal 10 (November 15): 259–270. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/rounding-quartz-and-k-feldspar-sand-beach-dune-settings-along-california-oregon-coastlines/.
Whitmore, John H., and Raymond Strom. 2018. “The Significance Of Angular K-feldspar Grains In Ancient Sandstones. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism. Edited by J. H. Whitmore, 628–651. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Whitmore, J. H., and R. A. Peters. 1999. “Reconnaissance Study Of The Contact Between The Hermit Formation And The Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona.” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 31, no. 7: A-235.
Whitmore, John H., Guy Forsythe, and Paul Garner. 2015. “Intraformational Parabolic Recumbent Folds In The Coconino Sandstone (Permian) And Two Other Formations In Sedona, Arizona (USA).” Answers Research Journal 8 (January 21): 21–40. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/intraformational-parabolic-recumbent-folds/.
Whitmore, John H., Raymond Strom, Stephen Cheung, and Paul Garner. 2014. “The Petrology Of The Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona.” Answers Research Journal 7 (December 10): 499–532. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/petrology-of-the-coconino-sandstone/.
Wilson, I. G. 1973. “Ergs.” Sedimentary Geology 10, no. 2 (October): 77–106.
Woodmorappe, J. 1981. “The Essential Nonexistence Of The Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment.” Creation Research Society Quarterly 18, no. 1 (June): 46–71.
Wright, David T. 1999. “The Role Of Sulphate-Reducing Bacteria And Cyanobacteria In Dolomite Formation In Distal Ephemeral Lakes Of The Coorong Region, South Australia.” Sedimentary Geology 126, nos. 1–4: 147–157.
Yancey, Thomas E., Gary D. Ishibashi, and Paul T. Bingman. 1980. “Carboniferous And Permian Stratigraphy Of The Sublett Range, South-Central Idaho.” In Paleozoic Paleogeography of the West-Central United States. Edited by Thomas D. Fouch, and Esther R. Magathan, 259–269. Denver, Colorado: The Rocky Mountain Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 1.
Zeller, Robert A. 1965. Stratigraphy of the Big Hatchet Mountains Area, New Mexico. Socorro, New Mexico: State Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Memoir 16.
A comparison of currently recognized chronostratigraphic (time-rock) designations for the Pennsylvanian and Permian by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (column 1), Global Chronostratigraphic Units at the time the COSUNA project was published (column 2) and North American Stratigraphic Units at the time the COSUNA project was published (column 3). Conventional ages (Ma) are shown on the right and apply to all three columns. Note that this table is not meant to show stage equivalencies of the columns because the accepted boundary dates fluctuate. For example, “Wolfcampian” in column 3 is not equivalent to the Artinskian and Kunguian in column 1. Wolfcampian rocks would include the Asselian and Sakarian of column 1.
Catalog of selected Upper Pennsylvanian and Lower Permian sandstones of the western United States. Note: some of the formations found above and below the units will vary depending on where they are located within a particular area. Paul A. Garner contributed some of the research and text contained in this table, but any errors are my responsibility.
|Sandstone and column numbers in fig. 5, if applicable||Age (stage in NA chron. units) of sandstone||Stratigraphy above and below sandstone and COSUNA chart abbreviation||Location and max. thickness (m)||Primary reference(s)||Description and notes|
|Abo Formation 5– 8||Leonardian
|NM 305||Lee and Girty 1909; Melton 1925; Needham and Bates 1943|
|Bingham Mine Formation 41, 43||Wolfcampian(?)
|UT 2,228||Tooker and Roberts 1970|
|Broom Creek Group 55, 57, 58, 60||Wolfcampian||
|MT, ND, NE, SD, WY 98||Condra, Reed, and Scherer 1940; McCauley 1956|
|Brushy Canyon Formation 9, 10||Guadalupian||
|TX 300||Harms 1974; Soreghan and Soreghan 2013|
|Bursum Formation 7, 8||Wolfcampian||
|NM 71||Myers 1972|
|Casper Formation 23, 24||Wolfcampian
|WY 212||Agatston 1954; Hoyt and Chronic 1962; Knight 1929; McKee and Bigarella 1979; Sando and Sandberg 1987; Steidtmann 1974|
|Cassa Group 57, 58||Wolfcampian||
|CO, NE, SD, WY 122||Agatston 1954; Condra, Reed, and Scherer 1940; McCauley 1956|
|Castle Valley Sandstone||Leonardian||
|UT 183||Lawton, Buller, and Parr 2015|
|Cedar Hills Sandstone 15–18||Guadalupian
|CO, NE, KS 91||Macfarlane et al. 1993; Moore et al. 1951|
|Cedar Mesa Sandstone 26, 27||Leonardian
|UT 427||Baars 1979; Condon 1997; Loope 1984; Mack 1977; Mountney and Jagger 2004; Ohlen and McIntyre 1965; Roberts et al. 1965|
|Cherry Canyon Formation 9, 10||Guadalupian||
|TX 391||King 1948; Soreghan and Soreghan 2013|
|Coconino Sandstone 1–3, 25, 26, 35||Leonardian||
|AZ, CA, NV, UT 300||Baars 1961, 1962; Baltz 1982; Beard et al. 2007; Billingsley and Workman 2000; Blakey 1988, 1990; Blakey, Peterson, and Kocurek 1988; Blakey and Knepp 1989; Brand and Tang 1991; Castor et al. 2000; Doelling et al. 2003; Hintze 1986, 1988; Luepke 1971; McKee 1934; Middleton. Elliott, and Morales 2003; Miller and McKee 1971; Whitmore and Garner 2018; Whitmore et al. 2014; Whitmore, Forsythe, and Garner 2015|
|Cutler Formation 26||Leonardian
|AZ, CO, NM, UT 1,800||Baars 1962, 1979; Condon 1997; Kamola and Chan 1988; Lawton, Buller, and Parr 2015; Melton 1925; Steele 1987|
|De Chelly Sandstone 26, 27||Leonardian||
|AZ, CO, UT, NM 230||Baars 1979; Blakey 1990; Condon 1997; Lessentine 1965; Ohlen and McIntyre 1965; Stanesco 1991|
|Diamond Creek Sandstone 41–43||Leonardian||
|UT 701||Baker, Huddle, and McKinney 1949; Bissell 1962; Hintze 1988; Meibos 1981; Nielson 1994, 1999; Roberts et al. 1965|
|Duncan Sandstone 14||Guadalupian||
|OK 60||Scott and Ham 1957|
|Esplanade Sandstone 25||Wolfcampian
|AZ 100||Baars 1962, 1979; Blakey 1990, 2003; McKee 1982|
|Fairbank Formation 57–59||Morrowan||
|SD 30||Condra, Reed, and Scherer 1940; MacLachlan and Bieber 1963; McCauley 1956|
|OK 180||Siemers, Stanley, and Suneson 2000|
|Glorieta Sandstone 5-9, 11–13, 19, 20||Guadalupian
|NM, OK, TX 90||Baars 1974; Blakey 1990; Brill 1952; Dinterman 2001; Irwin and Morton 1969; Krainer and Lucas 2015; Needham and Bates 1943|
|Hudspeth Cutoff Formation 47||Leonardian
|ID, NV, UT 700||Cramer 1971; Isaacson, Bachtel, and McFaddan 1983; Roberts et al. 1965; Yancey, Ishibashi, and Bingman 1980|
|Ingleside Formation 21, 22||Wolfcampian||
|CO 100||Hoyt 1961; Lee 1927; Maughan and Wilson 1960; Maughan and Ahlbrandt 1985; McKee and Oriel 1967; Pike and Sweet 2018|
|Juniper Gulch Member and Gallagher Peak Sandstone of Snaky Canyon Formation 50||Leonardian
|ID 59/597||Isaacson, Bachtel, and McFaddan 1983; Skipp et al. 1979|
|Lyons Sandstone 21||Leonardian||
|CO 107||Brill 1952; Hubert 1960; Lee 1927; Maher 1954; Maher and Collins 1953; McKee and Bigarella 1979; Pike and Sweet 2018; Ross et al. 2010; Thompson 1949; Walker and Harms 1972|
|Minnelusa Formation 32, 53, 54, 56, 59||Wolfcampian
|MT, SD, WY 250–366||Condra, Reed, and Scherer 1940; Fryberger 1984; McCauley 1956; Thompson and Kirby 1940; Verville and Thompson 1963|
|Oquirrh Formation 42||Wolfcampian
|UT, ID 8,000||Bissell 1959; Isaacson, Bachtel, and McFaddan 1983; Roberts et al. 1965; Yancey, Ishibashi, and Bingman 1980|
|Quadrant Sandstone 51, 52||Desmoinesian||
|ID, MT 533||James 1992; Reeves 1931; Saperstone and Ethridge 1984; Thompson and Scott 1941|
|Queantoweap Formation 35–39||Wolfcampian||
|UT, NV 610||Bissell 1962; Hintze 1986; McNair 1951|
|Rib Hill Sandstone||Wolfcampian||
|NV 305||Bissell 1964a; Langenheim and Larson 1973; Steele 1960|
|Riepetown Formation 40, 62–64||Wolfcampian||
|NV, UT 366||Bissell 1962, 1964a; Steele 1960|
|Rush Springs Sandstone||Guadalupian||
|OK 25–125||Kocurek and Kirkland 1998; Poland and Simms 2012|
|Sangre de Cristo Formation 19, 20||Wolfcampian
|NM 2,900||Baltz 1965; Bolyard 1959; Melton 1925; Read and Wood 1947|
|Scherrer Formation 4||Leonardian||
|AZ, NM 210||Blakey and Knepp 1989; Butler 1971; Gilluly, Cooper, and Williams 1954; Luepke 1971; Zeller 1965|
|Schnebly Hill Formation 3||Leonardian||
|AZ 600||Blakey (1984); Blakey and Knepp (1989); Blakey and Middleton (1983)|
|TX 30||Mazzullo, Malicse, and Siegel 1991|
|Shedhorn Formation (Sandstone) 51, 52||Guadalupian||
|MT, WY 36||McKelvey et al. (1959)|
|Talisman Quartzite 37||Wolfcampian||
|UT 369||Baetcke 1969; Whelan 1982|
|Tensleep Sandstone 29, 30, 33, 34||Wolfcampian
|MT, WY 25–305||Agatston 1952, 1954; Andrews and Higgins 1984; Curry 1984; Darton 1904; Hoare and Burgess 1960; Kerr and Dott 1988; Kerr et al. 1986; Lane 1973; Link et al. 2014; Mankiewicz and Steidtmann 1979; Sando, Gordon, and Dutro 1975; Verille, Sanderson, and Rea 1970|
|Toroweap Formation 3, 25, 35–37, 39, 40, 61||Leonardian||
|AZ, UT, NV 100–300||Blakey 1990; Rawson and Turner-Peterson 1980|
|Tubb Sandstone Member of Clear Fork Group and Abo Formation 11–13||Leonardian||
|NM, TX 65||Hartig et al. 2011|
|Tussing Formation 47||Missourian
|ID 1,300||Cramer 1971; Isaacson, Bachtel, and McFaddan 1983; Yancey, Ishibashi, and Bingman1980|
|Tyler Formation 34, 53–56, 60||Morrowan||
|MT 30–60||Maughan and Roberts 1967|
|Weber Sandstone 28, 29, 44, 45||Leonardian
|UT 100–700||Bissell 1964a, 1964b; Bissell and Childs 1958; Chure et al. 2014; Doe and Dott 1980; Donnell 1958; Driese 1985; Fryberger 1979; Koelmel 1986; Link et al. 2014; Melton 1925; Roberts et al. 1965|
|Wells Formation 46||Wolfcampian
|ID, MT, UT, WY 732||Richards and Mansfield 1912; Yancey, Ishibashi, and Bingman 1980|
|White Rim Sandstone 27, 38||Leonardian||
|UT 80||Baars 1979; Baars and Seager 1970; Baars 2010; Blakey, Peterson, and Kocurek 1988; Chan 1989; Ohlen and McIntyre 1965; Steele 1987; Steele-Mallory 1982; Tubbs 1989|
|Wood River Formation 48, 49||Guadalupian
|ID 2983||Isaacson, Bachtel, and McFaddan 1983; Link et al. 2014; Skipp and Brandt 2012; Skipp et al. 1979|
|Yeso Formation 5–8, 19, 20||Leonardian||
|NM 300–600||Baars 1979; Dinterman 2001; Needham and Bates 1943|
Details and references for selected Permian sandstones occurring in Canada, Europe, South America, and Saudi Arabia. Paul A. Garner contributed some of the research and text contained in this table, especially for some of the UK sandstones, but any errors are my responsibility. Some material was found in Rodríguez-López et al. 2014, Supplementary Table S2 (Compilation of main Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian eolian sand systems). Some material comes from the table in Whitmore and Strom’s 2018 ICC paper.
|Sandstone||Conventional age||Location and maximum thickness, if known (m)||Primary reference(s)||Description and notes|
|Andapaico Formation||Permian||Argentina, 5||Correa, Carrevedo, and Gutiérrez 2012|
|Bridgnorth Sandstone||Lower Permian||England, 180||Karpeta 1990; Mader and Yardly 1985; Shotton 1937, 1956|
|Brumund Formation||Permian||Norway, 800||Larsen et al. 2008|
|Champenay Formation||Upper Permian||France, 110||Swezey, Deynoux, and Jeannette 1996|
|Corncockle Sandstone||Lower Permian||Scotland, 1000||Brookfield 1977, 1978; McKeever 1991|
|Corrie Sandstone||Lower Permian||Scotland, 700||Clemmensen and Abrahamsen 1983; Gregory 1915; Piper 1970|
|Dawlish Sandstone||Upper Permian||England, 120||Newell 2001|
|De la Cuesta Formation||Permian||Argentina, 1600||Limarino and Spalletti 1986; Spalletti, Limarino, and Piñol 2010|
|Hopeman Sandstone||Permian||Scotland, 60||Maithel, Garner, and Whitmore 2015; Ogilvie, Glennie, and Hopkins 2000; Peacock 1966; Peacock et al. 1968|
|Juruá Formation||Lower Pennsylvanian||Brazil, 30–40||Elias et al. 2004|
|La Colina Formation||Lower Permian||Argentina||Limarino and Spalletti 1986|
|Locharbriggs Sandstone||Permian||Scotland, 1000||Brookfield 1977, 1978; McKeever 1991|
|Los Reyunos Formation||Permian||Argentina||Limarino and Spalletti 1986; Mancuso et al. 2016|
|Ojo de Agua Formation||Permian||Argentina||Limarino and Spalletti 1986|
|Patquía Formation||Carboniferous to Permian||Argentina, >150||Caselli and Limarino 2002; Krapovickas et al. 2010; Limarino and Spalletti 1986|
|Penrith Sandstone||Lower Permian||England, 100–400||Arthurton, Burgess, and Holliday 1978; Lovell et al. 2006; Smith 1884; Waugh 1970a, 1970b|
|Pirambóia Formation||Permian||Brazil, 20–-200||Delorenzo, Dias, and Scherer 2008; Francischini et al. 2018|
|Rotliegendes and Wiessliegendes||Permian||Western continental Europe, UK, 225–1500||Glennie 1972; Kiersnowski and Buniak 2016; McKee and Bigarella 1979|
|Santa Brígda Formation||Permian||Brazil||Jones, Scherer, and Kuchle 2016|
|Unnamed sandstone in Maritimes Basin||Permian||Eastern Canada, Prince Edward Island area, 800||Calder, Baird, and Urdang 2004; Gibling et al. 2008; Lavoie et al. 2009|
|Unayzah A member||Middle Permian||Saudi Arabia, 45–90||Melvin, Sprague, and Heine 2010|
|Yellow Sands||Lower Permian||England, 20||Pryor 1971; Steele 1983; Versey 1925|
You May Also Like
The petrology of the Tapeats Sandstone is consistent with the global Genesis flood.
Many creationists are actively engaged in finding the Flood/post-Flood boundary, but most creationists consider the Precambrian-Cambrian contact more attractive.
The Grand Canyon, Monument to Ancient Earth? rejects the truth of Genesis regarding the Flood and the age of the earth.
While several current Flood models posit an Upper Cenozoic Flood Boundary, none of them address the problem of biblical kinds and their relationship Genesis.