In recent years,the Journal of Palaeogeography(Chinese Edition and English Edition)continually received manuscripts,in which some authors are from China and some are from Pakistan,Lithuania,Morocco,South Africa,etc.Th...In recent years,the Journal of Palaeogeography(Chinese Edition and English Edition)continually received manuscripts,in which some authors are from China and some are from Pakistan,Lithuania,Morocco,South Africa,etc.The authors of these manuscripts,according to the viewpoint and method of Miall’s paper(1985),selected rocks from each bed in the clastic sections of their study areas and induced some rock types,such as conglomerates,sandstones and fine-grained stones,and considered them as lithofacies.It does not conform to the definition of lithofacies.I wrote some papers,i.e.,Feng(2018,2019,2020),to point out the problems and hope that the authors worldwide,especially Chinese authors,will not continually cite,spread and follow Miall’s paper(1985)viewpoint and method blindly.Prof.Miall is the first person who considered rocks(in fact,the sediments)as lithofacies and proposed a facies analysis method.His viewpoint and facies analysis method confused the definition of facies and facies analysis method.My current paper is a special article to discuss the principal problems of Miall’s paper(1985),i.e.,he considered the sediments as lithofacies and utilized lithofacies to analyze facies,but not to discuss the contributions and less strictness of architectural elements of his paper.Here,I have to declare that the facies in my current paper is the facies of sedimentary petrology,but not of other geological disciplines,such as igneous petrology,metamorphic petrology,palaeontology,stratigraphy,geophysics,geochemistry.Certainly,the definitions of facies and lithofacies are controversial.My current paper will adhere to the policy of“A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend”.I hope that through academic discussions,contends and geological practice,these problems will be solved gradually.展开更多
近年来,在《古地理学报》(中文版和英文版)的已刊文章和来稿中,一些作者把岩石或岩石类型称作"微相"或"岩相",把岩石薄片中的微观特征称作"微相",把岩石的宏观特征称作"宏观相"。笔者曾写过2...近年来,在《古地理学报》(中文版和英文版)的已刊文章和来稿中,一些作者把岩石或岩石类型称作"微相"或"岩相",把岩石薄片中的微观特征称作"微相",把岩石的宏观特征称作"宏观相"。笔者曾写过2篇中文的短文《主编的话--岩石不是微相》和《主编的话--岩石不是岩相》,刊于《古地理学报》(中文版)中。但是此二文尚未引起国内外广大读者的关注。还有,在20世纪80年代,一些中国沉积学家根据野外露头和钻井岩心的岩石宏观特征,提出了"亚相"和"微相"。这个"微相"的定义与外国沉积学家在20世纪40年代根据岩石的显微镜下微观特征提出的"微相"的定义完全不同。这些问题屡屡出现从而迫使笔者,作为《古地理学报》(中文版和英文版)的主编,应该遵循"百花齐放和百家争鸣"的方针,再写出1篇中文及英文兼有的新文章,即《沉积相的一些术语定义的评论》(A review on the definitions of terms of sedimentary facies),把沉积相的一些术语,如"相"、"沉积相"、"岩相"、两种"微相"、"宏观相"、"亚相"等术语的定义讲清楚,并把此文同时在《古地理学报》(中文版和英文版)中刊出。希此文能引起国内外广大读者的关注,并撰写文章和参与这些问题讨论及争鸣,争取逐步得到一些共识,从而促进沉积学和古地理学的进步与发展。展开更多
文摘In recent years,the Journal of Palaeogeography(Chinese Edition and English Edition)continually received manuscripts,in which some authors are from China and some are from Pakistan,Lithuania,Morocco,South Africa,etc.The authors of these manuscripts,according to the viewpoint and method of Miall’s paper(1985),selected rocks from each bed in the clastic sections of their study areas and induced some rock types,such as conglomerates,sandstones and fine-grained stones,and considered them as lithofacies.It does not conform to the definition of lithofacies.I wrote some papers,i.e.,Feng(2018,2019,2020),to point out the problems and hope that the authors worldwide,especially Chinese authors,will not continually cite,spread and follow Miall’s paper(1985)viewpoint and method blindly.Prof.Miall is the first person who considered rocks(in fact,the sediments)as lithofacies and proposed a facies analysis method.His viewpoint and facies analysis method confused the definition of facies and facies analysis method.My current paper is a special article to discuss the principal problems of Miall’s paper(1985),i.e.,he considered the sediments as lithofacies and utilized lithofacies to analyze facies,but not to discuss the contributions and less strictness of architectural elements of his paper.Here,I have to declare that the facies in my current paper is the facies of sedimentary petrology,but not of other geological disciplines,such as igneous petrology,metamorphic petrology,palaeontology,stratigraphy,geophysics,geochemistry.Certainly,the definitions of facies and lithofacies are controversial.My current paper will adhere to the policy of“A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend”.I hope that through academic discussions,contends and geological practice,these problems will be solved gradually.
文摘近年来,在《古地理学报》(中文版和英文版)的已刊文章和来稿中,一些作者把岩石或岩石类型称作"微相"或"岩相",把岩石薄片中的微观特征称作"微相",把岩石的宏观特征称作"宏观相"。笔者曾写过2篇中文的短文《主编的话--岩石不是微相》和《主编的话--岩石不是岩相》,刊于《古地理学报》(中文版)中。但是此二文尚未引起国内外广大读者的关注。还有,在20世纪80年代,一些中国沉积学家根据野外露头和钻井岩心的岩石宏观特征,提出了"亚相"和"微相"。这个"微相"的定义与外国沉积学家在20世纪40年代根据岩石的显微镜下微观特征提出的"微相"的定义完全不同。这些问题屡屡出现从而迫使笔者,作为《古地理学报》(中文版和英文版)的主编,应该遵循"百花齐放和百家争鸣"的方针,再写出1篇中文及英文兼有的新文章,即《沉积相的一些术语定义的评论》(A review on the definitions of terms of sedimentary facies),把沉积相的一些术语,如"相"、"沉积相"、"岩相"、两种"微相"、"宏观相"、"亚相"等术语的定义讲清楚,并把此文同时在《古地理学报》(中文版和英文版)中刊出。希此文能引起国内外广大读者的关注,并撰写文章和参与这些问题讨论及争鸣,争取逐步得到一些共识,从而促进沉积学和古地理学的进步与发展。
