Some new thoughts of definitions of terms of sedimentary facies:Based on Miall's paper(1985)

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.

Words of the Editor-in-Chief——Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development

Van Loon et al.＇s paper ＂The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks： Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India＂ with a new term ＂tomboliths＂ and original viewpoints should be published, but some contents need to be discussed. Shanmugam＇s paper ＂The response of stromatolites to seismic shocks： Tomboliths from the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, E India： Discussion and liquefaction basics＂ pointed out some queries and problems about Van Loon et al.＇s paper. It is an academic discussion paper and should be published as well. However, some main problems, such as the new term＂tomboliths＂ and its origin of seismic shocks, ＂whether stromatolites or tomboliths are soft-sediment deformation structures or not＂, etc., also need to be discussed. Academic discussion is an effective measure to promote scientific development. The more thorough academic discussions are carried out regarding academic problems, the more scientific facts and truths will become clear. All participants in this discussion are contributors. It is active to carry out the policy of ＂A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend＂ by our Journal of Palaeogeography.