>Art, the last time you and I crossed swords on this issue, we agreed that
>Buchheim was working at Fossil Lake, not Lake Gosuite. (see Paul Buchheim,
>"Paleontological and Sedimentological Variation in Early Eocene Fossil Lake"
>contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, v 30 May 1994),circa p.
>42). The data I presented and the Cyclicities were from two cores taken
>from Lake Gosuite and these two wells are respectively 140 and 190 miles
>from Fossil Lake. Since the local geology of these two lakes is different
>and is recognized so by the USGS (they are named different members) it is
>not correct to use Buchheim's Fossil Lake data and apply it to the Lake
>Gosuite deposits. Isn't it true that the tuffs you mention are in the much
>smaller Fossil Lake? Has Buchheim published anything on Lake Gosuite that I
>am unaware of?
You may not have seen his paper (Buchheim and Surdam) in J. Gray, A. J.
Boucot and W. B. N. Berry's (eds) book: Communities of the Past (1981,
Hutchison & Ross), "Paleoenvironments and Fossil Fish in the Laney Member
(lake Gosiute) Green River Formation, Wyoming" In this paper, Buchheim
shows the siliciclastic ratio in laminae near the center of the Lake
Gosiute Basin is actually as high as or higher than that in the laminae of
Fossil Lake Basin. So if the siliciclastic ratio of Fossil Lake is
indicative of depositional origin, the laminae of Gosiute are also. But in
my book, the real issue is still the reproducibility of the multithousand
laminae counts and whether these can be reliably said to contain solar or
Milankovitch cycles in the light of Pittock.