2019; McKee 1940; McKee 1966; McKee 1982; McKee and Bigarella 1979a; McKee and Bigarella 1979b; Reiche 1938; and Whitmore 2019). Sandstone data came primarily from polar plots consisting of 5,242 measurements of 13 sandstones from 88 localities: Botucatú Sandstone of Brazil, Casper Sandstone of Wyoming, Cedar Mesa Sandstone of Utah, Coconino Sandstone of Arizona, De Chelly Sandstone of Arizona, Esplanade Sandstone of Arizona, Manakacha Formation of Arizona, Navajo Sandstone primarily of Utah, Tacuarembó Sandstone of Uruguay, Tapeats Sandstone of Arizona, Tensleep Sandstone primarily of Wyoming, Wescogame Formation of Wyoming, and the Wingate Sandstone of Arizona. None of my data were used in the data set. Modern dunes included measurements from dune fields in Brazil, Uruguay, and New Mexico. The set included 5,785 measurements (855 direct measurements and 4,930 weighted measurements) from 76 dune field localities. Other data from modern dune locations and settings were available, but the data were not always presented in a way that could be used in this study. The author has not measured any cross-bed dips on modern dunes. The data were presented in many ways, including tables, circular (polar) graphs, and histograms. Some data were interesting, but could not be used, like that from the Nebraska Sand Hills, because it was not presented as individual measurements, but as a collection of measurements in 5-degree bins. It was straightforward to extract the data from tables and histograms, but circular (polar) plots (like Fig. 5) presented somewhat of a challenge. It was difficult to read the points from these graphs consistently and accurately. WebPlotDigitizer was used to aid in the collection of these kinds of data. The online application allowed an origin and two points to be plotted on the graph (directly on the computer screen) to let the application know the dimensions of the graph. Points could then be plotted on the graph by using a mouse and marking colored dots, to be sure all the points Fig. 4. McKee and Bigarella (1979a, p. 199) claimed that the Coconino had dips “mostly at 25-30°,” but when compared to three different sets of data from the Coconino, this conjecture does not hold true. The box plots of the Coconino show the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the data. Most Coconino cross-bed dips fall within the 17-24° range. The data comes from Reiche (1938), Maithel (2019), and unpublished data from Whitmore. WHITMORE Cross-bed inclinations 2023 ICC 590
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=