they believe to be eolian sandstones throughout their 1979a paper, but never seem to define or give reference to what “large” means. The author assumes that “large” is how McKee and Weir defined it in 1953 (>1.0 m), but this definition does not help distinguish between the thinner sets of cross-beds in the Coconino compared to the thicker ones the Navajo, for example. Table 4 and Fig. 8 illustrate statistics for some sandstones with crossbed set thicknesses that are either known from personal experience or have been reported in the literature. For this paper, small cross bed sets are defined as having a thickness of < 1.0 m, medium sets are defined as 1.0-5.0 m thickness, and large sets are defined as being thicker than 5.0 m. There are few data on set thicknesses, which can be highly variable in a sandstone, even with large, or thick (>5.0 m) cross-bed sets. As can be seen from Table 4 and Fig. 8, set thickness and dip angle do not appear to be related to each other. It is apparently an optical illusion that thicker sets appear to have steeper cross-bed dip angles. E. Coconino, Wescogame, and Tapeats means cannot be differentiated Using cross-bed dip data from Reiche (1938) and McKee (1940, 1982) a comparison was made between the Coconino, Tapeats, and Wescogame Sandstone means with Microsoft Excel ANOVA (Fig. Sandstone Place Reference for cross-bed angle measurements Set thickness reference Assigned set thickness n Mean crossbed angle Median cross-bed angle Maximum cross-bed angle Minimum cross-bed angle Tapeats Arizona McKee 1940 McKee 1940, p. 818 small 183 20.3 20.9 27.9 4.8 Wingate New Mexico Reiche 1938 Clemmensen et al. 1989, p. 760 small 48 18.8 20.2 30 5.6 Cedar Mesa Utah Reiche 1938 Mountney and Jagger 2004 medium 67 18.7 18.5 33 5.7 Manakacha Arizona McKee 1982 McKee 1982, p. 216 medium 250 19.5 19.2 31.4 4.4 Esplanade Arizona McKee 1982 McKee 1982, p. 216 mostly medium 505 19.0 19.3 32.7 4.7 Wescogame Arizona McKee 1982 McKee 1982, p. 216 mostly medium 619 19.9 19.8 30.3 4.5 Coconino Arizona Reiche 1938 Whitmore (personal) medium to large 197 20.3 20.8 33.8 4.7 Coconino Arizona Maithel 2019 Whitmore (personal) medium to large 135 19.8 21.0 27 4.0 Coconino Arizona Whitmore unpubl Whitmore (personal) medium to large 214 20.2 21.0 32 5.7 De Chelly Arizona Reiche 1938 Whitmore (personal) medium to large 82 21.5 22.8 33.4 5.0 Botucatú Paraná, Brazil Bigarella and Salamuni 1961 McKee and Bigarella 1979a large 626 19.5 19.1 33.3 6.2 Botucatú Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Bigarella and Salamuni 1961 McKee and Bigarella 1979a large 598 20.5 20.2 32.5 6.2 Botucatú São Paulo, Brazil Bigarella and Salamuni 1961 McKee and Bigarella 1979a large 650 20.1 20.0 32.5 6.2 Casper Wyoming Fryberger et al 2016 personal (2011) large 18 20.1 22.0 27 4.5 Navajo Utah Reiche 1938 McKee and Bigarella 1979a, p. 212 large 33 22.1 23.1 36.2 5.4 Navajo Utah Kiersch 1950 McKee and Bigarella 1979a, p. 212 large 229 17.2 18.5 31.2 5.3 Navajo Utah Whitmore unpubl McKee and Bigarella 1979a, p. 212 large 44 21.5 23.0 26.0 3.8 Tensleep Wyoming Fryberger et al 2016 Kerr and Dott 1988, p. 389 large 47 21.1 22.0 34 5.1 Table 4. Cross-bed set thickness compared to central tendencies and standard deviations of cross-bed inclinations for ancient sandstones. Note that the central tendencies are similar despite cross-bed set thickness. Assigned cross-bed set thicknesses are as follows: small (< 1.0 m), medium (1.0-5.0 m), and large (> 5.0 m). These data are shown graphically in Fig. 08. WHITMORE Cross-bed inclinations 2023 ICC 604
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=