Talk:Cerro Fortaleza Formation

Stratigraphy
The stratigraphic position and indeed existence of this formation under that name is currently difficult to determine. According to Varela et al (2012), it now forms the middle part of their Mata Amarilla Formation and is of Campanian age " the Pari Aike Formation (currently regarded as the middle section of the Mata Amarilla Formation; Varela, 2011)". According to Egerton et al (2013) it now forms part of their Cerro Fortaleza Formation and is of Campanian to Maastrichtian in age "The Cerro Fortaleza Formation interdigitates with and overlies the La Anita Formation (Campanian) and is overlain by the La Irene Formation (Maastrichtian)." and "The Cerro Fortaleza Formation has been referred to as the Pari Aike Formation, the Chorrillo Formation, and the Mata Amarilla Formation". Maybe best to wait until the dust settles and some sort of consistent stratigraphy emerges. Mikenorton (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 3 years later, the stratigraphic picture is no clearer. It seems fairly clear that this page should be renamed, but it remains entirely unclear which of the two names it should be moved to - Mata Amarilla or Cerro Fortaleza. Mikenorton (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this post before. Filled in the blanks from the source I got (under Magallanes Basin), but there indeed it says "En el sector sur del Lago Viedma y al este del río Leona, afloran depósitos de arcillitas muy friables y areniscas finas bandeadas de colores claros y verde a grisáceas. Estas rocas se agrupan en la Formación Pari Aike (Feruglio en Fossa Mancini et al., 1938) o Formación Cerro Fortaleza (Arbe y Hechem, 1984). Estas rocas contienen escasos restos fósiles de pelecípodos, vértebras de dinosaurios y troncos silicificados que sugieren una edad Campaniano inferior - Maastrichtiano (Nullo et al., 1999). Más recientemente se ha sugerido que la Formación Pari Aike en realidad es parte de la Formación Mata Amarilla sin que se justifique separarlas (Goin et al. 2002)." - Pérez Panera, p.47. In the next weeks I will look for more sources to figure out what is the consensus. In general it seems the basin has far too much local naming and probably many formations are just the same with local naming differences. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I wish you luck. We may have to just go with one and then mention the alternative. Mikenorton (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks. It was already a "mess" to add the formations to the various basins and there is a lot more still to do, but there's time. I agree, I think for now it would be best to have this one renamed to Cerro Fortaleza Formation, as they seem synonymous anyway, and later figure out how it relates to the Mata Amarilla Formation, that was dated differently before too. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was leaning towards that as a solution, based on papers published in the last few years, although with no great confidence. I would be happy to support such a move. Mikenorton (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the paper supporting the Cenomanian age for the Middle Mata Amarilla Fm. (therefore Pari Aike Fm.) has the underlying and overlying formations of the Cerro Fortaleza Fm. from the other paper as Campanian and Maastrichtian respectively. Somebody has goofed up here, not sure who.--Thylaco (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)