Talk:Stone run



Difference between this and scree slope?
I've never understood what the exact difference between a scree slope and a stone run is, can someone enlighten me please? By the way, I'd include a note on the "Princes Street" name - this derives from Princes Street in Edinburgh, where Darwin had connections. At the time, Princes Street would have been cobbled. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is as easy to see visually as it is difficult to explain I'd say. Stone runs make one feel overwhelmed by a unique sensation (as reported by Darwin, Pernety, and just about everybody who has seen one) in a way no scree slope does.  One should probably possess the writer's eye and phrase (which I lack) to give an idea why and how that happens.  For sure it's a combination of factors that possibly have something to do with the general setup, configuration and dimension of the stone run as well as the size and shape of its components.  The stone run boulders are sizable or very large (up to 6-7 m); equally important, there are no small boulders (say less than 60 cm), and no gravel at all.  Also significant, the boulder shape is neither round nor angular but irregular, with rounded extremities, with no sharp tips or edges whatsoever.  Unlike stone runs, scree slopes are generally unstable, and crossing a steep scree slope may prove unpleasant and even risky indeed. Apcbg (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep thinking that we must have them in Scotland, but all the examples I think of are scree slopes. In some places here, the geology and climate must have been similar enough. Anyway, I am glad you have created this article, it is a fascinating subject - and thanks for all the pictures, you have done some excellent work on Falkland articles. I have been trying to create more articles which aren't based exclusively around the conflict, or the international arguments... --MacRusgail (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised to know there were stone runs in Scotland. Unlike the Falklands during the last Ice Age the country was completely glaciated, which provides for landforms other than stone runs.  You cannot have stone runs formed under the ice cap. Apcbg (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it this was partly because the Falklands were locally glaciated? There was at least one unglaciated part of Scotland - St Kilda, but it isn't large enough perhaps. I'm wondering if the American English term "boulder field" can be a synonym or not - there is no article on it. I prefer "stone run" - it's less ambiguous. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. What about Mars? From what little I know about Martian geology - or Areology - there is low moisture, but the action of other agents, such as frozen CO2 could act in such a way.


 * I would actually favour having specific terms for the different (in size and shape) varieties of stone runs, such as stone river, stone stream, and stone sea. No idea about Mars. Apcbg (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all fair enough but doesn't get to the crux of the matter. Scree comprises material that has fallen from a rock exposure, typically bit-by-bit. A stone run is a variety of frost-sorted ground and is a mass-movement deposit. Crucially, stone runs lie within solifluction deposits; screes need not. Small stone runs are widespread in England, and probably in Scotland too. The best examples are at the Stiperstones, Shropshire. If you have a well-sorted, fairly stable boulder field that is at about the same level as surrounding, gently sloping ground, and without an obvious upslope source in a cliff, you probably have a stone run. If the material is poorly sorted, with a lot of gravel and fines, is relatively steep and unstable, forming a fan below a cliff, you have a scree. This is all explained in the Geology of the Falkland Islands by Don Aldiss and Emma Edwards (1999). By the way, it is commonly thought that the giant stone run on the Falklands was named 'Prince's Street' ironically, by a Scottish shepherd who had settled in the Islands.--Rockhead9 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Biology
I'd say although this is an excellent article, there is one area of weakness, namely biology. In the west of Ireland, they have stone shelves where certain Mediterranean plants grow in the cracks - the sun heats up the rock, and acts as a kind of natural "radiator", meaning that the biosphere is somewhat different. In "The Falkland Islands", by Strange (which you'll see I quote all over the place), there is some discussion of these features, and it mentions the different theories. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to add a section on biology, any help in finding relevant sources would be appreciated. Apcbg (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this one?
Image:Devils Lake.jpg. It's hard to tell from this photo, but the rock is quartzite, and up close, it looks very similar to the picture Image:Stone-River-Autumn.jpg (maybe sharper edges on the boulders). Could the article be a little more clear about how the stone run is formed? -Freekee (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some more details of the formation process could be included, the cited sources are informative enough for the purpose. At first glance the Devil's Lake landform is rather a scree slope than a stone run (see the above comment on the difference between the two).  By the way, where is that particular lake situated? Apcbg (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like scree to me too. Although I gather in the Falklands, that stone run is used for two similar formations (a barely tilted one, and a steep one)--MacRusgail (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is in Wisconsin, on the edge of the glaciated area.   According to this article a stone run is formed by rock that is broken up by freeze/thaw cycles. That is exactly what is shown at Devil's Lake. Does the rock in a stone run always remain in place after it is broken, or can it break off a cliff face, and collect on a slope? -Freekee (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot really say, probably not. The Devil's Lake formation rather looks like similar ones we have in the Bulgarian mountains of Rila and Pirin (bigger and higher than Vitosha, they had some glaciers on the top and naturally periglacial conditions nearby), as you may see on this Pirin picture.  There are plenty of those but they are not considered stone runs.


 * As for the movement, as far as I understand there is some movement during the formation process, but none subsequently. I also gather from the quoted papers that some essential aspects of the formation process still remain not fully explained. Apcbg (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be a pest about it. I'm just trying to get a better idea of what a stone run is, and this boulder field at Devil's Lake seems to meet every criterion, including periglaciation (being on the edge of the driftless area), if I understand that correctly. -Freekee (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's okay, and please take into account that I'm no authority on stone runs either. I have seen no list of all criteria to judge whether the Devil's Lake boulder field meets them or not, but your statement made me insert in the text a remark to the effect that the conditions mentioned there are necessary but obviously not sufficient, as testified by the different varieties of rock landforms present on Vitosha Mountain with identical elevation and rock composition.  However, rock phenomena in Wisconsin must be fairly well studied and publicised -- indeed that state even gave its name to the Wisconsin glaciation, so if that boulder field was a stone run that would have been mentioned in some publication, with comparison to the Falklands case etc., which I failed to establish.  In any case, it would be very interesting to expand the article with sourced examples of stone runs other than those in the Falklands and the Balkans; so far I've only found some mentioning of stone rivers in China but that needs some more research.  Any relevant information confirming the presence of stone runs in Wisconsin or another new region would be most welcome indeed.  Apcbg (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the scientific criteria for a stone run seems a bit vague. I wasn't really trying to get Devil's Lake included (though more examples would have been better, IMO, I wouldn't expect that our discussion be enough for it to warrant inclusion). In addition to trying to understand it myself because it seems to be an unusual phenomena, I was pushing to hopefully get a more concise definition in the article. Thanks for discussing it with me. Happy editing! -Freekee (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if there are more precise scientific criteria I think I haven't seen them in the cited sources. And even if we knew such criteria it would be sort of OR if we decide based on the criteria which feature is a stone run and which is not; that is, in any case we need sources saying that a particular feature is a stone run.  That's why I am hesitant about mentioning stone rivers in China, they are mentioned in single web sources I am not absolutely certain in what sense the term is used.  And I really wonder if there are stone runs elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere, in the mountains of South Europe (besides the Balkans), and in North America; and in the Southern hemisphere, in the mountains in the warmer regions of Africa, South America and possibly New Zealand (there seems to be some relevant research on the mountains of South Africa). Apcbg (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The features of stone runs, and how they are formed, are described in the Geology of the Falkland Islands, and more briefly in a tourist guide . They form under cold climate conditions; once the climate ameliorates, stone runs do not move. The image of Devil's Lake shows some fine scree deposits. An area of stone runs does occur in the Hickory Lake area of Pennsylvania
 * --Rockhead9 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Scottish references
Put a reference on Princes Street to this, and also Portal:Scotland/Did you know --MacRusgail (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite appropriate, and reminded me to put a 'See also' link in Vitosha. Apcbg (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria and the Falklands?
I'm still puzzled why this article on really deals with these two areas (APCBG is a Bulgarian who has visited the Falklands many times being part of it maybe), because neither has much in common with one another. Bulgaria is much more vegetated, warmer, drier etc, and not oceanic... The Falklands have more in common with certain other areas of the world than Bulgaria, and Bulgaria has more in common with certain other places, than the Falklands when it comes to climate, geology etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stone run. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050311151149/http://www.park-vitosha.org/lang.php?lang=en to http://www.park-vitosha.org/lang.php?lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213153355/http://www.park-vitosha.org/main.php?act=map to http://www.park-vitosha.org/main.php?act=map

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)