Talk:Como Bluff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Wyoming, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wyoming.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Expert Needed

I wikified the link to the Dakota Formation in the article, but that same article claims: Clearly, then, these western sediments are equivalent to the Dakota Formation of the Great Plains, but are not the same strata. For this reason, the term Cloverly Formation has been expanded to include sediments formerly called Dakota Formation in Wyoming. So, should we be calling the formation the Dakota Formation, or the Cloverly Formation? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See the following publication from the Wyoming Geological Survey: http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/pubs/PIC/pic-27_b.pdf Page 9 has a cross section at Como Bluffs. On p. 8 it says: Como Bluffs is an eroded southeast - plunging anticline with a high-angle reverse fault on the northwestern flank (Figure 5) . The steep face of the bluffs is not visible from the dinosaur-bone cabin area. Viewed down the road, from the southwest, the bluffs form hogbacks capped by the south-dipping Muddy Sandstone (a sandstone unit that in some parts of Wyoming replaces the upper part of the Thermopolis Shale) and the conglomeratic sandstones of the Cloverly Formation. Anky-man 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)