File talk:Kuivalohed sinisavis.jpg

Cambrian clay?

The English description of the image says: “clay of the Lontova Formation of early Cambrian”, suggesting (probably not intentionally) that the mud cracks are of Cambrian age as well. The mud cracks, however, do not look like fossil mudcracks to me at all. I suspect that “clay of the Lontova Formation” actually refers to clay particles derived from nearby outcrop of clay-rich rocks of the Lontova Formation. If so, the description should be altered accordingly to avoid confusion. Also, the category tag Cambrian should be removed. --Gretarsson (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the cracks are contemporary of course. Feel free to improve the wording. But why do you think this isn't the original Cambrian outcrop? I don't know the exact place, but likely this photo was taken at the bottom of a clay pit. 193.40.10.181 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I’m quite sure that this photo has been taken in a clay pit or near a natural exposure of Cambrian claystones. However, what we see in the image is very likely to be a modern (only a few days old) „deposit“ derived from clay particles that have washed out ot the pit walls by rain and deposited in a puddle or pool at the bottom of the clay pit (as suggested by the smooth surface of the clay polygons). After the water has gone, the mudcracks formed. Hence, the image must not be categorized as „Cambrian“, regardless of the photo being taken in a clay pit of Cambrian rocks. Also the category Geology of Estonia should be removed since modern mudcracks can be found anywhere in the world being nothing characteristic for the Estonian geology. --Gretarsson (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC), edited by --Gretarsson (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)