全国水文工作视频会议在北京召开

<正>2013年3月26日,全国水文工作视频会议在北京召开。会议总结了2012年全国水文工作,分析面临的形势,部署2013年水文工作。水利部副部长刘宁出席会议并讲话。刘宁首先代表部党组和陈雷部长,向全国水文系统的广大干部职工表示衷心的感谢和诚挚的慰问。他指出,2012年水文工作成效显著,水情测报预报工作     

全国水文工作会议在京召开

本刊讯１９９９年１１月２５日～２７日,全国水文工作会议在北京召开。汪恕诚部长参加会议并发表了重要讲话,周文智副部长做了工作报告。国家计委。财政部。中编办、中国气象局的有关领导出席会议并讲了话,部内各司局和国家防办的有关人员也出席了会议。与会代表包括各省。自治区、直辖市水利厅（局）和流域机构的主管领导及各地水文机构的主要负责人。本次会议是水利部水文局成立以后由水利部主持召开的一次高规格的工作会议。汪恕诚部长在讲话中首先从跨世纪水利发展的战略高度,从工、程水利向资源水利转变的角度提出,要转变人们对水…     

2005年全国水文工作会议在云南昆明召开

2005年3月31日至4月1日，全国水文工作会议在云南省昆明市召开。水利部副部长鄂竞平出席会议并作了题为《树立和落实科学发展观全面提高水文支撑能力》的讲话，云南省副省长孔垂柱出席会议并致辞。出席本次会议的代表有国家发改委农经司副司长高俊才、财政部农业司副司长曹广生、水利部机关有关司局、部分流域机构和省水利厅领导、各流域机构和各省、自治区、     

全国水文工作座谈会代表向汪部长提建议

本刊讯2000年12月27日，在全国水文工作座谈会代表发言时，安徽省水文局局长贺泽群恳请汪恕诚部长在即将召开的全国水利厅局长会议上能谈一谈水文工作，再次强调（1999年11月汪部长在全国水文工作会议上强调过）各省、自治区、直辖市水行政主管部门和各流域机构要加强对水文工作的领导，切实发挥水文部门在解决我国洪涝灾害、水资源不足和水环境恶化三大水问题中的作用，不要另起炉灶、另设机构，搞重复建设！他的这一建议，得到了与会代表的一致认同。据悉，代表们的这一建议，水利部网站和水利部水文局网站及时进行了报道。全国水文工作座…     

全国国土资源工作会议胜利闭幕

1月7日～8日,全国国土资源工作会议在京隆重召开。大会总结2011年国土资源工作取得的成绩,分析研判今年工作面临的形势,对2012年工作进行整体部署,同时提出了不断提高国土资源工作能力水平的新思路。8日下午,全国国土资源工作会议第二次全体会议（闭幕会议）召开。国土资源部部长、党组书记、国家土地总督察徐绍史主持会议并讲话,他强调,     

松辽流域水文情报预报工作座谈会在长春召开

松辽委于1987年5月6～8日在长春首次召开了松辽流域水文情报预报工作座谈会。会议传达了李鹏副总理在中央防汛总指部召开的防汛汇报会上的讲话和钱正英部长就部分省市防汛汇报会情况向国务院所作的汇报提纲。与会代表交流了水情工作的情况和经验,并表示要立足于今年汛期来大水,充分做好水文情报预报的各项准备工作。     

全国水文科技情报网工作会议在西安市召开

全国水文科技情报网在网长单位的主持下,于1987年10月16～20日在西安市召开了全网工作会议。会议回顾了建网十年来为发展水文水资源科技和国民经济建设提供水文科技信息的各项工作;总结交流了搞好水文科技情报的经验;对一批先进网员单位和积极分子进行了表彰。与会代表认为,钱正英部长为建网十周年的题词“做好水文情报工作,为水文现代化服务”,为全     

2006年水文标准化工作座谈会召开

为了贯彻落实2006年10月8日召开的“《水利标准体系表》修订工作部长办公会议”精神,提出近年来水文技术标准的制修订计划,水利部水文局于2006年12月26日～27日,在北京召开了全国水文标准化工作座谈会。中国水利学会标准化部、部分流域机构、省(自治区、直辖市)、有关高校、科研单位以及水利部水文局有关业务处的领导和代表等,共32人参加了会议。会议由水利部水文局科教处章树安处长主持。     

全国水文工作会议在长沙召开

全国水文工作会议在长沙召开为进一步贯彻落实党的十五大和九届人大一次会议精神,总结交流两年来水文改革的经验,表彰全国水文系统先进集体和先进个人,部署今后的水文工作任务,水利部于１９９８年４月１７～１９日在长沙市召开了全国水文工作会议。参加会议的有各省、...     

全国水文站队结合工作会议在郑州市召开

1991年12月10～14日,水利部在郑州市召开了全国水文站队结合工作会议,参加会议的有各省、自治区、直辖市和流域机构水文部门的负责同志和规划设计、高等院校、科研单位以及水文仪器生产厂家的代表共85人。水利部王守强副部长因有要事未能参加会议,由水文司副司长程渭钧同志主持会议,并宣读了王副部长的书面讲话。水文司司长卢九渊同志作了     

Deinocephalians of the U.S.S.R.

The deinocephalian pelvic girdle, of general pelycosaurian structure, is useful in systematic diagnosis. In primitive Russian deinocephalians, two contrasting pelvic patterns are recognized, one light, thin-walled, narrow, and of V-shaped cross-section, and the other massive, thick-walled, wide, and of U-shaped cross-section. The former is characteristic of two families of lightly- built, mobile land carnivores, the Eotitanosuchidae and the Brithopodidae. The Eotitanosuchidae are more primitive and pelycosaur-like, while the Brithopodidae show more variation, and specializations of large size, shallower acetabulum (related to mobility?), and re-enforcement of a weak pubic symphysis by additional processes. The massive type of pelvis characterizes large, heavily built herbivorous animals of the family Estemmenosuchidae. In general pelvic structure, the Estemmenosuchidae resemble the South African anteosaurs and tapinocephalians and the Russian tapinocephalians. In detail, however, they show a more primitive stage of evolution, overlaid by characteristic specializations which relate them more closely to the advanced Russian forms than to those of South Africa. Three new genera are erected, Biarmosaurus, fam. Eotitanosuchidae; Chthomaloporus, fam. Brithopodidae; and Molybdopygus, fam. Estemmenosuchidae. One specimen formerly referred to Deuterosaurus Yefremov 1954, and five formerly included in the type of Brithopus Yefremov 1954 are referred to Molybdopygus. The more primitive deinocephalians are from Yezhovo in the Ocher District, Perm Province, while more advanced forms are from Isheyevo, in Tataria, where-therocephalians and other South African elements are also found. It is therefore concluded that the Ochersk beds are older than those of Isheyevo and must be dated to zone I of Yefremov's system. — N. Hotton III.     

Precambrian tillite rocks of U.S.S.R.

Detailed regional studies and the author' personal observations on tillite-like rocks in Siberia and Ural suggest that pseudo-tillites, only too common in subaqueous landslide formations, were often mistaken for tillites or tillite-like rocks, because of their resemblance to fossil moraines. --V. P. Sokoloff.     

Eozoic complexes of the U.S.S.R.

Soviet geologists consider the Precambrian to be divided into two groups — Archaean and Proterozoic; but such a division is unsatisfactory. A major unconformity separates Proterozoic volcanic and sedimentary formations from an underlying sequence that contains two supergroups of supercrustal formations. The oldest of these is unanimously considered to be Archaean. Rocks of that supergroup play an essential part in the composition of the Baltic, Ukrainian, Aldan and Anabar Shields and of the ancient fold belts of the East-European and Siberian platforms.Distinctive features in the composition, tectonic structure, metamorphism and metallogeny of Archaean complexes lead to the conclusion that they were formed in specifically mobile areas, different from geosynclinal areas.The other supergroup of high-grade metamorphic rocks has no clear place in the accepted two-fold stratigraphic scheme of the Precambrian, and it is considered sometimes to be Archaean and sometimes to be Early Proterozoic. We propose restoring the forgotten name “Eozoic” for that supergroup. Eozoic complexes are characterized by peculiarities of composition and inner structure, which signify changes in the tectonic regime of the earth at the lower and upper boundaries of the Eozoic Supergroup. These peculiarities give grounds for distinguishing the Eozoic Supergroup as an independent stratigraphic division.The Stanovoy Complex of the southern part of the Aldan Shield is a stratotype for the Eozoic Supergroup. Many well-known stratigraphic subdivisions of the Siberian Platform (e.g., the Eniseiskaya, the Birusinskaya series and others), the Taratash Complex of the Urals, the Goranskaya and Shahdarinskaya series of the South-West Pamir, the Tikitch complex and Aulskaya series of the Ukrainian Shield, and in part the Belomorsky Complex of the Baltic Shield, as well as some others, are also Eozoic.The Eozoic complexes are characterized by the following specific features: only some supercrustal formations are typical for them; the small number of rock types which have a total thickness about 5–6 km; relatively monotonous mineral composition of the rocks; variable quantitative ratios of rocks; absence of contrasting marker beds; regional metamorphism and ultrametamorphism in the amphibolite facies; wide development of ultrametamorphic granitoids and migmatites; distinct tectonic differentiations of the basin of sedimentation.Dates determined by isotopic analyses, which mostly reflect the metamorphism of the deposits, fall predominantly in the range 2600–3100 Ma.     

In remembrance of Prof. PhD Dr. h.c. Wolfgang H. Berger

International Journal of Earth Sciences -     

Development of geological research in U.S.S.R Academy of Sciences and U.S.S.R. Ministry of Geology and Mineral Reserves

On October 12, 1962, a joint session of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences and the Collegium of the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Geology and Mineral Reserves adopted a resolution “On the present state of the geological sciences in the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences and the U. S. S. R. Ministry of Geology and Mineral Reserves and their prospects for the future.” Important contributions of Russian geologists are acknowledged, but attention is drawn to many shortcomings. Future goals of geological study and work are given in detail. Twenty-one lines of research to be concentrated on are given, covering all phases of geology, geophysics, and geochemistry. In discussing the failings of the geological profession in Russia, it is of interest to note the following comment: “Geological research in other countries is still insufficiently studied and applied, and we are not making adequate use of geologic information from abroad.” The list of the Russian geologists' shortcomings sounds vaguely familiar. —J. R. Hayes     

Geologic factors of distribution of mineral deposits in eastern U.S.S.R.

The Pacific Mobile belt is differentiated into an outer (continental) zone of predominantly Mesozoic folding (Verkhoyansk -Chukotka, Mongolo-Okhotsk, and Sikhote-Alin folded provinces) and an inner oceanic zone of Cenozoic folding, adjacent to mobile provinces of the "island arc" type (Sakhalin, the Kuriles, Kamchatka). These zones are separated by the East-Asian volcanic belt associated with a fault system which cuts off the older Mesozoic Verkhoyansk-Chukotka and Sikhote- Alin structures. Two important mineralization epochs are evident - Sino-Cambrian and late Mesozoic- Cenozoic. The Mesozoic-Cenozoic mineralization epoch exhibits a definite tendency for “rejuvenation” of the mineralization processes, going away from the continent and toward the Pacific trough, from late Jurassic in the eastern Trans-Baykal region and parts of the northeast to Neogene in the province of the Okhotsk geosynclines. An outstanding feature of endogeneous mineralization in this region is the linear arrangement of the ore zones determined by a system of major magma-controlling and other faults.—C. E. Sears