Evaluating geological heritage: correspondence on Ruban, D.A. ‘Quantification of geodiversity and its loss’ (PGA, 2010, 121(3): 326-333)

This article comments on the recent paper in this journal by Ruban (2010) which presented a simple quantitative scheme for the calculation of landscape geodiversity and its application to evaluating geodiversity between different locations. This comment article highlights some conceptual and methodological issues in the set-up and application of Ruban's scheme, and suggests that geodiversity as a measure can only be meaningful if it is set within a wider context of landscape and geological conservation and management. Some examples of conservation strategies in Great Britain are described in order to illustrate this wider context.     

Reply to discussion of Jamaican cenozoic ichnology: review and prospectus: (v. 50, p. 364–382)

Mitchell and Ramsook comment on the lithostratigraphic assignment of Jamaican Cenozoic ichnofossils discussed in Donovan et al. They argue that the Paleogene Richmond Formation should be subdivided to produce a ‘Moore Town formation’ in eastern Jamaica, but the latter remains undefined as a lithostratigraphic unit and no new lithostratigraphic evidence is produced to support their supposition. Further, their use of a flawed table of trace fossil distributions does not support their thesis. The distribution of trace fossils in the White Limestone Group presented by Donovan et al. follows the lithostratigraphic scheme that was current at the time that the research was originally undertaken in the early 2000s. Yet, whatever lithostratigraphic scheme is utilised for the island, it is apparent that the more accurate data is provided by the biostratigraphy of the larger benthic foraminifers. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.