Talk:Ripple marks

Ripples vs. Ripple Marks

After exploring the ripple marks entry, I would very much like to see the title and terminology changed from "ripple mark" to "ripple" to conform to modern usage. Although the two words are considered synonyms by some, the formal definition of the word (Jackson, 1997) indicates that tha the word "ripple" refers to the actual bedform and "ripple mark" for a surface that has a texture attributed to ripples. Using the word for the bedform would be preferable, because the terminology could then be parallel for all bedform entries: ripples, dunes, upper plane beds, antidunes, chutes and pools, etc. For example, there are dunes (bedform) and cross-beds (sedimentary structure), but no such thing as "dune marks."

The suggested change would bring the entry in line with the terminology used in:

• Jackson, J.A., 1997, Glossary of Geology (4th ed), American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA, 769 p.
• Prothero, D.R., and Schwab, F., 2004, Sedimentary Geology (2nd Ed.), Freeman, New York, 557 p.
• Boggs, S., 2006, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Ed.),Pearson, New York, 662 p.

Rygel, M.C. (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be OK with both, and the above explination, on the page. Qfl247 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with calling them ripples, as long as 'ripple mark' is retained as an alternative, as it's still used by some geologists (Pettijohn et al. Sand and Sandstone 1987, Middleton Encyclopedia of sediments and sedimentary rocks 2003, Selley Applied Sedimentology 2000). We do also call things sole marks and tool marks, but then, when was geologic(al) terminology ever internally consistent? Mikenorton (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that using ripple marks as an alternative is a perfect solution that acknowledges the diverse terminology in the literature Rygel, M.C. (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)