text:
Neuroethology

Neuroethology is the evolutionary and comparative approach to the study of animal behavior and its underlying mechanistic control by the nervous system. It is an interdisciplinary science that combines both neuroscience (study of the nervous system) and ethology (study of animal behavior in natural conditions). A central theme of neuroethology, which differentiates it from other branches of neuroscience, is its focus on behaviors that have been favored by natural selection (e.g., finding mates, navigation, locomotion, and predator avoidance) rather than on behaviors that are specific to a particular disease state or laboratory experiment.

Neuroethologists hope to uncover general principles of the nervous system from the study of animals with exaggerated or specialized behaviors. They endeavor to understand how the nervous system translates biologically relevant stimuli into natural behavior. For example, many bats are capable of echolocation which is used for prey capture and navigation. The auditory system of bats is often cited as an example for how acoustic properties of sounds can be converted into a sensory map of behaviorally relevant features of sounds.

Philosophy
Neuroethology is an integrative approach to the study of animal behavior that draws upon several disciplines. Its approach stems from the theory that animals' nervous systems have evolved to address problems of sensing and acting in certain environmental niches and that their nervous systems are best understood in the context of the problems they have evolved to solve. In accordance with Krogh's principle, neuroethologists often study animals that are "specialists" in the behavior the researcher wishes to study e.g. honeybees and social behavior, bat echolocation, owl sound localization, etc.

The scope of neuroethological inquiry might be summarized by Jörg-Peter Ewert, a pioneer of neuroethology, when he considers the types of questions central to neuroethology in his 1980 introductory text to the field:

 * 1) How are stimuli detected by an organism?
 * 2) How are environmental stimuli in the external world represented in the nervous system?
 * 3) How is information about a stimulus acquired, stored and recalled by the nervous system?
 * 4) How is a behavioral pattern encoded by neural networks?
 * 5) How is behavior coordinated and controlled by the nervous system?
 * 6) How can the ontogenetic development of behavior be related to neural mechanisms?

Often central to addressing questions in neuroethology are comparative methodologies, drawing upon knowledge about related organisms' nervous systems, anatomies, life histories, behaviors and environmental niches. While it is not unusual for many types of neurobiology experiments to give rise to behavioral questions, many neuroethologists often begin their research programs by observing a species' behavior in its natural environment. Other approaches to understanding nervous systems include the systems identification approach, popular in engineering. The idea is to stimulate the system using a non-natural stimulus with certain properties. The system's response to the stimulus may be used to analyze the operation of the system. Such an approach is useful for linear systems, but the nervous system is notoriously nonlinear, and neuroethologists argue that such an approach is limited. This argument is supported by experiments in the auditory system, which show that neural responses to complex sounds, like social calls, can not be predicted by the knowledge gained from studying the responses due to pure tones (one of the non-natural stimuli favored by auditory neurophysiologists). This is because of the non-linearity of the system.

Modern neuroethology is largely influenced by the research techniques used. Neural approaches are necessarily very diverse, as is evident through the variety of questions asked, measuring techniques used, relationships explored, and model systems employed. Techniques utilized since 1984 include the use of intracellular dyes, which make maps of identified neurons possible, and the use of brain slices, which bring vertebrate brains into better observation through intracellular electrodes (Hoyle 1984). Currently, other fields toward which neuroethology may be headed include computational neuroscience, molecular genetics, neuroendocrinology and epigenetics. The existing field of neural modeling may also expand into neuroethological terrain, due to its practical uses in robotics. In all this, neuroethologists must use the right level of simplicity to effectively guide research towards accomplishing the goals of neuroethology.

Critics of neuroethology might consider it a branch of neuroscience concerned with 'animal trivia'. Though neuroethological subjects tend not to be traditional neurobiological model systems (i.e. Drosophila, C. elegans, or Danio rerio), neuroethological approaches emphasizing comparative methods have uncovered many concepts central to neuroscience as a whole, such as lateral inhibition, coincidence detection, and sensory maps. The discipline of neuroethology has also discovered and explained the only vertebrate behavior for which the entire neural circuit has been described: the electric fish jamming avoidance response. Beyond its conceptual contributions, neuroethology makes indirect contributions to advancing human health. By understanding simpler nervous systems, many clinicians have used concepts uncovered by neuroethology and other branches of neuroscience to develop treatments for devastating human diseases.

History
Neuroethology owes part of its existence to the establishment of ethology as a unique discipline within zoology. Although animal behavior had been studied since the time of Aristotle (384–342 BC), it was not until the early twentieth century that ethology finally became distinguished from natural science (a strictly descriptive field) and ecology. The main catalysts behind this new distinction were the research and writings of Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen.

Konrad Lorenz was born in Austria in 1903, and is widely known for his contribution of the theory of fixed action patterns (FAPs): endogenous, instinctive behaviors involving a complex sequence of movements that are triggered ("released") by a certain kind of stimulus. This sequence always proceeds to completion, even if the original stimulus is removed. It is also species-specific and performed by nearly all members. Lorenz constructed his famous "hydraulic model" to help illustrate this concept, as well as the concept of action specific energy, or drives.

Niko Tinbergen was born in the Netherlands in 1907 and worked closely with Lorenz in the development of the FAP theory; their studies focused on the egg retrieval response of nesting geese. Tinbergen performed extensive research on the releasing mechanisms of particular FAPs, and used the bill-pecking behavior of baby herring gulls as his model system. This led to the concept of the supernormal stimulus. Tinbergen is also well known for his four questions that he believed ethologists should be asking about any given animal behavior; among these is that of the mechanism of the behavior, on a physiological, neural and molecular level, and this question can be thought of in many regards as the keystone question in neuroethology. Tinbergen also emphasized the need for ethologists and neurophysiologists to work together in their studies, a unity that has become a reality in the field of neuroethology.

Unlike behaviorism, which studies animals' reactions to non-natural stimuli in artificial, laboratory conditions, ethology sought to categorize and analyze the natural behaviors of animals in a field setting. Similarly, neuroethology asks questions about the neural bases of naturally occurring behaviors, and seeks to mimic the natural context as much as possible in the laboratory.

Although the development of ethology as a distinct discipline was crucial to the advent of neuroethology, equally important was the development of a more comprehensive understanding of neuroscience. Contributors to this new understanding were the Spanish Neuroanatomist, Ramon y Cajal (born in 1852), and physiologists Charles Sherrington, Edgar Adrian, Alan Hodgkin, and Andrew Huxley. Charles Sherrington, who was born in Great Britain in 1857, is famous for his work on the nerve synapse as the site of transmission of nerve impulses, and for his work on reflexes in the spinal cord. His research also led him to hypothesize that every muscular activation is coupled to an inhibition of the opposing muscle. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in 1932 along with Lord Edgar Adrian who made the first physiological recordings of neural activity from single nerve fibers.

Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley (born 1914 and 1917, respectively, in Great Britain), are known for their collaborative effort to understand the production of action potentials in the giant axons of squid. The pair also proposed the existence of ion channels to facilitate action potential initiation, and were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1963 for their efforts.

As a result of this pioneering research, many scientists then sought to connect the physiological aspects of the nervous and sensory systems to specific behaviors. These scientists – Karl von Frisch, Erich von Holst, and Theodore Bullock – are frequently referred to as the "fathers" of neuroethology. Neuroethology did not really come into its own, though, until the 1970s and 1980s, when new, sophisticated experimental methods allowed researchers such as Masakazu Konishi, Walter Heiligenberg, Jörg-Peter Ewert, and others to study the neural circuits underlying verifiable behavior.

Modern neuroethology
The International Society for Neuroethology represents the present discipline of neuroethology, which was founded on the occasion of the NATO-Advanced Study Institute "Advances in Vertebrate Neuroethology" (August 13–24, 1981) organized by J.-P. Ewert, D.J. Ingle and R.R. Capranica, held at the University of Kassel in Hofgeismar, Germany (cf. report Trends in Neurosci. 5:141-143,1982). Its first president was Theodore H. Bullock. The society has met every three years since its first meeting in Tokyo in 1986.

Its membership draws from many research programs around the world; many of its members are students and faculty members from medical schools and neurobiology departments from various universities. Modern advances in neurophysiology techniques have enabled more exacting approaches in an ever-increasing number of animal systems, as size limitations are being dramatically overcome. Survey of the most recent (2007) congress of the ISN meeting symposia topics gives some idea of the field's breadth:

 * Comparative aspects of spatial memory (rodents, birds, humans, bats)
 * Influences of higher processing centers in active sensing (primates, owls, electric fish, rodents, frogs)
 * Animal signaling plasticity over many time scales (electric fish, frogs, birds)
 * Song production and learning in passerine birds
 * Primate sociality
 * Optimal function of sensory systems (flies, moths, frogs, fish)
 * Neuronal complexity in behavior (insects, computational)
 * Contributions of genes to behavior (Drosophila, honeybees, zebrafish)
 * Eye and head movement (crustaceans, humans, robots)
 * Hormonal actions in brain and behavior (rodents, primates, fish, frogs, and birds)
 * Cognition in insects (honeybee)

Application to technology
Neuroethology can help create advancements in technology through an advanced understanding of animal behavior. Model systems were generalized from the study of simple and related animals to humans. For example, the neuronal cortical space map discovered in bats, a specialized champion of hearing and navigating, elucidated the concept of a computational space map. In addition, the discovery of the space map in the barn owl led to the first neuronal example of the Jeffress model. This understanding is translatable to understanding spatial localization in humans, a mammalian relative of the bat. Today, knowledge learned from neuroethology are being applied in new technologies. For example, Randall Beer and his colleagues used algorithms learned from insect walking behavior to create robots designed to walk on uneven surfaces (Beer et al.). Neuroethology and technology contribute to one another bidirectionally.

Neuroethologists seek to understand the neural basis of a behavior as it would occur in an animal's natural environment but the techniques for neurophysiological analysis are lab-based, and cannot be performed in the field setting. This dichotomy between field and lab studies poses a challenge for neuroethology. From the neurophysiology perspective, experiments must be designed for controls and objective rigor, which contrasts with the ethology perspective – that the experiment be applicable to the animal's natural condition, which is uncontrolled, or subject to the dynamics of the environment. An early example of this is when Walter Rudolf Hess developed focal brain stimulation technique to examine a cat's brain controls of vegetative functions in addition to other behaviors. Even though this was a breakthrough in technological abilities and technique, it was not used by many neuroethologists originally because it compromised a cat's natural state, and, therefore, in their minds, devalued the experiments' relevance to real situations.

When intellectual obstacles like this were overcome, it led to a golden age of neuroethology, by focusing on simple and robust forms of behavior, and by applying modern neurobiological methods to explore the entire chain of sensory and neural mechanisms underlying these behaviors (Zupanc 2004). New technology allows neuroethologists to attach electrodes to even very sensitive parts of an animal such as its brain while it interacts with its environment. The founders of neuroethology ushered this understanding and incorporated technology and creative experimental design. Since then even indirect technological advancements such as battery-powered and waterproofed instruments have allowed neuroethologists to mimic natural conditions in the lab while they study behaviors objectively. In addition, the electronics required for amplifying neural signals and for transmitting them over a certain distance have enabled neuroscientists to record from behaving animals performing activities in naturalistic environments. Emerging technologies can complement neuroethology, augmenting the feasibility of this valuable perspective of natural neurophysiology.

Another challenge, and perhaps part of the beauty of neuroethology, is experimental design. The value of neuroethological criteria speak to the reliability of these experiments, because these discoveries represent behavior in the environments in which they evolved. Neuroethologists foresee future advancements through using new technologies and techniques, such as computational neuroscience, neuroendocrinology, and molecular genetics that mimic natural environments.

Jamming avoidance response
In 1963, Akira Watanabe and Kimihisa Takeda discovered the behavior of the jamming avoidance response in the knifefish Eigenmannia sp. In collaboration with T.H. Bullock and colleagues, the behavior was further developed. Finally, the work of W. Heiligenberg expanded it into a full neuroethology study by examining the series of neural connections that led to the behavior. Eigenmannia is a weakly electric fish that can generate electric discharges through electrocytes in its tail. Furthermore, it has the ability to electrolocate by analyzing the perturbations in its electric field. However, when the frequency of a neighboring fish's current is very close (less than 20 Hz difference) to that of its own, the fish will avoid having their signals interfere through a behavior known as Jamming Avoidance Response. If the neighbor's frequency is higher than the fish's discharge frequency, the fish will lower its frequency, and vice versa. The sign of the frequency difference is determined by analyzing the "beat" pattern of the incoming interference which consists of the combination of the two fish's discharge patterns.

Neuroethologists performed several experiments under Eigenmannia's natural conditions to study how it determined the sign of the frequency difference. They manipulated the fish's discharge by injecting it with curare which prevented its natural electric organ from discharging. Then, an electrode was placed in its mouth and another was placed at the tip of its tail. Likewise, the neighboring fish's electric field was mimicked using another set of electrodes. This experiment allowed neuroethologists to manipulate different discharge frequencies and observe the fish's behavior. From the results, they were able to conclude that the electric field frequency, rather than an internal frequency measure, was used as a reference. This experiment is significant in that not only does it reveal a crucial neural mechanism underlying the behavior but also demonstrates the value neuroethologists place on studying animals in their natural habitats.

Feature analysis in toad vision
The recognition of prey and predators in the toad was first studied in depth by Jörg-Peter Ewert (Ewert 1974; see also 2004). He began by observing the natural prey-catching behavior of the common toad (Bufo bufo) and concluded that the animal followed a sequence that consisted of stalking, binocular fixation, snapping, swallowing and mouth-wiping. However, initially, the toad's actions were dependent on specific features of the sensory stimulus: whether it demonstrated worm or anti-worm configurations. It was observed that the worm configuration, which signaled prey, was initiated by movement along the object's long axis, whereas anti-worm configuration, which signaled predator, was due to movement along the short axis. (Zupanc 2004).

Ewert and coworkers adopted a variety of methods to study the predator versus prey behavior response. They conducted recording experiments where they inserted electrodes into the brain, while the toad was presented with worm or anti-worm stimuli. This technique was repeated at different levels of the visual system and also allowed feature detectors to be identified. In focus was the discovery of prey-selective neurons in the optic tectum, whose axons could be traced towards the snapping pattern generating cells in the hypoglossal nucleus. The discharge patterns of prey-selective tectal neurons in response to prey objects – in freely moving toads – "predicted" prey-catching reactions such as snapping. Another approach, called stimulation experiment, was carried out in freely moving toads. Focal electrical stimuli were applied to different regions of the brain, and the toad's response was observed. When the thalamic-pretectal region was stimulated, the toad exhibited escape responses, but when the tectum was stimulated in an area close to prey-selective neurons, the toad engaged in prey catching behavior (Carew 2000). Furthermore, neuroanatomical experiments were carried out where the toad's thalamic-pretectal/tectal connection was lesioned and the resulting deficit noted: the prey-selective properties were abolished both in the responses of prey-selective neurons and in the prey catching behavior. These and other experiments suggest that prey selectivity results from pretecto-tectal influences.

Ewert and coworkers showed in toads that there are stimulus-response mediating pathways that translate perception (of visual sign stimuli) into action (adequate behavioral responses). In addition there are modulatory loops that initiate, modify or specify this mediation (Ewert 2004). Regarding the latter, for example, the telencephalic caudal ventral striatum is involved in a loop gating the stimulus-response mediation in a manner of directed attention. The telencephalic ventral medial pallium („primordium hippocampi"), however, is involved in loops that either modify prey-selection due to associative learning or specify prey-selection due to non-associative learning, respectively.

Computational neuroethology
Computational neuroethology (CN or CNE ) is concerned with the computer modelling of the neural mechanisms underlying animal behaviors. Together with the term "artificial ethology," the term "computational neuroethology" was first published in literature by Achacoso and Yamamoto in the Spring of 1990, based on their pioneering work on the connectome of C. elegans in 1989, with further publications in 1992. Computational neuroethology was argued for in depth later in 1990 by Randall Beer and by Dave Cliff both of whom acknowledged the strong influence of Michael Arbib's Rana Computatrix computational model of neural mechanisms for visual guidance in frogs and toads.

CNE systems work within a closed-loop environment; that is, they perceive their (perhaps artificial) environment directly, rather than through human input, as is typical in AI systems. For example, Barlow et al. developed a time-dependent model for the retina of the horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus on a Connection Machine (Model CM-2). Instead of feeding the model retina with idealized input signals, they exposed the simulation to digitized video sequences made underwater, and compared its response with those of real animals.

Model systems

 * Bat echolocation – nocturnal flight navigation and prey capture; location of objects using echo returns of its own call
 * Oscine bird song – zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata), canary (Serinus canaria) and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys); song learning as a model for human speech development
 * Electric fish – navigation, communication, Jamming Avoidance Response (JAR), corollary discharge, expectation generators, and spike timing dependent plasticity
 * Barn owl auditory spatial map – nocturnal prey location and capture
 * Toad vision – discrimination of prey versus predator – Video "Image processing in the toad's visual system: behavior, brain function, artificial neuronal net"
 * Circadian rhythm – influence of various circadian controlled behaviors by the suprachiasmatic nucleus
 * Cricket song – mate attraction and corollary discharge
 * Fish Mauthner cells – C-start escape response and underwater directional hearing
 * Fly – Microscale directional hearing in Ormia ochracea, sex differences of the visual system in Bibionidae, and spatial navigation in chasing behavior of Fannia canicularis
 * Noctuid moths – ultrasound avoidance response to bat calls
 * Aplysia sea hares – learning and memory in startle response
 * Rat – spatial memory and navigation
 * Salmon homing – olfactory imprinting and thyroid hormones
 * Crayfish – escape and startle behaviors, aggression and formation of social hierarchies
 * Cichlid fish – aggression and attack behaviors
 * Honey bee – learning, navigation, vision, olfaction, flight, aggression, foraging
 * Monarch butterfly – navigational mechanisms
 * More Model Systems and Information

Textbooks

 * Sillar, K.T., Picton, L.P., Heitler, W.J. (2016) The Neuroethology of Predation and Escape. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
 * Zupanc, G.K.H. (2004) Behavioral Neurobiology an Integrative Approach. Oxford University Press, New York.
 * Carew, T.J. (2000) Behavioral Neurobiology: The Cellular Organization of Natural Behavior. Sinauer, Sunderland Mass.
 * Simmons, P., Young, D. (1999) Nerve Cells and Animal Behaviour. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York.
 * Simmons, P., Young, D. (2010) Nerve Cells and Animal Behaviour. Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York.
 * Camhi J. (1984) Neuroethology: Nerve Cells and the Natural Behavior of Animals. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland Mass.
 * Guthrie, D.M. (1980) Neuroethology: An Introduction. Wiley, New York.
 * Ewert, J.-P. (1980) Neuroethology: An Introduction to the Neurophysiological Fundamentals of Behaviour. Springer-Verlag, New York.
 * Ewert, J.-P. (1976) Neuroethologie: Einführung in die neurophysiologischen Grundlagen des Verhaltens. HT 181. Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, Berlin, New York.
 * Kandel, E.R. (1976) Cellular Basis of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Neurobiology. W.H. Freeman
 * Roeder, K.D. (1967) Nerve Cells and Insect Behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.
 * Marler, P., Hamilton, W.J. (1966) Mechanisms of Animal Behavior. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

Articles

 * Günther K. H. Zupanc (2010), Neuroethology, Scholarpedia, 5(10):5306.
 * Günther K. H. Zupanc (2010), Neuroethology, Scholarpedia, 5(10):5306.

title: Neuroethology


text:
Talk:Stratigraphy

Archaeological
Maybe move and merge Archaeological stratigraphy into Stratification (archeology) which basically covers the same content. With a see also link here. -Vsmith 16:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree. Archaeologists, in the US, anyway, commonly use the word "stratigraphy" to refer to the process of recording and interpreting strata, as well as using it colloquially as a noun to refer to both the physical phenomena being interpreted and the data resulting from that interpretation Where "stratification" is used, it is more likely to refer to the processes by which soil layers are deposited, and archaeological sites are formed.  I am more inclined to rework portions of the article to make it clear that "stratigraphy" is as key a concept to archaeology as it is to historical geology.  It should be possible to do that without diminishing the value of the article to students of the lithosphere.--Digthepast (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Seems to be a sloow discussion - or should I wait five years to respond? Seems things have changed a bit since then, but the archeology bit hardly at all. Vsmith (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong definition of Lithostratigraphy
Similar as in the actual wikipedia article about lithostratigraphy the article fails to define lithostratigraphy correctly. See the definition of the International Stratigraphy Guide: "A lithostratigraphic unit may consist of sedimentary, or igneous, or metamorphic rocks. Lithostratigraphic units are defined and recognized by observable physical features and not by their inferred age, the time span they represent, inferred geologic history, or manner of formation. The geographic extent of a lithostratigraphic unit is controlled entirely by the continuity and extent of its diagnostic lithologic features." (...) "Lithostratigraphic units are bodies of rocks, bedded or unbedded, that are defined and characterized on the basis of their lithologic properties and their stratigraphic relations. Lithostratigraphic units are the basic units of geologic mapping." A lithostratigraphic unit needs not to describe stratified rocks, nor do younger rocks need to be structurally above older rocks, nor must the rocks have been laid down horizontally, nor must the rocks be sediments at all. I would recommend either to include the "lithostratigraphy" article in here (with a correct definition) or to link here to a separate article "lithostratigraphy".

Cheers GeoJojo (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Magnetostratigraphy?
No mention here of magnetostratigraphy? See http://www.stratigraphy.org/magn.htm and Polarity chron. 165.189.91.148 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Correction" on superposition removed from article
Removed the following for discussion:
 * Correction. Superposition is a principle affirmed by Nicolas Stenon, not a law. It has been challenged as such by the experiments of Guy Berthaul published in Lithological and Mineral Resources a journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geology. For details see www.sedimentology.fr.

Maybe so, but we don't mess up the article with it. If the Law is to be changed to Principle - then we'll just change it. Discuss? Vsmith 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see: Talk:Law of superposition for a discussion of this, and that is the proper place for further discussion. Vsmith 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The following copied from my talk for broader discussion. Vsmith 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir,

The object is not to replace the term "law" by principle" but to draw attention to the historical situation whereby what was proposed as the "law" of Superposition (or more correctly as a principle) has been challenged by peer-reviewed scientific experiments in sedimentology published in the scientfic literature.

What was proposed as a principle of stratigraphy has been questioned by the scientific method. Should this fact not be reported?

Berthault

 * Hi, I am reviewing the papers you linked to. Seems to me we are off a notch or two though. The details of sedimentology do not in my experience invalidate Steno's laws. We are talking of two different things here, and must consider the historical frame in which Steno and the early workers developed their concepts. The Law of Superposition still is valid in the large picture. Of course when we look at cross bedding and channel deposition in detail we may see presumed inconsistencies, however, the laws of Steno apply in the over-all picture for strata at the large scale and I see no reason to propose that the relative age dating developed using the old principles is in any way invalidated simply because of local scour and fill and cross-bedding within a single stratum. I haven't finished reviewing your papers though, and may return to the subject later. Vsmith 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment of March 5 and I am glad you are reviewing the link I sent. As you will see the research combines laboratory experiments and paleohydraulic analyses in the field. So we are looking at the whole picture not a single stratum.

A law applies universally. One cannot refer to experimental facts as “inconsistencies”. The facts are founded on empirical data and one has to distinguish objectively where the law applies and where it doesn’t.

No one witnessed the stratification of rocks. Stratigraphic principles are founded on the rocks’ appearances. But Stenon’s reference was not to rocks; he wrote: “strata owe their existence to sediments in a fluid”. It was these words which led me do the laboratory experiments. I worked alone at first, and then with qualified engineers, using flumes in which sediments transported by a current at varying velocities could be observed. In the deposit, all the characters of stratification could be seen; graded bedding, surface erosion, crusty surfaces and bedding planes due to desiccation. The stratification consisting of superposed strata prograded in the direction of the current. In such circumstances there was no question of the principles applying, nor was there any element of “inconsistencies”.

The question was to know how these experimental results could be applied to sedimentary rocks. It should be recalled that the results were coherent with Walther’s law, i.e. with modern sequential stratigraphy where the “systems tracts” are recognized as diachronic. Therefore, the results could be applied to transgressive and regressive phases in a series.

You will see on the website, I give as an example the Tonto Group (Lithology and Mineral Resources October 2004) using Rubin’s data concerning the relation between velocity of current and size of particles. The determination of the paleohydraulic conditions upon which sedimentary cinematic and time of deposit depend requires ascertaining experimentally the erosion of rocks in a powerful current. For this purpose I have just signed an experimental research contract with the Russian Institute of Hydraulics in St Petersburg. The results will enable a team of Russian sedimentologists with whom I operate to determine with greater accuracy the paleohydraulic conditions.

The problem has been that Stenon interpreted his observations to fit what he saw. Not having the laboratory equipment he was unable to test them and they looked so eminently reasonable that nobody else did either.

Guy Berthault (March 16, 2007)

 * Hi - sorry for the delay in responding - partly got sidetracked and partly waiting for someone else to join the discussion. Anyway:
 * First, your research seems to more properly apply to sedimentology than to stratigraphy. The details of fluvial transport are sedimentary processes as evidenced by the reference page you listed.
 * Steno's principles or laws, whichever, are still valid for the large picture for which they were developed. Steno's work must be considered in view of the timeframe in which he worked - and to criticise based on our understanding a couple hundred years later seems a bit off track.
 * The law or principle of superposition is still valid and I see nothing in your work that invalidates it. Younger sediments are deposited on top of older sediments, no question that I see. Structural events such as the development of landslide deposits and turbidites don't change that and neither do minor fluvial current features.
 * The principle of horizontality also remains valid for the large scale of geologic formations. Any geologist also knows that on the more detailed scale of fluvial, deltaic and wind deposits; crossbedding and other current features show a relatively small scale departure from horizontality. However, for the usage and context the principle was developed it remains valid and most larger scale departures from horizontality are structurally controlled (such as deposition in a subsiding basin).
 * In sum, I find your work interesting, but don't see it as a valid refutation of Steno's laws or particularly relevant to the stratigraphy article. Also please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place to "publish" your ongoing research. Vsmith 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You say my work applies to sedimentology, but as our experiments are all concerned with the formation of strata I am unable to agree with you: 1.	they show that lamination is a mechanical property of heterogranular mixtures instead of successive layers. 2.	The experiments in Colorado show that variation of current velocity is responsible for stratified beds which prograde in the direction of the current; they do not succeed each other. 3.	Temporary variations of velocity create erosion surfaces. 4.	Desiccation produces bed plane partings.

Overall, the current is really the agent of stratification of aqueous deposits. This knowledge is a major tool in paleohydraulic analysis of sedimentary rocks and particularly in determining the time taken for them to form. To me as an experimenter, this provides a much more viable approach than chronostratigraphy.

My second Russian article explaining the formation of the Tonto Group shows the application of the experiments to the large picture and how they modify the standard stratigraphic interpretation. Insufficient data on erosion, however, prevented me from giving a more accurate interpretation of the boulders at the base of the Tapeats Sandstone eroded by a massive current.

I think Wikipedia readers will recognise that this research challenging the principles of superposition represents new knowledge and merits a place in an encyclopedia.

Guy Berthault

Hello,

It's now a month since I wrote. Your further coments would be appreciated - Guy Berthault

 * The larger context of Dr. Berthault’s “research” can be seen in

 * Berthault, G, 2009, Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado Rover): Sedimentology of the Grand Stratigraphy, The Kolbe Center for the study of Creation.

 * The “Contact Us” web page states: “Kolbe Center Mission Statement - The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is a Roman Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to glorifying the Most Holy Trinity by proclaiming the truth.”

 * and Berthault, G, 1998, Genesis and historical geology A personal perspective. CEN Technical Journal. vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 213–217

 * Also, look at:

 * Henke, K. R., nd, Berthault's "Stratigraphy": Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawman Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles. No Answers in Genesis!

 * MacAndrew, A., nd The Curious Case of the One-Man Band: The work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris? Alec’s Evolution Pages. 72.203.142.175 (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed References
I have added 29 possibly useful references mainly on books dealing with stratigraphy. They are sorted by Harvard (Name and Date) order at the end of the article in a section "Proposed References". Please, could you review and use these references by inserting them at the right place in the article. These references are already made with the "Cite book" template (see guideline in: WP:CITET) and will be correctly auto-formatted and also automatically recognised by Zotero (bibliographic extension of Firefox). In advance, many thanks. Shinkolobwe 23:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

List moved here for consideration - such a proposed list not appropriate in the article. Here for article improvement. Vsmith 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

References have been collected and added here. Please, could you review them and insert them at the appropriate place in the body of the text. Thanks

 * In my opinion, most of these are just various introductory (or advanced) textbooks, and unless something specific is referenced in the text of the article virtually all of them do not belong in the article as references. A few, such as No. 2, No. 25, No. 27, are either too advanced or too specialized to belong here, again unless there is information in them that is used specifically to support something (something specific) in the text. In such a case, citations to page numbers would probably be appropriate. Cheers Geologyguy 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tectonostratigraphy
Have added this under 'see also' but imagine it could have a section devoted to it on this page. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Using stratigraphic terminology
This 2009 paper, available via a department of the Government of West Australia, may be of use/interest - https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Geological-Survey/Stratigraphy_How_to_use_strat_terminology.pdf So too this 2013 one hosted by the European Association of Science Editors - https://ease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2-11.pdf Geopersona (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Stratigraphy


text:
Paleozoology

Palaeozoology, also spelled as Paleozoology (Greek: παλαιόν, palaeon "old" and ζῷον, zoon "animal"), is the branch of paleontology, paleobiology, or zoology dealing with the recovery and identification of multicellular animal remains from geological (or even archeological) contexts, and the use of these fossils in the reconstruction of prehistoric environments and ancient ecosystems.

Definitive, macroscopic remains of these metazoans are found in the fossil record from the Ediacaran period of the Neoproterozoic era onwards, although they do not become common until the Late Devonian period in the latter half of the Paleozoic era.

Perhaps the best known macrofossils group is the dinosaurs. Other popularly known animal-derived macrofossils include trilobites, crustaceans, echinoderms, brachiopods, mollusks, bony fishes, sharks, Vertebrate teeth, and shells of numerous invertebrate groups. This is because hard organic parts, such as bones, teeth, and shells resist decay, and are the most commonly preserved and found animal fossils. Exclusively soft-bodied animals—such as jellyfish, flatworms, nematodes, and insects—are consequently rarely fossilized, as these groups do not produce hard organic parts.

Vertebrate paleozoology
Vertebrate paleozoology refers to the use of morphological, temporal, and stratigraphic data to map vertebrate history in evolutionary theory. Vertebrates are classified as a subphylum of Chordata, a phylum used to classify species adhering to a rod-shaped, flexible body type called a notochord. They differ from other phyla in that other phyla may have cartilage or cartilage-like tissues forming a sort of skeleton, but only vertebrates possess what we define as bone.

Classes of vertebrates listed in chronological order from oldest to most recent include heterostracans, osteostracans, coelolepid agnathans, acanthodians, osteichthyan fishes, chondrichthyan fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds. All vertebrates are studied under standard evolutionary generalizations of behavior and life process, although there is controversy over whether population can be accurately estimated from limited fossil resources.

Evolutionary origins of vertebrates as well as the phylum Chordata have not been scientifically determined. Many believe vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor of chordates and echinoderms. This belief is well supported by the prehistoric marine creature Amphioxus. Amphioxus does not possess bone, making it an invertebrate, but it has common features with vertebrates including a segmented body and a notochord. This could imply that Amphioxus is a transitional form between an early chordate, echinoderm or common ancestor, and vertebrates.

Quantitative paleozoology
Quantitative paleozoology is a process of taking a census of fossil types rather than inventory. They differ in that inventory refers to a detailed log of individual fossils, whereas census attempts to group individual fossils to tally the total number of a species. This information can be used to determine which species were most dominant and which had the largest population at a time period or in a geological region.

In the early 1930s, paleontologists Chester Stock and Hildegarde Howard devised special units for quantitative paleozoology and quantitative paleontology. The first unit used, Number of Identified Species (NISP), specified exact quantity of fossils from a specific species recorded. Stock and Howard determined this unit to be problematic for quantitative purposes as an excess of a small fossil—such as teeth—could exaggerate quantity of the species. There was also an amount of confusion as to whether bone fragments should be assembled and counted as one bone or tallied individually. Stock and Howard then devised the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI), which estimated the minimum number of animals needed to produce the fossils recorded. For example, if five scapulae from a species were found, it might be difficult to determine whether some of them were paired right and left on one individual or whether each came from a different individual, which could alter census, but it could be said that there must be at least three individuals to produce five scapulae. Three would thus be the MNI. In rare cases where enough of a collection of fossils can be assembled into individuals as to provide an accurate number of individuals, the unit used is Actual Number of Individuals, or ANI.

Another unit commonly used in quantitative paleozoology is biomass. Biomass is defined as the amount of tissue in an area or from a species. It is calculated by estimating an average weight based on similar modern species and multiplying it by the MNI. This yields an estimate of how much the entire population of a species may have weighed. Problems with this measurement include the difference in weight between youngsters and adults, seasonal weight changes due to diet and hibernation, and the difficulty of accurately estimating the weight of a creature with only a skeletal reference. It is also difficult to determine exact age of fossilized matter within a year or a decade, so a biomass might be grossly exaggerated or under exaggerated if the estimated time frame in which the fossils were alive is incorrect.

A similar measurement to biomass is meat weight. To determine meat weight, MNI is multiplied by the amount of meat an individual is thought to have provided, then multiplied by the percentage of that meat thought to be edible. This gives an estimate of "pounds of usable meat" per individual which might have been harvested by prehistoric hunters. For example, a male Wapiti has an average weight of 400 kg, and in a particular study, the MNI of Wapiti was found to be 10. This would create a biomass of 4,000 kg. If the amount of edible meat is estimated at 50 percent, this would result in a meat weight of 2,000 kg. The biggest problem with this method is the debate over "percent of usable meat." Different views on which parts of a species are edible and which are not as well as whether or not primitive butchers would have been able to access and prepare different parts have led to controversy.

Conservation biology
Paleozoological data is used in research concerning conservation biology. Conservation biology refers to biological study used for conservation, control, and preservation of various species and ecosystems. In this context, the paleozoological data used is obtained from recently deceased decomposing matter rather than prehistoric matter.

R. Lee Lyman, Professor and Chair Department of Anthropology at the University of Missouri, writes that paleozoological research can provide data such as extinction rates and causes and "benchmark" peaks and drops in population which can be used to predict future patterns and to design maximally effective methods of controlling these patterns. In addition, paleozoological data can be used to compare current to former population and distribution of a species.

title: Paleozoology


text:
User:ComplexZeta

Hello. My name is Simon Rubinstein-Salzedo. I am a first-year mathematics graduate student at Stanford University. My primary mathematical interest is algebraic number theory.

I am also interested in music. Specifically, I play the piano and the cello.

I also like to play chess.

title: User:ComplexZeta


text:
Dungeness nuclear power stations

The Dungeness nuclear power stations are a pair of non-operational nuclear power stations located on the Dungeness headland in the south of Kent, England.

Dungeness A is a legacy Magnox power station consisting of two 250MWe reactors which were connected to the National Grid in 1965 and reached its end of life in 2006.

Dungeness B is an advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) power station consisting of two 520MWe reactors, which began operation in 1983 and 1985. They were the first in a series of AGR reactors to be constructed across the UK. In March 2009, unexpected problems discovered during a maintenance shutdown on unit B21 resulted in the reactor remaining offline for nearly 18 months. In 2015, the plant received upgrades and was given a second ten-year life extension to 2028. In September 2018, as both units were shut down for a scheduled maintenance outage, EDF encountered "significant and ongoing technical challenges" which ultimately led to the announcement of its closure on 7 June 2021.

Dungeness A
Dungeness A is a legacy Magnox power station that was connected to the National Grid in 1965 and has reached the end of its life. It possessed two nuclear reactors producing 219MW of electricity each, with a total capacity of 438MW. The construction was undertaken by a consortium known as the Nuclear Power Group ('TNPG'). The reactors were supplied by TNPG and the turbines by C. A. Parsons & Co. There were originally four × 142.5MW turbo-alternators, these were later down-rated to 106MW machines. Steam pressure and temperature at the turbine stop valves was 535 psi and 391 C.

Electricity output
Electricity output from Dungeness A power station over the period 1966-84 was as follows. Dungeness A annual electricity output GWh. {"version":2,"width":500,"height":200,"data":[{"name":"table","values":[{"x":1966,"y":1088},{"x":1967,"y":3374},{"x":1968,"y":3638},{"x":1969,"y":3433},{"x":1970,"y":3558},{"x":1971,"y":3105},{"x":1972,"y":3326},{"x":1973,"y":3230},{"x":1974,"y":3207},{"x":1975,"y":3401},{"x":1976,"y":3341},{"x":1977,"y":2993},{"x":1978,"y":2763},{"x":1979,"y":2303},{"x":1980,"y":792},{"x":1981,"y":21},{"x":1982,"y":485},{"x":1983,"y":3084},{"x":1984,"y":2993}]}],"scales":[{"name":"x","type":"ordinal","range":"width","zero":false,"domain":{"data":"table","field":"x"}},{"name":"y","type":"linear","range":"height","nice":true,"domain":{"data":"table","field":"y"}}],"axes":[{"type":"x","scale":"x"},{"type":"y","scale":"y"}],"marks":[{"type":"rect","from":{"data":"table"},"properties":{"enter":{"x":{"scale":"x","field":"x"},"y":{"scale":"y","field":"y"},"y2":{"scale":"y","value":0},"fill":{"value":"steelblue"},"width":{"scale":"x","band":"true","offset":-1}}}}]} Nuclear fuel for Dungeness power stations can be delivered and removed via a crane loading facility at the end of the 9 mi Appledore-Lydd-Dungeness branch railway. This is connected to the Ashford to Hastings line via an east-facing junction located to the west of Appledore station. The close proximity of the Appledore-Lydd-Dungeness branch to the nuclear power stations allow for a more direct route to and from major fuel fabrication sites all whilst minimising the use of road convoys thus lowering traffic impact on nearby communities.

Closure and decommissioning
On 31 December 2006, Dungeness A ceased power generation after over 40 years of operation. Defuelling was completed in June 2012, with all fuel having been sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. After the site was declared fuel-free, demolition works accelerated beginning with the demolition of the turbine hall in June 2015. Similar to other legacy Magnox stations, the site will undergo decommissioning where radiologically contaminated equipment is removed and redundant structures demolished. Once complete, the reactor buildings will be re-cladded to ensure they are able to remain an effective barrier to the elements and the facility will enter a 'care and maintenance' stage.

The care and maintenance stage is part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) decommissioning strategy and spans an 80+ year period. This waiting period allows for radiation levels within the reactor core to decline and helps to facilitate a smoother demolition process. Dungeness A is due to enter the care and maintenance phase in 2027. Demolition of reactor buildings and final site clearance is planned for 2088 to 2098. The ongoing decommissioning process is being managed by Magnox Ltd, a subsidiary of the NDA.

Dungeness B
Dungeness B is an advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) power station consisting of two 1,496MWt reactors, which began operation in 1983 and 1985 respectively. Dungeness B was the first commercial scale AGR power station to be constructed. Its design was based on the much smaller Windscale AGR prototype, the WAGR. The £89million contract was awarded in August 1965 to Atomic Power Construction ('APC'), a consortium backed by Crompton Parkinson, Fairey Engineering, International Combustion and Richardsons Westgarth. The completion date was set as 1970.

During construction, many problems were encountered in scaling up the WAGR design. Problems with the construction of the pressure vessel liner had distorted it, so that the boilers, which were to fit in an annular space between the reactor and the pressure vessel, could not be installed, and the liner had to be partially dismantled and rebuilt. This work cost about £200,000, but there was a huge cost of financing an extra 18 unproductive months for a power station costing around £100million, of which 60% was already complete. Serious problems were also discovered with the design of the boilers, which had to withstand the pounding of hot carbon dioxide, pressurised to 600 psi and pumped around the reactor coolant circuit by massive gas circulators. As a consequence, the casings, hangers and tube supports all had to be redesigned. The cost of the modifications, and financing during the delays, caused severe financial pressures for the consortium and its backers, and in 1969 APC collapsed into administration.

The CEGB took over project management, imposed light penalties in order not to cripple Fairey and International Combustion, and appointed British Nuclear Design and Construction (BNDC) as main contractor. In 1971, problems with corrosion of mild steel components in the first generation Magnox reactors gave the designers cause for concern. The Dungeness B restraint couplings - mechanical linkages that held the graphite core in place whilst allowing it to expand and contract in response to temperature changes - were made of mild steel and could be subject to the same corrosion. It was decided to replace them with components made from a new material. In 1972, problems were found with the galvanised wire that was used to attach thermocouples to stainless steel boiler tubes. During heat treatment of the tubes at temperatures up to 1050 °C, the galvanising zinc diffused into the tubes and made them brittle. The cost had by then risen to £170million. By 1975, the CEGB was reporting that the power station would not be completed until 1977 and that its cost had risen to £280million. By 1979, the cost had risen further to £410million.

Reactor 1 first generated power on 3 April 1983, 13 years behind schedule and at a cost of £685million, four times the initial estimate in inflation-adjusted terms. The original construction consortium had collapsed.

As with the "A" station, the turbines were built by C.A. Parsons & Company and the station has two 660MWe turbo-alternator sets, producing a maximum output of 1,320MWe, though net output is 1,090MWe after the effects of house load, and downrating the reactor output due to corrosion and vibration concerns.

In 2005, the station's closure date was extended from 2008 by ten years, which would allow it to continue operating until 2018, 35 years after first power generation.

In March 2009, serious problems were found when Unit 21 was shut down for maintenance, and the reactor remained out of action for almost 18 months. On 24 November 2009, a small fire in the boiler annexe of Unit 22 caused the second reactor to be shut down as well. Subsequently, Unit 22 has been intermittently shut down for up to several months at a time. Unit 21 was restarted in August 2010. Unplanned shutdowns continued into 2011, with 21 down for repairs from November 2011 to March 2012.

In 2015, the plant was given another ten-year life extension, allowing an upgrade to control room computer systems and improved flood defences, taking the accounting closure date to 2028.

Electricity output
In 2015, Dungeness B produced 4.4TWh of energy. The operators claimed that this amounted to a saving of 3.4million tonnes of CO2.

Decommissioning
In September 2018, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) directed that EDF Energy carry out a reassessment of corrosion of safety-related concealed systems. Inspections showed that seismic restraints, pipework and storage vessels were found to be "corroded to an unacceptable condition", and that would have been the state when the reactor was operating. Remedial measures included the upgrading of more than 300 m of pipeline and of carbon dioxide storage vessels. The ONR classified this as a level 2 incident on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Dungeness B was initially expected to return to service in February 2019, later put back to 30 September 2019 to complete inspections. In August 2020, the shut down of units B21 and B22 was extended to December 2020 after being taken offline in September 2018.

On 7 June 2021, EDF announced that Dungeness B would not be restarted and would move into the defuelling phase immediately, once regulatory permissions are granted, citing "station-specific risks within some key components, including parts within the fuel assemblies" identified since September 2018.

EDF has estimated the cost of defuelling Dungeness B at £0.5–£1.0billion, with the process expected to take up to ten years. A UK Parliament committee report noted that the cost of decommissioning is shouldered in part by UK taxpayers.

Consideration of Dungeness C
On 15 April 2009, Dungeness was included in a list of 11 potential sites for new nuclear power stations, at the request of EDF Energy, which owns and operates Dungeness B. The government did not include Dungeness C in its draft National Policy Statement published on 9 November 2009, citing environmental reasons and concerns about coastal erosion and associated flood risk. The site was ruled out by Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne in October 2010, with the former government's list of eleven potential sites reduced to eight. Despite these environmental concerns, local Conservative MP Damian Collins, supported by some residents, lobbied Parliament to reconsider that position.

HVDC station
From 1961 to 1984, Dungeness power station also housed the mercury arc valves of the static inverter plant converting AC into DC for transmission on HVDC Cross-Channel, the high-voltage direct current power cable carrying electric power across the English Channel to France. In 1983, a more powerful new inverter at Sellindge replaced this facility.

Ownership
Both stations were originally built, owned, and operated by the CEGB. Following privatisation of the electricity supply industry and the later part-privatisation of the nuclear power generating industry they are now owned by two different bodies: the original Magnox station Dungeness A by the non-departmental government body the NDA and newer AGR Dungeness B by EDF Energy.

Location
The stations are built on a large area of open shingle, measuring 12 by, which has been deposited by the sea and built up over thousands of years. The entire area is moving slowly north and east as the sea moves the shingle from one side of the headland to the other. It is surrounded by a nature reserve Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). A fleet of lorries is used to continuously maintain shingle sea defences for the plant as coastal erosion would otherwise move shingle away at an estimated rate of 6 m per year. Around 30,000 m3 of shingle are moved each year. It seems that deposition on the north shore of the headland does not keep pace with erosion, although the power stations are about 1 km to the west of that shore. In all, 90,000 m3 are moved each year along parts of the coast between Pett Level and Hythe. This is necessary for the safety of the entire area including the power stations. During operation, around 100 e6l of cooling water was extracted and returned to the sea each hour, after being heated by 12 C-change.

The headland and the coastline between Pett Level and Hythe are volatile. In recorded history Walland Marsh to the west of the power stations has been flooded. In the space of sixty years severe inundation occurred, temporarily bringing the sea inland to Appledore and the original mouth of the River Rother from north of the headland at Romney to the south at Rye Harbour. The site is a few metres above Mean Sea Level and would be isolated in the event of flooding of the magnitude that submerged large areas of East Anglia and the Netherlands in 1953. It has been conjectured that the Great Storm of 1987 did not bring the sea to the stations because there was a low tide at the time. Climate change could cause more frequent and powerful storms, and associated waves and surges are possible though not probable, and might increase the instability of the headland.

In the media
The station was used in the filming of the Doctor Who serial The Claws of Axos in January 1971.

The site provides a key plot point in the 2016 book, Alan Partridge: Nomad.

The station is within sight of artist Derek Jarman's garden at Prospect Cottage. The film The Garden was filmed at the house, and it was the main subject of an episode of BBC's Countryfile in February 2020.

Other sources

 * 1)  Page 139 also reports the 1990 flooding mentioned above. Page 139 also reports the 1990 flooding mentioned above.

title: Dungeness nuclear power stations


text:
Mount Caubvick

Mount Caubvick (known as Mont D'Iberville in Quebec) is a mountain located in Canada on the border between Labrador and Quebec in the Selamiut Range of the Torngat Mountains. It is the highest point in mainland Canada east of the Rockies. The mountain contains a massive peak that rises sharply from nearby sea level. Craggy ridges, steep cirques and glaciers are prominent features of the peak.

The alp was named Mont D'Iberville by the Quebec government in 1971. It remained nameless on the Labrador side for several years; it became known unofficially as L1, L for Labrador and 1 for highest. In 1981, at the suggestion of Dr. Peter Neary, the provincial government named the mountain after Caubvick, one of the five Inuit who accompanied George Cartwright to England in 1772.

Mount Caubvick also hosts the highest point in both the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, although the summit itself lies about 10 m northeast of the Quebec provincial border and is entirely within Labrador.

Climbing
Due to difficult access (either via bush plane or boat) and unpredictable, snowy weather at any time of the year, there is no easy way to the top. The summit can be gained from the east by the Minaret Ridge or to the west by the Koroc Ridge. The final sections on both routes become technical in nature.

American climbers Michael Adler and Christopher Goetze were the first to scale the peak in 1973. The first Canadian party climbed the mountain on August 14, 1978. In that party were Ray Chipeniuk, Ron Parker, and Erik Sheer.

In August 2003, two climbers from Mississauga, Ontario perished during their descent from the summit. A search was initiated in late August when they failed to meet a plane at a pre-arranged location. The approaching winter weather forced an early end to the search in 2003. In August 2004, their bodies were discovered high up on the mountain. The most plausible scenario appears to be that one of the climbers became injured and was unable to continue the descent. The other climber made an attempt to seek help, taking an alternate route down and apparently fell about 150 feet down a steep headwall.

title: Mount Caubvick


text:
Talk:Mount Caubvick

Untitled
If 'the summit is entirely within Labrador', what is the highest point on the slope within Quebec? Would that not be Quebec's highest point? Radagast 02:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article title
I think this should be moved to Mont D'Iberville (with Mount Caubvik as the redirect) because D'Iberville is the only name recognized by the federal geographic names authority: see http://geonames2.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/v6/sima_unique_v6?english?EJKLN?C. Searching for "Caubvik" at their site returns no hits: http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/search/search_e.php. Indefatigable 01:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

possible copyvio problem
This seems mightly close -- almost word-for-word -- to the text available from here. --Stéphane Charette 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates
Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

(Later...) Done. BrainMarble (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Name, again
Why, again, is this at Caubvick? Googling English sites, one get 979 hits for "Mount Caubvick", 785 for "Mt Caubvick", whereas an English-language search for "Mont d'Iberville" turns out 18 100 results, which is something like a 10:1 ratio. Given that both names have official recognition (eg, they both come up in the geographic database of the federal government), and that both names are official, I fail to see why the far less commonly used name is the one that Wikipedia uses for its article title. Either way, the statement that the name "Mont d'Iberville" is an alternate name specific to Quebec is highly dubious (particularly as its the older name)--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I agree. I have lived in Canada my whole life and have never even heard of Mt. Caubvick, whereas Mt. Iberville is common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.247.18 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is probably called Mount Caubvick because the summit of the mountain is located in Labrador, where Caubvick is the official name. Maybe you just haven't traveled to the right locations in Canada to hear anyone call it Mount Caubvick. Also, Google search results aren't the best ways to back up information on Wikipedia. —Reelcheeper (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mount Caubvick


text:
Data dictionary

A data dictionary, or metadata repository, as defined in the IBM Dictionary of Computing, is a "centralized repository of information about data such as meaning, relationships to other data, origin, usage, and format". Oracle defines it as a collection of tables with metadata. The term can have one of several closely related meanings pertaining to databases and database management systems (DBMS):

 * A document describing a database or collection of databases
 * An integral component of a DBMS that is required to determine its structure
 * A piece of middleware that extends or supplants the native data dictionary of a DBMS

Documentation
The terms data dictionary and data repository indicate a more general software utility than a catalogue. A catalogue is closely coupled with the DBMS software. It provides the information stored in it to the user and the DBA, but it is mainly accessed by the various software modules of the DBMS itself, such as DDL and DML compilers, the query optimiser, the transaction processor, report generators, and the constraint enforcer. On the other hand, a data dictionary is a data structure that stores metadata, i.e., (structured) data about information. The software package for a stand-alone data dictionary or data repository may interact with the software modules of the DBMS, but it is mainly used by the designers, users and administrators of a computer system for information resource management. These systems maintain information on system hardware and software configuration, documentation, application and users as well as other information relevant to system administration.

If a data dictionary system is used only by the designers, users, and administrators and not by the DBMS Software, it is called a passive data dictionary. Otherwise, it is called an active data dictionary or data dictionary. When a passive data dictionary is updated, it is done so manually and independently from any changes to a DBMS (database) structure. With an active data dictionary, the dictionary is updated first and changes occur in the DBMS automatically as a result.

Database users and application developers can benefit from an authoritative data dictionary document that catalogs the organization, contents, and conventions of one or more databases. This typically includes the names and descriptions of various tables (records or entities) and their contents (fields) plus additional details, like the type and length of each data element. Another important piece of information that a data dictionary can provide is the relationship between tables. This is sometimes referred to in entity-relationship diagrams (ERDs), or if using set descriptors, identifying which sets database tables participate in.

In an active data dictionary constraints may be placed upon the underlying data. For instance, a range may be imposed on the value of numeric data in a data element (field), or a record in a table may be forced to participate in a set relationship with another record-type. Additionally, a distributed DBMS may have certain location specifics described within its active data dictionary (e.g. where tables are physically located).

The data dictionary consists of record types (tables) created in the database by systems generated command files, tailored for each supported back-end DBMS. Oracle has a list of specific views for the "sys" user. This allows users to look up the exact information that is needed. Command files contain SQL Statements for,  ,   (for referential integrity), etc., using the specific statement required by that type of database.

There is no universal standard as to the level of detail in such a document.

Middleware
In the construction of database applications, it can be useful to introduce an additional layer of data dictionary software, i.e. middleware, which communicates with the underlying DBMS data dictionary. Such a "high-level" data dictionary may offer additional features and a degree of flexibility that goes beyond the limitations of the native "low-level" data dictionary, whose primary purpose is to support the basic functions of the DBMS, not the requirements of a typical application. For example, a high-level data dictionary can provide alternative entity-relationship models tailored to suit different applications that share a common database. Extensions to the data dictionary also can assist in query optimization against distributed databases. Additionally, DBA functions are often automated using restructuring tools that are tightly coupled to an active data dictionary.

Software frameworks aimed at rapid application development sometimes include high-level data dictionary facilities, which can substantially reduce the amount of programming required to build menus, forms, reports, and other components of a database application, including the database itself. For example, PHPLens includes a PHP class library to automate the creation of tables, indexes, and foreign key constraints portably for multiple databases. Another PHP-based data dictionary, part of the RADICORE toolkit, automatically generates program objects, scripts, and SQL code for menus and forms with data validation and complex joins. For the ASP.NET environment, Base One's data dictionary provides cross-DBMS facilities for automated database creation, data validation, performance enhancement (caching and index utilization), application security, and extended data types. Visual DataFlex features provides the ability to use DataDictionaries as class files to form middle layer between the user interface and the underlying database. The intent is to create standardized rules to maintain data integrity and enforce business rules throughout one or more related applications.

Some industries use generalized data dictionaries as technical standards to ensure interoperability between systems. The real estate industry, for example, abides by a RESO's Data Dictionary to which the National Association of REALTORS mandates its MLSs comply with through its policy handbook. This intermediate mapping layer for MLSs' native databases is supported by software companies which provide API services to MLS organizations.

Platform-specific examples
Developers use a data description specification (DDS) to describe data attributes in file descriptions that are external to the application program that processes the data, in the context of an IBM i. The sys.ts$ table in Oracle stores information about every table in the database. It is part of the data dictionary that is created when the Oracle Database is created. Developers may also use DDS context from free and open-source software (FOSS) for structured and transactional queries in open environments.

Typical attributes
Here is a non-exhaustive list of typical items found in a data dictionary for columns or fields:

 * Entity or form name or their ID (EntityID or FormID). The group this field belongs to.
 * Field name, such as RDBMS field name
 * Displayed field title. May default to field name if blank.
 * Field type (string, integer, date, etc.)
 * Measures such as min and max values, display width, or number of decimal places. Different field types may interpret this differently. An alternative is to have different attributes depending on field type.
 * Field display order or tab order
 * Coordinates on screen (if a positional or grid-based UI)
 * Default value
 * Prompt type, such as drop-down list, combo-box, check-boxes, range, etc.
 * Is-required (Boolean) - If 'true', the value can not be blank, null, or only white-spaces
 * Is-read-only (Boolean)
 * Reference table name, if a foreign key. Can be used for validation or selection lists.
 * Various event handlers or references to. Example: "on-click", "on-validate", etc. See event-driven programming.
 * Format code, such as a regular expression or COBOL-style "PIC" statements
 * Description or synopsis
 * Database index characteristics or specification

title: Data dictionary