Which do you prefer? I can see the advantages of both.
2006-10-20 06:54:42 · 6 answers · asked by QFL 24-7 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Folk's classification is more comprehensive than Dunhams, taking into account things that may require intensive microscopic study. It is practical if a laboratory is available. Dunham's classification is more descriptive and is much easier to use, especially if you are not a professional Carbonate Geologist. I use Dunham's classification in my work (and Pettijohn's for clastics, as well).
2006-10-20 07:16:17 · answer #1 · answered by David A 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dunham Classification
2016-10-01 06:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Folk Classification
2016-12-14 03:34:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
me too i can see the advantages of both .. when i was undergraduate student i used to be bored of using Folk cl. specialy when i had to guess the name of the rock in the lab .. but now i see it more useful since it can tell more information about the rock and its component .. its more detailed .. the problem that some names are long .. while the names in Dunham cl. are more clear and brief but they dont tell alot !!! the best is to know the names of a rock using the 2 classifications , so more information will be available .. about the size and the components ..
2006-10-20 11:34:44 · answer #4 · answered by Geo06 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personally like Dunham... more practical. The descriminating factors in folk have little to do with depositional environment, so who cares?
2006-10-20 06:58:56 · answer #5 · answered by One Tuff piece of Schist 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question, hope you find the right answers
2016-08-08 17:36:47 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋