SEDI MENTOLOGY 93

THE CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS,

WITH NOTES O N THEIR ORIGIN

J . R . L . ALLEN

Sedimentology Research Laboratory,

Geology Department, University of’ Reading, Reading (Great Briiain)

(Received January 16, 1963)

SUMMARY

A descriptive classification of cross-stratified units is proposed based on six objective

criteria, and diagnoses are given for fifteen distinct kinds of cross-stratified unit recog-
nised with their aid. The origin of each kind is discussed in the light of existing obser-
vational, experimental, and theoretical studies. A three-fold genetic classification of
cross-stratified units is tentatively outlined in which apparent origin and physical
properties are closely correlated.

INTRODUCTION

I n an important paper dated 1953, MCKEEand WEIRpublished a terminology of

stratification and cross-stratification which for the first time offered at once the possi-
bilities of inclusiveness, clear distinction between types of sedimentation structure in-
volving stratification, and ease of application. These proposals have been taken up by
many sedirnentologists, and as a result there now exists in the literature a measure of
clarity and precision where sedimentation structures have been used in environmental
diagnoses.
At the same time the intensive sedimentological research of the last decade has
shown that the classification of cross-stratification proposed in this general scheme is
inadequate fully to represent the known kinds of this structure. Because of the impor-
tance now rightly attached to sedimentation structures in environmental work, it
seems essential that the finest possible distinctions should be made between structures
in each general class. I n working with cross-stratification azimuths, for example,
distinct environments with different current patterns may become confounded by an
indiscriminate mapping of “cross-stratification”. Cross-stratification is such a poorly
understood structure primarily because no sufficiently detailed analysis of it has yet
been undertaken, and surely only by so doing will a proper appreciation ultimately
Sedimentolqyy, 2 (1 963) 93-1 I4
94 J. R. L. ALLEN

be achieved of the origin and significance of cross-stratified units and of the facies in
which they occur.
But, in outlining their proposals, MCKEEand WEIR(1953, p.388) offered the chal-
lenge “that it is for the reader further to test this terminology and classification by
application in the field and to determine its value in furthering description”.
The chief purpose of this paper is to outline an alternative classification of cross-
stratified units based on physical properties which is sufficiently detailed to cover the
known types that are well defined. This classification is developed from, and partly
incorporates, that advanced by MCKEEand WEIR(1953, p.385-388). The secondary
aim is to summarise what has so far been discovered, or suggested, about the origin
of different types of cross-stratified units. This summary is given for three reasons: ( I )
to illustrate the wide range of mode of origin of cross-stratified units and to emphasise
that there is no single mode of origin, (2) to outline the very many areas of inadequate
knowledge, and (3), to list what are considered to be the more important papers
dealing with cross-stratification. A review of the historical development of the classifi-
cation and terminology of cross-stratification is not intended, as it would unduly
lengthen this paper. But the classification advanced by McKee and Weir is given

Simple Plonor Trough

Cross-stratification Cross- s t r a t i f i c a t i o n Cross- s t r a t i f i c a t i o n

Fig.1. Classification of cross-stratification according to MCKEEand WEIR(1953).

Srdimentology, 2 (1963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATI FIED UNITS 95

detailed attention, because it is the one which has found greatest favour with sedinien-
tologists and which offers the maximum scope for further advances.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MCKEE AND WEIR

Outline

Fig. 1 summarises the terminology and classification of cross-stratified units proposed

by McKee and Weir.
Cross-stratification is defined (MCKEEand WEIR,1953, p. 382) as “the arrangement of
layers at one or more angles to the original dip of the formation”. A cross-stratged
unit (p.382) is “one with layers deposited at an angle to the original dip of the forma-
tion and separated from adjacent layers by surfaces of erosion, non-deposition, or
abrupt change in character”. A set (p.382) is a ‘‘group of essentially conformable
(strata or) cross-strata, separated from other sedimentary units by surfaces of erosion,
non-deposition, or abrupt change in character”. A coset (p.384) is a sedimentary unit
“made up of two or more sets (either of strata or) of cross-strata, separated from other
strata or cross-strata by original surfaces of erosion, non-deposition, or abrupt change
in character”.
MCKEEand WEIR(1 953, p.385, table 4) base their classification of cross-stratifi-
cation on the following seven criteria: ( I ) the character of the lower bounding surface
of the set of cross-strata, (2) the shape of the set of cross-strata, ( 3 ) the attitude of the
axis of the set of cross-strata, ( 4 ) the symmetry of the cross-strata about this axis, (5)
the arching of the cross-strata, (6) the dip of the cross-strata, and (7) the length of
individual cross-strata.
The first criterion, regarded as the most important one, led t o three principal types
of cross-stratification being recognised : (a) simple cross-stratiJication, represented by
sets whose lower bounding surfaces are non-erosional or of abrupt change in charac-
ter, (h)planar cross-stratlJication, represented by sets whose lower bounding surfaces are
planar surfaces of erosion, and (c) trough cross-stratijication, represented by sets whose
lower bounding surfaces are curved surfaces of erosion. Further classification was
based on the subordinate criteria numbered 2-7 above.

CRITIQUE

Although a n important step in the right direction, the classification proposed by

McKee and Weir is unfortunately not all-inclusive. The kinds of cross-stratification
associated with small-scale ripple marks were not included by these authors in cross-
stratification, but were regarded as minor structures that further typified stratfled
units other than those which were cross-stratified. Evidently McKee and Weir took
cross-stratification to be an essentially large scale bedding pattern. But many of the
Sedimentolqy, 2 (1963) 93-1 14
96 J. R. L. ALLEN

bedding patterns associated with small-scale ripple marks of the asymmetrical kind
are identical in all except physical size with patterns accepted by McKee and Weir as
belonging to cross-stratification as they understood this structure. Account must also
be taken of the smaller structures in an inclusive classification of cross-stratification.
Whereas the useful terminological distinction was made between a single cross-
stratified unit or set and an assemblage of cross-stratified sets or coset, the property of
the sets of being solitary, in the sense of occurring alone amongst deposits with diffe-
rent structures, or of being grouped with others of their kind, was given no place in
the classification. Physically, a solitary cross-stratified set is fundamentally different
from a group of cross-stratified sets assembled in a coset. Genetically, too, the distinc-
tion between solitary sets and cosets might be fundamental. Thus solitary sets might
be explained by the construction of shallow, isolated banks such as are found today in
braided rivers, while cosets might be explained by the migration of trains of large-
scale asymmetrical ripple marks at the bottoms of deep channels. It seems important
therefore to take account of the property of the cross-stratified unit of being a solitary
set or a group of sets. Indeed, this property is considered to be so fundamental as to
take first place amongst criteria of classification.
MCKEEand WEIR(1953, p.388) proposed three terms with arbitrary numerical
limits for the magnitude of cross-stratified units, taking physical size as a subordinate
criterion of classification. Experience has shown that these terms ignore natural limits
to the physical size of cross-stratified units. So far as cosets of cross-strata are concern-
ed, it is well known but little appreciated there is one “population” of cosets
characterised by sets whose individual thicknesses are measured in millimetres or a
few centimetres, and another “population” of cosets of sets whose individual thick-
nesses are measured in the range from about one decinietre to several metres. Solitary
sets, however, have thicknesses almost always measured in decimetres or metres, and
almost never i n millimetres or centimetres. Thus the existence of natural limits to the
physical size of cross-stratified sets demands that a criterion of magnitude should rank
high in a list of criteria of classification. The magnitude of cross-stratified sets could
have important implications about the scale and locus of cross-stratifying processes.
In classifying cross-stratified units, McKee and Weir gave first place to the character
of the lower bounding surface of the set, stating that this reflected the environment
immediately preceding deposition. Thus three classes of cross-stratified set - simple,
planar, and trough - were recognised by these authors. While the importance of this
criterion is undeniable in any scheme of classification, it is considered that the group-
ing property and magnitude of cross-stratified sets are more important still. Moreo-
ver, the definition of “simple cross-stratification” given by McKee and Weir embodies
a n environmental property only, whereas the definitions of “planar” and “trough”
cross-stratification embody attributes both of environment and shape. Obviously, it is
undesirable that, in this context, amongst classes given equal status, a shape property
should be ommitted from the one definition but included in the others.
The environmental and shape attributes of the lower bounding surfaces of cross-
stratified sets should be separated in a clearer fashion. As defined, the term “simple”
Sedirnento/o,,qy,2 (1963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS 97

covers two possible alternatives: either a surface of non-deposition or non-erosion

(which could be an actual surface), or a surface representing a change of character
(which could be an imaginary surface defining a zone of maximum change). These two
possibilities are basically different, and should be clearly separated. Thus regardless
of shape, the lower bounding surface of a set of cross-strata could be erosional, non-
erosional or non-depositional, or gradational (i.e., involving a recognisable but con-
tinuous change in lithology and/or bedding attitude in the deposit). Quite indepen-
dently, the lower bounding surface could vary in shape from irregular to trough-like,
through a variety of intermediate forms.
No place amongst the seven criteria was given to the angular relation between the
cross-strata in the set and the surface on which they rest - whether this relation was
one of angular discordance or concordance. This is an important physical attribute of
cross-stratified sets, having implications about ( I ) the nature of the process bringing
about deposition of the cross-strata, and (2) the time relation between the operation of
this process and the process which led to the surface on which the cross-strata rest.
Such a criterion, it would seem, should also be included in a scheme of classification.
Another physical property of cross-stratified units which McKee and Weir ignored
is the degree of lithological uniformity amongst the cross-strata in a cross-stratified
unit. The degree of lithological uniformity expresses the extent of variability in the
cross-stratifying process. While most cross-stratified sets comprise lithologicall:,
uniform cross-strata, others are made u p of cross-strata which are pronouncedly non-
uniform lithologically.
To summarise, the classification of cross-stratified units proposed by McKee and
Weir is considered subject to modification because: (1) it is not all-inclusive, ignoring
an important group of cross-stratified units, (2) it provides too few classes to cover
effectively the known types of cross-stratification, and defines one of these classes none
too clearly, ( 3 ) it gives insufficient weight to some major properties of cross-stratified
units (e.g., grouping, physical size), and (4) it ignores several important attributes of
cross-strata (e.g., angular relation to the lower bounding surface of a cross-stratified
set, degree of lithological uniformity).

THE CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS

The classification proposed in this paper is based on six criteria (Table I) as follows:
( I ) the manner of grouping of the cross-stratified set, (2) the physical size, as measured
by the thickness, of the set of cross-strata, or the sizes of the sets i n a coset of cross-
strata, ( 3 ) the character of the lower bounding surface of the set of cross-strata, or
of the lower bounding surfaces in a coset of cross-strata, (4) the shape of the lower
boundingsurface of the set of cross-strata, or the shapes ofthe lower bounding surfaces
i n a coset of cross-strata, (5) the angular relation of the cross-strata to the lower bound-
ing surface of the set of cross-strata, or to the surfaces in a coset of cross-strata, and
(6) the degree of lithological uniformity of the cross-strata in the set or coset of cross-
strata.
Sedimmtology, 2 (1963) 93-1 14
 98 I. R. L. ALLEN

Cross-stratified units are classified firstly according to the grouping of the set of
cross-strata. A cross-stratified unit is described as solitary (Fig.2A) if it consists of a
single set of cross-strata which succeeds, and is succeeded vertically, by non-cross-
stratified deposits, or by cross-stratified units of a different type. A cross-stratified unit
is said to be grouped (Fig.2B) if it comprises two or more vertically adjoining similar
sets of cross-strata. Such a cross-stratified unit is a coset, but in the restricted sense
that the component sets are essentially similar in type of cross-stratification.
Secondly, the cross-stratified units are classified according to their physical size, as
measured by the thickness of their component sets. In the case of grouped cross-
stratified units, two magnitudes are recognised on the basis of natural limits to set
thickness discussed above. Cosets for which set thickness is mostly less than 5 cm are
classified as small-scale cross-stratified units (Fig.2C), this particular value being
chosen as a reasonable approximation to the general natural limit between the two
magnitudes. Cosets for which set thickness is mostly greater than 5 cm are said to be
large-scale cross-stratified units (Fig.2D). On this basis almost all solitary sets prove
to be large-scale cross-stratified units.
At the third level of classification, use is made of the character of the lower bound-
ing surface of the set of cross-strata, or of the characters of the surfaces in a coset of
cross-strata. The cross-stratified unit is classified as erosional (Fig.2E) if the lower
bounding surface of the set, or of each of the sets in a coset of similar sets, is an erosion-
al surface. The cross-stratified unit is described as non-erosional (Fig.2F) if the lower
bounding surface of the set, or of each of the sets in a coset of similar sets, is abrupt
but neither depositional nor erosional in character. The cross-stratified unit is said to
be gradational (Fig.2G) when the lower bounding surface of the set, or of each of the
sets in a coset of similar sets, is not recognisable as an actual physical surface, but is
simply an imaginary one defining a zone of maximum lithological and/or attitudinal
change in the strata.
Fourthly, the cross-stratified unit is classified on the shape of the lower bounding
surface of the set of cross-strata, or on the shapes of the bounding surfaces in a coset
of similar sets. If the surface or surfaces are uneven, the cross-stratified unit is descri-
bed as irregular (Fig.2H). The cross-stratified unit is classified as planar (Fig.2K) if
the surface below the set, or below each of the sets in a coset of similar sets, is a plane
surface. If the lower bounding surface or surfaces approximate to parts of cylinders,
the cross-stratified unit is said to be cylindrical (Fig.2L). The cross-stratified unit is
classified as scoop-shaped (Fig.2M), a term introduced by STOKES (1953) and P. ALLEN
(1962), if the surface below the set, or below each of the sets in a coset of similar sets,
is like a scoop, plunging at one end but open at the other. If the surface below the set,
or below each of the sets in a coset of similar sets, represents an elongate hollow
plunging at both ends, the cross-stratified unit is described as trough-shaped (Fig.2N).
At the fifth level of classification, attention is directed to the relation of the cross-
strata in the set or coset to the lower bounding surface of the set or of each of the sets.
The cross-stratified unit is described as concordant (Fig.2P) if the cross-strata are
essentially parallel to the lower bounding surface of the set, or to the surface below
Srdimentology,2 (1963) 93- I 1 4
 GROUPING MAG NITUDE

Solitary Grouped Small-scale Large-scale

sets: m m - c r n sets: dcm-rn

ENVIRONMENT

E
Erosional Non-erosional Gradational

LOWER BOUNDING SURFACE

Irregular Planar

L
Cylindrical Scoop-shaped Trough-shaped

ANGULAR RELATION LITHOLOGY

Concord ant Discordant Homogeneous Heterogeneous

P Q R S
Fig.2. Block diagrams illustrating descriptive terms applicable to cross-stratified units.
Sedimentology, 2 (1963) 93-1 14
 I00 J. R. L. ALLEN

each of the sets. If the cross-strata make an appreciable angle with the lower bounding
surface of the set, or of each of the sets, the cross-stratified unit is said to be discordant
(Fig.2Q).
Sixthly, the cross-stratified unit is classified according to the degree of lithological
uniformity manifested by the cross-strata in the set, or in the coset of similar sets. The
cross-stratified unit is described as homogeneous (Fig.2R) if the cross-strata are
essentially uniform lithologically. The cross-stratified unit is classified as heterogeneous
(Fig.2S) if, amongst themselves, the cross-strata differ pronouncedly in lithology,
say to the extent of more than two Wentworth size classes.

THE NOMENCLATURE OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS

Using the criteria advanced above, fifteen distinct types of cross-stratification are
recognised. The development of an acceptable nomenclature for these types, as of sedi-
mentation structures in general, is no easy task in the presence of unsuitable existing
terms and in the absence of firmly adopted rules such as govern the naming of organ-
isms. MCKEEand WEIR(1953) rightly state that the use of such names as “deltaic” and
“torrential” with reference to cross-stratified units is inappropriate because these terms
imply genesis. It might be argued, however, that the use of names with a genetic impli-
cation is not objectionable provided it is clearly understood that a specific mode of
origin for the object is not necessarily thereby implied. Nevertheless, in the opinion of
the writer, such usages are undesirable because they can so easily lead to misunder-
standings where reliance has to be placed on written descriptions which, in the interests
of brevity, cannot be adequately qualified. They are particularly unsuitable in the case
of structures which have several conceivable modes of origin, perhaps the majority
which have to be dealt with.
The ideal name for a sedimentation structure is surely a non-genetic one which
conveys briefly and arrestingly an impression of some outstanding physical property
of the object t o be identified. With regard to cross-stratified units, the descriptive terms
proposed above would at first sight seem useful in developing a nomenclature. Unfor-
tunately, it was found that, to distinguish effectively between the fifteen types, in most
cases two, and in some cases three, descriptive terms would have to be combined in the
names. Brevity thus being lost, it is proposed to distinguish the types by the letters of
the Greek alphabet, as follows: alpha-cross-stratijication, beta-cross-stratijication, etc.
Because of the liklihood of misunderstandings, the letter deZta is not used. Admittedly
such names fall far short of the stated ideal, but they are brief and can surely be learnt
and associated with particular physical properties just as easily as can new Linnaean
names with the characters of new organisms. Furthermore, the nomenclature is capa-
ble of easy extension to accommodate new cross-stratification patterns. Seven letters
of the alphabet remain unused, and if further names are required the letters can easily be
combined. Here it must be emphasised that the above names are independent of any
conclusions as t o the origin of the cross-stratification types.
Sedimentology,2 (1963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS 101

THE TYPES OF CROSS-STRATIFICATION

Alpha-cross-stratijkation

This type of cross-stratification (Fig.3A) is represented by solitary sets typically large

in scale. The surface beneath each set is non-erosional and essentially planar. The
cross-strata of each set are discordant with respect to the lower bounding surface and
are lithologically homogeneous. I n vertical sections parallel to the maximum dip
direction they are straight or concave-upward. Where the cross-strata abut against
the upper bounding surface of the set, that is where they are seen in plan, they may
vary from straight in one set to curved in another.
As will be seen, alpha-cross-stratified units have at least three possible explanations.
However, it is clear from the character of the base that the cross-stratified unit was
constructed under the aegis of processes insufficiently vigorous to have eroded the
deposit beneath.
SORBY(1859, 1908), SMITH(1909), NEVINand TRAINER (1927), THOMPSON (1937),
MCKEE (1957a), LEOPOLDand WOLMAN (1957), MCKEEand STERRET (1961), and
HOYT(1962) showed that many alpha-cross-stratified units could have been construct-
ed in shallow water by the building of solitary banks with straight or curving leading
edges above slip-off faces. This mode of origin seems the most likely of all, because it
is the simplest and can be seen to occur at the present day. Solitary banks are comnion-
place in modern rivers, particularly of the braided kind, as well as in estuaries, on
beaches, and in the shallows just off beaches.
A less likely but still conceivable mode of formation would involve the rendering
static and burial without further disturbance of a train of large-scale asymmetrical
ripple marks previously moving under conditions of no deposition from suspension
onto the ripple train. An alpha-cross-stratified unit would also be produced if a coset
of cross-strata, formed as seen below by the migration of a train of large-scale asyrn-
metrical ripples, or by the repeated construction of solitary banks, was eroded to a
level in the very lowest set. Studies are needed, however, to see if these modes of origin
occur in nature.

Beta-cross-stratijcation

Beta-cross-stratification (Fig.3B) is found as solitary sets generally large in scale. The

type is distinguished from other solitary sets of cross-strata by the fact that below each
set is an essentially planar erosional surface. The cross-strata in a beta-cross-stratified
set are discordantly related to the lower boundary of the set and are lithologically
homogeneous. In plan view the cross-strata may vary from curved in one set to
straight in another.
This type of cross-stratification would be produced in any of the three ways distin-
guished above, but again the construction of solitary banks is probably the most likely
explanation. It is evident from the nature of the base that either the solitary bank or
Sedimentolqpy, 2 (1963) 93-1 14
102 J. R. L. ALLEN

ripple train advanced erosively, and therefore perhaps comparitively swiftly, or that
the previous deposit was planed off well before the bank or ripple train appeared.
Beta-cross-stratified sets probably formed under more changeable regimes than alpha-
cross-stratified ones.

Gamma-cross-strutlfication

Cross-stratification of this type (Fig.3C) is represented by solitary cross-stratified sets

mostly large in scale. Each set is bounded underneath by an irregular erosional sur-
face. The cross-strata of each set are discordantly related to the lower bounding sur-
face of the set, and are lithologically homogeneous. The cross-strata, seen in plan, may
vary from straight in one set to curved in another.
The construction of solitary banks as described above is probably the likliest expla-
nation of gamma-cross-stratified sets. The structure would also form through the fixa-
tion of a train of large-scale ripples, or through the incomplete erosion of a coset of
cross-strata. Whether a solitary bank or ripple train was involved, the character of
the base of a gamma-cross-stratified unit shows that either the earlier sediments had
been eroded some time before, or that the sand body advanced erosively. Gamma-cross-
stratified units suggest regimes even more changeable than beta-cross-stratified ones.

Epsilon-cross-stratlfication

Found as solitary sets, epsilon cross-stratified units (Fig.3D) are almost invariably
large in scale. Each unit is underlain by an erosional surface which is essentially planar.
The cross-strata in the set discordantly overlie the bounding surface, and the cross-
stratification type is principally distinguished by the fact that the cross-strata are
lithologically heterogeneous, usually consisting of alternate layers of clayey silt and
sand. In vertical sections parallel to the maximum dip direction, the cross-strata vary
from straight in a few units to convex-upward in the majority. The cross-strata are
often seen to be curved in plan where they strike against the upper bounding surface
of the set, the curvature being in the same sense as the cross-stratal dip.
TRUSHEIM ( I 929), HANTZSCHEL ( I 936), VAN STRAATEN (1954), and REINECK (1 958)

Fig. 3. Generalised block diagrams illustrating types of cross-stratification.

A. Alpha-cross-stratification, based on examples in the Lower Old Red Sandstone, Anglo-Welsh
Basin (e.g., SO 583847)l.
B. Beta-cross-stratification, based on instances in L.O.R.S. (e.g., SN 059797).
C. Gamma-cross-stratification, based on examples in L.O.R.S. (e.g., SO 585845).
D. Epsilon-cross-stratification, based on REINECK ( I 958, fig.1).
E. Zeta-cross-stratification, based on examples in L.O.R.S. (e.g., SO 565871).
F. Eta-cross-stratification, based on examples observed in Jade Busen, Germany, and the Wadden
Sea, The Netherlands.
G . Theta-cross-stratification, based on instances in L.O.R.S. (e.g., SO 601 878).
H. Iota-cross-stratification, based on examples in L.O.R.S. (e.g., SO 693867).

Numbers in brackets are those of the British National Grid Reference system.
Sedimenrofogy, 2 (1963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS 103

A B
Alpha-cross- stratlf ication Beta-cross-stratif icat ion

C v D
Gamma-cross-stratif i cation Epsilon-cross-stratification

E F
Zeta-cross-stratif ication Eta-cross-stratif ication

G H
Theta-cross-stratif ication Iota-cross-stratif ication

Fig. 3. Legend see p. 102.

Sedimentology, 2 ( I 963) 93-1 14
104 J. R. L. ALLEN

have demonstrated that, on muddy intertidal flats at least, epsilon-cross-stratified units

have been formed as the result of the wandering of channels or gullies. The process of
formation under these conditions involves erosion of the outer bank of the meander-
ing channel from the channel floor upward, giving the planar erosional surface at the
base of the unit, and concomitant deposition on the gently sloping inner bank or
“point-bar”. The cross-strata which form on the point-bar are lithogically hetero-
geneous because different grades of sediment are laid down at different times as the
tidal currents vary in strength. It is not known if epsilon-cross-stratification can be
formed in any other way. WRIGHT’S (1959) interesting suggestion that point-bar con-
struction generally may explain cross-stratified units, where the cross-strata are laid
down parallel to the surface of the bar, has not been borne out by a study of the litera-
ture on point-bar deposits (J. R. L. ALLEN,1963).

Zeta-cross-stratijcation

This type of cross-stratification (Fig.3E) is represented by solitary sets which are large
i n scale. Each set is bounded underneath by an erosional surface which is essentially
cylindrical, with no tendency to plunge in either direction along its major axis. The
cross-strata in the unit are concordant with the lower bounding surface of the set and
lithologically homogeneous.
MCKEE(1 957a) has shown experimentally that a zeta-cross-stratified unit would be
formed if a channel carved by a submerged current became filled either from a second
submerged current, or by sediment dropping from above and settling in quiet water.
In either case the channel is concordantly filled, but in the first case the cross-strata
thicken toward the bottom of the channel and in the second remain uniformly thick.
It is important to note that in this explanation of zeta-cross-stratified units the cutting
and filling of the channel are seen as distinct acts separate in time. Such channel-fills
as McKee produced experimentally do not seem to have been reported from present-
day environments, perhaps because of the difficulties of investigation. Skin-diving
over submerged bottoms may help here.

Eta-cross-stratijcation

Eta-cross-stratification is found as solitary sets mostly large in scale (Fig.3F). An

erosional surface, roughly scoop-shaped, underlies each unit, the cross-strata being
discordantly related to this surface. This type of cross-stratification is distinguished by
the fact that the cross-strata, mostly alternate layers of clayey silt and sand, are litho-
logically heterogeneous.
The formation of eta-cross-stratification by at least one process can be observed
today on muddy intertidal flats such as those of the Wadden Sea and Jade Busen in
The Netherlands and Germany. The process is essentially the same and one described
by MCKEE(1 939) as responsible for plugging tide-cut sloughs and small channels in the
Colorado River Delta. As observed in the Wadden Sea and Jade Busen, it involves the
Sedimentolqgy, 2 ( I 963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNlTS 105

gradual filling up under tidal action of short, plunging channels with layers of sand
and clay concordant to the sides and floors of the hollows.

Theta-cross-stratification

Cross-stratification of this kind (Fig.3G) is represented by solitary sets invariably

large in scale. Each set is underlain by a trough-shaped erosional surface, plunging at
both ends. The cross-strata forming the set are lithologically homogeneous, and dis-
cordantly related to the lower boundary of the set. As the diagram shows, the discor-
dant relation is readily seen in sections parallel to the cross-stratal dip direction but is
not seen perpendicular to the trough long-axes.
Writing of this kind of structure as scour-and-fill, SHROCK(1 948) postulated three
stages in its formation: erosion of the trough, filling of the trough, and finally trunca-
tion of the fill. The final stage, however, involves nothing more than the modification
of a structure already existing in essentials, and is probably independent of the cutting
and filling of the trough.
There are two possibilities so far as the cutting and filling are concerned. Either they
occurred as distinct acts separate in time, or they took place simultaneously with the
trough being extended down-current as an earlier part became filled up. Following
SHROCK (1948), cutting and filling as separate acts seem best able to explain the theta-
cross-stratified sets whose length is of the same order as the width. Deep scour-pits of
oval plan are often to be seen on sandy beaches after strong tides, and although
reports are not yet available it is likely that similar hollows can be excavated by rivers.
Those sets which occupy troughs whose length is much greater than the width are
more difficult to account for, although in seeking a n explanation of pi-cross-stratifi-
cation, STOKES (1 953) seems to have hit on a feasible process that merits experimental
study. He postulated that an eddying mass of water, moving downstream with the
general flow of which it was a part, could simultaneously cut and fill each trough.
Presumably the eddying mass cuts a hollow to contain its roots, which moves with the
main current by erosion on the down-current face and deposition of cross-strata on
the up-current side.

Represented by solitary sets, iota-cross-stratified units (Fig.3 H) are generally large in

scale. Each set is bounded below by an erosional surface in the form of a trough which
plunges downward at both ends. The cross-strata forming the set are bedded concor-
dantly with respect to the lower bounding surface, and are lithologically homogeneous.
As shown in the diagram, the concordant relation is apparent both in sections parallel
and perpendicular to the principal axis of the trough.
It is clear from the concordant nature of the cross-strata that in the formation of an
iota-cross-stratified unit the erosion and filling of the trough were separate acts. Pre-
sumably the elongate hollow already in full existence was filled later by the dropping
Seditnentolqyy, 2 (1963) 93-LI4
106 J . R. L. ALLEN

of sediment from above under quiet conditions, in the manner demonstrated by

MCKEE( I 957a) for zeta-cross-stratification. There is n o reason to suppose that iota-
cross-stratification could not form under wind as well as water action, but much more
study is needed before the suggestion above can be accepted.

Kappa-cross-strat@xztion

Kappa-cross-stratification (Fig.4A) is found as cosets formed of grouped sets which

individually are small in scale. The sets in each coset are bounded by imaginary, grada-
tional surfaces that are irregular and defined by more or less pronounced changes in
the attitude of the cross-strata. The cross-strata are generally continuous across these
surfaces from one set to another above or below, but are mostly discordantly related
to the surfaces. As can be seen in the diagram, in one section the cross-strata dip com-
paratively steeply, but in the perpendicular section are seen to pinch and swell to form
a pattern of interlocking lenses. The cross-strata are lithologically homogeneous.
In one section kappa-cross-stratification is identical to the two-dimensional struc-
ture SORBY (1908) defined as ripple-drift bedding, and MCKEE(1939) subsequently
recognised that in its three-dimensional aspect the structure was formed through
the migration under water of trains of asymmetrical ripple marks of irregular
shape with deposition taking place. The particular ripple form involved is a linguoid
small-scale one. It was demonstrated (J. R. L. ALLEN,1963) by the geometrical analysis
of a model of the ripples that kappa-cross-stratification would be formed through the
migration of trains of these structures. It was shown that the necessary sediment supply
criterion was that in the time taken to advance its own length, each ripple received by
deposition from suspension a volume of sediment greater than the volume of the ripple
body. Under these circumstances, the ripple bodies are not themselves eroded, but
added to on both lee- and stoss-sides. However, experimental studies are needed for a
better understanding of the process.

Lambda-cross-stratipcation

This kind of cross-stratification (Fig.4B) is represented by cosets formed of grouped

sets individually small in scale. Sets are divided from each other by imaginary surfaces
that are gradational and planar. These surfaces are defined by more or less pronoun-
ced changes i n the attitude of the cross-strata which, discordant to the imaginary
surfaces, cross them from one set to another. In one section the cross-strata are steeply
inclined, but in the other are essentially horizontal, even, parallel layers. The cross-
strata are lithologically homogeneous.
As in the case of kappa-cross-stratification, in the one section the structure is refer-
able to ripple-drift bedding. Work in three-dimensions with models (J. R. L. ALLEN,
1963) showed that lambda-cross-stratified units would be formed as the result of the
migration of trains of small-scale ripples with essentially straight crests, presumably
under wind as well as water action. The necessary sediment supply criterion seems
Sedirnentology,2 (1963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS 107

again to be that, in advancing its own length, each ripple should receive from suspen-
sion a volume of sediment greater than the volume of the ripple body. Nevertheless,
detailed experimental studies are required to clarify the process.

Mu-cross-stratlfication

Cross-stratified units of this type (Fig.4C) are formed of grouped sets individually
small in scale. Each set is underlain by an essentially planar erosional surface, the
cross-strata in the set being discordantly related to this surface. The cross-strata in
the one section dip steeply in a constant direction, but in the other section are observ-
ed as essentially even, parallel layers. The cross-strata are lithologically homo-
geneous.
The vertical section in one direction through a mu-cross-stratified unit shows a
structure similar to ripple-drift bedding, although not identical with it. The causal
connection recognised by many workers between ripple movement and mu-cross-
stratified units has been tested by the three-dimensional study of models (J. R. L.
ALLEN, 1963), and it was demonstrated that the structure could arise through the
migration of trains of small-scale asymmetrical ripples with essentially straight crests.
The criterion of sediment supply in this instance is that, in advancing its own length,
each ripple should receive from suspension a volume of sediment less than the volume
of the ripple body. Thus the ripple body must undergo erosion on the stoss-side, giving
the erosional surface between two sets. As before, these conclusions need to be tested
by experiment.

Nu-cross-s frat$cation

Nu-cross-stratified units (Fig.4D) are cosets formed of grouped sets which as indivi-
duals are small in scale. Each set is bounded underneath by an erosional surface that
is scoop-shaped, one end only plunging, and is formed of curved, symmetrical cross-
strata discordantly related to this surface. In one vertical section only is the discordant
relation at all obvious, for in the section at right angles the cross-strata are symmetrical
and apparently concordant.
In presenting a detailed description of nu-cross-stratification, which was termed
micro-cross-lamination, HAMBLIN ( I 961) suggested that the structure arose through
the migration of trains of linguoid small-scale asymmetrical ripples. WURSTER (1 958a)
had previously erroneously interpreted the pattern as due to the shifting of small-scale
barchan-like ripples, a form which at this scale is unknown at the present day outside
of experimental situations.
The correctness of Hamblin’s suggestion was verified by a three-dimensional analy-
sis of linguoid small-scale ripple marks (J. R. L. ALLEN,1963). For the production of
nu-cross-stratification, it was shown to be necessary that each ripple, in advancing one
ripple length, should receive by deposition from suspension a volume of sediment sub-
stantially less than the volume o f the ripple body. As was also shown, each ripple as it
SeclirnentolqTy, 2 (1 963) 93-1 14
108 J. R. L. ALLEN

drove forward eroded at its concave stoss-side a trough which became filled with the
curved cross-strata deposited on the lee-sides of the two ripple immediately behind in
the train, the ripples being arranged in a scale-like pattern. Presumably the plunging
end of the scoop-shaped surface beneath each set is the point of initiation of a ripple,
for it can be observed in active trains today that the pattern of hummocks and hollows
changes with time as new ripples arise and old ones die out. Again it must be emphasised
that experimental work is required to test these conclusions.

Xi-cross-strutiJicution

Xi-cross-stratification (Fig.4E) is found as cosets of grouped sets which individually

are large in scale. Each set of a coset is underlain by a non-erosional surface which is
planar. In all sections the cross-strata in the sets are discordant to the lower bounding
surfaces. The cross-strata are lithologically homogeneous.
The origins of xi-cross-stratification are not clearly understood, and it is perhaps
doubtful if the studies to date allow the type to be defined completely. MCKEE(1957b)
has shown that the structure occurs in the backshore deposits of some beaches, and
THOMPSON ( I 937) seems to have demonstrated its presence amongst foreshore depo-
sits. It seems likely that the structure results through sheets of sand of local extent
being thrown up so as partly to overlap. The work of REICHE(1938), MCKEE(1940),
and BAGNOLD(1 941) suggests that a structure resembling xi-cross-stratification can be
formed under wind action by the migration of dunes of longitudinal type. Bagnold’s
work is of particular interest as it included a geometrical analysis of the movement of
dunes.

Omilcron-cross-sf r a t ~ ~ u t i o n

This type of cross-stratification (Fig.4F) is represented by cosets made up of grouped,

large-scale sets. The sets are each underlain by an essentially planar erosional surface,
discordant cross-strata forming the body of each set. The cross-strata in the coset
incline in more or less the same direction, and are seen to be discordantly related to
the bounding surfaces of the sets in one direction only. In the section at right angles
they are observed as even, parallel layers. The cross-strata are lithologically homo-
geneous.
Omikron-cross-stratified units have at least two distinct modes of origin. Following
SORBY(1859, 1908) and others mentioned above, they would be formed if solitary

Fig.4. Generalised block diagrams illustrating types of cross-stratification.

A . Kappa-cross-stratification, based on examples in L.O.R.S. (e.g., SO 654020).
B. Lambda-cross-stratification, based on instances in L.O.R.S. (e.g., SO 672185).
C. Mu-cross-stratification, based on modern sand beaches (Southport area, Lancashire).
D. Nu-cross-stratification, based on HAMBLIN (1961. fig.4-6).
E. Xi-cross-stratification, based on MCKEE(1957b: fig.4).
F. Omikron-cross-stratification, based o n SHACKLETON (1962, p1.7).
G . Pi-cross-stratification. based on HAMBLIN(1 958, fig. 16-1 8).
Serlimentology, 2 ( 1 963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS 109

A B
Kappa-cross-stratif ication Lambda-cross-stratification

C
Mu-cross-stratification

D E
Nu-cross-strat if i c a t i o n X i -cross-stratification

F G
Y
Omikron-cross-strotif ication P i -cross-stratification

Fig. 4. Legend see p. 108.

Sedimentology, 2 (1963) 93- 1 14
 110 J. R. L. ALLEN

banks repeatedly built across one another in shallow water. This process, an extension
of that asserted for alpha- and beta-cross-stratification, is perhaps seldom operative in
nature, however, as it demands the special condition that water level must be raised
appropriately before each new bank can be constructed across the top of an existing
one.
It seems more likely that most omikron-cross-stratified units are formed by the mi-
gration of trains of large-scale asymmetrical ripple marks, an extension of observa-
tions and ideas going back to KINDLE(1917), HANTZSCHEL (1936, 1938), and more
recently HULSEMANN (1955). Hiilsemann demonstrated from excavations that these
ripples are cross-stratified internally, and it has been proposed as the result of a geo-
metrical analysis (J. R. L. ALLEN,1963) that omikron-cross-stratified units would arise
by the migration of trains of large-scale asymmetrical ripples with essentially straight
crests. The requisite sediment supply criterion may be the same as for mu-cross-strati-
fication. Depth changes would have little influence on the formation of omikron-cross-
stratified units by this process, in contrast to that of solitary bank building, since the
f m n of ripple envisaged is found in channels or in the open sea in depths many times the
ripple height. However, detailed studies of modern large-scale ripples are needed to test
this explanation. By the same arguments, the migration of straight-crested transverse
aeolian dunes could also give omikron-cross-stratified units.

Pi-cross-stratijication

Cross-stratified units of this type (Fig.4G) are formed of interfering, grouped sets
individually large in scale. Each set is underlain by a scoop-shaped erosional surface
plunging at one end only. The sets are each formed of curved, more or less symmetrical
cross-strata discordantly bedded on the surface beneath the set. This discordant
relation is seen in one vertical section, but not as clearly, if at all, i n the other. The
cross-strata are lithologically homogeneous.
There are at least three possible explanations of pi-cross-stratified units. KNIGHT
(1929) suggested that each set would be formed through the cutting and then the filling
of a channel under water, and that a group of sets would be constructed by the repeti-
tion of this process. As envisaged by STOKES (1953), units arise by the repeated move-
ment of eddying masses of water acting in the manner explained under theta-cross-
stratification.
It seems likely, however, that most units owe their origin to the migration of trains
o f large-scale asymmetrical ripple marks with pronouncedly curved crests. Working
from the cross-stratification pattern, NIEHOFF ( 1958) and WURSTER (1958b) deduced
that these ripples would have the general form of crescentic dunes, while FRAZIER and
OSANIK(196 1) also proposed the operation of large-scale ripples with re-entrant crests
that were observed. Structure in the British Wealden that may prove referable to pi-
cross-stratification were also suggested to have resulted from the movement of large-
scale ripples (P. ALLENet al., 1960; P. ALLEN,1962). REINECK (1960) reported large-
scale ripples resembling barchan dunes and also pi-cross-stratified units from the
Sedimentoloxy, 2 (1963) 93-1 14
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS Ill

beaches of Norderney, Friesian Islands, but did not elaborate in any detail on a possi-
ble connection. As illustrated by Reineck, the lunate ripples, as they have been called
(J. R. L. ALLEN,1963), are arranged in a scale-like pattern and have crests that curve in
relation to the flow as do those of barchan dunes. From a subsequent three-dimen-
sional analysis of models (J. R. L. ALLEN,1963) it was demonstrated that pi-cross-
stratified units would be formed by the migration of trains of lunate large-scale asym-
metrical ripples, under conditions of sediment supply probably similar to those
suggested for nu-cross-stratification. It was also suggested that the structure could be
produced by the migration of linguoid large-scale ripples - a structure known at the
present day - in much the same way as nu-cross-stratified units.
Under wind action and under circumstances appropriate to sand deposition, it
seems likely that transverse dunes with markedly re-entrant crests (HACK,1941) would
also on migration give pi-cross-stratified units. It is perhaps this structure that
SHOTTON (1937, 1956), attributing it to barchan dunes, has recorded from the British
New Red Sandstone. Presumably the barchan dunes that operated in this case were
of the type that occur in close contact with each other in a continuous sand sea, and
not of the kind that occur as isolated mounds existing separately from others of their
type on an otherwise sandless rock or stone pavement, from which no permanent
deposition can be expected. The pi-cross-stratified units described by KNIGHT(1 929)
from the Casper formation may also prove to have been formed under wind and not
water action, in view of the suprisingly uniform lithology of this formation, which con-
sists of uniformly graded, well-sorted sand, and the apparent absence of marine fossils.
More work is needed on the origin of pi-cross-stratified units, particularly in the
field of modern sediments.

CONCLUSIONS

Working from an important existing classification (MCKEEand WEIR, 1953), it is

suggested in the present paper that a better understanding of cross-stratification can
be reached if cross-stratified units are classified using six objective criteria. Briefly,
these are as follows: ( I ) whether the cross-stratified unit is a single set, or a coset
formed of two or more similar sets, (2) the physical size of the set of cross-strata, (3)
the character of the lower bounding surface of the set of cross-strata, (4) the shape of
the lower bounding surface of the set of cross-strata, (5) the relation between the
cross-strata in the set and the lower bounding surface of the set, and (6), the degree of
lithological uniformity of the cross-strata.
As the result of applying these criteria, fifteen distinct types of cross-stratification
have been recognised and diagnosed. It is almost certain that more types remain to be
discovered, or that some of the types will require further subdivision, and a system of
nomenclature based on the Greek alphabet is proposed which is non-genetic and is
capable of easy extension to new types.
Although the origins of cross-stratification are only partly understood, it is clear
Sedimentofqyy, 2 (1963) 93-114
 TABLE 1

CRITERIA OF CLASSIFICATION A N D DESCRIPTIVE TERMS APPLICABLE TO CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS

-~ _- - . - ~ - __ -~
Criteria Grouping Magnitude Character OJ lower Shape of lower Relation of cross-strata Lithology of
boundary boundary to lower boundary cross-strata

Irregular
Planar
Descriptive Solitary S ma1I-sca1e Erosional Cylindrical Concordant Homogeneous
terms
Non-erosional Scoop-shaped
Grouped Large-scale Gradational Trough-shaped Discordant Heterogeneous

TABLE I1

PRELIMINARY GENETIC CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS

~

Group I Group I1 Group I l l

~~

Description Solitary sets, mostly large-scale, bounded
by planar or irregular surfaces. Probably
due to the migration, under water or wind
action, of solitary banks with curving or
linear fronts that in most cases are slip-off
faces.
Solitary sets, mostly large-scale, filling hol-
lows in the form of cylinders, scoops, or
troughs. Probably due to the cutting and
filling of isolated channels, pits, or hollows.
Cutting and filling may or may not be
simultaneous.
Grouped sets, either small-scale or large-
scale. Probably due to the migration of
trains of different forms of small-scale or
large-scale asymmetrical ripple marks,
depending on the size and shape of the sets
forming the coset.

Alpha-cross-stratification Zeta-cross-strat ification a. Small-scale stis

N
Beta-cross-stratification Eta-cross-stratification Kappa-cross-stratification
c
h Gamma-cross-stratification Theta-cross-stratification Lambda-cross-stratification
\D
W
o\
Epsilon-cross-stratification Iota-cross-stratification Mu-cross-stratification
v Xi-cross-stratification Nu-cross-stratification
I
c
e
h. Large-scale sets
c. Omikron-cross-stratification
Pi-cross-stratification
 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-STRATIFIED UNITS 113

that there is no single, simple explanation of this kind of sedimentation structure.

Much more material evidence as to origin is required from the field of modern sedi-
ment studies and from the experimental laboratory. The geologist versed in hydro-
dynamics will have an important role to play.
Nevertheless, even in the present state of experimental, observational, and theore-
tical knowledge, it is possible in a limited way to correlate the physicial properties of
cross-stratified units with the apparent mode of origin, and to divide cross-stratified
units between three genetic groups as in Table 11.
Thus when an account is taken of the principal physical properties of cross-
stratified units it becomes possible to define more clearly the different kinds that are
known so far. At the same time, a preliminary genetic classification can be erected in
which physical properties are correlated with apparent mode of origin. This grouping,
subject to further work, may help to sharpen future thinking about cross-stratification,
and could form the basis for the programmes of observational and experimental
studies that are now required. The right answers will eventually be reached, but only
after intensive work on these lines has been accomplished. Theorising can only point
a way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My grateful thanks are tendered to colleagues in the Sedimentology Research Labora-

tory, University of Reading, for encouragement and helpful criticisms; to the British
Council for a financial award; and to Dr. W. Schafer and Dr. H. E. Reineck, Wil-
helmshaven, and Dr. L. M. J. U. van Straaten, Groningen, for opportunities to study
the German and Dutch intertidal flats.

REFERENCES

ALLEN,J. R. L., 1963. Asymmetrical ripple marks and the origin of water-laid cosets of cross-stra
Liverpool Manclresfer Geol. J., in press.
ALLEN,P., 1962. The Hastings Beds deltas: recent progress and Easter Field Meeting Report. Proc.
Geologists Assoc. Engl., 13 : 219-243.
ALLEN,P., ALLEN,J. R. L., GOLDRING, R. and MAYCOCK, 1. D., 1960. Festoon bedding and “niud-
with-lenticles” lithology. Geol. Mag., 98 : 261-262.
BAGNOLD, R. A., 1941. The Physics ofBlown SandandDesert Dunes. Methuen, London, 265 pp.
FRAZIER, D. E. and OSANIK, A,, 1961. Point-bar deposits, Old River Locksite, Louisiana. Trans. GUY
Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 11 : 121-137.
HACK,J. T., 1941. Dunes of the western Navajo country. Geograph. Rev., 31 : 240-263.
HAMBLIN, W. K., 1958. The Cambrian sandstones of northern Michigan. Mich. Depr. Conserv., GPO/.
Surv. Div., Publ., 51 : 146 pp.
HAMBLIN, W. K., 1961. Micro-cross-lamination in Upper Keeweenawan sediments of northern Michi-
gan. J. Sediment. Petrol., 31 : 390401.
HANTZSCHEL, W., 1936. Die Schichtungs-Formen rezenter Flachmeerablagerungen im Jadegebiet.
Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 18 : 3 16-356.
HANTZSCHEL, W., 1938. Bau und Bildung von Grossrippeln im Wattenmeer. Senckenbecyiana Lethuea,
20 : 1-42.
Sediniento/ocyy, 2 (1 963) 93-1 14
114 J. R. L. ALLEN

HOYT,J. H., 1962. High angle beach stratification, Sapelo Island, Georgia. J . Scdinient. Petrol.,
32 : 309-3 1 I .
HULSEMANN, J., 1955. Grossrippeln und Schragschichtungs-Gefuge im Nordsee-Watt und in der
Molasse. Senckenber,viana Lethaea. 36 : 359-388.
KINDLE, E. M., 1917. Recent and fossil ripple marks. Museum Bull. Can. Geol. Surv., 25 : 56 pp.
KNIGHT, S. H., 1929. The Fountain- and the Casper Formations of the Laramie Basin. Univ. Wyotriiny
Puhl. Sci., I : 1-82.
LEOPOLD, L. B. and WOLMAN, M. G., 1957. River channel patterns: braided, meandering and straight.
U.S. Geol. Siirv,, Frojess. Papers, 282-8 : 39-84.
MCKEE,E. D., 1939. Some types of bedding in the Colorado River Delta. J. Geol., 47 : 64-81.
MCKEE,E. D., 1940. Three types of cross-lamination in Palaeozoic rocks of northern Arizona. A I I I .
J. Sci., 238 : 81 1-824.
MCKEE,E. D., 1957a. Flume experiments on the production of stratification and cross-stratification.
J . Sediment. Petrol., 27 : 129-134.
MCKEE,E. D., 1957b. Primary structures in some Recent sediments. Bull. Am. Assoc. Peirol. Geolo-
, : 1704-1747.
@ ~ t s 41
MCKEE,E. D . and WEIR,G. W., 1953. Terminology for stratification and cross-stratification in sedi-
mentary rocks. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 64 : 381-390.
MCKFE,E. D. and STERRET, T. S., 1961. Laboratory experiments on form and structure of longshore
bars and beaches. In: Geometry of Sanrlstone Bodies. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Tulsa, pp.
13-28.
NEVIN,C. M. and TRAINER, D. W., 1927. Laboratory study in delta-building. BUN. Geol. Soc. A m . ,
38 : 451458.
NIEHOFF, W., 1958. Die prim&- gerichteten Sedimentstrukturen insbesondere die Schragschichtung iin
Koblenzquartzit am Mittelrhein. Geol. Rundschau, 47 : 252-321.
REICHE, P., 1938. An analysis of cross-lamination: the Coconino Sandstone. J. Grol., 46 :905-932.
RFINECK, H. E., 1958. Longitudinale Schragschichtung im Watt. Geol. Rundschau, 47 : 73-82.
REINECK, H. E., 1960. Uber den Transport des Riffsandes. Jahresher. Forschle Norderney, 11 : 21-38.
SHACKLETON, J. S., 1962. Cross-strata of the Rough Rock (Millstone Grit Series) in the Pennines.
Liiypool Manchesfer Geol. J., 3 : 109-1 18.
SHOTTON, F. W., 1937. The Lower Bunter Sandstones of north Worcestershire and Shropshire. Grol.
M q . , 74 : 534-553.
SHOTTON, F. W., 1956. Some aspects of the New Red desert in Britain. Liverpool Munchester Geol. J.,
1 :450-465.
SHROCK, R . R., 1948. Sequence in Layered Rocks. McGraw-Hill, New York, 507 pp.
SMITH,A. L,., 1909. Delta experiments. 3~11.Am. Grqqrnph. Soc., 41 : 729-742.
SORRY, H. C., 1859. On the structures produced by the currents present during the deposition of strati-
fied rocks. Geoloxist, 2 : 137-147.
SORBY,H. C., 1908. On the application of quantitative methods to the study of the structure and
history of rocks. Quart. J . Geol. Sac. London, 64 : 171-232.
STOKES, W. L., 1953. Primary Sedimentary Trend Indicators as Applied to 0 r e : f i n d i y in the Carrizo
Mouniains, Arizona and New Mexico. Rept. U.S. At. Energy Comm., R.M.E. 3043, Washington, 1 :
48 PP.
THOMPSON, W. O., 1937. Original structures of beaches, bars and dunes. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 48 :
723-752.
TRUSHEIM, F., 1929. Zur Bildungsgeschwindigkeit geschichteter Sedimente im Wattenmeer, besonders
solcher mit schrager Parallelschichtung. Senckenbergiuna Lethaea, I1 : 47-55.
VANSTRAATEN, L. M. J. U., 1954. Composition and structure of Recent marine sediments in The
Netherlands. Lei& Geol. Mededel., 19 : 1-110.
WRIGHT,M. D., 1959. The formation of cross-bedding by a meandering or braided stream. J. Serli-
ment. Petrol., 29 : 610-615.
WURSTER, P., 1958a. Schuttung des Schilfsandsteins im mittleren Wurttemberg. Neues Jahrb. Geol.
Palaoniol., Monatsh., 11 :479-489.
WURSTER, P., 1958b. Geometrie und Geologie von Kreuzschichtungs-Korpern. Geol. Runrr'schau,
47 : 322-359.

Sedimentology, 2 (1963) 93-1 14