Faciologia e caracterização peleoambiental da sequência vulcano-sedimentar Caneleiras - Folha Piratini, RS

Authors

  • Geraldo de Barros Pimentel CPRM, SUREG - PA.
  • Vitório Orlandi Filho CPRM, SUREG - PA.
  • Ricardo da Cunha Lopes CPRM, SUREG - PA.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X26192

Abstract

O trabalho não apresenta resumo.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

BARBERENA, M.C.; ARAÚJO, D.F.; LAVINA, E.L.; AZEVEDO, S.K. 1985. O estado atual do conhecimento sobre os tetrópodes permianos e triássicos do Brasil Meridional. In: DEPARTAMENTO NACIONAL DA PRODUÇÃO MINERAL. Coletânea de trabalhos paleontológicos. Brasília: DNPM. p. 21-8 (Série Geologia, 27, Seção Paleontologia e Estratigrafia 2).

BOUMA, A.H. 1962. Sedimentology of some flysch depcsi, a graphic approach facies interpretaion. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 168 p.

BURGER Jr., C.; RIBEIRO, M. & GERHARDT, A.L.B. 1988. On the alkaline rocks of Piratini, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Paula-Coutiana. Porto Alegre, (2): 81-112.

JOST, H. 1981. Geology and metallogeny of, the Santana da Boa Vista region: southern Brazil. Athens. University of Georgia. 208 p. (Dissertação de Doutorado).

TESSARI, R.I. & PICADA, R.S. 1963 (a). Esboço Geologico Preliminar do Grau de. Encruzilhada do Sul. Porto Alegre: Conferencia no Núcleo do Rio Grande do Sul da Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia.

TESSARI, R.I. & PICADA, R.S. 1963 (b). Formação Caneleiras. (Conferência no Núcleo do Rio Grande do Sul da Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia/Porto Alegre).

TESSARI, R.I. & PICADA, R.S. 1966. Geologia da quadrícula de Encruzilhada do Sul, RS, Brasil. Boletim da Divisão de Fomento da Produção Mineral, (124): 1-147.

Downloads

Published

1990-12-10

How to Cite

Pimentel, G. de B., Orlandi Filho, V., & Lopes, R. da C. (1990). Faciologia e caracterização peleoambiental da sequência vulcano-sedimentar Caneleiras - Folha Piratini, RS. Ciência E Natura, 12(12), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X26192

Issue

CIÊNCIA E NATURA, V. 12, N. 12, 1990

Section

Articles

License

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.