Correction to: Journal of Palaeogeography 10, 9 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42501-021-00085-1
Following publication of the original article (Shanmugam 2021), two minor typos were found in the Abstract, in line 6, the ‘muddy contorts’ should be ‘muddy contourites’. In line 8, the ‘contoured facies’ should be ‘contourite facies’. The original paper has been updated.
Reference
Shanmugam, G. 2021. The turbidite-contourite-tidalite-baroclinite-hybridite problem: orthodoxy vs. empirical evidence behind the “Bouma Sequence”. Journal of Palaeogeography 10: 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42501-021-00085-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shanmugam, G. Correction to: The turbidite-contourite-tidalite-baroclinite-hybridite problem: orthodoxy vs. empirical evidence behind the “Bouma Sequence”. J. Palaeogeogr. 10, 14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42501-021-00093-1
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42501-021-00093-1