Improper mapping of Rio Negro in Mato Grosso?
Posted: 03 May 2016, 13:59
Hi Jools,
I have two independent concerns:
1) I'm looking at the Rio Negro in Southern Brazil (named "Negro (Lower Uruguay)" as a locality). Its parent is listed as being the Lower Uruguay, but as far as I can learn, this Rio Negro is part of the Paraguay drainage and not the Uruguay drainage, so I think its parent should be reassigned, and then the Negro's name perhaps should be changed to "Negro (Mato Grosso do Sol)" instead of "Negro (Lower Uruguay)," and
2) Unrelated to the above, I notice that the "Lower Uruguay" itself is listed as a "tiny" river. And as I look at maps of the river in Uruguay (e.g., south of the Salto Grande Dam and towards the river's mouth), it doesn't look like what I'd expect a "tiny" river to be. Since the "Uruguay" is listed as a large river, I would expect the Lower Uruguay to be likewise described, unless the dam severely curtails flow (however this is not apparent to me on satellite photos).
Are these worthy of change as suggested, or are they the way they are for other reasons and should they be left alone?
As always, thanks.
Cheers, Eric
I have two independent concerns:
1) I'm looking at the Rio Negro in Southern Brazil (named "Negro (Lower Uruguay)" as a locality). Its parent is listed as being the Lower Uruguay, but as far as I can learn, this Rio Negro is part of the Paraguay drainage and not the Uruguay drainage, so I think its parent should be reassigned, and then the Negro's name perhaps should be changed to "Negro (Mato Grosso do Sol)" instead of "Negro (Lower Uruguay)," and
2) Unrelated to the above, I notice that the "Lower Uruguay" itself is listed as a "tiny" river. And as I look at maps of the river in Uruguay (e.g., south of the Salto Grande Dam and towards the river's mouth), it doesn't look like what I'd expect a "tiny" river to be. Since the "Uruguay" is listed as a large river, I would expect the Lower Uruguay to be likewise described, unless the dam severely curtails flow (however this is not apparent to me on satellite photos).
Are these worthy of change as suggested, or are they the way they are for other reasons and should they be left alone?
As always, thanks.
Cheers, Eric