NASA NTRS1995
The distribution of impact craters on Venus has been the subject of a great deal of analysis since the return of Magellan data. Phillips el al. (1992) performed Monte Carlo two-dimensional (2-D) modeling of the areal distribution of craters, and the results of that exercise allowed a restricted, but still quite large, range of possible planetary resurfacing histories, including the possibility that the crater, were emplaced on a geologically inactive planet. However, the nonrandom distribution of embayed and deformed craters (Phillips el al., 1992), the hypsometric distribution of craters (Herrick and Phillips, 1994), the varied degradation states of craters (Izenberg et al., 1994), their nonrandom distribution with different geologic terrain types (Namiki and Solomon, 1994; Price et al, 1994), and three-dimensional resurfacing modeling (Bullock el al., 1993) all seem to argue against that particular possibility. In contrast, Strom el al. (1994) have collected a refined and more comprehensive data set of impact features, and they input these data into more sophisticated 2-D Monte Carlo modeling and statistical analyses of the areal distribution of craters, the hypsometric distribution of craters, and the number of embayed craters. They concluded that 'Venus experienced a global resurfacing event about 300 m.y. ago followed by a dramatic reduction of volcanism and tectonism. This global resurfacing event ended abruptly (less than 10 m.y.). The present crater population has accumulated since then and remains largely intact . . . only about 4%-6% of the planet has been volcanically resurfaced since the global event . . .' If these conclusions are well-founded, this work certainly represents a significant advancement in restricting tile number of plausible resurfacing histories for the planet. If Strom et al. (1994) are correct, it would also mean that all of the other aforementioned works are in error to various degrees, or at least represent overzealous interpretation of the data. However, we have identified apparent flaws in the observations, modeling, and interpretations presented by Strom el al. (1994) that lead us to question whether their conclusions are warranted. We limit our comments to three areas of their analysis: (1) observations pertaining to the number and area of disrupted and pristine craters and crater-related features, (2) modeling of the areal and elevation distribution of craters, and (3) interpretations of resurfacing models.