Acme

You're welcome. Thanks for the challenge.

Dyes Paints

Starch

Ceramics

Rust

Sinew

Coal

Pumice

Tree Resin (used medicinally, used as sealant, adhesive, incense, perfume, etc. Note that resin is distinct from sap.) Tree Bark (used medicinally as in Yew or Willow, used as building material as of Western Red Cedar, used as dye as in Alder. Cork is the bark of an Oak. Note bark is distinct from wood.)

Honey

Good answers. I agree that ice cores have nothing to do with the OP, but that is a photo of an ice core from Wikipedia. The caption to it is: GISP2 ice core at 1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers. Ice cores @ Wiki

You can't generalize deposition rate by period any more than by height of a cliff or thickness of a cored deposit, so no there are no tables. For any particular deposit you need to refer to a detailed geological study. Depending on the location and type of sediment, many things can influence the rate of deposition; weather, climate, volcanic eruptions, flooding, or water acidity to name just a few. I haven't looked for a geologic study of your cliffs and the aquifer study cited by pavelcherepan does not look at any specifics of the layers as to age, makeup, thickness or other specifics.

That's true more-or-less, although it may be new to tie the eruption of the Emeishan Traps to this particular extinction event. As to your graph -which I note is not part of Studiot's article- it is well labeled so really not deceptive at all. I would also note that while Studiot's article focuses on animals, plants also go extinct.

You cannot make any valid assumptions about the age of a section simply because you know the age of the whole. This applies both to the absolute age of a section, i.e when it formed, as well as how long it took to form. No. It may be true, but it is not necessarily true. You can't logically make such assumptions. You have to measure and date every particular section. Yes you have something fundamentally wrong. What's wrong is assuming a steady rate of deposition and that there was no intermediate erosion.

Flatus

Boogers

Well, you brought up the project as an objection to semen so I responded to that objection. You liked snot, and Studiot brought up feces and urine, and since milk comes from breasts -gasp!- we have yet another potentially objectionable item. Moreover, you mention the 'project' in the opening post so it seems a reasonable subject for this discussion. I don't get all the hush-hush business on 'the project' but it does seem germane to the list. How about letting us in on it so we can better form responses that add to the list?

How scientifically minded is that? A substance known throughout human history by every teenage boy? Gasp! Better to make sure with project developer.

Semen

Actually I think new people continuously go back the OP, that's why I want to update it, plus older ones would have to see if their suggestion made it on the list. The fact remains that you can't edit it. I suspect the staff won't continuously change it for you so go with what's doable. Got milk?

Check & check. Since you can't edit the original post, you could ask a moderator to do it. However, since few people go back to the OP, I suspect the best course of action is to post your new list and simply mark it as New Updated List. A new item: Milk

In that vein, although I listed 'tooth', perhaps ivory would make the list. Then too, while 'just' metals, perhaps gold and steel deserve separate mention. EDIT: PS The ability to edit a post expires after a few hours.

Refined Sugar Salt Beeswax

Correct. There is absolutely nothing else except that book.

Amber Tears (as of eyes, not as in rip or rend)