| 1. |
- Bibikova, E. V., et al.
(författare)
-
Sarmatia-Volgo-Uralia junction zone: Isotopic-geochronologic characteristic of supracrustal rocks and granitoids
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation. - 0869-5938. ; 17:6, s. 561-573
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The geochronologic (U-Pb isotopic system of zircons) and isotopic-geochemical (Sm-Nd isotopic system of the bulk rock) studies were performed along the profile extending from the eastern Sarmatia (in the west) to the Middle Volga megablock of Volgo-Uralia (in the east), i.e., across the entire junction zone for dating the integration of Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia, representing two segments of the East European Craton. It is established that the examined rocks are characterized by the Paleoproterozoic Nd isotopic model age, which varies from 2.1 and 2.4 Ga, except for some samples indicating a similar age of the crust through the entire Sarmatia-Volgo-Uralia junction zone. The highly metamorphosed complexes of the granulite and amphibolite facies constituting the southwestern margin of Volgo-Uralia are Paleoproterozoic, not Archean, in age, contrary to previous views. Two Early Paleoproterozoic lithotectonic complexes are defined in Volgo-Uralia: South Volga metasedimentary and Tersa metasedimentary-volcanogenic. The obtained data confirm the asynchronous integration of individual segments into the East European Craton: the integration of Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia approximately 2100-2000 Ma ago was followed by the conjunction of this newly-formed continent with Fennoscandia ca. 1800 Ma ago.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Li, Z. X., et al.
(författare)
-
How not to build a supercontinent: A reply to JDA Piper
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Precambrian Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0301-9268. ; 174:1-2, s. 208-214
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The hypothesized existence of a Neoproterozoic supercontinent called Rodinia is based on a series of geological and paleomagnetic observations, with details about the configuration and evolution of this supercontinent still a matter for debate. Regrettably, we found that the comment by Piper (this volume) lacks scientific objectiveness. The 'Palaeopangaea' that he promotes is, in our view, based on incorrect application of paleomagnetic data, and is not supported by geological evidence. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
