Lyell Collection

Journal of the Geological Society

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Journal of the Geological Society; 1992; v. 149; issue.1; p. 156-158;
DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.149.1.0156
© 1992 Geological Society of London

Article

Discussion on Hercynian tectonometamorphic evolution of the Bosost dome (French–Spanish central Pyrenees)

R. L. Gibson writes: Pouget invokes a diapiric model for the development of structural–metamorphic domes in the Hercynian terrane of the Pyrenees. His model is based on conclusions drawn from the Bosost dome, namely that the core of this dome rose relative to the margins during regional metamorphism (deduced from P–T paths) and that the syn-metamorphic regional foliation formed in a dome-shaped attitude (from structural studies). Some comment is required, however, both on the methodology Pouget uses to construct the P–T paths presented in his paper and on his extension of the model to other domes in the Pyrenees.

Pouget uses P–T estimates obtained from 4 garnet-bearing metapelite samples to construct P–T paths for different parts of the Bosost dome (fig. 4). Two P–T estimates were obtained from each sample using garnet core and rim compositions together with appropriate matrix phases and a straight-line vector was drawn linking the plotted results. Pouget maintains that this vector represents part of the P–T path followed by the sample during metamorphism. Such reasoning is, however, seriously flawed in that no guarantee exists that this straight line represents the true evolutionary path for the assemblage (see Spear et al. 1990). Pouget does not provide supplementary evidence, either from the analysis of continuous garnet zoning profiles or from the analysis of the metapelitic assemblages in terms of the KFMASH reaction grid (Harte & Hudson 1979) to corroborate his ‘shortest-line’ assumption.

Based on this assumption, Pouget discerns two types

...

This 250-word extract was created in the absence of an abstract.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Geological MagazineHome page
J. E. Mezger, J. E. MEZGER, and C. W. PASSCHIER
Polymetamorphism and ductile deformation of staurolite-cordierite schist of the Bossost dome: indication for Variscan extension in the Axial Zone of the central Pyrenees
Geological Magazine, 2003; 140: 595 - 612.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of the Geological SocietyHome page
R. L. GIBSON and M. J. BICKLE
Thermobarometric constraints on the conditions of metamorphism in the Canigou massif, Pyrenees: implications for Hercynian geothermal gradients
Journal of the Geological Society, 1994; 151: 987 - 997.
[Abstract] [PDF]