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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Articles by ATHERTON, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Journal of the Geological Society; 1993; v. 150; issue.6; p. 1009-1023;
DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.150.6.1009
© 1993 Geological Society of London

Volume 150 Celebration Paper

Granite magmatism

MICHAEL P. ATHERTON

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

Read’s two presidential addresses to the Geological Society (1948 Geological Society (1949) heralded the end of the coherent rearguard action by the ‘granitizers’ against the ‘magmatists’. They were the distillation of his thoughts on the genesis of granite and culminated in his concept of the ‘Granite Series’. In this, he identified a continuity from metamorphic through migmatitic rocks to granite. Although he was wrong on granitization, the general idea remains intact and granites are produced by high-temperature metamorphism leading to partial melting. However the role of migmatites is still contentious. Not all granites belong to the granite series as he presented it; this particularly applies to Cordilleran (Andean) type granites. The genesis of this type will be discussed in the context of the earlier, classic work of Nockolds (1940) on the Garabal Hill complex where he demonstrated fractional crystallization was a major process in producing the diversity present and was similar to that seen in volcanic rocks, which had clearly been liquids. He also proposed that the source was basaltic with the implication, strongly supported by modern isotopic studies, that granites of this type are essentially mantle derived. Nockolds contribution was a geochemical confirmation of Bowen’s belief in the importance of closed-system fractional crystallization in the differentiation of plutonic rocks. Most authorities today would accept this but would not necessarily follow Bowen in the belief that major granitic batholiths formed by differentiation of basalt or that the system was closed. Recent models of the generation of the two main types of granite are presented, incorporating many of the ideas of Nockolds and Read. The discussion focuses on high-level differentiation, partial melting and intrusion in an extensional regime, high-T/low-P metamorphism associated with the magmatism, and the relation of granite to the plate tectonic setting.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the Geological SocietyHome page
M. Brown
Crustal melting and melt extraction, ascent and emplacement in orogens: mechanisms and consequences
Journal of the Geological Society, 2007; 164: 709 - 730.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of the Geological SocietyHome page
J. D. CLEMENS
Observations on the origins and ascent mechanisms of granitic magmas
Journal of the Geological Society, 1998; 155: 843 - 851.
[Abstract] [PDF]