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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Journal of the Geological Society; 1999; v. 156; issue.3; p. 651-652;
DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.156.3.0651
© 1999 Geological Society of London

Article

Discussion on syntectonic emplacement of the Maladeta granite (Pyrenees) deduced from relationships between Hercynian deformation and contact metamorphism

J. Garcia-Sansegundo & J. Poblet write: Based on the relationships between the mesoscopic structures and the contact metamorphic porphyroblasts related to the Maladeta grano-diorite (Pyrenean Axial Zone), Evans et al. 1998 state that the batholith emplacement is coeval with the main Hercynian deformation phase (D2). This hypothesis was already suggested by Gleizes et al. (1997a, b) for the Hercynian granitoids located in the Pyrenean Axial Zone using the anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility. However, as pointed out recently (Laumonier 1997; Garcia-Sansegundo & Poblet 1997), this hypothesis does not take into account the cross-cutting relationships between the granitoids and some macrostructures showed by previous workers. In this paper, we will discuss the relative chronology of the Maladeta granodiorite and the surrounding Hercynian structures as well as some problems that arise from the geological map and cross section presented by Evans et al. 1998.

Evans et al. 1998 show a map and a cross section across the aureole (see Evans et al. 1998, figs 4 and 6) in which the main structures consist of a large, recumbent, south-facing fold deformed by smaller-scale, upright, south-facing folds belonging to the main phase (D2). Recent geological maps and cross sections across this region and adjacent areas are substantially different from the ones presented by Evans et al. 1998. Thus, previous studies do not describe the occurrence of recumbent, south-facing folds, but they evidence north-facing folds developed before the main phase (Poblet & Casas 1993, figs 2, 4, 6; Garcia-Sansegundo 1996, fig. 6). Both Dl and D2

...

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