Porphyroblast rotation and strain localization: debate settled!: comment
Sanislav, Ioan (2010) Porphyroblast rotation and strain localization: debate settled!: comment. Geology, 38 (4). p. 204.
PDF (Published Version)
- Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only
This comment addresses two inferences used by Johnson (2009) to argue for porphyroblast rotation during bulk coaxial shortening. Firstly, he interprets that porphyroblast inclusion trails that are inclined (his figure 1) became inclined because the porphyroblast rotated during growth. He used orientation data from millipede microstructures from one hand sample and concluded on the basis of the total spread of inclusion trail orientations and porphyroblast axial ratios that porphyroblasts had rotated relative to one another during ductile deformation. Secondly, he presents a numerical model that indicates that asymmetrically shaped porphyroblasts rotated during coaxial deformation. However, I will show that the porphyroblasts did not rotate after they grew, in spite of localized shearing along the developing S3 that rotated visible matrix S2 in Johnson's figure 1.
|Item Type:||Article (Commentary)|
This publication does not have an abstract. The first paragraph of the publication is displayed as the abstract.
|Date Deposited:||10 Aug 2010 23:48|
|FoR Codes:||04 EARTH SCIENCES > 0403 Geology > 040312 Structural Geology @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||97 EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE > 970104 Expanding Knowledge in the Earth Sciences @ 100%|
|Citation Count from Web of Science||