Yes, I agree totally with Juergen -- a flaw in Coney's original definition
that somehow escaped my notice the first time through.
AJM
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:52:56 GMT+0200
>From: "Juergen Reinhardt" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Metamorphic core complexes
>Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>A note on Al McGrew's comment on metamorphic core complexes:
>I have no problem with Coney' definition, except that the notion
>"older" for the lower plate part should be deleted. Intuitively, the
>metamorphic core would perhaps be regarded as older, and in many
>complexes, this may be so, but it doesn't have to be.
>It is a bit reminiscent of the "classic" view in the earlier days of
>geology, when everything that's high-grade metamorphic, deformed and
>at the bottom of the pile was considered older than the rest.
>
>Cheers, Juergen
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|