Reply to Molina-Garza et al. (2019) “Discussion of: Ortega-Flores et al. (2018) provenance analysis of Oligocene sandstone from the Cerro Pelón area,southern Gulf of Mexico”

ABSTRACT

The origin of the Oligocene turbidites from the Cerro Pelón area in south Gulf Mexico proposed by Ortega-Flores et al. (2018) is in disagree with the interpretations made by Molina-Garza et al. (2019), which main criticism is based on U-Pb ages of detrital zircons from the matrix of a conglomerate unit, which they refer to as ‘Nanchital Conglomerate’, as well as on the presence of limestone, gabbros, and mafic protolith-derived clasts. Molina-Garza et al. (2019) basically interpret the Nanchital Conglomerate as Miocene in age, which was sourced mainly from metamorphic complexes including their sedimentary covers located to the west and south of the Cerro Pelón area. For some reason, Molina-Garza et al. (2019) suppose that the Nanchital Conglomerate should have the same provenance sources that the Oligocene turbidites from Cerro Pelón area, reported by Ortega-Flores et al. (2018). Based on the foregoing, we strongly disagree with Molina-Garza et al. (2019) considering that, from the beginning, they intend to compare two units of different age. Additionally, the scarce data reported from both the matrix and the clasts of the Nanchital Conglomerate are not determinant for interpreting the provenance of this conglomeratic unit and subsequently, to consider the same rock sources from the Oligocene through Miocene time.     

Reply to the comment by F. Tornos et al.

We welcome the discussion of our paper by Tornos et al. The epithermal character of the Hiendelaencina veins might have been an assumption in the early to mid 1980s, however, this early idea has been reaffirmed after many years of research involving fieldwork and mineralogical, sulphur isotopes, and fluid inclusions studies. The same applies to the alleged extensional frame, a tectonic episode now well documented not only in central Spain (Spanish Central System: Doblas 1987; Doblas et al. 1988; Doblas 1991) but in France (French Central Massif: Ménard and Molnar 1988; Malavieille et al. 1990; Munoz et al. 1992).The deposits are hosted by metamorphic rocks and the nearest volcanic outcrops to Hiendelaencina are those of Atienza (andesites; some 12 km northward). This is the reason why the relationships between the Atienza volcanics and the Hiendelaencina veins were initially regarded as obscure. These Stephanian-Permian volcanic outcrops are only local evidence of the late Variscan magmatism, which in the case of Hiendelaencina remained concealed. It is evident that the geologic environments of Hiendelaencina and Atienza are very different (see Discussion, p. 88 of the paper). As a direct consequence of this, the local structural conditions led to contrasted expressions of the late Variscan magmatism i.e. subaereal at Atienza and hypabyssal at Hiendelaencina.     

《东特提斯地质构造形成演化》:书评

《东特提斯地质构造形成演化》:书评@B.C.伯奇菲尔$美国科学院!院士、美国地质学会主席、中国科学院外籍院士