Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Polat, A. Articles by Li, J. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Geochemistry of Neoarchean (ca. 2.55–2.50 Ga) volcanic and ophiolitic rocks in the Wutaishan greenstone belt, central orogenic belt, North China craton: Implications for geodynamic setting and continental growth: Reply

Ali Polat^,1, Tim Kusky² and Jianghai Li³

¹ Department of Earth Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada
² Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 63103, USA
³ Department of Geology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

	INTRODUCTION

 
The Archean North China craton is divided into the Eastern and Western blocks, which are separated by the central orogenic belt. Three major issues remain unresolved regarding the origin and evolution of the central orogenic belt. These include: (1) the original relationships between the Hengshan, Wutaishan, and Fuping lithotectonic complexes of the Western block, central orogenic belt, and Eastern block, respectively; (2) structural, magmatic, and metamorphic histories of these complexes; and (3) the timing of the orogenic event that resulted in the closure of the ocean between the Western and Eastern continental blocks. These controversial issues likely stem from the fact that the region underwent several phases of contractional and extensional tectonism over several hundreds of millions of years, resulting in a complicated geological evolution in space and time (see Kusky and Li, 2003; Kröner et al., 2005a, 2005b; Wilde et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2002, 2005; Kusky et al., 2007, and references therein). Comments by Zhao and Kröner on our paper (Polat et al., 2005) address the unresolved issues outlined above and we welcome the opportunity to further discuss these important points. First, we note that we do not dispute, or refute, the existence of 1.85 Ga metamorphic zircon ages reported by Zhao and coworkers (Zhao et al., 2001, 2002; Guan et al., 2002; Wilde et al., 2002, 2005; Kröner et al., 2005a, 2005b). We agree that these ages are of high precision and reflect a Paleoproterozoic tectono-thermal event that affected the entire region. However, we do not agree with Zhao and Kröner's suggestion that these ages represent a collisional event between the Eastern and Western continental blocks of the North China craton. Instead, we argue for a more comprehensive and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. M. Kusky and M. Santosh The Columbia connection in North China Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2009; 323(1): 49 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Trap, M. Faure, W. Lin, and S. Meffre The Luliang Massif: a key area for the understanding of the Palaeoproterozoic Trans-North China Belt, North China Craton Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2009; 323(1): 99 - 125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]