Permian and Triassic palaeolatitudes of the Ukrainian shield with implications for Pangea reconstructions

Details Permian and Triassic palaeolatitudes of the Ukrainian shield with implications for Pangea reconstructions Permian and Triassic palaeolatitudes of the Ukrainian shield with implications for Pangea reconstructions

Feb 2011

adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2011geoji.184..595y&link_type=abstract

Geophysical Journal International, Volume 184, Issue 2, pp. 595-610.

Physics

3

Palaeomagnetism Applied To Tectonics

Scientific paper

A collection of 306 oriented samples from 43 Permian and Triassic intrusions from the Ukrainian Shield, the southwest portion of the East European Craton, has yielded valuable palaeomagnetic directions with new ages obtained using the 40Ar/39Ar method. Andesitic intrusions have Late Triassic ages (six dating samples) of 204.2 ± 1.6 Ma to 215.7 ± 2.0 Ma and dual-polarity Dec/Inc = 60.1°/+64.4°, k= 96, α95= 4.5°, derived from N= 12 sites. Trachyte dykes have an early Artinskian (mid-Early Permian) age (one dating sample) of 282.6 ± 2.6 Ma, and yielded Dec/Inc = 204.3°/-23.8°, k= 27.7, α95= 6.5°, from N= 19 sites. The palaeolatitude of the trachyte intrusions is 12.4°± 3.7° N.
Because the Artinskian and younger Permian palaeopoles obtained from the Gondwana continents are subject to uncertainties, some studies have adopted a palaeopole (at 41°S, 61°E) largely based on results from ˜280 Ma Permian quartzporphyries in the Southern Alps of Italy as proxy to position Gondwana at that time. With this palaeoposition and our new ˜280 Ma palaeolatitude for Baltica, a Pangea A reconstruction cannot be supported. To avoid its inherent continental overlap of Africa and Eurasia, a Pangea B reconstruction has been favoured, wherein Eurasia's southern margin faces the northcoast of South America instead. However, the 280 ± 10 Ma palaeomagnetic data from the Gondwana continents themselves give a mean palaeopole at 30°S, 59°E, which results in a palaeogeographic position of Gondwana that allows a Pangea A type reconstruction. Thus, the choice between Pangea A versus B in the Artinskian hinges on data selection and reliability criteria and the assumptions about tectonic coherence of northern Adria (i.e. the Southern Alps) with Africa in Permian times. A more reliable mid-Early Permian palaeopole from cratonic Gondwana would provide a more definitive conclusion.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Permian and Triassic palaeolatitudes of the Ukrainian shield with implications for Pangea reconstructions does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Permian and Triassic palaeolatitudes of the Ukrainian shield with implications for Pangea reconstructions, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Permian and Triassic palaeolatitudes of the Ukrainian shield with implications for Pangea reconstructions will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1119998