Reply to: “Yarrol terrane of the northern New England Fold Belt: forearc or backarc?” Discussion by Murray, C.G., Blake, P.R., Hutton, L.J., Withnall, I.W., Hayward, M.A., Simpson, G.A., Fordham, B.G.

Bryan, S. E., Holcombe, R. J. and Fielding, C. R. (2003) Reply to: “Yarrol terrane of the northern New England Fold Belt: forearc or backarc?” Discussion by Murray, C.G., Blake, P.R., Hutton, L.J., Withnall, I.W., Hayward, M.A., Simpson, G.A., Fordham, B.G. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 50(2), pp. 271-293. ISSN (print) 0812-0099

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-0952.2003.00981.x

Abstract

We questioned the ‘classical’ forearc model for the Yarrol Basin of the northern New England Fold Belt in Bryan et al. (2001) on the basis of geochemical, stratigraphic and sedimentological data. Murray et al. dismiss the possibility of the Yarrol Basin developing initially as a backarc basin in the Middle to Late Devonian. This dismissal is not supported by significant new information and largely reiterates old concepts and work, with the belief that the previous model was built on such a strong database that it is unassailable (a ‘cornerstone’). We address four key issues raised in their discussion: (i) the ‘classic’ convergent continental margin model for the New England Fold Belt; (ii) the interpretation of calcalkaline/‘arc’ signatures and tectonic affinities of Middle Devonian to Early Permian magmatism; (iii) volcanogenic sedimentation sourced from a volcanic arc to the west of the basin; and (iv) palaeogeography and an apparent deepening of the basin from west to east.

Actions (Repository Editors)

Item Control Page