CompuServe Messages

#Fold mountains

    14-Mar-95 23:46:13
Sb: #173504-#Fold mountains
Fm: Doug Mitchell 70621,702
To: Jon Woolf 76557,3537
Hi, Jon– The author of the article (Ian W. D. Dalziel) seemed to have the strongest conviction that Antarctica was connected to Laurentia before the Cambrian; the various collisions of Laurentia (proto-N.America) with the S. American part of Gondwana seemed to be worded as more speculative, or perhaps that was more because he was referencing other people's notions that fit in well. The article has a series of maps showing Baltica and Laurentia starting to collide between the mid-Ordovician and mid-Silurian maps, not a bad fit for the Taconic orogeny. In the next late-Devonian map they are more firmly connected and the southeastern U.S. is scraping along Peru – this is the event they associated with the Acadian orogeny, thus I guess Laurentia is getting mashed from two directions at nearly the same time (it is comforting that you describe the Acadian as long-lasting). The Canadian/Greenland coast is clearly affected mainly by Baltica in these events. Perhaps that Avalon terrane was far enough south to be involved in that presumed Peru contact? If all of the fold mountains from the pre-Pangaean continental collisions wore away, we have been barking up the wrong tree in trying to explain the Appalachians in such terms. Were they completely worn away all up and down the east coast, or did significant parts survive? Perhaps the modern Appalachians are still mainly shaped by the folds of those older mountains? This would help explain the frequency of missing/fallen anticline tops we spoke of by adding a potential mechanism; as weathering exposed a tough layer at the top, it would be attacked before the flanks of that tough layer became exposed. –Doug