Comment on ‘The Generation of Eocene Mafic Dike Swarms During the Exhumation of a Core Complex, Biarjmand Area, NE Iran’ by Azizi et al. (2023), Journal of Petrology, 64, 1-18
{"title":"Comment on ‘The Generation of Eocene Mafic Dike Swarms During the Exhumation of a Core Complex, Biarjmand Area, NE Iran’ by Azizi et al. (2023), Journal of Petrology, 64, 1-18","authors":"Ahmadreza Malekpour-Alamdari","doi":"10.1093/petrology/egae011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Azizi et al. (2023) have attributed the E-W-oriented mafic dike swarm in the Biarjmand metamorphic core complex to an Eocene extensional event which is much younger than a previously suggested Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous age (Malekpour-Alamdari et al., 2017). They proposed that the emplacement of these dikes occurred in a rapid extensional regime coeval with the exhumation of the core complex after gravitational instability in the Central Iran/Eurasia collision zone. I appreciate the opportunity this paper provides to shed light on specific aspects of the Late Mesozoic-Early Cenozoic continental extension within the Eurasian sector of the Neotethys subduction system. However, I here bring to attention certain discrepancies within Azizi et al.'s (2023) publication. Specifically, the assignment of an Eocene age to the emplacement of the E-W-oriented dike swarm, even though purportedly supported by U-Pb zircon dating, appears to be at odds with field observations and previously published geochronological data. Furthermore, the paper contains internal contradictions in its presentation of the core complex model for the study area. It is important to note that Malekpour-Alamdari (2017) and Malekpour-Alamdari et al. (2017) previously documented the geochronological-based metamorphic core complex model of the area. Regrettably, despite its direct relevance, these earlier works have not been acknowledged in Azizi et al.'s (2023) paper. In this comment, I outline the problems with the structural and regional geology, the zircon U-Pb age of the dike samples, the age of the dike swarm, and the geodynamic interpretations in Azizi et al.'s (2023) work.","PeriodicalId":16751,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Petrology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Petrology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egae011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Azizi et al. (2023) have attributed the E-W-oriented mafic dike swarm in the Biarjmand metamorphic core complex to an Eocene extensional event which is much younger than a previously suggested Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous age (Malekpour-Alamdari et al., 2017). They proposed that the emplacement of these dikes occurred in a rapid extensional regime coeval with the exhumation of the core complex after gravitational instability in the Central Iran/Eurasia collision zone. I appreciate the opportunity this paper provides to shed light on specific aspects of the Late Mesozoic-Early Cenozoic continental extension within the Eurasian sector of the Neotethys subduction system. However, I here bring to attention certain discrepancies within Azizi et al.'s (2023) publication. Specifically, the assignment of an Eocene age to the emplacement of the E-W-oriented dike swarm, even though purportedly supported by U-Pb zircon dating, appears to be at odds with field observations and previously published geochronological data. Furthermore, the paper contains internal contradictions in its presentation of the core complex model for the study area. It is important to note that Malekpour-Alamdari (2017) and Malekpour-Alamdari et al. (2017) previously documented the geochronological-based metamorphic core complex model of the area. Regrettably, despite its direct relevance, these earlier works have not been acknowledged in Azizi et al.'s (2023) paper. In this comment, I outline the problems with the structural and regional geology, the zircon U-Pb age of the dike samples, the age of the dike swarm, and the geodynamic interpretations in Azizi et al.'s (2023) work.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Petrology provides an international forum for the publication of high quality research in the broad field of igneous and metamorphic petrology and petrogenesis. Papers published cover a vast range of topics in areas such as major element, trace element and isotope geochemistry and geochronology applied to petrogenesis; experimental petrology; processes of magma generation, differentiation and emplacement; quantitative studies of rock-forming minerals and their paragenesis; regional studies of igneous and meta morphic rocks which contribute to the solution of fundamental petrological problems; theoretical modelling of petrogenetic processes.