{"title":"心山和南叉断层系统始新世火山系统崩塌的结构和演化,怀俄明州西北部","authors":"E. C. Beutner, T. Hauge","doi":"10.2113/GSROCKY.44.2.147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thanks to Anders et al. (this volume) for their attention to the legacy of the late Ed Beutner, and to his and my recent Rocky Mountain Geology paper (Beutner and Hauge, 2009). I make no claim of being able to reply to their comment as aptly as Ed would have, but here I'll try to represent my own perspective (and Ed's, as I recall it) on their remarks.\n\nBeutner and Hauge (2009) made a case for an early, noncatastrophic phase of displacement along the Heart Mountain (HM) detachment, followed by final catastrophic emplacement of the allochthon. Anders et al. (this volume) argue that this noncatastrophic phase is not supported by the evidence, and they cite both data (calcite twinning; radiometric ages) and models (Aharonov and Anders, 2006) in support of this claim. The models of Aharonov and Anders (2006) and Beutner and Hauge (2009) are fundamentally incompatible because the Aharonov and Anders model requires that the Paleozoic strata of the future allochthon were intact and able to confine pressure that triggered catastrophic failure. In the Beutner and Hauge model, significant extension of the HM allochthon had already taken place when catastrophic failure was triggered. Both models have weaknesses. To varying degrees they require initial conditions that are improbable, explain away conflicting data, inadequately confront alternative models, and make predictions that are not borne out by available data. The resolution of the problems of the initiation, maintenance, and rate of displacement of the HM allochthon has been hampered by the vast scale, rugged terrain, and concealment by younger strata that have made observations difficult. As it has for over a century, the problem remains unresolved.\n\n### Issues Surrounding Beutner and Hauge's (2009) Comments on Aharonov and Anders (2006)\n\nThe following paragraphs respond directly to the comments of Anders et al. (this volume) in the context of the two competing models.\n\nBeutner and Hauge (2009) …","PeriodicalId":34958,"journal":{"name":"Rocky Mountain Geology","volume":"29 1","pages":"147-164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2113/GSROCKY.44.2.147","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heart Mountain and South Fork fault systems Architecture and evolution of the collapse of an Eocene volcanic system, northwest Wyoming\",\"authors\":\"E. C. Beutner, T. Hauge\",\"doi\":\"10.2113/GSROCKY.44.2.147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thanks to Anders et al. (this volume) for their attention to the legacy of the late Ed Beutner, and to his and my recent Rocky Mountain Geology paper (Beutner and Hauge, 2009). I make no claim of being able to reply to their comment as aptly as Ed would have, but here I'll try to represent my own perspective (and Ed's, as I recall it) on their remarks.\\n\\nBeutner and Hauge (2009) made a case for an early, noncatastrophic phase of displacement along the Heart Mountain (HM) detachment, followed by final catastrophic emplacement of the allochthon. Anders et al. (this volume) argue that this noncatastrophic phase is not supported by the evidence, and they cite both data (calcite twinning; radiometric ages) and models (Aharonov and Anders, 2006) in support of this claim. The models of Aharonov and Anders (2006) and Beutner and Hauge (2009) are fundamentally incompatible because the Aharonov and Anders model requires that the Paleozoic strata of the future allochthon were intact and able to confine pressure that triggered catastrophic failure. In the Beutner and Hauge model, significant extension of the HM allochthon had already taken place when catastrophic failure was triggered. Both models have weaknesses. To varying degrees they require initial conditions that are improbable, explain away conflicting data, inadequately confront alternative models, and make predictions that are not borne out by available data. The resolution of the problems of the initiation, maintenance, and rate of displacement of the HM allochthon has been hampered by the vast scale, rugged terrain, and concealment by younger strata that have made observations difficult. As it has for over a century, the problem remains unresolved.\\n\\n### Issues Surrounding Beutner and Hauge's (2009) Comments on Aharonov and Anders (2006)\\n\\nThe following paragraphs respond directly to the comments of Anders et al. (this volume) in the context of the two competing models.\\n\\nBeutner and Hauge (2009) …\",\"PeriodicalId\":34958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rocky Mountain Geology\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"147-164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2113/GSROCKY.44.2.147\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rocky Mountain Geology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2113/GSROCKY.44.2.147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Earth and Planetary Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rocky Mountain Geology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2113/GSROCKY.44.2.147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Earth and Planetary Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17
摘要
感谢Anders等人(本卷)对已故Ed Beutner的遗产的关注,以及他和我最近发表的落基山地质学论文(Beutner and Hauge, 2009)。我不能说我能像Ed那样恰当地回答他们的评论,但在这里,我将尝试代表我自己的观点(和Ed的,我记得是这样的)。Beutner和Hauge(2009)提出了一个早期的、非灾难性的迁移阶段,沿着心脏山(HM)分离,然后是最后灾难性的外来生物就位。安德斯等人(本卷)认为这种非灾难性阶段没有证据支持,他们引用了两个数据(方解石孪晶;辐射年龄)和模型(Aharonov和Anders, 2006)来支持这一说法。Aharonov和Anders(2006)的模型和Beutner和Hauge(2009)的模型从根本上是不相容的,因为Aharonov和Anders的模型要求未来异体的古生代地层是完整的,并且能够限制引发灾难性破坏的压力。在Beutner和Hauge模型中,当灾难性的破坏被触发时,HM同种动物的显著扩展已经发生。这两种模式都有弱点。在不同程度上,它们需要不可能的初始条件,解释相互矛盾的数据,不充分地面对替代模型,并做出没有得到现有数据证实的预测。巨大的规模、崎岖的地形和较年轻的地层掩盖使观测变得困难,阻碍了对HM异体的形成、维持和位移速度等问题的解决。一个多世纪以来,这个问题一直没有得到解决。###围绕Beutner和Hauge(2009)对Aharonov和Anders(2006)的评论的问题以下段落直接回应了Anders等人(本卷)在两个相互竞争的模型背景下的评论。Beutner and Hauge(2009)……
Heart Mountain and South Fork fault systems Architecture and evolution of the collapse of an Eocene volcanic system, northwest Wyoming
Thanks to Anders et al. (this volume) for their attention to the legacy of the late Ed Beutner, and to his and my recent Rocky Mountain Geology paper (Beutner and Hauge, 2009). I make no claim of being able to reply to their comment as aptly as Ed would have, but here I'll try to represent my own perspective (and Ed's, as I recall it) on their remarks.
Beutner and Hauge (2009) made a case for an early, noncatastrophic phase of displacement along the Heart Mountain (HM) detachment, followed by final catastrophic emplacement of the allochthon. Anders et al. (this volume) argue that this noncatastrophic phase is not supported by the evidence, and they cite both data (calcite twinning; radiometric ages) and models (Aharonov and Anders, 2006) in support of this claim. The models of Aharonov and Anders (2006) and Beutner and Hauge (2009) are fundamentally incompatible because the Aharonov and Anders model requires that the Paleozoic strata of the future allochthon were intact and able to confine pressure that triggered catastrophic failure. In the Beutner and Hauge model, significant extension of the HM allochthon had already taken place when catastrophic failure was triggered. Both models have weaknesses. To varying degrees they require initial conditions that are improbable, explain away conflicting data, inadequately confront alternative models, and make predictions that are not borne out by available data. The resolution of the problems of the initiation, maintenance, and rate of displacement of the HM allochthon has been hampered by the vast scale, rugged terrain, and concealment by younger strata that have made observations difficult. As it has for over a century, the problem remains unresolved.
### Issues Surrounding Beutner and Hauge's (2009) Comments on Aharonov and Anders (2006)
The following paragraphs respond directly to the comments of Anders et al. (this volume) in the context of the two competing models.
Beutner and Hauge (2009) …
期刊介绍:
Rocky Mountain Geology (formerly Contributions to Geology) is published twice yearly by the Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Wyoming. The focus of the journal is regional geology and paleontology of the Rocky Mountains and adjacent areas of western North America. This high-impact, scholarly journal, is an important resource for professional earth scientists. The high-quality, refereed articles report original research by top specialists in all aspects of geology and paleontology in the greater Rocky Mountain region.