3
$\begingroup$

I have seen this diagram on Wikipedia (link below). It shows that some North American mini-plate boundaries are orogenic bands and some are magmatic arcs, and I think those correspond to continent/continent and continent/ocean crust collisions. But I do not see anything like that at the boundary of the Yavapai/Mazatzal and Wyoming plates. In addition, there are bands marked as passive plate boundaries. How do I interpret these types of boundaries?

enter image description here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Hudson_orogeny

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

The interpretation of most of these interfaces is uncertain. Most of these plate boundaries are ancient, poorly exposed, have been metamophosed in later orogenies, and have suffered significant amounts of later erosion making it very difficult to say too much about the earlier character of the contact. Theoretically, you could have a transform fault that would move different terranes next to each other without having a subduction zone between them but I can't think of any example of this happening today. The closest would be the San Andreas in California.

Another problem is that it is hard to take our knowledge of plate tectonics today and extend it back billions of years. Possibly the earth took a long time to come up with its current convection system and the rules were different initially. None of the other rocky planets seem to have developed plate tectonics so we know that the current system on earth is not the only way for a planet to behave.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

You didn't dive deep enough. You're asking about an area on a high-level, generalized map of basement rock provinces.

There were several orogenies at the southern boundary of the Wyoming craton. Between 1800 Ma and 1000 Ma, a series of island arcs accreted to southern Laurentia, building up the pink area on your map.

The earliest of these was the Yavapai orogeny between 1800-1700 Ma. It was followed by the Mazatzal collision 1700-1600 Ma.

Yavapai,mazatal orogeny map

A 1982 article by Kent C. Condie describes this in more detail. It is behind a paywall, but you can see the abstract, which gives the gist.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.