𝔖 Bobbio Scriptorium
✦   LIBER   ✦

Reply on the age of the Oughterard Granite, Connemara, Ireland

✍ Scribed by P. S. Kennan; M. Feely; P. Mohr


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2007
Tongue
English
Weight
197 KB
Volume
24
Category
Article
ISSN
0072-1050

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

✦ Synopsis


Leake (1988)

has reinterpreted the data presented by Kennan er al. (1987) to conform with his long-standing view that the Oughterard Granite is of mid-Ordovician age. We address his eight comments in turn:


πŸ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


The age of the Oughterard Granite, Conne
✍ P. S. Kennan; M. Feely; P. Mohr πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 1987 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 483 KB

Despite a wide latitude for interpretation of previous Rb-Sr isotopic data on thc Oughterard Granite the age of this intrusion has been regarded as a critical time-marker in resolving the Caledonian evolution of Connemara. New isotopic data suggest that the age of the intrusion be revised from c. 46

Comments on the age of the oughterard gr
✍ Bernard E. Leake πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2007 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 151 KB

Kennan et al. (1987) suppose that the Oughterard Granite, Connemara, has an intrusive age of 407 k 23 Ma and thatdhe granite belongs to the main (-400 Ma) phase of late Caledonian granite intrusions of Britain and Ireland. This is however neither reliably established nor even probably correct for th

New constraints upon the structural and
✍ P. W. G. Tanner; T. J. Dempster; G. Rogers πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 1997 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 388 KB

A Lower Ordovician age for the Oughterard Granite is established by RbΒ±Sr dating of magmatic white micas from pegmatites cutting two of the satellite bodies found 12Β±15 km west of the main granitic intrusions. These micas give a minimum age of c. 473 Ma for the emplacement of the satellite bodies, a

The structural setting of the main doneg
✍ D. H. W. Hutton πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2007 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 198 KB

I thank Dr. Berger for his comments on an earlier paper of mine (Hutton 1977) and welcome this opportunity to clarify and expand on various aspects of that work. Berger (1980) has divided the Creeslough Formation in its type area into a lower 'calcareous' unit (occurring in the SE) and an upper pel