Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Turner, B. R. Articles by Thomson, K. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Discussion on ‘Basin development during deposition of the Elliot Formation (Late Triassic – Early Jurassic), Karoo Supergroup, South Africa’ (South African Journal of Geology, 107, 397–12)

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Durham, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK. e-mail: b.r.turner@durham.ac.uk

K. Thomson

Department of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. e-mail: K.THOMSON@bham.ac.uk

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

The paper by Bordy et al.(2004) represents a useful contribution to one of the most neglected parts of the Karoo succession, despite its importance in terms of biological and climate change, and evolving basin tectonics. However, the paper also raises a number of issues that warrant further discussion. The paper highlights one of the major problems with the Karoo Basin: the lack of reliable radiometric dates for the age of the basin fill. Bordy et al.(2004) divide the Upper Karoo succession on perceived unconformities which they link to more than twenty year old Ar/Ar dates for synchronous orogenic events in the Cape Fold Belt (Hälbich, et al., 1983). Unfortunately, most geochronologists do not consider such dates reliable because the Ar-Ar system, being based on the K-Ar system, is rather prone to the effects of alteration/diagenesis, which may induce a non systematic loss or gain of radiogenic Ar. In addition, with improvements in mass spectrometry techniques, there is now significant argument about fundamental issues relating to the methodology, more specifically: uncertainty in the half life of ⁴⁰K; lack of agreement on the precise age of neutron flux monitors used to calibrate ages for unknown samples; the inherent variability of the neutron flux in a given reactor used to irradiate samples, leading sometimes to significant uncertainty in the "J"-factor; and differences in approach to criteria used for accepting data for use in age calculation. These uncertainties combine to mean that the absolute error on a given ⁴⁰Ar-³⁹Ar is significantly greater than the "in-run" uncertainties quoted in most publications. This can lead to errors of several percent in the absolute age of a Mesozoic rock.

The age of the upper Karoo succession is poorly constrained (see discussion in Turner, 1999), and apart from the base of . . . [Full Text of this Article]