Skip to Main Content
Book Chapter

Collapsing Continental Rises: Actualistic Concept of Geosynclines—A Review

By
Robert S. Dietz
Robert S. Dietz
NOAA, Atlantic Oceanographic Meteorological Laboratories, Miami, Florida
Search for other works by this author on:
John C. Holden
John C. Holden
NOAA, Atlantic Oceanographic Meteorological Laboratories, Miami, Florida
Search for other works by this author on:
Published:
January 01, 1974

Abstract

In the 1950's, geosynclinal theory was dominated by the tectogene concept and Marshall Kay's synthesis. These and earlier concepts were derived from field study of tectonized geosynclines on land. In 1959 C. Drake, Maurice Ewing, and G. Sutton, applying the data of marine geophysics, recognized that sedimentary prisms now being laid down along the eastern margin of the United States may represent nascent miogeosynclines and eugeosynclines. They assumed that there is a close parallel with Kay's model and included in their interpretation a shelf-edge basement high that supposedly is equivalent to the tectonic borderland and, also, a toe of sialic crust underlying the continental rise that supposedly makes the rise ensialic. The eugeosyncline then would be elevated eventually to continental level largely by sialization of oceanic crust and without horizontal translation of the prism.

Between 1963 and 1967, we have developed what may be called an actualistic concept of geosynclines that is based upon sea-floor spreading and collapsing continental rises. This, too, was based upon Kay's model, except that gross surgery was applied. The seaward half of the miogeosyncline was deleted, as though it never existed and making it a wedge that thickened out, so to speak, like the modern terrace wedge. Also omitted was the tectonic borderland; instead, a continental slope was inserted between the miogeocline and eugeocline. (For simplicity and since none of these sedimentary prisms are really synclinal in form, we prefer the terms miogeocline and eugeocline.) In this model, the miogeoclinal sediments were deposited ensialically on a downflexing continental margin and the eugeoclinal sediments ensimatically on oceanic crust. There seemed to be insufficient reason to equate the shelf-edge basement high with a tectonic borderland or to insert a sialic toe beneath the continental rise. Tectonization was envisioned as the result of underthrusting of the continental margin (sub- duction), which collapsed the continental rise, magmatized it, and inserted allochthonous crust and mantle rock within the eugeocline.

Our model is explicitly concerned with the mio-eugeoclinal couplet of the Atlantic type, such as would form marginal to a rift ocean on the trailing edge of a drifting continent, With the rapid development of plate tectonics and especially with the recognition of opening and closing ocean basins, much sophistication has recently been added to geosynclinal theory by J. Dewey, J. Bird, A. Mitchell, H. Reading, W. R. Dickinson, and many others.

You do not currently have access to this article.

Figures & Tables

Contents

SEPM Special Publication

Modern and Ancient Geosynclinal Sedimentation

R. H. Dott, Jr.
R. H. Dott, Jr.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Search for other works by this author on:
Robert H. Shaver
Robert H. Shaver
Indiana University, Bloomington
Search for other works by this author on:
SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology
Volume
19
ISBN electronic:
9781565761490
Publication date:
January 01, 1974

GeoRef

References

Related

Citing Books via

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal