1-20 OF 39 RESULTS FOR

Tecomate Formation

Results shown limited to content with bounding coordinates.
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 01 September 2012
GSA Bulletin (2012) 124 (9-10): 1607–1628.
...Moritz Kirsch; J. Duncan Keppie; J. Brendan Murphy; Luigi A. Solari Abstract In the Acatlán Complex of southern Mexico, a late Paleozoic assemblage, consisting of a gabbro-diorite-tonalite-trondhjemite suite (Totoltepec pluton) and clastic-calcareous metasedimentary rocks (Tecomate Formation...
FIGURES | View All (15)
... Silurian deformation (the Acatecan orogeny) during which the Piaxtla Group underwent eclogite-facies metamorphism synchronous with megacrystic granitoid emplacement, (3) deposition of the arc-related Tecomate Formation and intrusion of megacrystic granitoid plutons during the Devonian, and (4) deformation...
Image
A 2σ error bar plot showing concordant 206Pb/238U ages of detrital zircons from the Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary rocks. Data also include inherited zircons extracted from a granitoid dike intruding Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metapsammites as well as U-Pb sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe (SHRIMP) analyses of zircons separated from Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metaconglomerate granitoid cobbles (Keppie et al., 2004b). Diagonally hatched regions and histograms represent U-Pb age data from Totoltepec pluton rocks. Gray shaded histogram on the right-hand side shows the age distribution of all detrital zircon data featured in this diagram. Qz—quartz; Hbl—hornblende.
Published: 01 September 2012
Figure 6. A 2σ error bar plot showing concordant 206 Pb/ 238 U ages of detrital zircons from the Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary rocks. Data also include inherited zircons extracted from a granitoid dike intruding Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metapsammites as well as U
Journal Article
Journal: Lithosphere
Publisher: GSW
Published: 01 April 2014
Lithosphere (2014) 6 (2): 63–79.
...; and (2) the Pennsylvanian–Middle Permian, low-grade, clastic-calcareous, arc-related Tecomate Formation. U-Pb laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) data yield an age of 339 ± 6 Ma for the youngest population of detrital zircon grains in the Amarillo unit...
FIGURES | View All (13)
Image
(A) Chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) plot (normalizing values from Sun and McDonough, 1989); and (B) upper continental (UC) crust–normalized trace-element diagram (normalizing values from Taylor and McLennan, 1995) of Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary rocks.
Published: 01 September 2012
Figure 13. (A) Chondrite-normalized rare earth element (REE) plot (normalizing values from Sun and McDonough, 1989 ); and (B) upper continental (UC) crust–normalized trace-element diagram (normalizing values from Taylor and McLennan, 1995 ) of Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary
Image
Correlation chart of various arc-related igneous and sedimentary suites of Carboniferous to Permian age, sorted according to their locations in various tectonostratigraphic terranes of Mexico. Gray bars spanning the age window suggest approximate depositional ages of formations in Wolfcampian and Leonardian intervals in this study, west Texas, USA. Figure is from Kirsch et al. (2012). Sand—Sandstone; Fm.—Formation; CTF—Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation.
Published: 23 May 2019
in Wolfcampian and Leonardian intervals in this study, west Texas, USA. Figure is from Kirsch et al. (2012) . Sand—Sandstone; Fm.—Formation; CTF—Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation.
Image
Discrimination diagrams for the metasedimentary rocks of the Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation. (A) Hf versus La/Th diagram after Floyd and Leveridge (1987); (B) (Fe2O3 + MgO) versus (Al2O3/SiO2) diagram after Bhatia (1983). Post-Archean Australian Shale, upper continental crust (Taylor and McLennan, 1985), and North American Shale Composite (Gromet et al., 1984) are shown for comparison.
Published: 01 September 2012
Figure 12. Discrimination diagrams for the metasedimentary rocks of the Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation. (A) Hf versus La/Th diagram after Floyd and Leveridge (1987) ; (B) (Fe 2 O 3 + MgO) versus (Al 2 O 3 /SiO 2 ) diagram after Bhatia (1983) . Post-Archean Australian Shale, upper
Journal Article
Journal: Geology
Published: 01 October 2006
Geology (2006) 34 (10): 857–860.
... convergent tectonics on the paleo-Pacific margin of Pangea; and (5) interaction with a Jurassic mantle plume coeval with the opening of the Gulf of Mexico. Following exhumation, both plates were overstepped by the volcanic-sedimentary Tecomate Formation, dominated by slate, sandstone, conglomerate...
FIGURES
Image
Relative age probability and histogram plots (A, C, E, G, I) as well as Tera-Wasserburg concordia diagrams (B, D, F, H, J) for U-Pb laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) zircon analyses of Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary rocks and a granitoid dike. Black error ellipses in amplified concordia plot were used for weighted mean age calculation of the youngest age group. Histograms indicate number of analyses within 100 m.y. interval; histograms of the youngest age group have a 10 m.y. bin width.
Published: 01 September 2012
Figure 5. Relative age probability and histogram plots (A, C, E, G, I) as well as Tera-Wasserburg concordia diagrams (B, D, F, H, J) for U-Pb laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) zircon analyses of Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary rocks
Image
(A) ɛNd(t) versus time plot comparing Sm-Nd isotopic data of the Totoltepec pluton (vertically hatched) and the Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary rocks (diagonally hatched) with metasedimentary rocks from the Tecomate Formation type area (Yañez et al., 1991), rocks from the Oaxacan Complex (Ruiz et al., 1988), and Ordovician amphibolites from the Asis area (Murphy et al., 2006). Modern depleted mantle composition is from DePaolo (1988). (B) 147Sm/144Nd versus ɛNd(t) diagram for Totoltepec pluton rocks as a means to evaluate crustal contamination. Fields correspond to Sm-Nd data from the Cozahuico granite (this paper; Elías-Herrera et al., 2005; Torres et al., 1999), the La Carbonera stock (this paper), the Altos Cuchumatanes granitoids (Solari, 2012, personal commun.), the Tuzancoa Formation volcanic rocks (Rosales-Lagarde et al., 2005), and Ordovician amphibolites from the Asis lithodeme (Murphy et al., 2006) and the Olinalá area (Ortega-Obregón et al., 2010). For comparison, ɛNd(t) data for all samples are shown at t = 289 Ma. The black curves show trends for assimilation and fractional crystallization (AFC; DePaolo, 1981) in which crust (C—average composition of the Oaxacan Complex calculated from Ruiz et al., 1988) is assimilated by a basaltic parent magma (P—average composition of four most juvenile 306 Ma marginal ultramafic to mafic rocks of the Totoltepec pluton). Values for r (rate of assimilation relative to fractional crystallization) are indicated adjacent to AFC lines. For r ≥ 1, curves extend to values of F (fraction of remaining liquid) = 5; for r < 1, curves end at F = 0.1. Partition coefficients are from Arth (1976). Composition of depleted mantle is from DePaolo (1988). Gray arrows indicate trends for pure fractional crystallization of olivine (Ol), pyroxene (Px), hornblende (Hbl), plagioclase (Plag), apatite (Ap), zircon (Zrc), and K-feldspar (K-fsp).
Published: 01 September 2012
Figure 11. (A) ɛ Nd (t) versus time plot comparing Sm-Nd isotopic data of the Totoltepec pluton (vertically hatched) and the Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation metasedimentary rocks (diagonally hatched) with metasedimentary rocks from the Tecomate Formation type area ( Yañez et al., 1991 ), rocks
Image
a–e, Age probability and histogram plots of detrital zircon ages (all histograms show number of analyses within each 100-Ma interval) from Chiapas Massif Complex (CMC) Group I metasediments (a, top; samples CB44 and CB54); the Santa Rosa Formation in Chiapas (a, bottom; data from Weber et al. 2006 and forthcoming); metasedimentary rocks from the Acatlán Complex with mainly Pan-African–Brasiliano zircons (b): Carboniferous units (top; Cosoltepec Formation, Salada and Coatlaco units; data from Talavera-Mendoza et al. 2005; Keppie et al. 2006; Grodzicki et al. 2008; Morales-Gámez et al. 2008) and pre-Silurian units (bottom; Las Minas and Mal Paso units; data from Keppie et al. 2008b); CMC Group II metasediments (c, top three plots; data from Weber et al. 2007 and this work); the Maya series from the Maya Mountains in Belize (c, bottom; data from U. Martens, pers. comm.); metasedimentary rocks from the Acatlán Complex with mainly mid-Proterozoic ages (d): post-Ordovician units (top; Tecomate Formation and Canoas Unit; data from Sanchez-Zavala et al. 2004; Grodzicki et al. 2008) and metasedimentary units intruded by Ordovician granites (bottom; Tecomate and Xayacatlán formations, Esperanza Suite, and Amate Unit; data from Sánchez-Zavala et al. 2004; Talevera-Mendoza et al. 2005; Vega-Granillo et al. 2007; Morales-Gámez et al. 2008); and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, overlaying the mid-Proterozoic Oaxacan complex (Oaxaquia Terrane) (e; data from Gillis et al. 2005). f, Simplified revised pre-Mesozoic stratigraphy of the Maya Block, comparing Chiapas (this work, revised from Hernandez-García 1973 and considering information from Salazar-Juárez et al. 2007), Guatemala (revised from Clemons and Burkart 1971 and considering information from Ortega-Gutiérrez et al. 2007; Ortega-Obregón et al. 2008; and Solari et al., forthcoming), and Belize (revised from Dixon 1956 but including information from Martens et al. 2006; U. Martens, B. Weber, and V. Valencia, unpub. manuscript). Additional columns of comparable units are from the Mixteca Terrane (e.g., Keppie et al. 2008a) and from Oaxaquia (Gillis et al. 2005).
Published: 01 November 2008
; data from U. Martens, pers. comm.); metasedimentary rocks from the Acatlán Complex with mainly mid-Proterozoic ages ( d ): post-Ordovician units ( top ; Tecomate Formation and Canoas Unit; data from Sanchez-Zavala et al. 2004 ; Grodzicki et al. 2008 ) and metasedimentary units intruded by Ordovician
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 01 September 2009
GSA Bulletin (2009) 121 (9-10): 1456–1459.
... . 149 . Keppie J.D. Sandberg C.A. Miller B.V. Sánchez-Zavala J.L. Nance R.D. Poole F.G. 2004c , Implications of latest Pennsylvanian to Middle Permian paleontological and U-Pb SHRIMP data from the Tecomate Formation to re-dating tectonothermal events in the Acatlán...
FIGURES
Journal Article
Published: 31 January 2001
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences (2003) 40 (1): 27–44.
... units (Petlalcingo and Piaxtla groups) separated by a major thrust overlapped by a weakly metamorphosed and strongly deformed Devonian volcanosedimentary sequence named the Tecomate Formation. The lower plate is known as the Petlalcingo Group, and it consists of a thick package of metasedimentary rocks...
FIGURES | View All (11)
Journal Article
Published: 01 July 2006
Journal of the Geological Society (2006) 163 (4): 683–695.
... Ordovician–Early Silurian polyphase deformation during the Acatecan Orogeny, when the Piaxtla Group underwent eclogite-facies metamorphism and was thrust over the Petlalcingo Group metamorphosed at greenschist facies; (3) Devonian deposition of the Tecomate Formation; (4) Devonian deformation and greenschist...
FIGURES | View All (17)
Series: Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Published: 01 January 2009
DOI: 10.1144/SP327.12
EISBN: 9781862395756
...–Permian low-grade metasedimentary rocks that form a continental-shallow marine succession dominated by slate, sandstone, conglomerate and limestone (Tecomate, Olinalá and Patlanoaya formations), the deposition of which was coeval with Permo–Triassic arc magmatism ( Torres et al. 1999 ; Malone et al...
FIGURES | View All (14)
... (the Magdalena Migmatite and the Chazumba and Cosoltepec Formations) and an upper Piaxtla Group, both of which were assumed to be of early Paleozoic age (Fig. 2) . These units are unconformably overlain by the Tecomate Formation, which, based on poorly preserved fossils, was assumed to be of Devonian age ( Fig...
... describe their geochemistry. The Los Hornos granitoid (LH-1) pluton contains K-feldspar megacrysts up to 4 cm in diameter, is not penetratively foliated, and is unconformably overlain by conglomerate and limestone of the Middle Permian Tecomate Formation ( Keppie et al., 2004a ). Immediately to the south...
... metamorphosed at greenschist-amphibolite facies; (3) Devonian deposition of the Tecomate Formation; (4) Devonian deformation and greenschist-facies metamorphism during the Mixtecan orogeny; and (5) deposition of the uppermost Devonian–Lower Permian Patlanoaya Formation ( Ortega-Gutiérrez et al., 1999...
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 23 May 2019
GSA Bulletin (2020) 132 (1-2): 245–262.
... in Wolfcampian and Leonardian intervals in this study, west Texas, USA. Figure is from Kirsch et al. (2012) . Sand—Sandstone; Fm.—Formation; CTF—Chichihualtepec Tecomate Formation. ...
FIGURES | View All (10)
Journal Article
Published: 01 November 2008
The Journal of Geology (2008) 116 (6): 619–639.
... ; data from U. Martens, pers. comm.); metasedimentary rocks from the Acatlán Complex with mainly mid-Proterozoic ages ( d ): post-Ordovician units ( top ; Tecomate Formation and Canoas Unit; data from Sanchez-Zavala et al. 2004 ; Grodzicki et al. 2008 ) and metasedimentary units intruded by Ordovician...
FIGURES | View All (9)