We appreciate the comment of Searle et al. and the opportunity to develop and clarify our ideas regarding Main Central thrust evolution. Searle et al. argue that (1) the Main Central thrust should be defined on the basis of “high strain” rather than petrologic, tectonostratigraphic, and geochronologic criteria, and (2) Main Central thrust monazite grains both in the matrix and included in garnet only record late-stage fluid-assisted recrystallization, so that 40Ar/39Ar muscovite ages are preferable chronometers of cooling histories.

We are completely puzzled by Searle et al.'s desire to engage in debate over assigning “true Main Central...

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.