Abstract

Duebendorfer and Simpson (1994) are quite right in their opening statement that considerable controversy exists regarding the origin and kinematic significance of the wide array of structures other than normal faults in extensional tectonic regimes. In view of rather poor representation of some aspects of this controversy in their paper, however, we feel compelled to provide Bulletin readers with a number of reasons why they should scrutinize their major conclusions. Duebendorfer and Simpson (1) overlooked the age relationships among various structures that we have also studied (Çakir, 1990; Çakir and Aydin, 1990) and misrepresented our model that offers an explanation for the origin of these structures; (2) presented a structural analysis in which the faults from a large area are arbitrarily divided into orientation-based subgroups, using a kinematic method whose basic assumptions may be invalid in the area; and (3) proposed a viscous flow model that is inconsistent not only with field observations but also with some of their own arguments. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these points under the sections of previous work, methods, and proposed model, respectively, in as much detail as possible within the limitations of a discussion.

This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access.

First Page Preview

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