Reimold et al.’s observations on Alexandre et al.(2006) concern the 40Ar/39Ar analytical data, their statistical treatment, and the suggested age interpretations, without commenting on the extensive and detailed structural data presented. Their criticisms can be divided into three categories: (a) not taking into account the recoil effects on the age calculation leads to erroneous ages; (b) the 40Ar/39Ar ages we suggest are in fact lower than the real crystallization ages, due to a suggested “bias” between 40Ar/39Ar and U/Pb ages; and (c) the metamorphism dated is not the result...

First Page Preview

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