Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bechtel, A. Articles by Oszczepalski, S. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

CLAY MINERALOGY, CRYSTALLINITY, AND K-AR AGES OF ILLITES WITHIN THE POLISH ZECHSTEIN BASIN: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AGE OF KUPFERSCHIEFER MINERALIZATION—A REPLY

A. Bechtel

Institut für Geowissenschaften, Prospektion und Angewandte Sedimentologie, Montanuniversität Leoben, Peter-Tunner-Str. 5, A-8700 Leoben, Austria

W. C. Elliott

Department of Geology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30303

J. M. Wampler

School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332

S. Oszczepalski

Polish Geological Institute, Rakowiecka 4, PL 00-975 Warszawa, Poland

Corresponding author: e-mail, bechtel@petrol.min.uni-bonn.de

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Sir: We are pleased to respond to J. Nawrocki’s comment. It gives us an additional opportunity to articulate our ideas on the significance of the K-Ar ages of illites with respect to Kupferschiefer ore genesis (Bechtel et al., 1999). Nawrocki perhaps has overstated our intent by writing that we used paleomagnetic data to verify our indirect method for measuring the age of the Kupferschiefer mineralization event. The ages in question were estimated ages of diagenetic illite in both the abstract and in the main body of the paper. In the closing sentence of the abstract, we wrote that our results suggest that the formation of diagenetic illite was induced by the mineralizing event. We did not claim verification of the indirect dating method, and in the concluding statement that Nawrocki specifically criticized, we claimed only that the ages we inferred are, within limits of error, in agreement with the ages from paleomagnetic data (Jowett et al., 1987a). We did not (could not) claim agreement with Nawrocki’s then unpublished data that the pole position . . . [Full Text of this Article]