1996
DOI: 10.1007/bf00310070
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comment on ?Porcupine plate hypothesis? by M. F. Gerstell and J. M. Stock (Marine Geophysical Researches 16, pp. 315?323, 1994)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, those authors observed that the deformation occurred along the Porcupine and northern Biscay margins between~56 and~33 Ma cannot be explained by a single pole of rotation (Srivastava & Tapscott, 1986). Subsequently, Srivastava and Roest (1996) refined this concept and showed that this poor fit affected all the pre-Chron 13 (33.1 Ma, Rupelian) magnetic anomalies south of the CGFZ. Moreover, those authors emphasized that a single pole of rotation overcomes the mismatch between all magnetic lineations between Chrons 34 and 18.…”
Section: Porcupine Platementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition, those authors observed that the deformation occurred along the Porcupine and northern Biscay margins between~56 and~33 Ma cannot be explained by a single pole of rotation (Srivastava & Tapscott, 1986). Subsequently, Srivastava and Roest (1996) refined this concept and showed that this poor fit affected all the pre-Chron 13 (33.1 Ma, Rupelian) magnetic anomalies south of the CGFZ. Moreover, those authors emphasized that a single pole of rotation overcomes the mismatch between all magnetic lineations between Chrons 34 and 18.…”
Section: Porcupine Platementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, those authors emphasized that a single pole of rotation overcomes the mismatch between all magnetic lineations between Chrons 34 and 18. We used the Porcupine-Europe rotation of Srivastava and Roest (1996) from Anomaly 34 (83.5 Ma) to Anomaly 18 (38.43 Ma).…”
Section: Porcupine Platementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Pyrenees formed during collision of the Iberian and European plates between the Late Cretaceous and Miocene. Plate kinematic models, based on Atlantic magnetic anomalies, describe the relative motions of the Iberian, African and Eurasian plates others, 1990a, 1990b;Roest and Srivastava, 1991;Roest and others, 1992;Srivastava and Roest, 1996;Torsvik and others, 2001;Rosenbaum and others, 2002). Reconstructions of plate motions show a mainly anticlockwise rotation of Iberia with respect to Europe (van der Voo, 1969;Galdeano and others, 1989).…”
Section: Plate Tectonic Motionsmentioning
confidence: 99%