In the Dublin Basin a Courceyan ramp phase of sedimentation was followed in the Chadian by tectonic break-up of the basin into distinct shallow-water platforms, on which production of carbonate sediments continued in considerable volume, and 'deep' basinal areas in which it ceased. Progradation of the platforms across these basinal areas was limited, and mainly confined to the dip-slope of hanging wall blocks; progradation across fault scarps was rare. In the Shannon Trough basement-fault control was evident in the distribution and migration patterns of volcanic centres in the Chadian to Arundian, but despite this, ramp sedimentation occurred throughout the Dinantian, evolving into a purely constructional large platform by late Dinantian time. There was no break-up of the basin as in the case of the Dublin Basin.The reason for the contrasting behaviour of the two basins is related to the rate of upwards movement of extensional faults relative to sedimentation rates. In the Dublin Basin these faults penetrated to the palaeosurface to form scarps by the late Chadian, and this topography survived into the Brigantian. In the Shannon Trough these faults failed to surface, but deep basement structures controlled the distribution of Dinantian volcanic centres which lie on a series of ENE-trending lineaments. These lineaments, which parallel the axis of the Shannon Trough, almost certainly mark the traces of active down-to-basin faults that controlled its half-graben structure.The basement rocks of the two basins are clearly of a different nature; the Dublin Basin is floored by basement of a much more heterogeneous nature than the Shannon Trough, the former lying south and the latter north of the putative Iapetus Suture line.