Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Journal of the Geological Society   Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Journal of the Geological Society; April 1983; v. 140; no. 2; p. 319-320; DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.140.2.0319
© 1983 Geological Society of London
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Article

Discussion on Eocene sedimentation and tectonics in the Hampshire Basin

MR K. P. ISAACwrites: I agree with the overall thesis of Plint's (1982) paper that from late Lower Eocene times onwards sedimentation in the Hampshire Basin was controlled to a large extent by Eocene folding and faulting. Consideration of further evidence from slightly to the W of the area examined by Plint (op. cit.) demonstrates a more complex tectonic history in the Palaeogene and refutes Plint's, albeit speculative, hypothesis of a W-E trending axial supply (drainage system ?) of material from Dartmoor across E Devon to Dorset (Plint 1982, fig. 2) during the Eocene. The points raised are not intended to be criticism, as some of the evidence on which my comments are based is as yet unpublished (Isaac, paper in preparation, but see Isaac 1979, 1981).

My comments are:

(1) That stratigraphical evidence in the Bovey Basin area indicates that the most important phase of erosion and re-deposition of early Palaeogene and Cretaceous sediments occurred between the Lower Eocene(?) and the late Middle Eocene. Thereafter, Upper Eocene and Oligocene residual deposits (Bristow 1968) and Upper Palaeozoic rocks provided the bulk of the reworked material. More specifically, there were at least 2 phases of tectonic activity separated by a period of relative quiescence. The first phase was from the Lower to the late Middle Eocene and correlates with the destruction of any Cretaceous and early Palaeogene cover. The second phase was from the Upper Eocene onwards and correlates with renewed down-cutting into Upper Palaeozoic rocks and their only recently

...

This 250-word extract was created in the absence of an abstract.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the Geological SocietyHome page
G. Worum and L. Michon
Implications of continuous structural inversion in the West Netherlands Basin for understanding controls on Palaeogene deformation in NW Europe
Journal of the Geological Society, January 1, 2005; 162(1): 73 - 85.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Geological Society, London, MemoirsHome page
J. W. Murray
Palaeogene and Neogene
Geological Society, London, Memoirs, January 1, 1992; 13(1): 141 - 147.
[Abstract] [PDF]




JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Geological Society of London