The Neoproterozoic Rodinia, its Break-up and the Formation of Gondwana: Paleomagnetic Evidence.
Manoel S. D’Agrella-Filho, R. Siqueira, Ricardo I.F. Trindade, Cosme F. Ponte-Neto, I. G. Pacca
Abstract
Manoel S. D’Agrella-Filho, R. Siqueira, Ricardo I.F. Trindade, Cosme F. Ponte-Neto, I. G. Pacca
Abstract
Hoffman (1991) elaborated a model proposing the Meso/Neo Proterozoic Rodinia supercontinent (Fig. 1), based on geological and (partly) on paleomagnetic grounds. He suggested that Baltica, Amazonia, Congo and Kalahari were the most probable units to border eastern and southern Laurentia, since they have similar Grenvillian orogenic belts (1.2-1.0 Ga). In his model, Hoffman (1991) suggests that the (present) northeastern Kalahari craton (including the Lurian belt) was flanked by East Antarctica, and that this craton belonged to the East Gondwana during the amalgamation of the Gondwana supercontinent in the Neoproterozoic.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Hoffman (1991) elaborated a model proposing the Meso/Neo Proterozoic Rodinia supercontinent (Fig. 1), based on geological and (partly) on paleomagnetic grounds. He suggested that Baltica, Amazonia, Congo and Kalahari were the most probable units to border eastern and southern Laurentia, since they have similar Grenvillian orogenic belts (1.2-1.0 Ga). In his model, Hoffman (1991) suggests that the (present) northeastern Kalahari craton (including the Lurian belt) was flanked by East Antarctica, and that this craton belonged to the East Gondwana during the amalgamation of the Gondwana supercontinent in the Neoproterozoic.
Key concepts: Rodinia, Supercontinent, Gondwana, Laurentia, Craton, Paleomagnetism, Geology, Proterozoic