Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70243614

North American Jurassic APW: The current dilemma

Abstract

Geologists are in a quandary over the correct interpretation of paleomagnetic data for Jurassic rocks of the North American plate. Conflicting reference paleopoles and alternate methods of constructing apparent polar wander (APW) paths have led to a controversy regarding the configuration of Jurassic APW for cratonic North America. These differences have been recently disputed at meetings (see Eos , Spring Meeting Supplement, April 7, 1992, p. 94) and in an exchange of letters in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth [ Butler et al ., 1992; Van Fossen and Kent , 1992a]. At stake is important information concerning the Jurassic paleogeography of North America and the whole of Pangea, as well as the nature and driving mechanism of plate movements. In addition, cratonic paleopoles provide a reference frame for measuring relative displacements of tectonostratigraphic terranes.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 7.2205° to 83.5491° latitude; -171.7911° to -12.2086° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan T. Hagstrum. 2011-06-03. North American Jurassic APW: The current dilemma. https://doi.org/10.1029/93eo00085

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Credit where credit is due

Credit is the currency of science. Scientists are evaluated and promoted in their jobs and professional communities on the basis of their recognized contributions to science. Unlike a financial contribution, a scientific contribution is difficult to measure. Traditionally, credit for scientific contributions has been given through authorship and citations in scientific literature as well as awards and the naming of geographic features, instruments, and methods and other honorifics. However, these practices do not capture the breadth and depth of the contributions by all actors in modern, open science.

Eos Science News