Archean ultramafic-mafic complexes have been the focus of important and often contentious geological and geodynamic interpretations. However, their age relative to the other components of Archean cratons are often poorly-constrained, introducing significant ambiguity when interpreting their origin and geodynamic significance. The Lewisian Gneiss Complex (LGC) of the northwest Scottish mainland -a high-grade, tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite (TTG) terrane that forms part of the North Atlantic Craton (NAC) -contains a number of ultramafic-mafic complexes whose origin and geodynamic significance have remained enigmatic since they were first described. Previous studies have interpreted these complexes as representing a wide-range of geological environments, from oceanic crust, to the sagducted remnants of Archean greenstone belts. These interpretations, which are often critically dependent upon the ages of the complexes relative to the surrounding rocks, have disparate implications for Archean geodynamic regimes (in the NAC and globally). Most previous authors have inferred that the ultramafic-mafic complexes of the LGC pre-date the TTG magmas. This fundamental age relationship is re-evaluated in this investigation through re-mapping of the Geodh' nan Sgadan Complex (where tonalitic gneiss reportedly cross-cuts mafic rocks) and new mapping of the 7 km 2 Ben Strome Complex (the largest ultramafic-mafic complex in the LGC), alongside detailed petrography and spinel mineral chemistry. This new study reveals that, despite their close proximity in the LGC (12 km), the Ben Strome and Geodh' nan Sgadan Complexes are petrogenetically unrelated, indicating that the LGC (and thus NAC) records multiple temporally and/or petrogenetically distinct phases of ultramafic-mafic Archean magmatism that has been masked by subsequent high-grade metamorphism. Moreover, field observations and spinel mineral chemistry demonstrate that the Ben Strome Complex represents a layered intrusion that was emplaced into a TTG-dominated crust. Further to representing a significant re-evaluation of theLGC's magmatic evolution, these findings have important implications for the methodologies utilised in deciphering the origin of Archean ultramafic-mafic complexes globally, where material suitable for dating is often unavailable and field relationships are commonly ambiguous.

No abstract

Calcite veins are a common product of hydrothermal fluid circulation. Clumped-isotope palaeothermometry is a promising technique for fingerprinting the temperature of hydrothermal fluids, but clumped-isotope systematics can be reset at temperatures of > ca. 100 °C. To model whether the reconstructed temperatures represent calcite precipitation or closed-system resetting, the precipitation age must be known. LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating of calcite is a recently developed approach to direct dating of calcite and can provide precipitation ages for modelling clumped-isotope systematics in calcite veins. In this study, clumped-isotope and LA-ICP-MS U-Pb calcite analyses were combined in basalt-hosted calcite veins from three settings in Scotland. Samples from all three localities yielded precipitation temperatures of ca. 75-115 °C from clumped-isotope analysis, but veins from only two of the sites were dateable, yielding precipitation ages of 224 ± 8 Ma and 291 ± 33 Ma (2σ). Modelling from the dated samples enabled confident interpretation that no closed-system resetting had occurred in these samples. However, the lack of a precipitation age from the third location meant that a range of possible thermal histories had to be modelled meaning that confidence that resetting had not occurred was lower. This highlights the importance of coupling clumped-isotope thermometry and LA-ICP-MS U-Pb calcite dating in determining the temperature of hydrothermal fluids recorded in calcite veins. This paired approach is shown to be robust in constraining the timing and precipitation temperature of calcite formation, and thus for tracking hydrothermal processes.

No abstract

Compounded CsA solutions may deviate by more than 10% from the labelled strength. Bioavailability and clinical efficacy of compounded CsA remain unknown, and such products should be prescribed only in appropriate circumstances.