2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2021.01.002
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Late Permian paleopole from the Ikakern Formation (Argana basin, Morocco) and the configuration of Pangea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The disputed time interval in the evolution of Pangea is the Early Permian, for which the available paleomagnetic data for Gondwana and Laurasia are relatively robust (see Haldan et al, 2014). For latest Permian and Triassic time, the basic configuration of Pangea (Pangea A) is not seriously disputed, even by the most recently available data (e.g., Kent et al, 2021). Our proposed reconstructions are shown (Fig.…”
Section: Paleomagnetic Poles From Adria Mediterranean Kinematics and ...mentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The disputed time interval in the evolution of Pangea is the Early Permian, for which the available paleomagnetic data for Gondwana and Laurasia are relatively robust (see Haldan et al, 2014). For latest Permian and Triassic time, the basic configuration of Pangea (Pangea A) is not seriously disputed, even by the most recently available data (e.g., Kent et al, 2021). Our proposed reconstructions are shown (Fig.…”
Section: Paleomagnetic Poles From Adria Mediterranean Kinematics and ...mentioning
confidence: 80%
“…A95, K, N: standard Fisher precision parameters. AD1: angular distance with respect to Late Permian mean pole ofKent et al (2021). AD2: angular distance with respect to Early Permian mean pole #22 in Table…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, we note that there are a number of previously inferred and long-debated 'anomalies' in paleomagnetic data, such as those between the major continents of Gondwana, Laurentia, and Baltica for ~320-250 Ma which underpin the Pangea A vs B controversy (e.g., Domeier et al, 2012;Gallo et al, 2017;Kent & Muttoni, 2020, Kent et al, 2021;Pastor-Galan, 2022), or the 'east Asian inclination anomaly' in the Paleogene (e.g., Cogné et al, 2013). The observed mismatches between paleomagnetic data and APWPs of different continents and tectonic plates have generally been based on analyses using pole-level data.…”
Section: Comparison To Previous Global Apwpsmentioning
confidence: 83%