ISSN 00168521, Geotectonics, 2012, Vol. 46, No.1, pp. 37–46. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2012.

Original Russian Text © V.N. Puchkov, 2012, published in Geotektonika, 2012, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 42–52.

Dike Swarms and Related Igneous Complexes in the Urals

V. N. Puchkov
Institute of Geology, Ufa Scientific Center, K. Marx st. 16/2, Ufa, 450077 Russia
email: puchkv@ufaras.ru
Received February 11, 2011

Abstract—The dike swarms of the entire Urals are classified for the first time; the related igneous complexes
associated with them in space and time are named. The following types and chronological levels of the Ura
lian dikes are distinguished (proper names are given after type localities). The epicontinental type comprises
the Middle Riphean Mashak, Late Riphean Arsha–Serebryanka, Late Cambrian–Early Ordovician Kidrya
sovo–Lemva, Ordovician–Silurian Ushat, Devoninan Inzer–Timaiz (the most extended of all), Early Car
boniferous Magnitogorsk–Mugodzhary, and Triassic Borisovo dike swarms. Many of them are probably
related to plume events. The existence of the Early Riphean dike complex remains unclear. Oceanic (spread
ing or suprasubduction) dikeindike type: Ordovician Man’ya oceanic type, Devonian Aktogai backarc and
Khabarny suprasubduction types. The igneous complexes associated with dike swarms are rather diverse. In
addition to rhyolite dikes, in many cases determining the contrasting character of magmatism, large comag
matic gabbro and gabbro–granite intrusions are noted, as well as minor intrusions of subalkali granitoids,
syenites, and, apparently, carbonatites and kimberlites. Flood basalt fields are noted at the periphery of the
Urals, implying the occurrence of a feeding dike swarm beneath them.
DOI: 10.1134/S0016852112010050

INTRODUCTION Meanwhile, despite the incomplete and fragmentary

Dolerite dikes and sills of the same composition
inseparable of them often make up extended swarms
discrete in age and corresponding to specific geologi
cal events. Their role as temporal markers is especially
important in deeply eroded areas, where dike swarms
are superimposed on one another and correspond to
events that took place over a billion years or more. In
some cases, dike swarms—surviving from erosion
feeders of disappeared plateau basalts and other volca
nic flows—serve as almost the sole evidence for plume
pulses. The map of the diabase dike swarms and
related units in Canada and adjacent regions [39] is a
good example of analysis of dike swarms as selfdepen
dent geological objects for the purpose of providing
insights into the history of tectonomagmatic processes
in a large region. Compilation of a similar map for
Russia and adjacent territories could be the objective
of future studies.
Dikes of mainly doleritic composition grouped in
extended swarms often related to large mafic or bimo
dal intrusions, sills, and volcanic flows are widespread
in the Urals (Figs.1a–1c).
It is surprising, therefore, that none of the allUrals
reviews in the literature focuses primarily on dikes.
This can be explained by the difficulties of dike identi
fication. Consider a Paleozoic or Mesozoic dike that
cuts through Precambrian rocks. Until recently, lim
ited data were available for such identification, aside
from the degree of alteration, chemical composition,
and unreliable K–Ar age of wholerock samples.
evidence, it is obvious that emplacement of dikes was
a multistage process. The study of dikes envisages their
combination into discrete swarms; the preliminary
timing of dikes on the basis of their location and orien
tation and chronological constraints dictated by the
geological setting and relationships with country
rocks; and finally, more accurate modern isotopic dat
ing, using baddeleyite and other minerals for this pur
pose. When depicting dike swarms, it is desirable to
choose reference points with a set of reliable data:
exposed chilled margins, reliable relationships with
country rocks, and true isotopic ages. Attention
should be paid to the petrochemical characteristics of
the depicted dike swarms. In the absence of geochro
nological data, the risk of erroneous conclusions is
rather high.
RIPHEAN DIKES AND RELATED IGNEOUS
ASSOCIATIONS
The oldest established dike swarms are located in
the Bashkirian Anticlinorium of the South Urals,
where they are dated as the Early–Middle Riphean.
The Early Riphean dikes are presumably related to the
Ai (Navysh) stage of volcanic activity, whereas the
Middle Riphean dikes are definitely correlated with
the Mashak volcanic complex. No reliable isotopic
datings of the Early Riphean dikes, which are inferred
in the Taratash Inlier, are available. Some of intrusive
bodies of subalkaline basaltic rocks, which were earlier
regarded as syngenetic to the Navysh Complex of the

37
38 PUCHKOV

(a) (b)
56° 58° 60° 62° 64° 66° 68° E
70°
N D

53

II D
D
54
55
I
O
T 60°
50 15
68° I
II O 27
20 IV III
UR
O IV
21 22
50 11
50 I 18
III
T
O
V
52 23 UR
14
IV
66°
II 58°
19
III Dikes, sills, and 48
UR O
related igneous
O 24
25
complexes
64° Epicontinental: I V
LMR
Early and Middle Riphean
II
D 17 UR
Late Riphean
37
IV 13 51
O O Ordovician O 44 T
I O/S Ordovician–Silurian
56°
II D Devonian 56
O/S 45
16 C
Carboniferous I II
62° UR 33
1
O T Triassic
D 26
58° 60° 62°
Epioceanic:
UR O Ordovician dikeindike
D D Devonian dikeindike
II

Fig. 1. Dike swarms in the Urals: (a) Northern, Subpolar, and Polar Urals; (b) Central Urals, and (c) Southern Urals. Tectonic
zones (numerals in figure): I, Uralian Foredeep; II, West Uralian; III, Central Uralian; IV, Tagil–Magnitogorsk; V, East Uralian;
VI, Transuralian. The Main Uralian Fault is shown as a solid line. The location of dikes and other igneous complexes mentioned
in the text is designated by Arabic numerals in circles: (1) Ushat, (2) Main dolerite dike at the Bakal deposit, (3) sills on the out
skirts of the city of Kusa, (4) Berdyaush pluton, (5) Ryabinovka Granite, (6) Kusa–Kopan sheetlike intrusion, (7) Akhmerovo
Granite in the Beloretsk Dome, (8) Levashovo minor intrusion of garnet–muscovite leucogranite Triassic in age, (9) Arsha For
mation, (10) Barangulovo and Mazarino intrusions, (11) Troitsk granosyenite intrusion in the Kvarkush Anticlinorium; areas of
rift complexes on the western slope of the Urals: (12) Kidryasovo, (13) Bardym, (14) Lemva, (15) Baidarat, (16) alkali basalt and
kimberlite explosion pipes in the Upper Pechora area, (17) Sarankhapner Formation and associated complex of nearmeridional
dolerite dikes, (18) Enganepe Range, (19) southeastern Lemva Zone; complexes of parallel dikes: (20) Gerdizshor, (21) Khala
tal’bei, (22) Kharuta, (23) Lagorta, (24) Man’ya, (25) Shchekur’ya, (26) Vizhai, (27) Iov; (28) Arsha River at the latitude of
Mt. Igonin Kamen (Tirlyan), (29) Polovinny Creek to the east of the Tirlyan Settlement, (30) Mashak Formation at the Kuz’elga
River, (31) Mashak Rhyolite in the Shatak Range, (32) Mt. Belyatar in the Mayardak Range, (33) Ilmeny–Vischnevy Mountains
miaskite–carbonatite complex, (34) Akkermanovka Complex of the Khabarny massif, (35) Tanalyk parallel dikes, (36) Aktogai
spreading dike complex, (37) Timaiz Range, (38) dike that cuts through Frasnian chert of bathyal zone to the east of the Kaga
Settlement, (39) dolerite dike near the Inzer railway station, (40) gabbro–granite complex of Mt. Magnitnaya, (41) Khudolazovo
Complex, (42) Early Carboniferous Bol’shakovo gabbro pluton, (43) parallel dikes in the East Mugodzhary Mts., (44) Borisovo
quarry at the Sinara River and outcrops of the Triassic traps near the Borisovo Settlement, (45) Pershino quarry, (46) Kisinet
Complex, (47) Malochekinsky Complex, (48) Adui Complex, (49) presumably Triassic dikes in the East Uralian Zone to the
north of the Dzhabyk pluton; Triassic traps in (50) the Polar Foreurals and (51) southern Transuralian Zone, (52) Sharyu Com
plex in the Chernyshov Ridge, (53) Torasovei syenite intrusion, (54) layered gabbrodolerite sill at Mt. SopchaMyl’k, (55) gab
brodolerite intrusion at the southeastern margin of the PaiKhoi Anticlinorium, (56) dike swarms of the Taratash Inlier.

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012

 DIKE SWARMS AND RELATED IGNEOUS COMPLEXES IN THE URALS 39

Lower Riphean Ai Formation, turned out to be (c)

younger—Middle Riphean (corresponding to the
Mashak level) or (quite surprisingly) Late Ordovi O/S
I II 33
cian–Early Silurian. For example, the subalkaline 1 8
basaltic rocks previously mapped at the Ushat River as 3 6
4
belonging to the Navysh Complex (Fig. 1c) contain 2
zircons dated at 441.8 ± 8.2 and 437 ± 11 Ma (U–Pb 5
III LMR C
method, SHRIMP; author’s data obtained together
42
with A.A. Krasnobaev and V.I. Kozlov). A similar age 28
has been established for the volcanic rocks of the UR
9 29 10
Mashak and Arsha formations in the southern parts of 30 LMR IV 51
39 32 O/S T
the Bashkirian Anticlinorium [21] (see below). The 54° D
hypabyssal intrusions previously regarded as pertain O/S 7 49
ing to the Ai Complex are dated elsewhere at 1550– 31 41 C
1350 Ma; i.e., younger than had been assumed before 40
[19, 23]. Such heterogeneity of the volcanic and 46
hypabyssal intrusive rocks previously considered Early T
Riphean is probably explained by convergence of the 47
areas of magmatic activity and metamorphism differ III T
D
38 C
ing in types and ages in the Ufa Amphitheater, more
precisely in the Taratash Inlier. Under conditions of D
poor exposure, it is also difficult to distinguish volca 52°
nic flows, sills, and dikes. 35
II
The dikes pertaining to the Mashak level (the early
Middle Mashak) and the related sills cut through the
Lower Riphean rocks in the axial part of the Bashkir
ian Anticlinorium. The baddeleyite from our samples 34 IV V
D
taken from the Main dolerite dike of the Bakal deposit, I VI
well known to researchers of the Bashkirian Anticlino
rium (one of the many dikes cutting through the Bakal
Formation), is dated at 1385.3 ± 1.4 Ma [41]. 43
12
A large sill on the outskirts of the town of Kusa— C
50° O
one of numerous sills and dikes emplaced into the D
Lower Riphean Satka Formation near the junction of
the Kusa and Ai rivers—has an Ar/Ar age of 1360 ± II
9 Ma [36]. This date is close to the isotopic age of the
gabbro–granite intrusive series (Berdyaush pluton,
Ryabinovka Granite, Kusa–Kopan sheetlike intrusion
in the same zone dated at 1370–1400 Ma [16 and ref D
erences therein]). The Akhmerovo Granite in the 36
Beloretsk Dome [6, 7] and the Mashak Rhyolite in the
Shatak Range dated at 1380–1381 Ma with CAID
TIMS [20] belong to the same chronological level.
These levels were not traced in the northern areas 58° 60° 62°
of Timanides, where they are not yet eroded. The only
locality where volcanic rocks have the Mashak age is Fig. 1. (Contd.)
the 21Pal’yu Borehole (Fig. 2, point 2), which pene
trated diorite with Rb–Sr isochron age of 1360 ± 31 Ma
in the southeastern part of the Izhma Zone [1]. Accord ciated with the volcanic rocks of the Arsha Formation,
ing to the personal communication of V.L. Andreichev, the Barangulovo gabbro–granite complex (709.9 ± 7.3
the Sm–Nd isochron age (Pl + Bt + Amph) of this rock and 725 ± 5 Ma, respectively) [8, 19], and the Maz
is estimated at 1369 ± 59 Ma. The younger zircon age
arino intrusion situated somewhat to the south and dated
of the same diorite needs additional verification. The
K–Ar age of the amphibole from the dolerite of the with the U–Pb method (SHRIMP) at 667–680 Ma
Middle Timan is 1375–1330 Ma [1]. (granite) and 704–709 Ma (gabbro) [5]. Taking geo
Dike complexes presumably pertaining to the Late logical data into account, the dolerite dike in the well
Riphean cut through Riphean rocks younger than known outcrop at the Yandyk Creek, where it cuts
750 Ma on the western slope of the South, Central, through the Inzer Formation and is overlain by the
and North Urals. In the Southern Urals, they are asso Ordovician rocks, is probably related to the same

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012

40
1 ruled out that the Khartes Complex of kimberlites
Baltica
Siberia 2 localized nearby [31] is also related to this chronolog
43
~1100
~1100 ~1100 Laurentia
°N
Slave
60
1267
1380
PW
1740 Ma
PA
na
Nu
1470
1880–1860
1 2 3 4 5 the Kokpel Formation [16]. The Ordovician volcanics
Fig. 2. Reconstruction of core in the Nuna supercontinent
over 1740–1270 Ma ago, simplified and modified after
[42]. (1, 2) Rift separating Siberia from Baltica and Lau
rentia: (1) at the first stage of evolution ~1380 Ma ago and
(2) at the second stage of evolution ~1270 Ma ago; (3–5)
paths of apparent pole wandering (PAPW) for (3) Siberia,
(4) Laurentia, and (5) Baltica. Numerals in figure: 1,
Mashak aureole; 2, Borehole Pal’yu21; 3, Midsommerso
and ZigZag Dal volcanic rocks; 4, dikes of Victoria Land.
swarm, as well as the dike that crops out at Krivaya
Luka (Belaya River) and cuts through the Krivaya
Luka Formation, being transgressively overlain by the
Kurgashly Formation. Both dikes were affected by
greenschistfacies metamorphism. In the Kvarkush
Anticlinorium of the Central Urals, the dikes of this
chronological level are associated with diverse, often
subalkaline intrusions and volcanic complexes dated
largely at 745–608 Ma [14, 23]; however, the isotopic
age of the dikes themselves remains unknown.
PALEOZOIC DIKES AND RELATED IGNEOUS
ASSOCIATIONS
The Late Cambrian–Ordovician time was charac
terized in the Urals by deposition of graben facies
accompanied by manifestations of volcanic activity
(the Kidryasovo, Bardym, Lemva, and Baidarata dis
tricts on the western slope of the Urals; the Samara,
Troitsk, Uvel’sky, and Mayachny areas in the Central
Uralian Zone [16]). It can be suggested that some of
the related dike fields were also formed in the Late
Cambrian–Ordovician; deeper intrusive rocks are
probably associated with these volcanic rocks as well.
In the North Urals, at the headwaters of the Pechora
River, the Riphean sedimentary rocks are cut through
by explosion pipes filled with alkali basalt and kimber
lite. Fragments of volcanic rocks were found in the
basal unit of the Ordovician section [12]. In the south
east of the Subpolar Urals, the Sarankhapner Forma
PUCHKOV
tion and related complex of nearmeridional dolerite
dikes probably belong to the graben facies. It cannot be
ical level. In the Subpolar and Polar Urals, riftrelated
subalkaline volcanic rocks are noted at the base of the
Upper Cambrian–Ordovician Tel’pos, Molyudshor,
and Pogurei terrigenous formations [16]. Ultrapotas
sic basaltic rocks in the Ordovician conglomerate from
the Enganepe Range are also indicators of rifting [37].
The rocks related to rifting are best studied in the
tor
qua Lemva Zone, where they comprise Upper Cambrian–
E
Lower Ordovician conglomerate and sandstone in
combination with subalkaline and alkaline basalts. A
typical example is the Ordovician volcanic rocks
which are contained in the Molyudshor Formation,
characterized by fossils of this age and separated from
and numerous dikes that underwent greenschistfacies
metamorphism in the southeastern Lemva Zone also
mark rifting. The associated felsic volcanics are cur
rently regarded as Ordovician [28 and references
therein].
The complex of parallel dikes related to ophiolites
in the paleooceanic sector of the Urals is as young as
Early Ordovician. Their formation predated the devel
opment of the Tagil island arc and was noted to the east
of the Main Uralian Fault close to the western contact
of the Syumkeu massif in the Shchuch’ya Synclino
rium (Gerdizshor, Khalatal’bei, Kharuta complexes,
and a number of smaller fragments); on the eastern
slope of the Voikar massif (Lagorta Complex); and at
the western limb of the Tagil Synclinorium (Man’ya
swarm about 3.5 km in width; Shchekur’ya, Vizhai,
Iov, and other sections) [16, 18, 27].
One more dike complex dated at the Late Ordovi
cian–Early Silurian was recently outlined in the Bash
kirian Anticlinorium [21]. In addition to the afore
mentioned Ushat section, U–Pb (SHRIMP) ages corre
sponding to this chronological level were obtained for
volcanic rocks along the Arsha River, at the latitude of
Mount Igonin Kamen (454.5 ± 5.8 Ma); to the east of
the Tirlyan Settlement, in the Polovinny Creek (437 ±
7.2 Ma); in the Mashak Formation along the Kuz’elga
River (434.8 ± 6.7 Ma); in the Shatak Range (447 ±
3.6 Ma); and at the Mount Belyatar in the Mayardak
Range (455.0 ± 5.6 Ma). All these dates fall within a
narrow range 435–455 Ma (Llandoverian and close to
the Ordovician–Silurian boundary). It should be noted
that the younger (349.4 ± 7.5 Ma) cluster of U–Pb zir
con ages established along the Kuz’elga River could
have been related to greenschistfacies metamorphism
provoked by thrusting of the Kraka massif over the
rock complexes of the western slope of the Urals. This
process took place in the Tournaisian at the final stage
of collision between the Devonian island arc and the
continental margin [16, 21].
The Early Devonian Akkermanovka dike complex
related to ophiolites of the forearc or backarc spread
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012
 DIKE SWARMS AND RELATED IGNEOUS COMPLEXES IN THE URALS
ing occurs in the allochthonous Khabarny massif on
the western slope of the Southern Urals [2, 16 and ref
erences therein, 22]. Parallel dikes of suprasubduction
nature have been revealed in the Sakmara Allochthon
proper and for a great distance in the CisSakmara–
Vosnesenka and West Magnitogorsk zones (Ramaza
novo, Rakityanka, Chingizovo, Buida, and other
areas) [2]. The largest (up to 8 km across) Early Devo
nian Aktogai spreading dike complex pertaining to
ophiolites was described in the West Mugodzhary [9].
Even the above list of the dikeindike complexes
shows that this is a typical component of the Uralian
ophiolites. Note that the ophiolites of the Alps are
altogether devoid of such complexes [38].
On the western slope of the northern Urals, within
the shelf and bathyal zones, the Devonian dikeand
sill complex cutting through Ordovician, Silurian,
Devonian, and never Carboniferous shelf sequences
was initially described as a trap association [3], with
which it has much in common. The largest among
these usually thin dikes in the Urals is the intrusion of
the Timaiz Range [15].
In this connection, the Upper Pechora Complex of
minor twophase intrusions attracts interest [25]. The
first intrusive phase is composed of microgabbro and
the second phase of alaskite and granosyenite. The
youngest rocks cut through by these intrusions are
Middle Devonian, though the K–Ar age of whole
rock samples was estimated at 276 ± 13 and 296 ±
12 Ma. These dates are, however, hardly trustworthy,
and most likely these intrusions are actually Devonian.
A series of dolerite dikes and sills in the central part
of the PaiKhoi Anticlinorium are enechelon
arranged relative to its axis and deformed during Late
Paleozoic folding. Most of these dikes cut through
Ordovician sedimentary rocks, where the sills are
deformed into large mappable folds. Dikes and sills
markedly decrease in number upsection. Numerous
K–Ar dates scatter from Ordovician to Triassic, mak
ing the true age of the dikes and sills ambiguous. The
most reliable is the U–Pb (SHRIMP) age of the zir
con from a layered gabbrodolerite body at Mount
SopchaMyl’k in the axial zone of the PaiKhoi Anti
linorium: 369.8 ± 2.27 Ma (Famennian) [34].
The swarm of Devonian dikes was also traced in the
southern direction. Similar dikes cutting through
Paleozoic rocks are known on the western slope of the
Urals. Two generations of dikes are distinguished in
the Kvarkush Anticlinorium on the basis of their rela
tionships with country rocks [4]. In the belt of gabbro
dolerite intrusions coinciding with the zone of green
schist metamorphism at the eastern limb of the anticli
norium, the foliated metadolerite is combined with
massive gabbrodolerite of younger appearance with
relict primary minerals. The latter crosscut not only
Upper Riphean and Vendian but also fossiliferous
Ordovician and Silurian sequences, whereas metadol
erites occur only in the prePaleozoic rocks. Thus, at
least two generations of minor dolerite intrusions—
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012
41
Late Riphean–Cambrian and Late Silurian–Early
Devonian—are suggested [4]. The latter age is most
likely underestimated; probably, a younger generation
was formed in the Devonian. The older generation
comprises dikes and sills; the second, most abundant,
generation is limited to dikes. No reliable isotopic dat
ings are available now. A sample of baddeleyite and zir
con taken from a large nearmeridional dike cutting
through the Vendian rocks near the Skalisty railway
station to the east of the town of Chusovoi has been
selected for analytical procedures.
On the western slope of the South Urals, dolerite
dikes are sporadic in the field of Paleozoic rocks. A
nearmeridional dike cutting through the Frasnian
chert of the bathyal zone to the east of the Kananikolsk
Settlement is described in [17]. Devonian dikes prob
ably occur in the Karatavian rocks; e.g., a dolerite dike
near the Inzer railway station has an Ar/Ar age of
403 ± 17 Ma [36].
In the Early Carboniferous, dike swarms were
formed on the eastern slope of the Urals within the
extinguishing Magnitogorsk arc in association with the
Lower Carboniferous rocks of the Berezovsky and
Grekhovsky formations and gabbro–granite complex
of Mount Magnitnaya. The Basaevo Complex of sills is
hosted by flysch of the Famennian Zilair Formation
[24]. This formation is cut through by the Khudola
zovo Complex of large dikes. Some of them display
layering similar to that in the Noril’sk intrusions.
When no reliable age determinations were yet avail
able, it was suggested that these dikes, fresh in appear
ance, were Triassic. New ID TIMS zircon and badde
leyite ages were estimated at 324.8 ± 0.5 and 328.9 ±
0.8 Ma; a thorough paper concerned with these data is
now in preparation. The mafic dikes are crossed by the
youngest complex of NNEtrending dolerite dikes, 2–
3 m in thickness. Their age remains unknown; it is
possible that they are Triassic in age.
In the northern part of the Magnitogorsk Synclino
rium, dolerite dikes penetrate into the melange zone
near the city of Miass without signs of deformation.
The melange itself is as young as Famennian. Further
to the north, the dike swarm is interrupted. The Early
Carboniferous Bol’shakovo gabbro pluton occurring
here probably is comagmatic to the volcanic rocks and
dikes of the same age in the Magnitogorsk Synclino
rium [26].
In the south, these dike complexes extend to the
East Mugodzhary Mountains, where they are arranged
as closely as in dikeindike complexes; however, the
Devonian terrigenous rocks of the Balkymbai Forma
tion occur between individual dikes as screens [27].
MESOZOIC DIKES AND RELATED IGNEOUS
ASSOCIATIONS
The final stage of volcanic activity in the Urals was
related to the western flank of the Uralian–Siberian
superplume that arose at the Permian–Triassic bound
42 PUCHKOV
ary. The plateau basalts of the Urals and Siberia are
clearly correlated in isotopic ages [16 and references
therein]. According to the data obtained together with
M. Reichow and others in the Borisovo quarry at the
Sinara River in the Central Urals, the rhyolite dated at
~250 Ma (U–Pb, TIMS, zircon) is cut through by
dolerite dated at 245 Ma (Ar/Ar, plagioclase). An
approximately identical Ar/Ar age was determined for
the basaltic flow pertaining to the Tura Formation on
a bank of the Sinara River on the outskirts of the Boris
ovo Settlement (244.9 ± 1.2 Ma). A remarkable occur
rence of Triassic felsic volcanism can be observed in
the Pershino quarry to the south of the Dalmatovo Set
tlement in the Transuralian region. The rhyolite is
exposed here leaning against the horizontally lying
Paleogene opoka and sandstone with a steep contact.
Judging from the geological map on a scale of
1 : 200000 compiled on the data on exploration geo
physics and drilling, the rhyolite occurs at a depth of
40–50 m as a buried obelisk (extrusion) surrounded by
basalt of the Tura Formation and overlapped by Ceno
zoic sediments. Taking into account the ID TIMS age
of the rhyolite (250.9 ± 0.2 Ma) (M. Reichow, per
sonal communication), we deal here with a bimodal
basalt–rhyolite association formed synchronously
with the onset of plume activity.
Dolerite dikes presumably Triassic in age have been
mapped [29] in the East Uralian Zone to the north of
the Dzhabyk granitic pluton (the results of isotopic
dating are not yet available). These data are consistent
with other reports [13, 30]. Tevelev et al. [30] revealed
and described the Kisinet and Malochekinsky com
plexes of Middle Triassic granitoids isolated from
basalts; granites of the same age also occur in the Adui
area [13]. The first complex comprises granite por
phyry dikes exposed to the east of the Dzhabyk gra
nitic pluton. A.V. Tevelev counts no less than 12 such
dikes. Their Rb–Sr age (wholerock samples and feld
spars) is 238 ± 1.8 Ma. The Malochekinsky Complex
is composed of monzodiorite, alkali syenite, and alkali
granite. The Rb–Sr age of five wholerock samples is
237 ± 21 Ma. It is suggested that in contrast to the
Early Triassic basalts and dolerite dikes formed in the
extensional setting, the Middle Triassic granitoids
were formed under conditions of rigid oblique colli
sion [30]. At the same time, no geological evidence for
Middle Triassic collision is available. The retained Tri
assic sections are rather continuous and do not display
angular unconformities. The generation of felsic
crustal melt can be explained by heating related to the
ascent of basaltic magma.
It should also be noted that the Triassic Rb–Sr dat
ings of felsic intrusions in the Central and South Urals,
at least as concerns the Malochekinsky and the Adui
complexes [13, 30, 33], come into conflict with the Car
boniferous and Permian U–Pb zircon ages [32, 33], so
that the question cannot be considered finally settled.
In the north of the Urals, despite widespread Per
mian and Triassic sedimentary rocks and extensive
fields of basalts erupted at the Permian–Triassic
boundary (Ar/Ar age is 249.52 ± 0.7 Ma [45]), Meso
zoic dolerite dikes are unknown. The basaltic fields
themselves imply that a dike system actually exists
beneath them as magma conduits. Ultrapotassic felsic
rocks, mafic and lamproite dikes, stocks, diatrems,
and multiphase volcanic rocks cutting through Early
Triassic basalts have been described in the Chernyshov
Ridge [31 and references therein]. It is noteworthy
that to the north, at the boundary between the Pai
Khoi Range and the Kara Basin, the Torasovei syenite
intrusion that cuts through Permian rocks was dated
using K–Ar method at 230 ± 9 and 250 ± 10 Ma by
M.V. Fishman and N.P. Yushkin. Thus, these mag
matic events are probably also belong to the history of
the Triassic superplume. Extremely rare dolerite dikes
cutting the Permian rocks in the PaiKhoi were noted
by V.I. Ustritsky near the Kara Gulf and by O.L. Einor
at the SilovaYakha River. This is supported by the dat
ing of one such dike in the southeast of the Central
PaiKhoi Complex of dolerites [31]. Zircons from this
dike have the concordant age of 264 ± 2.3 Ma; how
ever, a separate cluster of zircons with an average con
cordant age of 255.2 ± 2.5 Ma approaches the age of
the plateau basalts. Taking into account possible cap
turing zircons from the Permian sandstones, it is rea
sonable to refrain from final conclusions, although the
Permian age of emplacement of dolerite dikes does not
contradict the available data.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The presented data, both those published earlier
and original, demonstrate a certain progress in study
ing dike swarms in the Urals over recent years. These
data, taken together, show spatiotemporal discontinu
ity in the emplacement of dikes, which allows us to
delineate certain swarms of dikes and sills, give them
proper names according to type localities, and make
an attempt to characterize them in geodynamic terms.
The dike swarms are separated into epicontinental and
epioceanic groups.
The epicontinental group comprises the Middle
Riphean Mashak, Late Riphean Arsha–Serebryanka,
Late Cambrian–Early Ordovician Kidryasovo–
Lemva, Ordovician–Silurian Ushat, Devoninan
Inzer–Timaiz (the most extended of all), Early Car
boniferous Magnitogorsk–Mugodzhary, and Triassic
Borisovo dike swarms. The identification of the Early
Riphean dike complex requires additional substantia
tion.
In spite of very preliminary character of the iden
tification of the named above dike swarms, it is possi
ble to draw some suggestions concerning their geody
namic nature. The general impression from the tec
tonic settings of the dike complexes indicates that they
are related to either plumes or passive rifts distin
guished by weak volcanic activity.
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012
 DIKE SWARMS AND RELATED IGNEOUS COMPLEXES IN THE URALS 43

Considering the Middle Riphean Mashak volcanic 40° 60°

activity accompanied by dikes and sills with suffi
ciently reliable age, it should be emphasized that the
petrologic and geochemical data [41] allow us to
regard these igneous complexes as belonging to a sin
gle tectonomagmatic stage related to rifting. A new
reasoning on the role and place of the Mashak mag 70°
matism arises in connection with the recently pub
lished paleomagnetic reconstruction of Laurentia,
Baltica, and Siberia within the Nuna supercontinent
over 1.9–1.3 Ga ago [42]. This reconstruction gives an
idea of the hypothetical core of the supercontinent
consisting of the aforementioned three cratons. The
presentday southern and eastern margins of Siberia
represented the boundary zones with the arctic margin
of Laurentia and the Uralian boundary of Baltica,
respectively. If this was the case, the Mashak volcan
ism likely marks the initial breakoff of Siberia from
Baltica and Laurentia with the formation of a passive
continental margins of Baltica–Laurentia during two
stages, ~1380 and ~1270 Ma ago. Taking into account
that the riftrelated Mashak volcanic activity could
have accompanied formation of the passive margin of
Baltica, a continuation of this zone should be sought in
the Timan and North Greenland (Fig. 2, points 2–4) ?
[38, 41]. The magmatic activity is preliminarily classi 50°
fied as belonging to the immature continental margin
of the volcanic type developing under effect of a super
plume.
In this context, the Ai volcanic activity, if it actually
took place, was much less important in comparison
with Mashak volcanism.
As concerns the manifestations of magmatism in 1 2 3 4 5
the South and Central Urals 745–608 Ma ago [14, 23],
there are grounds to suggest that they, together with
6 7 8
the same manifestations in the northwestern East
European Platform, make up a vast Late Riphean
province of plumerelated magmatism. In the Ven Fig. 3. Location of the Devonian volcanic rocks in the East
dian, this igneous province was shifted toward the European Platform. (1) Paleozoic continental sedimen
western margin of the platform [11, 44]. tary cover, (2) oceanic cover, (3) volcanic and intrusive
rocks, (4) islandarc complexes, (5) faults bounding gra
The Late Cambrian–Early Ordovician dikes could bens, (6) crystalline shield, (7) boundary between the plat
have been directly related to passive rifting. The pas form and the Uralian Foldbelt; (8) Main Uralian Fault.
sive continental margin of the Urals, which arose in
the Ordovician, belongs to the amagmatic type.
Plumes were not active during its origination, though references therein]. Without new evidence, we have
riftrelated magmatic activity took place. nothing to add in this respect.
The new data on the Ordovician–Silurian Ushat Formation of the Devonian Inzer–Timaiz dike
Complex of minor basaltoid intrusions similar in com swarm, the most extended in the Urals, can reasonably
position to the trachybasalts of the Ai Formation at the be linked with the Devonian superplume that
Ushat River [19, 21] were quite surprising. Among embraced the entire East European Platform [16]
other events in the South Urals, the formation of the (Fig. 3).
Ilmeny–Vishnevy Mountains miaskite–carbonatite The Early Carboniferous Magnitogorsk–
complex (440–446 Ma), which then evolved up to the Mugodzhary dikes are correlated with coeval subaerial
Late Paleozoic [10], is close to the minor intrusions in volcanic activity and probably with backarc extension
time and space. It is suggested that this complex is sim behind the Valer’yanovka subduction zone.
ilar in its geodynamic origin to the Monteregian group The results of studying Triassic magmatism,
of subalkaline and alkaline intrusions in Quebec, including the Borisovo dike complexes, provide evi
which are interpreted as a trail of a plume at the Atlan dence for its synchronous onset over the vast territory
tic margin of the North American continent [16 and of the Urals and Siberia approximately 250 Ma ago

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012

44 PUCHKOV
[45, cf. 41]. The onset of basaltic volcanism was
accompanied by a breakup of the Earth’s crust, scat
tered spreading, and the appearance of numerous gra
bens clearly identified in West Siberia by seismic
methods. The Koltogor–Urengoi Rift is the largest. It
can be expected that the positive magnetic anomalies
that accompany the large grabens are related to coeval
intrusions and fields of basaltic flows, dikes, and sills.
It should also be noted that the Uralian periphery of
the superplume and its other margins [40, 43, 46] are
characterized by the development of bimodal basalt–
rhyolite series and minor granitoid intrusions.
Contrary to popular opinion, both the Uralian and
Siberian plumerelated volcanism covered a rather long
time interval (up to 22–26 Ma in Siberia) [16, 43].
The oceanic group (dikeindike). As was shown,
the use of petrologic–geochemical and geological cri
teria makes it possible to distinguish Uralian dikein
dike complexes different in geodynamic setting, which
are combined into the Ordovician Man’ya oceanic,
the Devonian Aktogai backarc and Khabarny supra
subduction complexes.
This list of dike complexes requires further detail.
The geochemical characteristics of the dike swarms
should also be specified. Certain difficulties in this
respect are envisaged, mainly as concerns epiconti
nental swarms. Magmatic fractionation of the dikes
themselves and transitional magma chambers inevita
bly leads to a diversity of geochemical types and sub
types up to picrites within one swarm or even one dike
or sill. The knowledge of the geochemistry of dike
complexes remains extremely uneven, and their com
parative study on a modern analytical basis is neces
sary.
The igneous complexes associated with dike
swarms also display a rather wide diversity. In addition
to rhyolite dikes determining the contrasting character
of magmatism, large comagmatic gabbro and gabbro–
granite plutons are noted, as well as minor intrusions
composed of subalkaline granitoids and syenites and in
some cases of lamproites, carbonatites, and syenites.
The development of basaltic fields implies that dike
swarms (feeders) occur beneath lava flows.
Although the first step in the classification of dike
swarms in the Urals has been completed, many ques
tions remain without answer. To specify the geology of
the dike complexes, it is necessary to expand the data
base characterizing their geochemistry and geochro
nology using the U–Pb method on zircon and badde
leyite, as well as the Ar/Ar, K–Ar, Rb–Sr, and Sm–
Nd methods. Much remains unknown. For example,
the Taratash Complex is dissected by tens if not hun
dreds of dikes of unknown age. Whether they include
Early Riphean dikes or are all younger is one of the
problems remaining unsolved. Many ambiguities
remain concerning the Late Riphean dike complex:
none of the dikes spatially associated with the volcanic
rocks and gabbro–granite intrusions 745 to 608 Ma in
age were involved in isotopic timing. The identifica
tion of the Late Ordovician–Early Silurian complex of
hypabyssal intrusions in the Bashkirian Anticlinorium
is so far only an analytical phenomenon, which is not
supported by the morphology or geochemistry of
dikes. Fragmentary data on the Devonian age of the
dikes that cut through the Upper Riphean to Devo
nian rocks give the impression of a giant dike swarm up
to 2000 km in extent. To speak about this belt with cer
tainty, additional factual data are needed. Finally,
despite the progress in the study of Triassic magmatism
in the Urals, unanswered questions remain, in partic
ular, regarding the age of alkaline granites and their
links to the Triassic dikes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the Division of Earth
Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences (program
no. 9 “Structure and Formation of the Main Types of
Geological Structures in Mobile Belts and Platforms”
and program no. 8 “Role of Magmatism, Metamor
phism, and Volatile Components in Evolution of the
Lithosphere”).
REFERENCES
1. V. L. Andreichev and A. F. Litvinenko, Isotopic Geo
chronology of Granitoid Magmatism in Basement of the
Pechora Syneclise (Geoprint, Syktyvkar, 2007) [in Rus
sian].
2. A. A. Belova, A. V. Ryazantsev, A. A. Razumovskii, and
K. E. Degtyarev, “Early Devonian Suprasubduction
Ophiolites of the Southern Urals,” Geotektonics
44 (4), 321–343 (2010).
3. B. A. Goldin, V. P. Davydov, V. I. Mizin, V. N. Puchkov,
et al., “Traps of the North Urals and Foreurals,” in
Magmatism of the Western Slope of the Urals (Ural Sci.
Center, Sverdlovsk, 1972), pp. 130–147 [in Russian].
4. A. M. Zilberman, “Some Features of Basic Intrusive
Rocks on the Western Slope of the Central Urals,” in
Magmatism of the Western Slope of the Urals (Ural Sci.
Center, Sverdlovsk, 1972), pp. 148–152 [in Russian].
5. N. B. Kuznetsov, Complexes of Protouralides–
Timanides and Late Precambrian–Early Paleozoic
Evolution of the Eastern and Northeastern Framework
of the East European Platform, Doct. Sci. (Geol.–Min
eral.) Dissertation, Moscow: Geol. Inst., 2009.
6. A. A. Krasnobaev, G. B. Fershtater, F. Bea, and
P. Montero, “Zircon Age of Gabbro and Granitoids of
the Kusa–Kopan Complex, the South Urals,” in Year
book2005 (Inst. Geol. Geochem., Yekaterinburg,
2006), pp. 300–305 [in Russian].
7. A. A. Krasnobaev, V. I. Kozlov, V. N. Puchkov,
N. V. Rodionov, A. G. Nekhorosheva, and K. N. Kise
eva, “The Akhmerovo Granite Massif: An Example of
Mesoproterozoic Intrusive Magmatism in the Southern
Urals,” Dokl. Earth Sci. 418 (1), 103–108 (2008).
8. A. A. Krasnobaev, V. I. Kozlov, V. N. Puchkov,
A. N. Larionov, A. G. Nekhorosheva, and N. G. Berezh
naya, “The PolygenousPolychronous Nature of Zir
cons and the Problem of the Age of the Barangulov
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012
 DIKE SWARMS AND RELATED IGNEOUS COMPLEXES IN THE URALS
Gabbro–Granite Complex,” Dokl. Earth Sci. 416 (7),
1070–1075 (2007).
9. S. A. Kurenkov, A. N. Didenko, and V. A. Simonov,
Geodynamics of Paleospreading (GEOS, Moscow, 2002)
[in Russian].
10. I. L. Nedosekova, S. V. Pribavkin, P. A. Serov, and
Yu. L. Ronkin, “Isotopic Composition and Age of Car
bonatites of the Ilmeny–Vishnevogorsk Alkaline Com
plex,” in Proceedings of III Russian Conference on Isotope
Geochronology: Isotopic Dating of Ore Formation, Magma
tism, Sedimentation, and Metamorphism, June 6–8, 2006
(IGEM RAN, Moscow), Vol. 1 [in Russian].
11. A. A. Nosova, Yu. O. Larionova, N. V. Veretennikov,
and E. V. Yutkina, “Correlation of Neoproterozoic Vol
canism in the Southeastern White Sea Region and
Western Urals: New Age Data on the Solozero Basalts
(Onega Graben),” Dokl. Earth Sci. 419 (2), 303–307
(2008).
12. V. S. Ozerov, E. N. Ozerova, and O. O. Ignatovich,
“Cambrian Diatrems at the Headwater of the Pechora
River, the North Urals,” Litosfera, No. 1, 91–101
(2006).
13. V. S. Popov, V. I. Bogatov, A. Yu. Petrova, and
B. V. Belyatsky, “Age and Possible Sources of Granites
in the Murzinka–Adui Block, the Central Urals: Rb–
Sr and Sm–Nd Isotopic Data,” Litosfera, No. 4, 3–18
(2003).
14. G. A. Petrov, Geology and Mineralogy of the Main Ural
Fault Zone in the Central Urals (UrGGU, Yekaterin
burg, 2006) [in Russian].
15. Perfil’ev, A.S., Formation of the Earth’s Crust in the Ura
lian Geosyncline (Moscow: Nauka, 1979).
16. V. N. Puchkov, Geology of the Urals and Foreurals: Top
ical Questions of Stratigraphy, Tectonics, Geodynamics,
and Metallogeny (DizainPoligrafServis, Ufa, 2010) [in
Russian].
17. V. N. Puchkov and K. S. Ivanov, “The Latest Magma
tism on the Western Slope of the Urals and Its Tectonic
Implications,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 260 (3), 623–
627 (1981).
18. V. P. Puchkov, L. A. Karsten, and V. R. Shmelev, “The
Most Important Geological Features of the Eastern
Slope of the Subpolar Urals,” in Geology and Paleontol
ogy of the Urals (Ural Sci. Center, Sverdlovsk, 1986),
pp. 91–106 [in Russian].
19. V. N. Puchkov, A. A. Krasnobaev, V. I. Kozlov,
D. I. Matukov, A. G. Nekhorosheva, E. N. Lepekhina,
and S. A. Sergeev, “Preliminary Data on Chronological
Boundaries of Neo and Mesoproterozoic in the South
Urals in the Light of New U–Pb Datings,” in Geol.
Sbornik, Inst. Geol., Ufa Sci. Center (DizainPoligraf
Servis, Ufa, 2007), No. 6, pp. 3–4 [in Russian].
20. V. N. Puchkov, A. A. Krasnobaev, M. Schmitz,
V. I. Kozlov, V. I. Davydov, E. N. Lepekhina, and
A. G. Nekhorosheva, “New U–Pb Datings of the
Mashak Formation in the South Urals and Their Com
parative Estimation,” in Geol. Sbornik, Inst. Geol., Ufa
Sci. Center (DizainPoligrafServis, Ufa, 2009), no. 8,
pp. 3–14 [in Russian].
21. V. N. Puchkov, V. I. Kozlov, and A. A. Krasnobaev,
“Paleozoic U–Pb SHRIMP Zircon Datings of Igneous
Rocks from the Bashkir Anticlinorium,” in Geol.
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012
45
Sbornik, Inst. Geol., Ufa Sci. Center (DizainPoligraf
Servis, Ufa, 2011), No. 9, pp. 36–43 [in Russian].
22. A. A. Razumovsky and O. V. Astrakhantsev, “Structural
Features of Dike Complex of Ophiolite Association of
the Khabarny Massif,” in Essays on Regional Geology,
Vol. 1: South Urals (Nauka, Moscow, 2005), pp. 179–
212 [in Russian].
23. Yu. L. Ronkin, A. V. Maslov, G. A. Petrov, D. I. Matukov,
S. B. Suslov, S. Sindern, U. Kramm, and O. P. Lepi
khina, “In Situ U–Pb (SHRIMP) Dating of Zircons
from Granosyenite of the Troitsk Pluton, Kvarkush
Kamennogorsk Anticlinorium, Central Urals,” Dokl.
Earth Sci. 412 (1), 11–16 (2007).
24. D. N. Salikhov, Middle and Late Paleozoic Collisional
History of the Evolution of the Magnitorsk Megasyn
clinorium, Doct. Sci. (Geol.–Mineral.) Dissertation,
Yekaterinburg: Inst. Geol. Geochem., 1997) [in Rus
sian].
25. G. V. Simakov, “Intrusive Rocks at the Headwater of
the Pechora River, the North Urals,” Proceedings of
VII Geol. Conf. Komi ASSR, (Komi Branch, USSR
Acad. Sci., Syktyvkar, 1972), pp. 121–123 [in Russian].
26. A. V. Snachev, V. N. Puchkov, D. E. Savel’ev, and
V. I. Snachev, Geology of the Aramil–Sukhteli Zone of
the Urals (DizainPoligrafServis, Ufa, 2006) [in Rus
sian].
27. I. V. Semenov, Paleooceanic Spreading Volcanism of the
Urals and Reconstruction of Parameters of the Ural Pale
ozoic Ocean (Ural Branch, Russian Acad. Sci., Yekater
inburg, 2000) [in Russian].
28. A. A. Soboleva, Ya. E. Yudovich, M. P. Ketris, and
A. V. Vasil’ev, “Greenschists of the Lemva Zone,” in
Vestnik IG KNTs RAN (Syktyvkar, 2010), No. 1,
pp. 14–20 [in Russian].
29. Al. V. Tevelev and I. A. Kosheleva, Geology and Evolu
tion History of the Southern Urals (East Ural Rise and
Transural Region) (Moscow State Univ., Moscow,
2002) [in Russian].
30. A. V. Tevelev, I. A. Kosheleva, M. A. Furina, and
B. V. Belyatsky, “Triassic Magmatism of the South
Urals: Geochemistry, Isotopes, and Geodynamics,”
Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 4, Geologiya, No. 2, 29–38
(2009).
31. K. K. Zoloev, D. A. Dodin, V. A. Koroteev, et al., Tec
tonic Regionalization and Minerageny of the Urals
(GEOS, Moscow, 2006) [in Russian].
32. G. B. Fershtater, F. Bea, and P. Montero, “Granitoidy,”
in Structure and Dynamics of the Lithosphere in the East
ern Europe: Results of the Studies under EUROPROBE
Program (GEOKART, Moscow, 2006), Issue 2, 449–
461 [in Russian].
33. M. A. Furina, Structure and Formation Conditions of
Triassic Alkali Granitoid of the Malochekinsky Com
plex, Cand. Sci. (Geol.–Mineral.) Dissertation, Mos
cow: Moscow State Univ. 2010.
34. R. I. Shaibekov, “Age of the Dolerite Body at Mount
Sopcha Central PaiKhoi,” Vestnik Inst. Geol. Komi
Nauchn. Tsentra, No. 3, pp. 11–13 (2007).
35. R. I. Shaibekov, “U–Pb Zircon Age of Dolerite Body at
the Southeastern Margin of PaiKhoi,” in Proceedings
of the 1st Intern. Scientific and Practical Conf. of Young
Scientists and Specialists, February 24–27, 2009
46 PUCHKOV
(VSEGEI, St. Petersburg, 2009), pp. 528–530 [in Rus
sian].
36. R. E. Ernst, J. A. Hanes, V. N. Puchkov, A. V. Okrugin,
and D. A. Archibald, “Reconnaissance ArAr Dating of
Proterozoic Dikes and Sills in Siberia and South Urals:
Identification of New Large Igneous Provinces and
Application to the Reconstruction of Nuna (Columbia)
Supercontinent,” in Proceedings of ITC Conference
(GEOS, Moscow, 2008), Vol. 2, pp. 320–321 [in Rus
sian].
37. Ya. E. Yudovich, L. V. Makhlaev, and M. P. Ketris,
“Mineralogy of Ultrapotassic Basaltoid from the Enga
nepe Range, the Polar Urals,” in Mineralogy and Min
eralogenesis, (Syktyvkar, 1988), pp. 34–40 [in Russian].
38. P. Agard and M. Lemoine, Faces of the Alps: Structure
and Geodynamic Evolution (Com. Geol. Map of the
World, Paris, 2005).
39. K. L. Buchan and R. E. Ernst, Diabase Dyke Swarms
and Related Units in Canada and Adjacent Regions
(Geol. Survey Canada Map 2022A, Scale 1 : 5000000
ans Accompanying 39Page Report, 2004).
40. N. L. Dobretsov, A. A. Kirdyashkin, A. G. Kirdyashkin,
et al., “Modelling of Thermochemical Plumes and
Implications for the Origin of the Siberian Traps,”
Lithos 100, 66–92 (2008).
41. R. E. Ernst, V. Pease, V. N. Puchkov, V. I. Kozlov,
N. D. Sergeeva, and M. Hamilton, “Geochemical
Characterization of Precambrian Magmatic Suites of
the Southeastern Margin of the East European Craton,
Southern Urals, Russia,” Geol. Sbornik, Inst. Geol., Ufa
Sci. Center (DizainPoligrafServis, Ufa, 2006), No. 5,
pp. 119–161 [in Russian].
42. D. Evans and R. Mitchell, “Assembly and Breakup of
the Core of Paleoproterozoic–Mesoproterozoic
Supercontinent Nuna,” Geology (2011). doi:
101130/G31654.1.
43. A. V. Ivanov, S. V. Rasskazov, G. D. Feoktistov, et al.,
“40Ar/39Ar Dating of Usolskii Sill in the SouthEastern
Siberian Traps Large Igneous Province: Evidence for
LongLived Magmatism,” Terra Nova 17, 203–208
(2005).
44. Z. X. Li, S. V. Bogdanova, A. S. Collins, A. Davidson,
B. De Waele, R. E. Ernst, I. C. Fitzsimons, R. A. Fuck,
D. P. Gladkochub, J. Jacobs, K. E. Karlstrom, S. Lu,
L. M. Natapov, V. Pease, S. A. Pisarevsky, K. Thrane,
and V. Vernikovsky, “Assembly, Configuration, and
BreakUp History of Rodinia: a Synthesis,” Precambr.
Res. 160, 179–210 (2008).
45. M. K. Reichow, M. S. Pringle, Al’mukhamedov,
M. B. Allen, V. L. Andreichev, C. Mitchell, M. M. Bus
lov, C. E. Davies, G. S. Fedoseev, G. G. Fitton, S. Inger,
A. Ya. Medvedev, V. N. Puchkov, I. Iu. Safonova,
R. A. Scott, and A. D. Saunders, “The Timing and
Extent of the Eruption of the Siberian Traps Large
Igneous Province: Implications for the EndPermian
Environmental Crisis,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 277, 9–
20 (2008).
Reviewers: K.E. Degtyarev and Al.V. Tevelev
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 46 No. 1 2012
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.