Two main groups of geological models presented over the last four decades on the palaeogeographic, paleotectonic and geodynamic eo-Alpine and neo-Alpine evolution of the centralwestern Mediterranean area were compared. The comparison was carried out mainly considering the main stratigraphic, sedimentological, petrographic, structural and plate tectonic constraints. Moreover, recent geophysical interpretations and reconstructions were also considered with an aim of presenting all the different results. The models can roughly be grouped into two main classes. First family considers the presence of the Mesozoic Tethyan Ocean, where a single oceanic basin is located between Africa and Europe and from which both eo-Alpine and neo- Alpine chains were generated during the Cretaceous to Miocene time span. Conversely, the other class considers the occurrence of at least two Tethyan oceanic branches (or with thinned continental crust) since the Jurassic, separated by one or more microcontinents. The pros and cons of both classes of models are presented. Progressive innovations and improvements to the two groups of models were proposed over the years. However, because the models are based on different data sets resulting from basic geological studies or obtained by means of other approaches, they often do not integrate easily. This caused interpretative difficulties and terminological uncertainties for their comparison, and completely different models were considered equivalent and, sometimes, the same terminology was used indifferently to identify different geological subjects. The main differences between the examined models concern the kinematic reconstructions and by hence in the palaeogeographic and paleotectonic interpretations. The discussion presented in this paper aims at contributing to clarify and update the state of knowledge on this controversial topic.

Evolutionary geological models of the central-western peri-Mediterranean chains: a review

Francesco Guerrera;Mario Tramontana
2021

Abstract

Two main groups of geological models presented over the last four decades on the palaeogeographic, paleotectonic and geodynamic eo-Alpine and neo-Alpine evolution of the centralwestern Mediterranean area were compared. The comparison was carried out mainly considering the main stratigraphic, sedimentological, petrographic, structural and plate tectonic constraints. Moreover, recent geophysical interpretations and reconstructions were also considered with an aim of presenting all the different results. The models can roughly be grouped into two main classes. First family considers the presence of the Mesozoic Tethyan Ocean, where a single oceanic basin is located between Africa and Europe and from which both eo-Alpine and neo- Alpine chains were generated during the Cretaceous to Miocene time span. Conversely, the other class considers the occurrence of at least two Tethyan oceanic branches (or with thinned continental crust) since the Jurassic, separated by one or more microcontinents. The pros and cons of both classes of models are presented. Progressive innovations and improvements to the two groups of models were proposed over the years. However, because the models are based on different data sets resulting from basic geological studies or obtained by means of other approaches, they often do not integrate easily. This caused interpretative difficulties and terminological uncertainties for their comparison, and completely different models were considered equivalent and, sometimes, the same terminology was used indifferently to identify different geological subjects. The main differences between the examined models concern the kinematic reconstructions and by hence in the palaeogeographic and paleotectonic interpretations. The discussion presented in this paper aims at contributing to clarify and update the state of knowledge on this controversial topic.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11576/2673973
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 62
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 69
social impact