Reply to comment on “dynamic topography in South America” by Hechenleitnera, Fiorelli, Larrovere, Grellet-Tinnera, and Carignano

This is a Reply to Hechenleitner and collaborators Comment, who proposed a Cretaceous age for the whole Llanos Formation (central Argentina, Sierras Pampeanas Province), based on neosauropod fossils, instead of Miocene as originally proposed by Ezpeleta et al. (2006) and Dávila et al. (2007). Howeve...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of South American earth sciences Vol. 50; pp. 95 - 96
Main Authors Dávila, Federico M., Lithgow-Bertelloni, Carolina
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2014
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This is a Reply to Hechenleitner and collaborators Comment, who proposed a Cretaceous age for the whole Llanos Formation (central Argentina, Sierras Pampeanas Province), based on neosauropod fossils, instead of Miocene as originally proposed by Ezpeleta et al. (2006) and Dávila et al. (2007). However, red beds that underlay the thick paleosoils of the Llanos Formation provided nine detrital U–Pb Paleogene (62 Ma, earliest Cenozoic) ages on zircon grains (Astini et al., 2009; Ezpeleta 2009). On the base of this evidence, and other mammal remnant within the Sierras Pampeanas (where the Llanos Formation develops), we proposed this is a condensed unit with Mesozoic ages at the bottom and Mio-Pliocene (likely younger) to the top.
ISSN:0895-9811
1873-0647
DOI:10.1016/j.jsames.2013.12.002