TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “West Africa in Rodinia
T2 - High quality paleomagnetic pole from the ~860 Ma Manso dyke swarm (Ghana)” [Gondwana Res. 94 (2021) 28–43] (Gondwana Research (2021) 94 (28–43), (S1342937X2100071X), (10.1016/j.gr.2021.02.010))
AU - Antonio, Paul Yves Jean
AU - Baratoux, Lenka
AU - Trindade, Ricardo Ivan Ferreira
AU - Rousse, Sonia
AU - Ayite, Anani
AU - Lana, Cristiano
AU - Macouin, Mélina
AU - Adu, Emmanuel Williams Kobby
AU - Sanchez, Caroline
AU - Silva, Marco Antônio Leandro
AU - Firmin, Anne Sophie
AU - Martínez Dopico, Carmen Irène
AU - Proietti, Arnaud
AU - Amponsah, Prince Ofori
AU - Sakyi, Patrick Asamoah
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 International Association for Gondwana Research
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - The authors would like to correct in the paper published in Gondwana Research (Antonio et al., 2021) the value of the Euler pole used for Amazonia in the proposed reconstruction (Fig. 7), and the name of the AM3 pole used for Amazonia (Table 2). The corrected Fig. 7 and this caption are presented below.The AM3 pole for Amazonia used in this paper for ~1100 Ma (Table 2; Figs. 7 and 8) is not the Rincón del Tigre Complex pole (Patroni, 2015) but the Huanchaca intrusive preliminary pole (SW portion of the Amazonian Craton (Bispo‐Santos et al., 2017) well-dated at 1112 ± 2 Ma (Teixeira et al., 2015). The two corrected sentences where the AM3 pole was cited, and the corrected Table 2 are presented below. “But, a preliminary ~1112 Ma paleomagnetic pole for the well-dated Huanchaca intrusive preliminary pole (AM3) (Teixeira et al., 2015) supports a moderate to low latitude for Amazonia at that time (Bispo‐Santos et al., 2017), which is incompatible with the model of oblique collision proposed by Tohver et al. (2002).” “If the magnetization is primary this means the I9 pole (WA1) calculated by Perrin and Prévot (1988) is coeval to the ~1112 Ma Huanchaca intrusive preliminary pole (AM3) from the Amazonia Craton (Bispo‐Santos et al., 2017) (Fig. 7A).” These modifications do not affect any main conclusion of the paper. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
AB - The authors would like to correct in the paper published in Gondwana Research (Antonio et al., 2021) the value of the Euler pole used for Amazonia in the proposed reconstruction (Fig. 7), and the name of the AM3 pole used for Amazonia (Table 2). The corrected Fig. 7 and this caption are presented below.The AM3 pole for Amazonia used in this paper for ~1100 Ma (Table 2; Figs. 7 and 8) is not the Rincón del Tigre Complex pole (Patroni, 2015) but the Huanchaca intrusive preliminary pole (SW portion of the Amazonian Craton (Bispo‐Santos et al., 2017) well-dated at 1112 ± 2 Ma (Teixeira et al., 2015). The two corrected sentences where the AM3 pole was cited, and the corrected Table 2 are presented below. “But, a preliminary ~1112 Ma paleomagnetic pole for the well-dated Huanchaca intrusive preliminary pole (AM3) (Teixeira et al., 2015) supports a moderate to low latitude for Amazonia at that time (Bispo‐Santos et al., 2017), which is incompatible with the model of oblique collision proposed by Tohver et al. (2002).” “If the magnetization is primary this means the I9 pole (WA1) calculated by Perrin and Prévot (1988) is coeval to the ~1112 Ma Huanchaca intrusive preliminary pole (AM3) from the Amazonia Craton (Bispo‐Santos et al., 2017) (Fig. 7A).” These modifications do not affect any main conclusion of the paper. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103991177&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gr.2021.03.011
DO - 10.1016/j.gr.2021.03.011
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85103991177
SN - 1342-937X
VL - 95
SP - 10
EP - 13
JO - Gondwana Research
JF - Gondwana Research
ER -