How useful are ‘millipede’ and other similar porphyroblast microstructures for determining synmetamorphic deformation histories?

Abstract

ABSTRACT Oppositely concave microfolds (OCMs) in and adjacent to porphyroblasts can be classified into five nongenetic types. Type 1 OCMs are found in sections through porphyroblasts with spiral‐shaped inclusion trails cut parallel to the spiral axes, and commonly show closed foliation loops. Type 2 OCMs, commonly referred to as ‘millipede’ microstructure, are highly symmetrical, the foliation folded into OCMs being approximately perpendicular to the overprinting foliation. Type 3 OCMs are similar to Type 2, but are asymmetrical, the foliation folded into OCMs being variably oblique to the overprinting foliation. Type 4 OCMs are highly asymmetrical, only one foliation is present, and this foliation is parallel to the local shear plane. Type 5 OCMs result from porphyroblast growth over a microfold interference pattern.Types 1 and 2 are commonly interpreted as indicating highly noncoaxial and highly coaxial bulk deformation paths, respectively, during porphyroblast growth. However, theoretically they can form by any deformation path intermediate between bulk coaxial shortening and bulk simple shearing. Given particular initial foliation orientation and timing of porphyroblast growth, Type 3 OCMs can also form during these intermediate deformation paths, and are commonly found in the same rocks as Type 2 OCMs. Type 4 OCMs may indicate highly noncoaxial deformation during porphyroblast growth, but may be difficult to distinguish from Type 3 OCMs. Thus, Types 1–3 (and possibly 4) reflect the finite strain state, giving no information about the rotational component of the deformation(s) responsible for their formation. Furthermore, there is a lack of unequivocal independent evidence for the degree of noncoaxiality of deformation (s) during the growth of porphyroblasts containing OCMs. Type 2 OCMs that occur independently of porphyroblasts or other rigid objects might indicate highly coaxial bulk shortening, but there is a lack of supporting physical or computer modelling.It is possible that microstructures in the matrix around OCMs formed during highly noncoaxial and highly coaxial deformation histories might have specific characteristics that allow them to be distinguished from one another. However, determining degrees of noncoaxiality from rock fabrics is a major, longstanding problem in structural geology.