Abstract
This comment addresses two inferences used by Johnson (2009) to argue for porphyroblast rotation during bulk coaxial shortening. Firstly, he interprets that porphyroblast inclusion trails that are inclined (his figure 1) became inclined because the porphyroblast rotated during growth. He used orientation data from millipede microstructures from one hand sample and concluded on the basis of the total spread of inclusion trail orientations and porphyroblast axial ratios that porphyroblasts had rotated relative to one another during ductile deformation. Secondly, he presents a numerical model that indicates that asymmetrically shaped porphyroblasts rotated during coaxial deformation. However, I will show that the porphyroblasts did not rotate after they grew, in spite of localized shearing along the developing S3 that rotated visible matrix S2 in Johnson's figure 1.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
