Structural Traverse Across the Sierra Madre Oriental Fold-Thrust Belt in East-Central Mexico: Alternative Interpretation and Reply
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Structural traverse across the Sierra Madre Oriental fold-thrust belt in east-central Mexico: Alternative interpretation and reply Alternative interpretation JOSE F. LONGORIA The University of Texas at Dallas, Programs in Geosciences, Box 830688, Richardson, Texas 75083-0688 INTRODUCTION The geology of Mexico is enigmatic mainly because of the lack of For example, in his sections a and c, the lithic package overlying the field work addressing basic aspects of geological research, including re- Las Trancas is referred to as the "Tamaulipas Formation" [sic !]. On the gional stratigraphy and paleogeographic analysis, which are fundamental basis of pioneering studies by Segerstrom (1956,1961a, 1961b, 1962), as to unraveling the structure and tectonics of the Mexican Cordillera. In my well as my own regional studies (Longoria, 1975,1984a, 1984b), there are opinion, it is necessary to have a proper stratigraphic framework before the no outcrops of Tamaulipas Limestone to the west or the east of the "El structure of the Sierra Madre Oriental can be correctly balanced. Although Doctor bank"; instead, a near time equivalent of it, the Santuario, was Suter's paper (1987) represents an excellent attempt to display the geologic defined by Segerstrom in 1961 to include those carbonate rocks. Substitu- complexity of part of the Sierra Madre Oriental, there are basic strati- tion of the Tamaulipas for the Santuario should be documented in com- graphic and structural aspects that deserve further treatment because they parative field studies of both stratotypes and should follow the precepts may yield an alternative interpretation to Suter's structural analysis, as established by the North American Stratigraphic Code (North American well as to his attempt to extrapolate the surface features to the basement. Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature, 1983). Distinguishing be- In his paper, Suter (1987), in addition to describing the structures of tween coeval lithic units should not be viewed as a mere nomenclatural an area in east-central Mexico, attempted to construct balanced cross procedure; rather, more significantly, their separation has direct influence sections and area-balanced sections using the technique originally de- on the paleogeographic reconstruction of the region under study, which scribed by Dahlstrom (1969) and later developed by Suppe (1983,1985). according to Dahlstrom (1969, p. 753), is the ultimate check of a balanced As presented by Dahlstrom (1969), balanced cross sections are success- cross section in deformed terranes. It is my opinion that if the Tamaulipas fully achieved in areas where sufficient stratigraphic documentation is Limestone, originally described from northeastern Mexico, is demon- available, including (1) a standard lithostratigraphy, (2) accurate thickness strated to be present on top of Las Trancas at any locality in east-central of formations, (3) facies relationships, and (4) temporal relationships of the Mexico, its occurrence represents a major tectonic juxtaposition that must units. Knowledge of the Mexican Cordillera, however, is still in its infancy be considered in the balance of the Sierra Madre Oriental. and does not allow the application of quantified geometric methods be- The assignment of the pelitic flysch to the Agua Nueva and San cause most of the aforementioned data are not available. An unbalanced Felipe Formations of his section e contradicts lithostratigraphic schemes of stratigraphy may have been used to obtain balanced cross sections. east and east-central Mexico previously established by Wilson and others (1955), Bodenlos (1956), Segerstrom (1961, 1962), Bonet (1956a), and STRATIGRAPHY Longoria (1984b) and requires lithostratigraphic documentation. The lith- ic packages he referred to as the "San Felipe" (for example on p. 260, first Lithostratigraphy column, bottom paragraph: "tectonic contact of the Chapulhuacan Forma- tion with the San Felipe beds" [nc!]) are related to the Xilitla as described The lithic units identified by Suter (his Fig. 2, 1987) as Las Trancas, by Heim (1940). Suter, however, repeatedly used the base of the Agua Pimienta, Chapulhuacan, Tamaulipas, EI Doctor, El Abra, Agua Nueva, Nueva as a reference horizon to estimate the shortening of his balanced and San Felipe do not correspond to those formations. These units are of segments between the Maguey-2A and the lower Xilitla thrust (see primary importance in Suter's analysis because they were used as reference p. 260), thereby adding uncertainty to his balanced cross section because horizons in constructing the balanced cross sections of the region. The no lithologies of the Agua Nueva are seen in this region. Suter's reference lithic features described by Suter, however, differ radically from those in to the San Felipe (p. 254) as composed of "pelagic limestone, platform- the original definitions. derived carbonate exoclasts, shale, sandstone, and graywackes of a wide compositional range" reflects his misuse of lithostratigraphic terms, as the above-mentioned lithic features do not characterize the San Felipe. For a characterization of the San Felipe, the reader is referred to Pessagno (1969, p. 36-42). Although this lithic package is coeval with the San Felipe, it The article discussed appeared in the Bulletin, v. 98, p. 249-264. belongs in a different paleogeographic domain (Longoria, 1984b). Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 102, p. 261-266, 2 figs., February 1990. 261 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/102/2/261/3380910/i0016-7606-102-2-261.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 262 ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION AND REPLY Biochronology central Mexico is that synsedimentary thickness variations of the Pimienta Formation, from about 55 m (Ahuacatlan area) to more than 800 m On page 249, third column, fourth paragraph, a biochronologic (Cuetzalan area), do occur, but thickness variation is independent of tec- datum is displayed by Suter; he states, "the exposed part of Las Trancas is tonic deformation. The question is, how does Suter distinguish between Kimmeridgian to Barremian age (Carrillo-Martínez and Suter, 1982)," differences in original thickness and tectonic thinning of the Pimienta? giving the impression that the reader will find biostratigraphic information Even if formal aspects of stratigraphy are put aside, the simple analy- to support that chronostratigraphic assignment of Las Trancas. In Carrillo sis of the vertical succession, as illustrated by Suter in his Figure 2, gives and Suter (1982, p. 3), however, one finds only citations of the original evidence of abrupt changes in sedimentary facies, implying obvious con- work by Segerstrom (1961b) and reference to unpublished personal com- trasts in sedimentary environments for which the superposition likely indi- munications. The chronostratigraphic position of Las Trancas is thus not cates the occurrence of unconformities, and thickness variations as documented beyond the original assignment by Segerstrom in 1961. Con- recorded by López Ramos (1980, p. 331-343). The deposition of the sequently, Suter's stratigraphic columns need to be documented in terms vertical succession, represented in his section d by the Pimienta, El Abra, not only of lithic characters but also of their chronostratigraphic position. and Soyatal, reflects dynamic changes in the stratigraphic record with The only biochronologic information in Suter's paper is his reference consequent thickness variations. This type of vertical relationship, that is, to the presence of a planktonic foraminifer. Interestingly enough, he wrote Las Trancas/Tamaulipas and Pimienta/El Abra contacts, complicates the (p. 253, first column), "platform-carbonate production, however, probably construction of balanced cross sections (compare with Dahlstrom, 1969, lasted until early Campanian near the present site of Highway 120, where p. 754) because they represent abrupt paleobathymetric fluctuations, from the lower part of the Soyatal Formation corresponds to the Globotruncana bathyal in Pimienta to inner neritic in El Abra. elevata planktonic foraminiferal zone sensu stricto (Suter, 1984)." In his 1984 paper, no reference is given to this important biochronologic finding STRUCTURE that allowed him to postulate the continuous sedimentation of the succes- sion represented in his 1987 section d on page 251. Thrust Faults The chronostratigraphic position of the well-known El Abra and El Doctor Formations has been treated loosely by Suter, who regarded the Very little or no stratigraphic field documentation was actually pro- first as Barremian-Coniacian and the second as Aptian-Cenomanian. vided by Suter to establish the existence of ten thrust faults beyond their There are no published records of Barremian, Turonian, and Coniacian assumed geometric attributes. It is impossible to review in this discussion fossils in the El Abra in spite of the fact that detailed microfacies and all the thrust faults, but a discussion of the Xilitla and Frontal thrusts will micropaleontologic investigations have been carried out by Petróleos Mex- provide some insight into the controversy involved in the recognition of icanos (Pemex) geologists (Carrillo-Bravo, 1971). Furthermore, Suter's these thrust faults in the fold-thrust belt of the Mexican Cordillera in statement (p. 252), "where the Valle de Guadalupe-1 well was drilled, east-central Mexico platform deposits had begun to accumulate in the Barremian (Carrillo- The Xilitla Thrust. The Xilitla thrust, together with