The Significance of the Boundary Between the Rhoscolyn and New
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Geol. Mag. 150 (3), 2013, pp. 519–535. c Cambridge University Press 2012 519 doi:10.1017/S0016756812000775 The significance of the boundary between the Rhoscolyn and New Harbour formations on Holy Island, North Wales, to the deformation history of Anglesey ∗ ∗ JACK E. TREAGUS , SUSAN H. TREAGUS † & NIGEL H. WOODCOCK‡ ∗ School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, England ‡Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, England (Received 3 July 2012; accepted 4 September 2012; first published online 20 December 2012) Abstract – The boundary between the Rhoscolyn and New Harbour formations on Holy Island, Anglesey, has been described as a high strain zone or as a thrust. The boundary is here described at four localities, with reference to the contrasting sedimentary and deformational character of the two formations. At one of these localities, Borth Wen, sandstones and conglomerates at the top of the Rhoscolyn Formation are followed, without any break, by tuffs and then mudstones of the New Harbour Formation. It is concluded that there is clear evidence of depositional continuity across the boundary here, and that both formations subsequently shared a common two-phase deformation. The first (D1) was manifestly different in intensity and scale in the two formations, whereas the second (D2) produced very similar structures in both. The other three localities provide continuity of sedimentary and tectonic features at this boundary in a traverse along the length of Holy Island, leading us to identify two previously unrecognized major D1 folds in addition to the Rhoscolyn Anticline. At one of these localities (Holyhead), we confirm the presence of Skolithos just below the boundary, supporting radiometric evidence for a lower Cambrian or later age for the Rhoscolyn Formation. A turbidite interpretation for both the Rhoscolyn and New Harbour formations best fits the available evidence. A deep-water depositional environment is still compatible with the sporadic presence of Skolithos burrows, but less so with reported observations of hummocky and swaley cross-stratification lower down the South Stack Group. Keywords: North Wales, Monian Supergroup, Rhoscolyn Formation, New Harbour Formation, structure, folds. 1. Introduction with blueschists of the Aethwy Terrane suggested first to Wood (1974) and then to later authors (e.g. Gibbons, The island of Anglesey, North Wales, exposes the 1983; Gibbons & Horák, 1996) that the Monian most varied area of Neoproterozoic and related Composite Terrane represents an accretionary complex Cambrian rocks in southern Britain. Anglesey lies at a subduction zone. This possibility has established south of the Iapetus Suture that marks Silurian ocean Anglesey as an area of international importance closure (Fig. 1a), and therefore probably originated (e.g. Kawai et al. 2006, 2007). However, there are in Proterozoic time as fragments of the Gondwana differing views on whether the accretion happened supercontinent. Anglesey forms the main part of the predominantly by dip-slip thrusting (Kawai et al. 2007) Monian Composite Terrane, separated from the larger or by strike-slip faulting (Gibbons & Horák, 1996), Avalon Composite Terrane to the southeast by the and whether the Monian Supergroup is part of the Menai Strait Fault System (Fig. 1b). The Monian accretionary complex (Kawai et al. 2007) or post-dates Composite Terrane comprises late Proterozoic gneisses assembly of the Coedana and Aethwy terranes (McIlroy and granite (Coedana Terrane), Cambrian to possibly & Horák, 2006). Crucial to testing these hypotheses is a early Ordovician metasediments (Monian Supergroup better understanding of the stratigraphic and structural Terrane), and related shear zones, including a blueschist sequence within the component terranes on Anglesey. belt (Aethwy Terrane) (McIlroy & Horák, 2006). It The sequence in the Monian Supergroup (Fig. 2) has continues southwestward to the Rosslare Complex of been particularly problematic since Shackleton (1954, southeastern Ireland. Northwest of the Monian Terrane 1969) showed that the long-established sequence of is the Leinster–Lakesman Terrane, which exposes no Greenly (1919) must be incorrect. The debate was Proterozoic basement. fuelled by Barber & Max (1979), who divided the The association in the Monian Supergroup of deep- supergroup into three tectonostratigraphic units (struc- water turbidites, mafic igneous rocks and a major turally upwards, the South Stack, New Harbour and olistostrome (Gwna Group), and their juxtaposition Cemlyn units) separated by tectonic contacts. Gibbons & Ball (1991) proposed that the Cemlyn unit in fact † Author for correspondence: [email protected] equates to the Gwna melange, and has a stratigraphic Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 19 Jan 2017 at 23:18:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756812000775 520 J. TREAGUS AND OTHERS Figure 1. (a) Terrane map of the southern British Isles showing location of Anglesey. (b) Geological map of Anglesey showing location of Holy Island. (c) Geological map of Holy Island showing D1 syncline and anticline axial traces and the line of cross-section X–X (Fig. 3). Terrane map modified from Holdsworth, Woodcock & Strachan (2012) after British Geological Survey (1996). Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 19 Jan 2017 at 23:18:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756812000775 Boundary of Rhoscolyn and New Harbour formations, Anglesey 521 Figure 2. Schematic tectonostratigraphic columns for the Monian Supergroup of Anglesey, together with the gneiss below and the Ordovician and Silurian sequences above, showing the evolution of proposals since that of Greenly (1923). contact with the underlying New Harbour Group. the southeast, in a NE–SW-trending Monian basin Phillips (1991a), however, maintained the view that (Phillips, 1991a; McIlroy & Horák, 2006). the South Stack/New Harbour contact was tectonized, The New Harbour Formation on Holy Island mostly at least on Holy Island. The Monian sequence has originated as mudstones, with quartzose silt–mud more recently been questioned (a) by detrital zircons couplets defining a thin lamination. The mudstones in the South Stack Group (Collins & Buchan, 2004), are now metamorphosed to quartz-chlorite-mica schists implying that it is no older than 522 ± 6 Ma (early at greenschist facies, and polydeformed on a smaller Cambrian), and (b) by strontium isotope stratigraphy scale than the Rhoscolyn Formation. The New Harbour from the Gwna Group (Horák & Evans, 2011) showing Group as defined by Phillips (1991a), which includes that some of its component melange clasts are of the overlying Church Bay Tuffs and Skerries Formation Early Neoproterozoic age. If the accumulation of the (not exposed on Holy Island), was also interpreted Gwna Group was anywhere near the age of these by him as turbidites. The group, as broadly defined, clasts, it cannot then form the top unit of a mostly includes volcaniclastic sandstones derived from an Cambrian Monian Supergroup. As Horák & Evans andesitic arc (Phillips, 1991a; McIlroy & Horák, (2011) concluded, the stratigraphy of the supergroup 2006), with sediment probably derived from the north requires re-examination. or northwest. Thus, Phillips (1991a) concluded that the Monian Supergroup was derived from more than one source area, consistent with an active continental margin model. 2. The boundary between the Rhoscolyn and New It should be emphasized that Phillips’s (1991a) geo- Harbour formations: previous work chemical and sedimentological data for the provenance The present paper reports a re-examination of the of the New Harbour Group do not come from the boundary between the South Stack and New Harbour New Harbour Formation as defined by Greenly (1919), groups on Holy Island, Anglesey (Fig. 1c). On the nor from exposures on Holy Island as discussed in island, the South Stack Group comprises the South this paper. Instead, his data come from the Lynas and Stack Formation, the Holyhead (Quartzite) Formation Bodelwyn formations from northernmost Anglesey, and the Rhoscolyn Formation, overlain by the New otherwise known as the Amlwch Beds (Greenly, 1919), Harbour Group, here comprising only the New Harbour whose direct correlation to the New Harbour Formation Formation (Greenly, 1919; Shackleton, 1969; Phillips, on western Anglesey is not proven. Phillips (1991a, 1991a). The Rhoscolyn Formation is an assemblage p. 1086) stated specifically that the New Harbour of polydeformed and metamorphosed (greenschist metasediments in western Anglesey were too deformed facies) sandstones and subordinate mudstones. These for their depositional environment (or presumably their rocks have been interpreted as turbidites, deposited geochemistry) to be evaluated. The implication in later in a submarine fan with continental provenance from work (e.g. Hudson & Stowell, 1997; McIlroy & Horák, Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Open University Library, on 19 Jan 2017 at 23:18:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756812000775 522 J. TREAGUS AND OTHERS 2006) that the New Harbour Formation is turbiditic structure and stratigraphy