Talk:Hebridean Terrane

Caledonian orogenic belt
User:Mikenorton, Thanks for starting this article.

I have a few comments on what you have written so far. The first sentence of this article currently states:

"The Hebridean Terrane is one of the terranes that form part of the Caledonian orogenic belt in northwest Scotland."

I believe that the Caledonian orogenic belt comprises the Paleozoic rocks to the east/south-east of this terrane, namely the Northern Highlands and Grampian Highlands (Laurentian) Terranes. Rather than being part of the Caledonian orogenic belt, isn't the Hebridean Terrane the cratonic basement onto which Caledonian rocks were thrust, along the N.W. Caledonian Front/Moine Thrust? (as you have indeed mentioned in the "History" section).

OK, a terrane that has been "thrust over" is involved in the orogeny, but I am not sure that is the same as saying it is part of the orogenic belt. (c.f. the Indian craton and Ganges Plain are "thrusted over" by the Himalayas but does that make them part of the Himalayan Orogenic Belt?). Also, is involvement in the Caledonian Orogeny of such significance to even justify inclusion in the introduction at the expense of other perhaps more significant features of the terrane?

Anyway, you have made a great start and I hope my comments are constructively helpful.

GeoWriter (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks GeoWriter, you are of course correct that this particular terrane is 'cratonic', but 'terrane' is how it is referred to by many geologists. 'Terrane' I take to mean a chunk of crust that has a distinct geological history to neighbouring chunks of crust, the boundaries all being tectonic. However, the terrane's northwestern boundary is actually a Mesozoic rift structure, which is certainly tectonic, but it's not clear that the basement to the rift isn't part of the Lewisian as well. My main source for the article does not dwell on the northwestern boundary at all. Perhaps it could be said that it became a terrane only after the Atlantic opened at the start of the Eocene, but I'm probably going to have trouble finding a source for that. I will ponder on this. Sorry not to reply sooner, forgot to put it on my watchlist. Mikenorton (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Copied from Talk:Bedrock Geology UK North - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic: "This article (i.e.Bedrock Geology UK North - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic) has considerable overlap with the existing Hebridean Terrane and Lewisian complex articles and I suggest that any information not already in those articles should be merged into them where appropriate. Mikenorton (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)"

Given the editor in question's apparent flirtations with copyright violation and disinclination to comment here or elsewhere I can only suggest the merger be undertaken asap as you see fit and simply redirect or Prod the Bedrock Geology page. Ben  Mac  Dui  19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On a first read through there is very little information that is not already present in the Lewisian complex article. I've taken a copy of the text, so if I do find a few things to update, assuming I find supporting sources, I can add them. A redirect maybe the way to go, although it's an unlikely search string. I'll sleep on it. Mikenorton (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now added some information about the 'Rhinns complex' to the 'Lewisian complex' article and have decided to redirect the 'Bedrock Geology UK North - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic' there. This also avoids likely issues of copyright violation and the use of non-free images. The bottom line though is that virtually all the information was in an existing article. Mikenorton (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted the redirect due to the "likely" copyright issues and unlikely search term. Vsmith (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)