„Wielkoskalowe" różnice poglądów i interpretacji; ciąg dalszy

Abstract

„LARGE-SCALE" DIFFERENCES IN POINTS OF VIEW AND INTERPRETATIONS: REPLY TO REPLY Summary Having read the reply to my polemic article I was disappointed because the most important topics had been omited there. However, I want to take the discussion up again, first of all with regard to the Readers which we owe the clear description of discussed problems. Once more I want to accentuate that I do not shake the concept of adopting the theory of wrench movements in Poland but I still charge the Authors with an idequate knowledge of the research procedure within the field of methodology. Quoting from Dewey, Arthaud and Matte is a pure manipulation because they assumed a strike-slip movement of discussed zone in the opposite direction and in Late Palaeozoic, thus in every respect contrary to the Authors of the criticized article. The problem of the oceanic crust consumption in T-T Zone does not preclude the existence of continental plates in the W and SW of it. I have set forth satisfactory arguments to support this opinion in my paper, and the Authors have done it •unintentionally in their reply, too. They have written about necessary continuing of granulitic belt to the S and SW of T-T Zone. But nothing else is proved by granulitic exotics occurrence within the Carpathian flysch, which may derive neither from Precambrian Platform nor from the area situated to the S of Carpathian flysch basin. I assume the interpretation of , Curie point no less hypothetical than my one. But hitherto both of them prejudge nothing univocally. The hypothesis of subduction at. the old platform edge may be continued to promote, if the Japanese not Andean type is taken into account. The character of Caledonian deformations in Poland will be the matter of speculative interpretations for a long time. But it is necessary to consider all the possible variants of this as well as of the remaining topics. „Lack of evidence" must not be the cause for discretional interpretation. I have remained considering the whole discussion about geological cross-section evidence to be aimless, because every geological cross-section refers to the individual imagination and though it cannot be compared with any geological map; this one may be worse or better but always renders the geologist's observations, notes and knowledge. It is characteristic of cross-section that the interpretation reaches deeper the cross-section is more hypothetical. The Authors object to me and R. Dadlez that our particularity and the plan of our work disableus from presenting at least a scientific notice even after tens of years. Certainly, I admit that our hypotesis have to be shaped not precipitately and documented thoroughly after careful consideration. I must understand the remarks about orogens virgations as a distortion of empirical methods which have occupied reasonable and sound position within Geology for many years. Basing on the opinion of the IGCP no. 27 working group and on the Tectonic Map of Europe (Ist and IInd edition) I recognized as a scientific conformity because the existence of Central European Caledonides has bee n accepted as a fact since at least 1975, and for me personally it has become clear since 1964 and there are published evidence for this. I do not want to take up the discussion about Caledonian metamorphism in Kraków-Myszków belt because it would be aimless and useless. I still hold the opinion that ophiolits are allochthonous within orogenic belts. This practically excludes drawing any tectonic or age conclusion of basal importance with the exception of few cases, of course. I want to emphasize my constant Caledonian point of view on the essence of so-called „Małopolska Massif' which has been factually confirmed lastly. I have never accepted the occurrence of intracratonic trough or Middle Polish rift. Hence I recognized ascribing me another opinion or charging with expressing another view in the Tectonic Map of Europe as a pure imputation. After all the scientific editorial office have never been situated in Warsaw. I also have not understood why did the Authors omit the matter of existence or non-existence of „preserved" Gothian blocks to the W and SW of the old platform's edge which I still consider as the most important subject. This problem implies broad tectonic consequences including the possibility of rejecting the idea of large-scale strike-slip movements, which was presented in the discussed article. P.P.S. The last sentences in the English summary of the discussed study (Geol. Rev. no. 2, p. 72) are quite false. Not any Author applied to us for our articles. It was the only editors' decision to insert the particular elements of the discussion in the respective numbers of the Review.