Isotopic characteristics of the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core
complex: Implications for the architecture of the Himalayan orogen
Michael A. Murphy*
Geosciences Department, University of Houston, 312 Science and Research Building 1,
Houston, Texas 77204-5007, USA
ABSTRACT
Isotopic data from the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core complex provide insight on the
character of rocks exposed within it and permit possible correlations of these rocks to those
exposed in the Himalayan thrust belt. Whole-rock Sr and Nd isotopic analyses show that rock
units in the metamorphic core have isotopic signatures that correlate to those of Greater and
Lesser Himalayan rocks exposed in the foreland. These data are the first to document Lesser
Himalayan rocks north of the Higher Himalayan physiographic zone. When combined with
previously published structural reconstructions of the Himalayan orogen, these data reveal a
crustal architecture that requires significant uplift of Lesser Himalayan rocks in the hinterland with respect to their position in the foreland, a greater amount of underthrusting of the
Lesser Himalayan rocks, and more shortening in the hinterland within the Tethyan Himalaya
physiographic zone than currently estimated.
schist, mylonitic quartzofeldspathic gneiss,
and quartzofeldspathic migmatite. The contacts between these rock units are traceable
throughout the metamorphic core complex and
define a broad elongated dome. The 232Th/ 208Pb
ion-microprobe monazite ages from deformed
and undeformed leucogranite bodies indicate that motion on the GMH occurred after
15 Ma (Murphy and Copeland, 2005). The
40
Ar/39Ar data from muscovite and biotite indicate that the metamorphic rocks cooled below
400 °C ca. 9 Ma.
Keywords: Himalaya, intracontinental deformation, isotopes, orogenic wedge.
ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY
Rock samples collected from the Gurla
Mandhata metamorphic core complex were
analyzed for Nd and Sr isotopic compositions
(Table 1). The motivations for such analyses
were (1) to test the possible petrogenetic relationship between the footwall metamorphic
rocks, leucogranite dikes and sills, and the
migmatite unit, and (2) assess the possible correlation between rocks exposed in the footwall
of the GMH with rocks exposed in the Himalayan thrust belt. Sample locations are labeled
in Figure 1. One sample (GMH 8) is not shown
in Figure 1, but is located along strike ~25 km
to the south of the other samples (sample location: 30°11′15.8″N, 80°17′17.7″E). Of nine
samples analyzed, three samples were from the
mylonitic quartzofeldspathic gneiss and garnet
biotite schist, four samples were from the underlying migmatite, and two samples were from
leucocratic muscovite– and biotite-bearing
granite sills within the gneiss and schist unit.
Isotopic measurements were conducted at
the University of California, Los Angeles, by
thermal ionization mass spectrometry using the
methods described by Nelson and Davidson
(1993). The Nd and Sr isotope standard values
measured during the course of the analyses are
143
Nd/144Nd = 0.511843 ± 13 for La Jolla and
87
Sr/86Sr = 0.710239 ± 16 for NBS 987. Figure 2
shows the εNd and εSr values (present day) of my
analyses along with previously reported values
from Greater Himalayan rocks, Higher Himalayan Leucogranites, and Lesser Himalayan
rocks (Vidal et al., 1982; Deniel et al., 1987; Stern
et al., 1989; France-Lanord et al., 1993; Parrish
and Hodges, 1996; Martin et al., 2005). Samples from the structurally highest rock units
(mylonitic gneiss and schist) (GMH 1, GMH 2,
GMH 3) (Fig. 1) yield εNd values between −10.5
and −17.6 and εSr values between 749.9 and
645.4. Samples from the migmatite (structurally
INTRODUCTION
The architecture of the Himalayan orogen
is widely considered to be characterized by
southward-tapering orogenic wedge floored
along its base by the Main Himalayan thrust
and consisting of three lithologic units stacked
by the north-dipping Main Boundary thrust,
Main Central thrust zone (MCT), and South
Tibet detachment (STD). With few exceptions,
this architecture has formed the conceptual
framework of the orogen for more than 65 yr
(e.g., Heim and Gansser, 1939; Gansser, 1964;
LeFort, 1975; Burchfiel and Royden, 1985;
Beaumont et al., 2001). Efforts to properly
place geochemical and geochronologic data
in this structural framework have been challenged by difficulties in distinguishing between
Greater and Lesser Himalayan rocks due to the
high degree of metamorphism and distributed
shear of these rock units, as well as similarities
in their protolith.
These challenges have been surmounted by
isotopic characterization of these rock units
across the length of the orogen in Pakistan, India,
Nepal, and Bhutan (Deniel et al., 1987; FranceLanord et al., 1993; Parrish and Hodges, 1996;
Whittington et al., 1999; Ahmad et al., 2000;
Robinson et al., 2001; Argles et al., 2003; Martin
et al., 2005; Richards et al., 2006). The εND (0)
values reported in these studies document −20 to
−2 for Greater Himalayan rocks (mean value of
−15), and −30 to −16 for Lesser Himalayan rocks
(mean value of −23). The Lesser Himalayan
isotopic signature applies to Mesoproterozoic
clastic lithologies of the Lesser Himalayan rocks
that may also contain 1.8 Ga igneous intrusions,
and the Greater Himalayan isotopic signature
applies to those rocks above the Main Central
*E-mail: [email protected].
thrust that are upper amphibolite facies and are
thought to be of Neoproterozoic age. This isotopic
distinction has been used effectively throughout the orogen to better understand a variety of
tectonic issues, including the architecture of the
Himalayan thrust belt and its kinematic development (Parrish and Hodges, 1996; Robinson et al.,
2001, Argles et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2005).
Most isotopic studies are limited to the frontal regions of the orogen and have not exploited
exposures of mid-crustal metasedimentary rocks
that are in the hinterland of the frontal Himalayan thrust belt in the central Himalaya. In this
paper I present whole-rock Nd and Sr isotopic
data from the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core
complex, which is within the Tethyan Himalaya
(Fig. 1). These data are used to correlate rocks
exposed in the metamorphic core complex to
those exposed in the frontal part of the Himalayan thrust belt and is used in combination with
previously published structural data to infer the
architecture of the Himalayan orogen.
GEOLOGY OF THE GURLA MANDHATA
METAMORPHIC CORE COMPLEX
The Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core complex is the largest of several gneiss domes that
extend east-west across southern Tibet (Fig. 1).
It is ~100 km long in an east-west direction and
40 km in a north-south direction (Murphy and
Copeland, 2005). The core complex is toward
the hinterland of the MCT within the Tethyan
Himalaya physiographic zone. Exhumation of
the metamorphic core from mid-crustal depths
occurred along a top-to-the west extensional
shear zone referred to as the Gurla Mandhata–
Humla fault system (GMH) (Murphy et al.,
2002; Murphy and Copeland, 2005) (Fig. 1).
Rocks within the shear zone from structurally
higher to lower positions consist of mylonitic
© 2007 The Geological Society of America. For permission to copy, contact Copyright Permissions, GSA, or [email protected].
GEOLOGY,
November
2007
Geology,
November
2007;
v. 35; no. 11; p. 983–986; doi: 10.1130/G23774A.1; 3 figures; 1 table; Data Repository item 2007244.
983
Figure 1. A: Geologic map across western flank of the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core complex (modified from Murphy et al., 2002). Inset
shows tectonic map of Himalayan convergent margin and location of study area. B: Cross section shown in A. Locations of rock samples
discussed in text are shown in map and cross section. Abbreviations in inset: GCT—Great Counter thrust; GMH—Gurla Mandhata–Humla
fault system; KFS—Karakoram fault system; MBT—Main Boundary thrust; MCT—Main Central thrust zone; MFT—Main Frontal thrust; STD—
South Tibet detachment.
lowest unit) (GMH 4, GMH 5, GMH 6, GMH 7)
yield εNd values between −21.3 and −23.4 and
εSr values between 1370.8 and 3967. Samples
GMH 8 and GMH 9 are leucocratic granite sills
that have intruded the schist and gneiss unit,
respectively. GMH 8 yields an εNd value of −14.0
and an εSr value of 790.6. GMH 9 yields an εNd
value of −21.3 and an εSr value of 2643.3.
GMH 1, GMH 2, and GMH 3 isotopically correlate with the Greater Himalayan field. GMH 4,
GMH 5, GMH 6, and GMH 7 isotopically correlate with the Lesser Himalayan field. One of
the leucogranite sills (GMH 8) is isotopically
similar to schist, it intrudes as well as the Higher
984
Himalayan leucogranite field, while the other
sill (GMH 9), located immediately above the
gneiss-migmatite contact, is isotopically similar
to the migmatite and Lesser Himalayan field.
It is clear that the migmatite (GMH 4, GMH 5,
GMH 6, GMH 7) and a granite sill (GMH 9),
which are at the structurally lowest positions in
the footwall, were derived from a source with
an isotopic character similar to Lesser Himalayan rocks (Fig. 2). I interpret that GMH 8 represents a partial melt derived from the schist or
gneiss unit and GMH 9 represents a partial melt
derived from the migmatite unit. The migmatite
consists of outcrop-scale lenticular segregations
of quartz and feldspar that parallel a gneissic
foliation defined by biotite (GSA Data Repository Fig. DR11). On the basis of these textural
relationships, I interpret the leucosomes to be
an in situ partial melt, and therefore interpret the
migmatite to represent a portion of highly metamorphosed and partially melted portion of the
Lesser Himalayan metasedimentary rocks.
1
GSA Data Repository item 2007244, Figure
DR1, photograph of migmatite analyzed in this
study, is available online at www.geosociety.org/
pubs/ft2007.htm, or on request from editing@
geosociety.org or Documents Secretary, GSA, P.O.
Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301, USA.
GEOLOGY, November 2007
TABLE 1. SM-ND AND RB-SR DATA FOR GRANITES AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS
IN THE GURLA MANDHATA METAMORPHIC CORE COMPLEX
Sample
Lithology
Sm
(ppm)
Nd
(ppm)
GMH 1
GMH 2
GMH 3
GMH 4
GMH 5
GMH 6
GMH 7
GMH 8
GMH 9
schist
gneiss
gneiss
migmatite (L)
migmatite (L)
migmatite (M)
migmatite (M)
granite sill
granite sill
5.7295
4.9638
2.9721
3.4786
1.9202
1.5545
3.5288
5.3513
4.4079
41.623
29.427
29.017
12.722
10.607
10.723
30.85
14.236
29.488
Sample
Lithology
Rb
(ppm)
Sr
(ppm)
GMH 1
GMH 2
GMH 3
GMH 4
GMH 5
GMH 6
GMH 7
GMH 8
GMH 9
schist
gneiss
gneiss
migmatite (L)
migmatite (L)
migmatite (M)
migmatite (M)
granite sill
granite sill
177.9
212.3
219.2
198.3
433.1
175.1
251.5
288.2
340.2
83.3
154
69.6
147.9
25.7
149.2
182.5
63.8
25
147
Sm/144Nd
0.083204
0.10196
0.061912
0.16528
0.10943
0.087627
0.069142
0.22721
0.090355
87
Rb/87Sr
6.207584
4.004667
9.155453
3.953733
50.0705
3.42965
4.023178
13.13539
40.07249
143
Nd/144Nd
0.512102
0.511738
0.5119
0.511467
0.511546
0.511457
0.51144
0.511922
0.511546
87
Sr/86Sr
0.756428
0.749965
0.757327
0.905126
0.983977
0.811490
0.801073
0.760196
0.890723
± 2 s.e.
εNd
±11
±13
±11
±12
±26
±17
±14
±12
±24
–10.5
–17.6
–14.4
–22.8
–21.3
–23
–23.4
–14
–21.3
± 2 s.e.
εSr
±10
±18
±10
±10
±18
±10
±14
±10
±10
737.1
645.4
749.9
2847.8
3967
1518.7
1370.8
790.6
2643.3
Note: s.e. is standard error; L—leucosome; M—melanosome.
147
Sm decay constant = 6.54x10–12y –1; 87Rb decay constant = 1.42x10–11y –1; ε values (present day) calculated
using CHUR parameters = 0.512638 and 0.7045.
DISCUSSION
Isotopic data from the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core complex indicate that it is constructed from rocks correlative to the Greater and
Lesser Himalayan rocks exposed in the High and
Lesser Himalayan physiographic zones. In the
central Himalaya, Lesser Himalayan rocks are in
the structurally deepest thrust sheet underlying
the Lesser and High Himalayan physiographic
zones (DeCelles et al., 2001) (Fig. 3). In the
undeformed foreland of the thrust belt, Lesser
Himalayan rocks are estimated to be 6–7 km
below sea level and dip shallowly to the north.
Uplift of these rocks in the thrust belt is attributed
to slip along the Ramgarh thrust and development of large duplex structures (DeCelles et al.,
1998). Structural interpretations of the Himalayan thrust belt show that the northward extent
of Lesser Himalayan rocks is directly south of
the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core complex
and is defined by the branch line between the
Main Himalayan thrust and the MCT (Pandey
et al., 1999; DeCelles et al., 2001) (Fig. 3). The
isotopic results presented here require two significant changes to this picture of the thrust belt
(Fig. 3). First, the minimum northward extent
of Lesser Himalayan rocks in the thrust belt is
30–60 km farther to the north. Assuming Lesser
Himalayan rocks were underthrust northward in
the footwall of the MCT indicates 30 and 60 km
Figure 2. εNd vs. εSr plot of rocks from the
Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core complex
(stars) and fields for different tectonic and/
or isotopic provinces in the Tibet-Himalaya
collision zone (gray regions). Isotopic
fields are compiled from data from various sources (Vidal et al., 1982; Deniel et al.,
1987; Stern et al., 1989; France-Lanord et al.,
1993; Martin et al., 2005). Only εNd values
are shown for previously published data on
Lesser Himalayan rocks.
Figure 3. Regional cross section across the Himalayan orogen at 81°30′E (based on DeCelles et al., 2001; Murphy and Yin, 2003; Murphy
and Copeland, 2005; this study). Abbreviations: DT—Dadeldhura thrust; GB—Gangdese batholith; GCT—Great Counter thrust; GMH—Gurla
Mandhata–Humla fault system; IYS—Indus-Yalu suture zone; MBT—Main Boundary thrust; MFT—Main Frontal thrust; RT—Ramgarh thrust;
STD—South Tibet detachment; TSS—Tethyan Sedimentary Sequence; TFTB—Tethyan fold-thrust belt.
GEOLOGY, November 2007
985
more slip along this structure than that shown
in the regional reconstruction of DeCelles et al.
(2001). Second, the presence of Lesser Himalayan rocks in the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic
core complex requires significant uplift of these
rocks relative to their position in the undeformed
foreland as well as their position predicted from
surface mapping in the thrust belt to the south
(DeCelles et al., 1998, 2001; Robinson et al.,
2006) (Fig. 3). Figure 3 portrays that this uplift
occurred by crustal thickening locally beneath
the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic core complex.
This may have occurred by growth of a duplex
structure in the Lesser Himalayan rocks such
as those observed to the south and east of the
study area (DeCelles et al., 1998, 2001; Robinson et al., 2006) or by slip along a crustal-scale
thrust fault such as that interpreted to underlie
the Kangmar and Mabja domes in southern
Tibet (Lee et al., 2000, 2004; Yin, 2006; Lee and
Whitehouse, 2007). In either case this requires
significantly more shortening than previously
estimated across the orogen. Assuming that the
Lesser Himalayan rocks had an original thickness equivalent to that estimated in the foreland
of the Himalayan thrust belt, I estimate a minimum of 100–150 km of horizontal shortening
based on the amount of area underlying the core
complex between the Greater Himalayan rocks
and the Main Himalayan thrust (Fig. 3).
The isotopic results are also at odds with
recent interpretations that Himalayan tectonics
can be explained by extrusion of a low-viscosity
mid-crustal channel. This mid-crustal channel is
bounded above by the STD and below by the
MCT with Lesser Himalayan rocks structurally
below the channel. Although a version of the
channel flow model explains the development
of the North Himalayan gneiss domes, their origin is shown to have resulted from thickening
of Greater Himalayan rocks in the mid-crustal
channel and therefore only Greater Himalayan
rocks are predicted in the cores of gneiss domes
(Beaumont et al., 2001). This prediction is falsified by the results presented here. Exhumation
of Lesser Himalayan rocks in the core complex
is associated with top-to-the-west shear along
the GMH, which implies that the GMH cuts
through Greater Himalayan rocks and therefore
the hypothesized channel. This restricts the possibility of southward channel flow operating in
the vicinity of the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic
core complex to time periods before the GMH
initiated in the middle to late Miocene (Murphy
et al., 2002; Murphy and Copeland, 2005).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by National Science
Foundation grants EAR-0106808 and EAR-0438826.
An earlier version of this manuscript benefited from
comments by Thomas Lapen, Alex Robinson, and
Mike Searle. Thoughtful reviews by Nigel Harris,
Aaron Martin, and Randy Parrish contributed to the
improved clarity.
986
REFERENCES CITED
Ahmad, T., Harris, N., Bickle, M., Chapman, H.,
Brunbury, J., and Prince, C., 2000, Isotopic
constraints on the structural relationships
between the Lesser Himalayan Series and the
High Himalayan Crystalline Series, Garhwal
Himalaya: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 112, p. 467–477, doi: 10.1130/0016–
7606(2000)112<0467:ICOTSR>2.3.CO;2.
Argles, T., Foster, G., Whittington, A., Harris, N.,
and George, M., 2003, Isotope studies reveal
a complete Himalayan section in the Nanga
Parbat syntaxis: Geology, v. 31, p. 1109–1112,
doi: 10.1130/G19937.1.
Beaumont, C., Jamieson, R.A., Nguyen, M.H., and
Lee, B., 2001, Himalayan tectonics explained
by extrusion of a low-viscosity crustal channel
coupled to focused surface denudation: Nature,
v. 414, p. 738–742, doi: 10.1038/414738a.
Burchfiel, B.C., and Royden, L.H., 1985, North-south
extension within the convergent Himalayan
region: Geology, v. 13, p. 679–682, doi: 10.1130/
0091–7613(1985)13<679:NEWTCH>2.0.CO;2.
DeCelles, P.G., Gehrels, G.E., Quade, J., Ojha, T.P.,
Kapp, P., and Upreti, B.N., 1998, Neogene foreland basin deposits, erosional unroofing, and
kinematic history of the Himalayan fold-thrust
belt, western Nepal: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 110, p. 2–21, doi: 10.1130/0016–
7606(1998)110<0002:NFBDEU>2.3.CO;2.
DeCelles, P.G., Robinson, D.M., Quade, J., Ojha,
T.P., Garzione, C.N., Copeland, P., and Upreti,
B.N., 2001, Stratigraphy, structure, and tectonic
evolution of the Himalayan fold-thrust belt in
western Nepal: Tectonics, v. 20, p. 487–509,
doi: 10.1029/2000TC001226.
Deniel, C., Vidal, P., Fernandez, A., Le Fort, P.,
and Peucat, J.-J., 1987, Isotopic study of the
Manaslu granite (Himalaya, Nepal): Inferences
on age and source of Himalayan leucogranites:
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology,
v. 96, p. 78–92, doi: 10.1007/BF00375529.
France-Lanord, C., Derry, L., and Michard, A., 1993,
Evolution of the Himalaya since Miocene time:
Isotopic and sedimentological evidence from
the Bengal fan, in Treloar, P.J., and Searle, M.P.,
eds., Himalayan tectonics: Geological Society
[London] Special Publication 74, p. 603–621.
Gansser, A., 1964, The geology of the Himalayas:
New York, Wiley Interscience, 289 p.
Heim, A., and Gansser, A., 1939, Central Himalaya,
geological observations of the Swiss expeditions 1936: Mémoires de la Société Helvetique
des Sciences Naturalles, v. 73, 245 p.
Lee, J., Hacker, B.R., Dinklage, W.S., Gans, P.B.,
Calvert, A., Wang, Y., Wan, J., and Chen, W.,
2000, Evolution of the Kangmar Dome, southern
Tibet: Structural, petrologic, and thermochronologic constraints: Tectonics, v. 19, p. 872–895.
Lee, J., Hacker, B., and Wang, Y., 2004, Evolution of
North Himalayan gneiss domes: Structural and
metamorphic studies in Mabja dome, southern
Tibet: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 26,
p. 2297–2316, doi: 10.1016/j.jsg.2004.02.013.
Le Fort, P., 1975, Himalayas: The collided range. Present knowledge of the continental arc: American
Journal of Science, v. 275-A, p. 1–44.
Martin, A.J., DeCelles, P.G., Gehrels, G., Patchett,
P.J., and Isachsen, C., 2005, Isotopic and
structural constraints on the location of the
Main Central thrust in the Annapurna Range,
central Nepal Himalaya: Geological Society
of America Bulletin, v. 117, p. 926–944, doi:
10.1130/B25646.1.
Murphy, M.A., and Copeland, P., 2005, Transtensional deformation in the central Himalaya and
its role in accommodating growth of the Hima-
layan orogen: Tectonics, v. 24, doi: 10.1029/
2004TC001659.
Murphy, M.A., and Yin, A., 2003, Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the Tethyan
fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone,
southwest Tibet: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 115, p. 21–34, doi: 10.1130/0016–
7606(2003)115<0021:SEASOT>2.0.CO;2.
Murphy, M.A., Yin, A., Kapp, P., Harrison, T.M., and
Manning, C.E., 2002, Structural and thermal
evolution of the Gurla Mandhata metamorphic
core complex, southwest Tibet: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 114, p. 428–
447, doi: 10.1130/0016–7606(2002)114<0428:
SEOTGM>2.0.CO;2.
Nelson, S.T., and Davidson, J.P., 1993, Interactions
between mantle-derived magmas and mafic
crust, Henry Mountains, Utah: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 98, p. 1837–1852.
Pandey, M.R., Tandukar, R.P., Avouac, J.P., Vergne,
J., and Héritier, T., 1999, Seismotectonics of the
Nepal Himalaya from a local seismic network:
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 17, p. 703–
712, doi: 10.1016/S1367–9120(99)00034–6.
Parrish, R.R., and Hodges, K.V., 1996, Isotopic constraints on the age and provenance of the Lesser
and Greater Himalayan sequences, Nepalese
Himalaya: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 108, p. 904–911, doi: 10.1130/0016–
7606(1996)108<0904:ICOTAA>2.3.CO;2.
Richards, A., Parrish, R., Harris, N., Argles, T., and
Zhang, L., 2006, Correlation of lithotectonic
units across the eastern Himalaya, Bhutan:
Geology, v. 34, p. 341–344.
Robinson, D.M., DeCelles, P.G., Patchett, P.J., and
Garzione, C.N., 2001, The kinematic evolution of the Nepalese Himalaya interpreted from
Nd isotopes: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 192, p. 507–521, doi: 10.1016/S0012–
821X(01)00451–4.
Robinson, D.M., DeCelles, P.G., and Copeland, P.,
2006, Tectonic evolution of the Himalayan
thrust belt in western Nepal: Implications for
channel flow models: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 118, p. 865–885, doi:
10.1130/B25911.1.
Stern, C.R., Kligfield, R., Schelling, D., Virdi, N.S.,
Futa, K., Peterman, Z.E., and Amini, H., 1989,
The Bhagirathi leucogranite of the High Himalaya (Garhwal, India); Age, petrogenesis, and
tectonic implications, in Malinconico, L.L.,
and Lillie, R.J., eds., Tectonics of the western
Himalayas: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 232, p. 33–45.
Vidal, P., Cocherie, A., and Le Fort, P., 1982, Geochemical investigation of the Manaslu leucogranite (Himalaya, Nepal): Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, v. 46, p. 2279–2292, doi:
10.1016/0016–7037(82)90201–0.
Whittington, A.G., Harris, N.B.W., Ayres,
M.W., and Foster, G.L., 1999, Lithostratigraphic correlations in the western Himalaya—An isotopic approach: Geology, v. 27,
p. 585–588, doi: 10.1130/0091–7613(1999)027
<0585:LCITWH>2.3.CO;2.
Yin, A., 2006, Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the
Himalayan orogen as constrained by alongstrike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland sedimentation:
Earth-Science Reviews, v. 76, p. 1–131, doi:
10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.05.004.
Manuscript received 15 February 2007
Revised manuscript received 20 June 2007
Manuscript accepted 23 June 2007
Printed in USA
GEOLOGY, November 2007