Response to Discussion by K. W. Glennie

H. Hugh Wilson*

*5922 Talbot Road, Lothian, Maryland, 20711, USA.

Glennie's discussion (2001) of my paper on the Oman Mountain Geology repeats the many reasons why his interpretation of the evolution of this highly complex orogenic belt is preferable to the radically different alternative that I presented (Wilson, 2000) Glennie stresses that his interpretation was guided by the plate tectonic concept that emerged in the 1970's and has now reached almost universal acceptance in the realm of global tectonics -- whereas I, according to Glennie, had the misfortune to have advocated the outmoded geosynclinal model. There is no doubt that Glennie wins the popularity contest. In addition to regretting my advocation of an old fashioned model Glennie further concludes that, in regard to global tectonics, I belong to the clique of "fixed earthists".


K. W. Glennie*

*Aberdeen University, Dept of Geology & Petroleum Geology, Meston Building, Kings College, Aberdeen AB24 3UE.

Despite the overwhelming volume of data in its support, Wilson clearly does not like the Plate Tectonic hypothesis, particularly when applied to the origin of the Oman Mountains. He quotes the 1958 and 1988 papers by Carey. In the former, Carey made some excellent matches of continental margins on opposing sides of the oceans, but many eminent geologists judged that he was in error in proposing an expanding earth to account for this separation (e.g. Westoll, 1965). I have not read Carey’s 1988 book, so have no idea of his opinions on subduction, obduction and the closure of former oceans but I must admit that, as a disbeliever of the expanding-earth hypothesis, I am not particularly worried by this lack of knowledge.

JPG Home