ABSTRACT

Serious errors and inconsistencies in the article undermine many of its interpretations to the point that principal conclusions are not valid. Much dependence is placed on the maximum depositional age (Dmax) of sandstone units based on zircon analysis of 10 samples, but calculation of those Dmax values is flawed, and their use confuses maximum with actual depositional ages and makes age distinctions finer than the resolution of the data. Conclusions that are compromised include the concept of a westward/downward-younging tectonostratigraphic stack of accretionary units, comparison of mapped sandstones with other California Coast Ranges sandstones, comparison of timing of events recorded in the map area with regional events, identification of mélange only in a narrow band in the study area, and detrital provenance of some of the sandstone units.

摘要

文章中的严重错误和不一致破坏了它的许多解释，以至于主要结论无效。基于 10 个样品的锆石分析，很大程度上依赖于砂岩单元的最大沉积年龄 (Dmax)，但这些 Dmax 值的计算存在缺陷，并且它们的使用将最大值与实际沉积年龄混淆，并且使年龄区分比分辨率更精细。数据。受到影响的结论包括增生单元向西/向下年轻的构造地层堆叠的概念、绘制的砂岩与其他加利福尼亚海岸山脉砂岩的比较、地图区域记录的事件时间与区域事件的比较、仅在研究区内的一条窄带，以及一些砂岩单元的碎屑物源。