Fig. 11
(a) P/T-X(CO2) mineral assemblage diagram modelled for sample 18a-26. The variance of the fields varies from two (i.e. eight phases) to five (i.e. five phases). Colours and symbols as in Fig. 8. (b) Comparison between the reconstructed protolith assemblage and that modelled at the ‘starting point’. (c) Same plot as (a), highlighting the isothermal/isobaric univariant equilibria relevant to this sample. Colours and symbols as in Fig. 8. (d) Comparison between the observed peak assemblage and that modelled at peak conditions. The black ellipses and dotted black arrows in (a) and (c) summarise the prograde and peak conditions and approximate the P–T–X(CO2) evolution inferred for sample 18a-26 as discussed in the text.

(a) P/T-X(CO2) mineral assemblage diagram modelled for sample 18a-26. The variance of the fields varies from two (i.e. eight phases) to five (i.e. five phases). Colours and symbols as in Fig. 8. (b) Comparison between the reconstructed protolith assemblage and that modelled at the ‘starting point’. (c) Same plot as (a), highlighting the isothermal/isobaric univariant equilibria relevant to this sample. Colours and symbols as in Fig. 8. (d) Comparison between the observed peak assemblage and that modelled at peak conditions. The black ellipses and dotted black arrows in (a) and (c) summarise the prograde and peak conditions and approximate the P–T–X(CO2) evolution inferred for sample 18a-26 as discussed in the text.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close