RETRACTED: Structural complexity in the Curnamona Province (South Australia): Polyphase strain partitioning and reactivation

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). rticle has been retracted at the request of the Author. thors identified a number of important technical and petrological errors which strongly modified their understanding of the tectonic evolution in the Weekeroo area on the Palaeo- to Mesoproterozoic Curnamona Province (South Australia). Their first concern is about the reliability of the P-T paths proposed in Fig. 8b and 8c (manuscript), given the error associated with the multi-equilibrium method on the chlorite/phengite assemblage. The P-T calculations were performed with the TWEEQ and Intersx softwares, accidentally fixing a water activity lower than 0.5 (a(H2O)<0.5) and not to unity (a(H2O)=1) as mentioned in the paper. Such a critical parameter for a(H2O) is geologically unrealistic. The P-T paths were recalculated for a(H2O)=1. JG-13 yielded very bad equilibria at pressure lower than 3 kbar and temperature around 450–500℃. No equilibrium was obtained for sample Clw-24. cond concern is about the strength of the tectonic conclusions in relation to the metamorphic conditions that has been drawn at this stage, given the reliance of their petrological observations in the Weekeroo area. As mentioned in the text, they reported, without microprobe control, the existence of “small crudely oriented crystals of kyanite growing after sillimanite” in the thin section (Clw-24) that were used for P-T calculations. After careful analysis, it appears that their pseudo-assemblage of “aluminosilicates” corresponds in fact to white micas (displaying high-relief) and K-feldspar growing within quartz. The last concern is about the accidental use of badly-positioned kyanite-bearing samples (Fig. 5f) that they think originated out of the Weekeroo area. They are concerned about the direct - and potentially negative - consequences in the nomenclature of metamorphic structures (D1/D2/D3) reported on the structural map in this paper (Fig. 4 in the manuscript). rst author assumes the entire responsibility regarding the incorrect metamorphic interpretations and tectonic conclusions in this paper and he considers that data and conclusions published in this manuscript should not be used as part of the foundation for future research.