28.01.2014 Views

RESEARCH· ·1970·

RESEARCH· ·1970·

RESEARCH· ·1970·

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

GE,OLOGICAL SURVEY RESEA·RCH 1970<br />

WHOLE-ROCK Rb-Sr AGE OF THE PIKES PEAK BATHOLITH,<br />

COLORADO<br />

By C. E. HEDGE, Denver, Colo.<br />

A.bstract.-Ten whole-rock samples from the Pikes Peak<br />

batholith and 3 from the satellite Rosalie lobe yield a Rb-Sr<br />

age for the time of batholith emplacement of 1,041 ± 13 million<br />

years. All the major lithological variants were probably intruded<br />

within less than 20 m.y. The Pikes Peak batholith represents.<br />

the youngest major Precambrian granitic intrusion in the<br />

Front Range.<br />

The Pikes Peak batholith is the largest single mass<br />

of granite in the Front Range of Colorado (fig. 1). It<br />

is exposed as an approximately 1,200-square-mile body,<br />

somewhat elongate in a north-south direction, in the<br />

southern part of the Front Range. A significant satellite<br />

mass, locally known as the Rosalie lobe (Hutchinson,<br />

1960), occurs just north of the batholith, and several<br />

small bodies of probable Pikes Peak Granite crop<br />

out on the east slope of ~1ount Evans to the northwest<br />

of the Rosalie lobe. Other granite bodies of similar<br />

lithology are known in the region, but no other major<br />

bodies of igneous rocks of an equivalent age are known<br />

in the immediate area or elsewhere in Colorado.<br />

The Pikes Peak Granite was first named by Cross<br />

in 1894 and has since been the object of many studies.<br />

The batholith is complex and contains mappable variants.<br />

Gross and Heinrich ( 1965) discussed the characteristics<br />

of some of the rocks of the southern part of<br />

the batholith. In this area some of the variants have<br />

been given local names. IIutchinson (1960) has mapped<br />

and subdivided the northern part of the batholith, using<br />

petrologic names for the respective subdivisions.<br />

The samples in the present study include most of the<br />

recognized variants and two late dike rocks which are<br />

common throughout the batholith.<br />

Several studies of mineral ages from the batholith<br />

have been published. Most notable of these are by<br />

Aldrich, Wetherill, Davis, and Tilton ( 1958), Hutchinson<br />

(1960), and Giffin and l(ulp ( 1960). The published<br />

aJges rure summarized in truble 1. The total spread in<br />

TABLE I.-Published mineral ages from the Pikes Peak batholith<br />

Sample locality Mineral Source<br />

of data t<br />

Manitou Springs area __ Biotite _____ _____ do _____ _<br />

Zircon _____ _<br />

Summit of Pikes Peak_ Biotite _____ _____ do _____ _<br />

_____ do _____ _<br />

Ute Pass _________________ do _____ _<br />

Gold Camp Road __________ do ___ _, __<br />

Pikes Peak Toll Road ______ do _____ _<br />

Near Foxter _______________ do _____ _<br />

Buffalo ___________________ do _____ _<br />

Wellington Reservoir _____ do _____ _<br />

area.<br />

Mount Rosa _________ Riebeckite __ _<br />

Redskin stock ________ Biotite _____ _<br />

Microcline __ _<br />

Redskin stock greisen _ Muscovite __ _<br />

Boomer cupola ____________ do---_<br />

Microcline __ _<br />

Boomer cupola greisen_ Muscovite __ _<br />

1 Sources of data:<br />

1. Aldrich, Wetherill, Davis, and Tilton (1958).<br />

2. Giffin and Kulp (1969).<br />

3. Hutchinson (1960).<br />

4. Gross and Heinrich (1966).<br />

5. Hawley, Huffman, Hamilton, and Rader (1966).<br />

Method<br />

1 K-Ar<br />

1 Rb-Sr<br />

1 Pb2o7_pb206<br />

1 K-Ar<br />

1 Rb-Sr<br />

2 K-Ar<br />

2 K-Ar<br />

2 K-Ar<br />

2 K-Ar<br />

3 K-Ar<br />

3 K-Ar<br />

3 K-Ar<br />

4 K-Ar<br />

5 K-Ar<br />

5 Rb-Sr<br />

5 K-Ar<br />

5 K-Ar<br />

5 Rb-Sr<br />

5 K-Ar<br />

Age<br />

(m.y.)<br />

980<br />

1, 020<br />

980<br />

1,060<br />

1,080<br />

980<br />

1, 030<br />

1,020<br />

1, 020<br />

1, 080<br />

1, 050<br />

1, 050<br />

1, 040<br />

980<br />

980<br />

1, 020<br />

990<br />

1, 010<br />

1, 000<br />

mica ages, by both 1(-Ar and Rb-Sr methods, is from<br />

980 to 1,080 million years. The mea;n mioa ttge vs 1,030<br />

m.y., and, considering the normal analytical uncertainties,<br />

the data are consistent with analytical scatter<br />

around a single number. 1(-Ar analysis of a riebeckite<br />

from a pegmatite -gave a similar result of 1,040 m.y.<br />

(Gross and Heinrich, 1965) . One zircon from the Pikes<br />

Peak batholith has been isotopically dated (Aldrich and<br />

others, 1958), and, although discordant, the Pb 207 -Pb 200<br />

age of 980 m.y. is compatible with the 1nica ages.<br />

Hawley, Huffman, Hamilton, and Rader (19·66) have<br />

reported I(-Ar mica ages for two s1nall satellite masses<br />

on the western edge of the batholith. These ages and<br />

two Rb-Sr ages of microclines from the same area are<br />

also given in table 1.<br />

(,.<br />

B86<br />

U.S. GEOL. SURVEY PROF. PAPER 700-B, PAGES B86-B89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!