Vol50,2,2007 191 ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 50, N. 2, April 2007 Key words Permo-Triassic – Pangaea – absolute reconstruction – Earth magnetic field – polarity transition 1. Introduction Different rock types are capable of record- ing the directions of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (EMF). Through these records, we know that the dipolar component of the geomagnetic field periodically inverts its polarity. Our knowledge on what happens as the field reverses comes from the evaluation of transition palaeomag- netic records. The earliest analysis of geomag- netic polarity reversals was that determined for the Jurassic Stormberg volcanic rocks of Lesotho in Southern Africa (van Zijl et al., 1962). However, most studies of this intriguing process of the EMF have used Cainozoic data (see Coe and Glen, 2004), because transitional records are difficult to determine in older lithologies; as these rocks have probably un- dergone more geological processes that result- ed in remagnetizations resetting total or par- tially the original data. Analysis of a Permo-Triassic polarity transition in different absolute reconstructions of Pangaea, considering a model with features of the present Earth magnetic field Haroldo Vizán and María Andrea Van Zele Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and Departamento de Ciencias Geológicas, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract The main objective of this paper is to show that the distribution of transitional palaeomagnetic data recorded at 250 Ma are in agreement with simulated data that depend on the sampling site, using a model that considers fea- tures of the Present Earth magnetic field. The analysis was performed comparing simulated reversals with the Permo-Triassic polarity transition recorded in the Siberian Trap Basalts. The palaeomagnetic data were correct- ed according to the Palaeo-latitude and Palaeo-longitude of Siberia (absolute reconstruction) at 250 Ma using hotspot tracks. To obtain the motion of Siberia relative to hotspots from the Present time back to 250 Ma, three different Pangaea models were considered (Pangaea A, Pangaea A2, Pangaea B). In spite of the uncertainties as- sociated with the use of hotspot frameworks and Pangaea configurations, both the modelled and recorded data show a remarkable fit when absolute reconstructions of Pangaea A and A2 configurations are performed. The agreement between both simulated and recorded data suggests that similar features to that of the Present Earth magnetic field could have been involved in reversals since the Permo-Triassic. Mailing address: Dr. Haroldo Vizán, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas and Departamento de Ciencias Geológicas, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Na- turales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Intendente Güiraldes 2160, Ciudad Universitaria, Pabellón II, 1er piso, C1428EGA Buenos Aires, Argentina; e-mail: haroldo@gl.fcen.uba.ar 192 Haroldo Vizán and María Andrea Van Zele On the other hand, for all of geological time (including the Cainozoic) transition records de- pend on the capabilities of rocks to act as natu- ral magnetic recorders. Lava flows are consid- ered to record the most accurate spot readings of the geomagnetic field (Hoffman, 1992) but due to the episodic nature of eruptions, their transition records can be discontinuous or mul- tiple lava flows can be emplaced over a shorter time span compared with the rate of variation of the EMF, in which case the flows will preserve redundant records of this field (Prévot and Camps, 1993). Sedimentary rock sequences can be quasi-continuous records but they become magnetized by physical and chemical processes of relatively long duration that occur from the deposition of the sediment till the diagenesis. Magnetic directions of sedimentary rocks con- sidered as transitional records could be, indeed, artefacts and not real readings of the EMF (Langereis et al., 1992). In spite of these problems, longitudinal con- finements of Virtual Geomagnetic Poles (VGPs) of Cainozoic transitional records were interpret- ed as representative of geomagnetic behaviours (Clement, 1991; Laj et al., 1991; Hoffman, 1992; Love, 1998) and different geodynamo models have been suggested to explain Cainozoic polar- ity transitions. Hoffman (1992) has suggested that inclined dipolar reversal states of the EMF have dominated Cainozoic reversals. Gubbins and Coe (1993) and Gubbins (1994) provided an explanation to link longitude-confined VGP paths to variations in the magnetic flux on the Earth’s core surface based on a model proposed by Gubbins (1987). Glatzmaier et al. (1999) sim- ulated a suite of reversals which examples were presented by Coe et al. (2000); the most interest- ing of these simulated reversals is that produced by the tomographic geodynamo model where the heat-flux at the core-mantle boundary is pat- terned on the large-scale variation of seismic ve- locity from tomographic studies of the lower- most mantle. As indicated above, transition records for reversals older than the Cainozoic are much more difficult to determine and there are no specific models to explain the polarity transi- tions of the EMF during the Mesozoic or Palaeozoic times. However, reliable transition records of those times can be analyzed consid- ering the models proposed for the Cainozoic and then, speculate about the mechanisms that manage Mesozoic or Palaeozoic reversals. A recent study by Heunemann et al. (2004) provided reliable directions and intensities for a reversal of the EMF recorded in the Permo-Tri- assic (ca. 250 Ma) Siberian Trap Basalts. Heune- mann et al. (2004) corrected the corresponding VGPs of the recorded directions for a Permo-Tri- assic palaeo-geography of Siberia and invoked two alternatives, based on the models presented by Coe et al. (2000) and Hoffman (1992), to ac- count for the characteristic features observed in their data. It is noteworthy that the Euler rotation pole used by Heunemann et al. (2004) is just to determine the Palaeo-latitude of Siberia at 250 Ma (Smethurst et al., 1998) but not the palaeo- longitude of this continental block at that age. This paper compares simulated reversals de- termined by the model proposed by Gubbins (1994) with the Permo-Triassic polarity transi- tion recorded in the Siberian Trap Basalts. Palaeomagnetic data were corrected in accor- dance with the Palaeo-latitude and Palaeo-longi- tude of Siberia at 250 Ma using hotspot tracks as has been done for the analysis of the Jurassic transition recorded in the Stormberg Lavas (Vizán and Van Zele, 1995; Prévot et al., 2003). To obtain the motion of Siberia relative to hotspots from the Present back to 250 Ma, sever- al relative reconstructions from a variety of sources were used assuming that three different models of Pangaea are valid for 250 Ma (Pan- gaea A, Pangaea A2, Pangaea B). Remarkable agreements between the simulated and recorded transitional data were obtained after latitude and longitude palaeo-geographic corrections, espe- cially if Pangaea A and A2 models were used. 2. Discussion on the data and methodologies The analyzed palaeomagnetic data were compiled from table 2 of Heunemann et al. (2004). The extremely high lava productivity makes the Siberian Trap Basalts a possible con- tinuous record for the palaeo-directions of the EMF. According to Heunemann et al. (2004) its stratigraphically lower section contains three 193 Analysis of a Permo-Triassic polarity transition successive flows of reversed polarity followed by flows that record a transitional state of the EMF. The upper section shows normal polarity and a group of directions that is tentatively in- terpreted by Heunemann et al. (2004) as an ex- cursion. Analysis in this paper concentrates on data that record the transitional state (consider- ing also those three data of reverse polarity in the lower section and some of normal polarity of the upper section). Data belonging to the possible excursion as interpreted by the same authors were not analyzed. The transitional record shows a clustering of data that may be explained as a rapid succession of lava flows; however the palaeo-intensity results indicate that this phenomenon has a geomagnetic cause as several independent field states are recorded (Huenemann et al., 2004). This paper uses the geomagnetic polarity re- versals mechanism proposed by Gubbins (1994) to analyze the transitional record of the Siberian Trap Basalts, because it is based on the configu- ration of EMF at the core surface derived from historical records (Gubbins, 1987) and has the interesting feature that for the same reversal, dif- ferent paths of VGPs are predicted at different measurement sites (see Gubbins, 1994; his figs. 12 and 13). The present work analyses whether the VGPs simulated by Gubbins’ model are comparable to the cluster of VGPs recorded in the location of the Siberian Trap Basalts at about 250 Ma. Hotspot models were used to determine palaeo-latitudinal and palaeo-longitudinal cor- rections in our analysis. Whether hotspots move slowly enough with respect to one another to provide a useful reference frame to make ab- solute reconstructions has been the subject of discussion (i.e. Torsvik et al., 2002). For some workers hotspot models are not very reliable, but others use them in tectonics and geomagnetic models. Absolute reconstructions, for the last 120 Ma, for Africa based on a moving hotspot reference frame, have been recently suggested by O’Neill et al. (2005) Many tectonics and ge- omagnetism studies (i.e. Engebretson et al., 1985; Besse and Courtillot, 2002; Prévot et al., 2003) have used an earlier model that considered that hotspots are reasonably fixed and form a convenient reference frame to determine ab- solute motions of Africa for the last 200 Ma (Morgan, 1983). Hotspot tracks have been recog- nized by Zonenshain et al. (1985) to calculate a clockwise rotation of Siberia from 130 to 280 Ma. This paper used all three of these hotspot models and also determined if an absolute recon- struction of the sampling site based on these models, gives a better agreement between simu- lated and recorded data. In order to determine the motion of the sam- pling site with respect to the hotspots it is neces- sary to perform a relative reconstruction of Eura- sia with Africa at Present geographic coordinates using a reconstruction of Pangaea at 250 Ma. However, after more than 25 years of discussions among palaeomagnetists, there is no general consensus about the configuration of Pangaea during the Late Palaeozoic-Early Mesozoic. It is generally agreed that the Pangaea configuration proposed by Wegener (1922), named Pangaea A and quantified by Bullard et al. (1965), was the starting point for the break up of this super con- tinent in the Middle Jurassic. However, Palaeo- magnetic Poles (PPs) of Gondwana and Laurasia for the Late Carboniferous to Middle Triassic cannot be reconciled with this reconstruction and show a systematic discrepancy that could be due to different factors such as inclination shallowing in sediments, unrecognized overprints that have not been removed during demagnetization, un- derestimation of rock ages (Rochette and Van- damme, 2001; McElhinny, 2004; Van der Voo and Torsvik, 2004). This systematic misfit be- tween PPs has also been interpreted in geody- namic or geomagnetic terms. Briden et al. (1971), Van der Voo and Torsvik (2001) and Torsvik and Van der Voo (2002) propose that a possible explanation for this disagreement is the existence of persistent non-dipolar (octupolar) fields. Many other workers have invoked differ- ent reconstructions of Pangaea called Pangaea B (i.e. Morel and Irving, 1981; Torcq et al., 1997; Muttoni et al., 2003; Rakotosolofo et al., 2005) and Pangaea A2 (i.e. Van der Voo and French, 1974; Van der Voo et al., 1976; Smith and Liver- more, 1991) to produce an agreement between the Laurasia and Gondwana PPs. Pangaea A2 is not very different from Pangaea A and the tran- sition of one to another, involves a small dextral mega shear of about 500 km but the transforma- 194 Haroldo Vizán and María Andrea Van Zele tion of Pangaea B to Pangaea A involves a large dextral mega shear (of 4000-3500 km). Muttoni et al. (1996) proposed the evolution of Pangaea from Pangaea B to A2 during the mid-Permian and from A2 to A during the Late Triassic. The polarity transition analysis presented here also determined which Pangaea model gives the better agreement between the transition data produced using the Gubbins (1994) model and the data recorded from the Siberian Trap Basalts. 3. Palaeoreconstructions of the palaeomagnetic data recorded in Siberian Trap Basalts The sections studied by Heunemann et al. (2004) are located in the Listvjanka (69°28lN, 88°43lE) and Icon/Abagalakh river valleys (70°22lN, 90°04lE). For the present study the ge- ographic localities were averaged and the palaeo- magnetic data were normalised to 69°55lN, 89°23lE. The geographic coordinates of this lo- cality in the Permo-Triassic were determined from a mean Siberian Trap PP using the different models of Pangaea and hotspot frameworks men- tioned above. We considered a PP that is the mean of four entries as a representative pole position for the Siberian Trap Basalts. The four entries are 1) a mean Siberian Trap pole at 54.7°N/140.5°E giv- en in Torsvik and Andersen (2002); 2) Global Palaeomagnetic Database (GPMDB)-REFNO 2832 (59°N/150°E), see also Gurevitch et al. (1995); 3) a pole from Gurevitch et al. (2004: 54.6°N/146°E); 4) a pole from Heunemann et al. (2004: 57.1°N/148.2°E). The geographic coor- dinates and the Fisherian statistical parameters of the mean PP are: Lat = 56.4°N, Long = =146.0°E, A95 = 3.5°, K = 677.9. This mean PP is quite similar to that obtained with 3 entries by Van der Voo and Torsvik (2004) for the Siberian Traps (Lat = 56°N, Long = 150°E, A95 = 6°). In our case the mean PP includes the pole yielded by the stable reverse and normal directions of the sections that recorded the transition (Heune- mann et al., 2004) and then the A95 is reduced from 6° to 3.5°. Recently Van der Voo and Torsvik (2004) compared their mean Siberian Trap pole with the mean Gondwana PP for 250±10 Ma of Torsvik and Van der Voo (2002) in a Pangea A configuration assuming that Siberia formed part of Eurasia at ca. 250 Ma (Smethurst et al., 1998; Fig. 1a-c. Comparison of Gondwana mean palaeopole (GP) for 250 ± 10 Ma and Siberian Trap mean palaeo- pole (STP) in different Pangaea reconstructions with Central Africa held fixed at present geographic coordinates. a) Pangaea A model, notice the discrepancy between the mean palaeopoles. b) Pangaea A2 model, the mean palaeopoles are indistinguishable at 95% of confidence level, although there is a great circle distance of about 9° between them. c) Pangaea B model, the mean palaeopoles get the better fit. A supposed mega-shear of about 3700 km is required to pass from this Pangaea configuration to a Pangaea A model (the starting point of the break up of this super-continent during Middle Jurassic time). a b c Table I. Rotation poles for the sampling site in Pangaea A model. Euler pole Latitude (°N) Longitude (°E) Rotation (degree) Reference 1) Eurasia relative 88.5 27.7 −38 Bullard et al. (1965) to North America 2) North America relative 66.95 −12.02 75.55 Klitgord and Schouten (1986) to NW Africa 3) NW Africa relative 12.23 19.01 3.44 Schettino and Scotese (2005) to Central Africa 4) Africa relative to hotpots 17.03 −27 −29.72 O’Neill et al. (2005) (0 to 120 Ma) 5) Africa relative to hotpots 31.38 3.4 32.18 Morgan (1983) (*) (120 to 200 Ma) 6) Eurasia relative to hotspots 85.03 252.46 25 Zonenshain et al. (1985) (**) (200 to 250 Ma) 7) True Polar Wander 0 187.46 28.15 (***) (*) Stage pole calculated using the Euler poles of 120 Ma and 200 Ma of Morgan (1983). (**) The geographic coordinates of this Euler pole (now at 54°N, 104°E) were calculated for 200 Ma in Pangaea A model. (***) Rotation about an equatorial Euler pole to account for the displacement of the rotation (palaeomagnetic) axis with respect to core/mantle boundary (Cox and Hart, 1986). 195 Analysis of a Permo-Triassic polarity transition Torsvik et al., 2001). Van der Voo and Torsvik (2004) noted that using these poles there is still a continental overlap of 1000 km if Pangea A is used. This paper also compare the new Siberian Trap mean PP with a Gondwana PP for 250 Ma ± 10 Ma in three models of Pangea (A, A2 and B, see fig. 1a-c). Thirteen poles for the sta- ble parts of Gondwana continents compiled by Torsvik and Van der Voo (2002) were combined with the reconstruction parameters for Gond- wana continents recently proposed by Schettino and Scotese (2005). These new reconstruction parameters were used noting that Torsvik and Van der Voo (2002) were not entirely satisfied with published Gondwana fits. The resulting mean Gondwana PP in Present Central Africa geographic coordinates is based on a convention- al Fisherian calculation; its geographic coordi- nates and statistical parameters are: Lat = = 48.4°N, Long = 249.3°E, A95 = 8.4°, K = 25.6. The comparison was made with Central Africa held fixed and transferring the Siberian Trap pole to the geographic coordinates of this continental block through a plate circuit (Euler poles 1, 2 and 3 in table I). The first rotation of the Siberian Trap pole was to reconstruct the continent of Laurasia «closing» the north At- lantic through the movement of Eurasia towards North America. For this reconstruction the Bullard et al. (1965) Euler pole was used be- cause Van der Voo (1990) and Torsvik et al. (2001) have demonstrated that this reconstruc- tion gives best agreement between Late Car- boniferous-Late Triassic European and North American PPs. The second rotation of the Siber- ian Trap pole used the reconstruction parameter of Klitgord and Schouten (1986) from North America to northwest Africa, which belongs to a model of Pangaea A. Finally the pole was trans- ferred from northwest Africa to Central Africa using the reconstruction parameters of Schettino and Scotese (2005). Figure 1a shows Gondwana and Siberian Trap PPs in Central Africa geo- graphic coordinates using the Pangaea A config- uration. The PPs do not fit, they are distinguish- able at 95 % of confidence level and the great circle distance between them is of 15.2°. To compare both mean PPs with a model of Pangaea A2, the Siberian Trap pole was rotated using also the finite pole of rotation of Van der Voo and French (1974) «closing the Gulf of 196 Haroldo Vizán and María Andrea Van Zele Mexico». Figure 1b shows the PPs of Gond- wana and Siberian Traps transferred to Central Africa geographic coordinates (Euler poles 1, 2, 3 and 4 in table II) in a Pangaea A2 configura- tion. The great circle distance between the mean PPs is of 9.1°; however there is an over- lap between the 95% confidence level intervals and the 4 poles of Siberian Trap Basalts share a common mean at 95% confidence (McFadden and Lowes, 1981) with Gondwana PPs. To compare Gondwana and Siberian Trap mean PPs with a model of Pangaea B, a finite pole of rotation to obtain the motion of North America relative to Central Africa was calculat- ed using the analysis of Morel and Irving (1981) and the reconstruction parameters of Klitgord and Schouten (1986) and Schettino and Scotese (2005). This rotation parameter has its pole at Lat = 36.2°N, Long = 04.0° W, and an angle of rotation = 77.35° (counter clockwise). The rel- ative position between the Atlantic bordering continents obtained with this reconstruction pa- rameter is shown in fig. 1c together with Gond- wana and the Siberian Trap mean PPs trans- ferred to Central Africa geographic coordinates (Euler poles 1, 2, 3 and 4 in table III). The great circle distance between these PPs is 2.5° and, obviously, they are undistinguishable at 95% of confidence level. To perform our transition record analysis, ab- solute reconstructions of the sampling site were made by considering the Siberian Trap mean PP (as representative of the palaeomagnetic spin ax- is at 250 Ma), different models of Pangaea and the hotspot frameworks already mentioned. Firstly we transferred the Siberian Trap mean PP to Present Central Africa coordinates using the reconstruction parameters to build the differ- ent models of Pangaea. After that, we rotated the plates and the pole position according to the Euler pole of O’Neill et al. (2005) for 120 Ma. Then again we rotated the plates and the pole po- Table II. Rotation poles for the sampling site in Pangaea A2 model. Euler pole Latitude (°N) Longitude (°E) Rotation (degree) Reference 1) Eurasia relative 88.5 27.7 −38 Bullard et al. (1965) to North America 2)North America relative 66.95 −12.02 75.55 Klitgord and Schouten (1986) to NW Africa 3) NW Africa relative 12.23 19.01 3.44 Schettino and Scotese (2005) to Central Africa 4) Rotation to close 17.38 −8.91 16.13 Van der Voo and French (1974) (*) the Gulf of Mexico 5) Africa relative to hotpots 17.03 −27 −29.72 O’Neill et al. (2005) (0 to 120 Ma) 6) Africa relative to hotpots 31.38 3.4 32.18 Morgan (1983) (**) (120 to 200 Ma) 7) Eurasia relative to hotspots 69.17 268.5 25 Zonenshain et al. (1985) (***) (200 to 250 Ma) 8) True Polar Wander 0 187.03 44.17 (****) (*) Re-calculated considering the reconstruction parameter of Klitgord and Schouten (1986) for North America relative to NW Africa and the rotation parameter of Schettino and Scotese (2005) for NW Africa relative to Cen- tral Africa. (**) Stage pole calculated using the Euler poles of 120 Ma and 200 Ma of Morgan (1983). (***) The geographic coordinates of this Euler pole (now at 54°N, 104°E) were calculated for 200 Ma in Pangaea A2 model. (****) Rotation about an equatorial Euler pole to account for the displacement of the rotation (palaeomagnetic) axis with respect to core/mantle boundary (Cox and Hart, 1986). 197 Analysis of a Permo-Triassic polarity transition ative to hotspots from 200 to 250 Ma, we used Mongolian hotspot tracks that indicate that Siberia rotated 75° in a clock wise direction from 280 to 130 Ma about an Euler pole that is now lo- cated at 54°N, 104°E (Zonenshain et al., 1985). We transferred this pole to its geographic posi- tion at 200 Ma in accordance with the different Pangaea models and using the hotspot frame- works of O’Neill et al. (2005) and Morgan (1983). Assuming Siberia rotated at a constant velocity, we proposed a rotation of 25° of this continent between 200 and 250 Ma. The mean Siberian Trap PP and the plates were then rotat- ed using the corresponding Euler poles for each Pangaea model accounting for the movement of Siberia relative to the hotspot track between 200 and 250 Ma. Finally we calculated the displacement of the rotation (palaeomagntic) axis with respect to the hotspot frameworks for every Pangaea model and rotated all the plates about the equatorial Table III. Rotation poles for the sampling site in Pangaea B model. Euler pole Latitude (°N) Longitude (°E) Rotation (degree) Reference 1) Eurasia relative 88.5 27.7 −38 Bullard et al. (1965) to North America 2) North America relative 66.95 −12.02 75.55 Klitgord and Schouten (1986) to NW Africa 3) NW Africa relative 12.23 19.01 3.44 Schettino and Scotese (2005) to Central Africa 4) Transition from Pangaea −25.79 47.49 35.79 Morel and Irving (1981) (*) A to B 5) Africa relative to hotpots 17.03 −27 −29.72 O’Neill et al. (2005) (0 to 120 Ma) 6) Africa relative to hotpots 31.38 3.4 32.18 Morgan (1983) (**) (120 to 200 Ma) 7) Eurasia relative to hotspots 59.77 314.62 25 Zonenshain et al. (1985) (***) (200 to 250 Ma) 8) True Polar Wander 0 198.77 47.9 (****) (*) Re-calculated considering the reconstruction parameter of Klitgord and Schouten (1986) for North America relative to NW Africa and the rotation parameter of Schettino and Scotese (2005) for NW Africa relative to Cen- tral Africa. The motion of North America relative to Central Africa in a Pangaea B model can be determined through a cumulative rotation including the reconstruction parameters 2), 3) and 4). (**) Stage pole calculated using the Euler poles of 120 Ma and 200 Ma of Morgan (1983). (***) The geographic coordinates of this Euler pole (now at 54°N, 104°E) were calculated for 200 Ma in Pan- gaea B model. (****) Rotation about an equatorial Euler pole to account for the displacement of the rotation (palaeomagnetic) axis with respect to core/mantle boundary (Cox and Hart, 1986). Table IV. Absolute reconstructions of Eurasia in dif- ferent Pangaea types and geographic coordinates of the sampling site at 250 Ma. Pangaea Absolute reconstruction Sampling site type Euler poles Lat °N Long °E Angle (°) Lat °N Long °E A 58.37 85.38 66.89 62.46 63.08 A2 59.09 86.34 68.49 62.46 64.97 B 42.15 71.89 45.89 62.46 36.10 sition, using a stage Euler pole for the time span between 120 and 200 Ma (lat = 31.38° N, long = = 3.4° E, and an angle of counter clockwise ro- tation = 32.18°) calculated from the reconstruc- tion parameters proposed for Africa by Morgan (1983). To perform the rotation of the plates rel- 198 Haroldo Vizán and María Andrea Van Zele Euler pole that belong to each case. The rotation poles to obtain the absolute reconstructions of the sampling site at 250 Ma in different versions of Pangaea are listed in tables I, II and III. These poles are numbered in the sequential order that should be followed to perform the reconstruc- tions. The cumulative rotation for all the move- ments described before has different reconstruc- tion parameters for the different Pangaea models. In table IV are listed the Euler poles for the ab- solute reconstruction of Siberia in Pangaea A, A2 and B and the corresponding palaeogeographic coordinates of the sampling site at 250 Ma. 4. Analysis of the transitional record and discussion The analysis was carried out comparing calculated and recorded data. The behaviour of the EMF is currently analyzed by plotting the VGPs as computed by palaeomagnetic direc- tions. However, a VGP is calculated assuming a dipole model, which is at variance with the strong non-dipolar field expected during a re- versal (i.e. Gubbins and Coe, 1993). For this reason we have analyzed not only the comput- ed VGPs but also their directions. The simulat- ed data were determined according to the geo- graphic coordinates of the measured site at 250 Ma for the different absolute reconstructions of Pangaea configurations using one of the mod- els of Gubbins (1994). Gubbins (1994) developed two models (E and W) assuming the structure of the transition- al field is substantially non-dipolar. Since the re- versal recorded in the Siberian Trap Basalts is from reverse to normal and according to the path of its transitional VGPs, the model W was adopted to simulate the transitional record. Fig- ures 2, 3, 4 and 5 compare modelled and record- ed data; declinations, inclinations and palaeoin- tensities are represented versus the latitude of the corresponding VGPs. Notice that unfortu- Fig. 2. Modelled and measured data of the polarity transition recorded in Siberian Trap Basalts. The data have just a palaeo-latitudinal correction according to the reconstruction parameter of Smethusrt et al. (1998) also used by Heunemann et al. (2004). The transitional modelled and recorded data form similar VGPs clusters however they do not agree. 199 Analysis of a Permo-Triassic polarity transition Fig. 3. Modelled and measured data of the polarity transition recorded in Siberian Trap Basalts in an absolute reconstruction of Pangaea type A configuration. The palaeo-latitudinal and palaeo-longitudinal corrections were done on the basis of hotspots frameworks and the mean Siberian Trap palaeopole. Notice the remarkable fit be- tween both the modelled and recorded data. Fig. 4. Modelled and measured data of the polarity transition recorded in Siberian Trap Basalts in an absolute reconstruction of Pangaea type A2 configuration. The palaeo-latitudinal and palaeo-longitudinal corrections were done on the basis of hotspots frameworks and the mean Siberian Trap palaeopole. Notice the remarkable fit between both the modelled and recorded data as in fig. 3. 200 Haroldo Vizán and María Andrea Van Zele nately Heunemann et al. (2004) could not deter- mine the corresponding palaeointensites for all the recorded palaeomagnetic directions. Figure 2 shows the modelled and recorded data after the palaeo-latitudinal reconstruction of Smethrust et al. (1998) that was also used by Heunemann et al. (2004). Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the data in the different Pangaea models after the palaeo-latitudinal and palaeo-longitu- dinal reconstructions based on the mean Siber- ian Trap PP and the hotspot frameworks. In all analyzed reconstructions there is a good fit between the modelled and recorded in- clinations meanwhile the fit between the decli- nations is better for data which VGPs are in the north hemisphere. In all the cases the modelled transitional data show a cluster of VGPs in the north hemisphere as that represented by the recorded transitional data. Both transitional clusters are better grouped in the models of Pangaea with palaeo-latitudinal and palaeo-longitudinal (absolute) reconstruc- tions (compare fig. 2 with figs. 3, 4 and 5). Pangaea A and A2 models show better fits be- tween the transitional VGPs clusters than does the Pangaea B model (compare fig. 3 and 4 with fig. 5). 5. Conclusions An analysis of the reversal recorded in the Siberian Trap Basalts suggests that similar fea- tures to those considered by Gubbins (1994) could have driven even reversals in the Permo- Triassic. In spite of the uncertainties associated with the hotspot frameworks and Pangaea configura- tions, the modelled and recorded data show a bet- ter fit when both palaeo-latitudinal and palaeo- longitudinal reconstructions are considered. Pangaea A and A2 show remarkable fits be- tween the recorded and modelled clusters of transitional VGPs. Pangaea B, shows the best fit between the mean Siberian Trap PP and a Per- mo-Triassic Gondwana PP but has fewer geo- Fig. 5. Modelled and measured data of the polarity transition recorded in Siberian Trap Basalts in an absolute reconstruction of Pangaea type B configuration. The palaeo-latitudinal and palaeo-longitudinal corrections were done on the basis of hotspots frameworks and the mean Siberian Trap palaeopole. The modelled and recorded data are similar but they do not get as good fits as in A or A2 Pangaea models (figs. 3 and 4). 201 Analysis of a Permo-Triassic polarity transition logical arguments in favour for 250 Ma (Hal- lam, 1983; Irving, 2004) and does not show as good fit between the recorded and our modelled transitional clusters of VGPs. Acknowledgements We would like to thanks to CONICET (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científi- cas y Técnicas, Argentina) and Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina) for supporting our in- vestigations. Thanks also to Dr. Robert Ixer (Univeristy of Birmingham) for his suggestions after reading an early version of this paper. Comments of the anonymous referee are great- ly appreciated. REFERENCES BESSE, J. and V. COURTILLOT (2002): Apparent and true po- lar wander and the geometry of the geomagnetic field over the last 200 Myr, J. Geophys. Res., 107 (B11), 2300, doi: 10.1029/2000, JB 000050. BRIDEN, J.C., A.G. SMITH and J.T. SALLOMY (1971): The ge- omagnetic field in Permo-Triassic time, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 23, 101-118. BULLARD, E.C, J.E. EVERITT and A.G. SMITH (1965): The fit of continents around the Atlantic, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 258, 41-51. CLEMENT, B.M. (1991): Geographical distribution of transi- tional VGPs-Evidence for non-zonal equatorial sym- metry during the Matuyama Brunhes geomagnetic re- versal, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 104, 48-58. COE, R.S. and J.M.G. GLEN (2004): The complexity of re- versals, in Timescales of the Paleomagnetic Field (Am. Geophys. Un.), Geophys. Monogr. Ser., 145, 221-232. COE, R.S., L. HONGRE and G.A. GLATZMAIER (2000): An ex- amination of simulated geomagnetic reversals from a palaeomagnetic perspective, Philos. Trans. R. Astron. Soc. London Ser. A, 358, 1141-1170. COX, A. V. and B.R. HART (1986): Plate Tectonics: How it Works (Blackwell Scientific, Palo Alto), pp. 392. ENGEBRETSON, D.C., A. COX and R.G. GORDON (1985): Rel- ative motions between oceanic and continental plates in the Pacific Basin, Geol. Soc. Am., Spec. Pap. 206, pp. 59. GLATZMAIER, G.A., R.S. COE, L. HONGRE and P.H. ROBERTS (1999): The role of the Earth’s mantle in controlling the frequency of geomagnetic reversals, Nature, 401, 885- 890. GUBBINS, D. (1987): Mechanism for geomagnetic polarity reversals, Nature, 326, 167-169. GUBBINS, D. (1994): Geomagnetic polarity reversals: a con- nection with secular variation and core-mantle bound- ary interaction?, Rev. Geophys., 32, 61-83. GUBBINS, D. and R.S. COE (1993): Longitudinally confined geomagnetic reversal paths from non-dipolar transition fields, Nature, 362, 51-53. GUREVITCH, E.L., M. WESTPHAL, J. DARAGAN-SUCHOV, H. FEINBERG, J.P. POZZI and A.N. KHRAMOV (1995): Paleo- magnetism and magnetostratigraphy of the traps from Western Taimyr (Northern Siberia) and the Permo-Trias- sic crisis, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 136 (3-4), 461-473. GUREVITCH, E.L., C. HEUNEMANN, V. RAD’KO, M. WEST- PHAL, V. BACHTADSE, J.P. POZZI and H. FEINBERG (2004): Palaeomagnetism and magnetostratigraphy of the Permian-Triassic northwest Central Siberian Trap Basalts, Tectonophysics, 379, 211-226. HALLAM, A. (1983): Supposed Permo-Triassic megashear be- tween Laurasia and Gondwana, Nature, 301, 499-502. HEUNEMANN, C., D. KRÁSA, H.C. SOFFEL, E. GUREVITCH and V. BACHTADSE (2004): Directions and intensities of the Earth’s magnetic field during a reversal: results from the Permo-Triassic Siberian Trap Basalts, Russia, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 218, 197-213. HOFFMAN, K.A. (1992): Dipolar reversal states of the geo- magnetic field and core-mantle dynamics, Nature, 359, 789-794. IRVING, E. (2004): The case for Pangea B, and the intra- Pangean megashear, in Timescales of the Paleomagnet- ic Field (Am. Geophys. Un.), Geophys. Monogr. Ser., 145, 13-27. KLITGORD, K.D. and H. SCHOUTEN (1986): Plate kinematics of the Central Atlantic, in The Geology of North Amer- ica, The Western North Atlantic Region, edited by P.R. VOGT and H. TUCHOLKE (Geol. Soc. Am., New York), 351-378. LAJ, C., A. MAZAUD, R. WEEKS, M. FULLER and E. HER- RERO-BERVERA (1991): Geomagnetic reversal paths, Nature, 351, 447. LANGEREIS, C.G., A.A. VAN HOOF and P. ROCHETTE (1992): Longitudinal confinement of geomagnetic reversal paths as a possible sedimentary artefact, Nature, 358, 226-229. LOVE, J.J. (1998): Paleomagnetic volcanic data and geomet- ric regularity of reversals and excursions, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 12,435-12,452. MCELHINNY, M. (2004): Geocentric axial dipole hypothe- sis: a least squares perspective, in Timescales of the Pa- leomagnetic Field (Am. Geophys. Un.), Geophys. Mo- nogr. Ser. , 145, 1-12. MCFADDEN, P. L. and F.J. LOWES (1981): The discrimina- tion of mean directions drawn from Fisher distribu- tions, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 67, 19-33. MOREL, P. and E. IRVING (1981): Paleomagnetism and the evolution of Pangea, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 1858-1872. MORGAN, W.J. (1983): Hotspot tracks and early rifting of the Atlantic, Tectonophysics, 94, 123-139. MUTTONI, G., D.V. KENT and J.E.T. CHANNELL (1996): Evo- lution of Pangea, paleomagnetic constraints from the Southern Alps, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 140, 97-112. MUTTONI, G., D.V.KENT, E. GARZANI, P. BRACK, N. ABRA- HAMSEN and M. GAETANI (2003): The mid-Permian rev- olution from Pangea ‘B’ to ‘A’, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 215, 379-394. O’NEILL, C., D. MÜLLER and B. STEINBERGER (2005): On the uncertainties in hot spot reconstructions and the significance of moving hot spot frames, Geochem. Geophys. Geosys., 6, 1-35. 202 Haroldo Vizán and María Andrea Van Zele PRÉVOT, M. and P. CAMPS (1993): Absence of preferred lon- gitudinal sectors for poles from volcanic records of ge- omagnetic reversals, Nature, 366, 53-57. PRÉVOT, M., N. ROBERTS, J. THOMPSON, L. FAYNOT and M. PERRIN (2003): Revisiting the Jurassic geomagnetic re- versal recorded in the Lesotho Basalt (Southern Africa), Geophys. J. Inter., 155, 367-378. RAKOTOSOLOFO, N.A., J.A. TAIT, V. CARLOTTO and J. CÁR- DENAS (2005): Palaeomagnetic results from the Early Permian Copacabana Group, Southern Peru: implica- tion for Pangaea palaeogeography, Tectonophysics, 413, 287-299. ROCHETTE, P. and D. VANDAMME (2001): Pangea B: an arte- fact of incorrect paleomagnetic assumptions?, Ann. Geofis., 44 (3), 649-658. SCHETTINO, A. and C.R. SCOTESE (2005): Apparent polar wander paths for the major continents (200 Ma to the present day): a palaeomagnetic reference frame for global plate tectonic reconstructions, Geophys. J. In- ter., 163, 727-759. SMETHURST, M.A., A.N. KHRAMOV and T.H. TORSVIK (1998): The Neoproterozoic and Palaeozoic data for the Siberina Platform: from Rodinia to Pangea, Earth- Sci. Rev., 43, 1-24. SMITH, A.G. and R.A. LIVERMORE (1991): Pangea in Permi- an to Jurassic time, Tectonophysics, 187, 135-179. TORCQ, F., J. BESSE, D. VASLET, J. MARCOUX, L.E. RICOU, M. HALAWANI and M. BASAHEL (1997): Paleomagntic re- sults from Saudi Arabia and the Permo-Triassic Pangea configuration, Earth Planet. Sci Lett., 148, 553-567. TORSVIK, T.H. and T.B. ANDERSEN (2002): The Taimyr Fold Belt, Arctic Siberia: timing of pre-fold remagnetisation and regional tectonics, Tectonophysics, 352, 335-348. TORSVIK, T.H. and R. VAN DER VOO (2002): Refining Gond- wana and Pangea palaeogeography: estimates of Phanerozoic non-dipole (octupole) fields, Geophys. J. Inter., 151, 771-794. TORSVIK, T.H., R. VAN DER VOO, J.G. MEERT, J. MOSAR and H. WALDERHAUG (2001): Reconstructions of the conti- nents around the North Atlantic at about the 60th par- allel, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 187, 55-69. TORSVIK, T.H, R. VAN DER VOO and T.F. REDFIELD (2002): Relative hotspot motions versus true polar wander, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 202 (2), 185-200. VAN DER VOO, R. (1990): Phanerozoic paleomagnetic poles from Europe and North America and comparisons with continental reconstructions, Rev. Geophys., 28, 167- 206. VAN DER VOO, R. and R.B. FRENCH (1974): Apparent polar wandering for the Atlantic bordering continents: Late Carboniferous to Eocene, Earth Sci. Rev., 10, 99-119. VAN DER VOO, R. and T.H. TORSVIK (2001): Evidence for late Paleozoic and Mesozoic non-dipole fields provides an explanation for the Pangea reconstruction problems, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 187, 71-81. VAN DER VOO, R. and T.H. TORSVIK (2004): The quality of the European Permo-Triassic paleopoles and its impact on Pangea reconstructions, in Timescales of the Paleo- magnetic Field (Am. Geophys. Un.), Geophys. Mono- gr. Ser., 145, 29-42. VAN DER VOO, R., F.J. MAUK and R.B. FRENCH (1976): Per- mian Triassic continental configurations and the origin of the Gulf of Mexico, Geology, 4, 177-180. VAN ZIJL, J.S.V., K.W.T. GRAHAM and A.L. HALES (1962): The palaeomagnetism of the Stormberg lavas of South Africa 1: evidence for a genuine reversal of the Earth’s field in Triassic-Jurassic times, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 7, 23-39. VIZÁN, H. and M.A.VAN ZELE (1995): Analysis of a lower Jurassic geomagnetic reversal based on a model that re- lates transitional fields to variations of flux on the core surface, Studia Geophys. Geod., 39, 177-188. WEGENER, A. (1922): Origin of Continents and Oceans, English translation of 3rd edition by J.G.A. SKERL (Methuen), pp. 1-212. ZONENSHAIN, L.P., M.I. KUZMIN and M.V. KONONOV (1985): Absolute reconstructions of the Paleozoic oceans, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 74, 103-116. (received April 3, 2006; accepted June 1, 2007)