ISSN 0016-8521, Geotectonics, 2006, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 120–134. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2006.

Original Russian Text © E.V. Sklyarov, V.S. Fedorovskii, 2006, published in Geotektonika, 2006, No. 2, pp. 47–64.

Magma Mingling: Tectonic and Geodynamic Implications

E. V. Sklyarova and V. S. Fedorovskiib
aInstitute of the Earth’s Crust, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Lermontova 128, Irkutsk, 664033 Russia
bGeological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pyzhevskii per. 7, Moscow, 119017 Russia

e-mail: west45fvs@umail.ru
Received February 7, 2005

Abstract—An attempt is made to consider the tectonic and geodynamic implications of the mingling of mafic
and felsic magmas, particularly, the relationships between mafic and felsic igneous rocks in composite dikes and
plutons. Magma mingling develops in suprasubduction, intraplate, and collisional settings. The attributes typical
of each type of mingling are discussed with special emphasis on the magma mingling of the collisional type, which
is related to synmetamorphic shearing and may be regarded as a direct indicator of synorogenic collapse of colli-
sional structural features. This phenomenon is exemplified in the Ol’khon collisional system in Siberia.
DOI: 10.1134/S001685210602004X

INTRODUCTION several generations of igneous geologists. This univer-

Magma mingling and mixing1 are widespread pro-
cesses in many geodynamic settings. It is a paradoxical
fact that the idea of mixing of magmas differing in com-
position was put forward for the first time in the midst
of the 19th century by a specialist in analytical chemis-
try rather than in geology, Robert Bunsen [42]. Having
sampled volcanic rocks in an area with geysers in Ice-
land, Bunsen revealed substantial compositional differ-
ences in the sampled basalts and suggested that a layer
of basaltic magma was overlapped by a layer of rhy-
olitic melt and the entire range of igneous rocks was
formed owing to various degrees of basalt–rhyolite
mixing. It came as no surprise that this idea was imme-
diately heavily criticized by the geologists who studied
Iceland and afterwards was adopted but with a geolog-
ical priority. Towards the turn of the 19th century, addi-
tional evidence for the mingling of magmas contrasting
in composition was provided [42] concerning primarily
composite dikes and sills and granitic plutons with
numerous mafic inclusions. The effects of mingling
have been described in other volcanic provinces in
addition to Iceland. The idea of contemporaneous
emplacement and crystallization of magmas of con-
trasting compositions became popular. However, in the
beginning of the 20th century, this idea was displaced
by the concept of crystal fractionation stated compre-
hensively by N. Bowen in his book The Evolution of
Igneous Rocks [24], which became a guidebook for
1 The
term magma mingling widely used in English language pub-
lications implies a mechanical interaction between the coexisting
melts of different compositions that does not result in their com-
plete homogenization (see [42] for the historical review) and is in
contrast to the term magma mixing that accentuates the formation
of hybrid melts of intermediate composition; both English terms
are commonly translated by the same Russian word. To avoid
confusion, the transliterated English terms are often given follow-
ing the Russian word in the Russian version of this paper.
sally accepted concept is still developing, and its
appearance would not threaten the concept of mingling
if crystal fractionation were not proclaimed as a single
mechanism that provides the diversity of igneous rocks.
As always happens during the emergence of new para-
digms and panaceas, the other ideas supported by reli-
able data are pushed aside. Furthermore, the model of
mingling was deemed unrealistic for a long time
because of the substantial difference in viscosity and
temperature of felsic and mafic magmas. However, a
large body of new information obtained in the mid-20th
century provided decisive evidence for the coexistence
of contrasting magmas and the idea of their mingling
inspired a renewed interest and gave impetus to numer-
ous publications (reviews in [12, 26, 27, 42]), the
amount of which continues to increase.
It should be noted that the concept of mingling con-
siderably expanded and fell outside the scope of inter-
action between melts. Piperites have been recognized and
characterized as products of interaction of erupting lavas
with water-saturated unconsolidated sediments [35]. The
term metamorphic mingling has been introduced for
describing the mechanical mixing of ductile metamor-
phic rocks and mafic melts in collisional zones [18]. In
this paper, we focus our attention on classic magma
mingling as emphasized in the title. Moreover, because
only petrologic problems related to the interaction
between magmas differing in composition are dis-
cussed in the overwhelming majority of the publica-
tions and only in a few works is the consideration
extended beyond specific bodies of igneous rocks, it
seems expedient to center our attention on tectonic and
geodynamic implications of mingling. The paper pre-
sented is based on the data obtained by us and other
researchers in the western Baikal and Transbaikal
regions.

120
 MAGMA MINGLING: TECTONIC AND GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATIONS 121

(a) (b)

(c)

Mafic intrusions

Mafic volcanics

Granitic plutons

Felsic volcanics

Flank cinder cones

Fig. 1. Evolution of the granitic magmatic system controlled by emplacement of mafic magma into the crust: a conceptual scheme,
after [30]. (a) The early stage of emplacement of basalts in the cold crust when they can erupt on the surface; (b) the stage of the
crust’s heating and the onset of generation of felsic crustal magma that erupts on the surface or crystallizes under hypabyssal con-
ditions; and (c) the stage of the mass melting of the crust characterized by eruption of ignimbrites, caldera collapse, and emplace-
ment of large granitic plutons. Basalts can penetrate into the upper crust only at the periphery of an igneous province.

TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF MAGMA MINGLING
In terms of tectonics, it is most important that the
mingling of the mantle-derived mafic and crustal felsic
magmas that coexist in the liquid state eventually
occurs in the middle and upper crust or at the day sur-
face. The mingling of products of magma fractionation
within a single magma chamber is also known. How-
ever, such occurrences are insignificant in size and not
abundant.
According to a popular concept, the considerable
masses of granitoids are generated in the lower crust
affected by ascending mantle-derived mafic melts, as
follows from intimate spatial association of mafic and
granitic rocks. The most pictorial qualitative model
developed by Huppert and Sparks [30] demonstrates
the consecutive emplacement of mafic melt into the
crust and the accompanying generation of granitic
magma (Fig. 1). At the initial stage of rifting, basalts
erupt on the surface of the cold and brittle crust
(Fig. 1a) and at the same time intrude the upper and
middle crust, while forming sills and relatively small
magma chambers. The conductive heating of the crust
eventually leads to the generation of granitoid magma
(Fig. 1b), and the partially melted crust serves as a nat-
ural barrier that becomes impermeable to new portions
of basaltic magma and thus promotes further heating of
the crust; particular batches of granitic magma can
erupt on the surface. The advanced heating of the crust
(Fig. 1c) provides the formation of large plutons, while
ignimbrites erupt at the surface. The late basaltic erup-
tions are confined to the margins of igneous provinces.
The mafic and felsic rocks occur in composite plu-
tons as complexes of contemporaneous dikes, including
ring dikes, minor intrusions, schlieren and autoliths
(dialiths, after Popov [12]) in granites [25, 26, 34] or
syenites [10]. In the fields of felsic volcanics, basalts
occur as discrete lava flows, cinder cones, inclusions
and interlayers within mafic rocks [21, 32]. Composite
dikes and sills are noteworthy. They may be shallow-
seated conduits of volcanic edifices [36, 37, 39], sepa-
rate intrusive phases [8–11, 25, 26, 43], or components
of high-temperature collisional metamorphic com-
plexes [6, 14, 22].

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006

122 SKLYAROV, FEDOROVSKII
Fig. 2. Section of a composite dike with mafic rocks at its
margins, after [28].
Thus, the lava flows, composite dikes, and magma
chambers are three main modes of occurrence typical
of mingling.
The magma mingling in lava flows is indicated not
only by mafic inclusions and schlieren in felsic volca-
nics but also by xenocrysts of mafic minerals and high-Ca
plagioclase in silicic lavas, whereas quartz and alkali
feldspar occur in basic and intermediate lavas. As a
rule, the volcanics with these attributes do not bear
signs of superimposed deformation.
The composite dikes are diverse in morphology and
may be linear, curved, branching, or ring-shaped.
Through relationships between igneous rocks of differ-
ent compositions, two main types of composite dikes
are distinguished: (1) those with a felsic core rimmed
by mafic rocks and (2) those with a mafic core com-
bined with felsic margins [41]. The composite dikes of
the first type (Fig. 2), which were described by
A. Harker in his classic monograph [28], are formed as
a result of consecutive injections of mafic and felsic
melts; the latter were emplaced into the axial, incom-
pletely solidified zone of the preceding mafic dike. The
second, prevalent type is formed during contemporane-
ous injection of two magmas contrasting in their com-
positions and is characterized by more diverse relation-
ships between the mafic and felsic materials. The pil-
low and breccia structures are typical; however,
pseudolayered varieties are also noted. The dikes with
absolute predominance of mafic rocks cut by numerous
felsic veinlets (net-veined complexes) are rather abun-
dant. The examples of such relationships in granitoid
plutons of the Transbaikal region and in metamorphic
rocks of the Ol’khon region will be discussed below.
The entire range of composite dikes, from those com-
posed of undeformed mafic and felsic rocks via partly
tectonized rocks of different compositions to the com-
pletely metamorphosed mafic and felsic rocks, is
observable.
The development of mingling in magma chambers
is especially diverse and controlled by many factors, the
most important of which is the degree of crystallization
of granitic magma. The two extreme states correspond
to (i) the liquid state of granitic magma with variable
contents of phenocrysts and (ii) the solid crystalline
state, occasionally with insignificant amounts of resid-
ual melt. Let us dwell in more detail on the character-
ization of mingling for both variants.
The crucial indications of mafic melt injections into
felsic magma (the first variant) were set forth by Litvi-
novskii et al. [10]:
(1) The grain size of mafic rocks at the contact with
the host felsic material diminishes not only in large
intrusive bodies but also in particular nodules as a result
of the fast solidification of basaltic magma at the
boundary with felsic melt that had a lower temperature
than the basalt solidus.
(2) As a rule, the mafic rocks are fine-grained
(medium-grained in exceptional cases), including the
bodies reaching 20–30 m across. This is also evidence
for their fast crystallization.
(3) The grain size of granitic rocks at the contact
with mafic rocks does not decrease, even if the mafic
bodies are rather large; thin granitic injections into
mafic rocks also do not reveal a decrease in grain size.
At the same time, the chilled margins of syenitic bodies
are present always at the contacts with country meta-
morphic rocks.
(4) The basic inclusions have festoon-lobate out-
lines in cross section owing to a great number of small
globules. Such a shape of contacts is typical of the
boundaries between two liquids having different vis-
cosities [27].
(5) Large mafic bodies are constantly surrounded by
spherical and oval inclusions, and the oblong bodies are
accompanied by trains of such inclusions. This is addi-
tional evidence for dispersion of a more viscous melt in
a less viscous liquid.
(6) In some places, the inclusions have the appear-
ance of bent strips and ribbons that bear no indications
of cataclasis and translation of rock-forming minerals.
Such inclusions may be regarded as a product of ductile
deformation of mafic material in the felsic magma.
(7) Ductile deformation and oriented mafic inclu-
sions are especially evident in those places where the
granitic melt moved along the contact with solid gabbro
and injected gabbro along fractures. The mafic inclu-
sions occur here as elongated, often curved lenses ori-
ented parallel to the contact of gabbroic blocks (xeno-
liths). The orientation of tabular plagioclase and pris-
matic grains of dark-colored minerals is clearly seen
under a microscope both in mafic rocks and to a lesser
extent in host granitoids.
(8) The tonalitic and biotite–plagioclase selvages at
contacts of felsic rocks with mafic inclusions are con-
clusive evidence for the coexistence and partial mixing
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
 MAGMA MINGLING: TECTONIC AND GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATIONS
Fig. 3. System of synplutonic dolerite dikes, after [8]. Thin dikes are chains of spherical, oval, and oblong fragments commonly
with signs of ductile deformation.
of contrasting magmas. As shown in [38], these sel-
vages testify, first, to the diffusion exchange between
two magmas and, second, to additional heating of sye-
nitic melt at the contact with mafic magma.
Although the aforementioned features were estab-
lished for the particular Romanovsky pluton in the Trans-
baikal region, they may be regarded as typical structural
and petrographic attributes of magma mingling.
The elongated swarms or chains of melanocratic
inclusions, synplutonic dikes, and related linear chains
of globular and droplike mafic bodies serve as indica-
tors of the emplacement of mafic dikes into incom-
pletely consolidated granites that contained as much as
30% of the residual melt (the second variant of min-
gling) (see Fig. 3). In this case, the mafic rocks do not
undergo boudinage and their morphology results only
from crystallization. The brittle failure of granitic rocks
with the formation of linear fractures filled with mafic
magma indicates that the granitic rocks are crystallized
significantly by the moment of mafic melt emplace-
ment. The felsic melt that contains 35–70 vol % of crys-
tals has the rheological properties of Bingham liquid
[31] and provides development of linear shear zones.
Such zones control the injections of mafic melts. The
transition from swarms and chains of inclusions to syn-
plutonic dikes cut by injections of residual melts derived
from host granitoids depends on the proportions between
the crystals and the liquid phase retained in some loca-
tion. Additional heating of wall rock that results in melt-
ing within the contact zone is also possible.
MINGLING IN VARIOUS GEODYNAMIC
SETTINGS
The spatiotemporal association of felsic and mafic
magmas is typical of suprasubduction orogenic belts;
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
123
specific regions of intracontinental extension, e.g., the
Basin and Range Province; intracontinental and oce-
anic provinces of intraplate magmatism; and collisional
zones. Let us consider the development of magma min-
gling in various geodynamic settings and combine
those of them that exhibit common magmatic and tec-
tonic features. In particular, the suprasubduction setting
comprises the island-arc systems and active continental
margins of the Californian and Andean types, while the
intraplate settings are represented by both the rift sys-
tems and mantle plumes. We realize that comprehen-
sive characterization of mingling in various settings is
not possible at the current state of knowledge primarily
because of insufficient published data. Therefore, we
present the most typical and best studied cases, while
deliberately omitting the examples of mingling in the
near-surface environment (lava flows, dikes as lava
conduits) and dwelling on deeper levels without
repeated reference to composite dikes and lava flows.
Suprasubduction Setting
Effects of magma mingling are extremely diverse in
mature island arcs and continental magmatic margins
and have been described in most detail at the western
margin of North America, where the igneous events are
dated back to the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. The
Chelan migmatite complex is one of the best studied
cases of magma mingling [29]. The complex consists of
Late Cretaceous migmatized metatonalite. Amphibo-
lite, hornblendite, metagabbro, and metadiorite are less
abundant but important constituents of the complex.
Basic dikes deformed to various extents are numerous.
The conceptual scheme illustrating relationships between
different igneous rocks is shown in Fig. 4.
124 SKLYAROV, FEDOROVSKII
2M
2 1
3M
3
1
3A
Fig. 4. Relationships between intrusive phases and the structure of the Chelan migmatite complex: a conceptual scheme, after [29].
Numerals denote five types of mafic and ultramafic rocks. See text for explanation.
Five phases of mafic and ultramafic magmatism are
recognized [29]: (1) older metagabbroic rocks tecton-
ized and transformed into agmatites, (2) migmatized
mafic rocks that flow around the agmatitic blocks
together with the associated leucosome and make up
thick layers (2M) or small conformable dikes dismem-
bered into boudines (2S), (3) older synplutonic dikes
and larger bodies that cut through the agmatites and mig-
matized dikes and experience viscous–ductile deforma-
tion together with country granitoids, (4) younger syn-
plutonic dikes that underwent only slight deformation,
and (5) postplutonic lamprophyre dikes with character-
istic chilled margins.
The preanatectic mafic intrusions were emplaced as
discrete small bodies into the consolidated tonalite. In
particular bodies, the crystal fractionation resulted in
the formation of mafic and ultramafic cumulates and
residual diorites as small chambers. No signs of min-
gling and hybridization of mafic magma are noted at
this stage. Subsequently, the mafic rocks underwent
brittle failure and were cut by granitic veins. The belt of
the older mafic rocks extends for 13 km. The late brittle
failure and rotation of particular blocks led to the local
development of typical agmatitic structures.
The synanatectic magmatic intrusions are character-
ized by banding and sharply distinct in this respect from
mafic rocks of the first phase. The structural patterns
5
2S
3
4
4M
5
indicate that the mafic melts were emplaced into the
plastic, partially melted country felsic rocks and min-
gled with leucocratic injections. The latter, together
with the batches of crystallizing mafic magma and seg-
regated felsic melts, acquired a gneissic appearance.
The older synplutonic mafic dikes are widespread in
metatonalites and migmatites. They are discordant rel-
ative to the migmatite banding but, at the same time,
have experienced rather intense deformation at the late
stages of crystallization and after its completion. The
products of remelting of felsic rocks affected by mafic
magma have an insignificant volume and occur as thin
veinlets of irregular shape hosted in mafic rocks.
The younger synplutonic dikes are similar in their
composition and structure to the older synplutonic
dikes but distinguished from the latter by a lower
degree of postcrystallization deformation and by cross-
cutting relations with the felsic veins that accompanied the
preceding mafic dikes. Both the older and the younger
synplutonic dikes are rather widespread in the fields of
metatonalites and migmatites belonging to the Chelan
Complex and are extremely rare in the country rocks.
The youngest lamprophyre dikes crosscut the entire
complex of the above-listed igneous rocks and do not
reveal signs of interaction with felsic melts.
The entire Chelan Complex may be regarded as an
example of “metamingling” with complex spatiotem-
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
 MAGMA MINGLING: TECTONIC AND GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATIONS
poral interrelations between magmas of different com-
positions. The high degree of syncrystallization, late-
crystallization, and postcrystallization deformations of
mafic rocks related to the second–fourth phases has
attracted attention.
Intraplate Setting
The effects of mingling have been described in detail
for the Late Paleozoic and Early Mesozoic (after [3])
granitoid plutons of the Mongolian–Transbaikal alkali
granite–syenite province and for the granitoid plutons
that preceded formation of this province. The intraplate
geodynamic setting of these plutons was established by
Yarmolyuk et al. [19].
The mingling of felsic and mafic magmas was
developed at various stages of emplacement of the
Romanovsky [8, 10], Ust-Khilok [9, 15], Khari-
tonovsky [43], and Shalutinsky [11] plutons. The
effects of mingling are expressed extremely diversely
and embrace the entire range of attributes set forth by
Litvinovskii et al. [10]. Melanocratic inclusions in
monzonite, syenite, and granite, as well as swarms of
synplutonic dikes and various composite dikes, are
widespread. The most typical features of mingling are
shown in Fig. 5. In general, it may be noted that
emplacement and evolution of the Late Paleozoic gra-
nitic and syenitic plutons were characterized by a mul-
tifold supply of mafic magmas into plutonic chambers;
the mafic magmas were contaminated to some extent
with felsic materials. The depth of pluton formation is
estimated at 6–7 km [15]. While on the subject of this
depth, it should be kept in mind that we are discussing
only a level with distinctly expressed mingling. At the
same time, the magmas were generated in the entire
section from the upper mantle (mafic melts) to the
upper crust. The diversity of magmas, their generation
and evolution in the intermediate chambers at various
depths were considered comprehensively for the Ust-
Khilok pluton, where three consecutive intrusive
rhythms—two syenitic and the youngest granitic—are
recognized [9]. The effects of mingling are related to all
of these intrusive phases, and the final basaltic injec-
tions correspond to the complete consolidation of the
pluton. No less than six pulses of mafic magma injec-
tions into the large Ust-Khilok pluton are documented
by (1) blocks-xenoliths of gabbro in monzosyenite of
the first phase, (2) mesocratic monzosyenite with
numerous melanocratic inclusions and large microgab-
bro inclusions in monzosyenite, (3) synplutonic micro-
gabbro dikes in monzosyenite, (4) leucosyenite of the
second phase with sporadic mafic inclusions, (5) syen-
ite–gabbro composite dikes, (6) monzonite–gabbro
composite dikes, and (7) aplite–gabbro composite dikes
[11]. The relationships of mafic dikes with felsic rocks
are shown in Figs. 5a and 5b. Detailed geological and
petrologic studies showed that the entire variety of
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
125
0.1 m 0.2 m
(a) (b)
(c) 3m
30 cm
(e)
30 cm
10 cm
(d)
(f)
Fig. 5. Typical attributes of magma mingling in granitoid
plutons of the Transbaikal region, after [9, 10]. (a) Festoon
boundaries of mafic rocks and chilled margins at the contact
with aplite in a composite dike, (b) flamelike boundary of a
large synplutonic mafic inclusion in monzosyenite, (c) com-
posite dike that serves as a conduit of a large combined sill
in syenite and (d) close-up of its offset, (e) contact of a large
mafic body with host syenite and (f) close-up of this contact.
(a, b)—the Ust-Khilok pluton and (c)–(f)—the Shalutinsky
pluton.
igneous rocks in this pluton (mafic rocks, monzonite,
monzosyenite, syenite, quartz syenite, and aplite) is a
result of interaction of mafic and syenitic magmas and
fractionation of hybrid melts during their crystalliza-
tion in transitional chambers [9]. The syenitic magma
was generated and mixed in the lower crust. The inter-
mediate magma chambers that yielded a wide range of
felsic melts could have been located at different levels
of the lower and middle crust, and finally, the pluton
proper was formed in the upper crust. In other words,
the interaction of mafic and felsic magmas with various
effects of magma mingling and mixing embraced the
entire Earth’s crust.
The specific feature of mingling in the Mongolian–
Transbaikal province consists in the complete absence
of syncrystallization, late-crystallization, and postcrys-
tallization deformations. More precisely, such defor-
mations are pointed out, but only as they relate to lateral
propagation of felsic magmas [9].
126 SKLYAROV, FEDOROVSKII
20 m
Amphibolite
Granitic pegmatite
Gneiss and migmatite
Viscous shear Dolerite
30
30
30
80
70
45 70
40
60
60
30
50
Fig. 6. Structure of the composite dike in the Oval dome, after [14].
Collisional Setting
The effects of mingling in collisional complexes
have not been described in the same detail as in the
suprasubduction and intraplate settings. The paper by
Berthelsen [22] that deals with the so-called globulites,
i.e., specific occurrences of mafic material in metamor-
phic rocks, hardly exhausts the problem. The composite
mingling-dikes of the second type have been described
in the Early Paleozoic collisional complex of Sangilen
[4]; however, these dikes occur within the granitic plu-
ton, and only publication [5] that considers relation-
ships between igneous, metamorphic, and tectonic pro-
cesses made it possible to understand that emplacement
of mingling-dikes was related to the late stage of colli-
sion. The Ol’khon collisional system in the western
Baikal region may be offered as a tectonotype of
magma mingling in collisional systems at the level of
the middle and lower crust.
The Early Paleozoic Ol’khon collisional system in
the western Baikal region is a complex of various igne-
ous and metamorphic rocks [17]. Several tectonic
stages of nappe and dome formation and shearing were
accompanied by high-temperature metamorphism and
diverse, largely granitoid magmatism [16, 17]. The
lithotectonic complexes characterized in detail in
numerous publications were formed in the Early Paleo-
zoic as a result of microcontinent–island arc and micro-
continent–continent collision [1, 13]. The structures of
magma mingling that are mainly represented by com-
posite dikes have been revealed here recently [6, 14].
These dikes have much in common and at the same
time are characterized by substantial differences. We
divide them into two types.
60
40
40
40
50 70
50 70
65
30
50
65 75
70
50 65
30
35 35
70 75 30
80 70 40
The first type is represented in the Ol’khon region
by sporadic dikes composed of granites and low-K and
medium-Ti tholeiitic dolerites metamorphosed to some
extent [14]. By the degree of metamorphism, the com-
plete series may be traced from unaltered subvolcanic
bodies to amphibolites in metamorphosed near-concor-
dant dikes. The “fresh” and metamorphosed dolerites
may be observed at one exposure near the Oval dome
(Fig. 6). The intrusive body exposed here is not a linear
dike but a structural feature that was deformed in the
process of shearing. Dolerites are hosted in migmatized
gneisses as chains of boudines and globular bodies
extending as far as 10 m. The boudines are incorporated
into a shell of pegmatoid granite 0.3–1.0 m in thick-
ness. As has been mentioned above, both mafic rocks
and pegmatoid granites are devoid of signs of ductile
deformation at the mesoscopic and microscopic levels.
A unit of medium-grained amphibolite, the shape of
which shows that the unit was involved in shearing, is
located to the northwest of the above composite dike.
Dolerite and amphibolite are identical in chemical
composition and fit the low-K and medium-Ti tholeiitic
basalt [14]. It may be suggested that the abundance of
synmetamorphic mafic dikes in the Ol’khon region
remains strongly underestimated, because when they
are completely metamorphosed, it is impossible to dis-
tinguish them from amphibolites of the country granite-
gneiss complex.
The youngest composite dikes cut the metamorphic
rocks obliquely and do not bear indications of the sub-
sequent deformation. The dike located near the Krest
Peninsula in the Ol’khonskie Vorota Strait and traced
for more than a kilometer is the most indicative in this
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
 MAGMA MINGLING: TECTONIC AND GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATIONS
1
N
Fig. 7. Geologic map of the Krest Peninsula. (1) Marble; (2) amphibolite; (3) gneiss, migmatite, and granite gneiss; (4) synmeta-
morphic granite; (5) synmetamorphic dolerite; (6) synmetamorphic shear (blastomylonite); (7) structural lines in gneiss and
amphibolite; (8) orientation of gneissic banding and foliation.
respect (Fig. 7). The dike varies from 2–3 to 10 m in
thickness (the latter value is related to bulges). The
main body of the dike is composed of medium-grained
granite with dolerite lenses therein. Segments that are
dolerite-free reach lengths of 300–350 m. Dolerites do
not make direct contact with the country granitic
gneisses that alternate with amphibolites and amphib-
ole gneisses and are armored everywhere by pegmatoid
granites 0.5–3.0 m thick. The structure of dolerite is not
reworked. The grain size in marginal zones of dolerite
dikes occasionally decreases, thus testifying to the
effect of chilling.
Thus, the following series may be outlined by meta-
morphic grade: crosscutting undeformed dikes, deformed
near-concordant dikes without structural changes, and-
completely metamorphosed dikes (amphibolites). The
compositional similarity of mafic rocks in the compos-
ite dikes provides evidence for a single episode of
injection of mantle-derived tholeiitic magma at the late
stage of metamorphism and structural transformation
of the collisional complex.
The second type of composite dikes occurs in the
north of Ol’khon Island [6]. Numerous composite and
granitic dikes cut through the metamorphic sequence
with complex, tectonized intercalation of crystalline
schists and marbles; gneisses are not very abundant.
The composite dikes reside within a tract about 7 km
long. Only gently dipping and near-horizontal granitic
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
127
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
L. Baikal
250 m
dikes are known to the north and to the south of this
tract; they crosscut the gneissic banding of country
rocks. The composite dikes, conversely, are conform-
able with metamorphic structure. Ladder dikes are
noted occasionally. The granitic material makes up nar-
row near-contact zones in most dikes and thin veinlets
of irregular shape in their cores. The pillow structure of
mafic rocks in contact with granites is observed quite
often (Fig. 8a). The volumetric proportion of mafic and
granitic rocks varies from 30 : 1 (Fig. 8b) to 1 : 1
(Fig. 8c). Fragments of mafic rocks incorporated into
the granitic matrix are in most cases elongated and
gneissic in appearance (Fig. 8c); however, angular and
irregular fragments do occur (Fig. 8d). The geologic
relationships clearly demonstrate in all cases that gra-
nitic rocks solidified later than mafic rocks, as expected
from the different solidus temperatures of mafic and
granitic melts. The degree of metamorphism superim-
posed on granites and mafic rocks in the dikes is vari-
able. The massive granites almost completely lacking
signs of the subsequent deformation grade into the typ-
ically metamorphic gneisses without relics of primary
igneous structure and texture. The gneissic structure in
crosscutting dikes is parallel to their strike. The mafic
rocks with clinopyroxene, amphibole, and biotite are
often massive; however, the banded varieties, which
become indistinguishable from country crystalline
schists both by the naked eye and under microscope, are
also not rare.
128 SKLYAROV, FEDOROVSKII

25 cm
(‡)

(b) 50 cm (c) 50 cm

50 cm

(d)

Fig. 8. Relationships between mafic rocks and granites in composite dikes on Ol’khon Island in the western Baikal region. (a) Pillow
structure of mafic rock at the contact with granite, (b) composite dike with granite at the contact and prevalent mafic rock (net-veined
complex), (c) strongly deformed composite dike, (d) undeformed composite dike.

The dikes where neither mafic rocks nor granites resented commonly by composite dikes with massive
underwent ductile deformation (Fig. 8d) pass into the or slightly gneissic mafic rocks and granitic gneisses in
bodies where both igneous rocks are completely meta- marginal zones. The involvement of composite dikes in
morphosed (Fig. 8c). The transitional varieties are rep- folding (Fig. 9) is the most important argument in favor

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006

 MAGMA MINGLING: TECTONIC AND GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATIONS 129

(‡) 3m (b)

Fig. 9. (a) Photograph and (b) position in the fold structure of the thickest composite dike on Ol’khon Island.

Mafic rock
Granite

1m Ice and snow

Fig. 10. Relationship of mafic rock and granite in an intrusive body in the north Ol’khon Island.

of their relation to the final stage of collisional tectoge-
nesis. The morphology and attitude of the dikes testify
to their synkinematic character.
The stocklike bodies, 300–400 m across, that con-
sist of a contrasting magmatic mixture of angular or
lenticular mafic fragments incorporated into the gra-
nitic matrix (Fig. 10) are observed together with com-
posite dikes. The granitic material occupies no more
than 30% of the total volume. These bodies are
regarded as magmatic chambers formed by simulta-
neous emplacement of mafic and felsic melts.
The mafic rocks in composite dikes and stocks of the
second group correspond in chemical composition to
the low-Mg alkali basalts [6] typical of the intraplate
setting.
Thus, two types of mantle-derived mafic melts,
tholeiitic and alkaline, participated in the mingling with
crustal melts. They are not spatially juxtaposed,
although they are localized at a short distance from
each other. Their chronological relationships remain
ambiguous. The published data on the age of metamor-
phic and magmatic events [1, 2, 7] and unpublished
authors’ data allow us to suggest two episodes of con-
temporaneous mafic and felsic magmatism and high-
temperature metamorphism: ~500 and 470–480 Ma. If
this actually is the case, the suggested events are in line
with the Ol’khon Terrane’s tectonic evolution [13, 17]
that assumes collision of a microcontinent with an island
arc and the subsequent collision of the amalgamated ter-
rane with the Siberian Craton. Moreover, this scheme is
applicable not only to the Ol’khon Terrane but also to all
Caledonides in the Central Asian Foldbelt [20]. Accord-
ing to the concept developed by V.V. Yarmolyuk and his
coauthors, the Caledonides in this sector of the Earth’s
lithosphere were formed in the Vendian and Cambrian
under effect of the North Asian hot field (superplume),
thereby providing extensive alkaline and subalkaline
magmatism. The latter is represented by rather large
plutons of alkali gabbroids, e.g., the Birkhin and Kre-

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006

130 SKLYAROV, FEDOROVSKII
stovsky plutons, and by alkali basalts in composite
dikes of the second type. The second episode of tholei-
itic mantle magmatism, related to the partial melting of
the depleted lithospheric mantle, occurred during colli-
sion of the terrane with the Siberian Craton.
We would like to emphasize once again two impor-
tant points: (1) the relation of magma mingling to
shearing and (2) the synmetamorphic character of both
processes. Because metamorphism is an indispensable
component of collisional geodynamics, it becomes
clear that the magma mingling in the Ol’khon region is
also a syncollisional event. At first glance, this state-
ment is internally controversial because compression
and the respective synmetamorphic deformation in the
collisional setting hamper the mantle-derived magmas’
penetration through the crust. However, it is well-
known that uneven surfaces of strike-slip faults give
rise to the development of numerous local extension
zones (pull-apart structures) and series of systemati-
cally arranged tension cracks (Riedel structures) disin-
tegrate the displaced sheets. Apparently, these condi-
tions are sufficient for draining of mantle magmas and
their ascent through the thick but gravitationally insta-
ble collisional crust. It may be suggested that the colli-
sional system is doomed to breakdown or collapse as
soon as shearing becomes an active participant of the
collisional scenario. The synmetamorphic magma min-
gling, one of the earliest indicators of this process,
implies the continuation of the general compression
and the development of tectonic flow and folding,
although the local extension zones are already arising at
that time. The mantle-derived magmas are injected into
the softened crustal rocks involved in metamorphism
and subject to partial melting. The interaction of the
mantle and crustal melts results in the formation of
structural features typical of magma mingling. The col-
lapse of collisional systems proceeds in the extension
regime, and the magma mingling directly testifies to the
early stage of collapse.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In order to understand the character of relationships
between granites and mafic rocks and the cause of
incomplete miscibility, or alternatively, complete immis-
cibility, of melts contrasting in composition, three points
should be stressed.
(1) The marked difference in temperature of granitic
and mafic melts: 650–800°C against 1100–1300°C.
First, this implies that the felsic melt behaves as a cool-
ant for hot or even overheated mafic melts. Second, if
the temperature of the country granitic or felsic meta-
morphic rocks is close to eutectic, the energetic capac-
ity of even small bodies of mafic melt is sufficient to
induce the partial melting of the country rocks. The
progress in such melting is controlled by the volume of
the supplied mantle-derived magma. Finally, the third
implication of the temperature difference consists in the
late crystallization of felsic melts, as is confirmed by
structural relationships between coexisting mafic and
felsic melts.
(2) The sharp difference in viscosity and rheological
properties of fluid-saturated granitic melt and anhy-
drous basaltic melt. The incomplete miscibility of
melts, various reaction structures, and pillow structure
of mafic rocks in composite dikes are explained pre-
cisely by this difference. The modeling of interaction
between liquids with different viscosity [33] has shown
that the interface between such liquids becomes more
intricate as the difference in viscosity increases
(Fig. 11E). The morphological features observed in
experiments are consistent with their counterparts in
nature (Figs. 11A–11D).
(3) The sharply distinct density and, accordingly,
buoyancy of mafic and granitic melts. The partially
melted continental crust is an effective barrier to the
ascent of the basaltic magma [30], which having
reached this barrier starts to spread aside and crystallize
as sheetlike bodies. The same mechanism may work
within magmatic chambers filled with granitoid mate-
rial. The morphology and spatial position of sheetlike
mafic bodies in granitoid plutons [40] indicate the mul-
tifold emplacement of mafic melts into the magma
chamber (Fig. 12). The stratification of the magma
chamber caused by settling of crystals in the lower part
of the chamber plays an important role in this process.
Zones of plastic high-grade metamorphic rocks are
efficient barriers to mafic magmas. The mafic magmas
that have reached the base of such zones induce the
melting of gneisses and provide magma mingling and
ascent of the magma mixture to the upper brittle–duc-
tile level where the linear fractures are filled with this
mixture. An additional conductive heating of rocks may
change the style of deformation that provides emplace-
ment of dikes along shear zones [14] or their subse-
quent involvement in the folding. The viscous–ductile
style of deformation at the lower level results in devel-
opment of metamorphic mingling, as is observed in the
Ol’khon collisional orogen [18].
In general, the character of mingling at deep levels
of suprasubduction and intraplate settings is highly
similar. The conspicuous attributes of mingling develop
in the uppermost 5–7 km of the crust. The magma
chambers filled with granitoid crustal melts serve as
traps for mantle-derived magmas. The interaction of
crustal and mantle magmas in the collisional setting at
the late stage of collision occurs at a depth of 7–20 km
and is distinguished by some specific features (see
above). The main difference in the mingling that occurs
in specific geodynamic settings consists in different
degree of syncrystallization, late-crystallization and
postcrystallization deformations. Under the extension
conditions of the intraplate setting, the deformation
expressed in the gneissic texture of felsic rocks and in
the flattening of mafic fragments is related to the
spreading within the magma chamber or to the flow of
magma along feeding conduits (dikes). The structures
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
 MAGMA MINGLING: TECTONIC AND GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATIONS 131

20 m
Ä B

C D
VR = 2.69 VR = 12.9

E
VR = 130.6 VR = 1403

Fig. 11. (A–D) Relationships of granite and mafic rock in the Terra Nova intrusive complex, Antarctica and (E) models simulating
relationships between liquids with different viscosities, after [33].

related to the deformation during the late stage of crys-
tallization (gneissic banding, boudinage, structures of
rupture and fragmentation of competent mafic bodies)
are typical of the suprasubduction setting. The entire
range of deformations, from no deformation to com-
plete metamorphic reworking of composite dikes, is
observed in the collisional setting. Moreover, the mor-
phology of mafic bodies implies that some composite
dikes are controlled by shear zones (Fig. 6). The geo-
logic examples considered above confirm the tendency
of increasing intensity of ductile deformation of the
igneous rocks that participate in mingling; however,
this tendency is far from unequivocal. Besides our point
of view stated above, another explanation unrelated to
the specific features of different tectonic settings is pos-
sible. All examples of mingling in different geody-
namic settings correspond to different levels of the
Earth’s crust. The granitoid plutons in the Transbaikal
region crystallized at a depth of 5–7 km [15]; the main
stages of the evolution of the Chelan Complex corre-
spond to the middle crust [29]; and finally, the level of
mingling in the Ol’khon collisional system fits the mid-
dle and lower crust. Thus, the different style of defor-
mation may be controlled by variation in the depth.
However, we emphasize once again the role of shearing
in the penetration of mantle magmas into the lower and

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006

132 SKLYAROV, FEDOROVSKII

(‡) Injection of mafic

melt as a lopolith

Feeding dike (1)

Mingling in the marginal part
of the lopolith
(b) Cooling and sinking of mafic melt
Formation of mafic inclusions
by convection

(c) Ongoing sinking and tectonization

of the mafic body
Mafic inclusions
and rafts

Flamelike
offsets
Dike remnants

(d) Final stage of the first pulse

Deformation of mafic inclusions
by lateral spreading of
granitic melt

Intricate configuration
of the lower contact of mafic body
Flat upper contact
of the mafic body

(e) The second pulse of emplacement of mafic melt

Feeding dike (2)

1 2 3

4 5

Fig. 12. A model of consecutive emplacement of mafic melt into granites with formation of mafic intrusive sheets, after [40].
(1) Gabbrodiorite, (2) granitic magma, (3) cumulative layer enriched in crystals, (4) direction of flow in local convective cells,
(5) mafic inclusions.

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006

 MAGMA MINGLING: TECTONIC AND GEODYNAMIC IMPLICATIONS
middle crustal units, which is not realized in other geo-
dynamic settings.
The petrology of mantle and crustal magmas partic-
ipating in mingling were deliberately omitted because
discussion of these topics would greatly lengthen the
paper. Only the most general features are noted. The
alkaline and ultra-alkaline mantle melts are typical of
the intraplate setting. The calc-alkaline mafic rocks are
predominant in the suprasubduction setting, although
the mafic rocks of the OIB-type also are not uncom-
mon. As has been exemplified by the Ol’khon system,
both alkali basalts and primitive tholeiites are formed in
the collisional setting. The composition of mantle and
crustal melts is controlled by numerous factors, includ-
ing the composition of the upper mantle and the geom-
etry of a subducted plate [23].
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank D.P. Gladkochub, T.V. Donskaya, A.B. Ko-
tov, and A.M. Mazukabzov for their long-standing col-
laboration in field studies of the Ol’khon region and for
discussion of the subjects touched on in this paper. We
are grateful to B.A. Litvinovskii for reading the manu-
script, participating in discussion, and making helpful
comments.
This study was supported by the Russian Founda-
tion for Basic Research (project nos. 05-05-64761 and
05-05-64016) and fulfilled under the Integration Pro-
gram “Geodynamic Evolution of the Lithosphere in the
Central Asian Mobile Belt: from Ocean to Continent”
of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Siberian
Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
REFERENCES
1. E. V. Bibikova, S. F. Karpenko, L. V. Sumin, et al.,
“U−Pb, Sm–Nd, Pb–Pb, and K–Ar Ages of Metamor-
phic and Magmatic Rocks of the Ol’khon Region (West-
ern Baikal Region),” in Geology and Geochronology of
the Siberian Craton and Adjacent Areas (Nauka, Lenin-
grad, 1990), pp. 170–183 [in Russian].
2. D. P. Gladkochub, Doctoral Dissertation in Geology and
Mineralogy (Moscow, 2004) [in Russian].
3. A. N. Zanvilevich, B. A. Litvinovskii, and G. V. Andreev,
The Mongolia–Baikal Province of Alkali Granites
(Nauka, Moscow, 1985) [in Russian].
4. A. E. Izokh, A. V. Lavrenchuk, and E. A. Vasyukova,
“Dike Complex of the Western Sangilen and Manifesta-
tion of Ordovician Mantle Magmatism,” in Geodynamic
Evolution of the Lithosphere of the Central Asian Mobile
Belt: From Ocean to Continent (Inst. Geochem., Irkutsk,
2004), Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 141–142 [in Russian].
5. I. K. Kozakov, A. B. Kotov, E. B. Sal’nikova, et al.,
“Timing of the Structural Evolution of Metamorphic
Rock in the Tuva–Mongolian Massif,” Geotektonika 35
(3), 22–43 (2001) [Geotectonics 35 (3), 165–184 (2001)].
6. A. B. Kotov, A. M. Mazukabzov, E. V. Sklyarov, and
V. S. Fedorovskii, “Ol’khon Island Cliffs: Geological
Study from the Ice Cover of Baikal,” in Geodynamic
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006
133
Evolution of the Lithosphere of the Central Asian Mobile
Belt: From Ocean to Continent (Inst. Geochem., Irkutsk,
2004), Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 183–188 [in Russian].
7. F. A. Letnikov, V. A. Khalilov, and V. B. Savel’eva, “Iso-
topic Ages of Igneous Rocks of the Ol’khon Region,”
Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 313 (1), 171–174 (1990).
8. B. A. Litvinovskii, A. N. Zanvilevich, A. M. Alakshin,
and Yu. Yu. Podladchikov, The Angara–Vitim Batholith—
the Largest Granitoid Pluton (UIGGM, Novosibirsk,
1993) [in Russian].
9. B. A. Litvinovskii, A. N. Zanvilevich, and M. A. Kal-
manovich, “Repeated Mingling of Coexisting Syenitic
and Basic Magmas and Its Petrologic Implications, the
Ust’-Khilok Pluton, Baikal Region,” Petrologiya 3 (2),
133–157 (1995).
10. B. A. Litvinovskii, A. N. Zanvilevich, M. A. Kalmanov-
ich, and M. G. Shadaev, “Synplutonic Basic Intrusions
during the Early Evolution of the Angara–Vitim
Batholith (Baikal Region),” Geol. Geofiz. 33 (7), 70–80
(1992).
11. B. A. Litvinovskii, A. N. Zanvilevich, S. M. Lyapunov,
et al., “Formation Conditions of Composite Basic-Gra-
nitic Dikes (Shalutinskii Pluton, Baikal Region),” Geol.
Geofiz. 36 (7), 3–22 (1995).
12. V. S. Popov, “Magma Mingling—An Important Petroge-
netic Process,” Zap. Vses. Mineral. O-va 113 (2), 229–
240 (1984).
13. O. M. Rozen and V. S. Fedorovskii, Collisional Grani-
toids and the Earth’s Crust Delamination: Examples of
Cenozoic, Paleozoic, and Proterozoic Collisional Sys-
tems (Knizhnyi Mir, Moscow, 2001) [in Russian].
14. E. V. Sklyarov, V. S. Fedorovskii, D. P. Gladkochub, and
A. G. Vladimirov, “Synmetamorphic Basic Dikes as
Indicators of Collision Structure Collapse in the Western
Baikal Region,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 381 (4), 522–527
(2001) [Dokl. Earth Sci. 381A (9), 1028–1033 (2001)].
15. A. V. Titov, B. A. Litvinovskii, A. N. Zanvilevich, and
M. G. Shadaev, “Hybridization Phenomenon in Com-
posite Basic–Leucogranitic Dikes of the Ust’-Khilok
Pluton (Baikal Region),” Geol. Geofiz. 41 (12), 1714–
1728 (2000).
16. V. S. Fedorovskii, “Dome Tectonics in the Caledonian
Collision System of the Western Baikal Region,”
Geotektonika 31 (6), 483–497 (1997) [Geotectonics 31
(6), 483–497 (1997)].
17. V. S. Fedorovskii, A. G. Vladimirov, E. V. Khain, et al.,
“Tectonics, Metamorphism, and Magmatism of the
Caledonian Collision Zones in Central Asia,” Geotek-
tonika 30 (3), 3–22 (1995).
18. V. S. Fedorovskii, S. V. Khromykh, V. P. Sukhorukov,
et al., “Metamorphic Mingling (A New Type of Min-
gling Structures),” in Proceedings of XXXVI Tectonic
Conference on the Tectonics and Geodynamics of the
Continental Lithosphere (GEOS, Moscow, 2003), Vol. 2,
pp. 255–259 [in Russian].
19. V. V. Yarmolyuk, B. A. Litvinovsky, V. I. Kovalenko,
et al., “Formation Stages and Sources of the Peralkaline
Granitoid Magmatism of the Northern Mongolia–Trans-
baikalia Rift Belt during the Permian and Triassic,”
Petrologiya 9 (4), 351–380 (2001) [Petrology 9 (4), 302–
328 (2001)].
134 SKLYAROV, FEDOROVSKII
20. V. V. Yarmolyuk, V. I. Kovalenko, V. P. Kovach, et al.,
“Geodynamics of Caledonides in the Central Asian
Foldbelt,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 389 (3), 354–359 (2003)
[Dokl. Earth Sci. 389A (3), 311–316 (2003)].
21. C. R. Bacon, “Magmatic Inclusions in Silicic and Inter-
mediate Volcanic Rocks,” J. Geophys. Res. 91, 6091–
6112 (1986).
22. A. Berthelsen, “Globulith—a New Type of Intrusive
Structure, Exemplified by Metabasic Bodies in the Moss
Area, SE Norway,” Norges Geol. Unders., No. 266,
70−85 (1970).
23. B. Bonin, “Do Coeval Mafic and Felsic Magmas in Post-
Collisional to Within-Plate Regimes Necessarily Imply
Two Contrasting, Mantle and Crustal Sources? A Review,”
Lithos 78 (1), 1–24 (2004).
24. N. L. Bowen, The Evolution of Igneous Rocks (Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton, 1928).
25. D. Clemens-Knott and J. B. Saleeby, “Impringing Ring
Dike Complexes in the Sierra Nevada Batholith, Califor-
nia: Roots of the Early Cretaceous Volcanic Arc,” Bull.
Geol. Soc. Am. 114 (4), 484–496 (1999).
26. Enclaves and Granite Petrology, Ed. by J. Didier and
B. Barbarin (Eslevier, Amsterdam, 1991).
27. T. Furman and F. J. Spera, “Co-Mingling of Acid and
Basic Magma with the Implications for the Origin of
Mafic I-Type Xenolith Field and Petrochemical Rela-
tions of an Unusual Dike Complex at Eagle Lake,
Sequoia National Park, California, USA,” J. Volcan.
Geotherm. Res. 24, 151–178 (1985).
28. A. Harker, The Natural History of Igneous Rocks (Muen,
London, 1909).
29. C. A. Hopson and J. M. Mattinson, “Chelan Migmatite
Complex,” in Proceedings of GSA Ann. Meeting on Geo-
logic Field Trips in the Pacific Northwest (Washington,
1994), pp. 3–21.
30. H. E. Huppert and S. J. Sparks, “The Generation of Gra-
nitic Magmas by Intrusion of Basalt into Continental
Crust,” J. Petrol. 29 (3), 599–624 (1988).
31. A.-M. Lejeune and P. Richert, “Rheology of Crystal-
Bearing Silicate Melts: An Experimental Study at High
Viscosities,” J. Geophys. Res. 100 (B3), 4215–4229
(1995).
32. P. W. Lipman, “The Roots of Ash-Flow Calderas in
Western North America: Windows into the Tops of Gra-
nitic Batholiths,” J. Geophys. Res. 89, 8801–8841 (1984).
33. D. Perugini and G. Poli, “Viscous Fingering during
Replenishment of Felsic Magma Chambers by Continu-
ous Input of Mafic Magmas: Field Evidence and Fluid-
Mechanics Experiment,” Geology 33 (1), 5–8 (2005).
34. W. S. Pitcher, “Multiply and Composite Batholiths,”
in Magmatism at Plate Edge, Ed. by W. S. Pitcher,
M. P. Atherton, E. J. Cobbing, and R. D. Beckinsale
(Blackie Halsted Press, 1986), pp. 93–101.
35. I. P. Skilling, J. D. L. White, and J. McPhie, “Peperite:
A Review of Magma-Sediment Mingling,” J. Volcan.
Geotherm. Res. 114 (1–4), 1–17 (2002).
36. D. Snyder, C. Crambes, S. Tait, and R. Weibe, “Magma
Mingling in Dikes and Sills,” J. Geol. 105 (1), 75–86
(1997).
37. T. A. Vogel and J. T. Wilband, “Coexisting Acidic and
Basic Melts: Geochemistry of a Composite Dike,” J. Geol.
86 (3), 353–372 (1978).
38. R. A. Wiebe, “Relations between Coexisting Basaltic
and Granitic Magmas in a Composite Dike,” Am. J. Sci.
273 (2), 130–151 (1973).
39. R. A. Wiebe, “Coexisting Intermediate and Basic Mag-
mas, Ingonish, Cape Breton Island,” J. Geol. 82 (1),
74−87 (1974).
40. R. A. Wiebe and W. J. Collins, “Depositional Features
and Stratigraphic Sections in Granitic Plutons: Implica-
tions for the Emplacement and Crystallization of Gra-
nitic Magma,” J. Struct. Geol. 20 (9/10), 1273–1289
(1998).
41. R. A. Wiebe and R. Ulrich, “Origin of Composite Dikes
in the Gouldsboro Granite, Central Main,” Lithos 40
(2/4), 157–178 (1997).
42. R. E. Wilcox, “The Idea of Magma Mixing: History of
Struggle for Acceptance,” J. Geol. 107, 421–432 (1999).
43. A. N. Zanvilevich, B. A. Litvinovsky, S. M. Wickham,
and F. Bea, “Genesis of Alkaline and Peralkaline Syen-
ite-Granite Series: The Kharitonovo Pluton (Transbaika-
lia, Russia),” J. Geol. 103 (2), 127–145 (1995).
Reviewers: V.V. Yarmolyuk and V.I. Kovalenko
GEOTECTONICS Vol. 40 No. 2 2006