Review of my work submitted to gsl for sp 328. Its recommendation to reject was accepted. Six recommendations to accept were ignored

ASSESSMENTS

If you wish to make specific comments on the manuscript, please do so in pencil.

1. 
   Do the papers represent a significant advance in theory or knowledge? No
   
2. 
   Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by the evidence? No
   

3. 
   To your knowledge, has any of the material been published previously? Yes
   

5. 
   Does the paper contain any expression liable to give offence?
   

3. 
   Could the texts be shortened with advantage Not applicable
   

1. 
   Are the illustrations clear, well presented and suitable for reproduction? Not at all clear: for example
   

2. 
   Are all the figures relevant and essential? No
   

3. 
   Are any large folded figures necessary in their present form? No
   

My Name is Kevin Burke

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Confidential comments for Editor, suggesting how, if necessary, the paper should be revised (please continue overleaf or an additional sheet if required).
This paper rejects all kinds of familiar and well-documented properties of the region it discusses while treating the Caribbean in a totally cavalier way and selectively reporting some valid, although not new, information. The author has used several previous papers to make the same points. I have pointed out that his idea is precluded by the water depth. I expect that he will get back to you with an explanation of how he can accommodate that observation but I do not think that a revised version could ever be acceptable because that is such a strange idea.

Far from treating the Caribbean in a “totally cavalier” way, I have tried my best to assemble data that together suggest a different interpretation of Middle American geology. I do not reject all kinds of familiar and well-documented properties (geology?); I discuss data and their implications. Prof Burke is most welcome to let me know what I have (selectively) left out.
Perhaps I owe you a bit more information. (1) The Caribbean Large Igneous Province was erupted, as LIPs of the past 300 My have been, vertically above the edge of the Pacific Large Low Shear Wave Velocity Province( see the present site of the Galapagos over that edge today) References are Torsvik et al. G.J.Intl.2006, Burke et al, EPSL 2008. We have not used CARIB to rotate because of an unknown amount of plate convergence at the Central American subduction zone. We have a new way of doing that (Torsvik et al EPSL in press) but have not yet published on CARIB.
I hope Prof Burke is aware that the origin of LIPS is much discussed and that fragments of continental crust have been found in “oceanic” LIP magmas. Stating his own understanding of the Caribbean so-called LIP does not invalidate the data summarized in my paper.
(2) Two ETH Ph.D students working in Ecuador Lusieux (?) and Villejo have in EPSL ( 2005 +/-2) generated good new information on the CARIB LIP including the first zircon U/Pb age ( ca.90Ma). They have also documented the time at which the LIP and the bounding arc on its east flank “The Great Arc of the Caribbean” were in collision with South America in Ecuador (ca.70 Ma).

It is presumptuous to state that Ecuador has anything to do with the Caribbean. There are indeed age equivalent arc rocks there. Arc activity occurred along most of western S America since at least the Lias. There are age equivalent arc rocks in Mexico and California also. None of these is part of a Caribbean arc.

It is not that there is “controversy” between Jim Pindell and Keith James. Keith James is just out of touch with modern geology. There is plenty that Jim does with which I disagree but James is so far out of touch that he would not be able to spot Jim’s weaknesses.