The Description of Folds

by M. J. FLEUTY
Received 1 March 1963; read 5 June 1964

CONTENTS
I. ApOLOGIA ... page 461
2. COMPONENT PARTS OF A FOLD 462
3. DIMENSIONS OF FOLDS 467
4. SHAPES OF FOLDS .. , 472
(a) Cylindrical Folds ... 472
(b) Non-Cylindrical Folds 478
5. RELATIONS BETWEEN FOLDS 478
6. ATTITUDES OF FOLDS 481
7. POSTSCRIPT 489
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 489
REFERENCES 489
ABSTRACT: Current nomenclature for various features and attitudes of folds is dis-
cussed. In some respects this nomenclature is inadequate, and some definitions of
structural terms are potentially confusing. Revised definitions and some new terms
are introduced in an attempt to provide a basis for reasonably accurate and consistent
fold description.

1. APOLOGIA
WHILE MAPPING AREAS with complex structural histories, I have been led to
the conclusion that many terms commonly used to describe folds have
never been defined sufficiently precisely to allow their unambiguous use.
Further it has become obvious that some aspects of the style and attitude
of folds have received so little attention that there are no properly defined
terms available to describe them. Reading published papers dealing with
similar areas has intensified these impressions. Frequently intelligent guess-
work is required to divine the writer's meaning and sometimes the impre-
cise use of current terminology or the introduction of insufficiently defined
terms make it difficult to understand the exact meaning intended. Even
authors who are normally very careful in their usage of structural terms
may err in this respect. I do not claim to be blameless myself; in fact the
writing of this paper has been in part prompted by the criticisms by Hill
(1958) of an earlier paper to which I contributed (Clifford et al., 1957).
Even in the standard textbooks of structural geology descriptive terms are
frequently defined with respect to examples of limited rather than general
occurrence, and so are sometimes unsatisfactory for the description of all
aspects of the styles and attitudes of folds found in the field.
Accordingly, an attempt to assess the terms actually needed to describe
folds may be worth while. Inevitably my outlook on this problem is affected
461
462 M. J. FLEUTY
by my own experience, which has been mainly in areas of metamorphic
rocks (Fleuty, 1961, 196?). However, I have also consulted many published
papers in which folds are described in order to ascertain the most common
current usages of structural terms. My reading has been restricted to
publications in English, since a thorough investigation of comparable
structural terms in other languages would have been far too lengthy.
In the selection and definition of terms I have been guided by three
principles:
1. If current usage of a term consistently differs from the original defini-
tion, I have accepted the meaning most commonly used at present, unless
it can be shown that the original usage is preferable.
2. I have tried to introduce as few new terms as possible, being aware
that unless a strong case can be made for them, they are not likely to be
generally accepted.
3. I have avoided terms and definitions which involve the use of genetic
considerations since if such terms are used for descriptive purposes con-
fusion is likely to result. A fold description should be given in such terms
that it remains valid even if opinions change as to the processes which have
formed the structure.

2. COMPONENT PARTS OF A FOLD

On many folds a line joining points at which the curvature is greatest
can be detected. This line may be either straight or curved, and has been
termed the hinge (Fig. 1a). Fold hinge or hinge line have also been used
for this feature. Hinge, a direct translation of the French charniere (de
Margerie & Heim, 1888, 40; Bonte, 1953, 34) is defined by Clark &
McIntyre (1951,595) as 'the locus of points of maximum curvature of the
cylindroidal surface constituting the fold'. The specification of cylindroidal
folds in this context is not necessary, and a simpler definition is given by
Wilson (1961, 436), who defines hinge line as 'the line along a particular
bed where the curvature is greatest'. Strictly the definition should also take
into account the fact that in folds of changing shape the amount of curva-
ture at the hinge may vary. With this in mind, hinge may be defined as
'the line along a particular bed joining the points of greatest curvature in an
infinite number of cross-sections'. It is frequently useful to refer to one
particular type of cross-section, that normal to the hinge. This is the
'normal cross-section' of Challinor (1945, 85-6), which is more commonly
called the profile plane (McIntyre, 1950, 331). If the folded surface has
constant curvature near the hinge, so that profile sections are arcs of circles,
points of maximum curvature will not be present. The easiest solution of
this problem appears to be to define the hinge in this case as 'the locus of
mid-points of the arcs of constant curvature in an infinite number of
profile planes' (Fig. 1b) (cf. Turner & Weiss, 1963, 106-7).
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 463

The region around the hinge is sometimes referred to as the hinge zone
(Parker, 1961, 1794; Sturt, 1961, 143; Wilson, 1961,473) or hinge area
(Hobbs, 1962, 75). Other less satisfactory terms which have been used for
this region are closure (Hollingworth et al., 1960, 39; King & Rast, 1955,
247; Ramsay, 1958b, 490) and nose (Billings, 1954,47; Henderson, 1943,
441; Hollingworth et al., 1960, 39). Challinor (1961, 136) uses nose for the
outcrop of the hinge zone on the ground surface, while closure is also
defined in a completely different way in terms of stratum contours
(Billings, 1954, 451), and used in this sense by petroleum geologists.
The part of the folded surface between one fold hinge and the next on
the same surface is a fold limb. All folds have two limbs, which are fre-
quently of unequal length. If this is so they can be distinguished as the long
limb and the short limb (cf. White & Jahns, 1950, 197).

Fig. I. Elements of a folded surface. (a) Surface with a line of maximum curvature.
(b) Surface with constant curvature in the hinge zone, and length of arc 2x

The term apex has been used by some authors for the point of greatest
curvature of the trace of the folded surface in cross-section (Hills, 1953,
79-80) or for the area around the hinge in any cross-section (King & Rast,
1955,251). Clifford et al. (1957, 5) use vertex, which is a synonym of apex,
while Stone & Lambert (1956, 333) use apical region. However, Hills
(1953, 79) extends the definition so that apex means the same as hinge, as
defined above, while Busk (1929, 7) uses apex as the line of intersection
between the axial plane (q.v.) and the horizontal or ground surface. An
apex is a point and not a line and, therefore, these usages are unfortunate
(Challinor, 1945, 83).
There is disagreement concerning the proper definition of axial plane.
The term should strictly be axial surface, to allow for cases where the
surface is not planar (Challinor, 1945, 82-3), but it is customary to use
axial plane, even for a curved surface. Busk (1929, 7) gives a definition
which implies that the axial plane bisects the angle between the fold limbs,
464 M. J. FLEUTY

but this cannot be applied to all types of folds (Hills, 1953, 77). For
example, in Fig. 2a the planes bisecting the inter-limb angles of each
folded surface are arranged en echelon, so that on this definition the fold
has not one but many axial planes (cf. Challinor, 1961, 16). Billings's
somewhat comparable definition of the axial plane as 'the plane or surface
which divides the fold as symmetrically as possible' (1954, 34) involves
vagueness of definition which is undesirable. Other authors regard the
axial plane as that surface which contains the hinges on successive beds
affected by the fold (Challinor, 1961, 16; Stockwell, 1950, 97). Clark &
McIntyre (1951, 595) define the axial surface as 'the locus of the hinges
of all beds forming the fold'. They state that this appears to be the only
sound definition possible, and I agree with them (Fig. 2b). Defined in this
way, axial plane becomes synonymous with apical plane as used by Hills
(1953, 87) and Lambert (1959). This definition of axial plane has the great
practical advantage that it describes the structure which is measured in
the field. The intersection of the axial plane with any surface other than
those affected by the fold is known as the axial plane trace (often shortened
to axial trace) on that surface (Billings, 1954, 47; Ramsay, 1958b, 497).
Hills (1953, 78) uses axial line with the same meaning, but axial trace

Fig. 2. Alternative definitions of axial plane with respect to a structure with the left
limb thinner than the right (see text)
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 465
appears to be the more generally used term, while axial line has also been
used for the line of intersection of the axial plane and the folded surface
(Nevin, 1949,41).
The next vexed question is the meaning of the term/old axis. Challinor
(1961, 16) quotes six different usages of axis in the structural context, of
which some are more common than others. The problem is also discussed
at length by Clark & Mcintyre (1951, 595-6) and Wilson (1961, 436-8).
There are three common but different usages which will be discussed here.
Some authors define axis in the terms used for hinge in this paper (e.g,
Stockwell, 1950, 97) or as the intersection of the axial surface with any bed
in the fold (Billings, 1954,34; Nevin, 1949,41). If the definition of axial
plane given above is accepted, these two definitions have the same meaning
(Clark & McIntyre, 1951,595). Thus defined, the axis has a unique posi-
tion with respect to the fold, as does the axial plane. Also the axis in this
sense may be either rectilinear or curved. Many authors obviously use
axis in this way.
Alternatively the fold axis has been defined as 'the nearest approxima-
tion to the line which, moved parallel to itself, generates [the folded]
surface' (Mcintyre, 1950, 331). In this case the fold axis is a line with
direction but no unique position with respect to the fold. The fold axis
as defined in this way cannot be measured directly in the field but only
be determined by the construction of tt or fJ diagrams (Weiss, 1959b).
Another disadvantage is that, while many folds, termed cylindroidal folds
(Weiss, 1959a, 93; 1959b, 18) or cylindrical folds (Clifford et al., 1957, 5;
Wilson, 1961,437)1 can be regarded as formed by a straight line moving
parallel to itself, many others cannot (see p, 478). Clark & McIntyre
(1951, 595), Weiss (1959a, 92-3) and Wilson (1961, 437) discuss these
points and maintain that they do not detract from the usefulness of this
definition. In fact, many naturally occurring folds approximate to the
cylindrical type, and those that do not can usually be divided into segments
in each of which the structure is approximately cylindrical. Indeed the
concept of the calculated fold axis is fundamental to much modern
structural analysis, as is the method of subdividing structures into smaller
units which are for practical purposes cylindrical (e.g. Clifford, 1960;
Fleuty, 1961; Johnson, 1957, 1960; Ramsay, 1958a, 1958b; Sturt, 1961;
Weiss, 1954; Weiss & McIntyre, 1957). It should be noted that there is no
general agreement as to how strong a fJ-maximum should be or how
narrow a n-pole girdle should be for the structure to be regarded as cylin-
drical.
Since the term hinge is already available for the line of maximum
curvature of the folded surface, it might seem best to adopt the usage of

1 In their geological meaning, cylindroidal and cylindrical are synonymous. For reasons of consis-
tency with the term conical, cylindrical is employed in this paper.
466 M. J. FLEUTY
axis advocated by McIntyre. However, there is no doubt that many
working geologists use axis in the same sense as hinge. A possible
solution of the problem is to use hinge for the observed structure and a
term such as axial direction- for the calculated generatrix of cylindrical
folds (Fig. 3). This would avoid the confusion which arises when axis is
used for observed and calculated features in the same publication (e.g.
Fleuty in Clifford et al., 1957, 16), and also emphasise that the fold
generatrix has direction only. Axis and axial zone could then be used as
synonyms of hinge and hinge zone.

Fig. 3. Fold axial direction and hinge. (a) A cylindrical fold with hinge (H) and axial
direction (A) parallel. (b) A non-cylindrical fold with a curved hinge (H) and several
axial directions (Al- 4 ) , one for each approximately cylindrical section of the fold
(demarcated by dashed lines)

A third usage of axis is for the trace of the axial plane on a transverse
(?profile) section (Carey, 1953, 94; 1962, 102-6; Hills, 1953, 79). This
follows earlier usages (e.g. Greenly, 1919, 183-4). The axial plane trace in
profile or transverse section is not really a very significant or useful con-
cept when considering the three-dimensional geometry of folds, so that
there appears to be little value in such a usage. A similar usage is found
commonly on the maps of various official geological surveys where
symbols are given for 'axis of anticline' and the like which obviously refer
to the axial plane trace on the ground surface. This confusion has arisen
because in many field examples the axis (in the sense of hinge) and the
axial plane trace on the ground surface are approximately coincident. As
soon as the hinge pitches- on a dipping axial plane to any appreciable
extent, this no longer holds, and the necessity for the strict employment
of terminology ceases to be academic and may become of vital practical
importance. It cannot be stressed too strongly that this usage of axis
should be discontinued and the appropriate term axial plane trace used
instead (see also Ramsay, 1958a, 278, footnote).
1 Suggested by Dr. Janet Watson.
• Pitch and Plunge are used in the sense of Clark & McIntyre (1951).
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 467

The crest and trough of a fold are the lines connecting the highest and
lowest points respectively on the same bed in an infinite number of cross-
sections (Billings, 1954, 36; Hills, 1953, 77). There appears to be no incon-
sistency in the definition and usage of these terms, which are of greatest
value in connection with folds of near-horizontal plunge, as is implied by
Billings's text and accompanying figure. The crestal plane and trough plane
are the surfaces which contain the crests and troughs respectively of all the
surfaces affected by the fold (Billings, 1954, 36; Hills, 1953, 77). Hills's
statement that in certain types of fold the axial plane and crestal plane are
the same is only true of certain limited attitudes of the fold.
Another concept which is of value in describing folds, particularly when
they affect two disparate groups of rocks, is that of core and envelope. The
core is the inner part of the fold and the envelope (or shell of Billings,
1954,41) is the outer part. In description the outer limit of the core may
be defined by means of a convenient stratigraphical boundary (Bailey, 1960,
34).

3. DIMENSIONS OF FOLDS
The dimensions of folds have not yet been commonly studied, so that
there has been little discussion of the features which it might be useful to
measure. The size of a fold in three dimensions depends on the dimensions
of the fold profile and the extent of the fold in the direction of the hinge.
In ideal cylindrical folds the profile size and shape is repeated indefinitely
along the axial direction. Unfortunately no fold can be ideally cylindrical,
for no fold can be of infinite length in the axial direction; inevitably at
some point the fold becomes non-cylindrical. Many folds are demonstrably
non-cylindrical even within a small field, and the size and shape of the
profile of such folds are liable to rapid variations. Although these facts
must be borne in mind, there is nevertheless considerable practical value
in determining the dimensions of the fold profile, and particularly the size
of one measurable feature relative to that of another. The discussion in this
section will be restricted to such matters; consideration of the absolute
three-dimensional size of folds is left for the future.
The dimensions of folds whose limbs are of equal length can be defined
by the measurement of twice the amplitude (2A, Fig. 4a) and wavelength
(A, Fig. 4a), or half-wavelength (A12, Fig. 4a). Matthews (1958) states that
the mathematical terms amplitude and wavelength cannot readily be
applied to 'asymmetrical folds' (q.v.), which have limbs of unequal length.
Nevertheless, many authors apply the terms to various types of fold,
usually without any discussion of their meaning (e.g. McIntyre, 1950, 335;
Stone & Lambert, 1956, 333). Since the terms have strict mathematical
meanings, it seems unfortunate to extend these in an unspecified fashion
for geological purposes, particularly when this results in the 'amplitude'
468 M. J. FLEUTY
of a fold being twice the measure which would be termed the amplitude of an
exactly comparable curve (Busk, 1929, 8).
Matthews (1958) has suggested a solution of this problem, which involves
the measurement of short limb height and long limb height parallel to the
axial plane and of axial plane separation perpendicular to that plane, all
measurements being made in profile (Fig. 4b). He points out that as the
folds become increasingly 'symmetrical' (i.e. the limbs approach equality
in length) then
short limb height -----..+ long limb height ------+ 2A
axial plane separation ------+ Aj2
(In my opinion, this should read: a.p.s, (s.L) -----+ a.p.s. (l.1.) -----+ ),(2.)
The measurements can only be made when three adjacent hinges can be
observed; when this is not possible the approximate scale only of the
structure can be given by stating the short limb height and the axial plane
separation (short limb) (cr. Matthews, 1958, figs. 2a, c). Moreover, even
with well-exposed folds it may not always be possible to make the required
measurements, involving as they do the determination of distances be-
tween lines which are not actually visible on the exposure.

2A

1 a

C
--)
_ e
22 f

Fig. 4. Dimensions of folds (explanations in text)

g
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 469
This problem could be overcome by taking measurements which are
more related to observable features of the folds, for example, the distance
between two corresponding apices (x, Fig. 4c) and the perpendicular
distance between the extreme limits of the folded surface (i.e. 'enveloping
surfaces' of Turner & Weiss, 1963, 111) (Y, Fig. 4c): y will often be easily
measurable, for exposures where a folded band is sandwiched between two
unfolded bands (i.e. approximately plane surfaces) are common. As the
lengths of the fold limbs approach equality
x -----+ A.
Y -----+ 2A

It is possible, though not certain, that x and yare the measurements

intended in the undefined geological usages of wavelength and amplitude
quoted above. Unfortunately this method is also imperfect, for while the
form of the fold can be reconstructed from the measurements suggested by
Matthews, this cannot be done from those given above unless additional
information such as the angle between the limbs (0, Fig. 4c) or the angle
between the axial plane trace and the trace of the enveloping surface
(e, Fig. 4c) is given.
Ideally the dimensions of a fold could be given in terms of the elements
that actually define them. These are the lengths of the limbs and the
inter-limb angle (cf. Dahlstrom, 1954, 142). This angle I define as 'the
minimum angle between the limbs as measured in the profile plane'. The
necessity of specifying the minimum angle is obvious when one considers
the large number of differing angles which could be measured in the
hinge zone, particularly of a fold with a rounded hinge. Dr. G. Wilson has
suggested to me that dihedral angle might be employed for this feature,
since the inter-limb angle is measured between two planes. Unless the
context is unambiguous, fold dihedral angle would have to be specified, to
avoid confusion with other types of dihedral angle (e.g. Muehlberger,
1961). The measurement of these elements may involve difficulty, particu-
larly on folds with rounded hinges, where the limbs can show in profile as
sinuous curves (Fig. 4d). However, in many natural examples a large part
of each limb approximates to a plane and the hinge zone is small, so that
measurements can be made with little difficulty (Fig. 4c). Further, the
average inter-limb angle of a set of folds can in favourable circumstances
be determined from the angular separation between maxima on a tt-
diagram (Dahlstrom, 1954, 141). Even in exposures where only one hinge
zone is visible, the inter-limb angle may still be measured, and while this
does not define the absolute scale of the fold it is in itself a useful property,
since it determines the degree of acuteness of the fold. This is frequently
referred to as the 'degree of compression' but the use of the terms compres-
sion or compressed folds (e.g. Dale, 1896, 553) in this context is unfortunate,
PROC. GEOL. ASSOC., VOL. 75, PART 4, 1964 31
470 M. J. FLEUTY

since they carry genetic implications which can be completely untrue if,
for example, the folds are shear folds. Presumably as a result of a desire to
avoid the word 'compressed' the term appressed has recently crept into the
literature, apparently undefined (Hobbs, 1962, 71; Parker, 1961, 1794;
Weiss, 1959a, 93; Weiss & Mcintyre, 1957, 579). The term was used in
passing by Clough (in Peach et al., 1907, 577). The American College
Dictionary, 1947 edn., defines appressed as 'pressed closely against or
fitting closely to something'. If the word is used in this sense, then I do
not see that it has any advantage at all over compressed. Further, to
describe folds as 'closely appressed' (Weiss, 1959b, 129) seems an un-
necessary duplication of words. I suggest that the use of the words com-
pressed and appressed in connection with the degree of acuteness of folds
be discontinued.

';,~~ -;s:==========
\ /
180· 120·«
3£:<>« ISOCLINAL
/ '\
CLOSE

OPEN

GENTLE

Fig. 5. Limiting values of inter-limb angle for various degrees of closure of folds

The need remains for terms to describe the degree of acuteness. This can
obviously be defined completely unambiguously by the inter-limb angle.
For general purposes this may be needlessly precise, and a few terms will
suffice to describe comparative degrees of acuteness. Such terms are
already current, but have never been strictly defined. The words most
commonly used are gentle, open, close, tight and isoclinal. Some authors
distinguish three, and many four, different degrees of acuteness, tight and
close being used as alternative terms. I suggest that in fact it is quite
possible in the field to distinguish between five degrees, and define them in
terms ofinter-limb angles as shown in Fig. 5. The divisions of the 180°scale
are of course arbitrary, but in view of the fact that the inter-limb angle
becomes more easily measured with increasing tightness, the divisions have
been made at gradually decreasing intervals of 60, 50, 40, 30 degrees. The
following remarks may be made.
Gentle folds (angle > 120°) (Van Hise, 1896, 604; Kvale, 1948, 36).
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 471

Alternative terms are warps (Clifford, 1960, 373; F1euty, 1961, 455;
Rutland, 1959, 304; Sturt, 1961, 136) or undulations (Martin, 1916, 82;
King, 1955, 75).
Openfolds (120°-70°) (Billings, 1954,45; F1euty, 1961,455; King, J955,
75; Kvale, 1948, 36; Rast, 1958, 31-2; Van Hise, 1896, 604). This term may
sometimes be used for folds described here as close, but commonly covers
approximately the range given here.
Close folds (70°_30°) (F1euty, 1961,455). In the definition of close I have
departed somewhat from previous usage, since some authors use this term
for folds which I would refer to as tight (King, 1955,74; Kvale, 1948, 36;
Van Hise, 1896,604). However, current usage is not consistent, and in fact
the use of close appears to be less common than it was a few years ago.
Billings (1954, 45) uses closed, and gives a definition which involves
features additional to the degree of tightness, and which are best described
in other terms. Further, closed fold has also been used in a different sense
(Muehlberger, 1959, pl. VI).
Tight folds (angle <30°). This is commonly used for folds with a small
dihedral angle (Billings, 1954,45; Knill, 1960, 343; Ramsay, 1960,77; Rast,
1958,31; White & Jahns, 1950, 199-200).
Isoclinalfolds (dihedral angle--O"). Isoclinal folds are almost invariably
defined as folds whose limbs are parallel, or nearly so (Billings, 1954, 41;
Hills, 1953,81; Kvale, 1948,36; Van Hise, 1896,605). Unfortunately the
'or nearly so' in this definition has led to laxness of usage. This can result
in structural misinterpretation, as in the case of Clough's ascription to a
suggested phase of major isoclinal folding, minor folds which have in fact
detectable divergences between the limbs and the axial plane (see Ramsay,
1958b, 516-17, 522). As the meaning of isoclinal has become wider, so has
it been found necessary to qualify the word when parallelism of limbs is
meant, and this has resulted in such cumbersome phrases as 'tight isoclinal
folds' (Hague et al., 1956,462; Hollingworth et al., 1960, 38). Some writers
still use isoclinal in the strict sense (White & Jahns, 1950, 199), and this
precise usage is preferable to any other.
A further problem arises in considering the correct nomenclature for
folds of concentric type with a dihedral angle of 0° and highly curved limbs
between closely spaced hinges (Fig. 4g). On the definition given here this
structure is isoclinal, yet probably many geologists would demur at
calling it such, for the limbs are not parallel. No such objection would arise
in the case of Fig. 4e or Fig. 4f, yet the only difference between these three
structures is in the length of straight limb separating the curved portions.
This has no connection whatever with the degree of tightness of the fold,
which is determined by the maximum angle through which the bed curves
from one limb to the other. In all three examples this is 180° and therefore
all three structures are, in my opinion, isoclinal.
472 M. J. FLEUTY

4. SHAPES OF FOLDS
(a) Cylindrical Folds
As noted above, the profile of a fold is repeated along the axial direction
for as far as the fold remains strictly cylindrical. Accordingly the shape
of such folds is described by the shape of the profile. Ideally it should be
possible to define this shape mathematically by stating the equation(s) of
the curve(s) to which the profile corresponds, and attempts to provide
first approximations of this type have already been made (e.g. Mertie,
1959). The purpose of the present section is to summarise the terms which
may usefully be applied in the field to the shapes of folds, which are mathe-
matically often extremely complex. Accordingly no attempt is made here to
give equations for various ideal fold shapes.
The shape of a fold profile can be described in terms of three features:
the nature of the hinge zone, the form of the limbs, and effects resulting
from the relations between folds of adjacent surfaces. The last two are
interdependent, since no naturally occurring fold affects one surface alone.
The hinge zone may vary from completely angular, with the limbs
meeting in a line, to completely rounded, with the limbs connected by a
surface with a constant radius of curvature. Sharp and acute have been
used as synonyms of angular (e.g. Ramsay, 1960, 82, 85). Knill (I960, 342)
distinguishes between rounded, sub-rounded, sub -angular and angular
hinge shapes. I feel that in practice it would be difficult to distinguish
between the sub-rounded and sub-angular types (Knill, 1960, fig. I). It
should be possible to recognise one intermediate case between rounded and
angular, but I doubt if two could be consistently distinguished unless they
were strictly defined in geometrical terms, which would not be easy.
The letters U and V have sometimes been employed to denote rounded
and angular hinges respectively (Clifford, 1960, 369; Fleuty, 1961, 456;
Henderson, 1943, 441; Rutland, 1959, 305-7), but this can be confusing
if letters are also adopted to describe fold patterns (pp. 475-6) .
Many folds have been described as either concentric (parallel) or similar.
In ideal concentric folds the thickness of the bands measured normal to
the banding is constant, and the form of the fold changes up and down the
axial plane (Fig. 6a, and Billings, 1954,58; Busk, 1929,9; Hills, 1953,81;
Ramsay, 1962a, 309-10). Several authors prefer parallel folds to concentric
folds, since the curves of successive surfaces are rarely concentric (Mertie,
1959, 96). In ideal similar folds the true thickness of the bands varies, but
the thickness measured parallel to the axial plane is constant, and the folds
can be propagated indefinitely along the axial plane, perpendicular to the
hinge (Fig. 6b, and Billings, 1954, 56; Busk, 1929, 9; Hills, 1953, 84;
Ramsay, 1962a, 309). Gill (1953, 2390) terms this type of fold identical.
Many natural folds correspond strictly to neither of these two categories,
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 473

but show variations in the thickness of the bands which may result from a
combination of the two styles of folding (Campbell, 1951, 639; Ramsay,
1960, 1962a; Weiss, 1959a, 92). Gill (1953, 2390) terms such structures
similar folds, but this is inconsistent with the more common usage of
similar quoted above.

_ _--1 1 / \ 'L _
~~~0=!J
rr=0.. .=~~
\\ /~/;:====
e f

Fig. 6. Idealised fold shapes (explanations in text)

The ideal chevron or zig-zag fold, with straight limbs and angular hinges,
has the geometric properties of both parallel and similar folds, in that the
limbs remain parallel but the form persists up and down the axial plane,
with a constant thickness of limbs measured parallel to that plane (Fig. 6 c,
and Balk, 1936,701; Billings, 1954,42; Hills, 1953,84-5; de Sitter, 1956,
216, Schieferdecker, 1959, 185). Most of the definitions cited above
specify only the angular hinge, but many if not most illustrations of chevron
folds depict straight limbs. Most textbook illustrations also show limbs
of equal length, save for those of de Sitter, who uses accordion folding! for
1 Perhaps derived from the concertina structure of Barrow (1904, 443).
474 M. J. FLEUTY
the structure described by virtually every other authority as chevron
folding, and restricts the term chevron fold to structures with limbs of
unequal length, and with a definite and rather limited mode of origin
(1956, 183-4, 216). This appears to be contrary to common usage. Further,
elsewhere de Sitter (1958, 277) notes that concertina folds (?accordion
folds) are synonymous with chevron folds. The resultant confusion in
terminology could be resolved by using chevron for folds with limbs of
equal length, and zig-zag for folds with limbs of unequal length (Fig. 6c,
d). Zig-zag has been used in this sense before (e.g, Wilson, 1951, 399).
Structures of these types have also been termed kink folds (Turner &
Weiss, 1963, 114). When they occur in pairs which are perpetuated for
considerable distances along their axial planes, they form kink bands
(Paterson & Weiss, 1962) or joint drags (Flinn, 1952; Knill, 1961).
It has been pointed out by de Sitter (1956, 217) that the axial plane of an
'accordion fold' will often be a fault or 'potential' fault; this is a feature
which is typical of certain other types of fold which have some of the
geometric properties of parallel folds. Some such folds have subrectangular
cross-sections, with two axial planes inclined towards one another, and are
known as box-folds (Fig. 6e and Hills, 1953, 58). Schieferdecker (1959,
185), who adopts a similar, though more limited, usage involving attitude
as well as fold geometry, notes the equivalence of the term with the German
Kofferfalte. Structures akin to box folds, but with only one instead of two
axial planes, have been referred to as knee folds. These are described by
Schieferdecker (1959) as folds 'of which the limbs are nearly right angle
[sic.] to each other'. One of the main characteristics of box-type folds
(Kofferfalten) in the Jura, where they are classically displayed, is that their
shape changes rapidly up and down the axial planes, in the manner of
parallel folds (see Heim, 1919, plates XXIII and XXIV). In this respect they
differ from conjugate folds, which are comparable in geometry, but which
can be traced for considerable distances along the axial planes, in the
fashion of similar folds;' (seeJohnson, 1956,fig. I a; Ramsay, 1962b, fig. I).
Conjugate folds (Fig. 6f) were first described by Johnson (1956, 347) as
'paired reversed folds that are controlled by a pair of symmetrically
arranged slip planes which are inclined towards one another and intersect
parallel to the ... fold axes'. A simpler definition without genetic implica-
tions has been given by Ramsay (l962b, 516), who states that 'Conjugate
folds may be defined as sets of paired reversed folds whose axial planes
are inclined toward one another'. The word 'reversed' is perhaps not
necessary in either of these definitions. Folds of this type present a diversity
of irregular forms (see Johnson, 1957, fig. 5), and are difficult to define
strictly, but the inclination of the axial planes towards each other is diag-
nostic. It will be noted that the definition given by Ramsay applies equally
1 J. G. Ramsay, personal communication.
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 475
well to box folds, and in fact when the geometry of anyone folded surface
is considered, box folds and conjugate folds are closely comparable. It is
arguable whether the terms box fold and conjugate fold are synonymous
or not; in fact there is probably a continuous series of box-type structures
ranging from those where the shape is controlled by concentric folding
(Fig. 6e) to those where it is controlled by the convergence of conjugate
kink bands (Fig. 6f) (cf. Turner & Weiss, 1963, 476-7). The structures
described as polyclinal by Greenly (1919, 190-1) resemble some types of
conjugate folds. However, it seems best to employ polyclinal as a general
term for any folds with a variety of attitudes of axial planes (e.g, Hobbs,
1962, 74). Thus conjugate folds are a type of polyclinal folds, but not all
polyclinal folds are conjugate (q.v.).
Ideal similar folds probably occur only rarely in nature, and most similar-
type folds do in fact change their shape along the axial plane (Ramsay,
1962a, 316 et seq.). However, the shape of many of these folds is sufficiently
consistent for descriptive terms for different shapes to have practical value.
Perhaps the most useful method of describing the shapes of such folds
is by employing letters of the alphabet which have a pattern approximating
to that of the fold as seen in profile, looking down the plunge. The most
useful letters are M (or W), Sand Z (Fleuty, 1961,455-6; Ramsay, 1962c,
478), used without any implication as to the roundness or angularity of
the hinge zone. For the purposes of this nomenclature the structure is
considered to begin on the long limbs. These letters can also be applied to
the outcrop patterns of the folds, and in this case the letters Sand Z
correspond to the sinistral and dextral patterns respectively of White &
Jahns (1950, 197). However, the usefulness of Sand Z for outcrop patterns
is diminished when the fold-plunge is near-horizontal. In describing fold
geometry the profile pattern should always be given. These letters have also
been used by other authors in the same sense as that quoted above; for
example, Martin (1916, 64) describes an 'almost recumbent M-shaped
pitching fold', and Sand Z for fold shapes have been used by Martin
(1916, 25), Gunning & Ambrose (1940, 45) and Johnson (1957, 252-3).
These usages do not include any restrictions to particular orientations of
the folds. Knill (1960, 353) uses S-folds for structures with this shape in
profile, but further specifies that the axial planes are flat, and he tacitly
implies a similar restriction on the use of Z-folds by employing the term
N-folds for structures of comparable shape but with steep axial planes.
These restrictions, while useful in some respects, suffer from the disadvan-
tage that they leave no scope for the nomenclature of other folds of com-
parable shape but differing attitude. Accordingly I suggest that the letter
terminology be applied only to the shape of folds, without any implications
concerning orientation. The letters mentioned above can also be applied
to concentric folds, but since their shape tends to vary more rapidly, the
476 M. J. FLEUTY
terminology is not so useful as it is for similar folds. Other letters which
have been used to describe fold shapes are L (Johnson, 1957,252-3), which
is probably synonymous with knee fold, as defined above, and C (Martin,
1916, 26) which is perhaps equivalent in usage to the letter U previously
quoted for folds with rounded hinge zones (p. 472).
The letters used above, in conjunction with terms previously defined,
provide a useful and readily understood method of succinctly describing
folds of many commonly occurring types. The fold-pair of Fig. 6d can be
described as a 'similar close angular Z-fold-pair', a phrase which gives a
lot of information and is less cumbersome than the possible alternative
'similar closely compressed sharp-hinged dextral fold-pair'. Other examples
may be cited, such as 'concentric close rounded S-fold-pair' for Fig. 6a,
and 'similar tight angular M-folds' for Fig. 6g.
Another concept which has been employed in this context is that of
vergence. This term is an anglicisation of the German vergenz, but has been
used in the sense of pattern (White & Jahns, 1950, 197; this paper). In this
sense it is possible to speak of sinistral and dextral vergence (Sturt, 1961,
142; Wood, 1963, 654). Folds with sinistral vergence are S-folds, those
with dextral vergence are Z-folds. However, the term vergence is difficult
to define descriptively without recourse to the letters used here. Failing
this, one has to use concepts such as the sense of rotation implied by the
shape of the fold-pair (Wood 1963; cf. sense of asymmetry of Turner &
Weiss, 1963, 192). I suggest that the nomenclature outlined above is more
convenient to define and employ than vergence in this sense.
Moreover, this usage of vergence does not agree with the original
German meaning of vergenz, as the direction of overturning or 'sense of
movement' (Bewegung) of folds (Cloos, 1936, 189; Schieferdecker, 1959,
184; Wilson, 1961, 436). Thus one may speak of folds with a southerly
vergenz (cf. Cloos, 1936, 374). Geometrically vergenz is the direction
opposite to that of the axial plane dip. The English equivalent of the above
example is 'the folds are overturned southwards', which seems to me
preferable to the jargon term vergence.
Some polyclinal cylindrical structures are very irregular in shape, show-
ing axial planes with considerable variations in attitude, and rapid and
erratic changes in the thicknesses of bands. Such structures are particularly
common in marbles, migmatised rocks, and assemblages of rapidly varying
competence (Fig. 7). Kvale (1948, 39), who terms such structures flow
folds, states that they are 'characterised by their lack of symmetry. If any
axial "plane" can be determined, it is a very irregular surface, the axes of
the folds, however, may in certain areas be fairly constant in direction.'
Although the general impression may be one of structural anarchy,
nevertheless, if the complex structure is divided into sufficiently small
units, it may be found that these correspond to various of the fold types
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 477

already described. Thus the difference between these irregular structures

and the more regular types described in earlier sections is one of degree
rather than kind; the irregular structures represent the extreme limits of
tendencies which can already be detected in many more regular structures.
Folds of this type are usually described as flow folds or flowage folds
(e.g. Cummins & Shackleton, 1955,354; Kvale, 1948; de Sitter & Zwart,
1960, 253), but rarely is much geometrical description given. The terms
themselves are unfortunate, being genetic rather than descriptive. Further,
although they are often regarded as synonymous (e.g. Schieferdecker,
1959, 183), in fact a very definite and restricted meaning has been given to
flowage fold by Bain (1931, 510), who states: 'The term flowage fold is
applied to those minor structures which are situated in just the opposite
position, in regard to the major structures, to the position occupied by drag

b
Fig. 7. Irregular folds: (a) in feldspathised psammite, (b) in interbanded pelite (orna-
mented) and psammite. Both examples from Glen Orrin, Northern Scotland

folds.' This definition equates flowage folds with a certain attitude of in-
congruous parasitic folds (Fig. 8b), but Bain's usage does not appear to be
as strict as his definition. In general the structures described by him are
folds in marble with rapid variations in shape and thickness of beds, but
he does apparently regard the diagnostic feature of flowage folding as
down-dip movement. It is apparent that there is a great deal of confusion
in the meaning of 'flow folds' and 'flowage folds'. I suggest that the terms
are best replaced by irregular folds, which may be defined as 'polyclinal
folds characterised by irregularity of axial plane(s) and discontinuities and
rapid variations in the thickness of bands' (cf, convolute folds of Turner &
Weiss, 1963, 115-16). The types described above, and which are covered
by the description by Kvale quoted, approximate to cylindrical irregular
folds with monoclinic symmetry (Paterson & Weiss, 1961,868). Other less
regular types will be described later.
478 M. J. FLEUTY

(b) Non-Cylindrical Folds

There are several types of non-cylindrical fold, some of considerable
geometric complexity. A relatively simple type has been described as
conical by Stockwell (1950, 107), who states that 'A conical surface is a
surface generated by a straight line that always passes through a fixed
point and always touches any fixed curve'. Structures which are at least
in part conical folds have been described as pod folds (Mendelsohn, 1959,
234) and en echelon folds (Campbell, 1958,450); these structures occur in
pairs, and terminate when the complementary fold hinges meet at a point.
Campbell and Mendelsohn also reeognise other types with comparable
geometry. In fact, as Mendelsohn points out (1959, 235), such structures are
probably very common. Conical structures frequently form the terminations
of otherwise cylindrical folds, as is shown on published maps by the
convergence to a point of complementary axial plane traces (e.g. Fleuty,
1961, fig. I; Ramsay, 1958a, pl. XXIII; Sutton & Watson, 1954, pl . II).
Conical folds are also described by Sutton & Watson in Clifford et al.,
1957,5. The same authors mention more complex structures, in which the
attitudes of both the axis (hinge) and the axial plane of adjacent folds are
variable, and the attitudes of neighbouring folds vary in different ways,
which they term inconstant folds (Clifford et al., 1957,6-7).
The most disordered types of non-eylindrical folds are irregular folds,
as defined above, which show wide variations in attitude of both axial
planes and fold hinges. Structures of this type are sometimes called 'wild
folds', although this term never seems to be used in a very definite sense
(cf. Berthelsen et al., 1962; Kranck, 1953, 59). These non-eylindrical
irregular folds have triclinic symmetry (Paterson & Weiss, 1961, 868).
Descriptions of such structures frequently give the impression that rational
interpretation is virtually impossible, e.g, 'these rocks look like a stirred
porridge, with fold axes pointing in various directions. This style of folding
is typical for rock flowage . . . and is always accompanied by the dis-
appearance of lineations and also of schistosity....' (de Sitter & Zwart,
1960, 253). Berthelsen et al. (1962, 32) point out that the structural dis-
order may for various reasons be more apparent than real. For example,
certain complex structural shapes which a few years ago might have been
considered to be virtually inexplicable are now recognised to result from
various types of refolding and superposed folding (Ramsay, 1962c;
Reynolds & Holmes, 1954; Weiss, 1959a). With this in mind, it may be
suggested that so-called wild folds merit more detailed study than they
have at present received, and that the term should not be used without
sufficient definition.

5. RELATIONS BETWEEN FOLDS

Recent structural studies have frequently stressed the importance of
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 479
determining the relations between minor and major folds. For many years
it was thought that many minor folds on the limbs of major ones were
formed by the relative movements of adjacent bands, and accordingly these
minor folds were termed drag folds (e.g. Leith, 1914, 114-19; Wilson,
1946, 391). Many folds of this type are now considered to result from
processes other than frictional drag, so a non-genetic term is preferable.
Parasitic folds was suggested by D. J. Shearman for small folds related to
larger ones (see Wilson, 1961,506), and this useful term has been adopted
by de Sitter (1957, 57; 1958, 279-80).
Minor folds may be related to the major structure on which they are
formed, or they may be unrelated, and Hills (1940, 90; 1953, 98) introduced
the terms congruous and incongruous for these two cases. These words are
more commonly used than the analogous terms dependent and independent
suggested by Derry (1939, 114). The definitions of Hills and Derry involve
only the plunge of the structures and not the attitude of axial plane or the
style. For example, Hills states that 'It may be useful to apply the term
congruous folds to those minor folds and drag folds that agree with Pum-
pelly's rule, being presumably dependent on the major folding forces, and
refer to those that do not, whether dependent or independent, as incon-
gruous' (1953, 98). Pumpelly's rule states that 'The degree and direction
of the pitch [i.e, plunge-M.l.F.] of a fold are often indicated by those of the
axes of the minor plications on its sides' (Pumpelly et al., 1894, 158).
Hills's usage of congruous (1953, 98-9) indicates that he intended the
term to cover folds related in formation, a meaning narrower than that
covered by his definition. For example, the isoclinal fold axis A of Fig. 8 a
is parallel to the open fold axis B, so that on Hills' definition A is congruous
to B, although the isocline is obviously an earlier fold refolded by the open
fold. An unequivocal definition of congruous and incongruous is difficult
to devise, since minor and major folds may be regarded as related in two
different ways. They may be geometrically related, so that their axes and
axial planes are all parallel, or vary systematically as an original feature of
the fold system. Such a variation is seen in conical folds (Fig. 8e). They
may also be temporally related, in that they were formed contempor-
aneously. Such structures do not necessarily have geometrical parallelism
with each other; for example some cross folds (q.v.) have been regarded
as contemporaneous with the associated major folds (Rast & Platt, 1957,
163).
It appears pointless to attempt to devise a definition of congruous
which will allow for both types of relationship. Accordingly it is suggested
that, for the geometrical relationship, the terms congruous and incon-
gruous are retained, redefined as follows: Congruous folds are those which
conform with each other in attitude of axial plane and hinge, or vary
systematically in attitudes of these structures as an original geometrical
480 M. J. FLEUTY

a b

c d

e
F ig. 8. Congruous and incongruous folds . (a) Co-axial refolding producing incongruous
fold s of identical plunge. (b) Incongruous parasitic folds co-axial with major fold
(flowage folds of Bain, 1931). (c) Incongruous folds superimposed on a major fold .
(d) Ideal congruous folds with axial planes and hinges parallel to those of the major
fold . (e) Congruous folds on a con ical major fold

feature of the fold system; Incongruous folds are those which do not con-
fonn with each other in either of these ways. The usages here intended may
be clarified by illustration (Fig. 8).
For the temporal relationship it is suggested that dependent and inde-
pendent be employed, for two reasons. First, Derry 's original definition
stresses age relation more than attitude (1939, 114), and, second, the terms
do not appear to be much used now as exact synonyms of congruous and
incongruous. Thus dependent folds are those which were formed simul-
taneously, and independent folds are those whose formation was separated
by a recognisable period of time.
Another term which has been much used in recent years is cross fold.
This appears to have no exactly defined meaning, but is generally used for
structures with either axial plane or axial direction, or both, at a high
angle to the directions of comparable structures related to the main
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 481

regional folds in an area (Derry, 1939, 115; Rast & Platt, 1957). Transverse
folds (Dale, 1896, 553--4) and oblique folds (Sutton & Watson, 1954,41)
have also been used in this sense. Sometimes, but not invariably, the cross
folds and main folds are considered to be synchronous (dependent, see
p. 480). It is doubtful whether a strict definition of cross fold would be pos-
sible or indeed useful.

6. ATTITUDES OF FOLDS
Many terms used to describe the attitudes of folds are inadequately
defined, usually as a result of attempts to describe essentially three-
dimensional features in terms of a transverse section only. The attitude
of a fold depends on the direction of closure and the attitudes of the axial
plane and hinge, and the nomenclature to describe it should account for
all these aspects.
A fold which closes upwards is called an antiform and one which closes
downwards a synform (Bailey & McCallien, 1937, 81; Dennis, 1956, 35;
Wilson, 1961,443--4). Bailey originally used upfold and downfold (1934, 467)
but later abandoned these terms in favour of antiform and synform. A
fold which closes sideways may usefully be called a neutral fold (Bailey &
McCallien, 1937, fig. I; Fleuty, 1961, 450). More strictly a neutral fold
can be defined as a fold with a hinge pitching at between (say) 80 and 90
0 0

on the axial surface.

The terms anticline and syncline originally had the meanings here given
to antiform and synform (see Challinor, 1961,8-9; de Margerie & Heim,
1888, 49-50; Van Hise, 1896, 604), but so many folds have now been
described as anticlines and synclines that do not close upwards and down-
wards respectively, that these words are no longer usable in their original
senses. The only definitions that correspond with current usage are that an
anticline is a fold with older rocks in its core, and a syncline is a fold with
younger rocks in its core (Bailey & McCallien, 1937; Dennis, 1956; Hills,
1953, 75; White & Jahns, 1950, 196). Those who attempt to preserve the
original meanings of anticline and syncline are either forced to qualify the
terms (e.g. structural anticline and stratigraphic anticline of McKinstry &
Mikkola, 1954, 3) which is cumbersome, or introduce completely new
terms for anticline and syncline as defined above (e.g. bottoming fold and
topping fold of Zen, 1961, 313). The definition given by Billings (1954, 36)
is too vague to be useful. Antiform and synform are sometimes used to
describe curvatures of planar structures other than lithological banding
(e.g. Clifford et al., 1957, 7, where antiforms of axial planes are described).
McKinstry (1961, 561) prefers arch to antiform in this context, but suggests
no comparable alternative for synform.
Mention may be made here of the concept of facing as applied to folds.
Shackleton (1958,363) states that 'A fold faces in a direction normal to its
482 M. J. FLEUTY

axis, along the axial plane, and towards the younger beds. This coincides
with the direction towards which the beds face at the hinge.' Thus a
downward-facing synform is an anticline, and an upward-facing synform
is a syncline. A more concise description may be achieved by using the
terms anticlinal synform and synclinal synform respectively (cf. Carey,
1962, 101).
Nomenclature depending on the inclination of the axial plane is almost
invariably illustrated in textbooks in terms of folds with horizontal hinges,
but it should also be applicable without difficulty to plunging folds if it is
to be useful. Various terms have been applied to folds with vertical axial
planes. Symmetrical (Billings, 1954, 40; Hills, 1953, 80; Van Hise, 1896,
604) has several drawbacks when used in this context. It implies that the
limbs are symmetrically disposed about the axial plane, a corollary which
is included in the definitions of Billings and Van Hise. However, it is
possible for a fold to have a vertical axial plane without such a disposition
of the limbs, if one limb is preferentially thinned (Fig. 2b). It is also
possible for folds with non-vertical axial planes to have the limbs sym-
metrically disposed about the axial plane (Fig. 6d) and some authors
describe such folds as symmetrical (Nevin, 1949, 40; Stoces & White,
1935,116). In view of these inconsistencies it is best not to use symmetrical
for folds with vertical axial planes. Vertical seems a good term, but appears
to be little used (see, however, Billings, 1954, 41; McIntyre, 1951, 52).
Moreover I think it a pity to use it in this sense, since it describes perfectly
a more limited attitude offold (q.v.). Upright has been used by many authors
to describe folds with near-vertical axial planes (Hills, 1953, 82-3 ; Kvale,
1948,36; Schieferdecker, 1959, 185; Stoces & White, 1935, 116; Sturt, 1961,
135; Turner & Weiss, 1963, 119; Van Hise, 1896,604), and it is probably
the best term to use in this sense, as there appear to be no potential in-
consistencies in its application.
The usual difficulties are experienced in deciding what minimum angle
of axial plane dip should be allowed for an upright fold. I suggest that 800
is a suitable value; any fold with an axial plane dipping at between 800
and 900 is an upright fold. For folds with axial plane dips of less than 800
and more than 100 (q.v.), the term inclinedfoldis suitable (Nevin, 1949,47;
Turner & Weiss, 1963, 119). Folds with inclined axial planes are commonly
referred to by other terms, but these are defined with respect to the attitudes
of the limbs. An asymmetricalfold is one with an inclined axial plane and the
two limbs dipping in opposite directions (Billings, 1954, 40; Hills, 1953,
81). These authors also add that the limbs dip at different angles, but this
need not be so with folds having one preferentially thinned limb, so this
part of the definition is best omitted. Van Hise (1896, 604) uses unsym-
metrical or inclined for such structures, but I think it better if inclined has
the wider meaning given above. An 'asymmetrical fold' can have its limbs
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 483
disposed symmetrically about the axial plane (Fig. 6d) which is unfortun-
ate, but the term is too deeply entrenched in the literature for any alterna-
tive word to have much hope of adoption", An overturned/old or over/old
is usually regarded as one with an inclined axial plane and limbs dipping
in the same direction. The dips may be equal or unequal (Billings, 1954,40;
Van Rise, 1896, 604). Turner & Weiss (1963, 119) use overfold for any
fold with an inclined axial plane. The terms asymmetrical fold and overfold
are very useful, but they cannot be employed as subdivisions of the class
of inclined folds, for they are defined on a different basis from that term.
Thus, although overfolds often have more gently dipping axial planes
than asymmetrical folds, nevertheless, an isoclinal fold with an axial plane
dip of 75° is strictly an overfold, while a fold with an inter-limb angle of
90° and an axial plane dip of 50° is still an asymmetrical fold. I see no
ready solution of this inconsistency, and in the sequel intend to employ
inclined fold for all structures with an axial plane dip between 10 and 80 0 0
•

If terms covering a narrower range of attitude are required, the word

inclined may be qualified by gentle, moderate or steep, with the ranges of
variation of these terms defined as below:

Dip of axial plane Terms

0° Horizontal }
1°_10° Sub-horizontal (Recumbent fold)
10°_30° Gentle (Gently inclined fold)
30°-60° Moderate (Moderately inclined fold)
60°-80° Steep (Steeply inclined fold)
80°-89°
90°
Sub-~ertical
Vertical
}(u ri ht fold)
p g

There is a marked divergence between definition and usage of the term

recumbent fold. Almost all textbook definitions state that a recumbent fold
is one in which the axial plane is essentially horizontal (Billings, 1954, 41;
Rills, 1953,81; Nevin, 1949,47; Van Hise, 1896,604), so that recumbent
folds are neutral structures, closing sideways. Unfortunately, there is no
agreement as to the amount of axial plane dip allowable before a fold ceases
to be recumbent. Many examples of folds described as recumbent have
axial plane dips of up to 20° (Martin, 1916, 25; Weiss, 1959b, 135) or
30--40° (King & Rast, 1956, 188; Naha, 1959, 137; Rast, 1958, 31-2;
Shackleton, 1958, fig. 10) or even near-vertical (Bailey & McCalIien, 1937,
81; Naha, 1959, 138). Other types of misuse can be found, as for example
the 'recumbent antiform' of McIntyre (1950,335), for surely a fold cannot
close both sideways and upwards? King & Rast (1956,188) use the phrase
'strongly recumbent' the intended meaning of which is obscure, and later
1 Note, however, that Turner & Weiss (1963, 122) suggest that 'a symmetric fold is a plane fold
whose profile is bilaterally symmetric across the axial plane; other folds are classed as asymmetric'.
484 M. J . FLEUTY
(1956, 194) appear to use recumbent as synonymous with tight or isoclinal.
Th is laxness of usage appears to have three causes. First , many large folds
which on the regional scale have essentially horizontal axial planes may
locally have considerable axial plane dips, as pointed out by Bailey &
McCallien (1937, 81). In this case the term used to describe the fold should
va ry with the part of the fold under discussion, a procedure which might
be regarded as pedantic. In Fig. 9a the essentially recumbent fold is in
fact an antiform at po int A, a recumbent fold at po int B, and a synform
at point C.
Second , where an originally recumbent fold has been refold ed, and no
longer has a sub-horizontal axia l plane, it may still be referred to as
recumbent. This seems illogical, for nobody would describe as an ant iform
a fold which was originally such, but owing to refolding is now a synform.
Third, an axial plane may have a considerable dip, but nevertheless have a
sub-horizontal trace on a plane which shows an approximate profile of the
fold. It is possible to be impressed by the apparently horizontal attitude of
the fold in two dimensions and not to pay as much attention as one should
to the attitude in three dimensions. Naha (1959), impressed by th is pro-
pert y, which is diagnostic of all neutral folds , advocates the extension of the
mean ing of recumbent to folds with an axial plunge of up to 80° and an axial
trace pitch in the profile plane of up to 20°. In my opin ion th is extends the
mean ing of recumbent so much that it becomes virtually useless, for the
term then covers not only nearly all neutral folds, but also structures which
demonstrably close upwards or downwards. Further, in view of the fact
that the attitudes of folds are usually defined with respect to the most easily
measurable features, namel y attitude of hinge and axial plane, it is un-
fortunate to introduce another factor into the definition of one type of fold
only. I suggest that if recumbent is to have any useful meaning it should be
restricted to folds which have axial planes dipping at not more th an 10°,
and that different terms be employed for neutral folds with other attitudes
(q.v.). Th is, in fact, means nothing more than apply ing wit h some consis-
tency the most common definition of the term , and is a case in which the
original definition is of greate r value than much of current usage. The
ranges of variation in attitude of axial planes of recumbent folds as defined
by Naha and myself are compared stereographically on F ig. 9b, which
shows that if Naha's definition were adopted, then recumbent would apply
to about 20 per cent of all possible fold attitudes.
The plunge of the fold hinge may be indicated by qualifying the terms
antiform, synform, inclined fold, overfold, etc., by the words horizontal
or plunging. I suggest that the term horizontal be restricted to plunges of
less than 10°, and that subdivisions of the class of plunging folds may be
made in a manner analogous to that for dips of axial planes, with the same
terms being emplo yed:
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 485

60

,®:,1~,:,
p "...f...". . . .
. ..
20 p

80
b

Fig. 9. (a) Recumbent major fold with varying local forms. (b) Equal area pro jection
showing the range in attitude of poles to axial planes of folds termed recumbent by
Naha (light stipple) and Fleuty (heavy stipple) , Reference direction PP is the strike of
the profile plane
PROC . GEOL. ASSOC . • VOL. 75. PART 4 , 1964 32
486 M. J. FLEUTY

Plunge Terms
0° Horizontal (Horizontal fold)
1°_10° Sub-horizontal (Sub-horizontally plunging fold)
10°_30° Gentle (Gently plunging fold)
30°_60° Moderate (Moderately plunging fold)
60°_80° Steep (Steeply plunging fold)
80°_89° Sub-vertical }(V ti I f ld)
90° Vertical er ica 0

Neutral folds do perhaps merit the use of individual terms since not only
are their extreme cases geometrically unusual but one type already has an
individual name. This is recumbent for a horizontal neutral fold, with the
geometrical peculiarity that both hinge and axial plane are horizontal. The
other extreme case has all elements (hinge, axial plane and limbs) standing
vertically. I suggest that for such a structure the term vertical fold is ideal
(cf. Turner & Weiss, 1963, 119). If a tolerance of 10° is allowed, a vertical
fold may be defined as one with a plunge greater than 80°. This term covers
the case which even Naha (1959) was reluctant to call recumbent.
When the axial plane of a neutral fold is a dipping surface, the hinge
plunges down the dip of the axial plane. For the sake of brevity and con-
sistency with the special terms applied to other types of neutral fold I have
previously suggested the term reclined fold- for such a structure. I now
define a reclined fold as a fold with an axial plane dip of between 10° and
c. 80° and a hinge which has a pitch of more than 80° on the axial plane
(cf. Fleuty, in Johnson, 1957,268; Fleuty, 1961,450). A strict limit to the
axial plane dip is not practical, since a fold can have an axial plane dip of
more than 80°, yet still not achieve the 80° plunge required for the designa-
tion vertical fold. This unavoidable inconsistency results from the use of
plunge to define some fold attitudes and pitch to define others. The
practical disadvantages of the slight laxness of definition are slight. The
value of the term reclined is shown by the otherwise lengthy descriptions
needed for folds of this type (Hague et al., 1956,464; Martin, 1916, 101
et seq.; Ramsay, 1958b, 506). Further, had such a term been available in the
past, a stricter usage of recumbent might have resulted.
Terms have now been suggested which facilitate the description of all
possible attitudes of folds. They may be considered as following three
different trends depending on whether the attitudes of hinge and axial
plane vary independently or together (Fig. 10). This nomenclature has been
built up by expanding and refining the traditional system based on dip of
axial plane and plunge of hinge. In the revised nomenclature there are
available eighteen combinations of terms to describe fold attitudes; these
are listed in Fig. 11a. There is a fundamental flaw in this scheme of nomen-
clature, namely that the angle of plunge of the fold hinge is measured in a
1 Originally suggested to me by Dr. G. P. L. Walker.
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 487

Vertical

Upright plunging

Upright horizontal

Inclinttd plunging Inclinedho,.;ztmla/

/f//Y/ /'/--.u----

Reclined

Fig. 10. Attitudes of folds derived from that of an upright horizontal antiform by
increasing the plunge (centre to top of diagram), by decreasing the axial plane dip
(centre to bottom right) and by decreasing the axial plane dip while increasing the fold
axis pitch (centre to bottom left)
vertical plane which usually bears no relation to the fold geometry. This has
already caused difficulty in connection with reclined folds (p. 486), which
are of necessity not defined in terms of plunge. It would be preferable
geometrically to state the attitudes of fold hinges in terms of pitch on the
axial plane instead of plunge in a vertical plane. If similar subdivisions were
used as before, this would give rise to twenty-one combinations of terms
for fold attitudes, which are detailed in Fig. 11 b. It is unfortunate that the
resultant system of nomenclature is similar to, but not quite comparable
with, the traditional system, which will make it unattractive to many.
Further, a system based on pitch suffers from practical disadvantages, in
that the attitudes of other types of linear structure have perforce to be
defined by plunge, so that to describe the attitude of fold hinges in terms
of pitch would make ready comparison difficult. A graver drawback is that
488 M. J. FLEUTY

it is often difficult to measure the pitch of the hinge on the axial plane in the
field, whereas the pl unge is usually easy to determine. Thus the observations
of dip and strike of axial plane and plunge of hinge would have to be
plotted stereographically before the attitude of the fold could be described
in terms of the pitch nomenclature. Being aware of the usual fate of logical
but impracticable schemes of nomenclature, I have regretfully to admit that
it is probably best to retain the traditional scheme, refined as above,
despite its disadvantages.
Steeply Moderately Gently
Axial ptan« Upright
jnclln~d Inclin~d inc/in~d
90 60 60 30 10
o
Sub-horiZontal 5 10 14 17

10

" Gently
piuncinc 4 9 13
'c:" 30
c:
~ MOd;~~~:~.~g 3 8
~

60
'"c: Steeply
." pluncinc

80
2

Sub-vertical
a
90 80 60 30 10 o·
o
Y_ry low 5 10 15 20 21
Recumbent
10
~
Low 4 9 14 19
'c:" 30
<:

"- Moderate 3 8 13 18
0

<: 60
u

..
'_ Hich

80
2 7 12 17

1 11
. 6 16
very hiCh

90
Vertical R e c I i n e d b
Fig. 11. (a) Possible fold attitudes based on dip of axial plane and plunge of hinge.
For fields marked in black two terms are available, (b) Possible fold attitudes based on
dip of axial plane and pitch of hinge on the axial plane
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 489

7. POSTSCRIPT
Various terms and definitions have been suggested above which will, I
hope, make possible a greater precision in fold description than is at present
common. This is highly desirable, as I found when assembling material for
this paper. It has been necessary to quote examples of what I consider to be
bad nomenclature, but I hope it will not be thought that in the selection of
these I have been prompted by a desire to score 'debating points'. I offer
my apologies to those whose works have been criticised, for in truth many
others could have been chosen.
This paper was written before the publication of Turner & Weiss's
book (1963), and although some references to this have been inserted, it
has not been possible to discuss their fold nomenclature fully. The inter-
ested reader is referred to pages 104-25 of their book for comparison with
this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper has been written during the tenure of a D.S.I.R. Research
Assistantship in Structural Geology at Imperial College. I have been
considerably helped by discussion with and criticism from many colleagues
of varied geological backgrounds and experience. With their help I have,
I hope, increased the general validity ofthe terms and definitions suggested.

REFERENCES
BAILEY, E. B. 1934. West Highland Tectonics: Loch Leven to Glen Roy. Quart. J.
geol. Soc. Lond., 90, 462-522.
- - - - . 1960. The Geology of Ben Nevis and Glen Coe and the Surrounding Country
(Explanation of Sheet 53), 2nd Ed. Mem. geol. Surv. U.K.
- - - - & W. J. MCCALLIEN. 1937. Perthshire Tectonics: Shiehallion to Glen Lyon.
Trans. roy. Soc. Edinb., 59, 79-117.
BAIN, G. W. 1931. Flowage Folding. Amer, J. Sci., 22, 503-30.
BALK, R. 1936. Structural and Petrologic Studies in Dutchess County, New York.
Pt. I: Geologic Structure of Sedimentary Rocks. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 47,
685-774.
BARROW, G. 1904. On the Moine Gneisses of the East-Central Highlands and their
Position in the Highland Sequence. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 60, 400-49.
BERTHELSEN, A., BONDESEN, E. & S. B. JENSEN. 1962. On the so-called Wildmigmatites,
Krystalinikum, 1, 31-49.
BILLINGS, M. P. 1954. Structural Geology. 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
BONTE, A. 1953. Introduction Ii la Lecture des Cartes Geologiques. 2nd Ed., Paris.
BUSK, H. G. 1929. Earth Flexures. Cambridge Univ. Press.
CAMPBELL, J. D. 1951. Some Aspects of Rock Folding by Shearing Deformation.
Amer. J. Sci., 249, 625-39.
---,.1958. En echelon Folding. Econ. Geol., 53, 448-72.
CAREY, S. W. 1953. The Rheid Concept in Geotectonics. Journal 0/ the Geological
Society 0/ Australia, 1, 67-117.
- - - . 1962. Folding. J. Alberta Soc. Petrol. Geol., 10, 95-144.
CHALLINOR, J. 1945. The Primary and Secondary Elements of a Fold. Proc, Geol. Ass.,
Lond., 56, 82-8.
- - - . 1961. A Dictionary of Geology, Univ. Wales Press, Cardiff.
CLARK, R. H. & D. B. MciNTYRE. 1951. The Use of the Terms Pitch and Plunge.
Amer, J. Sci., 249, 591-9.
490 M. J. FLEUTY
CLIFFORD, P. 1960. The Geological Structure of the Loch Luichart Area, Ross-shire.
Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 115, 365-88.
- - - , FLEUTY, M. J., RAMSAY, J. G., SUTTON, J. & J. WATSON. 1957. The Develop-
ment of Lineation in Complex Fold Systems. Geol. Mag., 94,1-24.
CLOOS, H. 1936. Einflihrung in die Geologie. Berlin.
CUMMINS, W. A. & R. M. SHACKLETON. 1955. The Ben Lui Recumbent Syncline
(SW. Highlands). Geol. Mag., 92, 353-63.
DAHLSTROM, C. D. A. 1954. Statistical Analysis of Cylindrical Folds. Trans. Canad.
Min. Inst., 57, 140-5
DALE, T. N. 1896. Structural Details in the Green Mountain Region and in Eastern
New York. Rep. U.S. geol. Surv. (1894-5), 543-70.
DENNIS, J. G. 1956. The Geology of the Lyndonville Area, Vermont. Bull. Vt geol.
Surv., No.8, 1-98.
DERRY, D. R. 1939. Some Examples of Detailed Structure in Early Pre-Cambrian
Rocks of Canada. Quart J. geol. Soc. Lond., 95, 109-34.
FLEUTY, M. J. 1961. The Three Fold-Systems in the Metamorphic Rocks of Upper
Glen Orrin, Ross-shire and Inverness-shire. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 117,
447-79.
- - - . (In press.) Explanation of the Geology of Sheet 27 (Moroto). Rep. geol,
Surv. Uganda, Report No. 13.
FLINN, D. 1952. A Tectonic Analysis of the Muness Phyllite Block of Unst and Uyea,
Shetland. Geol. Mag., 89, 263-72.
GILL, W. D. 1953. Construction of Geological Sections of Folds with Steep-Limb
Attenuation. Bull. Amer. Ass. Petrol. Geol., 37, 2389-406.
GREENLY, E. 1919. The Geology of Anglesey. Mem. geol. Surv. U.K.
GUNNING, H. C. & J. W. AMBROSE. 1940. Malartic Area, Quebec. Mem. geol. Surv,
Can., 222, 1-142.
HAGUE, J. M., BAUM, J. L., HERRMANN, L. A. & R. J. PICKERING. 1956. Geology and
Structure of the Franklin-Sterling Area, New Jersey. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer.,
67,435-74.
HElM, A. 1919. Geologie der Schweiz. Bd, 1. Molasseland und Juragebirge, Leipzig.
HENDERSON, J. F. 1943. Structure and Metamorphism of Early Precambrian Rocks
between Gordon and Great Slave Lakes, North-West Territories. Amer. J.
Sci., 241, 430-46.
HILL, P. A. 1958. Development of Lineation in Complex Fold Systems. Geol. Mag.,
95, 351-2.
HILLS, E. S. 1940 and 1953. Outlines of Structural Geology. 1st and 3rd Ed. London.
HOBBS, B. E. 1962. Structural Analysis of a Small Area in the Wagonga Beds at
Narooma, New South Wales. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia,
9, 71-86.
HOLLINGWORTH, S. E., WELLS, M. K. & R. BRADSHAW. 1960. Geology and Structure
of the Glomfjord Region, Northern Norway. 21st Internat, Geol. Congress,
pt. 19, 33-42.
JOHNSON, M. R. W. 1956. Conjugate Fold Systems in the Moine Thrust Zone in the
Lochcarron and Coulin Forest Areas of Wester Ross. Geol. Mag., 93,345-50.
- - - - . 1957. The Structural Geology of the Moine Thrust Zone in Coulin Forest,
Wester Ross. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 113, 241-70.
- - - - , . 1960. The Structural History of the Moine Thrust Zone at Lochcarron,
Wester Ross. Trans. roy. Soc. Edinb., 64, 139-68.
KING, B. C. 1955. The Tectonic Pattern of the Lewisian around Clashnessie Bay near
Stoer, Sutherland. Geol. Mag., 92, 69-80.
- - - - & N. RAST. 1955. Tectonic Styles in the Dalradians and Moines of Parts of
the Central Highlands of Scotland. Proc. Geol. Ass., Lond., 66, 243-69.
--- & . 1956. The Small-Scale Structures of South-Eastern Cowal,
Argyllshire. Geol. Mag., 93, 185-95.
KNILL, J. L. 1960. The Tectonic Pattern in the Dalradian of the Craignish-Kilmelfort
District, Argyllshire, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 115, 339-64.
- - - . 1961. Joint-Drags in Mid-Argyllshire. Proc. Geol. Ass., Lond., 72, 13-19.
 THE DESCRIPTION OF FOLDS 491

KRANCK, E. H. 1953. Interpretation of Gneiss Structures with Special Reference to

Baffin Island. Proc. geol, Ass. Can., 6 (1), 59-68.
KVALE, A. 1948. Petrologic and Structural Studies in the Bergsdalen Quadrangle,
Western Norway. Part 2: Structural Geology. Bergens Mus. Aarb., 1946, og
47. Naturv, rekke., No.1, 1-255.
LAMBERT, J. L. M. 1959. Cross-Folding in the Gramscatho Beds at Helford River,
Cornwall. Geol. Mag., 96, 489-96.
LEITH, C. K. 1914. Structural Geology. London (also 1913, New York).
McINTYRE, D. B. 1950. Note on Two Lineated Tectonites from Strathavon, Banffshire.
Geol. Mag., 87,331-6.
- - - - . 1951. Note on the Tectonic Style of the Ord Ban Quartzites, Mid-Strathspey.
Geol. Mag., 88, 50-4.
McKINSTRY, H. 1961. Structure of the Glenarm Series in Chester County, Pennsyl-
vania. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 72, 557-78.
- - - - & A. K. MIKKOLA. 1954. The Elizabeth Copper Mine, Vermont. Econ, Geol.
49,1-30.
DE MARGERlE, E. & A. HElM. 1888. Les Dislocations de I'ecorce terrestre. Zurich.
MARTIN, J. C. 1916. The Precambrian Rocks of the Canton Quadrangle. Bull. N. Y.
St. Mus., 185.
MATTHEWS, D. H. 1958. Dimensions of Asymmetrical Folds. Geol. Mag., 95,511-13.
MENDELSOHN, F. 1959. Structure of the Roan Antelope Deposit. Trans. Instn Min.
Metall., Lond., 68, 229-63.
MERTlE, J. B. 1959. Classification, Delineation, and Measurement of Nonparallel
Folds. Prof Pap. U.S. geol. Surv., 314-E, 91-124.
MUEHLBERGER, W. R. 1959. Internal Structure of the Grand Saline Salt Dome, Van
Zandt County, Texas. Bur. Econ. Geol., Univ. Texas. Rep. Invest., 38.
- - - . 1961. Conjugate Joint Sets of Small Dihedral Angle. J. Geol., 69, 211-19.
NAHA, K. 1959. Steeply Plunging Recumbent Folds. Geol. Mag., 96,137-40.
NEVIN, C. M. 1949. Principles of Structural Geology. 4th ed, New York.
PARKER, R. B. 1961. Petrology and Structural Geometry of Pre-Granitic Rocks in the
Sierra Nevada, Alpine County, California. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 72,
1789-806.
PATERSON, M. S. & L. E. WEISS. 1961. Symmetry Concepts in the Structural Analysis
of Deformed Rocks. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 72,841-82.
& . 1962. Experimental Folding in Rocks. Nature, Lond., 195,
1046-8.
PEACH, B. N., HORNE, J. & others 1907. The Geological Structure of the North-West
Highlands of Scotland. Mem. geol, Surv. U.K.
PUMPELLY, R., WOLFF, J. E. & T. N. DALE. 1894. Geology of the Green Mountains
in Massachusetts. Monogr. U.S. geol. Surv., 23, 1-206.
RAMSAY, J. G. 1958a. Superimposed Folding at Loch Monar, Inverness-shire and
Ross-shire. Quart. J. geol, Soc. Lond., 113, 271-308.
- - - - . 1958b. Moine-Lewisian Relations at Glenelg, Inverness-shire. Quart. J.
geol. Soc. Lond., 113, 487-523.
- - - - . 1960. The Deformation of Early Linear Structures in Areas of Repeated
Folding. J. Geol., 68, 75-93.
1962a. The Geometry and Mechanics of Formation of 'Similar' Type Folds.
J. Geol., 70,309-27.
- - - . 1962b. The Geometry of Conjugate Fold Systems. Geol. Mag., 99,516-26.
- - - - . 1962c. Interference Patterns Produced by the Superposition of Folds of
Similar Type. J. Geol., 70, 466-81.
RAST, N. 1958. The Tectonics of the Schichallion Complex. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond.,
114,25-46.
- - - & J. 1. PLATT. 1957. Cross-Folds. Geol. Mag., 94, 159-67.
REYNOLDS, D. L. & A. HOLMES. 1954. The Superposition of Caledonoid Folds on an
Older Fold-System in the Dalradians of Malin Head, Co. Donegal. Geol.
Mag., 91, 417-44.
RUTLAND, R. W. R. 1959. Structural Geology of the Sokumvatn Area, Northern
Norway. Norsk geol. Tidsskr., 39, 287:-337.
492 M. J. FLEUTY

SCHIEFERDECKER, A. A. G. (Ed.) 1959. Geological Nomenclature. Roy. geol. & Mining

Soc. Netherlands.
SHACKLETON, R. M. 1958. Downward-Facing Structures of the Highland Border.
Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 113, 361-92.
DE SITTER, L. U. 1956. Structural Geology. New York.
- - - - . 1957. Cleavage Folding in Relation to Sedimentary Structure. 20th Internat,
Geol. Congress, pt. 5, 1, 53-64.
- - - . 1958. Boudins and Parasitic Folds in Relation to Cleavage and Folding.
Geol. en Mijnb., 20, 277 -86.
- - - - & H. J. ZWART. 1960. Tectonic Development in Supra- and Infra-Structures
of a Mountain Chain. 21st Internat, Geol. Congress, pt. 18,248-56.
STOCES, B. & C. H. WHITE. 1935. Structural Geology. London.
STOCKWELL, C. H. 1950. The Use of Plunge in the Construction of Cross-Sections of
Folds. Proc. geol. Ass. Can., 3, 97-121.
STONE, M. & J. L. M. LAMBERT. 1956. Shear-Folding in the Myler Slates, near
Porthleven, Cornwall. Geol. Mag., 93,331-5.
STURT, B. A. 1961. The Geological Structure of the Area South of Loch Tummel.
Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 117, 131-56.
SUTTON, J. & J. WATSON. 1954. The Structure and Stratigraphical Succession of the
Moines of Fannich Forest and Strath Bran, Ross-shire. Quart. J. geol. Soc.
Lond., 110, 21-54.
TURNER, F. J. & L. E. WEISS. 1963. Structural Analysis of Metamorphic Tectonites.
New York.
VAN HISE, C. R. 1896. Principles of North American Pre-Cambrian Geology. Rep.
U.S. geol. Surv. (1894-95), 571-874.
WEISS, L. E. 1954. A Study of Tectonic Style. Bull. Dep. Geol. Univ, Calif, 30, 1-102.
- - - - . 1959a. Geometry of Superposed Folding. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 70,
91-106.
- - - - , . 1959b. Structural Analysis of the Basement System at Turoka, Kenya.
Overseas Geol. min. Resour., 7, 3-35 and 123-53.
- - - - & D. B. McINTYRE. 1957. Structural Geometry of Dalradian Rocks at Loch
Leven, Scottish Highlands. J. Geol., 65, 575-602.
WHITE, W. S. & R. H. JAHNS. 1950. Structure of Central and East-Central Vermont.
J. Geol., 58, 179-220.
WILSON, G. 1946. The Relationship of Slaty Cleavage and Kindred Structures to
Tectonics. Proc. Geol. Ass., Lond., 57, 263-302.
- - - . 1951. The Tectonics of the Tintagel Area, North Cornwall. Quart. J. geol.
Soc. Lond., 106, 393-432.
- - - - . 1961. The Tectonic Significance of Small-Scale Structures, and their impor-
tance to the Geologist in the Field. Ann. Soc. geol, Belg., 84, 423-548.
WOOD, B. L. 1963. Structure of the Otago Schists. New Zealand Journal of Geology and
Geophysics., 6, 641-80.
ZEN,E·AN. 1961. Stratigraphy and Structure at the North End of the Taconic Range in
West-Central Vermont. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 72, 293-338.

M. J. Fleuty
Geology Department
Imperial College
London S.W.?