Mesozoic Gulf of Mexico basin evolution from a planetary perspective

and petroleum system implications

Richard H. Fillon
Earth Studies Group, 3730 Rue Nichole, New Orleans, Louisiana 70131, USA (e-mail: fillorh@bellsouth.net)

ABSTRACT: The lack of a sharp boundary between North and South Atlantic stress
fields recorded in the arcs of transform faults and ridge segments suggests a gradual
merging of mantle stresses within a broad Central Atlantic plate boundary zone. The
nature of descending slabs deep in the mantle beneath North and South America
suggests that this intra-American plate boundary zone has existed since the Early
Cretaceous, at which time it was located beneath the Gulf of Mexico Basin. Simple
Euler sums of North and South America to Africa rotation poles validate the
concept of merging stress fields, providing a geologically reasonable trajectory and
rotation data for the Yucatan microplate with respect to Africa. The new Yucatan
rotation geometry is consistent with initiation of back-arc spreading in the western
Gulf of Mexico Basin during the Late Berriasian or Early Valanginian, c. 140 Ma,
triggered by a strengthening South Atlantic stress field. Continued spreading and
rotation of Yucatan likely persisted through the Late Albian, c. 100 Ma. These
findings are supported by Early Cretaceous deposystem architecture, basin margin
reef trends and source-rock distribution. Kinematic analysis predicts that most Gulf
of Mexico seafloor (c. 60%) was created during the Cretaceous period of stable
normal geomagnetic polarity, c. 125–83.5 Ma (the ‘Cretaceous Quiet Zone’). Salt-
lubricated detachment faulting in the young Gulf of Mexico likely covered newly
formed oceanic crust with large allochthons of Oxfordian–Valanginian strata.
KEYWORDS: Gulf of Mexico, plate tectonics, back-arc spreading, subduction, intra-American plate
boundary, Greater Antilles Arc, slab detachment, Early Cretaceous, deposystem architecture

INTRODUCTION consistent with planetary-scale geodynamic paradigms that are

The Gulf of Mexico Basin and associated areas have been the
focus of many significant plate kinematic, plate tectonic and
related stratigraphic studies (e.g. Freeland & Dietz 1971;
Dickinson & Coney 1980; Walper 1980; White 1980; Pindell &
Dewey 1982; Anderson & Schmidt 1983; Duncan & Hargraves
1984; Buffler & Sawyer 1985; Pindell 1985; Klitgord &
Schouten 1986; Dunbar & Sawyer 1987; Michaud 1987;
Salvador 1987; Blair 1988; Christenson 1990; Sedlock et al.
1993; Marton & Buffler 1994; Pindell & Kennan 2001a, b;
Jacques & Clegg 2002; Bird et al. 2005). In assessing the
available geological and geophysical data, these studies have
proposed or adopted the common postulate that the western
Gulf of Mexico Basin opened by seafloor spreading and
counterclockwise rotation of the Yucatan (Maya) block in the
Late Jurassic–earliest Cretaceous (Bird et al. 2005) following a
>60 Ma long Late Triassic to Middle Jurassic interval of rifting.
Such wide agreement on the principal chronologies and events
leading to formation of the Gulf of Mexico is surprising, given
the healthy disagreements that have marked discussions of
Caribbean Basin evolution (e.g. Meschede & Frisch 1998;
Muller et al. 1999; Pindell & Kennan 2001b; Kerr et al. 2003).
In this paper an analysis of Euler geometries of the large
plate systems surrounding the Gulf of Mexico Basin is pre-
sented which provides new insights into Gulf Basin evolution.
A new kinematic model is proposed for the Gulf Basin that is
Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 13 2007, pp. 105–126
evolving largely due to evidence arising from investigations of
global seismic tomography (Grand et al. 1997; Dziewonski
2005). Discussion of points introduced herein should lead to a
better understanding of the Gulf Basin, including development
of one of the world’s most significant petroleum systems.
Why seek a planetary geodynamic view for a small basin? In
basic plate kinematic analyses all plates from super-continents
to microplates are treated by the same rules. However, from a
planetary geodynamic perspective, large plates and microplates
interact differently with the stresses created by planetary-scale
mantle dynamics (see summary in DeMets 1995). Microplate or
plate-fragment systems, like the Japan–Japan Sea (Celaya &
McCabe 1987) and Baja California–Gulf of California (Atwater
& Stock 1998) and, as argued in this paper, the Yucatan–Gulf
of Mexico system, are affected by the behaviour of neighbour-
ing larger plates. Larger plates in such systems can move small
continental fragments along complicated trajectories before
finally leaving them sutured onto continental portions of the
larger plates.
Microplate rotation poles that honour basin geometry,
basement geology and proposed chronologies can work
kinematically but they must also be consistent with fundamen-
tal geodynamic processes driving the larger plates. The better-
constrained kinematic solutions of North and South Atlantic
large plate systems should be able to successfully predict the
1354-0793/07/$15.00  2007 EAGE/Geological Society of London
106 R. H. Fillon
kinematics of the smaller Gulf of Mexico Basin system. This
paper confirms the basis of that postulate and proposes that the
forces operating within the Gulf Basin are related to and
predictable from large-scale plate forces.
Several lines of evidence locate the Gulf of Mexico Basin in
an intraplate tectonic setting through much of the Mesozoic,
including: (1) the history of circum-Gulf Basin volcanism (e.g.
Byerly 1991); (2) stress directions recorded in Atlantic fracture
zones (Muller et al. 1997; Smith & Sandwell 1997); (3) the
nature of the critical North American–South American plate
boundary (Muller et al. 1997); and (4) tomographic evidence of
an ancient intra-American plate boundary beneath the Gulf
Basin (Grand et al. 1997).
Critically, this investigation reveals that new Yucatan Euler
rotation poles derived entirely from published North and South
Atlantic pole data support adoption of an intra-American plate
boundary view of Gulf Basin tectonics. Derivation of the new
Yucatan poles is explained and a new kinematic model is
presented for opening the Gulf of Mexico Basin, which
produces a young, i.e. largely Early Cretaceous, chronology
for Yucatan rotation and seafloor spreading. The new Gulf
Basin chronology and geometry are tested by comparison
with chronologically calibrated deposystem extents drawn
from industry and published sources in a series of six Early
Jurassic–Early Cretaceous plate tectonic reconstructions.
EVIDENCE FOR MESOZOIC INTRA-AMERICAN
TECTONICS
Circum-Gulf Basin volcanism
Volcanism is a principal surface manifestation of planetary-
scale forces. It is therefore necessary to review the timing and
significance of igneous activity in the greater Gulf Basin
(Fig. 1). Regionally, Mesozoic igneous rocks cluster by age, type
and locale into three categories: (1) Rhaetian to Hettangian
(c. 204–197 Ma) dominantly tholeiitic basalts with some
andesite and rhyolite in eastern Mexico and the southeastern
USA; (2) Tithonian to Early Campanian (c. 151–81 Ma) pillow
lavas, andesites and bentonites in eastern Mexico and the
Yucatan Peninsula; and (3) Late Albian to Early Paleocene
(c. 115–62 Ma), dominantly alkalic basalts with some quartz-
poor nephelenite and phonolite lavas in the northern Gulf
Basin (cf. Byerly 1991).
Rhaetian–Hettangian category Rhaetian–Hettangian (c. 204–
197 Ma) tholeiites are interpreted as rift-related basalts of the
Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (Marzoli et al. 1999; Dalziel
et al. 2000; McHone 2000; McHone et al. 2005). They comprise
giant dykes and dyke-orientation swarms associated with the
initial fragmentation of Pangaea (Dalziel et al. 2000; McHone
et al. 2005). Byerly (1991) discussed uncertainties involved in
dating that make some post-Hettangian tholeiitic basalt ages
equivocal. Reliable tholeiitic basalt ages in the circum-Gulf
Basin are now believed to group tightly around a Central
Atlantic regional average of 199.9 Ma (McHone 2000; Knight
et al. 2004), within the late Rhaetian using the time-scale of
Gradstein et al. (2004). These rocks are closely similar in age and
composition to African (Bertrand 1991; Knight et al. 2004) and
South American (Marzoli et al. 1999) Central Atlantic Magmatic
Province (CAMP) basalts.
Tithonian–Early Campanian category Tithonian–Early Campanian
(c. 151–81 Ma) pillow lavas, andesites and bentonites, sugges-
tive of island-arc magmatism, are found in eastern Mexico
(Lopez 1981; Byerly 1991; Eguiluz de Antuñano 2001;
Goldhammer & Johnson 2001; Lawton et al. 2001), where they
are attributed to island-arc volcanism, e.g. within the Chortis
arc which was involved in the assembly of Mexican terranes
along the western margin of Pangaea (Bartolini et al. 2001;
Keppie 2004). At the younger end of their range the distri-
bution of these rocks indicates considerable horizontal sub-
duction of Pacific crust (van Hunen et al. 2000). Andesites
interbedded with Albian–Turonian (c. 112–89 Ma) limestones,
reported from a few industry wells located near the northwest-
ern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, formerly believed to be
associated with this group (Paine & Meyerhoff 1970; Lopez
1981; Byerly 1991), are now considered to be target melts
associated with the Chicxulub bolide event at the end of the
Cretaceous (Alvarez et al. 1995).
Andesites of Late Aptian–Early Campanian age (c. 115–
81 Ma) are also widely reported from the Caribbean: in eastern
Cuba (Kerr et al. 1999), Jamaica, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and
on the Aves Ridge (Almy 1969; Arden 1969; Fox et al. 1971;
Horsefield & Roobol 1974; Jackson & Smith 1979; Robinson
1994; Kerr et al. 1999). They are presumed to reflect subduction
of proto-Caribbean crust prior to creation and/or interjection
of the Caribbean plate between the North and South American
plates in the Late Cretaceous (Pindell & Barrett 1990; Meschede
& Frisch 1998; Muller et al. 1999; Acton et al. 2000). These
Aptian–Campanian volcanics may include remnant portions of
proto-Caribbean seafloor (Kerr et al. 2003). Although develop-
ment of an Early Cretaceous Greater Antilles arc-trench com-
plex is evident from the lithology and age data, the dip direction
of the subducting proto-Caribbean slab is open to differing
interpretations (Kerr et al. 1999; Pindell & Kennan 2001).
Late Albian–Early Paleocene category Reports of Late Albian to
Early Paleocene (c. 115–62 Ma) alkalic basalts, nephelenites and
phonolites in the northern Gulf Basin, including the Magnet
Cove, Monroe Uplift and Jackson Dome localities onshore, and
the Alderdice Bank and Door Point sites offshore (Braunstein
& McMichael 1976; Hunter & Davies 1979; Rezak & Tieh
1980; Byerly 1991; Baksi 1997), imply a deep-mantle source
and probable mid-plate hotspot volcanism (McHone 2000;
Anderson & Natland 2005). Volcanic rocks of similar types and
ages are reported from as far west as central Texas (Byerly
1991) and the Rio Grande Rift area of New Mexico, where they
predate Palaeogene rifting (Lasky 1938; McLemore et al. 2000a,
b). Although the distribution of these rocks along an approxi-
mate NW–SE axis is consistent with typical Atlantic hotspot
tracks, their ages are not sufficiently constrained to confirm a
propagation direction. The interpretation of a NW–SE positive
gravity anomaly in the Keathley Canyon area of the Gulf of
Mexico as a still undated hotspot track (Bird et al. 2005) is
consistent with these reports.
Spreading directions and the intra-American plate
boundary
Nowhere is the intra-American (North American–South
American) plate boundary defined clearly. The much smaller
Caribbean plate today occupies about two-thirds of the region
between the two larger plates, concealing much of the actual
location and nature of the boundary between the continental
portions of the plates. To the east of the Windward Islands in
the Central Atlantic, where the North and South American
plates come into direct contact, the boundary between them is
indistinguishable. It is not marked by earthquake foci or by
prominent tectonic boundary features, appearing rather to be a
zone of merging stresses, sensu Muller et al. (1999). This zone
also conceals an assumed North American–South American–
African triple-junction which must lie somewhere along the
mid-ocean ridge (Escartin et al. 2003). If asthenospheric mantle
flow vectors immediately to the north and south of the
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics 107

Fig. 1. Late Triassic to Late Cretaceous stratigraphy of the intra-American plate boundary region, including the Gulf of Mexico Basin, is
compared with hotspot and large igneous province (LIP) events, rift and ridge systems, geomagnetic polarity events, arc-trench systems and
related volcanism, and selected geotectonic reconstructions. MCU, Mid-Cretaceous Unconformity; MJU, Mid-Jurassic Unconformity. Numbered
superscripts in figure are keyed to additional comments and referenced sources. 1, Mexico (Byerly 1991); 2, Jamaica (Dickinson 1970; Arden
1969); 3, Jamaica, Cuba, Hispaniola (Pindell & Kennan 2001b) GCSSEPM; 4, Cuba (Iturralde-Vinent 1994, 1997; Garcia-Casco et al. 2003);
5, Hispaniola (Bowin 1966); 6, Puerto Rico (Kerr et al. 1999); 7, Triassic arcs in eastern Mexico – La Boca formation volcanic flows, andesite,
rhyolite, Eagle Mills equivalent redbeds in the Tampico area (Goldhammer & Johnson 2001); Zacatecas Formation turbidites (Monod & Calvet
1992; Bartolini et al. 2001); 8, Cretaceous arcs in Mexico – Monod & Calvet (1992) assign an early Cretaceous age to pillow lava and limestone
in the vicinity of Zacatecas city (c. 400 km SW of Monterrey), may be correlative with the Chilitos Formation (de Cserna 1976);
9, Triassic–Cretaceous arcs in Mexico – Chortis and Motagua terranes include andesite and other volcanic arc rocks of middle Jurassic–Upper
Cretaceous age, a metamorphic event c. 131–137 Ma ago in Juarez terrane, and a Maya terrane rotation 140 Ma ago (Keppie 2004); 10, paired
Sierra Leone Rise and Ceara Rise oceanic plateaus are dated to the Late Cretaceous (c. 73 Ma ago) by Kharin et al. (1977), Vogt & Jung (2005);
11, Florida volcanic province alkalic basalts (c. 140–180 Ma; Barnett 1975; Byerly 1991) are likely related to the location of the Sierra Leone
Rise–Ceara Rise hotspot in the Early Jurassic; 12, CAMP basalts date from c. 200 Ma (McHone et al. 2005); 13, evidence for Aves–Beata Ridge
hotspot or melting anomaly – Beata Ridge (Sinton et al. 2000) and northern Aves Ridge basalts (Fox et al. 1971) date c. 81 Ma; 14, Bermuda
Hotspot in the Cretaceous (Pollitz et al. 2001; Cox & Van Arsdale 2002); 15, South American and intra-American rifting (Van Siclen 1983; Lugo
& Mann 1995; Filho et al. 2000; McHone 2000); 16, Circum North Atlantic rifting in Late Triassic–Early Jurassic (Phair & Buffler 1983); rifting
and transition to North Atlantic spreading (Withjack et al. 1998); 17, South Atlantic spreading (Klitgord & Schouten 1986); 18, Caribbean plate
evolution (Pindell & Kennan 2001b); 19, development of Chortis arc (Pindell & Kennan 2001b) obduction and metamorphism in the Jurassic
(Horne et al. 1976) in response to clockwise rotation of the Chortis terrane and counterclockwise rotation of Mexican terranes (Keppie 2004),
the latter possibly induced by spreading at a Kulla–Farallon (or Phoenix) ridge; 20, Jurassic magnetic quiet interval (Gradstein et al. 2004);
21, Jackson Dome basalt ages 792.9 to 692.9 Ma (Saunders & Harrelson 1992); 22, Alderdice Bank alkalic basalt age 76.83 Ma (Rezak &
Tieh 1980); 23, Door Point basalt age 828 Ma (Braunstein & McMichael 1976); 24, COSUNA chart (Braunstein et al. 1985; Salvador 1985);
25, geotectonic reconstructions – Figures 6–11.

boundary differed significantly a more defined plate boundary
should be present. Accordingly, the mantle forces responsible
for significant differential motion between the North and South
American plates since the Late Cretaceous (Muller et al. 1999)
must then transition across a relatively broad plate boundary
zone.
Is there direct evidence for a broad intra-American plate
boundary zone? Ridge-transform fault systems constrain the
extension of oceanic crust and, in the fracture zones they
produce, provide a cumulative record of crustal extension
(Garfunkel 1986; Muller et al. 1997; Smith & Sandwell 1997;
Silver et al. 1998; Anderson 2001; Fairhead & Wilson 2005). By
backtracking along fracture zones the drift trajectories of
continental blocks and therefore the history of stresses imposed
on the lower lithosphere by the flow of material in the
asthenosphere can be deduced. Central Atlantic fracture zones
record that a gradual merging of mantle stresses over a broad
region between c. 2 S and c. 17 N has persisted for much of
the interval since the Late Cretaceous (Fig. 2a, b). This relatively
large area of the Central Atlantic containing the intra-American
plate boundary zone has, over time, accommodated varying
differences in North and South Atlantic spreading reflected in a
complex geometry of oceanic fracture zones (Fig. 2a).
Tomographic evidence of an ancient plate boundary
Adding the vertical dimension to kinematic analysis is made
possible largely by recent advances in global seismic tomogra-
phy (Grand et al. 1997; Dziewonski 2005; Walker et al. 2005)
and derived mantle circulation models (Becker et al. 2003).
Global seismic tomography, in recording seismic velocity vari-
ations within the Earth’s mantle (higher velocities=cooler,
denser material; lower velocities=warmer, less dense material),
provides new insights into the configuration of descending
108 R. H. Fillon

Fig. 2. Fracture zones detected by satellite altimetry data (a, c) and seafloor magnetic anomalies (b) provide a record of stresses imposed on
oceanic crust by asthenospheric mantle flow (Becker et al. 2003). The altimetry-derived bathymetry maps (a. c) are from Smith & Sandwell (1997)
and the magnetic anomaly-derived age of seafloor map (b) is from Muller et al. (1997). Well-organized North and South Atlantic (NATL &
SATL) fracture zones (areas enclosed in polygons) clearly depict small circle arcs of rotation of North and South America away from Africa (a–c).
Instead of a clear boundary between North and South Atlantic fracture zone orientations and implied stress fields, however, the Central Atlantic
intra-American plate boundary zone contains complicated rotation arc geometry pointing to a gradual merging of mantle stresses. (a, c) reprinted
from Smith & Sandwell (1997) with permission from Science; (b) reprinted from Muller et al. (1997) with permission from the American
Geophysical Union.

crustal plates at scales ranging from hundreds to thousands of
kilometres (e.g. Grand et al. 1997). Recent tomographic studies
and re-evaluations of kinematic analyses emphasize the impor-
tance of examining plate kinematics as part of a system of
planetary forces driven by temperature contrasts in the mantle,
especially in the intra-American plate boundary region (see
discussion by Pindell & Kennan 2001b).
Recently analysed and modelled tomographic data suggest
that during the Mesozoic Era the intra-American plate bound-
ary zone may have extended beneath the Gulf Basin. Cool
dense slabs reside in the mantle beneath present-day North and
South America at depths between 900 km and 1500 km (Grand
et al. 1997; Bunge & Grand 2000; Pindell & Kennan 2001b).
Comparing the location of these slabs to the reconstructed
positions of continents in the Cretaceous (Fig. 3) provides a
basis for identifying the sources of the descending material.
Correlation of fast anomalies near the base of the mantle
(c. 2600 km) to ancient subduction zones (Castle et al. 2000)
suggests that subducted slabs may remain as seismically distin-
guishable masses in the deep mantle for as long as 180 Ma. This
means that plate kinematic models proposing to explain Middle
Jurassic–Late Cretaceous arc formation and subduction should
be consistent with tomographically resolved slab geometries.
The agreement of Kulla–Farallon mantle circulation models
with tomographic data, demonstrated by Bunge & Grand
(2000), is consistent with a meridional north–south gradient in
flow directions that is expected to underlie an intra-American
plate boundary zone (Muller et al. 1997). Mantle circulation
models that are conservative with respect to slabs imaged in the
lower mantle therefore support a dynamic linkage between the
position and nature of intra-American and Kulla–Farallon plate
boundaries in the Cretaceous.
In Figure 3a and b most of the cool 1300–1500 km deep
mass beneath North America is attributed to the portion of the
Kulla plate that was subducted beneath North America in the
Middle Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, while most of the 900 km
deep mass beneath South America is attributed to the portion
of the Farallon plate that was subducted beneath South
America in the Early to Late Cretaceous. The locations of the
southern limit of the descending Kulla slab and the northern
limit of the descending Farallon slab and the inferred Kulla–
Farallon plate boundary, which otherwise are ill defined, are
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics 109

Fig. 3. Seismic tomographic evidence for a deep mantle zone of merging North and South Atlantic stresses. Tomographic images of higher
velocity anomalies representing cool descending slabs at 1500 km and 900 km (blue) are adapted from Grand et al. (1997) and Bunge & Grand
(2000). The images, adapted from Grand et al. (1997), are compared with positions of the continents in the Cretaceous (c. 135–80 Ma).
Identification of the Kulla, Phoenix and Farallon slabs, the slab window, the intra-American boundary zone and the plate kinematic model are
explained in the text. Note that at 135 Ma (a, c) Yucatan and the Greater Antilles arc lie within the boundary zone; by 94 Ma (b, e) they are
moving out; and, by 80 Ma (f), they lie wholly to the north of the boundary zone above the Kulla slab. Reprinted from Grand et al. (1997) with
permission from the Geological Society of America.

indicated in the tomographic data (Engebretson et al. 1986;
Bunge & Grand 2000).
A closer examination of the data presented by Grand et al.
(1997) and Bunge & Grand (2000) in the area of the predicted
Early Cretaceous intra-American plate boundary reveals a
distinct break in the slab 1300 km beneath northwestern
Colombia (Fig. 3c). The gap may record development of a slab
window sensu Breitsprecher & Thorkelson (2001) or slab tear
sensu Pindell & Kennan (2001b) at the boundary between the
Kulla and Farallon plates, or it could be evidence of a plate
boundary between the Kulla and Phoenix plates sensu Sager et al.
(1998) and Pockalny et al. (2002). In any event, this break
effectively isolates the southernmost portion of the slab at
1500 km from the much larger northern portion. At the 900 km
level, however, the southernmost portion of the slab is located
beneath northwestern Brazil, well to the east of the northern
portion. It merges there with the descending Farallon slab
(Fig. 3b).
Comparison of the slabs and the slab window, or tear, with
the late Early Cretaceous locations of North and South
America (Fig. 3c–f) suggests that the southern isolated slab is
evidence of subduction associated with what was most likely an
oceanic arc-trench system located in the Pacific Ocean well
seaward of the American plates. The abrupt eastward displace-
ment of the southern slab at shallower depths may record a
significant change in mantle flow direction south of the slab
window coincident with formation of the Farallon and South
American plates and the intra-American plate boundary zone in
the Early Cretaceous (c. 135 Ma).
The likely plate boundary observed in the tomographic data
suggests that northern Farallon plate crust originally belonged
to a once larger Kulla plate or to the Phoenix plate. This
process of transferring crust from one plate to another and
implicitly from one asthenospheric flow regime to another is
consistent with changes in fracture zone orientation observed
on Central Atlantic crust within the intra-American boundary
zone. The Kulla–Farallon plate boundary, and the Kulla–
Phoenix plate boundary that preceded it in the same part of
the Pacific (Sager et al. 1998; Pockalny et al. 2002), like the
intra-American plate boundary zone, lay within a region of
shifting stresses presumably related to the same large-scale
meridional gradient in asthenospheric flow. In the Early
Cretaceous that meridional gradient very likely encompasses the
Gulf of Mexico Basin (Fig. 3a).
Because quadruple plate junctions are inherently unstable, a
link between the intra-American and Kulla–Farallon plate
boundaries is expected to be manifest by two triple junctions
in reasonably close proximity, comprising a conjugate pair.
They are constrained from moving too far apart by prevailing
mantle flow directions, and from moving too close together
110 R. H. Fillon

Table 1. Euler pole and rotation angle data describing the opening of the North and South Atlantic Oceans and rotation of North and South America clockwise relative to Africa

Age (Ma) Euler Poles: NAM to NWAF from 0 Ma Euler Poles: SAM to Africa from 0 Ma
References Lat Lon Angle Published data Lat Lon Angle Ang Vel
245.0 66.95*
12.02* 75.55* Royer et al. (1992) 49.10
33.70 55.17
200.0 66.95*
12.02* 75.55* 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
175.0 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 66.95
12.02 75.55 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
170.0 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 67.02
13.17 72.10 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
156.5 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 67.15
16.00 64.70 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
155.0 67.01*
16.45* 64.10* 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
149.5 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 66.50
18.10 61.92 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
145.0 66.28*
18.27* 60.72* 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
141.5 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 66.10
18.40 59.79 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
135.0 66.00*
18.47* 58.24* 49.10*
33.70* 55.17* 0.00
131.5 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 65.95
18.50 57.40 Royer et al. (1992) 49.10
33.70 55.17 0.00
126.5 66.11*
18.95* 56.48* Royer et al. (1992) 49.30
33.80 54.29 0.18
126.0 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 66.13
19.00 56.39 49.36*
33.84* 54.23* 0.12
125.0 66.15*
19.11* 56.12* 49.49*
33.91* 54.11* 0.12
121.0 66.24*
19.56* 55.05* Royer et al. (1992) 50.00
34.20 53.64 0.12
118.7 66.29*
19.82* 54.44* Royer et al. (1992) 50.10
34.60 52.78 0.37
118.0 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 66.30
19.90 54.25 50.34*
34.59* 52.39* 0.56
115.0 67.20*
19.97* 52.08* 51.34*
34.54* 50.72* 0.56
109.5 68.86*
20.11* 48.09* 53.19*
34.44* 47.67* 0.56
106.0 69.92*
20.19* 45.55* 54.36*
34.38* 45.72* 0.56
105.0 70.22*
20.22* 44.83* 54.70*
34.37* 45.15* 0.57
102.0 71.12*
20.29* 42.65* 55.71*
34.31* 43.50* 0.55
94.0 73.54*
20.49* 36.85* 58.39*
34.17* 39.06* 0.56
92.0 74.14*
20.53* 35.40* 58.82*
34.11* 37.95* 0.55
84.0 Klitgord & Schouten (1986) 76.55
20.73 29.60 Cande et al. (1988) 61.75
34.00 33.50 0.56

Interpolated Euler parameters are indicated by an asterisk

by quadruple junction instability. Constraints operating on
paired triple junctions explain why once South America
separates from Africa, the resulting intra-American plate
boundary develops not as a discrete feature but as a broad and
persistent plate boundary zone within which the paired triple
junctions are free to move about. The initial development of
this boundary zone likely coincides with and possibly predates
the initial creation of the Kulla–Farallon spreading centre.
Paired triple junctions in the Central Atlantic might explain
differential motion of northern and southern Africa accommo-
dated within the Benue Trough (Fairhead & Wilson 2005).
Is there evidence of a small descending slab beneath the Gulf
of Mexico Basin? A mass of higher velocity material observed
in tomographic images at 1300–1500 km is positioned within
the Gulf Basin in the Early Cretaceous (Fig. 3d). Due to the
northwestward drift of North America the movement of this
mass relative to the Gulf Basin in the Early Cretaceous is
consistent with a slab remnant of northwest-dipping subduc-
tion associated with a Greater Antilles arc and trench located to
the southeast of Yucatan (Fig. 3d). With northwestward sub-
duction implied, back-arc spreading becomes a possible mech-
anism for opening the western Gulf of Mexico Basin and
rotating Yucatan away from North America along a reciprocal
trajectory to prevailing mantle drift in the intra-American
boundary zone. If so, the trajectory of the Yucatan microplate
should be predictable from the combined directions of North
and South Atlantic spreading.
Poles supporting an intra-American plate boundary
Individually, North and South American rotation poles
(describing motions with respect to Africa) do not explain the
Mesozoic rotation of Yucatan. If the average direction of
asthenospheric mantle flow in an intra-American plate bound-
ary zone is predictable from North and South Atlantic spread-
ing directions, however, simple Euler sums of plate motions in
the two neighbouring large-plate systems (Table 1) should
provide resultant pole solutions that are consistent with fracture
zone and tomographic evidence. Table 1 lists Euler pole and
rotation angle data describing the opening of the North and
South Atlantic Oceans and rotation of North and South
America clockwise relative to Africa (from Klitgord &
Schouten 1986; Cande et al. 1988; Royer et al. 1992). The
resultant poles presented in Table 2 offer an attractive new
kinematic solution for the tectonic evolution of the Gulf basin.
Kinematic reconstructions based on these poles should be
consistent with merging mantle flows within the intra-American
boundary zone.
North and South Atlantic rotation arcs (small circles)
describe the relative motions of the North and South American
plates in the Early Cretaceous (e.g. at 135 Ma, Fig. 4a, b).
Contrasting North and South Atlantic rotation arcs at 135 Ma
(Fig. 4c) indicate the typically large differential stress that must
be accommodated across the intra-American plate boundary
zone. Because incremental plate motions reflect evolving
mantle flow trajectories and crustal responses, the small circles
calculated from Table 1 (Figs. 5–11) provide a basis for
interpreting evolving fracture zone and cumulative spreading
azimuths in plate kinematic reconstructions.
PLANETARY VIEW OF GULF OF MEXICO
RIFTING
Plates in motion
The Euler sums of North America to Africa (North Atlantic)
and South America to Africa (South Atlantic) poles and angular
displacements (Table 2) describe the incremental counterclock-
wise rotation of Yucatan to its present alignment relative to
North America. In Table 2, parameters are calculated as Euler
sums of Yucatan vs. Africa motion using North and South
Atlantic pole data. The best-fit starting point for Yucatan is
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics 111

Table 2. Euler pole and rotation angle data describing the opening of the western Gulf of Mexico Basin and rotation of the Yucatan microplate relative to Africa

Age (Ma) Euler Pole: YUC to AF (NATL) Euler Pole: YUC to AF (SATL) Net Pole: YUC to AF
Lat Lon Angle + Lat Lon Angle = Lat Lon Angle
245.0
200.0 66.95
12.02 70.00 + 49.10
33.70
8.00* = 69.68
10.99 62.59*
175.0 66.95
12.02 66.72 49.10
33.70
8.00*
170.0 67.02
13.17 65.78 49.10
33.70
8.00*
156.5 67.15
16.00 63.05 49.10
33.70
8.00*
155.0 67.01
16.45 64.10 + 49.10
33.70
8.00* = 69.88
16.06 56.64
149.5 66.50
18.10 61.92 49.10
33.70
8.00*
145.0 66.28
18.27 60.72 49.10
33.70
8.00*
141.5 66.10
18.40 59.79 49.10
33.70
8.00*
135.0 66.00
18.47 58.24 + 49.10
33.70
7.54* = 68.79
18.01 51.15
131.5 65.95
18.50 57.40 49.10
33.70
6.74*
126.5 66.11
18.95 56.48 49.30
33.80
5.60*
126.0 66.13
19.00 56.39 49.36
33.84
5.49*
125.0 66.15
19.11 56.12 + 49.49
33.91
5.26* = 68.06
18.71 51.15
121.0 66.24
19.56 55.05 50.00
34.20
4.34*
118.7 66.29
19.82 54.44 50.10
34.60
3.82*
118.0 66.30
19.90 54.25 50.34
34.59
3.66*
115.0 67.20
19.97 52.08 + 51.34
34.54
2.97* = 68.26
19.69 49.25
109.5 68.86
20.11 48.09 53.19
34.44
1.71*
106.0 69.92
20.19 45.55 54.36
34.38
0.91*
105.0 70.22
20.22 44.83 54.70
34.37
0.69*
102.0 71.12
20.29 42.65 55.71
34.31 0.00)*
94.0 73.54
20.49 36.85 + 58.39
34.17 0.00 = 73.54a
20.49a 36.85a
92.0 74.14
20.53 35.40 + 58.82
34.11 0.00 = 74.14a
20.53a 35.40a

Interpolated data are indicated by an asterisk.

a
Same as NAM to AF.

Fig. 4. (a) North Atlantic and (b) South Atlantic rotation poles, and small circles for 135 Ma (from Table 1) are shown superimposed on
magnetic anomaly-derived age of oceanic crust maps (Muller et al. 1997). The poles and arcs in Table 1 describe large plate kinematics of the
North and South American plates during the Early Cretaceous (e.g. at 135 Ma). The rotation arcs are generated using GMAP-2002 software
created by the Norwegian Geological Survey (Torsvik & Smethurst 1999). Also shown are (c) contrasts in the North and South Atlantic arcs at
135 Ma. The rectangle indicates the location of the 135 Ma intra-American plate boundary zone (c). (a, b) reprinted from Muller et al. (1997) with
permission from Elsevier.

taken as c. 5 (clockwise) from the initial position of North
America with respect to the North Atlantic pole at 200 Ma and
8 (clockwise) from the initial position of South America with
respect to the oldest South Atlantic pole. Convergence of
Yucatan’s North Atlantic rotation angle to match North Ameri-
ca’s (Pangaean reassembly) occurs during the interval 155–
200 Ma. Convergence of Yucatan’s South Atlantic rotation angle
to zero, to match North America’s motion (suturing of Yucatan
onto North America), occurs during the interval 94–135 Ma.
Opening of the western Gulf Basin rotates Yucatan counter-
clockwise with respect to both of the Atlantic Euler poles.
A series of kinematic and geotectonic reconstructions drawn
from Table 2 (Figs. 5–11) illustrate the Yucatan microplate’s
trajectory across the western Gulf Basin without significant
overlap of neighbouring continental blocks at any stage in the
rotation. A reasonable starting point positions Yucatan abutting
the Palaeozoic and Permo-Triassic (Ouachita front) margins of
North America (Fig. 6a).
112 R. H. Fillon

Fig. 5. Symbols used in Late Triassic through Early Cretaceous plate

boundary reconstructions (Figs. 6–11) identify plates, rifts, ridges,
arc-trench systems, transform faults, triple junctions, hotspots and
hotspot tracks. In the geotectonic reconstructions transform faults
are drawn parallel to plate rotation arcs (small circles).

Synoptic plate reconstructions of the Gulf of Mexico Basin

and surrounding intra-American plate boundary zone represent
six critical instances in Late Triassic to Early Cretaceous crustal
evolution (Fig. 1). Kinematic snapshots include the end of the
Rhaetian (latest Triassic) c. 200 Ma (Fig. 6); the beginning of the
Kimmeridgian c. 155 Ma (Fig. 7); beginning of the Hauterivian
c. 135 Ma (Fig. 8); the beginning of the Aptian c. 125 Ma
(Fig. 9); the latest Aptian c. 115 Ma (Fig. 10); and the latest
Cenomanian c. 94 Ma (Fig. 11). Dates used in the Euler tables
and reconstructions are sensu Gradstein et al. 2004. The recon-
structions accommodate volcanic ages, as well as fracture zone
and tomographic evidence.

The Yucatan problem

There is broad agreement that the Yucatan block was originally
part of North America and that it subsequently rotated
counterclockwise to its present location, thus opening the
western Gulf of Mexico Basin. However, nine different Euler
rotation poles located within or very close to the Gulf Basin, in
an area bounded by the Florida Straits, northern Florida and the
western Bahamas Platform, have been proposed to explain the
kinematics of the Yucatan microplate (Bird et al. 2005). All of
these poles empirically describe the special case of Yucatan
motion with respect to North America (Pindell 1985, 1994;
Dunbar & Sawyer 1987; Christenson 1990; Hall & Najmuddin
1994; Marton & Buffler 1994). None of the poles cited
addresses the likelihood that once separated from North
America by a spreading centre, the Yucatan block is no longer
fixed to a North American reference frame. Failing to consider
adequately the strong possibility that Yucatan does leave the
North American reference frame introduces considerable
uncertainty into comparing successive positions of the Yucatan
microplate with crustal features such as the Mexican Oaxaquia,
Coahuila and Sierra Madre terranes that remain fixed with
respect to post-Pangaean North America, sensu Keppie (2004).
This study diverges from earlier ones in that once seafloor
spreading begins in the western Gulf Basin, the Yucatan block,
Maya terrane sensu Keppie (2004), is treated as a distinct
Yucatan microplate and its rotation is examined in both North
Atlantic and South Atlantic to Africa reference frames. Euler
poles meeting this criterion cluster tightly in the North Atlantic
(c. 69 N; 20 W), falling close to but remaining distinct from
Fig. 6. End of the Rhaetian (latest Triassic) geotectonic reconstruc-
tion of the Gulf of Mexico Basin and intra-American boundary zone
(c. 200 Ma). (a) Plate position, (b) plate boundary and (c) deposystem
architecture maps provide views of critical elements of Gulf Basin
evolution. Major plates, smaller crustal blocks and microplates in
Figures 6–11, 13 are identified by abbreviations: N, North America;
S, South America; AF and A, Africa; K, Kulla; F, Farallon; Px,
Phoenix; pC, proto-Caribbean; iaC, intra-american Caribbean; y,
Yucatan; ch, Chortis; gm, Mexican Guerrero composite terrane; m,
mobile Mexican terranes south of the Mojave–Sonora Megashear;
b, Bahamas Platform; sf, South Florida. Plate boundary and other
tectonic map symbols are explained in Figure 5. Deposystem
architecture and extents are shown as isopach or accumulation rate
maps (northern Gulf Basin) drawn from industry and published well
data (Fillon et al. 2005) and as lithofacies maps (southern Gulf Basin)
adapted from Moran-Zenteno (1994). Limits and thickness (as
colour-filled isopachs) of Eagle Mills-equivalent strata range from
<50 ft (blue) to >2500 ft (yellow). The known extents of age-
equivalent La Boca marine sediments in Mexico are shown in yellow.
Atlantic hotspots in Figures 6–11, held stationary with respect to
Africa, are identified as: CV, Cape Verde hotspot; SC, Sierra Leone
Rise–Cearra Rise hotspot; PP, Saints Peter and Paul hotspot; and
AB, Aves Ridge–Beata Ridge hotspot (melting anomaly).
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics
North America to Africa poles. These resultant Yucatan to
Africa rotation poles (Table 2) incorporate North Atlantic and
South Atlantic stress azimuths and a negative (counter-
clockwise) rotation angle for Yucatan with respect to Africa,
consistent with a back-arc spreading trajectory.
Table 2 and Figures 6–11 present new kinematics for the
western Gulf of Mexico Basin and young opening dates of
c. 135–c. 109–102 Ma (cf. Bird et al. 2005) that are consistent
with the physics of mantle circulation. A young western Gulf of
Mexico Basin chronology is constrained by the requirements of:
(1) prior establishment of South Atlantic mantle flow; (2) prior
113
creation of the South American and Farallon plates; (3) prior
development of an intra-American plate boundary zone with
paired triple junctions along its Pacific margin; and (4) an
interval during which variable North and South Atlantic spread-
ing directions combine to move Yucatan along a trajectory
that follows the East Mexican transform precisely yet avoids
continental overlap.
Asthenospheric mantle drag within an intra-American plate
boundary zone of interfering North and South Atlantic mantle
flow regimes provides the driving mechanism for northwest-
ward subduction of proto-Caribbean crust beneath Yucatan
and, ultimately, for the back-arc spreading that separates the
Yucatan microplate from North America (Figs. 6b–11b). Back-
arc spreading, as incorporated in kinematic reconstructions
(Figs. 6b–11b), is consistent with the observed distribution of
Greater Antilles arc volcanism in time and space (Fig. 1) and
because it is the most efficient means of associating a required
negative rotation angle for Yucatan (Table 2) with generally
westward mantle flow beneath an intra-American boundary
zone (Zhong & Davies 1999; Huang et al. 2003).
Chortis, Mexico and the proto-Caribbean plate
As is the case for the Yucatan microplate, the proto-Caribbean
plate, Chortis and Mexican terranes are located within the
intra-American plate boundary zone during the Jurassic and
Cretaceous and, therefore, are subject to mixtures of mantle
stresses related to both North and South Atlantic spreading.
Although the proto-Caribbean plate, the Chortis block and the
Guerrero composite terrane of Mexico (sensu Keppie 2004) are
mobile during this period and may have interacted with the
southern and eastern margins of a drifting Yucatan microplate
propelled by back-arc spreading, they are not considered in
detail in this study. It is important, however, to provide an
indication of their likely motions during the Early Cretaceous.
The proto-Caribbean plate is likely created early in the Early
Cretaceous when the largely oceanic crust west of the intra-
American portion of the North Atlantic spreading centre is
isolated from North America by development of the Chortis
arc–Greater Antilles arc systems and a proto-Caribbean
transform (Fig. 8b).
Resultant Euler poles and rotation angles are calculated for
both Chortis and the proto-Caribbean by summing North and
South Atlantic motions (Table 3) in the same general manner
that Yucatan resultant poles are calculated (Table 2). In Table 3,
Euler pole and rotation angle data describe the movement of
largely oceanic crust in the intra-American Motagua and proto-
Caribbean seaways, and rotation of the Chortis block relative to
Fig. 7. (a–b) Early Late Jurassic, beginning of the Kimmeridgian,
geotectonic reconstruction of the Gulf of Mexico Basin and intra-
American boundary zone (c. 155 Ma). Symbols and abbreviations are
explained in Figures 5 and 6. The extent of inferred and constrained
Callovian Louann salt (lighter and darker pink) is indicated (b). Salt
overlapping western Yucatan is the allochthonous Neogene Sigsbee
Salt Canopy. For convenience, in the reconstructions the approxi-
mate southeastern limit of the Guerrero composite terrane is
referenced to the location of the city of Coatzacoalcos (Coatz) in
southeastern Veracruz state. (c) Accumulation rates of Haynesville–
Smackover syn-rift and rift-fill deposits (largely Kimmeridgian–
Oxfordian) are shown as colour-filled accumulation rate polygons in
the northern Gulf Basin. Stratal accumulation rates range from
<50 ft Ma
1 (blue) to >2500 ft Ma
1 (yellow). (c) Oxfordian litho-
facies in parts of Mexico are adapted from Moran-Zenteno (1994)
and Kimmeridgian–Oxfordian palaeoceanography is suggested by
green arrows. For reference, the modern outlines of Cuba and
Hispaniola are shown attached respectively to the North American
and proto-Caribbean plates.
114 R. H. Fillon

Fig. 8. (a–b) Beginning of the Hauterivian (Early Cretaceous) kinematic reconstruction of the Gulf of Mexico Basin–intra-American boundary
zone (c. 135 Ma). Symbols and abbreviations are explained in Figures 5 and 6. Ridge, transform fault and arc-trench plate boundaries develop
during the Late Berriasian–Early Valanginian (c. 140 Ma), isolating to varying degrees the proto-Caribbean plate, Chortis, the Yucatan microplate
and the Mexican Guerrero composite terrane from North America and Africa/South America. The Chortis terrane jumps the proto-Caribbean
ridge, being incorporated into the larger Late Berriasian–Early Valanginian proto-Caribbean plate. Back-arc spreading probably displaces the
Guerrero composite terrane southeastward relative to other Mexican terranes (Pindell & Kennan 2001b; Keppie 2004). Back-arc spreading in the
western Gulf Basin is initiated probably during the this period and likely continues throughout the Early Cretaceous. Salt-lubricated detachments
within Jurassic syn-rift section may cover newly formed oceanic crust with allochthons of Late Jurassic–Valanginian strata. In the eastern Gulf
Basin, Late Jurassic–Valanginian forearc compression buttresses the Florida margin. (c–d) Accumulation rates of expanded Upper Cotton Valley
(Berriasian Series) and Middle–Lower Cotton Valley (Tithonian Series) deposystems are shown as colour-filled accumulation rate polygons in the
northern Gulf Basin. Accumulation rates range from <50 ft Ma
1 (blue) to >2500 ft Ma
1 (yellow). (b–d) Knowles and equivalent units
represent the first extensive basin-margin reef system (cyan lines – (b–d)). Cotton Valley deposition marks the final stages of rift-fill deposition.
(c, d) Berriasian lithofacies in parts of Mexico are adapted from Moran-Zenteno (1994) and Tithonian–Valanginian palaeoceanography is
suggested by green arrows. slp, San Louis Potosi platform; tp, Tuxpan platform (d).

Africa, prior to the appearance of the Caribbean plate in the
Late Cretaceous. The best-fit starting point for the Chortis
block is taken as c. 25 (clockwise) from the initial position of
North America with respect to the North Atlantic pole at
200 Ma, and 10 (counterclockwise) from the initial position
of South America with respect to the South Atlantic pole.
Convergence of Chortis’ North Atlantic rotation angle to
match North America’s begins c. 200 Ma (Keppie 2004) and
continues throughout the Cenozoic. Convergence of Chortis’
South Atlantic rotation to match North America’s motion, does
not begin until the appearance of the Caribbean plate in the
Late Cretaceous, and continues throughout the Cenozoic.
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics
Fig. 9. (a–b) Early Cretaceous, earliest Aptian, geotectonic recon-
struction of the Gulf of Mexico Basin and intra-American boundary
zone (c. 125 Ma). Symbols and abbreviations are explained in Figures
5 and 6. Chortis collides strongly with the southern Mexican terranes
as the much smaller proto-Caribbean plate is consumed by the
Greater Antilles arc-trench system. (b) Ephemeral microplates (e.g.
X) form to the west of the proto-Caribbean ridge and quickly
subduct beneath the Yucatan microplate. (c) Generally lower accu-
mulation rates in the Hosston–Sligo (Barremian) deposystem record
the beginning of an open-marine phase of deposition in a basin half
the size of the modern Gulf. A more continuous basin-margin reef
system (Sligo–Pettet and equivalents) rings the basin. Barremian
lithofacies in parts of Mexico are adapted from Moran-Zenteno
(1994). (c) Early Barremian palaeoceanography is suggested by green
arrows.
115
Fig. 10. (a–b) Early Cretaceous, latest Aptian, geotectonic recon-
struction of the Gulf of Mexico Basin–intra-American boundary
zone (c. 115 Ma). Symbols and abbreviations are explained in
Figures 5 and 6. (c) Lower accumulation rates continue in the
James–Rodessa (Aptian) deposystem. A greatly expanded basin-
margin reef system (Stuart City and equivalents) rings the larger basin
(b, c). (c) Aptian lithofacies in parts of Mexico are adapted from
Moran-Zenteno (1994) and Late Aptian palaeoceanography is
suggested by green arrows.
Initial positions suggested for both Chortis and proto-
Caribbean crust, and positive rotation angles relative to Africa
(indicated in Table 3), are consistent with: (1) the reported
initial (Triassic) separation between Chortis and Mexican
116 R. H. Fillon
Fig. 11. (a–b) Late Cretaceous, latest Cenomanian, geotectonic
reconstruction of the Gulf of Mexico Basin and intra-American plate
boundary zone (c. 94 Ma). Symbols and abbreviations are explained
in Figures 5 and 6. (b) cr–pa arc, Costa Rica–Panama arc. (c) Low
accumulation rates continue in the Lower Eagle Ford–Buda–Lower
Tuscaloosa (Cenomanian) deposystem. (b–c) The basin-margin
reef system (Buda and equivalents) persists, but by the end of the
Early Cretaceous consists of small biohermal structures on a largely
relict bank system. (c) Cenomanian lithofacies in parts of Mexico
are adapted from Moran-Zenteno (1994) and Late Cenomanian
palaeoceanography is suggested by green arrows.
terranes; (2) the development of Early Jurassic–Cretaceous
proto-Caribbean and Motagua oceanic crust between them;
(3) their convergence, obduction and juxtaposition in the Late
Jurassic–Early Cretaceous; (4) the northwestward subduction of
proto-Caribbean crust beneath the Yucatan microplate in the
Early Cretaceous; and (5) the development of a Yucatan–
Chortis transform in the Early Cretaceous (see Chortis and
Maya discussions in Keppie (2004) and proto-Caribbean arc
discussions in Kerr et al. (1999) and Pindell & Kennan (2001b)).
During the Latest Triassic–Early Jurassic fragmentation of
Pangaea, the Cortez and Guerrero composite terranes of
northern Mexico (m+gm in Fig. 6b) move generally southwest-
ward with respect to North America north of the Mojave–
Sonora megashear. Early Cretaceous rotation angles implied for
the Guerrero composite terrane, following Triassic–Jurassic
extension, are so small, however, that Euler poles are not
calculated.
To illustrate the motion of proto-Caribbean plate crust
relative to other intra-American crustal blocks, the modern
outlines of Hispaniola and Cuba are shown attached to the
proto-Caribbean and North American plates respectively
(Figs. 6–11). Extinction of the Greater Antilles arc and creation
of the proto-Lesser Antilles or Aves arc in the late Early
Cretaceous (Fig. 11) are consistent with published ages for arc
rocks in the Greater and Lesser Antilles (Fig. 1).
The Caribbean plate question
Formation of an intra-American Caribbean plate concurrently
with development of the Lesser Antilles arc in the late Early
Cretaceous or early Late Cretaceous, c. 115–94 Ma (Fig. 11) is a
possible kinematic solution. It does not exclude the possibility
of encroachment of an allochthonous Caribbean plate from the
Pacific at this time or later in the Late Cretaceous (Burke et al.
1984; Pindell & Barrett 1990; Pindell & Kennan 2001). Neither
does it support arguments for an intra-American origin for the
Caribbean plate that separates North and South America in the
Cenozoic (James 2003). The results of this study do indicate
that if the intra-American spreading centre that created the
proto-Caribbean plate remains active for a time follow-
ing creation of the Lesser Antilles arc-trench system and
the northern South American trench–transform boundary
(Fig. 11b), a new plate is created between the proto-Caribbean
ridge and South America. When this new plate is created the
old proto-Caribbean plate located to the west of the ridge may
already be extinct, sutured onto North America. The new plate,
however ephemeral, constitutes an intra-American Caribbean
plate that is clearly distinct from the proto-Caribbean plate
because it lies to the south of the proto-Caribbean ridge.
Yucatan–Greater Antilles subduction model
considerations
In proposing that the western Gulf of Mexico Basin opens
because of back-arc spreading related to a Chortis–Greater
Antilles arc and trench system, the question of why so very little
evidence of arc-related rocks is found on the Yucatan Peninsula
must be addressed. Observations consistent with arc develop-
ment include: (1) andesites of Jurassic–Late Cretaceous age
located within the Motagua and Chortis terranes sutured to the
southern and southeastern margins of the Yucatan block; (2) a
c. 131–137 Ma metamorphic event reported in Juarez terrane
abutting the southwestern margin of the Yucatan block;
(3) reported Yucatan block (Maya terrane) rotation c. 140 Ma;
and (4) pillow lavas, bentonites and a possible volcanic arc of
similar age reported from southeastern Mexico in the Chiapas
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics 117

Table 3. Euler pole and rotation angle data describing the movement of crust in the intra-American Motagua and proto-Caribbean seaways, including the Chortis block, relative to Africa

Age (Ma) Euler Pole: ch–hs to AF (NATL) Euler Pole: ch–hs to AF (SATL) New Pole: ch–hs to AF
Lat Long Angle + Lat Lon Angle = Lat Lon Angle
245.0 49.10
33.70
200.0 66.95
12.02 49.55* + 49.10
33.70 10.00* = 63.42
14.61 57.94
175.0 66.95
12.02 48.75* 49.10
33.70 10.00*
170.0 67.02
13.17 48.04* 49.10
33.70 10.00*
156.5 67.15
16.00 45.05* 49.10
33.70 10.00*
155.0 67.01
16.45 48.10* + 49.10
33.70 10.00* = 63.53
17.92 57.60
149.5 66.50
18.10 45.92* 49.10
33.70 10.00*
145.0 66.28
18.27 44.72* 49.10
33.70 10.00*
141.5 66.10
18.40 43.79* 49.10
33.70 10.00*
135.0 66.00
18.47 42.24* + 49.10
33.70 10.00* = 62.40
20.03 51.81
131.5 65.95
18.50 41.40* 49.10
33.70 10.00*
126.5 66.11
18.95 40.48* 49.30
33.80 10.00*
126.0 66.13
19.00 40.39* 49.36
33.84 10.00*
125.0 66.15
19.11 40.12* + 49.49
33.91 10.00* = 62.48
20.76 49.71
121.0 66.24
19.56 39.05* 50.00
34.20 10.00*
118.7 66.29
19.82 38.44* 50.10
34.60 10.00*
118.0 66.30
19.90 38.25* 50.34
34.59 10.00*
115.0 67.20
19.97 36.08* + 51.34
34.54 10.00* = 63.44
22.00 45.72
109.5 68.86
20.11 32.09* 53.19
34.44 10.00*
106.0 69.92
20.19 29.55* 54.36
34.38 10.00*
105.0 70.22
20.22 28.83* 54.70
34.37 10.00*
102.0 71.12
20.29 26.65* 55.71
34.31 10.00*
94.0 73.54
20.49 20.85* + 58.39
34.17 10.00* = 68.46
24.47 30.58
92.0 74.14
20.53 19.40* 58.82
34.11 10.00*

Interpolated data are indicated by an asterisk.

area (Horne et al. 1976; Carfantan 1977; Byerly 1991; Moran-
Zenteno 1994; Keppie 2004). These observations fit the
Chortis–Greater Antilles arc geometry and chronology sug-
gested in this study (Figs. 8b–10b; 13a). However, ‘andesites’
reported within Cretaceous strata penetrated by several wells
drilled in the Chicxulub area of the northwestern Yucatan
Peninsula (Paine & Meyerhoff 1970; Byerly 1991) are now
considered to be target melts related to the terminal Cretaceous
bolide event (Blum et al. 1993; Alvarez et al. 1995).
Might other evidence of arc magmatism have been removed
from the Yucatan block? Burke (1988) proposed that during
spreading associated with Eocene development of the Yucatan
back-arc basin a portion of the Yucatan block was sheared
away, transported northeastward, and amalgamated into west-
ern Cuba as the Guaniguanico terrane (see also Pszczolkowski
1999; Pindell & Kennan 2001b; Bird et al. 2005). Cretaceous
Guaniguanico strata containing serpentinite debris and coarse-
grained detritus from the Cretaceous arc are reported by
Iturralde-Vinent (1996) in olistostromes of the most southerly
Quninones and Felicidade belts.
In calling upon intra-American back-arc spreading to explain
the western Gulf of Mexico Basin, the question of scale arises.
Is it possible for back-arc spreading to be activated 600–
1000 km distant from the proposed arc and subduction zone?
The answer is probably yes. The horizontal subduction model
of van Hunen et al. (2000) provides a thermo-mechanical basis
for developing such long offsets between subduction and
oceanic basalt generation (Fig. 13). Analogues with comparable
offsets include apparent horizontal subduction recorded
beneath Mexico (Ferrari et al. 1999; van Hunen et al. 2000) and
proposed horizontal subduction explaining both the Rocky
Mountain and Andean uplifts (Schneider et al. 1988; Parsons
et al. 1994).
The Japan Sea–Japanese main islands system may offer the
best and most familiar analog. Both the scale and complex
kinematic evolution of the Japan Sea are similar to those
proposed here for the Yucatan–western Gulf of Mexico system.
Briefly summarized, Celaya & McCabe (1987) suggested that
Japan rifts from Asia c. 70 Ma and rotates clockwise approxi-
mately 25 as a single rigid continental crustal block, opening
the Japan Basin by c. 40 Ma. Subsequently, after an arc collides
with Hokkaido c. 40 Ma, northeastern Japan begins an indepen-
dent counterclockwise rotation of more than 60, while south-
western Japan continues rotating clockwise. Back-arc spreading
ceases in the late Miocene c. 11 Ma (Celaya & McCabe 1987;
Hoshi & Matsubara 1998; Miller et al. 2006).
While examining the evidence for Yucatan–western Gulf of
Mexico back-arc spreading, it is also useful to consider the
possible effects of cessation of subduction on the tectono-
stratigraphy of the region. Extinction of the Greater Antilles
volcanic arc late in the Early Cretaceous would very likely be
associated with detachment of the descending slab, thus
creating a slab window. The slab window would put hot
asthenosphere in direct contact with the crust leading to crustal
heating over a wide area, and to widespread thermal uplift (sensu
Parsons et al. 1994; Gao et al. 2004). Observations consistent
with regional thermal uplift following arc extinction in the late
Early Cretaceous Gulf of Mexico Basin include a significant
broad regional decline in sediment accumulation rates (e.g.
pre-94 Ma vs. post-94 Ma section in Fig. 12) and development
of a broad regional erosional unconformity recorded as the
Middle Cretaceous Unconformity (MCU) or Middle Cretaceous
Sequence Boundary (MCSB) in Gulf of Mexico stratigra-
phic studies (e.g. Buffler & Sawyer 1985; Buffler 1991; Feng
& Buffler 1991; Feng 1995). In Figure 12 the regional uncon-
formity is located between the Fredericksburg–Paluxy and
Selma–Eutaw series.
MAPPED DEPOSYSTEMS AND THE KINEMATIC
MODEL
Northern Gulf of Mexico deposystems
The northern Gulf of Mexico Basin is a biostratigraphically
data-rich area where over 200 000 industry stratigraphic well
118 R. H. Fillon

Fig. 12. Stratigraphically interpreted north–south seismic tracing (see inset 135 Ma geotectonic map for location). The line transects the Early
Cretaceous basin margin in the eastern Main Pass–Viosca Knoll lease areas. Stuart City, Sligo and Knowles-equivalent biohermal facies, indicated
by stylized shell fragments, are identified from stratal thickening and seismic facies characteristics. Stratigraphy and facies are tied to wells in the
Mobile and Destin Dome areas. Correlated horizon ages are posted at right. An erosional regional unconformity, the mid Cretaceous
unconformity (MCU) of Buffler & Sawyer (1985) separates Lower Cretaceous Fredericksburg–Paluxy strata from Upper Cretaceous
Selma–Eutaw strata. Adapted from Fillon (2001), reproduced with the permission of the GCSSEPM Foundation; further reproduction requires
their express written consent.

summaries containing over 5 000 000 events have been chrono-
stratigraphically evaluated and integrated with events from
published stratigraphic data (Fillon et al. 2005). Graphic corre-
lation analysis (sensu Shaw 1964) was used to refine a regional
northern Gulf of Mexico Basin deposystem chronology tied to
the Gradstein et al. (2004) geological time-scale. Synoptic
deposystem accumulation rate mapping and interpretation
based on this large chronostratigraphic database (Fillon et al.
2005) places constraints on Gulf of Mexico Basin deposystem
architecture throughout the Middle Jurassic–Cretaceous.
Figures 6c–11c compare these synoptic isopach and accumula-
tion rate deposystem maps with the basin morphology
suggested from kinematic reconstructions (Figs. 6b–11b).
Southern Gulf of Mexico deposystems
Onshore and offshore biostratigraphic data are not widely
available from public or industry sources in the southern Gulf
of Mexico Basin. Ocean drilling data are also much too limited
to provide a regional picture of deposystem architecture. Useful
information on Middle Jurassic–Cretaceous sediment thickness
and depositional environments in eastern Mexico and Yucatan
is contained, however, in summary lithofacies maps (Moran-
Zenteno 1994). These maps illustrate the distribution and
extents of subaerial, nearshore, deep-water, carbonate, siliciclas-
tic and volcaniclastic lithofacies that can be compared with the
basin morphology predicted in the kinematic reconstructions
(Figs. 6c–11c).
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics 119

Fig. 13. (a) A series of scaled northwest–southeast schematic cross-sections for the Gulf of Mexico Basin and intra-American plate boundary
zone extracted from plate kinematic reconstructions in Figures 6b–11b; (b) location. Cross-sections trace intra-American tectonics from initial
rifting, c. 200 Ma, through development of active microplate boundaries and back-arc spreading, c. 140 Ma, to the Gulf of Mexico Basin and
Yucatan sutured onto North America, c. 94 Ma. (c) A model of horizontal subduction from van Hunen et al. (2000) is compared with one of
the Yucatan–Gulf of Mexico Basin cross-sections at matching scales, suggesting that the long offsets between subduction and oceanic basalt
generation implied by a Greater Antilles arc–Yucatan microplate–Gulf Basin back-arc spreading system are consistent with thermo-mechanical
properties of the crust and mantle. NA, North America; SA, South America; Gom, Gulf of Mexico; Y, Yucatan; gaa, Greater Antilles Arc; pC,
proto-Caribbean. Reprinted from van Hunen et al. (2000) with permission from Elsevier.

Latest Triassic (200 Ma)
The c. 200 Ma geotectonic reconstruction of the Gulf Basin
(Fig. 6a–c; 13) combines plate, plate boundary and deposystem
views of the Gulf Basin at the end of the Rhaetian (latest
Triassic), just prior to Pangaean fragmentation. It illustrates
how the calculated resultant poles (Table 2) restored the
Yucatan block to a position within the supercontinent that is
consistent with both the Palaeozoic margin of North America
and the distribution of wells containing expanded Eagle
Mills–La Boca-equivalent (Late Triassic) continental deposits
120 R. H. Fillon
(Fig. 6c). As schematically depicted, Northern Mexico, north
of the Mojave–Sonora megashear, includes mainly terranes
sutured to Pangaea in the Palaeozoic (Keppie 2004). Southern
Mexico, as shown, consists mostly of the Cortez and Guerrero
composite terranes (Keppie 2004). It is restored to its Pangaean
position by rotation to the northwest along the Mojave–Sonora
megashear (cf. Keppie 2004), which closely follows a North
Atlantic small circle arc of Klitgord & Schouten (1986). The
South Florida and Bahamas Platform blocks are also restored
along these arcs (Pindell 1985). Seafloor spreading created
oceanic crust between southeastern Mexico and Chortis,
opening the Motagua Ocean (Fig. 6b; Keppie 2004).
The modern outlines of Cuba, parts of which may have been
located near this restored position, and Hispaniola, adjusted
for Cenozoic displacement, are provided for reference. The
reported extent of Triassic–Early Jurassic rifting is indicated
(rift symbols, Figs. 5, 6b), as are the probable positions of major
Atlantic hotspots assuming little or no motion with respect to
Africa (hotspot symbols, Figs. 5, 6c). The Cape Verde, Sierra
Leone–Ceara Rise and Saints Peter and Paul hotspots (McHone
2000; Vogt & Jung 2005) would all have been positioned within
the CAMP in the earliest Jurassic.
Figure 6c compares the kinematic reconstruction with the
mapped extent of Eagle Mills–La Boca-equivalent section and
well control (Fig. 6c inset). The small degree of overlap of
Eagle Mills–La Boca-equivalent strata onto the restored north-
western Yucatan margin might be eliminated entirely by the full
restoration of rifted North American and Yucatan continental
crust to a pre-rift configuration. Gulf of Mexico Minerals
Management Service (MMS) deep-water lease areas are shown
for reference in the figure (Fig. 6c inset).
Earliest Kimmeridgian (155 Ma)
The geotectonic reconstruction of the Gulf Basin at the
beginning of the Kimmeridgian, c. 155 Ma (Fig. 1), captures an
early stage in the movement of North America away from
Africa (Figs. 7a–c; 13). By this time, 45 million years of rifting
had shifted the South Florida and Bahamas Platform crustal
blocks into their present alignment with North America
(Fig. 7a–c) and had also repositioned the Yucatan block a few
hundred kilometres further away from the Palaeozoic margin of
North America and the Ouachita Front. Restoring the South
Florida and Bahamas Platform plate fragments in the manner
and time frame suggested by Pindell (1985), provides a result
that is consistent with both the fit of the continental plates
within Pangaea in the Triassic and the reported extent of
Callovian salt deposits throughout the Gulf Basin, Cuba, the
Bahamas, Blake Plateau and the northwest African margin
(Fig. 7b); The mapped interval closely postdates the Callovian
deposition of Louann–Minas Viejas–Ismithian–Punta Alegre-
equivalent salt throughout the intra-American boundary region
(Paine & Meyerhoff 1970; Van Houten 1977; Watkins et al.
1978; Dillon et al. 1979; Klitgord & Schouten 1986; Salvador
1987; Taylor et al. 2000; Magoon et al. 2001; Meneses-Rocha
2001; Pindell & Kennan 2001a, b; Moretti et al. 2003; Bird et al.
2005).
The restored position of Yucatan at the end of the beginning
of the Kimmeridgian is consistent with accumulation rates of
syn-rift, rift-fill and platform sediments of Kimmeridgian–
Oxfordian-aged Haynesville–Smackover and Olvido–Zuloaga-
equivalent strata (Fig. 7c; Moran-Zenteno 1994). In the
northern Gulf Basin mapped deposystems reflect deposition
centred in a Red Sea- or Gulf of California-like rifted basin that
developed between South Texas and northwestern Yucatan and
in a complex extensional terrane between southeast Texas and
the Florida Platform created as South Florida and the Bahamas
Platform lagged the northwestward rotation of North America
in the Early Jurassic. In the southern Gulf Basin, the distri-
bution of lithofacies suggests an elevated Yucatan block
rimmed by eroding highlands on the east and south. Asym-
metric rifting may have caused disparate uplift of Yucatan or,
noting emergent areas reported along the southeastern and
southwestern Yucatan margins, perhaps an early response to
northwest-dipping subduction.
During this period, the Motagua Ocean, located between
southeastern Mexico and Chortis was nearly closed, its crust
largely subducted beneath the Chortis arc. At the same time
Atlantic and intra-American spreading centres were actively
generating new seafloor, allowing sea water to enter the Gulf of
Mexico rift basin from the intra-American (proto-Caribbean)
basin that was developing to the east (Fig. 7c). Emergent areas
and marine units in southeastern and eastern Mexico and
accumulation of Smackover–Pimienta-equivalent marine source
rocks also suggest that the nascent western Gulf of Mexico
Basin was tortuously connected to the Pacific Ocean by
seaways across Mexico and through the Motagua Ocean.
Projected tracks of major Atlantic hotspots (Fig. 7c) cross
the US Atlantic Margin in the vicinity of Blake Plateau (Cape
Verde hotspot) and the Gulf Basin margin in the vicinity of
southernmost Florida–western Cuba (Sierra Leone–Ceara Rise
hotspot). The Saints Peter and Paul hotspot remained station-
ary relative to South America in the area of the Demerara Rise
and Guyana Plateau (McHone 2000).
Earliest Hauterivian (135 Ma)
The earliest Hauterivian geotectonic reconstruction, c. 135 Ma
(Fig. 1), provides views of the Gulf Basin (Figs. 8a–d, 13)
corresponding to the end of Upper Cotton Valley–Lower
Casita siliciclastic deposystem development (Berriasian Series,
Fig. 8c). Architecture of the Lower Cotton Valley siliciclastic
deposystem is also shown (Tithonian Series, Fig. 8d).
Several million years prior to the beginning of the Hauteriv-
ian, possibly during the Late Berriasian or Early Valanginian,
c. 140 Ma, a new ridge system was initiated within the Jurassic
rift basin that had developed between the Texas–Louisiana
margin of North America and Yucatan (cf. Figs. 6b–8b).
Younger, latest Jurassic–earliest Cretaceous, rather than the
Middle Jurassic initiation of seafloor spreading in the western
Gulf Basin (see summary in Bird et al. 2005), is dictated by the
chronology of an evolving mantle stress field in the South
Atlantic (Tables 1, 2).
The activation of a mantle-driven South Atlantic stress field
(Fig. 3c) responsible for early rifting between South America
and Africa and, ultimately, for the separation of South America
from Africa, triggered: (1) creation of a Greater Antilles
arc-trench system; (2) development of a distinct proto-
Caribbean plate isolated from the Yucatan microplate by the
Greater Antilles trench and from North America by the
proto-Caribbean transform; (3) northwestward subduction of
proto-Caribbean crust beneath a newly isolated Yucatan micro-
plate; and (4) back-arc spreading in the western Gulf Basin
(Fig. 8b).
It is suggested that the subduction polarity of the Chortis arc
flipped at this time and that associated back-arc spreading in
Mexico drove the Guerrero composite terranes into Chortis,
obducting the remnants of Motagua seafloor, as suggested by
regional geotectonic reconstructions, space considerations and
the mid-ocean ridge basalt (MORB) geochemistry of Motagua
ophiolites (Kerr et al. 1999; Pindell & Kennan 2001b; Dickinson
& Lawton 2001; Keppie 2004). The Chortis microplate jumped
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics
the newly established proto-Caribbean spreading centre
between Mexico and northwestern South America, becoming
incorporated into the proto-Caribbean plate. Whether the
changes in the Chortis arc triggered development of the
Greater Antilles arc and back-arc spreading in the Gulf Basin,
or the latter caused the Chortis arc to reverse polarity cannot be
determined. Either explanation is consistent with the data and
the model.
During the 20 million years following the end of the
Oxfordian, c. 156 Ma, active North Atlantic and proto-
Caribbean spreading centres created an open, c. 400 km wide,
Valanginian Gulf Basin connecting the North Atlantic basin to
the eastern Pacific (Fig. 8c). At this time the western Gulf was
wide enough to allow development of the first extensive
continental margin reefs (Knowles–San Juan equivalents
Figs. 8c, 12). Reefal architecture on the Tuxpan and San Louis
Potosi platforms suggests a trail of microblocks left behind
as the Yucatan microplate continued moving to the southeast.
The absence of an extensive marginal reef system before
c. 135 Ma is significant because it suggests that prior to that
time the Gulf Basin was too narrow and restricted in its
connection to the world ocean to support shelf margin
bioherms. It is likely that the development of extensive
basin margin bioherms and the initiation of dynamic back-arc
spreading are linked.
The restored western Gulf Basin is consistent with mapped
accumulation rates and lithofacies of Tithonian–Valanginian
age Cotton Valley–Bossier–Knowles–Lower Casita–San
Juan-equivalent strata (Fig. 8c, d). Principal Tithonian deposys-
tems are centred in East Texas (Fig. 8c), while Berriasian–
Valanginian deposition (Fig. 8d) is concentrated further south.
Seaward of the Gulf Basin margins, Lower Cretaceous source
rocks (sensu Cole et al. 2001) accumulated during this period.
Large salt-lubricated detachments were probably active along
the basin rim during this phase (Fillon et al. 2006). As in the
Gulf of California, such large-scale detachments have the
capacity to cover newly forming oceanic crust very quickly with
thick sedimentary allochthons (Gastil & Fenby 1991).
In the Early Hauterivian, the Mexican seaway remained open
to the Pacific and a Panamanian–Costa Rican seaway, located to
the east of Chortis, opened as the Motagua Ocean closed, thus
maintaining the connection between the intra-American basins
and the Pacific. A deep Central Atlantic seaway located to the
east of the Bahamas also probably opened at this time,
improving the hydrographic connection of the intra-American
basins with the North Atlantic.
Major Atlantic hotspots were located outside the Gulf of
Mexico Basin by this time. The Cape Verde and Sierra
Leone–Ceara Rise hotspots jumped to the east of the North
Atlantic spreading centre (Fig. 8b, c).
Earliest Aptian (125 Ma)
The c. 125 Ma geotectonic reconstruction of the Gulf of
Mexico Basin (Figs. 9a–c, 13) provides views of a widening
western Gulf at the beginning of the Aptian (Fig. 1). Sligo–
Pettet–Cupido–La Virgen (carbonate) and Hosston–Upper
Casita (siliciclastic) basin-margin deposystems dominated the
depositional architecture of the basin (Fig. 9c).
Back-arc spreading in the western Gulf Basin, northwest-
ward subduction of proto-Caribbean crust, and counterclock-
wise rotation of Yucatan southeastward along the East Mexican
Transform continued through this interval. The proto-
Caribbean transform may have extended eastward at this time,
with a fault–fault–ridge (FFR) triple junction forming near the
eastern tip of the Bahamas Platform. The Tuxpan platform
121
(Faja de Oro) microblock was separated fully from the Yucatan
microplate (Fig. 9b, c).
With westward migration of the proto-Caribbean ridge,
subduction of proto-Caribbean plate seafloor beneath the
Yucatan microplate potentially isolated proto-Caribbean
oceanic plate fragments, creating new microplates and transient
triple junctions west of the proto-Caribbean ridge, e.g. an
expanded Chortis microplate and ephemeral microplates
(Fig. 9b). To the east of the proto-Caribbean ridge, early
separation of South America from Africa in response to
accelerated rifting and the growing influence of a South Atlantic
stress field likely placed northwestern South America in
northwest-southeast compression.
By 125 Ma the western Gulf of Mexico Basin had widened
considerably to over 600 km, encouraging expansion of Sligo–
Pettet–Cupido–La Virgen-equivalent continental margin reef
and platform carbonate systems (Figs. 9b, c, 12). Accumulation
rates and lithofacies extents of Hauterivian–Barremian
Hosston–Upper Casita-equivalent marine siliciclastics and car-
bonates are consistent with the reconstructed shape of the
western Gulf Basin (Fig. 9c). Principal Barremian deposystems
were distributed along the shelf-margin, although possible large
bypass slope-fan systems, or more likely massive salt-lubricated
allochthons associated with detachment faulting were located
offshore South Louisiana and Texas (Fig. 9c; Fillon et al. 2006).
The distribution of nearshore volcanic units and emergent
areas along the southern Yucatan margin is consistent with an
active Greater Antilles arc, continued subduction beneath
Yucatan, and an active transform or remnant arc in northwest
Chortis. The Mexican, Panamanian–Costa Rican and Central
Atlantic seaways remained open connecting the intra-American
basins to the Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans.
Latest Aptian (115 Ma)
The c. 115 Ma, latest Aptian geotectonic reconstruction (Figs. 1,
10a–c, 13) positions the Yucatan microplate, still tightly abut-
ting the East Mexican Transform, within 200 km of its modern
alignment with North America (Fig. 10a–c).
Back-arc spreading persisted in the western Gulf of Mexico
until the Middle to Late Albian (c. 109–102 Ma – Table 2) as
northwest-dipping subduction consumed additional proto-
Caribbean crust. The Costa Rica–Panama arc probably devel-
oped off northwestern South America about this time. A new
FFR triple junction between Africa and the Bahamas Platform
heralded the initiation of seafloor spreading between Africa and
South America.
The width of the western Gulf of Mexico Basin approached
700 km in the Late Aptian. Kinematic analysis predicts that
most Gulf of Mexico seafloor (c. 60%) was created in the
Aptian, c. 125–115 Ma, i.e. during the Cretaceous period
of stable normal geomagnetic polarity, which lasted from
c. 125 Ma to c. 83.5 Ma (Gradstein et al. 2004).
James–Rodessa–Glen Rose–La Pena–Las Uvas–equivalent
accumulation rate and lithofacies maps (Fig. 10c) reveal depo-
sitional architecture dominated by extensive shallow carbonate
platforms and deep open-marine basins separated by robust
James-equivalent continental margin reef systems (Figs. 10b, c,
12). A thick basin-margin Aptian section is also probably
contained in the large allochthons located beneath the South
Louisiana and Texas offshore (Fig. 10c; Fillon et al. 2006). The
persistence of nearshore volcanics and emergent areas in
southern Yucatan and adjacent terranes suggests the Greater
Antilles arc remained active along the southern Yucatan margin,
with continued subduction beneath Yucatan, and an active
transform or remnant arc in northwest Chortis. Concurrent
122 R. H. Fillon
development of the Panama–Costa Rica arc (Fig. 10b) probably
caused shoaling of the Panamanian–Costa Rican seaway. The
Mexican and Central Atlantic seaways remained open, connect-
ing the Gulf and other intra-American basins to the Pacific and
North Atlantic Oceans.
Latest Cenomanian (94 Ma)
Western Gulf of Mexico back-arc spreading and west-dipping
subduction of proto-Caribbean seafloor beneath the Yucatan
microplate, which are active elements throughout most of the
Lower Cretaceous, came to an end during the Late Albian. In
the c. 94 Ma latest Cenomanian geotectonic reconstruction of
the Gulf Basin (Figs. 1, 11a–c, 13) Yucatan had reached its
modern alignment with respect to North America, creating a
western Gulf of Mexico Basin c. 800 km wide.
During the Cenomanian, expansion of the developing South
Atlantic spreading centre led to abandonment of the Greater
Antilles arc and creation of a new, Lesser Antilles (Aves)
arc-trench system. This new arc spanned the gap between the
eastern tip of the Bahamas Platform and South America,
shifting the locus of west-dipping subduction further to the
east. Central Atlantic oceanic crust, generated by the South
Atlantic spreading centre, was subducted beneath the new arc.
Cessation of subduction beneath the Greater Antilles arc
removed a critical proto-Caribbean plate boundary and there-
fore signalled extinction of the proto-Caribbean plate. Its
remaining crust was probably sutured onto North America at
this time. The new arc created an intra-American Caribbean
plate (iaC in Fig. 11b) conjugate to the extinct proto-Caribbean
plate, which was replaced by the unique Caribbean plate (sensu
Pindell & Kennan 2001b) that replaced it in the Cenozoic.
The postulated Cenomanian intra-American Caribbean plate
consisted largely of oceanic crust. It was bordered to the
northwest by the still active proto-Caribbean ridge and the
North American plate, to the southeast by a transform fault-
trench system situated along the northern margin of South
America, and to the southwest by the developing Costa
Rica–Panama arc and the Farallon plate.
Basin margin reef development peaked in the Albian, with
the vigorous expansion of Stuart City–Aurora-equivalent bio-
herms around the Gulf rim (Figs. 10c, 12). During the
Cenomanian, however, basin-margin reefs were much less
significant, possibly due to regional thermal uplift related to
subducting slab detachment which may be responsible for the
heating and volcanics attributed to a suggested Aves–Beata
Ridge ‘hotspot’ or melting anomaly (Figs. 1, 12).
Accumulation rates and lithofacies of Cenomanian Buda–
Lower Tuscaloosa–Lower Eagle Ford–Cuesta del Cura–Agua
Nueva equivalents record extensive shallow carbonate plat-
forms with minor shelf-edge build-ups and deep open-marine
facies (Fig. 11c). In the Cenomanian, nearshore volcanics and
emergent areas in southern Yucatan and northern Chortis
record the last stages of Greater Caribbean arc activity.
Held stationary with respect to Africa, the postulated Aves–
Beata Ridge melting anomaly was centred in the Gulf of Mexico
Basin at the end of the Cenomanian (Fig. 11c). Evidence for
this thermal anomaly comes from reports of Caribbean Large
Igneous Province (CLIP) alkalic basalts dated to about 81 Ma
on the Beata Ridge (Sinton et al. 2000) and northern Aves Ridge
(Fox et al. 1971). Bird et al. (2005) detailed evidence for
hotspot-generated crust in the western Gulf Basin, although
they suggested a greater age.
Heating events further north in the Mississippi Embayment
portion of the Gulf Basin are thought to be associated with
the Bermuda hotspot, which transited the northern limits
of the basin a few million years later (Cox & Van Arsdale
2002). Diamonds from the alkalic Murfreesboro lamproite in
southwestern Arkansas (dated c. 106–97 Ma) and alkalic basalts
from the Gulf rim (dated between 82 Ma and 69 Ma, Byerly
1991; Fig. 4) provide evidence of increasing mantle–upper
crustal interaction toward the end of the Early Cretaceous and
into the Late Cretaceous.
The Yucatan microplate lies within the intra-American plate
boundary zone of interfering North and South Atlantic stresses
throughout the Early Cretaceous. Beginning in the Late Albian,
however, Yucatan moves out of the boundary zone and
is sutured (albeit loosely) to North America. In the Late
Cretaceous and Cenozoic, the North American–Caribbean
plate boundary passes along Yucatan’s southern margin (Pindell
& Kennan 2001b). The geologically measurable Late Cenozoic
counterclockwise rotation of Yucatan with respect to North
America, reported by Burkart & Scotese (2001), provides direct
evidence for the impact of interfering mantle stresses near
the intra-American plate boundary zone. During the Early
Cretaceous when Yucatan appears to actually lie within the
boundary zone, the impact and resulting rotation are likely to
have been of considerably greater magnitude.
IMPLICATIONS FOR GULF OF MEXICO
PETROLEUM SYSTEMS
The Early Jurassic Gulf of Mexico rift system probably looked
very much like the Rio Grande Rift Valley does today. Rifted
terrane punctuated by steep fault-block mountains like the
Permian Guadalupe Mountain fault block and alluvial basins
receiving Eagle Mills-equivalent deposition indicate an arid
subaerial environment. The Gulf of Mexico rift system evolved
into the western Gulf of Mexico Basin with accelerated
subsidence triggered by the removal of lower crust (Karner &
Driscoll 1999) in the Late Triassic–Early Jurassic (c. 228–
176 Ma). This stage was followed in the Middle–Late Jurassic
(c. 176–146 Ma) by marine inundation and source-rock deposi-
tion. By the Late Berriasian or Early Valanginian (c. 140 Ma),
back-arc spreading had begun in the western Gulf Basin and
steepened basin margins would have been inclined to fail,
leading to the development of large detachments on the
underlying Callovian salt. Early Cretaceous source rocks were
deposited in both carbonate and siliciclastic depocentres within
the widening and deepening Gulf Basin.
In contrast to the western Gulf Basin, in the eastern Gulf
Basin, Berriasian–Barremian forearc compression buttressed
basin margins, potentially even folding Early Cretaceous strata
to create features such as the Destin Dome anticline (Dobson
& Buffler 1997). Buttressing and lesser volumes of salt would
have reduced the scale of and delayed the onset of detachment
faulting until after southeastward arc migration relieved forearc
compression of the northwest Florida margin (Fillon 2001).
In a tectonically active Early Cretaceous Gulf of Mexico
Basin, uplift, subsidence, fluid expulsion and hydrocarbon
migration pathways were affected by vigorous post- and syn-
depositional stress fields. Detachment nappes covering oceanic
crustal margins of the widening Gulf, and volcanism related to
subducted slab detachment, provided post-depositional and
syn-depositional environments in which hydrothermal fluids
could diagenetically alter formations of Early Cretaceous age,
potentially contributing to hydrocarbon maturation, expulsion,
dolomitization, secondary porosity enhancement and illite–
smectite conversion.
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics
SUMMARY
This study reports an acceptable kinematic solution for the
Mesozoic rotation of Yucatan based on cumulative North
American and South American plate rotations and related
back-arc spreading. It supports a planetary geodynamic view of
Gulf Basin evolution in which the creation of oceanic crust in
the Gulf of Mexico is linked directly to neighbouring larger-
plate motions and merging North and South Atlantic stress
fields. Although several hundred kilometres of crustal extension
separated Yucatan from North America in the Jurassic, North
and South American rotation poles and the timing of initial
South Atlantic rifting suggest an earliest Cretaceous age for
initiation of the seafloor spreading and oceanic crust formation
which produced most of the separation of Yucatan from Texas
and opened the western Gulf of Mexico. Angular velocities of
Atlantic spreading predict that Yucatan rotation slowed dra-
matically and largely ceased in the Late Albian (c. 109–102 Ma).
The Late Triassic fit of a Yucatan (Maya) block against the
Texas–Southwest Louisiana Palaeozoic margin and the subse-
quent movement of Yucatan predicted by the interaction of
North and South Atlantic stress fields is consistent with the
known distribution of Mesozoic deposystems along the north-
ern and southern margins of the Gulf Basin. Thick salt-
lubricated detachment allochthons of pre-drift strata may mask
the oldest oceanic crust in the Gulf Basin, formed prior to
c. 120 Ma. Based on the implied time-scale, up to 60% of Gulf
of Mexico seafloor could have been generated in the Aptian
(c. 125–112 Ma), during the Early Cretaceous stable normal
geomagnetic polarity episode, which spanned the interval
125–83.5 Ma.
Oceanic plateau basalts and other deep mantle-derived
volcanic rocks in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Basins are
consistent with hotspots or melting anomalies being overridden
by the Gulf Basin as North America moved away from Africa,
beginning in the Late Jurassic and continuing through the
Cenomanian.
The author wishes to acknowledge the organizers of the Return to
Rifts conference and the Geological Society for hosting a marvellous
meeting. Texaco (now Chevron), Louisiana State University, Paleo-
Data, Inc. and Earth Studies Group provided support for the study
in its various stages. The Norwegian Geologic Survey is thanked for
generously making GMAP software available on the world-wide
web.
REFERENCES
Acton, G.D., Galbrun, B. & King, J.W. 2000. Paleolatitude of the Caribbean
plate since the late Cetaceous. In: Leckie, R.M., Sigurdsson, H., Acton,
G.D. & Draper, G. (eds) Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific
Results, 165. College Station, Texas, 149–173.
Almy, C.C. Jr 1969. Sedimentation and tectonism in the Upper Cretaceous
Puerto Rican portion of the Caribbean Island Arc. Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies Transactions, 19, 269–279.
Alvarez, W., Claeys, P. & Kieffer, S.W. 1995. Emplacement of KT boundary
shocked quartz from Chicxulub crater. Science, 269, 930–935.
Anderson, D.L. 2001. Topside tectonics. Science, 293, 2016–2018.
Anderson, D.L. & Natland, J.H. 2005. A brief history of the plume
hypothesis and its competitors: concept and controversy. In: Foulger, G.R.,
Natland, J.H., Presnall, D.C. & Anderson, D.L. (eds) Plates, Plumes &
Paradigms. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 388, 119–146.
Anderson, T.H. & Schmidt, V.A. 1983. The evolution of middle America and
the Gulf of Mexico–Carribean Sea region during Mesozoic time. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 94, 941–966.
Arden, D.D. Jr 1969. Geologic History of the Nicaraguan Rise. Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 19, 295–309.
Atwater, T. & Stock, J. 1998. Pacific-North America plate tectonics of the
Neogene southwestern United States: an update. International Geology Review,
40, 375–402.
123
Baksi, A.K. 1997. The timing of Late Cretaceous alkalic igneous activity in the
northern Gulf of Mexico basin, southeastern USA. Journal of Geology, 105,
629–643.
Barnett, R.S. 1975. Basement structure of Florida and its tectonic
implications. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 25,
122–142.
Bartolini, C., Lang, H., Cantú-Chapa, A. & Barboza-Gudiño, R. 2001. The
Triassic Zacatecas Formation in central Mexico: Paleotectonic, paleogeo-
graphic, and paleobiogeographic implications. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T.
& Cantú-Chapa, A. (eds) The western Gulf of Mexico Basin: Tectonics, sedimentary
basins, and petroleum systems. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir, 75, 295–315.
Becker, T.W., Kellogg, J.B., Ekstrom, G. & O’Connell, R.J. 2003. Compari-
son of azimuthal seismic anisotropy from surface waves and finite strain
from global mantle-circulation models. Geophysical Journal International, 155,
696–714.
Bertrand, H. 1991. The Mesozoic tholeiitic province of northwest Africa: a
volcano-tectonic record of the early opening of the central Atlantic. In:
Kampunzo, A.B. & Lubala, R.T. (eds) The Phanerozoic African Plate.
Springer, New York, 147–191.
Bird, D.E., Burke, K., Hall, S.A. & Casey, J.F. 2005. Gulf of Mexico tectonic
history: hotspot tracks, crustal boundaries, and early salt distribution.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 89, 311–328.
Blair, T.C. 1988. Mixed siliciclastic-carbonate marine and continental syn-rift
sedimentation, Todos Santos and San Ricardo Formations, western
Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 58, 623–636.
Blum, J.D., Chamberlain, C.P., Hingston, M.P., Koeberl, C., Marin, L.E.,
Schuraytz, B.C. & Sharpton, V.L. 1993. Isotopic comparison of K/T
boundary impact glasses with melt rock from the Chicxulub and Manson
impact structures. Nature, 364, 325–327.
Bowin, C. 1966. Geology of the Central Dominican Republic (case history of
part of an island arc). In: Hess, H. (ed.) Caribbean geological studies. Geological
Society of America Memoir, 98, 11–84.
Braunstein, J. & McMichael, C.E. 1976. Door Point: a buried volcano in
southeast Louisiana. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions,
26, 79–80.
Braunstein, J., Huddlestun, P. & Beil, R. 1985. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists correlation of stratigraphic units in North America. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists (COSUNA), Gulf Coast, Chart of the Gulf
Coast Region. AAPG, Tulsa, OK.
Breitsprecher, K. & Thorkelson, D.J. 2001. Spatial coincidence of the
Kula–Farallon slab window with trench-distal volcanism of the Eocene
Magmatic Belt in the southern Cordillera. In: Cook, F. & Erdmer, P.
(compilers) (eds) Slave-Northern Cordillera Lithospheric Evolution (SNORCLE)
Transect and Cordilleran Tectonics Workshop Meeting (February 22–25). Litho-
probe Report, 79. Pacific Geoscience Centre, 178–183.
Buffler, R.T. 1991. Seismic stratigraphy of the deep Gulf of Mexico basin and
adjacent margins. In: Salvador, A. (ed.) The Gulf of Mexico basin. The
Geology of North America J. Geological Society of America, Boulder,
Colorado, 353–387.
Buffler, R.T. & Sawyer, D.S. 1985. Distribution of crust and early history,
Gulf of Mexico Basin. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions,
35, 333–334.
Bunge, H-P. & Grand, S.P. 2000. Mesozoic plate-motion history below the
northeast Pacific Ocean from seismic images of the subducted Farallon
slab. Nature, 405, 337–340.
Burkart, B. & Scotese, C. R. 2001. Cenozoic rotation of the Yucatan (Maya)
block along the Orizaba fault zone of southern Mexico and the faults of
Central America. Abstract presented at the Geological Society of America
meeting. Available at: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/
abstract_28261.htm.
Burke, K. 1988. Tectonic evolution of the Caribbean. Annual Review of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, 16, 201–230.
Burke, K., Cooper, C., Dewey, J.F., Mann, P. & Pindell, J.L. 1984. Caribbean
tectonics and relative plate motions. In: Bonini, W.E., Hargraves, R.B. &
Shagam, R. (eds) The Caribbean–South America plate boundary and regional
tectonics. Geological Society of America Memoir, 162, 31–64.
Byerly, G.R. 1991. Igneous activity. In: Salvador, A. (ed.) The Gulf of Mexico
basin. The Geology of North America J. Geological Society of America,
Boulder, Colorado, 91–108.
Cande, S., Labrecque, J.L. & Haxby, W.F. 1988. Plate kinematics of the South
Atlantic: Chron C34 to present. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93,
13479–13492.
Carfantan, C.J. 1977. La cobijadura de Motozintla–un paleoarco volcanico en
Chiapas. Revista, Instituto de Geologia, UNAM, 1, 133–137.
Castle, J.C., Creager, K.C., Winchester, J.P. & van der Hilst, R.D. 2000. Shear
wave speeds at the base of the mantle. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105,
21543–21558.
Celaya, M. & McCabe, R. 1987. Kinematic model for the opening of
the Sea of Japan and the bending of the Japanese islands. Geology, 15,
53–57.
124 R. H. Fillon
Christenson, G. 1990. The Florida lineament. Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies Transactions, 40, 99–115.
Cole, G.A., Yu, A., Peel, F. et al. 2001. The Deep Water Gulf of Mexico
Petroleum System: Insights from Piston Coring, Defining Seepage,
Anomalies, and Background. In: Fillon, R.H., Rosen, N., Weimer, P. et al.
(eds) Petroleum Systems of Deep-Water Basins: Global and Gulf of Mexico
Experience. Gulf Coast Section of SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology)
Publication on CD-ROM.
Cox, R. & Van Arsdale, R. 2002. The Mississippi Embayment, North
America: a first order continental structure generated by the Cretaceous
superplume mantle event. Journal of Geodynamics, 34, 163–176.
Dalziel, I.W.D., Lawver, L.A. & Murphy, J.B. 2000. Plumes, orogenesis, and
supercontinental fragmentation. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 178, 1–11.
de Cserna, Z. 1976. Geology of the Fresnillo area, Zacatecas, Mexico.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 87, 1191–1199.
DeMets, C. 1995. Plate motions and crustal deformation. U. S. National Report to
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, 1991–1994. Reviews of
Geophysics, 33. Supplement, American Geophysical Union, Washington,
D. C.
Dickinson, W.R. 1970. Relations of andesites, granites, and derivative
sandstones to arc-trench territories. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 8,
813–860.
Dickinson, W.R. & Coney, P.J. 1980. Plate tectonic constraints on the origin
of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Pilger, R.H. Jr (ed.) The origin of the Gulf of Mexico
and the early opening of the central North Atlantic Ocean. Department of Geology,
Louisiana State University and Louisiana Geological Survey, Proceedings
of Symposium, 3–5 March, 27–36.
Dickinson, W.R. & Lawton, T.F. 2001. Carboniferous to Cretaceous assem-
bly and fragmentation of Mexico. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113,
1142–1160.
Dillon, W.P., Paull, C.K., Buffler, R.T. & Fail, J-P. 1979. Structure and
development of the southeast Georgia Embayment and northern Blake
Plateau: preliminary analysis, rifted margins. In: Watkins, J.S., Montadert, L
& Dickerson, P. (eds) Geological and Geophysical Investigations of Continental
Margins. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 29,
27–41.
Dobson, L.M. & Buffler, R.T. 1997. Seismic stratigraphy and geologic history
of Jurassic rocks, northeastern Gulf of Mexico. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 81, 100–120.
Dunbar, J.A. & Sawyer, D.S. 1987. Implications of continental crust exten-
sion for plate reconstruction: An example from the Gulf of Mexico.
Tectonics, 6, 739–755.
Duncan, R.A. & Hargraves, R.B. 1984. Plate tectonic evolution of the
Caribbean region in the mantle reference frame. In: Bonini, W.E.,
Hargraves, R.B. & Shagam, R. (eds) The Caribbean–South America plate
boundary and regional tectonics. Geological Society of America Memoir, 162,
81–93.
Dziewonski, A.M. 2005. The robust aspects of global seismic tomography. In:
Foulger, G.R., Anderson, D.L., Natland, J.H. & Presnall, D.C. (eds) Plates,
Plumes & Paradigms. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 388,
147–154.
Eguiluz de Antuñano, S. 2001. Geologic evolution and gas resources of the
Sabinas Basin in northeastern Mexico. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T. &
Cantú-Chapa, A. (eds) The western Gulf of Mexico Basin: Tectonics, sedimentary
basins, and petroleum systems. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir, 75, 241–270.
Engebretson, D.C., Cox, A. & Gordon, R.G. 1986. Relative motions between
oceanic and continental plates in the Pacific Basin. Geological Society of
America Special Paper, 206, 1–59.
Escartin, J., Smith, D.K. & Cannat, M. 2003. Parallel bands of seismicity at
the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 12–14N. Geophysical Research Letters, 30,
1620–1623.
Fairhead, J.D. & Wilson, M. 2005. Plate tectonic processes in the South
Atlantic Ocean: do we need deep mantle plumes?. In: Foulger, G.R.,
Anderson, D.L., Natland, J.H. & Presnall, D.C. (eds) Plates, Plumes &
Paradigms. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 388, 537–554.
Feng, J. 1995. Post Mid-Cretaceous seismic stratigraphy and depositional history, deep
Gulf of Mexico. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
Feng, J. & Buffler, R.T. 1991. Preliminary age determinations for new deep
Gulf of Mexico Basin seismic sequences. Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies Transactions, 41, 283–289.
Ferrari, L., López-Martínez, M., Aguirre-Díaz, G. & Carrasco-Núñez, G.
1999. Space–time patterns of Cenozoic arc volcanism in central Mexico:
From the Sierra Madre Occidental to the Mexican Volcanic Belt. Geology,
27, 303–306.
Filho, A.T., Pimentel Mizusaki, A.M., Milani, E.J. & de Cesero, P. 2000.
Rifting and magmatism associated with the South America and Africa
break up. Revista Brasileira de Geociências, 30, 017–019.
Fillon, R.H. 2001. Late Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposystem evolution in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico: implications for hydrocarbon migration. In: Fillon,
R.H., Rosen, N., Weimer, P. et al. (eds) Petroleum Systems of Deep-Water Basins:
Global and Gulf of Mexico Experience. Gulf Coast Section of SEPM (Society
for Sedimentary Geology) Publication on CD-ROM.
Fillon, R.H., Waterman, A.S. & Lawless, P.N. 2005. Paleocene–Eocene
Deposystems in the Gulf of Mexico: Petroleum System Implications. Gulf
Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 55, 195–222.
Fillon, R.H., Stieglitz, T., Matava, T. & Dinkelman, M.G. 2006. Gulf of
Mexico deep seismic imaging and Mesozoic interpretation initiative. SEG
Expanded Abstracts, 25, 1008. doi:10.1190/1.2369683.
Fox, P.J., Schreiber, E. & Heezen, B.C. 1971. The geology of the Caribbean
crust: Tertiary sediments, granitic and basic rocks from the Aves Ridge.
Tectonophysics, 12, 89–109.
Freeland, G.L. & Dietz, R.S. 1971. Plate tectonic evolution of Caribbean–
Gulf of Mexico region. Nature, 232, 20–23.
Gao, W., Grand, S.P., Baldridge, W.S., Wilson, D., West, M., Ni, J.F. & Aster,
R. 2004. Upper mantle convection beneath the central Rio Grande rift
imaged by P and S wave tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109,
B03305, doi:10.1029/2003JB002743.
García-Casco, A., de Arce, P., Millán, G. et al. 2003. Metabasites from the
northern serpentinite belt (Cuba) and a metamorphic perspective of the
plate tectonic models for the Caribbean region. Tectónica de placas en el
Caribe. Taller del proyecto n 433 del PICG / UNESCO. TPICG. 07,
Memorias Geomin 2003, la Habana, 24–28 de marzo (ISBN
959-7117-11-8), 29–37.
Garfunkel, Z. 1986. Review of oceanic transform activity and development.
Journal of the Geological Society, London, 143, 775–784.
Gastil, R.G. & Fenby, S.S. 1991. Detachment faulting as a mechanism for
tectonically filling the Gulf of California during dilation. In: Dauphin, J.P.
& Simoneit, B.R.T. (eds) The Gulf and Peninsular Province of the Californias.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 47, 371–375.
Goldhammer, R.K. & Johnson, C.A. 2001. Middle Jurassic–Upper Creta-
ceous paleogeographic evolution and sequence-stratigraphic framework of
the northwest Gulf of Mexico rim. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T. &
Cantú-Chapa, A. (eds) The western Gulf of Mexico Basin: Tectonics, sedimentary
basins, and petroleum systems. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir, 75, 45–81.
Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G. & Smith, A. 2004. Geologic Time Scale 2004.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Grand, S.P., van der Hilst, R.D. & Widiyantoro, S. 1997. Global seismic
tomography: a snapshot of convection in the Earth. Geological Society of
America Today, 7, 1–7.
Hall, S.A. & Najmuddin, I.J. 1994. Constraints on the tectonic development
of the eastern Gulf of Mexico provided by magnetic anomaly data. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 99, 7161–7175.
Horne, G.S., Clark, G.S. & Pushkar, P. 1976. Pre-Cretaceous rocks of
northwestern Honduras: basement terrane in Sierra de Omoa. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 60, 566–583.
Horsefield, W.T. & Roobol, M.J. 1974. A tectonic model for the evolution of
Jamaica. Journal of the Geological Society of Jamaica, 14, 31–38.
Hoshi, H. & Matsubara, T. 1998. Early Miocene paleomagnetic results from
the Ninohe area, NE Japan: Implications for arc rotation and intra-arc
differential rotations. Earth Planets Space, 50, 23–33.
Huang, J., Zhong, S. & van Hunen, J. 2003. Controls on sublithospheric
small-scale convection. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(B8), 2405, doi:10.
1029/2003JB002456.
Hunter, B.E. & Davies, D.K. 1979. Distribution of Volcanic sediments in the
Gulf Coastal Province – Significance to Petroleum Geology. Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 29, 147–155.
Iturralde-Vinent, M.A. 1994. Cuban geology: A new plate tectonic synthesis.
Journal of Petroleum Geology, 17, 39–70.
Iturralde-Vinent, M.A. 1996. Estratigrafia del arco volcanico Cretacico en
Cuba: Evidencias de un arco primitivo (Cretacio Inferior) en Cuba. In:
Iturralde-Vinent, M.A. (ed.) Ofiolitas y Arcos Volcanicos de Cuba. IUGS
Project 364: Caribbean Ophiolites and Volcanic Arcs, Special
Contribution, 1.
Iturralde-Vinent, M.A. 1997. Introduccion a la geologia de Cuba. In:
Furrazola, B.Z.F. & Nunez, C.B.E. (eds) Estudios sobre geologia de Cuba.
Centro Nacional de Informacion Geologica, Havana, Cuba, 35–68.
Jackson, T.A. & Smith, T.E. 1979. The tectonic significance of basalts and
dacites in the Wagwater Belt, Jamaica. Geological Magazine, 116, 365.
Jacques, J.M. & Clegg, H. 2002. Late Jurassic source rock distribution and
quality in the Gulf of Mexico: Inferences from plate tectonic modeling.
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 52, 429–440.
James, K.H. 2003. Caribbean plate origin: discussion of arguments claiming
to support a Pacific origin; arguments for an in-situ origin. Extended
Abstract presented at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
International Conference Barcelona, Spain, September 21–24.
Karner, G.D. & Driscoll, N.W. 1999. Tectonic and stratigraphic development
of the West African and eastern Brazilian Margins: insights from quanti-
tative basin modelling. In: Cameron, N.R., Bate, R.H. & Clure, V.S. (eds)
The Oil and Gas Habitats of the South Atlantic. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 153, 11–40.
 Gulf of Mexico back-arc tectonics
Keppie, J.D. 2004. Terranes of Mexico Revisited: A 1.3 Billion Year Odyssey.
International Geology Review, 46, 765–794.
Kerr, A., Iturralde-Vinent, M., Saunders, A., Babbs, T. & Tarney, J. 1999. A
geochemical recognaissance of Cuban Mesozoic volcanic rocks: implica-
tions for plate tectonics models of the Caribbean. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 111, 1581–1599.
Kerr, A.C., White, R.V., Thompson, P.M.E., Tarney, J. & Saunders, A.D.
2003. No oceanic plateau–no Caribbean plate? The seminal role of an
oceanic plateau in Caribbean plate evolution. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T.
& Blickwede, J. (eds) The Circum-Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean: Hydrocarbon
habitats, basin formation, and plate tectonics. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir, 79, 126–168.
Kharin, G.S., Shirshov, P.P., Arakeljanz, M.M. & Dmitriev, I. 1977. Petrology
and K–Ar age of basaltic rocks, sites 353, 354, and 355, DSDP Leg 39. In:
Perch-Nielsen, K., Supko, P.R. et al. (eds) Initial Reports of the Deep Sea
Drilling Project, 39. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 231–327.
Klitgord, K.D. & Schouten, H. 1986. Plate kinematics of the central Atlantic.
In: Vogt, P.R. & Tucholke, B.E. (eds) The Western North Atlantic Region. The
Geology of North America, Volume M. Geological Society of America,
Boulder, Colorado, 351–378.
Knight, K.B., Nomade, S., Renne, P.R., Marzoli, A., Bertrand, H. & Youbi,
N. 2004. The Central Atlantic Magmatic Province at the Triassic–Jurassic
boundary: paleomagnetic and 40Ar/39Ar evidence from Morocco for
brief, episodic volcanism. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 228 (1–2),
143–160.
Lasky, S.A. 1938. Newly discovered section of Trinity age in southwestern
New Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 22, 524–540.
Lawton, T.F., Vega, F.J., Giles, K.A. & Rosales-Domínguez, C. 2001.
Stratigraphy and origin of the La Popa Basin, Nuevo León and Coahuila,
Mexico. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T. & Cantú-Chapa, A. (eds) The western
Gulf of Mexico Basin: tectonics, sedimentary basins, and petroleum systems. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 75, 219–240.
Lopez, R.E. 1981. Geologia de Mexico Tomo III, second edition. Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.
Lugo, J. & Mann, P. 1995. Jurassic–Eocene tectonic evolution of Maracaibo
Basin, Venezuela. In: Tankard, A.J., Suárez, S.R. & Welsink, H.J. (eds)
Petroleum basins of South America. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir, 62, 699–725.
Magoon, L.B., Hudson, T.L. & Cook, H.E. 2001. Pimienta-Tamabra(!)—A
giant supercharged petroleum system in the southern Gulf of Mexico,
onshore and offshore Mexico. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T. &
Cantú-Chapa, A. (eds) The western Gulf of Mexico Basin: Tectonics, sedimentary
basins, and petroleum systems. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir, 75, 83–125.
Marton, G. & Buffler, R.T. 1994. Jurassic reconstruction of the Gulf of
Mexico Basin. International Geology Review, 36, 545–586.
Marzoli, A., Renne, P.R., Piccirillo, E.M., Ernesto, M., Bellieni, G. & De Min,
A. 1999. Extensive 200 million-year-old continental flood basalts of the
central Atlantic magmatic province. Science, 284, 616–618.
McHone, J.G. 2000. Non-plume magmatism and rifting during the opening
of the central Atlantic Ocean. Tectonophysics, 316, 287–296.
McHone, J.G., Anderson, D.L., Beutel, E.K. & Fialko, Y.A. 2005. Giant
dikes: patterns and plate tectonics. In: Foulger, G.R., Anderson, D.L.,
Natland, J.H. & Presnall, D.C. (eds) Plates, Plumes & Paradigms. Geological
Society of America Special Paper, 388, 401–420.
McLemore, V.T., Munroe, E.A., Heizler, M.T. & McKee, C. 2000a. Geology
and evolution of the Copper Flat Porphyry-Copper and associated mineral
deposits in the Hillsboro mining district, Sierra County, New Mexico. In:
Cluer, J.K., Price, J.G., Struhsacker, E.M., Hardyman, R.F. & Morris, C.L.
(eds) Geology and Ore Deposits 2000, The Great Basin and Beyond. Geological
Society of Nevada, Symposium Proceedings, 643–659.
McLemore, V.T., Peters, L. & Heizler, M.T. 2000b. 40Ar/39Ar geochronol-
ogy of igneous rocks in the Lordsburg district, northern Pyramid Moun-
tains, Hidalgo County, New Mexico. In: Lawton, T.F., McMillan, N.J.,
McLemore, V.T., Austin, G. & Barker, J.M. (eds) Southwest Passage, A Trip
through the Phanerozoic. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 51, 6–8.
Meneses-Rocha, J.J. 2001. Tectonic evolution of the Ixtapa graben, an
example of a strike-slip basin in southeastern Mexico: Implications for
regional petroleum systems. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T. & Cantú-Chapa,
A. (eds) The western Gulf of Mexico Basin: Tectonics, sedimentary basins, and
petroleum systems. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir,
75, 183–216.
Meschede, M. & Frisch, W. 1998. A plate-tectonic model for the Mesozoic
and Early Cenozoic history of the Caribbean Plate. Tectonophysics, 296,
269–291.
Michaud, F. 1987. Stratigraphie et paléogéographie du Mésozoïque du Chiapas.
Mémoire de Stratigraphie, 6. Thesis, Academie de Paris, Université Pierre
et Marie Curie.
Miller, M.S., Kennett, B.L.N. & Toy, V.G. 2006. Spatial and temporal
evolution of the subducting Pacific plate structure along the western
125
Pacific margin. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, B02401,
doi:10.1029/2005JB003705.
Monod, O. & Calvet, P.H. 1992. Structural and stratigraphic reinterpretation
of the Triassic units near Zacatecas, central Mexico: Evidence of a
Laramide nappe pail. Zentralblatt für Geologie und Paläontologie, Teil I, H.6,
1533–1544.
Moran-Zenteno, D. 1994. Geology of the Southeastern Region of Mexico. In:
The Geology of the Mexican Republic. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Studies in Geology, 39, 75–83.
Moretti, I., Tenreyro, T., Linares, E. et al. 2003. Petroleum system of the
Cuban northwest offshore zone. In: Bartolini, C., Buffler, R.T. &
Blickwede, J. (eds) The Circum-Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean: Hydrocarbon
habitats, basin formation, and plate tectonics. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir, 79, 675–696.
Müller, R.D., Roest, W.R., Royer, J-Y., Gahagan, L.M. & Sclater, J.G. 1997.
Digital isochrons of the world’s ocean floor. Journal of Geophysical Research,
102 (B2), 3211–3214.
Müller, R.D., Cande, S.C., Royer, J.-Y., Roest, W.R. & Maschenkov, S. 1999.
New constraints on the Late Cretaceous/Tertiary plate tectonic evolution
of the Caribbean. In: Mann, P. (ed.) Caribbean Basins. Sedimentary Basins of
the World, 4. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 39–55.
Paine, W.R. & Meyerhoff, A.A. 1970. Gulf of Mexico Basin: Interactions
among tectonics, sedimentation, and hydrocarbon accumulation. Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 20, 5–44.
Parsons, T., Thompson, G.A. & Sleep, N.A. 1994. Mantle plume influence on
the Neogene uplift and extension of the US western Cordillera? Geology, 22,
83–86.
Phair, R.L. & Buffler, R.T. 1983. Pre-middle Cretaceous geologic history of
the deep southeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: Bally, A.W. (ed.) Seismic expression
of structural styles — a picture and work atlas. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, 15-2, 141–147.
Pindell, J.L. & Barrett, S.F. 1990. Geological evolution of the Caribbean
region; a plate tectonic perspective. In: Dengo, G. & Case, J.E. (eds) The
Caribbean. Volume H. Decade of North American Geology. Geological
Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, 405–432.
Pindell, J.L. & Dewey, J.F. 1982. Permo-Triassic reconstruction of western
Pangaea and the evolution of the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean region.
Tectonics, 1, 179–211.
Pindell, J. & Kennan, L. 2001a. Kinematic evolution of the Gulf of Mexico
and Caribbean. In: Fillon, R.H., Rosen, N., Weimer, P. et al. (eds) Petroleum
Systems of Deep-Water Basins: Global and Gulf of Mexico Experience. Gulf Coast
Section of SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Publication on
CD-ROM.
Pindell, J.L. & Kennan, L. 2001b. Processes and events in the Terrane
Assembly of Trinidad and eastern Venezuela. In: Fillon, R.H., Rosen, N.,
Weimer, P. et al. (eds) Petroleum Systems of Deep-Water Basins: Global and Gulf
of Mexico Experience. Gulf Coast Section of SEPM (Society for Sedimentary
Geology) Publication on CD-ROM.
Pindell, J.L. 1985. Alleghenian reconstruction and subsequent evolution of
the Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas and proto-Caribbean. Tectonics, 4, 1–39.
Pindell, J.L. 1994. Evolution of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. In:
Donovan, S.K. & Jackson, T.A. (eds) Caribbean geology: An introduction.
University of the West Indies Publishers Association, Kingston, 13–39.
Pockalny, R.A., Larson, R.L., Viso, R.F. & Abrams, L.J. 2002. Bathymetry and
gravity profiles across a Mid-Cretaceous triple junction trace in the
southwest Pacific Ocean: Implications for accretion of oceanic crust.
Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 1–4.
Pollitz, F.F., Kellogg, L. & Burgmann, R. 2001. Sinking ma?c body in a
reactivated lower crust: a mechanism for stress concentration at the New
Madrid seismic zone. Bulletin of the Seismic Society of America, 91, 1882–1897.
Pszczolkowski, A. 1999. The exposed passive margin of North America in
Western Cuba. In: Mann, P. (ed.) Caribbean basins. Sedimentary basins of
the world series, 4. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 93–121.
Rezak, R. & Tieh, T.T. 1980. Basalt on Louisiana outer continental
shelf (Abstract 70). EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 61 (46),
989.
Robinson, E. 1994. Jamaica. In: Donovan, S.K. & Jackson, T.A. (eds)
Caribbean Geology: an Introduction. University of the West Indies Publishers’
Association, Kingston, Jamaica, 111–127.
Royer, J.-Y., Muller, R.D. Gahagan, L.M., Lawver, L.A., Mayes, C.L.,
Nurnberg, D. & Sclater, J.G. 1992. A Global Ishochron Chart. University
of Texas Institute for Geophysics Technical Report 117.
Sager, W.W., Weiss, C.J., Tivey, M.A. & Johnson, H.P. 1998. Geomagnetic
polarity reversal m tow profiles from the Pacific Jurassic Quiet Zone.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 103, 5269–5286.
Salvador, A. 1985. Chronostratigraphic and geochronometric scales. In:
COSUNA Stratigraphic Correlation Charts of the United States. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 69 (2), 181–189.
Salvador, A. 1987. Late Triassic–Jurassic paleogeography and origin of Gulf
of Mexico Basin. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 71,
419–451.
126 R. H. Fillon
Saunders, J.A. & Harrelson, D.W. 1992. Age and petrology of the Jackson
Dome igneous-volcanic complex, Mississippi: Implications for the tectonic
history of the Mississippi Salt Dome Basin. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 76, 1468.
Schneider, J.F., Sacks, I.S., Huaco, D., Norabuena, E. & Flores, A. 1988.
Spatial distribution and B value of intermediate-depth earthquakes beneath
central Peru. Geophysical Research Letters, 15, 1421–1424.
Sedlock, R.L., Ortega-Gutiérrez, F. & Speed, R.C. 1993. Tectonostratigraphic
terranes and tectonic evolution of Mexico. Geological Society of America Special
Paper, 278.
Shaw, A.B. 1964. Time in Stratigraphy. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Silver, P.G., Russo, R.M. & Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. 1998. Coupling of South
American and African plate motion and plate deformation. Science, 279,
60–63.
Sinton, C.W., Sigurdsson, H. & Duncan, R.A. 2000. Geochronology and
petrology of the igneous basement at the lower Nicaraguan Rise, Site 1001.
In: Leckie, R.M., Sigurdsson, H., Acton, G.D. & Draper, G. (eds) Proceedings
of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 165. College Station, Texas,
233–236.
Smith, W.H.F. & Sandwell, D.T. 1997. Global Sea Floor Topography from
Satellite Altimetry and Ship Depth Soundings. Science, 277, 1956–1962.
Taylor, M.H., Dillon, W.P. & Pecher, I.A. 2000. Trapping and migration of
methane associated with the gas hydrate stability zone at the Blake Ridge
Diapir: new insights from seismic data. Marine Geology, 164, 79–89.
Torsvik, T.H. & Smethurst, M.A. 1999. Plate tectonic modeling: virtual reality
with GMAP. Computers & Geosciences, 25, 395–402.
Van Houten, F.B. 1977. Triassic–Liassic Deposits of Morocco and Eastern
North America: Comparison. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 61, 79–99.
van Hunen, J., van den Berg, A.P. & Vlaar, N.J. 2000. A thermo-mechanical
model of horizontal subduction below an overriding plate. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 182, 157–169.
Received 24 June 2006; revised typescript accepted 9 February 2007.
Van Siclen, D.C. 1983. Early Mesozoic tectonics of northern Gulf of Mexico
coastal plain. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 33,
231–240.
Vogt, P.R. & Jung, W-Y. 2005. Paired basement ridges: spreading axis
migration across mantle heterogeneities?. In: Foulger, G.R., Natland, J.H.,
Presnall, D.C. & Anderson, D.L. (eds) Plates, Plumes & Paradigms. Geologi-
cal Society of America Special Paper, 388, 555–580.
Walker, K.T., Bokelmann, G.H.R., Klemperer, S.L. & Nyblade, A. 2005.
Shear wave splitting around hotspots: Evidence for upwelling-related
mantle flow?. In: Foulger, G.R., Natland, J.H., Presnall, D.C. & Anderson,
D.L. (eds) Plates, Plumes & Paradigms. Geological Society of America Special
Paper, 388, 171–192.
Walper, J.L. 1980. Tectonic evolution of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Pilger, R.H.
Jr (ed.) The origin of the Gulf of Mexico and the early opening of the central North
Atlantic Ocean. Department of Geology, Louisiana State University and
Louisiana Geological Survey, Proceedings of Symposium, 3–5 March,
87–98.
Watkins, J.S., Ladd, J.W., Buffler, R.T., Shaub, F.J., Houston, M.H. & Worzel,
J.L. 1978. Occurrence and evolution of salt in deep Gulf of Mexico. In:
Bouma, A.H., Moore, G.T. & Coleman, J.M. (eds) Framework, Facies, and
Oil-Trapping Characteristics of the Upper Continental Margin, Chapter 1. The
Setting. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology,
7, 43–65.
White, G.W. 1980. Permian–Triassic continental reconstruction of the Gulf
of Mexico–Caribbean area. Nature, 283, 823–826.
Withjack, M.O., Schlische, R.W. & Olsen, P.E. 1998. Diachronous rifting,
drifting, and inversion on the Passive Margin of central eastern North
America. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 82, 817–835.
Zhong, S. & Davies, G.F. 1999. Effects of plate and slab viscosities on the
geoid. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 170, 487–496.