Figure 1.
(A) Simplified geological map of the Araçuaí orogen and adjacent regions of the São Francisco Craton (modified from Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2007Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Noce C.M., Alkmin F.F., Silva L.C., Babinski M., Cordani U., Castañeda C. 2007. Orógeno Araçuaí: síntese do conhecimento 30 anos após Almeida 1977. Geonomos, 15(1):1-16. and 2008 Pedrosa-Soares A.C.., Alkmin F.F.., Tack L.., Noce C.M.., Babinski M.., Silva L.C.., Martins Neto M.. 2008. Similarities and differences between the Brazilian and African counterparts of the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí West Congo orogen. Geological Society Special Publication, v. 294, p. 153-172.). (B) Geologic map of the study area (modified from Silva et al. 1987 Silva J.M.R., Lima M.I.C., Veronese V.F., Ribeiro Jr . R.N., Rocha R.M., Siga Jr . O. 1987. Geologia da Folha SE-24-Rio Doce. In: Projeto Radambrasil, 34. Rio de Janeiro, 544 p., Barbosa et al. 1964 Barbosa A.L.M.., Sad J.H.G.., Torres N.., Melo M.T.V.. 1964. Geologia das quadriculas Barra do Cuité e Conselheiro Pena, MG, Relatório do Arquivo Técnico do DGM, 64, DNPM, Rio de Janeiro, 285 p. and Nalini 1997Nalini Jr. H.A. 1997. Caractérisation des suites magmatiques néoprotérozoïques de la region de Conselheiro Pena et Galiléia (Minas Gerais, Brésil). Etude géochimique et structurale des suitesGaliléia et Urucum et relations avec les pegmatites à éléments rares associées. Thèse de Doctorat, École des Mines de Saint Etienne et École des Mines de Paris, France, 237p).
Figure 2.
Distribution of granitic facies of Urucum suite based on the diagrams: (A and B) quimical-mineralogical (Q versus P) and (A versus B) of Debon & Le Fort (1983); with the last classification being divided into the following types of granites: I - peraluminous with two-mica (muscovite > biotite), II - peraluminous with biotite > muscovite, III - peraluminous with biotite; IV - metaluminous with biotite ± amphibole ± ortopyroxene ± clinopyroxene; V - exceptional rocks as carbonatites etc., and VI - leucogranites; (C) Shand's index (Maniar and Piccoli 1989), and (D) the sum Fe203t + MgO + MnO + TiO2 (FMMT) versus SiO2
Figure 3.
Distribution of granitic facies of Urucum suite based on the diagrams: (A) CaO*5-Al2O3-FMMT*10 (Fe203t + Mg0 + Mn0 + Ti02), (B) CaO*5-Al2O3-FMMT*10, (C) CaO-P2O5*10-FMMT, (D) MgO versus MnO/(MnO + Fe2O3t), (E) Ba/Sr- Al2O3-FMMT*10, (F) K2O versus Na2O.
Figure 5.
Distribution of granitic facies of Urucum suite based on the diagrams: (A) FMMT-Th, (B) Zr versus U), (C) Y-Zr/10-Mn O*100, (D)Batchelor & Bowden (1985)Batchelor R.A. & Bowden P. 1985. Petrogenetic interpretation of granitoids series using multicationic parameters. Chemical Geology, 48:43-55., (E) Harris et al. (1994)Harris N.B.W., Kelley S.E, Okay A.I. 1994. Post-collision magmatism and tectonics in northwest Turkey. Contribution Mineralogical Petrology. 117:241-252. and (F) Thièblemont & Cabanis (1990) Thièblemont S.R. & Cabanis S.M. 1990. Utilisation d'um diagramme (Rb/100)-Tb-Ta pour la discriminatioon géochimique et l'étude pétrogénetique des roches magmatiques acides. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, series 8, section VI, v. 1, p. 23-35..
Figure 6.
Distribution patterns of the granitic facies of Urucum suite based on the multi- normalized element diagram to mid-oceanic ridge granites of Pearce et al. (1984)Pearce J.A., Harris N.B.W., Tindle A.G. 1984. Trace element discrimination diagrams for the tectonic interpretation of granitic rocks. Journal of Petrology, 25(4):956-983..