Structural, stratigraphic and geochemical studies of the Horwood Peninsula - Gander Bay Area, Northeast Newfoundland /

The Horwood Peninsula - Gander Bay area is located at NE Newfoundland in the Botwood Zone (Williams et a1., 1974) or in the Dunnage Zone (Williams, 1979) of the Central Mobile Belt of the Newfoundland Appalachians. The area is underlain by Middle Ordovician to possible Lower Silurian rocks of the Davidsville and Indian Islands Groups, respectively. Three conformable formations named informally : the Mafic Volcanic Formation, the Greywacke and Siltstone Formation and the Black Slate Formation, have been recognized in the Davidsville Group. The Greywacke and the Black Slate Formations pass locally into a Melange Formation. From consideration of regional structure and abundant locally-derived mafic volcanic olisto- 1iths in the melange, it is considered to have originated by gravity sliding rather than thrusting. Four formations have been recognized in the Indian Islands Group. They mainly contain silty slate and phyllite, grey cherty siltstone, green to red micaceous siltstone and limestone horizons. Repetition of lithological units by F1 folding are well-demonstrated in one of formations in this Group. The major structure in this Group on the Horwood Peninsula is interpreted to be a synclinal complex. The lithology of this Group is different from the Botwood Group to the west and is probably Late Ordovician and/or Early Silurian in age. The effects of soft-sediment deformation can be seen from the lower part of the Davidsville Group to the middle part of the Indian Islands Group indicating continuous and/or episodic slumping and sliding activities throughout the whole area. However, no siginificant depOSitional and tectonic break that could be assigned to the Taconian Orogeny has been recognized in this study. Three periods of tectonic deformation were produced by the Acadian Orogeny. Double boudinage in thin dikes indicates a southeast-northwest sub-horizontal compression and main northeast-southwest sub-horizontal extension during the D1 deformation. A penetrative, axial planar slaty cleavage (Sl) and tight to isocJ.ina1 F1 folds are products of this deformation. The D2 and D3 deformations formed S2 and S3 fabrics associated with crenulations and kink bands which are well-shown in the slates and phyllites of the Indian Islands Group. The D2 and D3 deformations are the products of vertical and northeast-southwest horizontal shortening respectively. The inferred fault between the Ordovician slates (Davidsville Group) and the siltstones (Indian Islands Group) suggested by Williams (1963, 1964b, 1972, 1978) is absent. Formations can be followed without displacement across this inferred fault. Chemically, the pillow lavas, mafic agglomerates, tuff beds and diabase dikes are subdivided into three rock suites : (a) basaltic komatiite (Beaver Cove Assemblage), (b) tholeiitic basalt (diabase dikes), (c) alkaline basalt (Shoal Bay Assemblage). The high Ti02 , MgO, Ni contents and bimodal characteristic of the basaltic komatiite in the area are comparable to the Svartenhuk Peninsula at Baffin Bay and are interpreted to be the result of an abortive volcano-tectonic rift-zone in a rear-arc basin. Modal and chemical analyses of greywackes and siltstones show the trend of maturity of these rocks increasing from poorly sorted Ordovician greywackes to fairly well-sorted Silurian siltstones. Rock fragments in greywackes indicate source areas consisting of plagiogranite, low grade metamorphic rocks and ultramafic rocks. Rare sedimentary structures in both Groups indicate a southeasterly provenance. Trace element analyses of greywackes also reveal a possible island-arc affinity.

Facing Aggression: Cues Differ for Female versus Male Faces

The facial width-to-height ratio (face ratio), is a sexually dimorphic metric associated with actual aggression in men and with observers’ judgements of aggression in male faces. Here, we sought to determine if observers’ judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio in female faces. In three studies, participants rated photographs of female and male faces on aggression, femininity, masculinity, attractiveness, and nurturing. In Studies 1 and 2, for female and male faces, judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio even when other cues in the face related to masculinity were controlled statistically. Nevertheless, correlations between the face ratio and judgements of aggression were smaller for female than for male faces (F1,36= 7.43, p= 0.01). In Study 1, there was no significant relationship between judgements of femininity and of aggression in female faces. In Study 2, the association between judgements of masculinity and aggression was weaker in female faces than for male faces in Study 1. The weaker association in female faces may be because aggression and masculinity are stereotypically male traits. Thus, in Study 3, observers rated faces on nurturing (a stereotypically female trait) and on femininity. Judgements of nurturing were associated with femininity (positively) and masculinity (negatively) ratings in both female and male faces. In summary, the perception of aggression differs in female versus male faces. The sex difference was not simply because aggression is a gendered construct; the relationships between masculinity/femininity and nurturing were similar for male and female faces even though nurturing is also a gendered construct. Masculinity and femininity ratings are not associated with aggression ratings nor with the face ratio for female faces. In contrast, all four variables are highly inter-correlated in male faces, likely because these cues in male faces serve as ‘‘honest signals’’.