Reply to the comment by F. Tornos et al.

Abstract

We welcome the discussion of our paper by Tornos et al. The epithermal character of the Hiendelaencina veins might have been ‘an assumption’ in the early to mid 1980s, however, this early idea has been reaffirmed after many years of research involving fieldwork and mineralogical, sulphur isotopes, and fluid inclusions studies. The same applies to the ‘alleged’ extensional frame, a tectonic episode now well documented not only in central Spain (Spanish Central System: Doblas 1987; Doblas et al. 1988; Doblas 1991) but in France (French Central Massif: Ménard and Molnar 1988; Malavieille et al. 1990; Munoz et al. 1992).

The deposits are hosted by metamorphic rocks and the nearest volcanic outcrops to Hiendelaencina are those of Atienza (andesites; some 12 km northward). This is the reason why the relationships between the Atienza volcanics and the Hiendelaencina veins were initially regarded as ‘obscure’. These Stephanian-Permian volcanic outcrops are only local evidence of the late Variscan magmatism, which in the case of Hiendelaencina remained concealed. It is evident that the geologic environments of Hiendelaencina and Atienza are very different (see Discussion, p. 88 of the paper). As a direct consequence of this, the local structural conditions led to contrasted expressions of the late Variscan magmatism i.e. subaereal at Atienza and hypabyssal at Hiendelaencina.