Geochemistry and Genesis of Beryl Crystals in the LCT Pegmatite Type, Ebrahim-Attar Mountain, Western Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor, dear authors,

In the manuscript “Geochemistry and genesis of the beryl crystal in the host LCT-2 type granite, southwest Ghorveh, western Iran” from Daneshvar et al. the authors present new beryl major and trace element and Sr-isotopic data. These data are used to infer on the source and evolution of the beryl and of the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite granite in which the beryl was found. The authors own data on beryl are supplemented by published data of the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite.

Please find attached the pdf-file of the manuscript, with my comments

My major concerns are:

1. The introduction starts with a definition of what beryl is and where it can be formed. Afterwards, the beryl-bearing pegmatites of Iran are introduced. The last paragraph explains the methods used and the goal of the study. The central message of an introduction -key problem, aim and design of the study- receives little attention. The authors state that there is little information and that they are going to define geochemical features of the host granite and the beryl. This needs to be developed more elaborately and defined precisely.
2. The sampling strategy, sample selection and choice of methods is not explained in the “Analytical method” section. Together with the undefined goal of the study, this creates the impression that the authors just did something without knowing why they did that.
3. The entire section “4 Host pegmatite and granite geochemistry” introduces information about the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite that was published by other people before. These information should be moved to the section “Geological Setting”.
4. A section “Results” is missing completely. This is confusing. The place for the results should be after the section “Analytical method” and before the discussion. Instead, this part of the manuscript mixes published and new data. Please separate new data from already published data. The results section should contain new data only.
5. The Sr-isochron diagram is an errorchron and without any meaning. I suggest to use the single data points in this diagram and the age of the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite to calculate Sr/Sr(i) for each single sample. A range of possible Sr/Sr(i) could then be given, better reflecting the spread in the data.
6. In the subsection “6.1 Beryl and its relation to parental magma” you discuss and plot published data. This text should be shortened and presented in the “Geological Setting”. The discussion of new data starts in the following subsection.
7. Figure 13a is a reproduction of figure 2b of Selway et al. 2006. And the authors are not even cited in the figure caption!
8. In many sentences, the language is imprecise, what makes reading and understanding the text difficult. I marked some of these problems in the attached pdf, but without any claim to completeness. The entire text should be checked for precise language.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on minerals-1225361-peer-review-v2 entitled ‘Geochemistry and genesis of the beryl crystal in the host LCT-2 type granite, southwest Ghorveh, western Iran’ authored by Daneshvar et al., submitted to Minerals

Daneshvar et al. present a dataset of mineral chemistry, Sr and Nd isotopes for 7 beryl samples from the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite in southwest Ghorveh (western Iran), attributing the pegmatite to LCT type. However, a basic problem is that the authors are confused by the terms of ‘pegmatite’ and ‘granite’, causing a shortfall of this manuscript and confusion. Based on Figure 2 and the context of description, ‘granite’ in the title should change to ‘pegmatite’. Low temperature evolved granitic magmas seem favorable for beryllium mineralization as suggested by this study, but the other more important parameter – crystallization pressure of the intrusion is lacking. This information needs to add in a revised version of this manuscript.  

A few specific issues listed below are needed to address properly.

Line 220: A reference is needed for the chondrite REE values.

Figure 8: Error bars seems not right, requiring replotting the data that indicate the error bars in ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios.

Figure 9b: It needs to indicate that the ratios are in mole, rather than in wt%.

Lines 352-353: A reference is needed for how temperature is estimated from zircon saturation index. Also, it is necessary to use the Qtz-geobarometer (see Yang et al., 2021) to estimate crystallization pressure of the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite to give the reader an idea how deep the intrusion was emplaced.

Yang, X.M., Lentz, D.R. and Chi, G. 2021: Ferric-ferrous iron oxide ratios: Effect on crystallization pressure of granites estimated by Qtz-geobarometry; Lithos, v. 380-381, p. 105920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2020.105920.  

Line 284 indicates 87Sr/86Sr(i)=0.739±0.036, whereas line 426 states 87Sr/86Sr(i)= 0.7081. Which is right?

Lines 631-632: Check the reference!

Numerous minors are picked up and marked in the annotated PDF manuscript for authors’ consideration when a revision is made to improve the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, dear editor,

I regret to say that I am not very satisified with the authors efforts to revise the manuscript. I am ok with all the answers to the main points in the word-document. But I did a very detailed review and added >80 comments to the manuscript. All of these comments have been ignored. I think this is not the usual procedure in revising a reviewed manuscript. I would expect at least a comment, why the manuscript has not been changed according to any single comments. For each of the comments! Maybe the authors did not get the commented pdf? I decided to upload it again today. I did not change any of the comments.

One thought about english language. I have no problems with vocabulary or grammar. My problem is that some sentences were not clearly understandable or somehow weird. Examples for this are lines 282, 376 and 381. I marked such sentences and commented on them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

I regret to say that I am not very satisified with the authors efforts to revise the manuscript. I am ok with all the answers to the main points in the word-document. But I did a very detailed review and added >80 comments to the manuscript. All of these comments have been ignored. I think this is not the usual procedure in revising a reviewed manuscript. I would expect at least a comment, why the manuscript has not been changed according to any single comments. For each of the comments! Maybe the authors did not get the commented pdf? I decided to upload it again today. I did not change any of the comments.

One thought about english language. I have no problems with vocabulary or grammar. My problem is that some sentences were not clearly understandable or somehow weird. Examples for this are lines 282, 376 and 381. I marked such sentences and commented on them.

First of all, we thank for your good comments and so sorry for missing your pdf file’s comments. All suggestion is added to text and marked with track change. Please check them one by one. Also, the responses to your comments on the pdf file are as follow.

 

Line 1 in Pdf file: refer to the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite in the title.

Response:

Thanks. the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite is added to title, please check line 3 in marked version.

 

Line 29: I did not see this in the discussion or conclusions.

Response:

Thank you The sentence is reworded. Please check line 31 in marked version.

 

Line 51: above, volcanogenic and carbonate hosted are two different groups. This classification should be maintained.

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is corrected. Please check line 51 in marked version.

 

Line 59-63: These sentences seem to be important. Explain in more detail, how and why beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Is there some information about the granitic pegmatite of Ebrahim-Attar that was not known before your study? Define this gap in knowledge here

Response:

Thanks, you are right. We moved some information in lines 63-68 in revised version to show beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Also, we added in previous version about low attention to the source and geochemistry of beryl mineralization which is highlighted in yellow color in lines 95-103.

Figure.1:: this figure can be removed from the manuscript. It is not discussed in the text and gives no relevant information for the beryl of Ebrahim-Attar deposit.

Response:

This figure is removed from the manuscript. Please check it out.

 

Line 68 : Ok, but above, you explained that several sources of beryl are possible. Add a sentence to explain that you reduce the discussion to the granitic pegmatite.

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 72-73 in marked version.

 

Line 72-76: This part should be deleted from the introduction or moved to the paragraph about the potential origins of beryl (line 53).

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to line 63 in marked version. Please check it.

Line 72-76: Is this a fault zone

Response:

Thanks. Sanandaj- Sirjan is not a fault zone. Please check line 86-87 in marked version.

 

Figure.2. Are the beryl bearing pegmatites linked with each other or with the structure of the area? I did not understand this from the text, but this figure suggests a structural link between the beryl-bearing pegmatites.

Response:

Thanks for you comment. There is no link between the mentioned pegmatite.

 

Line 111: How was the age of 157.9 Ma determined?

Response:

Thank you for your comment. This age is based on U-Pb dating in zircon grains. Please check line 128 in marked version.

 

Line 114: Give the published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures and main conclusions in the geological setting section. It is now in the discussion

Response:

Thank you very much. All he published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures of host rock is moved to geological setting in the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 146-160 in Marked version.

 

Line 122: Give a reference or state clearly that this subdivision is defined by you.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. Please check line 138 in marked version.

Figure 3: What is the white color? It is missing in the legend.

Response:

Thanks. It was added to Figure 2 (new number) in marked version.

Figure caption 3: Explain numbers (1) and (2).

Response:

Thanks. Please check lines 173-174 in marked version.

Line 148: Are there differences between these beryl crystals? Do they show different colors? Or did you sample different zones of the pegmatite? Please explain your sampling strategy in more detail.

Response:

Thank you. Please check lines 191-192 in marked version.

 

Line 166-169: this might be the reason for the scattering Sr/Sr-values. Explain, why you assume that the dissolved parts have the same Sr-isotopic ratio as the whole beryl grains.

Response:

Thank you. As for Sr isotope analysis with quantitative analysis of REE, around 40 mg of each sample was digested by HF and perchloric acid (HClO4) in an open PTFE beaker on the hotplate at a temperature of around 140 °C for 72 hours at NU. After drying the digested solution, it was dissolved in 6 M HCl. White precipitates appeared in the 6 M HCl although the samples were once dissolved again during the HF digestion and finally all part were dissolve as supernatant solution. Please check lines 216-218 in marked version.

 

Line 172: Which resin did you use for column chemistry?

Response:

Thank you. The isotope fraction was dried and then dissolved in 3 mL of 2.4 M HCl and loaded on the cation exchange column (BioRad AG50W-X8, 200–400 mesh) with HCl eluent to isolate. Please check the marked version line 220-222.

 

Line 192: You explained in the "analytical method" section that you analyzed beryl crystals and not the pegmatite granite itself. This information should be shifted to the Geological Setting, to make transparent that these are not your own data.

Response:

Thanks. We moved this part to the geological setting in previously version and it is highlighted by yellow color in the geological setting part in lines 147-160 in marked version.

Line 207: tart with section "Results" to make the structure of the manuscript clearer. Then proceed with "5.1 Beryl chemistry", if necessary. I think tis sbheading is not necessary, because you present only beryl chemistry data.

Response:

Thanks. This part is changed to result in previously version. And we combine three two first sub heading to beryl geochemistry. Please check them out in lines 242-271 in marked version.

Line 220 : Give a reference for the normalisation values

Response:

Thanks. The Ref is added to the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 252 in marked version.

Line 221: REE are trace elements. (see heading of the previous section).

Response:

Thanks. This subheading is deleted.

 

Line 282: How can one single sample show a trend?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is reworded. We mean BRYL3 was excluded. Please check line 334-335.

Table 3: This error is the analytical error, not the external reproducibility. The external reproducibility should be used for plotting the data. It can be derived from the standard data.

Response:

Thanks. For plotting, we have used the external error based on this 1SE and 1SD of the standard (NIST SRM 987) in marked version. But in the table, we keep the analytical error. Please check figure 7 caption.

Table 3: There are no errors on the Rb and Sr measurements?

Response:

Thanks. We have added analytical errors of trace elements by ICP-MS in the analytical method in marked version line 236, highlight in yellow color.

 

Table 3: What is the uncertainty of the Rb/Sr values?

Response:

Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb(5%) and Sr(5%).

 

 

Figure 8: in the figure, you show an error on Rb/Sr. Where does this error come from? Add this information

Response:

Thanks. Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb and Sr.

 

 

Figure 8 : This is without doubt an errorchrone and thus meaningless. You should use the known age of the pegmatite (as the slope of the line) and then calculate Sr/Sr(i) for each single sample. Then, you can give a range of possible Sr/Sr(i).

Response:

Thank for this comment. You are right. The Rb in the host is so high.  Based on our experiences in the Rb-Sr methods when the 87Rb/86Sr is higher than 3 make more unreliable data for each sample. actually, for the lower 87Rb/86Sr the calculation of the initial ratios to be useful.  in this case we prefer to use isochron or errorchron style to see the intercept line for 87Sr/86Sr which is more consistent with the host rocks. Meanwhile, the Sr-isochron was plotted again.

 

Figure 9: As far as I understood, you acquired new data from beryl crystals. So where are the data in these diagrams from? All of them are already published and discussed in Azizi et al. [31], right? Your Discussion section should concentrate on your own data, not on already published stuff.

Data that are already published should (shortly) be presented in the Geological Setting section.

Response:

Thanks. Some data presentation of Ebrahim Attar granitic texture which is published by Azizi et al., (2016), which is moved to the geological setting which as mentioned in above. But this part, we going to discuss about the host rock and compare it with the other Be- bearing pegmatite. Therefore, we would prefer to keep this part in discussion.

 

Lines 344-349: In the entire section 6.1, these lines are the only sentences, which are based on new beryl data. Move the information about the granitic pegmatite to the geological setting, shorten it, and discuss your new data in the discussion!

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to geological setting. Please check lines 161-168 in marked version.

Lines 352-353: Did you calculate the zircon saturation temperature? Give a reference for the formula or give a reference for the author who published it.

Response:

Thanks. The refences is added to previous version and highlighted in yellow color in lines 394 in marked version.

 

Lines 367: Are these four classes relevant for the discussion of your data? I do not think so.

Response:

Thanks. These classes are just for comparing the Ebrahim Attar is related to which class.

 

Lines 375: In the sentence before, prismatic crystals are related to early beryl. What is early and late in this context?

Response:

Thanks. Our mean, the early beryl appears in the late stage of pegmatite evolution.

Lines 376: Rewrite the sentence. In the moment, it is not clear, what causes lateral growth and what is extremely platy (alkali substitution?)

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 423 in marked version.

Lines 381: this sentence says that beryl is the magmatic source. What do you really want to say? Reformulate the sentence.

Response:

Thanks. It is true. beryl grain has the magmatic source.

 

Lines 384: I do not agree with this statement. The "decreasing trend" is induced by only one sample point in Figure 10.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We mentioned weak negative trend. Please check line 430 in marked version.

Lines 404: This paragraph can be substantially shortened. The Cs content alone defines that is is "barren and geochemically primitive beryl type and less evolved granite". Figure 11 is also not necessary to recognize this.

 Response:

Thank you for your comments. This paragraph shorted and some information was moved to the figure caption 10 (new number). Also, this figure shows the Li/Cs ratio and camper with other less to highly evolved pegmatite so we prefer to keep this figure. Please check lines 453-456 in marked version.

Figure 8: What about the single sample that plots outside the fields? Is this cuased by an analytical problem? Or is this sample relevant? I did not find it in the discussion? Is it this sample which produces the "trend" in figure 7b? Please check this sample and discuss its special characteristics.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. Please check line 464-465 in marked version.

Lines 428: It is not the similarity that suggest a contribution of crust or metasediment. This is suggested by the absolute values.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence reworded. Please check line 479 in marked version.

Lines 460: Tungsten mineralization is also in the contact between barren pegmatite and Be-pegmatite?

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence was reworded. Please check line 512-513 in marked version.

Lines 467: What is crystallized temperature (crystallization temperature??) and how did you determine it?

Response:

it mentioned in previous part. Please check line 389 in marked version.

Lines 491: his sentence is hard to understand for me. Did you mean: the peraluminous signature supports a metasedimentary, Be-enriched source?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence was changed. Please check line 544-545 in marked version.

Lines 499: Why do you talk about undercooling? The word "cooling" is not sufficient to explain the process?

Response:

Thanks. please check line 552 in marked version.

 

Lines 505: rewrite: "has a characteristic as an LCT group". The granite cannot be a group.

Response:

Thanks. please check line 551-552 in marked version.

 

Response to Reviewer

I regret to say that I am not very satisified with the authors efforts to revise the manuscript. I am ok with all the answers to the main points in the word-document. But I did a very detailed review and added >80 comments to the manuscript. All of these comments have been ignored. I think this is not the usual procedure in revising a reviewed manuscript. I would expect at least a comment, why the manuscript has not been changed according to any single comments. For each of the comments! Maybe the authors did not get the commented pdf? I decided to upload it again today. I did not change any of the comments.

One thought about english language. I have no problems with vocabulary or grammar. My problem is that some sentences were not clearly understandable or somehow weird. Examples for this are lines 282, 376 and 381. I marked such sentences and commented on them.

First of all, we thank for your good comments and so sorry for missing your pdf file’s comments. All suggestion is added to text and marked with track change. Please check them one by one. Also, the responses to your comments on the pdf file are as follow.

 

Line 1 in Pdf file: refer to the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite in the title.

Response:

Thanks. the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite is added to title, please check line 3 in marked version.

 

Line 29: I did not see this in the discussion or conclusions.

Response:

Thank you The sentence is reworded. Please check line 31 in marked version.

 

Line 51: above, volcanogenic and carbonate hosted are two different groups. This classification should be maintained.

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is corrected. Please check line 51 in marked version.

 

Line 59-63: These sentences seem to be important. Explain in more detail, how and why beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Is there some information about the granitic pegmatite of Ebrahim-Attar that was not known before your study? Define this gap in knowledge here

Response:

Thanks, you are right. We moved some information in lines 63-68 in revised version to show beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Also, we added in previous version about low attention to the source and geochemistry of beryl mineralization which is highlighted in yellow color in lines 95-103.

Figure.1:: this figure can be removed from the manuscript. It is not discussed in the text and gives no relevant information for the beryl of Ebrahim-Attar deposit.

Response:

This figure is removed from the manuscript. Please check it out.

 

Line 68 : Ok, but above, you explained that several sources of beryl are possible. Add a sentence to explain that you reduce the discussion to the granitic pegmatite.

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 72-73 in marked version.

 

Line 72-76: This part should be deleted from the introduction or moved to the paragraph about the potential origins of beryl (line 53).

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to line 63 in marked version. Please check it.

Line 72-76: Is this a fault zone

Response:

Thanks. Sanandaj- Sirjan is not a fault zone. Please check line 86-87 in marked version.

 

Figure.2. Are the beryl bearing pegmatites linked with each other or with the structure of the area? I did not understand this from the text, but this figure suggests a structural link between the beryl-bearing pegmatites.

Response:

Thanks for you comment. There is no link between the mentioned pegmatite.

 

Line 111: How was the age of 157.9 Ma determined?

Response:

Thank you for your comment. This age is based on U-Pb dating in zircon grains. Please check line 128 in marked version.

 

Line 114: Give the published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures and main conclusions in the geological setting section. It is now in the discussion

Response:

Thank you very much. All he published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures of host rock is moved to geological setting in the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 146-160 in Marked version.

 

Line 122: Give a reference or state clearly that this subdivision is defined by you.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. Please check line 138 in marked version.

Figure 3: What is the white color? It is missing in the legend.

Response:

Thanks. It was added to Figure 2 (new number) in marked version.

Figure caption 3: Explain numbers (1) and (2).

Response:

Thanks. Please check lines 173-174 in marked version.

Line 148: Are there differences between these beryl crystals? Do they show different colors? Or did you sample different zones of the pegmatite? Please explain your sampling strategy in more detail.

Response:

Thank you. Please check lines 191-192 in marked version.

 

Line 166-169: this might be the reason for the scattering Sr/Sr-values. Explain, why you assume that the dissolved parts have the same Sr-isotopic ratio as the whole beryl grains.

Response:

Thank you. As for Sr isotope analysis with quantitative analysis of REE, around 40 mg of each sample was digested by HF and perchloric acid (HClO4) in an open PTFE beaker on the hotplate at a temperature of around 140 °C for 72 hours at NU. After drying the digested solution, it was dissolved in 6 M HCl. White precipitates appeared in the 6 M HCl although the samples were once dissolved again during the HF digestion and finally all part were dissolve as supernatant solution. Please check lines 216-218 in marked version.

 

Line 172: Which resin did you use for column chemistry?

Response:

Thank you. The isotope fraction was dried and then dissolved in 3 mL of 2.4 M HCl and loaded on the cation exchange column (BioRad AG50W-X8, 200–400 mesh) with HCl eluent to isolate. Please check the marked version line 220-222.

 

Line 192: You explained in the "analytical method" section that you analyzed beryl crystals and not the pegmatite granite itself. This information should be shifted to the Geological Setting, to make transparent that these are not your own data.

Response:

Thanks. We moved this part to the geological setting in previously version and it is highlighted by yellow color in the geological setting part in lines 147-160 in marked version.

Line 207: tart with section "Results" to make the structure of the manuscript clearer. Then proceed with "5.1 Beryl chemistry", if necessary. I think tis sbheading is not necessary, because you present only beryl chemistry data.

Response:

Thanks. This part is changed to result in previously version. And we combine three two first sub heading to beryl geochemistry. Please check them out in lines 242-271 in marked version.

Line 220 : Give a reference for the normalisation values

Response:

Thanks. The Ref is added to the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 252 in marked version.

Line 221: REE are trace elements. (see heading of the previous section).

Response:

Thanks. This subheading is deleted.

 

Line 282: How can one single sample show a trend?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is reworded. We mean BRYL3 was excluded. Please check line 334-335.

Table 3: This error is the analytical error, not the external reproducibility. The external reproducibility should be used for plotting the data. It can be derived from the standard data.

Response:

Thanks. For plotting, we have used the external error based on this 1SE and 1SD of the standard (NIST SRM 987) in marked version. But in the table, we keep the analytical error. Please check figure 7 caption.

Table 3: There are no errors on the Rb and Sr measurements?

Response:

Thanks. We have added analytical errors of trace elements by ICP-MS in the analytical method in marked version line 236, highlight in yellow color.

 

Table 3: What is the uncertainty of the Rb/Sr values?

Response:

Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb(5%) and Sr(5%).

 

 

Figure 8: in the figure, you show an error on Rb/Sr. Where does this error come from? Add this information

Response:

Thanks. Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb and Sr.

 

 

Figure 8 : This is without doubt an errorchrone and thus meaningless. You should use the known age of the pegmatite (as the slope of the line) and then calculate Sr/Sr(i) for each single sample. Then, you can give a range of possible Sr/Sr(i).

Response:

Thank for this comment. You are right. The Rb in the host is so high.  Based on our experiences in the Rb-Sr methods when the 87Rb/86Sr is higher than 3 make more unreliable data for each sample. actually, for the lower 87Rb/86Sr the calculation of the initial ratios to be useful.  in this case we prefer to use isochron or errorchron style to see the intercept line for 87Sr/86Sr which is more consistent with the host rocks. Meanwhile, the Sr-isochron was plotted again.

 

Figure 9: As far as I understood, you acquired new data from beryl crystals. So where are the data in these diagrams from? All of them are already published and discussed in Azizi et al. [31], right? Your Discussion section should concentrate on your own data, not on already published stuff.

Data that are already published should (shortly) be presented in the Geological Setting section.

Response:

Thanks. Some data presentation of Ebrahim Attar granitic texture which is published by Azizi et al., (2016), which is moved to the geological setting which as mentioned in above. But this part, we going to discuss about the host rock and compare it with the other Be- bearing pegmatite. Therefore, we would prefer to keep this part in discussion.

 

Lines 344-349: In the entire section 6.1, these lines are the only sentences, which are based on new beryl data. Move the information about the granitic pegmatite to the geological setting, shorten it, and discuss your new data in the discussion!

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to geological setting. Please check lines 161-168 in marked version.

Lines 352-353: Did you calculate the zircon saturation temperature? Give a reference for the formula or give a reference for the author who published it.

Response:

Thanks. The refences is added to previous version and highlighted in yellow color in lines 394 in marked version.

 

Lines 367: Are these four classes relevant for the discussion of your data? I do not think so.

Response:

Thanks. These classes are just for comparing the Ebrahim Attar is related to which class.

 

Lines 375: In the sentence before, prismatic crystals are related to early beryl. What is early and late in this context?

Response:

Thanks. Our mean, the early beryl appears in the late stage of pegmatite evolution.

Lines 376: Rewrite the sentence. In the moment, it is not clear, what causes lateral growth and what is extremely platy (alkali substitution?)

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 423 in marked version.

Lines 381: this sentence says that beryl is the magmatic source. What do you really want to say? Reformulate the sentence.

Response:

Thanks. It is true. beryl grain has the magmatic source.

 

Lines 384: I do not agree with this statement. The "decreasing trend" is induced by only one sample point in Figure 10.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We mentioned weak negative trend. Please check line 430 in marked version.

Lines 404: This paragraph can be substantially shortened. The Cs content alone defines that is is "barren and geochemically primitive beryl type and less evolved granite". Figure 11 is also not necessary to recognize this.

 Response:

Thank you for your comments. This paragraph shorted and some information was moved to the figure caption 10 (new number). Also, this figure shows the Li/Cs ratio and camper with other less to highly evolved pegmatite so we prefer to keep this figure. Please check lines 453-456 in marked version.

Figure 8: What about the single sample that plots outside the fields? Is this cuased by an analytical problem? Or is this sample relevant? I did not find it in the discussion? Is it this sample which produces the "trend" in figure 7b? Please check this sample and discuss its special characteristics.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. Please check line 464-465 in marked version.

Lines 428: It is not the similarity that suggest a contribution of crust or metasediment. This is suggested by the absolute values.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence reworded. Please check line 479 in marked version.

Lines 460: Tungsten mineralization is also in the contact between barren pegmatite and Be-pegmatite?

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence was reworded. Please check line 512-513 in marked version.

Lines 467: What is crystallized temperature (crystallization temperature??) and how did you determine it?

Response:

it mentioned in previous part. Please check line 389 in marked version.

Lines 491: his sentence is hard to understand for me. Did you mean: the peraluminous signature supports a metasedimentary, Be-enriched source?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence was changed. Please check line 544-545 in marked version.

Lines 499: Why do you talk about undercooling? The word "cooling" is not sufficient to explain the process?

Response:

Thanks. please check line 552 in marked version.

 

Lines 505: rewrite: "has a characteristic as an LCT group". The granite cannot be a group.

Response:

Thanks. please check line 551-552 in marked version.

 

Response to Reviewer

I regret to say that I am not very satisified with the authors efforts to revise the manuscript. I am ok with all the answers to the main points in the word-document. But I did a very detailed review and added >80 comments to the manuscript. All of these comments have been ignored. I think this is not the usual procedure in revising a reviewed manuscript. I would expect at least a comment, why the manuscript has not been changed according to any single comments. For each of the comments! Maybe the authors did not get the commented pdf? I decided to upload it again today. I did not change any of the comments.

One thought about english language. I have no problems with vocabulary or grammar. My problem is that some sentences were not clearly understandable or somehow weird. Examples for this are lines 282, 376 and 381. I marked such sentences and commented on them.

First of all, we thank for your good comments and so sorry for missing your pdf file’s comments. All suggestion is added to text and marked with track change. Please check them one by one. Also, the responses to your comments on the pdf file are as follow.

 

Line 1 in Pdf file: refer to the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite in the title.

Response:

Thanks. the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite is added to title, please check line 3 in marked version.

 

Line 29: I did not see this in the discussion or conclusions.

Response:

Thank you The sentence is reworded. Please check line 31 in marked version.

 

Line 51: above, volcanogenic and carbonate hosted are two different groups. This classification should be maintained.

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is corrected. Please check line 51 in marked version.

 

Line 59-63: These sentences seem to be important. Explain in more detail, how and why beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Is there some information about the granitic pegmatite of Ebrahim-Attar that was not known before your study? Define this gap in knowledge here

Response:

Thanks, you are right. We moved some information in lines 63-68 in revised version to show beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Also, we added in previous version about low attention to the source and geochemistry of beryl mineralization which is highlighted in yellow color in lines 95-103.

Figure.1:: this figure can be removed from the manuscript. It is not discussed in the text and gives no relevant information for the beryl of Ebrahim-Attar deposit.

Response:

This figure is removed from the manuscript. Please check it out.

 

Line 68 : Ok, but above, you explained that several sources of beryl are possible. Add a sentence to explain that you reduce the discussion to the granitic pegmatite.

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 72-73 in marked version.

 

Line 72-76: This part should be deleted from the introduction or moved to the paragraph about the potential origins of beryl (line 53).

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to line 63 in marked version. Please check it.

Line 72-76: Is this a fault zone

Response:

Thanks. Sanandaj- Sirjan is not a fault zone. Please check line 86-87 in marked version.

 

Figure.2. Are the beryl bearing pegmatites linked with each other or with the structure of the area? I did not understand this from the text, but this figure suggests a structural link between the beryl-bearing pegmatites.

Response:

Thanks for you comment. There is no link between the mentioned pegmatite.

 

Line 111: How was the age of 157.9 Ma determined?

Response:

Thank you for your comment. This age is based on U-Pb dating in zircon grains. Please check line 128 in marked version.

 

Line 114: Give the published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures and main conclusions in the geological setting section. It is now in the discussion

Response:

Thank you very much. All he published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures of host rock is moved to geological setting in the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 146-160 in Marked version.

 

Line 122: Give a reference or state clearly that this subdivision is defined by you.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. Please check line 138 in marked version.

Figure 3: What is the white color? It is missing in the legend.

Response:

Thanks. It was added to Figure 2 (new number) in marked version.

Figure caption 3: Explain numbers (1) and (2).

Response:

Thanks. Please check lines 173-174 in marked version.

Line 148: Are there differences between these beryl crystals? Do they show different colors? Or did you sample different zones of the pegmatite? Please explain your sampling strategy in more detail.

Response:

Thank you. Please check lines 191-192 in marked version.

 

Line 166-169: this might be the reason for the scattering Sr/Sr-values. Explain, why you assume that the dissolved parts have the same Sr-isotopic ratio as the whole beryl grains.

Response:

Thank you. As for Sr isotope analysis with quantitative analysis of REE, around 40 mg of each sample was digested by HF and perchloric acid (HClO4) in an open PTFE beaker on the hotplate at a temperature of around 140 °C for 72 hours at NU. After drying the digested solution, it was dissolved in 6 M HCl. White precipitates appeared in the 6 M HCl although the samples were once dissolved again during the HF digestion and finally all part were dissolve as supernatant solution. Please check lines 216-218 in marked version.

 

Line 172: Which resin did you use for column chemistry?

Response:

Thank you. The isotope fraction was dried and then dissolved in 3 mL of 2.4 M HCl and loaded on the cation exchange column (BioRad AG50W-X8, 200–400 mesh) with HCl eluent to isolate. Please check the marked version line 220-222.

 

Line 192: You explained in the "analytical method" section that you analyzed beryl crystals and not the pegmatite granite itself. This information should be shifted to the Geological Setting, to make transparent that these are not your own data.

Response:

Thanks. We moved this part to the geological setting in previously version and it is highlighted by yellow color in the geological setting part in lines 147-160 in marked version.

Line 207: tart with section "Results" to make the structure of the manuscript clearer. Then proceed with "5.1 Beryl chemistry", if necessary. I think tis sbheading is not necessary, because you present only beryl chemistry data.

Response:

Thanks. This part is changed to result in previously version. And we combine three two first sub heading to beryl geochemistry. Please check them out in lines 242-271 in marked version.

Line 220 : Give a reference for the normalisation values

Response:

Thanks. The Ref is added to the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 252 in marked version.

Line 221: REE are trace elements. (see heading of the previous section).

Response:

Thanks. This subheading is deleted.

 

Line 282: How can one single sample show a trend?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is reworded. We mean BRYL3 was excluded. Please check line 334-335.

Table 3: This error is the analytical error, not the external reproducibility. The external reproducibility should be used for plotting the data. It can be derived from the standard data.

Response:

Thanks. For plotting, we have used the external error based on this 1SE and 1SD of the standard (NIST SRM 987) in marked version. But in the table, we keep the analytical error. Please check figure 7 caption.

Table 3: There are no errors on the Rb and Sr measurements?

Response:

Thanks. We have added analytical errors of trace elements by ICP-MS in the analytical method in marked version line 236, highlight in yellow color.

 

Table 3: What is the uncertainty of the Rb/Sr values?

Response:

Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb(5%) and Sr(5%).

 

 

Figure 8: in the figure, you show an error on Rb/Sr. Where does this error come from? Add this information

Response:

Thanks. Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb and Sr.

 

 

Figure 8 : This is without doubt an errorchrone and thus meaningless. You should use the known age of the pegmatite (as the slope of the line) and then calculate Sr/Sr(i) for each single sample. Then, you can give a range of possible Sr/Sr(i).

Response:

Thank for this comment. You are right. The Rb in the host is so high.  Based on our experiences in the Rb-Sr methods when the 87Rb/86Sr is higher than 3 make more unreliable data for each sample. actually, for the lower 87Rb/86Sr the calculation of the initial ratios to be useful.  in this case we prefer to use isochron or errorchron style to see the intercept line for 87Sr/86Sr which is more consistent with the host rocks. Meanwhile, the Sr-isochron was plotted again.

 

Figure 9: As far as I understood, you acquired new data from beryl crystals. So where are the data in these diagrams from? All of them are already published and discussed in Azizi et al. [31], right? Your Discussion section should concentrate on your own data, not on already published stuff.

Data that are already published should (shortly) be presented in the Geological Setting section.

Response:

Thanks. Some data presentation of Ebrahim Attar granitic texture which is published by Azizi et al., (2016), which is moved to the geological setting which as mentioned in above. But this part, we going to discuss about the host rock and compare it with the other Be- bearing pegmatite. Therefore, we would prefer to keep this part in discussion.

 

Lines 344-349: In the entire section 6.1, these lines are the only sentences, which are based on new beryl data. Move the information about the granitic pegmatite to the geological setting, shorten it, and discuss your new data in the discussion!

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to geological setting. Please check lines 161-168 in marked version.

Lines 352-353: Did you calculate the zircon saturation temperature? Give a reference for the formula or give a reference for the author who published it.

Response:

Thanks. The refences is added to previous version and highlighted in yellow color in lines 394 in marked version.

 

Lines 367: Are these four classes relevant for the discussion of your data? I do not think so.

Response:

Thanks. These classes are just for comparing the Ebrahim Attar is related to which class.

 

Lines 375: In the sentence before, prismatic crystals are related to early beryl. What is early and late in this context?

Response:

Thanks. Our mean, the early beryl appears in the late stage of pegmatite evolution.

Lines 376: Rewrite the sentence. In the moment, it is not clear, what causes lateral growth and what is extremely platy (alkali substitution?)

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 423 in marked version.

Lines 381: this sentence says that beryl is the magmatic source. What do you really want to say? Reformulate the sentence.

Response:

Thanks. It is true. beryl grain has the magmatic source.

 

Lines 384: I do not agree with this statement. The "decreasing trend" is induced by only one sample point in Figure 10.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We mentioned weak negative trend. Please check line 430 in marked version.

Lines 404: This paragraph can be substantially shortened. The Cs content alone defines that is is "barren and geochemically primitive beryl type and less evolved granite". Figure 11 is also not necessary to recognize this.

 Response:

Thank you for your comments. This paragraph shorted and some information was moved to the figure caption 10 (new number). Also, this figure shows the Li/Cs ratio and camper with other less to highly evolved pegmatite so we prefer to keep this figure. Please check lines 453-456 in marked version.

Figure 8: What about the single sample that plots outside the fields? Is this cuased by an analytical problem? Or is this sample relevant? I did not find it in the discussion? Is it this sample which produces the "trend" in figure 7b? Please check this sample and discuss its special characteristics.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. Please check line 464-465 in marked version.

Lines 428: It is not the similarity that suggest a contribution of crust or metasediment. This is suggested by the absolute values.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence reworded. Please check line 479 in marked version.

Lines 460: Tungsten mineralization is also in the contact between barren pegmatite and Be-pegmatite?

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence was reworded. Please check line 512-513 in marked version.

Lines 467: What is crystallized temperature (crystallization temperature??) and how did you determine it?

Response:

it mentioned in previous part. Please check line 389 in marked version.

Lines 491: his sentence is hard to understand for me. Did you mean: the peraluminous signature supports a metasedimentary, Be-enriched source?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence was changed. Please check line 544-545 in marked version.

Lines 499: Why do you talk about undercooling? The word "cooling" is not sufficient to explain the process?

Response:

Thanks. please check line 552 in marked version.

 

Lines 505: rewrite: "has a characteristic as an LCT group". The granite cannot be a group.

Response:

Thanks. please check line 551-552 in marked version.

 

Response to Reviewer

I regret to say that I am not very satisified with the authors efforts to revise the manuscript. I am ok with all the answers to the main points in the word-document. But I did a very detailed review and added >80 comments to the manuscript. All of these comments have been ignored. I think this is not the usual procedure in revising a reviewed manuscript. I would expect at least a comment, why the manuscript has not been changed according to any single comments. For each of the comments! Maybe the authors did not get the commented pdf? I decided to upload it again today. I did not change any of the comments.

One thought about english language. I have no problems with vocabulary or grammar. My problem is that some sentences were not clearly understandable or somehow weird. Examples for this are lines 282, 376 and 381. I marked such sentences and commented on them.

First of all, we thank for your good comments and so sorry for missing your pdf file’s comments. All suggestion is added to text and marked with track change. Please check them one by one. Also, the responses to your comments on the pdf file are as follow.

 

Line 1 in Pdf file: refer to the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite in the title.

Response:

Thanks. the Ebrahim-Attar pegmatite is added to title, please check line 3 in marked version.

 

Line 29: I did not see this in the discussion or conclusions.

Response:

Thank you The sentence is reworded. Please check line 31 in marked version.

 

Line 51: above, volcanogenic and carbonate hosted are two different groups. This classification should be maintained.

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is corrected. Please check line 51 in marked version.

 

Line 59-63: These sentences seem to be important. Explain in more detail, how and why beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Is there some information about the granitic pegmatite of Ebrahim-Attar that was not known before your study? Define this gap in knowledge here

Response:

Thanks, you are right. We moved some information in lines 63-68 in revised version to show beryl is useful to understand the evolution of the granitic pegmatite. Also, we added in previous version about low attention to the source and geochemistry of beryl mineralization which is highlighted in yellow color in lines 95-103.

Figure.1:: this figure can be removed from the manuscript. It is not discussed in the text and gives no relevant information for the beryl of Ebrahim-Attar deposit.

Response:

This figure is removed from the manuscript. Please check it out.

 

Line 68 : Ok, but above, you explained that several sources of beryl are possible. Add a sentence to explain that you reduce the discussion to the granitic pegmatite.

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 72-73 in marked version.

 

Line 72-76: This part should be deleted from the introduction or moved to the paragraph about the potential origins of beryl (line 53).

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to line 63 in marked version. Please check it.

Line 72-76: Is this a fault zone

Response:

Thanks. Sanandaj- Sirjan is not a fault zone. Please check line 86-87 in marked version.

 

Figure.2. Are the beryl bearing pegmatites linked with each other or with the structure of the area? I did not understand this from the text, but this figure suggests a structural link between the beryl-bearing pegmatites.

Response:

Thanks for you comment. There is no link between the mentioned pegmatite.

 

Line 111: How was the age of 157.9 Ma determined?

Response:

Thank you for your comment. This age is based on U-Pb dating in zircon grains. Please check line 128 in marked version.

 

Line 114: Give the published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures and main conclusions in the geological setting section. It is now in the discussion

Response:

Thank you very much. All he published mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic signatures of host rock is moved to geological setting in the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 146-160 in Marked version.

 

Line 122: Give a reference or state clearly that this subdivision is defined by you.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. Please check line 138 in marked version.

Figure 3: What is the white color? It is missing in the legend.

Response:

Thanks. It was added to Figure 2 (new number) in marked version.

Figure caption 3: Explain numbers (1) and (2).

Response:

Thanks. Please check lines 173-174 in marked version.

Line 148: Are there differences between these beryl crystals? Do they show different colors? Or did you sample different zones of the pegmatite? Please explain your sampling strategy in more detail.

Response:

Thank you. Please check lines 191-192 in marked version.

 

Line 166-169: this might be the reason for the scattering Sr/Sr-values. Explain, why you assume that the dissolved parts have the same Sr-isotopic ratio as the whole beryl grains.

Response:

Thank you. As for Sr isotope analysis with quantitative analysis of REE, around 40 mg of each sample was digested by HF and perchloric acid (HClO4) in an open PTFE beaker on the hotplate at a temperature of around 140 °C for 72 hours at NU. After drying the digested solution, it was dissolved in 6 M HCl. White precipitates appeared in the 6 M HCl although the samples were once dissolved again during the HF digestion and finally all part were dissolve as supernatant solution. Please check lines 216-218 in marked version.

 

Line 172: Which resin did you use for column chemistry?

Response:

Thank you. The isotope fraction was dried and then dissolved in 3 mL of 2.4 M HCl and loaded on the cation exchange column (BioRad AG50W-X8, 200–400 mesh) with HCl eluent to isolate. Please check the marked version line 220-222.

 

Line 192: You explained in the "analytical method" section that you analyzed beryl crystals and not the pegmatite granite itself. This information should be shifted to the Geological Setting, to make transparent that these are not your own data.

Response:

Thanks. We moved this part to the geological setting in previously version and it is highlighted by yellow color in the geological setting part in lines 147-160 in marked version.

Line 207: tart with section "Results" to make the structure of the manuscript clearer. Then proceed with "5.1 Beryl chemistry", if necessary. I think tis sbheading is not necessary, because you present only beryl chemistry data.

Response:

Thanks. This part is changed to result in previously version. And we combine three two first sub heading to beryl geochemistry. Please check them out in lines 242-271 in marked version.

Line 220 : Give a reference for the normalisation values

Response:

Thanks. The Ref is added to the previous version and highlighted in yellow color in line 252 in marked version.

Line 221: REE are trace elements. (see heading of the previous section).

Response:

Thanks. This subheading is deleted.

 

Line 282: How can one single sample show a trend?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence is reworded. We mean BRYL3 was excluded. Please check line 334-335.

Table 3: This error is the analytical error, not the external reproducibility. The external reproducibility should be used for plotting the data. It can be derived from the standard data.

Response:

Thanks. For plotting, we have used the external error based on this 1SE and 1SD of the standard (NIST SRM 987) in marked version. But in the table, we keep the analytical error. Please check figure 7 caption.

Table 3: There are no errors on the Rb and Sr measurements?

Response:

Thanks. We have added analytical errors of trace elements by ICP-MS in the analytical method in marked version line 236, highlight in yellow color.

 

Table 3: What is the uncertainty of the Rb/Sr values?

Response:

Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb(5%) and Sr(5%).

 

 

Figure 8: in the figure, you show an error on Rb/Sr. Where does this error come from? Add this information

Response:

Thanks. Thanks. The uncertainties of the Rb/Sr ratios are estimated as 7% based of the error of Rb and Sr.

 

 

Figure 8 : This is without doubt an errorchrone and thus meaningless. You should use the known age of the pegmatite (as the slope of the line) and then calculate Sr/Sr(i) for each single sample. Then, you can give a range of possible Sr/Sr(i).

Response:

Thank for this comment. You are right. The Rb in the host is so high.  Based on our experiences in the Rb-Sr methods when the 87Rb/86Sr is higher than 3 make more unreliable data for each sample. actually, for the lower 87Rb/86Sr the calculation of the initial ratios to be useful.  in this case we prefer to use isochron or errorchron style to see the intercept line for 87Sr/86Sr which is more consistent with the host rocks. Meanwhile, the Sr-isochron was plotted again.

 

Figure 9: As far as I understood, you acquired new data from beryl crystals. So where are the data in these diagrams from? All of them are already published and discussed in Azizi et al. [31], right? Your Discussion section should concentrate on your own data, not on already published stuff.

Data that are already published should (shortly) be presented in the Geological Setting section.

Response:

Thanks. Some data presentation of Ebrahim Attar granitic texture which is published by Azizi et al., (2016), which is moved to the geological setting which as mentioned in above. But this part, we going to discuss about the host rock and compare it with the other Be- bearing pegmatite. Therefore, we would prefer to keep this part in discussion.

 

Lines 344-349: In the entire section 6.1, these lines are the only sentences, which are based on new beryl data. Move the information about the granitic pegmatite to the geological setting, shorten it, and discuss your new data in the discussion!

Response:

Thanks. This part is moved to geological setting. Please check lines 161-168 in marked version.

Lines 352-353: Did you calculate the zircon saturation temperature? Give a reference for the formula or give a reference for the author who published it.

Response:

Thanks. The refences is added to previous version and highlighted in yellow color in lines 394 in marked version.

 

Lines 367: Are these four classes relevant for the discussion of your data? I do not think so.

Response:

Thanks. These classes are just for comparing the Ebrahim Attar is related to which class.

 

Lines 375: In the sentence before, prismatic crystals are related to early beryl. What is early and late in this context?

Response:

Thanks. Our mean, the early beryl appears in the late stage of pegmatite evolution.

Lines 376: Rewrite the sentence. In the moment, it is not clear, what causes lateral growth and what is extremely platy (alkali substitution?)

Response:

Thanks. Please check line 423 in marked version.

Lines 381: this sentence says that beryl is the magmatic source. What do you really want to say? Reformulate the sentence.

Response:

Thanks. It is true. beryl grain has the magmatic source.

 

Lines 384: I do not agree with this statement. The "decreasing trend" is induced by only one sample point in Figure 10.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We mentioned weak negative trend. Please check line 430 in marked version.

Lines 404: This paragraph can be substantially shortened. The Cs content alone defines that is is "barren and geochemically primitive beryl type and less evolved granite". Figure 11 is also not necessary to recognize this.

 Response:

Thank you for your comments. This paragraph shorted and some information was moved to the figure caption 10 (new number). Also, this figure shows the Li/Cs ratio and camper with other less to highly evolved pegmatite so we prefer to keep this figure. Please check lines 453-456 in marked version.

Figure 8: What about the single sample that plots outside the fields? Is this cuased by an analytical problem? Or is this sample relevant? I did not find it in the discussion? Is it this sample which produces the "trend" in figure 7b? Please check this sample and discuss its special characteristics.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. Please check line 464-465 in marked version.

Lines 428: It is not the similarity that suggest a contribution of crust or metasediment. This is suggested by the absolute values.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence reworded. Please check line 479 in marked version.

Lines 460: Tungsten mineralization is also in the contact between barren pegmatite and Be-pegmatite?

Response:

Thank you for your comments. This sentence was reworded. Please check line 512-513 in marked version.

Lines 467: What is crystallized temperature (crystallization temperature??) and how did you determine it?

Response:

it mentioned in previous part. Please check line 389 in marked version.

Lines 491: his sentence is hard to understand for me. Did you mean: the peraluminous signature supports a metasedimentary, Be-enriched source?

Response:

Thanks. The sentence was changed. Please check line 544-545 in marked version.

Lines 499: Why do you talk about undercooling? The word "cooling" is not sufficient to explain the process?

Response:

Thanks. please check line 552 in marked version.

 

Lines 505: rewrite: "has a characteristic as an LCT group". The granite cannot be a group.

Response:

Thanks. please check line 551-552 in marked version.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx