{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034431582071831404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03383793410507569, 'mean_word_length': 5.127272727272727, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Addendum to the Reply of De Souza and Others

We have read the reply of De Souza and others to our discussion and are surprised about some of the misunderstandings these authors have about the timing and nature of the Salinic tectonic cycle, especially with respect to the Matapedia basin (largely interpreted as a forearc basin by us) and the Salinic arc. It has been known for a long time, based on fossil and radiometric evidence, that marine deposition in the eastern part of the Matapedia basin started during the Late Ordovician ( 450 Ma) and continued until the end of the Llandovery ( 430 Ma) both in New Brunswick and Maine (for example, Roy, 1980; Wilson and others, 2004; Wilson and Kamo, 2012). The Matapedia basin rocks lie disconformably above the Middle Ordovician Popelogan arc; this disconformity reflects late Taconic accretion of the latter to composite Laurentia (van Staal, 1994; Wilson and others, 2004; Wilson and Kamo, 2012). Deposition in the Matapedia basin was interrupted as a result of the Salinic collision (430–422 Ma) between the Gander margin and composite Laurentia, during which the basin was partially inverted and uplifted, locally producing a marked angular unconformity with overlying Ludlovian-Pridolian volcanic and sedimentary rocks (van Staal and others, 2003, 2008; Wilson and Kamo, 2012). Hence, the Quimby and other Upper Ordovician-Lower Silurian volcanic rocks mentioned by De Souza and others have the appropriate age to represent arc-related volcanic rocks of the Salinic cycle. Formation of both the arc and the forearc basin thus predate the main, Middle to Late Silurian (Wenlockian-Ludlovian) Salinic unconformity; they do not lie above it. In addition, the Matapedia basin was locally subjected to protracted Salinic deformation and uplift ( 440–433 Ma), which can be linked to accretion and incorporation of several major buoyant Tetagouche backarc blocks into the Brunswick subduction complex (van Staal and others, 2008; van Staal and Wilson, 2014 and discussion), indicating that the Matapedia basin was a tectonically active basin, consistent with a forearc setting. The igneous rocks De Souza and others are referring to (Bédard, 1986; Dostal and others, 1989, 1993; D’ Hulst and others, 2008) are mainly Upper SilurianLower Devonian (425–407 Ma) and syn-to post Salinic collision. Hence, they are not arc-related. It is not surprising that they display ambiguous tectonic affinities, and they are irrelevant to our discussion. We interpreted them, at least in part, as being related to slab-breakoff (van Staal and others, 2003; Wilson and others, 2008). The point made concerning restoration of dextral movements on Acadian faults is valid, although the amount of translation is uncertain and may be less than they suggest. For example, the net dextral movement on the Rocky Brook-Millstream fault cannot be more than 30 km, based on offset of Silurian-Devonian rocks. Nevertheless, this restoration supports the model of a collision with an irregular margin published earlier (for example, van Staal, 1994; Malo and others, 1995). Regardless, the critical point is that the same Ordovician-Silurian geology continues from New Brunswick into Maine and beyond, including ample evidence of Salinic orogenesis in southern and central Maine and beyond (West and others, 1995, 2003; Gerbi and West, 2007; Hussey