File 3: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Isochron and weighted mean plots for the Lu–Hf matrix-correction standard (OD-306) and secondary standards HR-1 and Bamble-1. MSWD, mean squared weighted deviation; n, number of analyses; P(χ2), Chi-squared probability for a single data population. Where required (i.e. insufficient spread along the isochron), the isochrons were anchored to an initial 177Hf/176Hf ratio of 3.55 ± 0.05 (see text)

File 4: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Zircon U–Pb isotope data for the Reynolds–Anmatjira Range samples as well as for the U–Pb standards. Rho, error correlation

File 10: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Full Concordia plots for the zircon U–Pb data from the Reynolds–Anmatjira samples. The age calculation is based on the youngest concordant grains (green symbols) only. MSWD, mean squared weighted deviation; P(χ2), Chi-squared probability for a single data population

File 7: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Ti-in-Quartz analytical results. Temperatures were calculated using the formula in Wark and Watson (2006)

File 1: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Concordia and weighted mean U–Pb plots for the secondary zircon, apatite, monazite and titanite standards. MSWD, mean squared weighted deviation; n, number of analyses

File 8: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Apatite REE spidergraphs, normalized to primitive mantle values (McDonough and Sun 1995)

File 9: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Thin section microphotographs from the Taratap Granodiorite. (A) Apatite cogenetic with allanite. (B) Apatite overgrown by monazite. (C, D) Titanite in chlorite ((C) transmitted light image; (D) reflective light image; circle symbols are laser ablation spots)

File 6: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Apatite Lu–Hf results for all analysed samples (tab names refer to the four study areas), including data for the analytical standards. Columns D–L report isotopic ratios and uncertainties that are not corrected against the OD-306 reference apatite. Columns M–Q report the matrix-corrected (against OD-306 apatite) Lu–Hf data that were used to calculate the inverse isochrons and resulting Lu–Hf ages. Corrected single spot 176Hf/176Lu ratios and associated ages for individual grains (where relevant) are reported in columns W–AA. See text for more details. In addition, grain sizes are reported for the Queensland samples in column AB (surface area in mm2). A qualitative assessment of the intactness of the grains is reported in column AC

File 5: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Apatite, monazite and titanite U–Pb and trace element data for all analysed samples (tab names refer to the four study areas), including data for the analytical standards. Rho, error correlation. All trace element data are reported in ppm concentrations. Log(LREE), logarithm of the sum of the La, Ce, Pr and Nd concentrations, which was used to distinguish age populations (see text)

File 2: Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation

Analytical conditions for the Lu–Hf and Ti-in-quartz laser sessions (named after the four study areas for this paper). *Laser spot diameters for standards are given within brackets