Updates are available Addendum dated 2017-05-02

Article History

Received: 18 April 2016

Accepted: 8 August 2016

First Online: 19 September 2016

Change Date: 27 March 2017

Change Type: Update

Change Details: The authors omitted to cite a paper5 that used a crustal mass-balance approach, but alternative constraints on paleogeography and pre-collisional crustal geometries, to argue that about 40 to 50% of Indian crust is missing from the present-day crustal reservoir of the Himalayan–Tibetan system and may have been recycled into the mantle. Given limited constraints on the uncertainty of this estimate, the authors chose to focus their comparison on the later work of Yakovlev and Clark (2014). Nevertheless, the authors have decided the work of Replumaz and colleagues merits citation. References 5. Replumaz, A., Negredo, A.M., Guillot, S., van der Beek, P. & Villaseñor, A. Crustal mass budget and recycling during the India/Asia collision. Tectonophysics492, 99–107 (2010).

Competing interests

: The authors declare no competing financial interests.