Discussions on the mountains and orogenic belts and related issues

A good grasp of the distinctions between mountains and orogenic belts is crucial to the understanding of plate tectonics. The greatest innovation must be based on the inheritance of previous researches, therefore, this paper first reviews the research history from mountains to orogenic belts in Earth Science, and then concludes the distinctions between them, and lists some common questions in the study of orogenic belts. The research history of mountains, from morphology and the interpretation of uplifting to the internal structure, tectonics and the universal dynamics, follows the whole process of modern geology, from the birth to the geosyncline theory and finally the plate tectonics theory. The plate tectonics theory gives a more definite definition to orogenic belts and defines the tasks and objects of structural geology. As a topographic term, mountains only represent landmasses conspicuously above surroundings. The key point of mountains is the elevations and steep slops. They can be resulted from any horizontal stresses of extensional, compressional and shearing, or from vertical stresses governed by mantle plume or exoteric body impact. Orogen is a collective term and represents structures constructed by the collective work of convergent plate margin processes. Orogenic belts contain subductional and collisional orogenic belts. The key characteristics of orogenic belts are the subduction-controlled rock-structure associations. Orogenic belts emphasize the dynamic process while mountains emphasize the static form and the present morphology. Mountains and orogenic belts are two entirely different concepts. In the end, we outline some confused and misunderstood issues, as well as some unclear concepts, that remain to be discussed.