pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05036 · v1 · pith:FF7GZY64new · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

An 800-Million-Year-Old Impact Shower on the Terrestrial Planets from the Breakup of the Eulalia Parent Body

William F. Bottke , David Vokrouhlick\'y , Melissa Dykhuis , Nicolle Zellner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 03:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Eulalia asteroid familylunar impact spike800 MaJ3:1 resonanceasteroid breakupterrestrial planets bombardmentimpact shower
0
0 comments X

The pith

The breakup of the Eulalia asteroid family ~800 million years ago sent fragments that explain the observed surge in lunar impacts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to show that the disruption of the Eulalia parent body near the 3:1 Jupiter resonance accounts for a spike in large impacts on the Moon around 800 million years ago. Simulations track how fragments entered the resonance over 150 million years through immediate injection and gradual Yarkovsky migration, then reached planet-crossing orbits. A sympathetic reader would care because this identifies a specific source for dated lunar craters and impact glasses, connecting asteroid belt events to inner solar system history. It also suggests the event influenced Earth's biosphere and Mars volcanism.

Core claim

Our collisional and dynamical models link the Eulalia family formation ~800 Ma to the injection of about three-quarters of its fragments into the J3:1 resonance over ~150 Myr. These fragments were then transported to the terrestrial planet region, producing an elevated bombardment rate that plausibly matches the observed lunar craters and impact glasses from that era.

What carries the argument

Collisional and dynamical models of fragment delivery from the Eulalia breakup into the J3:1 mean motion resonance with Jupiter via Yarkovsky thermal forces.

Load-bearing premise

The collisional and dynamical models correctly predict the fraction of fragments injected into the J3:1 resonance and their delivery to planet-crossing orbits on the observed ~150 Myr timescale.

What would settle it

A mismatch between the predicted impact timing from Eulalia fragments and the actual age distribution of large lunar craters or returned impact glasses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05036 by David Vokrouhlick\'y, Melissa Dykhuis, Nicolle Zellner, William F. Bottke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustrating the evolutionary stages of the Eulalia asteroid family. (a) The Eulalia parent body resides near the Jupiter 3:1 mean-motion resonance (J3:1). (b) Catastrophic disruption of the parent body occurs, with approximately 50% of the fragments being directly injected into the J3:1, where they can be driven into the planet-crossing region. (c) Post-disruption dynamical evolution, during whi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A cumulative plot of the approximate ages of lunar craters larger than 𝐷 > 20 km, according to Terada et al. (2020). The chronology used is provided in the text. The sample-derived age of Copernicus (blue dot) is 800 Ma, and it serves as our calibration point. The sample derived ages of Aristillus and Autolycus (green dots) 1400 ± 60 Myr and 1940 ± 10 Myr, respectively, match the model ages of 1510±140 Myr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A comparison between the model ages of lunar craters with diameter 𝐷 > 20 km and those of 118 lunar glasses taken from Apollo regolith samples. The craters ages are from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The value of the Eulalia cluster contrast function 𝑟(𝐶, 𝑎c; Δ𝐶) in the (𝑎c, 𝐶) space for Δ𝐶 = 1.5 × 10−5 au. Darker pixels correspond to larger 𝑟-values with a maximum of ≃ 7.2. Red isolines show values 𝑟 = (7.1, 6.1, 5.1), and the dashed line is the correlation axis of 𝑎c and 𝐶 with close 𝑟 values. The current proper semimajor axis of (495) Eulalia is indicated by label E, and the arrows show our tested E… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eulalia family members (black symbols) for three center choices 𝑎c: (i) 2.47 au (left panel), (ii) 2.475 au (our canonical choice; middle panel), and (iii) 2.48 au (right panel). The solid red 𝐶★-isoline corresponds to the family border from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Low albedo asteroids in our canonical classification of the Eulalia family with 𝑎c = 2.475 au and limiting 𝐶★ = −8.14 × 10−5 au. The left panels show the projection of family members to the planes defined by proper semimajor axis and sine of inclination (top), and proper semimajor axis and eccentricity (bottom). The symbol sizes scale with asteroid diameter. The black and gray symbols are cluster members w… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Modeling the dynamical evolution of the canonical Eulalia family with the center 𝑎c = 2.475 au. This solution used the bulk density 𝜌 = 1.3 g cm−3 , the surface thermal inertia Γ = 200 SI units and the variable YORP timescale 𝜏0 = 1 My. The best match to the data (left panel) is obtained for 𝑇 = 785 My and 𝑣5 = 32 m s−1 (recall that the characteristic initial ejection velocity is 𝑣ej(𝐷) = 𝑣5 (5 km/𝐷) in me… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Modeling the dynamical evolution of the canonical Eulalia family with the center 𝑎c = 2.475 au. This solution used the bulk density 𝜌 = 1.3 g cm−3 , the surface thermal inertia Γ = 230 SI units and the variable YORP timescale 𝜏0 = 1 My. The best match to the data (left panel) is obtained for 𝑇 = 855 My and 𝑣5 = 14 m s−1 (recall that the characteristic initial ejection velocity is 𝑣ej(𝐷) = 𝑣5 (5 km/𝐷) in me… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Modeling the dynamical evolution of the canonical Eulalia family with the center 𝑎c = 2.475 au. This solution used the bulk density 𝜌 = 1.5 g cm−3 , the surface thermal inertia Γ = 200 SI units and the variable YORP timescale 𝜏0 = 1 My. The best match to the data (left panel) is obtained for 𝑇 = 965 My and 𝑣5 = 14 m s−1 (recall that the characteristic initial ejection velocity is 𝑣ej(𝐷) = 𝑣5 (5 km/𝐷) in me… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Modeling the dynamical evolution of the Eulalia family with the center 𝑎c = 2.47 au, more distant from the J3:1 than our canonical choice. The vertical dashed line on the left panel shows the 𝐶★ value, though our data (black symbols with formal uncertainties) continue formally farther due to finite binsize and a limited mobility population of objects in the bin containing the 𝐶★ value. This solution used … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Modeling the dynamical evolution of the Eulalia family with the center 𝑎c = 2.48 au, closer to the J3:1 than our canonical choice. The vertical dashed line on the left panel shows the 𝐶★ value, though our data (black symbols with formal uncertainties) continue formally farther due to finite binsize and a limited mobility population of objects in the bin containing the 𝐶★ value. This solution used the bulk… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Asteroids in our canonical E0-box in (𝑒, sin 𝑖) projected onto the proper semimajor axis 𝑎 (abscissa) and absolute magnitude 𝐻 (ordinate) plane. The population has been restricted to 𝑎 ≤ 2.475 au. The left and middle panels show 3, 322 asteroids for which the WISE mission has estimated albedo values. In the left panel, we show dark objects with 𝑝𝑉 < 0.125, while in the middle panel, we show bright objects… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: Fraction 𝑓 of bright asteroids (𝑝𝑉 > 0.125) in 𝐶 bins, binsize 5 × 10−6 au and center 𝑎c = 2.475 au, in the zone of the canonical Eulalia family introduced in Sec. 3.2. We use a sample of 244 bright and 1, 784 dark objects observed by WISE with 𝐻 ≤ 16.0 and 𝐻 ≤ 17.6, respectively (see the left and middle panels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Collisional evolution of the Eulalia family size frequency distribution (SFD). We define it as the remnant SFD, with consider￾able material lost to the J3:1. The green curve represents the main belt SFD as modeled by Bottke et al. (2020). The blue curve illus￾trates our estimated initial SFD for the Eulalia family. The red curve shows the Eulalia family’s SFD after 870 Myr of collisional evolu￾tion. The b… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Fraction of impacts on terrestrial bodies over time. We define 𝑇 as the interval from injection of the particle into the J3:1 to impact on a planet. The total impact probability is 5.4 × 10−3 for Venus, 4.2 × 10−3 for Earth, and 0.6 × 10−3 for Mars. Only particles entering the resonance with osculating inclination ≤ 7.5 ◦ were considered. Data constructed using simulations performed by Nesvorn´y et al. (2… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The number and sizes of Eulalia family members impact￾ing the terrestrial planets and the Moon. The impact flux for Venus (green) is the highest, followed by the Earth (blue), Mars (red), and the Moon (gray). The impact flux was calculated using the data from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The range of stochastic impacts on the Moon from the Eulalia impact shower. Using a Monte Carlo code, we performed 10,000 simulations to track seven projectiles striking the Moon. The solid black curves represent the maximum range of impactor diameters determined from these simulations. The long-dashed and short-dashed black lines indicate the 1 𝜎 and 2 𝜎 ranges from the ensemble, respectively, while the … view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The estimates ages of Mars calderas as derived using data from Robbins et al. (2011). Here we assume the ratio of Martian to lunar impacts per square kilometer is 𝑅𝑏 = 2.8. The mean age and 1 𝜎 age uncertainties are represented as Gaussian distributions, which are combined to produce the observed age distribution. A substantial increase in caldera ages is observed near 800 Ma, the time of the Eulalia impa… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Comparisons between the observed crater SFD on Venus and the shape of the NEOMOD3 SFD. The black dots are Venus craters (Release 3 of Venus Crater Database; see text). Error bars are the square root of the number of objects. The red line is the NEO SFD as defined by the NEOMOD3 model (Nesvorn´y et al. 2024c). We have fit its shape to that of the crater SFD. The blue dots are irregular or multi-floored cra… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison between modeled and observed crater SFDs on the Moon. The red curve represents the modeled crater SFD, calculated by applying the Shoemaker crater scaling law (see Shoemaker et al. 1990; Stuart & Binzel 2004) to the NEO SFD from the NEOMOD3 model (Nesvorn´y et al. 2024c). The black dots are Copernican- and Eratosthenian-era craters on the Moon as determined by Wilhelms et al. (1978) (see also M… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multiple studies have proposed a substantial surge in large lunar impacts approximately $800$ million years ago (Ma). Some are based on analyses of the ages of large lunar craters, such as the $93$ km Copernicus crater. Others focus on the age distributions of impact glasses returned by lunar missions. A key challenge has been identifying and testing a plausible source for this putative impact spike. Here we use collisional and dynamical models to link this event to the formation of the Eulalia asteroid family, whose primitive carbonaceous chondrite-like parent body disrupted $\sim 800$ Ma near the 3:1 mean motion resonance with Jupiter (J3:1). Our simulations indicate that approximately three-quarters of the family's fragments eventually entered the J3:1 over a $\sim 150$-million year interval. While some fragments were injected into the resonance immediately after the disruption, others migrated more gradually via non-gravitational (Yarkovsky) thermal forces. Once in the J3:1, the fragments were dynamically transported into the planet-crossing region, leading to an elevated rate of bombardment on the Moon and terrestrial planets. Our results demonstrate that the Eulalia breakup can plausibly account for the observed lunar craters formed near $800$ Ma. Intriguingly, this event may also have had widespread repercussions across the inner Solar System. On Earth, its timing coincides with significant shifts in the biosphere, possibly linked to large impacts. On Mars, these impacts might have triggered a pulse of volcanic activity. Together, they showcase how certain catastrophic collisions in the main belt can have far-reaching consequences for the history of the terrestrial planets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the ~800 Ma breakup of the Eulalia asteroid family near the J3:1 resonance produced an impact shower on the terrestrial planets. Collisional and dynamical simulations show that ~3/4 of fragments entered the resonance over ~150 Myr (via immediate capture plus Yarkovsky drift), dynamically delivering an elevated bombardment rate that plausibly explains the observed lunar crater ages (e.g., Copernicus) and impact-glass distributions, with possible links to terrestrial biosphere shifts and Martian volcanism.

Significance. If the simulated delivery flux quantitatively reproduces the observed ~800 Ma surge magnitude, the work would supply a specific, testable source for a proposed late impact spike and illustrate how main-belt family formation can affect inner-planet surfaces and biology. The absence of reported flux numbers, however, leaves the match unverified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (simulation outcomes paragraph)] Abstract, paragraph on simulation outcomes: the claim that the Eulalia breakup 'plausibly account[s] for the observed lunar craters formed near 800 Ma' is load-bearing, yet no predicted impactor numbers, size-frequency distribution of delivered projectiles, or direct comparison to crater production rates or glass-age histograms is supplied. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the simulated flux lies within a factor of ~2 of the documented surge or is discrepant by orders of magnitude.
  2. [Abstract (dynamical modeling paragraph)] Abstract, dynamical-model description: the weakest assumption—that the models correctly predict both the ~3/4 injection fraction into the J3:1 and the subsequent ~150 Myr delivery timescale—is presented without validation, error bars, or sensitivity tests against observed flux. This quantitative gap prevents assessment of whether the mechanism reproduces the surge magnitude rather than merely its timing.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'primitive carbonaceous chondrite-like parent body' is used without citing the spectral or meteoritic evidence that associates Eulalia with this composition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The two major comments correctly identify that the abstract's plausibility claim rests on simulation outputs without accompanying quantitative flux estimates or sensitivity analyses. We respond point-by-point below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (simulation outcomes paragraph)] Abstract, paragraph on simulation outcomes: the claim that the Eulalia breakup 'plausibly account[s] for the observed lunar craters formed near 800 Ma' is load-bearing, yet no predicted impactor numbers, size-frequency distribution of delivered projectiles, or direct comparison to crater production rates or glass-age histograms is supplied. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the simulated flux lies within a factor of ~2 of the documented surge or is discrepant by orders of magnitude.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript supplies neither explicit impactor counts nor a direct comparison of delivered SFD or flux to crater-production rates or glass-age histograms. The simulations report only the injection fraction (~3/4) and delivery window (~150 Myr); the word 'plausibly' is therefore an inference from the existence of an elevated delivery rate at the correct epoch rather than a calibrated match. Because the paper does not contain these quantitative comparisons, we cannot presently demonstrate that the flux lies within a factor of two. We will add an order-of-magnitude flux estimate (based on the known family size and resonance delivery efficiency) to the discussion section and will revise the abstract wording to avoid implying a calibrated match. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract (dynamical modeling paragraph)] Abstract, dynamical-model description: the weakest assumption—that the models correctly predict both the ~3/4 injection fraction into the J3:1 and the subsequent ~150 Myr delivery timescale—is presented without validation, error bars, or sensitivity tests against observed flux. This quantitative gap prevents assessment of whether the mechanism reproduces the surge magnitude rather than merely its timing.

    Authors: The reported ~3/4 fraction and ~150 Myr timescale are direct outputs of the collisional-plus-N-body runs that include both prompt capture and Yarkovsky drift; these runs were checked for consistency with the present-day Eulalia orbital distribution. However, the abstract and main text do not report formal error bars, parameter-sensitivity tests, or a comparison of the delivered flux to the observed surge magnitude. We will therefore expand the methods section with results from additional runs that vary Yarkovsky parameters and initial conditions, and we will quote the resulting range on the injection fraction. We note that a full magnitude comparison still requires the flux calculation mentioned in the first comment and is therefore only partially addressable without new modeling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Dynamical simulations of Eulalia family fragments provide independent timing and delivery estimates without reducing to fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on collisional and dynamical modeling outputs (fraction of fragments entering J3:1 over ~150 Myr via immediate capture plus Yarkovsky drift, followed by planet-crossing delivery) that are presented as simulation results rather than definitions or renamings of inputs. No equations, fitted parameters, or load-bearing self-citations are quoted that would make the ~800 Ma impact surge equivalent to the model setup by construction. The link to observed lunar craters is framed as a plausible match to external timing data, not a statistical forcing from the same dataset. This qualifies as self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumed ~800 Ma age of the Eulalia family and on the fidelity of standard but unspecified collisional and dynamical codes; no free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Eulalia family formed ~800 Ma near the J3:1 resonance
    This timing is required to match the observed lunar impact spike; invoked in the abstract's description of the disruption event.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5851 in / 1267 out tokens · 42642 ms · 2026-06-28T03:46:47.069337+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

217 extracted references · 198 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H

    Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H. V. 1980, Science, 208, 1095, 10.1126/science.208.4448.1095

    work page doi:10.1126/science.208.4448.1095 1980

  2. [2]

    D., Clemens , W

    Archibald , J. D., Clemens , W. A., Padian , K., et al. 2010, Science, 328, 973

    2010

  3. [3]

    C., & Jahren , A

    Arens , N. C., & Jahren , A. H. 2000, Palaios, 15, 314, 10.1669/0883-1351(2000)015<0314:CIEIAC>2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1669/0883-1351(2000)015 2000

  4. [4]

    Arinobu , T., Ishiwatari , R., Kaiho , K., & Lamolda , M. A. 1999, Geology, 27, 723, 10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0723:SOPPAH>2.3.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027 1999

  5. [5]

    M., McAdam , M

    Arredondo , A., Becker , T. M., McAdam , M. M., et al. 2025, , 6, 195, 10.3847/PSJ/ade395

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ade395 2025

  6. [6]

    2021, , 368, 114619, 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114619

    Arredondo , A., Campins , H., Pinilla-Alonso , N., et al. 2021, , 368, 114619, 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114619

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114619 2021

  7. [7]

    W., & Singer , S

    Bandermann , L. W., & Singer , S. F. 1973, , 19, 108, 10.1016/0019-1035(73)90142-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(73)90142-5 1973

  8. [8]

    D., Korotev , R

    Barra , F., Swindle , T. D., Korotev , R. L., et al. 2006, , 70, 6016, 10.1016/j.gca.2006.09.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2006.09.013 2006

  9. [9]

    J., Bowring , S

    Blackburn , T. J., Bowring , S. A., Perron , J. T., et al. 2012, Science, 335, 73, 10.1126/science.1213496

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1213496 2012

  10. [10]

    Bodiselitsch , B., Koeberl , C., Master , S., & Reimold , W. U. 2005, Science, 308, 239, 10.1126/science.1104657

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1104657 2005

  11. [11]

    T., Delb \'o , M., Morbidelli , A., & Walsh , K

    Bolin , B. T., Delb \'o , M., Morbidelli , A., & Walsh , K. J. 2017, , 282, 290, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.029 2017

  12. [12]

    T., Morbidelli , A., & Walsh , K

    Bolin , B. T., Morbidelli , A., & Walsh , K. J. 2018, , 611, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732079

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732079 2018

  13. [13]

    F., Bro z , M., O'Brien , D

    Bottke , W. F., Bro z , M., O'Brien , D. P., et al. 2015 a , in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel , F. E. DeMeo , & W. F. Bottke , 701--724

    2015

  14. [14]

    F., Durda , D

    Bottke , W. F., Durda , D. D., Nesvorn \'y , D., et al. 2005 a , , 175, 111, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.10.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.10.026 2005

  15. [15]

    2005 b , , 179, 63, 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.017

    ---. 2005 b , , 179, 63, 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.017 2005

  16. [16]

    F., Morbidelli , A., Jedicke , R., et al

    Bottke , W. F., Morbidelli , A., Jedicke , R., et al. 2002, , 156, 399, 10.1006/icar.2001.6788

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6788 2002

  17. [17]

    F., Nesvorn \'y , D., Grimm , R

    Bottke , W. F., Nesvorn \'y , D., Grimm , R. E., Morbidelli , A., & O'Brien , D. P. 2006 a , , 439, 821, 10.1038/nature04536

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04536 2006

  18. [18]

    F., Nolan , M

    Bottke , W. F., Nolan , M. C., Greenberg , R., & Kolvoord , R. A. 1994, , 107, 255, 10.1006/icar.1994.1021

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1994.1021 1994

  19. [19]

    F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Nesvorn \'y , D

    Bottke , W. F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2007, , 449, 48, 10.1038/nature06070

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06070 2007

  20. [20]

    F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Rubincam , D

    Bottke , W. F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Rubincam , D. P., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2006 b , Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34, 157, 10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154 2006

  21. [21]

    F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Walsh , K

    Bottke , W. F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Walsh , K. J., et al. 2015 b , , 247, 191, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.046 2015

  22. [22]

    F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Ballouz , R

    Bottke , W. F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Ballouz , R. L., et al. 2020, , 160, 14, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab88d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab88d3 2020

  23. [23]

    F., Nolan , M

    Bottke , Jr., W. F., Nolan , M. C., Melosh , H. J., Vickery , A. M., & Greenberg , R. 1996, , 122, 406, 10.1006/icar.1996.0133

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0133 1996

  24. [24]

    D., Douglas , P

    Bourque , R. D., Douglas , P. M. J., & Larsson , H. C. E. 2021, Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 562, 110081, 10.1016/j.palaeo.2020.110081

    work page doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2020.110081 2021

  25. [25]

    E., Sturtevant , B., & Kanamori , H

    Brodsky , E. E., Sturtevant , B., & Kanamori , H. 1998, , 103, 23,827, 10.1029/98JB02130

    work page doi:10.1029/98jb02130 1998

  26. [26]

    2024, , 689, A183, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450532

    Bro z , M., Vernazza , P., Marsset , M., et al. 2024, , 689, A183, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450532

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450532 2024

  27. [27]

    2013, , 146, 26, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/26

    Campins , H., de Le \'o n , J., Morbidelli , A., et al. 2013, , 146, 26, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/26 2013

  28. [28]

    2010, , 721, L53, 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L53

    Campins , H., Morbidelli , A., Tsiganis , K., et al. 2010, , 721, L53, 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L53

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/l53 2010

  29. [29]

    J., Doressoundiram , A., & Lazzaro , D

    Cellino , A., Bus , S. J., Doressoundiram , A., & Lazzaro , D. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W. F. Bottke , Jr., A. Cellino , P. Paolicchi , & R. P. Binzel , 633--643

    2002

  30. [30]

    2001, , 152, 225, 10.1006/icar.2001.6634

    Cellino , A., Zappal \`a , V., Doressoundiram , A., et al. 2001, , 152, 225, 10.1006/icar.2001.6634

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6634 2001

  31. [31]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1455, 10.1038/s41550-025-02615-6

    Ciocco , M., Roskosz , M., Doisneau , B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1455, 10.1038/s41550-025-02615-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02615-6 2025

  32. [32]

    A., MacDonald , F

    Cohen , P. A., MacDonald , F. A., Pruss , S., Matys , E., & Bosak , T. 2015, Palaios, 30, 238, 10.2110/palo.2014.069

    work page doi:10.2110/palo.2014.069 2015

  33. [33]

    B., Reinhard , C

    Cole , D. B., Reinhard , C. T., Wang , X., et al. 2016, Geology, 44, 555, 10.1130/G37787.1

    work page doi:10.1130/g37787.1 2016

  34. [34]

    W., Kunzmann , M., Bekker , A., et al

    Crockford , P. W., Kunzmann , M., Bekker , A., et al. 2019, Chemical Geology, 513, 200, 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2019.02.030

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2019.02.030 2019

  35. [35]

    S., Becker , T

    Culler , T. S., Becker , T. A., Muller , R. A., & Renne , P. R. 2000, Science, 287, 1785, 10.1126/science.287.5459.1785

    work page doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1785 2000

  36. [36]

    2004, , 172, 526, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.07.003

    C apek , D., & Vokrouhlick \'y , D. 2004, , 172, 526, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.07.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.07.003 2004

  37. [37]

    1840, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, Series 2, 5, 601

    Darwin, C. 1840, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, Series 2, 5, 601

  38. [38]

    2016, , 266, 57, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.014

    de Le \'o n , J., Pinilla-Alonso , N., Delb \'o , M., et al. 2016, , 266, 57, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.014 2016

  39. [39]

    2018, , 313, 25, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.009

    de Le \'o n , J., Campins , H., Morate , D., et al. 2018, , 313, 25, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.009 2018

  40. [40]

    2019, , 624, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834745

    Delb \'o , M., Avdellidou , C., & Morbidelli , A. 2019, , 624, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834745

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834745 2019

  41. [41]

    Delb \'o , M., Avdellidou , C., & Walsh , K. J. 2023, , 680, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346452

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346452 2023

  42. [42]

    2017, Science, 357, 1026, 10.1126/science.aam6036

    Delb \'o , M., Walsh , K., Bolin , B., Avdellidou , C., & Morbidelli , A. 2017, Science, 357, 1026, 10.1126/science.aam6036

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aam6036 2017

  43. [43]

    2021, Earth Science Reviews, 220, 103743, 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103743

    Deng , Y., Fan , J., Zhang , S., et al. 2021, Earth Science Reviews, 220, 103743, 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103743

    work page doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103743 2021

  44. [45]

    2015 b , , 252, 199, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.012

    ---. 2015 b , , 252, 199, 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.012 2015

  45. [46]

    2023, , 675, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345889

    D urech , J., & Hanu s , J. 2023, , 675, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345889

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345889 2023

  46. [47]

    Eggert , S., & Walter , T. R. 2009, Tectonophysics, 471, 14, 10.1016/j.tecto.2008.10.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.10.003 2009

  47. [48]

    Farinella , P., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Hartmann , W. K. 1998, , 132, 378, 10.1006/icar.1997.5872

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5872 1998

  48. [49]

    A., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke , W

    Farley , K. A., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke , W. F., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2006, , 439, 295, 10.1038/nature04391

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04391 2006

  49. [50]

    M., Delb \'o , M., Avdellidou, C., et al

    Ferrone, S. M., Delb \'o , M., Avdellidou, C., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245594

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245594 2023

  50. [51]

    Filippelli , G. M. 2008, Elements, 4, 89, 10.2113/GSELEMENTS.4.2.89

    work page doi:10.2113/gselements.4.2.89 2008

  51. [52]

    S., Koeberl , C., & Fedorov , A

    Fu , M., Abbot , D. S., Koeberl , C., & Fedorov , A. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadk5489, 10.1126/sciadv.adk5489

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adk5489 2024

  52. [53]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Gayon-Markt , J., Delb \'o , M., Morbidelli , A., & Marchi , S. 2012, , 424, 508, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21220.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21220.x 2012

  53. [54]

    Ghent , R., Zellner , N. E. B., Costello , E. S., et al. 2021, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 53, 185, 10.3847/25c2cfeb.0d1e1c93

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.0d1e1c93 2021

  54. [55]

    B., & Domingo, L

    Godderis, Y., Donnadieu, Y., Lefebvre, V., Keller, C. B., & Domingo, L. 2003, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 67, A132

    2003

  55. [56]

    2021, Scientifc Reports, 11, 22417, 10.1038/s41598-021-01725-1

    Gonz \'a lez , G., Fujita , E., Shibazaki , B., et al. 2021, Scientifc Reports, 11, 22417, 10.1038/s41598-021-01725-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-01725-1 2021

  56. [57]

    2013, Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 381, 67, 10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.04.015

    Grandpre , R., Schauer , A., Samek , K., et al. 2013, Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 381, 67, 10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.04.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.04.015 2013

  57. [58]

    L., Nemchin , A

    Grange , M. L., Nemchin , A. A., & Pidgeon , R. T. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 118, 2180, 10.1002/jgre.20167

    work page doi:10.1002/jgre.20167 2013

  58. [59]

    2018, , 312, 181, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018

    Granvik , M., Morbidelli , A., Jedicke , R., et al. 2018, , 312, 181, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018 2018

  59. [60]

    Grieve , R. A. F. 2001, in Accretion of Extraterrestrial Matter Throughout Earth's History, ed. B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink & B. Schmitz , 379--402, 10.1007/978-1-4419-8694-8_19

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8694-8_19 2001

  60. [61]

    Haack , H., Farinella , P., Scott , E. R. D., & Keil , K. 1996, , 119, 182, 10.1006/icar.1996.0010

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0010 1996

  61. [62]

    Harper , D. A. T. 2023, National Science Review, 11, nwad319, 10.1093/nsr/nwad319

    work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwad319 2023

  62. [63]

    Harper , D. A. T., Hammarlund , E. U., & Rasmussen , C. M. . 2014, Gondwana Research, 25, 1294, 10.1016/j.gr.2012.12.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gr.2012.12.021 2014

  63. [64]

    Harris , A. W. 1998, , 131, 291, 10.1006/icar.1997.5865

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5865 1998

  64. [65]

    1981, in Basaltic Volcanism on the Terrestrial Planets (Basaltic Volcanism Study Project) (New York: Pergamon Press), 1049--1129

    Hartmann, W., Strom, R., Grieve, R., et al. 1981, in Basaltic Volcanism on the Terrestrial Planets (Basaltic Volcanism Study Project) (New York: Pergamon Press), 1049--1129

    1981

  65. [66]

    Hartmann , W. K. 2005, , 174, 294, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.11.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.11.023 2005

  66. [67]

    R., Schmitz, B., Baur, H., Halliday, A

    Heck, P. R., Schmitz, B., Baur, H., Halliday, A. N., & Wieler, R. 2004, Nature, 430, 323, 10.1038/nature02736

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02736 2004

  67. [68]

    P., & Malhotra , R

    Hendler , N. P., & Malhotra , R. 2020, , 1, 75, 10.3847/PSJ/abbe25

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abbe25 2020

  68. [69]

    R., Sharpton , V

    Herrick , R. R., Sharpton , V. L., Malin , M. C., Lyons , S. N., & Feely , K. 1997, in Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment, ed. S. W. Bougher , D. M. Hunten , & R. J. Phillips , 1015

    1997

  69. [70]

    F., & Li , Z.-X

    Hoffman , P. F., & Li , Z.-X. 2009, Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 277, 158, 10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.03.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.03.013 2009

  70. [71]

    F., & Schrag, D

    Hoffman, P. F., & Schrag, D. P. 2002, Terra Nova, 14, 129, 10.1046/j.1365-3121.2002.00408.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-3121.2002.00408.x 2002

  71. [72]

    Holland, H. D. 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361, 903, 10.1098/rstb.2006.1838

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1838 2006

  72. [73]

    G., Hamilton, C

    Horvath, D. G., Hamilton, C. W., Craddock, R. A., & Lang, N. P. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 666, 10.1038/s41550-021-01312-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01312-2 2021

  73. [74]

    A., Zellner , N

    Huang , Y.-H., Minton , D. A., Zellner , N. E. B., et al. 2018, , 45, 6805, 10.1029/2018GL077254

    work page doi:10.1029/2018gl077254 2018

  74. [75]

    M., Bornemann , A., Penman , D

    Hull , P. M., Bornemann , A., Penman , D. E., et al. 2020, Science, 367, 266, 10.1126/science.aay5055

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay5055 2020

  75. [76]

    A., Neukum , G., Bottke , Jr., W

    Ivanov , B. A., Neukum , G., Bottke , Jr., W. F., & Hartmann , W. K. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W. F. Bottke , Jr., A. Cellino , P. Paolicchi , & R. P. Binzel , 89--101

    2002

  76. [77]

    A., Neukum, G., & Wagner, R

    Ivanov, B. A., Neukum, G., & Wagner, R. 2001, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 261, 1--34

    2001

  77. [78]

    H., Juri \'c , M., et al

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Lupton , R. H., Juri \'c , M., et al. 2002, , 124, 2943, 10.1086/344077

    work page doi:10.1086/344077 2002

  78. [79]

    2002, in Asteroids III, ed

    Jedicke , R., Larsen , J., & Spahr , T. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. J. Bottke , W. F., A. Cellino , P. Paolicchi , & R. P. Binzel , 71--87

    2002

  79. [80]

    G., & Scott , E

    Keil , K., St \"o ffler , D., Love , S. G., & Scott , E. R. D. 1997, , 32, 349, 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1997.tb01278.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1997.tb01278.x 1997

  80. [81]

    B., Husson , J

    Keller , C. B., Husson , J. M., Mitchell , R. N., et al. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 1136, 10.1073/pnas.1804350116

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1804350116 2019

Showing first 80 references.