Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T08:20:10.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cummingtonite and gedrite from Sutherland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

R. S. Collins
R. S. Collins*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the investigation of a migmatite complex near Strathy, north Sutherland, cummingtonite and gedrite were found to be common constituents of certain schists and granulites. Calcium-poor amphiboles have not hitherto been recorded from rocks of the Moine Series, and it is the purpose of this paper to give the results of the optical and chemical study of three examples of this group. The methods of separation and purification employed are described in some detail as it is considered that many of the previous analyses of these minerals are vitiated by faulty procedure. To avoid errors in separating two amphibole species, the investigated samples were taken from rocks containing a single amphibole phase. The paper concludes with a discussion of the correlation of optical properties and chemical composition of cummingtonites and gedrites.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 26 , Issue 178 , September 1942 , pp. 254 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 255 note 1 Reinhard, M., Universal Drehtischmethoden. Basel, 1931. [M.A. 4–435.]Google Scholar

page 255 note 2 Lane, J. H. and Smith, H. T. U., Amer. Min., 1938, vol. 23, p. 457. [M.A. 7–249.]Google Scholar

page 255 note 3 Burri, C., Sehweiz. Min. Petr. Mitt., 1931, vol. 11, p. 285. [M.A. 5–71.]Google Scholar

page 255 note 4 Bannister, F. A. and Hey, M. H., Min. Mag., 1931, vol. 22, p. 573.Google Scholar

page 255 note 5 Wayland, R. G., Amer. Min., 1936, vol. 21, p. 610. [M.A. 7–26.]Google Scholar

page 255 note 6 Warren, B. E., Zeits. Krist., 1930, vol. 72, p. 516. [M.A. 4–278.]Google Scholar

page 257 note 1 Winchell, A. N., Elements of optical mineralogy. New York, 1933, pt. 2, p. 230.Google Scholar

page 258 note 1 Sundius, N., Über die Mischungslücken zwischen Anthophyllit-Gedrit-Cummingtonit- Grünerit und Tremolit-Aktinolith. Min. Petr. Mitt. (Tschermak) 1933, vol. 43, p. 427. [M.A. 6–64.]Google Scholar

page 258 note 2 Alling, H. L., Interpretative petrology. New York, 1936, p. 111.Google Scholar

page 259 note 1 Kunitz, W., Neues Jahrb. Min., Abt. A, 1930, vol. 60, p. 190. [M.A. 4–200.]Google Scholar