Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2018
The Chapel, or Charlestown Main, Limestone horizon lies in the Lower Limestone Group of the Carboniferous Limestone Series. At Chapel quarry the limestone is underlain by a thick sill of quartz-dolerite. The contact, however, is not exposed but probably lies only a few feet below the quarry floor. Other intrusions are seen in the vicinity: a very thin dike of decomposed basalt, which connects with a small ‘float’ of white trap, cuts the limestone about 30 yards north-eastwards of the point where the quarry crosses the Chapel road, and a small sill of olivine-dolerite or teschenite occurs at a horizon about 100 feet above the top of the limestone. In the quarry the limestone is about 60 feet thick. The contact-alteration described in this paper is most evident near the base of the limestone face and its extension laterally in the quarry has no relation to the outcrop of the thin dike. The alteration is therefore considered to be essentially connected with the underlying, unexposed, sill of quartz-dolerite, and, as will be shown ih the following pages, has been effected by the action of hot solutions rather than by thermal reconstruction.
Communicated with the permission of the Director, Geological Survey and Museum.
page 275 note 2 Allan, J. K. and Knox, J., The economic geology of the Fife coalfields, Area II. Mem. Geol. Surv. Scotland, 1934, p. 24.Google Scholar
page 276 note 1 The numbers refer to specimens and corresponding slides in the Sliced Rock Collection of the Geological Survey and Museum.
page 277 note 1 Clarke, F. W. and Wheeler, W. C., Prof. Paper U.S. Geol. Survey, 1922, no. 124.Google Scholar
page 277 note 2 Heddle, M. F., Mineralogy of Scotland, 1901, vol. 2, p. 82.Google Scholar
page 279 note 1 McLintock, W. F. P., Min. Mag., 1910, vol. 15, p. 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 280 note 1 The presence of boron in the residual glass of tholeiite has been stated by Walker, Dr. F. as conclusively proved but to an amount under 1%, Min. Mag., 1930, vol. 22, p. 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 280 note 2 Taylor, Cf. J. H., Min. Mag., 1940, vol. 25, p. 545. (Grossular associated with analcime.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 280 note 3 See Morey, G. W. and Ingerson, E., Econ. Geol., 1937, Supplement to vol. 32, no. 5; Bibliography items nos. 31 and 86.Google Scholar
page 280 note 4 For example, Shannon, E. V., Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1924, vol. 66, art. 2, and 1925, vol. 66, art. 28. [M.A. 3–204.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 280 note 5 Busz, K., Neues Jahrb. Min., 1899, Beil.-Bd. 13, p. 126.Google Scholar
page 280 note 6 Tchirwinsky, P., Zeits. Krist., 1929, vol. 70, pp. 260–261. [M.A. 4–181.]Google Scholar
page 281 note 1 I. M. Kurman and Z. M. Usacheva, 1937. [M.A, 7–442.]
page 281 note 2 Vaux, G. jr., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1927, vol. 78, p. 17. [M.A. 3–121.]Google Scholar
page 281 note 3 Clarke, F. W., Data of geochemistry. 4th edition, Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., 1920, no. 695, p. 565.Google Scholar
page 281 note 4 Glenn, M. L., Amer. Min., 1916, vol. 1, p. 44. [M.A. 1–31.]Google Scholar
