Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T13:56:52.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV.—On Professor Dana's Classification of Rocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

T. G. Bonney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The two important papers by this accomplished veteran of science, which have appeared in the American Journal of Science (vol. xvi. November and December, 1878) [noticed in this present number of the Geological Magazine pp. 222–225], though, as might be expected, of the highest value, are in one or two respects, as it seems to me, open to question. Professor Dana approaches the subject as a chemical mineralogist: I venture to criticize as a field who checks his conclusions by using the microscope.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 6 , Issue 5 , May 1879 , pp. 199 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1879

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 200 note 1 I have never seen gabbro except under circumstances which suggested deep-seated intrusion; it seems to be the analogue of granite.

page 201 note 1 A System of Mineralogy, pp. 337–361 (ed. 1868).

page 201 note 2 It is no doubt inconvenient that the species microcline has been discovered since the adoption of the term plagioclase; but we may avoid this difficulty by agreeing that the term plagioclase shall be used as a symbol for the group of soda and lime felspars—the character of the other species being so exceptional, and its relations to orthoclase being in most respects close.

page 202 note 1 It is not seldom hard to say (even after chemical analysis) whether a rock should be called a syenite or a diorite, a minette or a kersantite.

page 202 note 2 Analysis of eclogite (garnet and omphacite, with quartz, disthene and mica) from Eppenreuth. Si O2=57·10 Al2 O3=11·66 Fe2 O3=2·84 Fe O=3·22 Mn O=0·31 Mg O=6·37 Ca O=13·80 K2 O=0·81 Na2 O=2·21 H2 O=0·54. Analysis of lherzolite (olivine, enstatite and diopside with picotite) from Kalohelmen. Si O2=37·42 Al2 O3=0·10 Mg 0=48·22 Fe O=8·88 Mn O=0·17 Ni 0=0·23 H2 0=0·71. (Von Lasaulx, Elem. der Petrog.) Analysis of Serpentine (from Cornwall). Si 02 = 38·50 A12 O3 = 1·02 Mg O = 36·40 Ca O = 1·97 Fe2 O3=4·66 Fe O = 3·31 Ni O=0·59 H2 O = 12·35 Fe S = 0·41. Undecomposed residue =1·37. (Q.J.G.S. xxxiii. 925). Analyses of Chlorite schist variable; these are two given by Zirkel (Petrog. i. 311) (1)Si O2=31·54 Al2 O3=5·44 Fe2 O3 = 10·18 Mg O=41·54 H2 O = 9·32 (2) Si O2 = 42·08 Al2 O3 = 3·57 Fe O=26·85 Mn O=0·59 Ca 0 = 1·04 Mg O = 17·10 H2 O = 11·24. In such a grouping, even chemistry, as it seems to me, is fairly thrown overboard.