No CrossRef data available.
Crestmoreite and riversideite
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2018
Extract
These two minerals were described by Eakle from the crystalline limestone at Crestmore, Riverside County, California. Both were shown to be hydrated monocalcium silicates, containing small amounts of P2O5, SO3, and CO2, occurred with a fibrous habit, and had closely similar optical properties. They were distinguished chiefly by the higher water content (approx. 1.3 mol.) of crestmoreite as compared with riversideite (0.5 mol.), and by the fact that the former was included directly in the calcite, whereas the latter formed veins in masses of idocrase which were contained in it. The minerals had been produced under hydrothermal conditions caused by igneous intrusions. In both cases, the primary material was believed to have been wilkeite, which is an apatite mineral with much of the phosphorus replaced by sulphur, silicon, and possibly carbon.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 30 , Issue 222 , September 1953 , pp. 155 - 165
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1953
References
Page 155 Note 2 Eakle, A. S., Bull. Dept. Geol. Univ. California, 1917, vol. 10, no. 19, p. 327.Google Scholar [M.A. 1-20.]
Page 155 Note 3 Larsen, E. S., Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., 1921, no. 679, p. 280.Google Scholar [M.A. 1-367.]
Page 155 Note 4 Fairbanks, E. E., in, Winchell, Optical mineralogy. 2nd edit., 1927, p. 227;Google Scholar 4th edit., 1951, p. 421.
Page 155 Note 5 Flint, E. P., McMurdie, H. F., and Wells, L. S., Journ. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand. U.S.A., 1938, vol. 21, p. 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar [M.A. 7-283.] McMurdie, H. F. and Flint, E. P., ibid., 1943, vol. 31, p. 225.Google Scholar [M.A. 9-45.]
Page 156 Note 1 Clark, L. M. and Bunn, C. W., Journ. Soc. Chem. Indust., 1940, vol. 59, p. 155.Google Scholar [M.A. 8-116.]
Page 156 Note 2 American Society for Testing Materials, first supplement to card file of X-ray diffraction data, 1944; from data supplied by Imperial Chemical Industries, Northwich, England.
Page 156 Note 3 Alcock, T. C., Clark, L. M., and Thurston, E. F., Journ. Soc. Chem. Indust., 1944, vol. 63, p. 292.Google Scholar [M.A. 9-103.] Clark, L. M., Min. Mag., 1948, vol. 28, p. 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page 156 Note 4 Heddle, M. F., Min. Mag., 1880, vol. 4, p. 119.Google Scholar
Page 156 Note 5 Taylor, H. F. W., Journ. Chem. Soc. London, 1950, p. 3682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar [M.A. 11-314.]
Page 156 Note 6 Claringbull, G. F. and Hey, M. H., Min. Mag., 1952, vol. 29, p. 960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page 156 Note 7 Taylor, H. F. W., Journ. Chem. Soc. London, 1953, p. 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar [M.A. 12-172.]
Page 160 Note 1 MeConnell, D., Amer. Min., 1937, vol. 22, p. 977.Google Scholar [M.A. 7-14.]
Page 164 Note 1 Taylor, H. F. W., Journ. Chem. Soc. London, 1953, p. 165.Google Scholar [M.A. 12-172.] The specimen was of crestmoreite from A. S. Eakle's collection, labelled 'riversideite', by which name it was (incorrectly) described in that paper.
Page 164 Note 2 Heller, L. and Taylor, H. F. W., Journ. Chem. Soc. London, 1951, p. 2397;CrossRefGoogle Scholar 1952, pp. 1018, 2535. [M.A. 11-471, 12-83.]