Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:51:11.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Unusual Occurrence of Myrmekite, and its Significance.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Edwin Sherbon Hills
Edwin Sherbon Hills
Affiliation:
(Lecturer in Geology in the University of Melbourne).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As early as 1875, Michel-Lévy made what is believed to be the first reference to that intergrowth of plagioclase and vermicular quartz which Sederholm later (1897) named “myrmekite”. In spite of its early recognition and characteristic appearance, however, there was for long no general agreement as to the geological significance or even the exact nature of the intergrowth. It appeared to be confined to the granitoid plutonic and metamorphic rocks, Becke (1913) having categorically stated that it does not occur in “eigentlich vulcanischen Gesteine”, so that it was with interest that the author recently (1932) recorded its occurrence in an Upper Devonian meta-toscanite from Marysville, Victoria. This does not conflict with Becke's statement, since the rock in question has suffered metamorphism by an intrusion of granodiorite, and is therefore not an “eigentlich“ volcanic rock. Nevertheless the mode of occurrence is unique, and the history of the toscanite has been elucidated with sufficient detail to allow one to infer with some accuracy the conditions under which the myrmekite was produced. In the following account, the myrmekite, biotite-quartz-symplektite, and biotite-dactylite in the subjacent granodiorite and neighbouring adamellite bodies, as well as the myrmekite in the meta-toscanite, are described.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 70 , Issue 7 , July 1933 , pp. 294 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Becke, F., 1913. “Zur Physiographie der Gemengtheile der krystallinen Sohiefer,” Denkschr. d. K. Akad. d. Wiss., Wien, Math.-Naturw. Kl., Bd. 75.Google Scholar
Bowen, N. L., 1928. The Evolution of the Igneous Rocks, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brammall, A., and Harwood, H. F., 1932. “The Dartmoor Granites: Their Genetic Relationships,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxxxviii, 171–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, E. S., 1932. “The Geology of Marysville, Victoria,” Geol. Mag., LXIX, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel-LÉvy, A., 1875. “De quelques caractères microscopiques des roches anciennes acides…” Bull. Soc. Géol. de France, Ser. iii, T. iii, 199–236.Google Scholar
Nockolds, S. R., 1932. “The Contaminated Granite of Bibette Head, Alderney,” Geol. Mag., LXX, 433–452.Google Scholar
Sederholm, J. J., 1897. “Über eine archäische Sedimentformation im südwestlichen Finland,” Bull. Comm. Géol. de Finlande, No. 6.Google Scholar
Sederholm, J. J., 1916. “On Synantetic Minerals and Related Phenomena,” Bull. Comm. Géol. de Finlande, No. 48.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. H., and W., Campbell Smith, 1932. “Xenoliths of Igneous Origin in the Trégastel-Ploumanac’h Granite, Côtes du Nord, France,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxxxviii, 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrrell, G. W., 1926. The Principles of Petrology, London, Methuen & Co. Google Scholar
VÄyrynen, H., 1923. “Petrologische Untersuchungen der Granitodioritischen Gesteine Süd-ostbothniens,” Bull. Comm. Géol. de Firdande, No. 57.Google Scholar
Wells, A. K., and Wooldridge, S. W., 1931. “The Rock Groups of Jersey, with special reference to Intrusive Phenomena at Ronez,” Proc. Geol. Assoc., xlii, 178–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar