Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:12:50.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Metamorphosed Nodular Shale previously described as a “Spotted” Metamorphic Rock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

L. R. Wager
Affiliation:
Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge.

Extract

In the Geological Magazine for 1895 and again in 1898 W. M. Hutchings gave a petrological description of a shale, metamorphosed by the Whin Sill of Teesdale, which showed three unusual features. Scattered irregularly through the hardened shale were large nodules about the size of a pea which Hutchings considered to be the results of the metamorphism, in fact to be unusually well-developed “spots”. The second peculiarity was that both matrix and nodules contained considerable amounts of an isotropic material which was maintained to be the result of incomplete crystallization of a dense solution formed from the constituents of the shale during metamorphism. Finally, the detrital quartz grains of the shale were found to be extensively replaced by muscovite or more rarely other minerals. A reexamination has been made of the rock and also, by the courtesy of Professor G. Hickling, of Armstrong College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, of certain of Hutchings's slices. In this note it is not intended to redescribe what has been ably described in Hutchings's papers, but as briefly as possible to make two corrections of Hutchings's conclusions.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1928

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 88 note 1 “An Interesting Contact Rock,” Magazine, Geological, 1895, p. 122.Google Scholar

page 88 note 2 Magazine, Geological, 1898, pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

page 88 note 3 Special Reports on Mineral Resources of Great Britain, No. 29, 1925.Google Scholar

page 89 note 1 Tilley, C. E., “Density, refractivity, and composition relations of some natural glasses,” Min. Mag., vol. xix, 1922, p. 275.Google Scholar

page 90 note 1 Neighbourhood of Edinburgh,” Mem. Geol. Surv., 1910, p. 314.Google Scholar

page 90 note 2 A part is present as ferrous oxide—hence excess in the analysis.Google Scholar