Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:14:05.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An interpretation of the composition of high-silica sericites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

Waldemar T. Schaller
Waldemar T. Schaller*
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The high-silica sericites generally contain a corresponding appreciable quantity of a divalent element, usually magnesium, and their chemical composition is interpreted as being intermediate between that of muscovite, KAl2 (AlSi3)O10(OH)2, and that of the equivalent high-silica mica leucophyllite, KAlMg (Si4)O10(OH)2. The series muscovite-leucophyllite includes the named micas phengite (high-silica sericite), mariposite, and alurgite. Selected analyses are plotted and fall on a corresponding straight compositional variation line from muscovite to leucophyllite. It is shown diagrammatically that the analysed sample of mariposite probably contained about 8 % of quartz. It is recommended that the only species names in this series to be retained are those of the end members muscovite and leucophyllite. Their indices of refraction and specific gravities are very similar.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 29 , Issue 211 , December 1950 , pp. 406 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1950

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

Axelrod, (J.M.) and Grimaldi, (F.S.), Muscovite with small optic axial angle. Amer. Min., 1949. vol. 34, pp. 559-572.Google Scholar
Batter, (L.H.) and Berman, (H.), Barium-muscovite from Franklin, N.J. Amer. Min., 1933. vol. 18, p. 30.Google Scholar
Dana, (E.S.), A System of Mineralogy, 1892. 6th ed.Google Scholar
Genth, (F.A.), Contributions from the laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania. 24. Willcoxite (a new species). Amer. Philosoph. Society, Proceed., 1873. vol. 13, pp. 397-398. (Dana (1892), p. 668.)Google Scholar
Glass, (J.J.), The pegmatite minerals from near Amelia, Virginia. Amer. Min., 1935. vol. 20, pp. 754-756.Google Scholar
Hendricks, (S.B.) and Ross, (C. S.), Chemical composition and genesis of glaueonite and celadonite. Amer. Min., 1941. vol. 26, pp. 705-707.Google Scholar
Hillebrand., (W.F.), flineralogical notes. U.S. Geol. Survey, 1900. Bull. 167, p. 74.Google Scholar
Knopf, (A.), Tile Mother Lode system of California. U.S. Geol. Survey, 1929. Prof. Paper 157, p. 38.Google Scholar
Miexner, (H.), Alurgit und seine Vorkommen: Beziehungen zu Fuehsit und Mariposit. Ann. Naturhist. Museums in Wien, 1939. vol. 50, pp. 694-703.Google Scholar
Penfield, (S.L.), On some minerals from the manganese mines of St. Marcel, in Piedmont, Italy. Amer. Journ. Sci., 1893. set. 3, vol. 46, p. 288.Google Scholar
Schaller, (W.T.), The probable identity of mariposite and alurgite. U.S. Geol. Survey, 1916. Bull. 610, pp. 139-140.Google Scholar
Starkl, (G.), Ueber neue Mineralvorkommnisse in Oesterreich. Jahrb. der k.-k. Geol. Reichsanstalt, Vienna, 1883. vol. 33, pp. 653-656. Muscovite, anal. no. 49 on p. 619 of Dana's System of Mineralogy, 6th edn., 1892.Google Scholar
Stevens, (R.E.), A system for calculating analyses of micas and related minerals to end members. U.S. Geol. Survey, 1946. Bull. 950, p. 103.Google Scholar
Webb, (R. W.), Investigation of a new occurrence of alurgite from California. Amer. Min., 1939. vol 24, pp. 123-129.Google Scholar