Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:06:36.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distinction of pyrite from marcasite in nodular growths

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

F. A. Bannister
F. A. Bannister*
Affiliation:
Mineral Department of the British Museum of Natural History
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A recent account of pseudo-meteorites by Dr. L. J. Spencer includes a description of nodules of pyrite ‘popularly thought to be “thunderbolts”’. Dr. Spencer himself collected in 1931 a large number from the Lower Chalk outcropping on the foreshore below ‘The Warren’ at Folkestone, Kent. Some of these show well-developed octahedra 5 to 10 ram. across on the outer surface, undoubtedly to be referred to pyrite. More commonly the nodules exhibit small distorted octahedra which might easily be mistaken for marcasite. Indeed, in the past, many of these nodules from the Chalk at Folkestone and elsewhere, have been named marcasite, and they were so labelled in the British Museum collection. Dr. Spencer, therefore, suggested that modern methods should be applied to those cases where the crystalline form is distorted or shOt sufficiently developed to serve as a means of distinction between pyrite and marcasite. The methods suggested in his paper are (1) X-rays, (2) polarized light reflected from polished sections of nodules.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 23 , Issue 138 , September 1932 , pp. 179 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1932 

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 179 note 1 Spencer, L. J., Nat. Hist. Mag. British Museum (Natural History), 1931, vol. 3, p. 56Google Scholar

page 180 note 1 Dana, E. S., System of Mineralogy, 6th edition, 1892, pp. 85, 94.Google Scholar

page 180 note 2 Spencer, L. J., Min. Mag., 1927, vol. 21, pp. 363–;364Google Scholar.

page 180 note 3 Stokes, H. N., :Bull. United States Geol. Survey, 1901, no. 186, p. 12.Google Scholar

page 180 note 4 Allen, E. T., Crenshaw, J. L., Johnston, J., and Larsen, E. S., Amer. Journ. Sci., 1912, ser. 4, vol. 33, p. 170.Google Scholar

page 181 note 1 Bragg, W. L., Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A, 1914, vol. 89, p. 468.Google Scholar

page 181 note 2 P. P. Ewald, Physikal. Zeits., 1914, vol. 15, p. 299.

page 181 note 3 M. J. Buerger (Amer. Min., 1931, vol. 16, p. 361) in his work on the structure of marcasite used molybdenum radiation. The indices and intensities of spots on marcasite photographs obtained in the present work using Cu-Kr radiation are in substantial agreement with his data.

page 186 note 1 H. Ehrenberg, Neues Jahrb. Min., Abt. A, 1928, vol. 57, p. 1303

page 187 note 1 A. Sadebeck, Ann. Chem. Phys. (Poggendorff), 1878, Erg.-band 8, p. 625.

page 187 note 2 Trechmann, C. O., Min. Mag., 1892, vol. 9, p. 209.Google Scholar