Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:22:19.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The International Mineralogical Association amphibole nomenclature scheme: computerization and its consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

N. M. S. Rock
Affiliation:
British Geological Survey, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, Scotland
B. E. Leake
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Glasgow University, Scotland

Abstract

A FORTRAN program has been written which inputs amphibole analyses, and outputs complete IMA-approved names, along with tabulated analyses, formula units, and IMA classification parameters. Several important corrections, additions, and amendments to the IMA scheme were found to be necessary. Two newly approved names have been incorporated—sadanagaite (ferro-pargasitic amphibole with Si < 5.5), and nyboite (alkali amphibole with (Na+K)A ⩾ 0.5, Fe3 ⩽ AlVI, Si < 7.5). The name anophorite (alkali amphibole with (Na+K)A ⩾ 0.5, Fe3 > AlVI, Si < 7.5) has been reinstated to complement nyboite, with the approval of the Amphibole Subcommittee of the IMA. Results of computer processing of several hundred analyses, which together cover the range of IMA-approved names, are summarized. These indicate substantial differences between IMA and previous nomenclature. The IMA-favoured procedure for reallocating total Fe in microprobe data is quite effective, except in kaersutites. Over half the analyses processed have anomalously high cations (e.g. Ca > 2), or cation totals (e.g. T + C + B > 15), commonly reflecting low H2O determinations. These prevent strict obeyance of the IMA site occupancy calculation rules. This problem can often be overcome by recalculation free of H2O, but other cases require modifications to the IMA rules. In particular, ‘misclassification’ of certain sodic-calcic amphiboles as edenite follows from transferring large excesses of C cations to the B site.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1984

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

Carmichael, I. S. E. (1967) Contrib. Mineral Petrol. 15, 24–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deer, W. A., Howie, R. A., and Zusmann, J. (1962) Rock-forming minerals, 2. 1st edn. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Freudenberg, W. (1910) Neues Jahrb. Mineral. Ref. 1, p. 34.Google Scholar
IMA (1978) Mineral. Mag. 42, 533–63, and Am. Mineral. 63, 1023–52 (compiled by B. E. Leake).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jan, M. Q., and Howie, R. A. (1982) Am. Mineral. 67, 1155–78.Google Scholar
Kemp, A. J., and Leake, B. E. (1975) Mineral. Mag. 40, 308–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, C. (1964) Am. Mineral. 49, 966.Google Scholar
Leake, B. E. (1962) Jap. J. Geol. Geogr. 33, 113.Google Scholar
Nambu, M., Tanida, K., and Kitamure, T. (1969) J. Jap. Ass. Mineral. Petrol. Econ. Geol. 62, 311–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., and seven others (1982) In Amphiboles: petrology and experimental phase relations (Veblen, D. R. and Ribbe, P. H., eds.). Mineral. Soc. Am. Reviews in Mineralogy, 9B, 1211.Google Scholar
Rock, N. M. S. (1982) An analytical and bibliographic data-base for lamprophyre research. Unpubl. computer files held at BGS Edinburgh. (The files list 130 amphibole analyses and source References).Google Scholar
Rock, N. M. S. and Leake, B. E. (1983) A FORTRAN program for the classification of amphiboles according to the IMA (1978) scheme . IGS Petrographical Report 5014 (unpubl.).Google Scholar
Shimazaki, H., Bunno, M., and Ozawa, T. (1982) Am. Mineral, (in press).Google Scholar
Ungaretti, L., Smith, D. G, and Rossi, G. (1981) Ibid. 67, 858 (abstract).Google Scholar