Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:15:58.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pumpellyite-dominated metadomain alteration at Builth Wells, Wales–evidence for a fossil submarine hydrothermal system?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

R. E. Bevins
R. E. Bevins*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, CF1 3NP, Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two metamorphic alteration styles have been observed in basic lavas and volcaniclastic rocks of the Builth Volcanic Series of Ordovician age exposed at Llanelwedd Quarry, in the Builth lnlier, Wales. The first alteration style is characterized by the development of a mineral assemblage comprising albite+chlorite+ sphene+ pumpellyite ± prehnite ± calcite ± white mica, although original textures are largely preserved. This alteration pattern corresponds with that developed in volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks elsewhere in Wales, and which is attributed to the effects of burial. The second alteration style is characterized by the development of metadomains dominated by pumpellyite or, more rarely, prehnite. In the metadomains no original textures are seen in hand specimen. This alteration pattern has, so far, not been observed elsewhere in Wales, and it is here suggested that it might result from a submarine hydrothermal circulation system.

Keywords

pumpellyitemetadomainsmetamorphismBuilth WellsWales
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 49 , Issue 352 , June 1985 , pp. 451 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1985

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

Baker, J. W., and Hughes, C. P. (1979) Proc. Geol. Assoc. 90, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevins, R. E., and Rowbotham, G. (1983) Geol. J. 18, 141-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevins, R. E., Kokelaar, B. P., and Dunkley, P. N. (1984) Proc. Geol. Assoc. 95, 337-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevins, R. E., Oliver, G. J. H., and Thomas, L. J. (in press) Earth Evolution Sciences. Google Scholar
Coombs, D. S., Nakamura, Y., and Vuagnat, M. (1976) J. Petrol. 17, 440-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evarts, R. C., and Schiffman, P. (1983) Am. J. Sci. 283, 289–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnes, H. (1978) Unpubl. D.Phil. thesis, Univ. of Oxford.Google Scholar
Hey, M. H. (1954) Mineral. Mag. 30, 277-92.Google Scholar
Jolly, W. T., and Smith, R. E. (1972) J. Petrol. 13, 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, O. T., and Pugh, W. J. (1949) Q. J. geol. Soc. London, 105, 65-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokelaar, B. P., Howells, M. F., Bevins, R. E., Roach, R. A., and Dunkley, P. N. (1984) In Marginal Basin Geology: Volcanic and associated sedimentary and tectonic processes in modern and ancient marginal basins. Spec. Publ. Geol. Soc. London, 16, 245-69.Google Scholar
Kuniyoshi, S., and Liou, J. G. (1976) Am. J. Sci. 276, 1096-119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liou, J. G. (1979) Am. Mineral. 64, 1–14.Google Scholar
Merriman, R. J., and Roberts, B. (1985) Mineral. Mag. 49, 305-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, G. D. (1958) Q. J. geol. Soc. London, 114, 137-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. E. (1968) J. Petrol. 9, 191-219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surdam, R. C. (1969) Am. Mineral. 54, 256-66.Google Scholar