JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY VOLUME 46 NUMBER 9 PAGES 1893–1900 2005 doi:10.

1093/petrology/egi039

Integrating Ultramafic Lamprophyres into the
IUGS Classification of Igneous Rocks:
Rationale and Implications

Downloaded from http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7, 2014
SEBASTIAN TAPPE1*, STEPHEN F. FOLEY1, GEORGE A. JENNER2
AND BRUCE A. KJARSGAARD3
1
INSTITUT FU ¨ T MAINZ, BECHERWEG 21, 55099 MAINZ, GERMANY
€ R GEOWISSENSCHAFTEN, UNIVERSITA
2
DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES, MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY, ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND,
CANADA A1B 3X5
3
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA K1A 0E8

RECEIVED JULY 16, 2004; ACCEPTED MARCH 16, 2005
ADVANCE ACCESS PUBLICATION APRIL 29, 2005

We introduce a modification to the current IUGS classification STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
system for igneous rocks to include ultramafic lamprophyres, which The International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS)
are currently entirely omitted. This is done by including a new step in has played an important role in establishing a systematic
the sequential system, after the assignment of pyroclastic rocks and classification scheme for igneous rocks and simplifying
carbonatites, that considers ultramafic inequigranular textured rocks their nomenclature (Streckeisen, 1978; Le Maitre, 1989,
with olivine and phlogopite macrocrysts and/or phenocrysts. At this 2002). The main principle in their hierarchical approach
step ultramafic lamprophyres are considered together with kimberlites, is to deal with ‘exotic’ or ‘special’ rocks first, thus clearing
orangeites ( former Group 2 kimberlites) and olivine lamproites. the way for the classification of the ‘normal’, or majority
This proposal allows the correct identification and classification of, igneous rocks. Included amongst the ‘special’ rocks
of ultramafic lamprophyres within the IUGS scheme. Only three are pyroclastics, carbonatites, kimberlites, lamproites and
end-members are required for describing the petrographic and com- lamprophyres.
positional continuum of ultramafic lamprophyres: alno¨ite (essential Unfortunately, a widely recognized group of exotic
groundmass melilite), aillikite (essential primary carbonate) and alkaline rocks, the ultramafic lamprophyres (UML;
damtjernite (essential groundmass nepheline and/or alkali feldspar). Rock, 1986, 1991), were never integrated into IUGS
It is argued that all ultramafic lamprophyre rock types can be related classification schemes. Some of the group members
to a common magma type which differs in important petrogenetic (e.g. alno¨ite and polzenite) were considered within
aspects from kimberlites, orangeites, olivine lamproites and the early versions of the IUGS system (Streckeisen, 1978;
remainder of lamprophyres such as alkaline and calc-alkaline vari- Le Maitre, 1989), whereas others were ignored from the
eties. Ultramafic lamprophyres can be readily distinguished from beginning (e.g. aillikite and damtjernite). In the most
olivine lamproites by the occurrence of primary carbonates, and from recent IUGS classification scheme (Le Maitre, 2002) all
kimberlites by the presence of groundmass clinopyroxene. In other ultramafic lamprophyre group members have been
cases distinction between aillikites, kimberlites and orangeites must entirely omitted.
rely on mineral compositions in order to recognize their petrogenetic Several lines of evidence point to the exclusion of UML
affinities. from the IUGS classification scheme as having been a
serious omission. First, the term ultramafic lamprophyre
continues to be used as a collective term for melanocratic
KEY WORDS: alkaline rocks; aillikite; alno¨ite; damtjernite; classification to holomelanocratic, silica-undersaturated potassic rocks,

# The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All
*Corresponding author. Telephone: þ49-06131-39-22721. Fax: þ49- rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@
06131-39-23070. E-mail: tappes@uni-mainz.de oupjournals.org

1986) and would erroneously be classified area of Labrador. 2003.. 2002) Herein. silica-undersaturated nature.g. 2002. 2002). schemes and recognized that such rocks were being con- either the rock is not igneous or you have made a mis. 1975. macroscopically similar kimberlites.. He defined this so far unknown or as ‘mica peridotites’. Furthermore. in one of the most successful classification schemes of igneous rocks. 1996) for the dismissal of phyres’ was introduced. not be classified as alno¨ite because they lack melilite. the IUGS system and distinguish them from other whereas aillikite and damtjernite were simply overlooked. A new classification concept for all ‘lamprophyres’ was Collerson & Malpas. Digonnet et al. devised by Streckeisen (1978). ultramafic olivine–phlogopite rocks do not fulfill Kranck (1939) observed that carbonate-rich varieties the criteria for being kimberlites. 2003. inequigranular textured olivine. Downloaded from http://petrology. 1989. alkaline and Wilton et al. explained by hypabyssal crystallization from volatile- 1980). This gap in classification Woolley et al.g. ate content is less than the 50 vol. The result of this shortcoming is that many UML subcommittee on classification (Le Maitre. where he included Rønsbo. For example.. These graphic similarities between ultramafic lamprophyres rocks have been variably described as kimberlites and kimberlites. 1994b) disputed the concept of a et al. 1991). 2014 ine lamproites and points to important differences in their petrogenesis. Janse. All of these rocks have in com- rich. most of the chemical and mineralogical arguments cited Rock (1986) introduced the term ultramafic lampro- by Rock (1986. many inequigranular tex- tured. 1976. Second. 1986. Jensen et al. ouachitite. Aillikites were identification of ultramafic lamprophyres is also of prac. Walton & Arnold. ultramafic lamprophyres (Malpas calc-alkaline lamprophyres into his ‘lamprophyre clan’. 1986) was a great paration). 1977. lamprophyre clan and suggested its use be discontinued. 2000. 2004. Tappe et al. 1996). vaguely as carbonatitic lamprophyres or meimechites olivine lamproites. 1996. 1970. 2004). which none the less strongly differ in mineral and whole-rock composition of these rocks in important aspects of their petrogenesis [the lamprophyric Labrador and New Quebec in an attempt to understand facies concept of Mitchell (1994a)]. as Rock (1986) had previously et al.. (1996). Mitchell et al. Foley et al. 2004) and more The similarities between ultramafic lamprophyres. orangeites or lamproites of lamprophyres are highly abundant in the Aillik Bay (see Mitchell. Nevertheless. 1992. Pearce & Leng. as they silicocarbonatites. the close association and even unreported rock type as ‘aillikite’. orangeites and kimberlites are best (Dimroth. Upton et al. ULTRAMAFIC LAMPROPHYRES Tappe et al. et al. 2002. kimberlites and lamproites with ultramafic.. Scott. Birkett them as carbonatites. Rock Greenland.. no satisfactory explanation has aillikites were not included but the term ‘melilitic lampro- been given (e. (Emeleus & Andrews. melilite-free.... 1987) for treating the UML as a separate phyre and included melilitic lamprophyres (i. atites in rift tectonic settings is in strong contrast to Unfortunately. Third. 1989. Hansen... despite the fact that the modal carbon- may also be diamond-bearing (Hamilton. ultramafic alkaline rocks of West mon an ultramafic. 2001. Fourth.. and in pre. Larsen & presented by Rock (1987. noted. 1999. northern Quebec and Labrador also high. orangeites and oliv. occurrences are arbitrarily termed ‘kimberlites’ or worse Woolley et al. although Rock’s UML group (Rock. 2000. Larsen & Rex. (1986) noted that there are strong textural and petro- lights the shortcomings of the current scheme. PREVIOUS TERMINOLOGY OF Coulson et al. % required to classify 1994.g. 1970. we were led improvement on previous lamprophyre classification to point 12 of Le Maitre (2002): ‘if you get to this point. 2002. rich magmas. 1981. including alno¨ites and polzenites... as a stem name for all ultramafic lamprophyres was 1894 . Wardle Mitchell (1994a. Andrews & Emeleus.. considered for the first time by the IUGS.org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7. Digonnet et al. Riley et al. but classified as tical importance during exploration programs. we provide a mechanism by which to integrate alno¨ites and polzenites were included in the melilite- and correctly identify ultramafic lamprophyres within bearing group of rocks following Woolley et al. alno¨ite) as group of rocks. Davis et al. Tappe et al. 2003. fused with kimberlites. 1993. it was not accepted by the IUGS take’. well as the melilite-free carbonate-rich and feldspar-/ Our own recent experience with trying to apply the foid-bearing varieties such as aillikite and damtjernite/ IUGS classification scheme to the numerous carbonate. their petrogenesis (e. 1992. 1994. the correct and assigned them to the melilitic rocks.oxfordjournals..and phlogopite-bearing The use of the acronym ‘melnoite’ (melilite plus alno¨ite) ultramafic rocks. JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY VOLUME 46 NUMBER 9 SEPTEMBER 2005 with essential hydrous phenocrysts (e. 1999. Foley. In the most recent IUGS scheme (Le Maitre. ‘kimberlitic’ by non-specialists..e. Using the current IUGS scheme. respectively.. We have extensively investigated the petrography. These rocks could gradation between ultramafic lamprophyres and carbon. this important distinction became lost.. (1996) removed alno¨ites and polzenites severely hampers systematic attempts to decipher the from the lamprophyre classification of Le Maitre (1989) petrogenesis of alkaline rocks. 2004). Woolley et al. Mitchell et al.

If the ilmenite. and discrimina- apatite and minor primary carbonate. we suggest the widely used collective term defined in the section on ‘Principles. schorlomite. titanite. If the rock contains modal kalsilite. phlogopite. p. p. carbonate-rich or feldspathoid-bearing ultramafic lam. to the IUGS sequential system is highlighted in bold and the quotation marks refer to sections in Le Maitre (2002): suggested by Mitchell (1994b). 16’. phlogopite and the section on ‘Lamproites. and on their diagnostic mineralogy groundmass phlogopite/biotite. apatite and primary carbonate. major constituent. spinel. 7. CLASSIFICATION OF ULTRAMAFIC LAMPROPHYRES Table 1: Classification of ultramafic lamprophyres based clinopyroxene macrocrysts and/or phenocrysts. rutile. Check to see if the rock is a lamproite as described in bearing UML. 1. 12’. If the rock is ultramafic with M > 90% (as prophyres. rock is also kalsilite-bearing. p.and/or alkali feldspar. perovskite. primary) (grdm. go to the section Mela-aillikites are more melanocratic (colour index on ‘Kalsilite-bearing Rocks. characterized by olivine and phlogopite macrocrysts and/or phenocrysts. go to the section and/or richteritic amphibole in the groundmass (at the on ‘Kalsilite-bearing Rocks. perovskite. it is an Alno¨ites are melilite-bearing UML. Check to see if the rock is a kimberlite as described in instances. ilmenite. Aillikites are carbonate-rich UML.. the rock may be an or phenocrysts. However. 7’. more felsic (nepheline-bearing) variants of (c) if nepheline. TAPPE et al. p. dropped to simplify matters.oxfordjournals. we introduce a simplified version of crysts. 12’. which is M. Monticellite may occur in rare 6. implies ‘melilite-bearing’. 2). Ouachitites and polzenites and Fig. go to the section on ‘Carbonatites. clinopyroxene. Brief definitions of the (d) if it is carbonate-rich and contains melanite/ three UML end-members are described as follows. and phlogopite macrocrysts and/or pheno- In this study. which is not true for many p. Ti-rich garnet. >90%) as a result of the presence of clinopyroxene 5. 13’. minor constituent. Monticellite may tion must rely on differences in mineral occur in rare instances. Damtjernites are feldspathoid. If the rock contains >50 modal % of primary petrographic connotation. use the following: Rock’s (1986) classification of ultramafic lamprophyres. a collective term that was until then only used by exploration geologists for poten. If the rock contains >10 modal % of melilite. olivine. and as such are is a damtjernite (see Table 1 and Fig. 1895 . p. groundmass. expense of carbonate). m. — —. 1..) (grdm. Ti-rich garnet. the section on ‘Melilite-bearing Rocks. 11’.and/or alkali feldspar-bearing. Ti-rich garnet and apatite. spinel. p. 2). characterized by olivine. necessary. rutile. 4’). it damtjernite and alno¨ite. ‘ultramafic lamprophyre’ as a group name for these inequigranular textured and contains olivine genetically related rock types. presence of only one ‘star’ phase necessary. 3. (a) if it does not contain primary carbonate. Strict application of the modified classification system Ti-rich primary garnets may occur. clinopyroxene. characterized by aillikite (see Table 1 and Fig. go to and groundmass primary carbonate. the section on ‘Kimberlites. perovskite. Melilite-free ultramafic lamprophyres are split into (b) if melilite-bearing. N.) (grdm. Mitchell (1994b) favoured ‘melnoite’ over Tephra. requires following the flow chart in Fig. because the latter have an inherent 2. because melnoite carbonate. aillikite. respectively. 10’. are subtle. Our revision N*.or kimzeyite garnets. and groundmass melilite. composition (see Fig. it is an alno¨ite (see Table 1 aillikite and damtjernite. Alno¨ite is used to check to see if the rock is a lamproite as des- describe all melilite-bearing ultramafic lamprophyres. 16’. p. absent.org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7. ilmenite. type locality names. orangeite (former Group 2 kimber- phlogopite. 4. 2014 Olivine and phlogopite are common to all three rock types.) Alno¨ite MN m m — — INTEGRATING ULTRAMAFIC Aillikite — MN — — — — LAMPROPHYRES INTO THE IUGS Damtjernite — m mN* mN* CLASSIFICATION Downloaded from http://petrology. mainly adopted from Le Maitre (2002). lite) or archetypal kimberlite. (grdm. 2). 2). cribed in the section on ‘Lamproites. go to the section on ‘Pyroclastic Rocks and lamproites. phlogopite and clinopyroxene macrocrysts and/ (e) if carbonate-bearing. This scheme is illustrated in Table 1. If the rock is considered to be of pyroclastic tially diamondiferous rocks different from kimberlites and origin. p. grdm. spinel. with essential minor Melilite Carbonate Nepheline Alkali feldspar nepheline and/or alkali feldspar.

2014 Fig. Check to see if the rock is a lamprophyre as Rocks. Check to see if the rock is a charnockite as described ‘Principles. p.e. If the rock is volcanic as defined in the section on 10. p. p.) ‘M’ is defined as mafic and related minerals (i. 19’. 12. The new ‘Step 3’ is integrated to distinguish between ultramafic lamprophyres (UML). 1. orangeite and olivine lamproite. p. including primary carbonate and apatite). 1896 .org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7. described in the section on ‘Lamprophyres. 3’. p. 21’. 18’. If the rock is plutonic as defined in the section on on ‘Leucite-bearing Rocks. Rocks. If the rock contains modal leucite. go to the section on ‘Plutonic 9. p. go to the section on ‘Volcanic in the section on ‘Charnockites. 8. Flow chart illustrating the sequential system for the classification of igneous rocks following the IUGS scheme devised by Le Maitre (2002). JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY VOLUME 46 NUMBER 9 SEPTEMBER 2005 Downloaded from http://petrology. ‘Principles.oxfordjournals. kimberlite. (See text for further explanation. go to the section 11. 20’. p. 30’. 3’.

as individual samples may not be represent- Mitchell. in prepara- to the existing lamproite classification. (2004. The remaining tion). Discrimination criteria that rely on mineral composition after Mitchell (1986. 2. nepheline. In contrast to kimberlite. orangeites and the majority of ilar variation in atomic Ti/(Ti þ Cr þ Al) with decreas- kimberlites and olivine lamproites are directed to a more ing Mg-number [titanomagnetite trend of Mitchell appropriate classification scheme. Cr# (Cr-number) ¼ atomic Cr/(Cr þ Al). diopside in orangeite.and/or Zr-rich primary garnets. but if present in aillikite or mela- The remaining carbonate-bearing rocks may be aillikite. as follows. TAPPE et al. occurs as nearly pure alkali feldspar or Ti. and in preparation). damtjernite. ative of the whole rock series. and aillikite is Ti-rich but Ba-poor and evolves by Al Most ultramafic lamprophyres are identified and sifted depletion to tetraferriphlogopite. but Cr/(Cr þ Al) is higher in orangeite (>085) out by the absence of primary carbonate and directed than in aillikite spinels (<085. aillikite). At this step. Phlogopites in holomelanocratic) inequigranular rocks with olivine and kimberlite show Ba and Al enrichment leading to phlogopite macrocrysts and/or phenocrysts. orangeite and kimberlite. it shows Al and Ti enrichment. it should be 1897 . Lamproites are sifted (1986)]. aillikite.oxfordjournals. orangeite or archetypal kimberlite.org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7. 2). kinoshitalite. phlogopite in orangeite rocks are evaluated in a separate flow chart (Fig. Kimberlite spinels show variations in atomic Ti/ APPLICATION OF THE REVISION (Ti þ Cr þ Al) at a fixed high Mg-number [magnesian Our new Step 3 considers ultramafic (melanocratic to ulvo¨spinel trend of Mitchell (1986)]. Tappe et al. oxene is absent from kimberlite. 1986.. Spinels in orangeite and aillikite show sim- ultramafic lamprophyres. 2014 Fig. Additionally. Groundmass clinopyr- out by the presence of groundmass melilite. TFP. and discrimination It should be noted that it is important to examine a suite must rely on mineral compositional differences (see also of samples. tetraferriphlogopite. 1995). CLASSIFICATION OF ULTRAMAFIC LAMPROPHYRES Downloaded from http://petrology. 1995) and Tappe et al. Flow chart illustrating how to distinguish between the three UML end-members (alno¨ite.

1993). (2004) for the first time to aillikites.and alkali feldspar-free dominated by primary carbonates including rare Ti-rich with 25–50 vol. in the groundmass could potentially cause confusion with eline and alkali feldspar [the ‘sannaites’ of Foley (1984)]. 1991). 1) and Fig. garnets. 1986. nepheline and primary bonatites within a single province. usage of the term damtjernite has been inconsistent [even in spelling: damtjernite vs damkjernite (Griffin & Aillik Bay. indicate which mafic mineral is common. 1984. 2002). % modal carbonate. 1994. Dahlgren’s (1994) titanian phlogopite phenocrysts and their groundmass is ‘C-damtjernites’ are nepheline. eline. (1999). These (2002)]—for example. p. this ultramafic dyke occurrences also contain groundmass can also be done by the use of mineral qualifiers as in the clinopyroxenes enriched in Al2O3 and TiO2 (up to 10 section on lamproites [Section 2. a more recent compilation of the dykes in 1986). Using the new classification. 1987. ‘Section 2. in prepara. high Fe/Mg ratios towards titanomagnetite/magnetite. and that there is no genetic relation- melilite. ‘clinopyroxene mela-aillikite’ or criteria eliminate kimberlites and orangeites and clearly ‘richterite clinopyroxene mela-aillikite’. and alkaline groups. The reintroduction of the term ‘damtjernite’ for neph- ely the carbonate-rich variety aillikite. 1981. This confirms the co-occurrence of and aluminous titanian phlogopite phenocrysts. Larsen & Rønsbo. Because they do not contain (Le Maitre. they are clearly genetically related to the proites pass Step 3 and are picked up at the original damtjernites and so we recommend referring to them as steps in the IUGS scheme (now Steps 6 and 7). the coexistence of 1898 . especially for aillikites. 1975. We now ‘evolved damtjernites’ and not sannaite (see below). Rock. 19’ (Le Maitre. % modal carbonate and therefore cor- garnets. JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY VOLUME 46 NUMBER 9 SEPTEMBER 2005 noted that some kimberlites and almost all leucite lam. 1975.org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7. which by definition have Pyramidefjeld spinels. (1921)].. orangeite or The prefix ‘mela-’ can be added to ultramafic lampro- kimberlite based on mineral compositions. 1. 2014 2. but evolve at comparably suggested by Rock (1986) and applied by Tappe et al. respectively... Al-depleted tetraferriphlogopite. 2 allow for a more rigorous classification. a variety of Late Neoproterozoic lamprophyric the Fen province indicates that the majority have feld- dykes occur that can now all be classified as ultramafic spathoids and/or alkali feldspar in the groundmass [the lamprophyres. Others have olivine. The spinels phyre rock names to indicate a colour index >90% as are compositionally diverse. It therefore has a meaning [Cr/(Cr þ Al) < 085]. Many dykes have olivine and aluminous ‘F-damtjernites’ of Dahlgren (1994)]. 1987. It does not. 1939. 1 were simply omitted in the current IUGS scheme to the flow chart in Fig. Foley.oxfordjournals. Malpas et al. 17 of Le Maitre and 5 wt %. and is characterized by an inequigranular texture and contain herein retained entirely as Step 9 in Fig.. The western Greenland however. consider two test cases where the criteria in Step 3 (Fig. 1999). Scott. nam. The mica compositions are essentially equivalent to ‘carbonate-poor aillikite’ and Ba-poor and trend from aluminous titanian phlogopite allows the correct identification of the petrogenetic affin- toward either aluminous magnesian biotite or to Ti.and ity of the magma series for degassed varieties. with prime examples carbonate in the groundmass (Tappe et al. tion). Labrador Taylor. and distinct ultramafic lamprophyre types together with car- contain minor alkali feldspar. p. other lamprophyre types belonging to the calc-alkaline thus violating the M ¼ 90% screen of Step 3 in Fig. 1986. 2. Downloaded from http://petrology. respectively) and Al is enriched <10 vol. to indicate the gradation and 12 wt % MgO for Sarfartoq and Nigerdlikasik– into carbonate-poor varieties. These lamprophyre with feldspathoids and/or alkali feldspar damtjernites include more evolved types with more neph. being the Fen and Aillik Bay areas. These rocks are directed at Step 3 in Fig.7. They are and alkaline lamprophyres by Rock (1987. 2002) in any way. COMMENTS West Greenland The introduction of the ultramafic lamprophyre group at an early stage in the IUGS classification scheme does not Many carbonate-rich ultramafic alkaline dykes from compromise the existing lamprophyre classification in western Greenland have long been regarded as kim. 2002).9. alkali feldspar or Ti-rich primary ship between UML and the remainder of lamprophyres. Mitchell et al. Emeleus & Andrews. one must decide between aillikite. Rock. 1. Although earlier lamprophyres. At Aillik Bay. This is an important The magnesian ulvo¨spinel component is low (<15 wt % qualifier. nepheline. Dahlgren. Ti–Al-enriched diopside respond to aillikites.9’ considers those lamprophyres termed calc-alkaline Thy et al. However. 1991. ‘Section berlites (e. At the type locality of aillikites at Aillik Bay in Labrador Le Maitre.g. a problem that stems from Brøgger (Kranck. This further both abundant olivine and phlogopite as macrocrysts and illustrates the point that the ultramafic lamprophyres phenocrysts.and/or alkali feldspar-bearing ultramafic lampro- ment with Mitchell et al. the first type is aillikite. The new definition of damtjernite as an ultramafic whereas the second classifies as damtjernite. This is in agree. who considered that phyres follows the description of dykes associated with the these rocks are not kimberlite but rather ultramafic Fen Complex in southern Norway. identify these rocks as ultramafic lamprophyres.

& Taylor. but Copenhagen: Geological Survey of Greenland. Skrifter Utgitt av det Videnskapsselskabet i therefore suggest that the term sannaite should be Kristiania I: Mathematisk-Naturvidenskapelig Klasse 9. 1991. 1986). In: Kerr. In: Escher. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. publication is Geological Survey of Canada Contribution recent work has shown that damtjernites also occur which 200502. C. S. Goulet. We are grateful to of a ‘central-complex kimberlite’. M. In: Boyd. It should be noted that if one were to recover only the Emeleus. L.. Labrador. F. This greatly restricts the chem. 141–154. R. % felsic minerals. Teal Riley and Marjorie lamprophyres from Bulljah Pool. P. New Quebec: evidence for a Cambrian diamondiferous alkaline province in grounds. Norwegen. & Emeleus. Coulson. he greatly improved our Mineralogy and Petrology 74. C. DC: American Geophysical Union. ical variation amongst rocks hitherto called sannaites (2003). Lithos 17. Mineralogy and petrology of kimberlite dyke and sheet intrusions and included peridotite evolved damtjernites or evolved orangeites at a locality. Physics and Chemistry of the then they would not be recognized at Step 3 in the new Earth 9. H. This study was carried out Malpas et al. Age determinations confirm the REFERENCES genetic relationship (Tappe et al. (1970). Green. W. pp. (1921). A. (1992). T. (1975). G. F. reserved for rocks that not only have the mineralogical Collerson. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 9. making it more likely that those a ‘window’ to the sub-Gardar mantle? Mineralogical Magazine 67. Petrology of Downloaded from http://petrology. (eds) North Atlantic Minerals classification schemes (Foley et al. are petrogenetically linked to both the aillikites and these ‘sannaites’. Partial melts in upper mantle characteristics described by the IUGS classification (Le nodules from Labrador kimberlites. Bourne. CLASSIFICATION OF ULTRAMAFIC LAMPROPHYRES aillikites and sannaites has been described (Foley. xenoliths from South-west Greenland.. 51–56. J. E. D. modal minerals introduce arbitrary delimiters that risk Brøgger. The ultrapotassic rocks: characteristics. TAPPE et al. This reiterates the Torngat and Jackson inlet diamond projects of Twin Mining message that genetic considerations cannot be left out of Corporation. (1987). Earth-Science Reviews 24. Roger Mitchell. 179–197. C. (eds) Geology of Greenland. A. equivalent to evolved alno¨ites and evolved Lake Complex. C. Foley. respectively.. L. S. mineralogical the Renard igneous bodies: host rocks for diamond in the northern definitions based on rigid boundaries of percentage Otish Mountains region. Carbonatites and lamprophyres of the Gardar Province: (Rock.. I. (1994). & Andrews. & Archibald. Goodenough. Symposium. H. (2001). S. 2014 are clearly related by fractionation. northeastern North America. Andronikov. (eds) Extended Abstracts of the 2nd International Kimberlite Conference. classification. S. F. Roy.oxfordjournals.. J. Neues Jahrbuch f€ur Mineralogie. McCandless. W. R. R. similar to the usage by Mitchell (1995). 1899 . R. Geological Magazine 126. Davis.. 475–490. We Fengebiet in Telemark. Venturelli. 19). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 37. S. The Fen damkjernite: petrology understanding of lamprophyres.org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7. Quebec. lamprophyre magma type. remaining as sannaites are related to a specific alkaline 855–872. Mitchell. A. (1975).. Antarctica and their relation to the breakup of Gondwanaland. ‘ouachitite’. 575–589. Thoughtful comments by Hamilton. compositional data from larger sample suites wherever Foley. V. 239–278. tion between ultramafic and alkaline lamprophyre Digonnet. J. G. T. & Meyer. ates the need for the former UML types ‘polzenite’ and 517–533. J. M. Washington. damtjernites. Birkett. J. who recognized Foley. O. & Malpas. In this Andrews. screen (SiO2 > 41 wt %). Santa Maitre. W. according to our extensive liter. D. Petrology of the Abloviak Aillikite dykes.. R. which is no longer justified on petrogenetic (2000). 1995) and removes the confusion of a petrogenetic rela. forming a strong mineral compositional and geochemical continuum. M.. implying the existence of both within the DFG project Fo 181/15 (Germany) and this ultramafic and alkaline lamprophyre magmas. but also pass an extra chemical Fe. damtjernites’. (1976). & Melzer. (1989). Stevenson. 127–137. Foley. (2002). which are. 13–15. 29–42. Das being carried over into petrogenetic arguments. (2004). R. more importantly. K. New Quebec. carbonatitic lamprophyre dykes at Aillik Bay. A. ensued during this study. 408 pp. 1987. The eastern Arctic who describes ‘evolved orangeites’. N. Although sometimes in error. Late Proterozoic and Carboniferous ultramafic sannaites are more appropriately referred to as ‘evolved magmatism of carbonatitic affinity in Southern Norway. Pearce. 82). J. Dimroth. gratefully acknowledged. N. the former Aillik Bay Dahlgren.. Meimechites and carbonatites of the Castignon ature survey. & Kean. H. & Leng. S. groups. Abhandlungen 112. Journal of Wilson on an early version of this manuscript are the Royal Society of Western Australia 75.. Bruce Ryan and Dejan Prelevic for discussions that 163–177. Emplacement features of lamprophyre and available. N. central Western Australia. 1984.. p. F. in preparation). This paper is dedicated to Nicolas Rock. Liquid immiscibility and melt segregation in sidering geochemical and. pp. Lithos 76. S. K. M. & Coates. classification. D. This re-emphasizes the importance of con. However. (1984). 2002. S. and constraints for ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS petrogenetic models. A strict application of this genetic concept obvi. Lithos 31. H. p. W. ultramafic lamprophyres grade into more evolved Greenland. 1994b. 361–384. B. J. Geology and structural setting of ultramafic Lotte Larsen. D. T. Hence. Kimberlites of West case. & Watt. Hence. (1977). Griffin. & Hood. Petrology of ultramafic lamprophyres as an independent group of ultramafic lamprophyres from the Beaver Lake area of Eastern igneous rocks and systematically classified them. H. E.. 81–134. N. rocks that have more than 10 vol. C. St. mineral alkaline lamprophyres from Labrador. Die Eruptivgesteine des Kristianiagebietes: IV. & Toscani.

van Mitchell. (1992). Recursos Minerais. & Millar. The rock-ground of the coast of Labrador and Rocks. H. kimberlites. 1–14. (eds) Kimberlites.. G. (1999). Cambridge: Cambridge & Finch. M. O. R. Edgar.. Mitchell. Storey.. The origin of carbonatites and related to rifting in the Labrador Sea. M.. J. potassic and carbonatitic magmatism in West Streckeisen. 1900 . Rio de Janeiro: Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos (2003). central West Greenland. (1987). lamprophyres. Gardar Province. 15–26. M. (1939). R. (1994). Steenfelt.. J. C. Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks. Hauman.. O. A. G. L. The nature and origin of lamprophyres: an Greenland. southern West Rock. H. L. M. K.. Parkinson. H. H. N. W. T. (2003). & Korstgard. 65–86. M. N. Abhandlungen 134. & Arnold. J. P.. J. M. H. M. 191–226. Geology of Greenland Survey Bulletin 191. N. Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks. 1902–1918. Special Publications 30. J. Conditions of origin of kimberlites tions and suggestions. R. Current Research. Genesis and Riley. & Rock. M. Lithos 20. D. L. Mitchell. J. 1–26. A.. of ultramafic dikes from the Sarfartoq. Heaman. S. Ultramafic lamprophyres of the Ferrar large igneous Minerais. A. J. & Penney. Schjoth. Bergman. B.. Glasgow: Blackie. Mineralogy and Petrology Kranendonk.. J. R. J. Exploration. S. H. In: Fitton. Mapping in the Torngat Orogen. (1996). Cape Town: Red Roof Design. M. A. & Ryan. (eds) Diamonds: Characterization. F. America. Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse Bulletin 91. Geological Society. A. Sisimiut and Maniitsoq areas. Besserer. Lamprophyres. Mineral chemistry and 193 pp. A review of kimberlitic and ultramafic lamprophyre intrusives from Mitchell. Lamprophyres and carbonatitic lamprophyres Pearce. 145–152. Scott-Smith.. Review of supposedly non-kimberlitic and Greenland: field.oxfordjournals.. H. overview. IUGS Subcommission on the Systematics of in West Greenland: new evidence from the Sarfartoq and Igneous Rocks. G. H. Bulletin de la Commission Geologique de Finlande 22.. A. A. & Leng. melilitic and leucitic rocks. 57–66.. and Related Rocks. (1991). R. 410 pp. H. H. Journal of Petrology 27. O. Newfoundland Department of Meyer. B. T. S. (1994b). D. Geochemistry and Petrology. T. New York: northern Labrador. A review of the 2500 Ma span of West Greenland. Oxford: Blackwell. A. I. Wardle. 115–120. 574–583. A. & Classification of lamprophyres. Lithos 28. W. A. H. Terms: Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Upton. and Mantle Xenoliths. and the Richardson. Lithos 76. Downloaded from http://petrology. Igneous Rocks: a Classification and Glossary of Sisimiut area. Kjarsgaard. (1986). M. pp. 21–40. B. Churchill. S. (2002). West Greenland. Lithos 66. R. J. Bridgwater. L. Larsen. Related Rocks Mines and Energy 94-1. M. Scott. S. South-West Greenland.. Plutonic nodules in lamprophyric Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 23. New York: Plenum. S. C. Goodenough. A. P. H.. Mitchell. J. G. J. L. Canadian Mineralogist 34. & Rex. M. Current Research. 442 pp. Hansen. O. Leat. R. (1993). F. Conference. Rock. B. carbonatites and melilitic rocks: recommenda- Larsen. A. F. geochemical and C–O–Sr–Nd isotope evidence. Province. (1987). S. H.. & Lithos 39. C. S. C. S. Jenner. P. The nature and origin of ultramafic lampro- Rasmussen. & Larsen. lamproites. Tappe. 2014 the connection between the pre-Cambrian of Greenland and North Rock. F. Heaman. R. (1986). & Rønsbo. Emeleus. & Leonardos. T. Pascoe. Labrador. Torngat ultramafic Le Maitre. 155–196. G. K. Meddelelser om Grønland. J. J. Orangeites. H. alkaline rocks in the Sisimiut–Kangerlussuaq region.. R.org/ at INST GEOLOGICO MINERO Y METALURGICO on November 7. northernmost Labrador: Report 3. Classification and nomenclature of volcanic Greenland. 51. Newfoundland Department of Mines Plenum.. (1989). 285 pp. South Greenland: chronology.. (2002). (1981). K. Lithos 13. province: evidence for a HIMU mantle component.. JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY VOLUME 46 NUMBER 9 SEPTEMBER 2005 Hansen. Kimberlites and other ultramafic phyres: alno¨ites and allied rocks. J. A Classification of Igneous Rocks and Glossary of lamprophyres and their relation to the North Atlantic Alkaline Terms: Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences. pp. Sukkertoppen regions. Foley. 137–146. H. Secher.. Geoscience 4. A. H.. 491–518.. M. Suggestions for revisions to the terminology the Nain Craton (including a note on ultramafic dyke occurrences in of kimberlites and lamprophyres from a genetic viewpoint. 3–24. related rocks from the Igaliko dyke swarm. (1996). D. In: Gurney. pp. F. London.. (eds) Proceedings of the VIIth International Kimberlite kalsilitic. E. Neues Jahrbuch f€ur Mineralogie.. non-lamproitic diamond host rocks. S. Kimberlites: Mineralogy. N. (1970). South Janse. In: Meyer. A. Taylor. & King. (1994a). H. & Reid. A. Rio de Janeiro: Companhia de Pesquisa de Wilton. and Energy 02-1. (2002).. A. Rapport Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse 159. Mineralogy Woolley. crystallization sequences in kimberlite and lamproite dikes from the Le Maitre. G. O. (eds) Alkaline Igneous Kranck. B. I. petrogenesis and geological Malpas. D. J. 343–352. (1994). & Upton. (2004). L. In: northernmost Labrador). R. C. carbonatite dykes near Frederiksha˚b. N. (1978). M. Mengel. 367–402. R. Province. D. J. 236 pp. Foley. The lamprophyre facies. Thy. Walton.. L. B. Mitchell. 43–65. R. 399–407. Jensen. B. rocks. & Scott-Smith. M. L. R. A. (1980). 175–186. R. H. 63–76. Le Bas. J. M. Leonardos. Alkaline mafic and setting.. B. (1995). Kimberlites. Sylvester. 391–417. alkaline–ultramafic.. Kimberlite and lamproite dykes from Holsteinsborg. Stecher. Lithos 68. (1986). D. Magmatism of the mid-Proterozoic Gardar University Press. 144–159. B.. L. Campbell. C. Gurney. ultramafic lamprophyres from the Aillik Bay area..