sology (1985) 32, 435-442 biogenic constituents. INTRODUCTION Traditionally, the most common sediments are divided into two separate fields of study: siliciclastic versus ‘arbonate petrology. The tendency of most sedimen- | Wlogists und sedimentary petrologists has been to * facuson the relatively ‘pure’ sediments, and to ignore HE Sespectrum of mixed’ sediments that logically might s, Me between. This stems, in part, from the limited lance of mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sedi- Menls, but also from the pedagogic belief that, due to inhibiting effects that siliciclastics have on urbonate-secreting organisms, the two sediments should no: mix. However, the results of several recent Sposa have demonstrated that, although the mixed iment is not abundant, it is not uncommon enough 'be considered only a geological oddity (Mclireath ‘Ginsburg, 1982; Doyle & Roberts, 1983). Rather, sedimentological history may tell us a great deal a the dynamics and interactions of facies, the ‘ologies of many carbonate-secreting orga- andthe tectonic histories of depositional basins ‘Walker, Shanmugam & Rupert, 1983). “ Mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments: a proposed first-order textural and compositional classification JEFFREY MOUNT Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A ABSTRACT Sediments that are composed of mixtures of siliciclastic and carbonate material occur in both the modern snd the ancient, To date, there is no commonly-used classification of this type of sediment. A descriptive, frorder classification system is proposed here that is applicable to most mixed sediments and their Iithifed equivalents. The sediments are composed of four components: (1) siliciclastic sand (sand-sized ‘quartz feldspar, etc), (2) mud (mixtures of silt and clay), (3) allochems (carbonate grains such as peloids, ‘Soids, bioclasts and intraclasts> 20 um in size), and carbonate mud or micrite (<20 ym in size). These components define a tetrahedra whose subdivision produces eight general lasses of mixed sediment. The rhame of a class reflects both the dominant grain type and the most abundant antithetic component. For example, a rock that contains greater than 50% siliiclastic material, of which most is sand-sized, and Subordinate allochems is termed an allochemic sandstone, Other rock names include micritic sandstone, alochemic and micrtic mudstone, sandy or muddy allochem limestone and sandy o muddy micrite. Prefixes ‘ind adjectives can be added to these terms to include dolomitic sediments, conglomeratic textures, and At present, the documentation and analysis of mixed sediments is in a formative stage. One limiting factor in their study is the lack of a commonly-used classification; a plethora of classification schemes have evolved for the pure sediments, but relatively few can be utilized for mixed sediments. In this paper a first-order classification of mixed sediments is presented that is designed to simplify and systematize their description. This is a necessary first step if attempts are going to be made to communicate formation objectively and, eventually, to present interpretations about their origin. PREVIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS ‘Most siliciclastic and carbonate classification schemes accommodate, to some extent, the occurrence of certain amounts of the antithetic componet limitations preclude a thorough review of all siliciclas- tic and carbonate classifications. This is due, in part, to the great number, but also to the manner in which most schemes are adapted or modified from one or 435436 J. Mount more previous schemes (see Ham & Pray, 1962 and Friedman & Sanders, 1978, for a discussion). The classifications discussed here are by necessity those ‘most commonly used today, with apologies to those thatare ignored. However, each of these classifications presents difficulties for the systematic description of the complete range of mixed sediments. This is ‘because the composition of most mixed sediments is constrained within a four-component system whose end-members consist of carbonate sand, carbonate mud, siliciclastic sand and siliciclastic mud. For example, Pettijohn (1975) recognized that many siliciclastic sandstones contain a great deal of carbon ate detritus. These he termed calcarenaceous sand- stones, a type of ‘hybrid arenite’ that is gradational between a true arenite and a calcarenite. But these hybrid arenites encompass only sand-sized sediments and exclude consideration of any type of admixed ‘mud, Williams, Turner & Gilbert (1982), on the other hand, recognized that a spectrum of compositions exists between siliciclastic mud and sand, and calcium carbonate. Their mixed rock names range from calcareous sandstone to sandy limestone, and from calcareous mudstone to argillaceous limestone. How- ever, the classification subdivides only siliciclastic sediments by texture, grouping carbonate textural classes into one category. The Folk (1962, 1974) classification does recognize the four main compo- nents of mixed sediments. It adds a prefix to the class name of a carbonate rock that contains some terrigen- ‘ous material (referred to as ‘impure chemical rocks’). For example, a rock composed primarily of shells and micrite (lime mud) with anywhere from 10 to 50% siliciclastic sand would be termed a sandy biomicrite Yet Folk only classified half the total spectrum of sediment types. Rocks containing more than 50% siliciclastic material are considered terrigenous rocks; Folk presented no refined subdivision of mixed sediments in this group. Inarecent paper on the quantitative optical analysis, of hybrid arenites, Zuffa (1980) developed a general classification scheme that is delimited by four princi pal grain types: (1) non-carbonate extrabasinal (typi- cal framework of a sandstone), (2) carbonate extrabasinal (derived from an uplifted carbonate source terrane), (3) non-carbonate intrabasinal (glau- conite, gypsum, etc.) and (4) carbonate intrabasinal (typical framework grains of a limestone). Although the classification constructed by Zuffa holds promise for the quantitative modal analysis of hybrid arenites, it still does not meet the requirements of all types of mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments. First, the detection of intrabasinal versus extrabasinal carbog.’ ate grains is a difficult and often interpretive process defeating its original purpose of objectively categoris, ing the sediments (although it is unclear how thy.’ could be avoided). Second, and most importantly, mixed sediments from many modern and an shelves. range from framework-dominated to mud. dominated. Zuffa’s classification scheme focuses og arenites and is designed toignore variations in texture Thus, it is less useful for sedimentologi.al and palaeoecological studies. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION ‘The value of the classification of sediments and sedimentary rocks lies in the enhancement of the communication of information. The goal of classi cation scheme should therefore be to group Guta into categories that are both precise and objective, and not controlled by the interpretation of the origin of the rock. However, in the myriad rock classifications that appear in geological literature, genetic criteria com monly influence, at least in part, the choice of fields within classifications (for example, the carbonate classifications of Dunham, 1962 and Folk, 1962), and act greatly to facilitate the understanding oft history of a rock. Therefore, a style of classification has evolved where, as Ham & Pray (1962, p. 7) putt the best is‘... based on purely descriptive parameters but into which genetic interpretations are carefully blended, where they can be reasonably inferred, and where the use of an interpretive decision results ina more meaningful category than would othersise be possible’ ‘The blending of descriptive and genetic criteria fo the classification of mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments is, at this stage, problematic. As Pettjoha (1975) has noted, it is hard to impose a sinpe classification scheme on diverse types of sediments because of their polygenetic nature. Questions compositional and textural maturity are difficult assess equally between siliciclastic and carbonale sediments, primarily because: (1) carbonate clasts a derived both intrabasinally and extrabasinally. siliciclastic and carbonate sediments respond dif” ently to hydraulic transport (for example, se€ papers by Pilkey, Morton & Luternauer, 1967 and Care’, 1982), and (3) their diagenetic history is usually different. sei ‘Yet, despite their differences in origin siticiclasO® 4 and carbonate sediment do mix, and they form™Mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments pat are not readily accommodated in the most nly used classification systems. Since the level Spanderstanding of mixed sediments is currently in a iyenile stage, it seems inappropriate to derive a Fheme that brings genetic interpretation into the _ Gasification ofthese sediments. Afterall, do we know {2 calcium carbonate rock that contains 40% Giciclastic material has a sedimentological history fox Like a limestone? Or has the admixture of lciclastic sediments made it behave more like a pure flcilasticsand? These questions have tobe answered efore genetic criteria can be used in designating a idasifcation scheme. Therefore, the approach taken bere is a simplistic, first-order classification that is, jatended for descriptive purposes and the general tategorization of mixed sediments. The potential for ‘a more complex scheme is discussed later in this paper. First-order classification Asnoted previously, mixed sediments consist primar- iy of four components: (1) siliciclastic sand, (2) siliciclasticmud, (3) carbonate sand, and (4) carbonate [SANDY LIMESTONE slicetastic 437 mud. The four components define the end-members of the tetrahedral classification system depicted in Figs 1 and 2. Before describing the fields of the tetrahedra, it is important to develop precise defini- tions of each of these components. This is especially important when making subdivisions based on texture and composition, because the literature that describes both modern and ancient mixed sediments contains variable usage of textural and compositional terms. Siliciclastic components In the classification presented here sands are consid- ered to include all quartz, feldspar, other silicates and heavy minerals that range from 0-0625 to 2mm in diameter. Used in this manner, sands represent both, a textural and a compositional term that is consistent with the common usage (or misusage) of sandstone. Sand fines and grades into mud, used here to describe siliciclastic sediment that is less than 0-0625 mm in diameter and commonly consists of mixtures of silt and clay. This is consistent with the term mudrock (after Lundegard & Samuels, 1980), suggesting @ lithified siliciclastic mud. The inclusion of the entire ‘and 1. Classification tetrahedra for mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments. The polyhedra created by binary subdivision eahedra are shown outside oft. The procedure used to derive the names is shown in Fig 3. See text for explanation.438 50%, sanby aLocHEM uMesTONE 908, Allochems, ALLOCHEM sox/ UMESTONE AULOCHEMIC ‘SANDSTONE SANDY ae MICRITE ‘MICRITIC SANDSTONE Sand 1% 50% Fig. 2. Unfolded view of tetrahedra shown in Fig. 1. Central triangle is the base of the tetrahedra, The three triangles th radiate from the central triangle are the upper three faces ofthe tetrahedra. The classification of ‘pure’ fosilifero by Folk (1962) is plotted. spectrum of silt-and clay-sized material in one textural group diminishes the resolution of the classification scheme. However, as will be shown later, modifiers ‘can be used to accommodate mixed sediments in which, for example, the siliciclastic portion is made almost entirely of clay or of silt. Carbonate components To avoid confusion with the terminology describing siliciclastic sediments, sand and mud are not used for textural descriptions of carbonates. Instead, the terminology of Folk (1962, 1974) is adopted here. Although both the Folk (1962) and the Dunham (1962) ALLOCHEMIC. ‘SANDSTONE micrimic MUDROCK Micrrnic ‘SANDSTONE SANDY MICRITE 508 9% Sand jimestones classification systems are commonly used, the Fol system was considered easiest to adapt because it mos closely parallels classifications for siliciclastic $8 ments and is less dependent upon genetic criteria Folk subdivides carbonate sediments into the components: allochems, microcrystalline 002 spar cement. Allochems, according to Folk. # intrabasinal particles that have been transported & if not, form discrete, organized aggregates. TH) commonly include ooids, intraclasts, bioclasts peloids. Ideally, allochems occupy a broad range size, However, as Folk and others have point the allochems are usually very fine sand size oF Micrite consists of lime mud with grains vstex than I-4um in diameter, although post- tional neomorphism can act to enlarge the considerably. Spar cement consists of carbon- Srerysals that are 10 um or larger and fil original or dary Void spaces within a carbonate rock. Folk Rated allochems, micrite and sparry calcite to the ‘ework grains, matrix and cement, respectively, afslicclastic rocks. For tie classification system proposed here, the ak terminology has been modified only slightly. On betetrahedra of Figs 1 and 2, allochems are considered ip be all detrital carbonate particles larger than roximately 20 um. Lime mud or micrite includes garicls less than 20pm in diameter (encompasses (bemicrospar of Folk). Spar cements, where they can terecognized, are left to.a subcategory of cement that jgnot considered in the classification scheme of Figs and 2. Classification procedure The approach to the classification of mixed carbonate and silciclastic sediments is a simple, binary process that involves a series of yes/no questions about the SwueIcLAsmiC > sano> ro yes oe Mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments LocHEMs > 439 composition and texture of the sample. These ques- tions can be answered by observation using a petrographic microscope, or by lightly etching a polished slab, Although the classification system proposed here is simple, itis still difficult to identify the necessary four components in the field. Initially, a sediment or rock must be identified as being of mixed composition. In keeping with most classification systems, sediments containing more than 10 volume % of the antithetic component are considered mixed. This percentage is visually esti- ‘mated and, where possible, ignores the occurrence of | cements. Once identified as a mixed sediment the classification involves three yes/no questions (Fig. 3). First, is the total siliciclastic sediment greater than carbonate sediment in the sample? This defines a rectangular plane within the tetrahedra that is equidistant from the polyhedra that encompass the pure sediments. Second, of the siliciclastic sediment that is present within the sample, is the amount of sand greater than mud? This question defines a triangular plane within the tetrahedra such that any point on the plane is equidistant from the sand and mud apices. Third, of the carbonate sediment in the NAME eAROOKATE? uo? cere? yes, = tochenie sandstone a mt eine ‘ochemic mocrock ‘sandy alochom estone sandy mite ‘muddy atocham tinestone ruddy ert BE 3 Diagrammatic representation of binary subdivision of classification tetrahedra. Positive or negative answers to the @estions lead toward eight diferent mixed rock classes. The three tetrahedra reflect the sequential subdivision created440, ‘sample, is the volume percentage of allochems greater than the micrite? This question defines a triangular plane that is perpendicular to both of the previous planes and upon which any given point will be equidistant from the allochem and micrite apices. ‘The eight polyhdra defined by the three questions are depicted in Figs 1 and 3. Each of these polyhedra js given a name that describes its principal compo- nents. For example, a rock composed mostly of siliciclastic sand with subordinate sand-sized carbon- ate clasts would be termed an allochemic sandstone (allochemic sand if unlithified). Additionally, a rock consisting of lime mud with lesser amounts of quartz sand is a sandy micrite. Other rock classes include ‘micritic sandstone, muddy micrite, sandy ot muddy allochem limestone, and allochemic or micritic mudrock. Modifications ‘The first-order classification tetrahedra presented here examines a limited spectrum of sediment types. My ‘own experience suggests that the majority of mixed sediments will be adequately categorized by this system. However, modifications can be applied to this classification that will either increase its resolution or accommodate sediments whose textures or composi- tions are not considered within the original tetrahedra, These modifications have the unfortunate effect of complicating a simple classification scheme, but their addition is essential for the full description and categorization of mixed sediments. Dolomite: the proposed classification system focuses cn sediments whose carbonate component is some polymorph of calcium carbonate, whether high ot low Mg-calcite or aragonite. Numerous mixed lithologies are described from ancient epicratonal and pericra~ tonal settings where the carbonate component consists of dolomite. For mixed rocks containing mostly dolomite, the term limestone can simply be replaced by dolomite or dolostone. Dolomitic mixed rocks that are dominated by siliciclastic material have the prefix dolo- added to the carbonate textural term, such as in dolo-allochemic sandstone and dolomicritic mudrock. Conglomerates: mixed sediments that are very coarse-grained are occasionally reported from the rock record. The two most common types are intraformational conglomerates whose carbonate in- traclasts are surrounded by a siliciclastic matrix and siliciclastic conglomerates whose matrix consists of lime sand. For mixed intraformational conglomerates they can be simply described by adding the siliciclastic textural term to the pure rock name, For example, Mount many mixed intraformational conglomerztes siliciclastic mud matrix, thus they would be te ‘muddy intraformational limestone conglomerate, Fog siliciclastic conglomerates the carbonate textural can be added to the pure rock name, such ag allochemic cobble conglomerate. Sil versus clay: the term mud used here includes spectrum of textures ranging from coarse silt to This usage limits the resolution of the classifi scheme. Therefore, for the description of mi sediments whose mud component is greater than 29 silt-size material (0-0625-0-0039 mm), the term mf can be replaced by silt, such as in allochemic sit. Fey those whose mud fraction is greater than 2/3 clay(¢ 0-0039 mm), the term clay should be substituted, such as in micritc elay. ‘Mudrock versus shale: a field classification of fine grained sedimentary rocks proposed by L: Jegard& Samuels (1980) groups lithified muds (as defined above) together in one general class called mudrocks They further subdivide mudrocks on the following + (1) the percentage total silt or clay and (2) the presence or absence of laminae. A mudrock containing greater than 2/3 clay and possessing laminae or fissility would be termed a clayshale, Ifthe mudrock contained less than 2/3, but greate- than 19 silt it would be called either a mudstone or mudshae also depending upon the presence or absence of laminae. Lundegard & Samuels chose not to subdivide rocks with greater than 2/3 silt, grouping the laminated and unlaminated types into one class termed siltstone. The classification of Lundegard & Samuels is easy adapted into the classification scheme proposed here. For example, a lithified micritic clay that is massive would, be termed a micritic claystone (- at Some authors refer to as mar, at present an ill-defined tera) Conversely, a lithified allochemic mud that is lam nated would be an allochemic mudshale.Silt-dominated mudrocks, whether laminated or not, would all be referred to.as siltstones, such as in allochemic siltstone. ‘Clast composition: the composition of the count detrital fraction of mixed sediments is highly variable and difficult to accommodate into the cle sification tetrahedra, However, the composition of these eraith especially the allochems, is important for the ream" struction of the depositional history of the sediment Therefore, adjectives may be added to the rock & sediment name that describe the principal bi andjor siliciclastic components. Terms such 35 dal, ooltic, Bioctastic or fossiliferous, intraclast arkosic, micaceous, glauconitc, etc., can be added the beginning of the class name or inserted before! ibeéeseribing the dominant clast type. Examples Sede itraclast-Bearing allachemic mudstone, arkosic fy allochem limestone, muddy peloidal allochem Fretone, and other equally cumbersome, But neces- sony terms. DISCUSSION jo inital criticism of the proposed classification gquem might be that the fields of the tetrahedra are te targe. Major portions of each class may have no ifcance because few, if any, natural sediments ‘alplot there. Over 150 examples of mixed sediments fanging in age from Proterozoic to Recent were eviewed for a separate work on the dynamics of fediment mixing (Mount, 1983, 1984). In many of these exsiaples itis difficult to tell where the sediments sould fall within the tetrahedra because imprecise terminology is used (for example, ‘sandy limestone’ tad ‘limey mudstone’). However, enough were suffi ently described to indicate that examples occur throughout the classification tetrahedra, although rmost appear to plot near the faces of the tetrahedra (etecting a bias for three- rather than four-component ‘qsiems). {> particular, on some modem shelves, such, 8 the Brazilian shelf (Milliman & Summerhayes, 1915)and the Queensland shelf (Maxwell & Swinchatt, 1970), inner- and mid-shelf depositional systems teetain sediments that plot in all eight classes of fined sediment. It appears that use of the entire ‘erahedca is justified Finally, is there really a need for another classifica system? As a reviewer of an earlier version of this ‘anuscrip’ pointed out, is it necessary to chop up the sedimentologic hamburger in a new way? Would it be ‘Mmplerjust to use descriptive modifiers in conjunction ‘ih commonly-used pure sediment classification * hemes? This approach would not be adequate for Fa ®eclassification of mixed sediments for two principal Reions. First, to adapt even slightly complicated and compositional classifications to the four- Aponen: system shown here is very difficult, To trate, the reader is encouraged to take Fig. 1 and the Folk (1962) or Dunham (1962) classification in the pure carbonate polyhedra (as in Fig. 2) 2 Modification of one of any number of textural fications (see Pettijohn, 1975) in the pure ic polyhedra, If the planes within both pure t polyhedra are projected into the tetrahedra ‘intersections form at least 32 small fields, too 0 illustrate effectively here. It is doubtful that Mixed siliciclastic and carbonate sediments 44 so many classes of mixed sediments would be useful for sedimentologic interpretations. In addition, it ‘would be difficult to achieve the resolution necessary to plot the average hand spécimen within such a complex system. Second, the pure sediment classifi- cation schemes are based on descriptive and genetic criteria. Adding modifiers to these classifications ‘assumes that the same genetic criteria apply to mixed as well as pure sediments. Yet, as was discussed previously, the sedimentologic and biologic controls of the texture and composition of these sediments are not the same. Therefore, one set of genetic parameters cannot be used to subdivide both pure and mixed sediments. ‘The problems outlined here demonstrate that the simplest approach of adding riodifiers to commonly- used, pure sediment classifications is likely to produce a maze of mixed sediment classes that are based on non-applicable genetic criteria. In light of this, it seems more effective to risk, creating a new, less complicated descriptive classification, such as the one proposed here. CONCLUSION The first-order classification that is proposed in this paper is intended to serve as an easy to use medium for the communication of textural and compositional information about mixed sediments. The approach, by necessity, is simplistic, yet, if desired, sediments can be quantified within the system. It is at present premature to attempt to subdivide the mixed sediment continuum on both genetic and descriptive criteria as we do not yet know the full vagaries of their depositional processes. Much more work is needed on modern and ancient examples before genetic criteria can be established. However, to avoid confusing and inconsistent terminology in communicating these studies, base-level classification, such as the one proposed here must be used. Refinements willcertainly follow. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research partially supported by American Chemical Society PRF Grant No. 13360-G2, National Science Foundation Grant No. EAR-8212375, and the Uni- versity of California White Mountain Research Station, Special thanks go to Jennifer Dienger who ized the manuscript and helped accumulate the442 J. Mount. basicdata, Ellen Bailey was instrumental in the design and drafting of the figures. Earlier versions of the manuscript were graciously read by Drs Johnnie N. Moore, Stephen Rowland, Ian Mclireath, Kenneth G. Johnson, and Maurice Tucker, whose comments and criticisms helped a great deal. However, respon- sibility for the generation of a new terminology lies solely with the author and not the reviewers. REFERENCES ‘Canter, R.W.G. (1982) Some problems associated with the ‘analysis and interpretation of mixed carbonate and quartz beach sands, illustrated by examples from north-west Ireland. Sedim. Geol. 33, 35-56. Dorie, L. & RosERTs, H.H. (conveners) (1983) AAPG/ ‘SEPM carbonate to clastic facies change I. Bull. Am. Ass Petrol. Geol. 67, 404. Dunnam, RJ. (1962) Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional tekture. In: Classification of Carbonate Rocks (Ed. by W.'E. Ham). Mem. Am. Ast Petrol. Geol. Tulsa, 1, 108-121 FOLK, R.L. (1962) Spectral subdivision of limestone types. In: Classification of Carbonate Rocks (Ed. by W. E. Ham). ‘Mem. Am. Ass. Petrol. Geol. Tulsa 1, 62-84. Foux, RL. (1974) Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemp- bill's, Austin, Texas, FRIEDMAN, G.M. & SANDERS, JLE. (1978) Principles of ‘Sedimentology. Wiley, New York. Haw, W.E. & Pray, L.C. (1962) Modem concepts and classifications of carbonate rocks. In: Classification of (Manuscript received 5 May 1984 ; revision received 21 September 1984) Carbonate Rocks (Ed. by W. E. Ham). Mem, Petrol. Geol Tulsa, 1, 2-19. LUNDEGARD, P.D. & SaMUBLS, ND. (1980) Field tion of fine-grained sedimentary rocks. J. sein 50, 781-186. ‘Maxwett, W.G.H, & SwmNcHATT, J.P. (1970) Great Reef: regional variation in a terrigenous-carbonate ince. Bull. geo. Soc. Am. 81, 691-724, Meluneari, 1. & Gresaurc, RN. (Convener) ( Symposium 27: mixed deposition of ‘carbonate siliciclastic sediments. Int Ass. Sediment. thn Eleventh int Congr. Sedimentology, pp. 109-113, MILLIMAN, J.D. & SUMMERHAYES, C:P, (Eds) (1975) U continental margin sedimentation off Brazil. Inr butions to Sedimentology. E. Schweizerbarsche Vy buchhandlung, Stuttgart. Moun, JF. (1983) The production of mixed silica ‘and carbonate sediments in shallow shelf enviro : dynamics and regional controls. Abstr. Progr. 4 dr. 9th Ann met 15, 48 ro Sy ‘Mount, J.F. (1984) The mixing of siliciclastic nd carboug sediments in shallow shelf environments ciogy Ek 432-435, PETTUOHN, FJ. (1975) Sedimentary Rocks, 3d ed. H Row, New York. eae Prtxey, O.H., MORTON, R.W. & LUTERNAUER,J.(1967) The carbonate fraction of beach and dune sands, Se ogy, 8, 311-327. 3 WALKER, K.R., SHANMUGAM, G. & RUPERT, S.C. (98)A ~ ‘model for carbonate to terrigenous clastic sequences. geol. Soe. Am. 94, 700-712. WittiaMs, H., TURNER, FJ. & Groserr. M. (19) Peirography, 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco ZuFFA, G.G. (1980) Hybrid arenites: their composition aad classification. J, sedim. Petrol. $0, 21-28