Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/236151051
CITATIONS READS
202 2,560
7 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Steven Clark Bergman on 14 May 2014.
OF LAMPROPHYRES,
CLASSIFICATION LAMPROITES,KIMBERLITES'
MELILITIC,
AND THEKALSILITIG, ROCKSX
AND LEUCITIC
ALAN R. WOOLLEY
NaturalHistoryMuseum,
Departuentof Mineralogy, RoaLbndon SW SBD'U.K
Crornwell
STEYEN C. BERGMAN
and
Exploration
Technnlogy,
ARCOResources Production 2j00 WestPIarc Parkway,Plano,Texas75075'U'S'A'
Research,
ALAN D. EDGAR
Ontario,LondaUOntarioN6A587
Universityof Westem
Deparxwntof EarthSciences,
MICHAELJ. LEBAS
of leicester,IsicesterIEI 7RH'U'K'
of Geology,University
Department
ROGERH. MITCIIELL
InkehzadlJniversity,
of Geotogy,
Department Bay,OntarioP7B5EI
Thunder
BARBARA H. SCOTTSMITH
Boulevar4NorthVancoaver,
Petrology,2555Edgemount
Scox-Smith 2M9
BrttishColumbin'WR
ABSIRAC"I
rocls
The nomenclatureand classificationof lamprophyres,lamproites,kimberlites andthe kalsilitic, melilitic and leucitic
The recommendations of three working groups establghedby t{e, IUGS-Subcommi-ssion on the
are inaaequately detined.
the aboveare
Systematicsof igneousRocksto resolveaspectsof tlle problem arepresentedfor discussion.New definitionsof
given, variouslyln mineralogicaland geochemicalterms,and a reviied sequencefor the systematicclassificationof the rocks
is provided which integrateswith the existingIUGS hierarchicalsystem.
Kewords: lamprophlre, lamproite,kimberlite, kalsilitic rocks, melilitic rocks, leucitic rocks, classification.
Sovnrtarnn
m€lilite,
l,a nomenclatureet la classificationdu clan dgs tamFrophyres,lamproites,kimberlites, et des rochesa kahilite,
jamais 6t6 d6finies de fagon Nous
satisfaisante. presentons i"i p9* de discussionles recommandations de
et leucite n'ont 1*
par
trois groupesde travail 6tablis la sous-commission charg6e dL la des
syst6matisation roches igrdes de I'Union Intemationale
min€ralogiques'
CesS"cientesG6ologiques.Nous pr6sentonsdesd6finitionJnouvellei desmembresde ce clan, en tennessoit
soit gdochimiques,et une s6quende nouvellede classificationsyst6matique,int6gr6eau sch6mahidrarchiquedu systbmeexistant
de ITUGS'
(fraduit par la R6daction)
plassification'
Mots-cl6s:lamprophyre,lampro'ite,kimberlite, rochesi kalsilite, rochesi m6lilite, rochesl leucite,
Rocknane MineralAssemblage
Mafurite Olivine-pyroxenekalsilitite
Kafilngite Kalsilite-leuote-olivinemelilitite
Venarzite Kalsitt+,pblogopite-olivine-leucitenelilitite
Coppaeute Kalsilite-phlogopit€melilitite
pyroxene
olivine pyroxene
melilitolite melilitolite
(1974).From the point of view of the IUGS systemof
peridotite
melilile-bearing and pyroxenite classification, the presenceof essential melilite or
leucite (or both) indicatesthat either the classification
Ol Cpx that deals with melilitic or leucitic rocks should be
Plutonicrocks applied.However,the presenceof kalsilite audleucite
Frc. 1. Classificationof the plutonic(melilitolite)melilitic is consideredpetrogenetically so distinctive and
rockswith modalmelilite>10VoO-eMaifreer al, 1989 important that the acceptedterm, kamafugite, should
Fig.B.3). be retained for this consanguineousseries of rocks.
Table I indicatestheir nomenclatureas a function of
mineral assemblage.
Plutonic kalsilitic rocks of the Aldan and North
pyroxenitebecausethat lerm is reservedfor plutonic Baikal petrologicalprovincesof Russi4 which are not
rocls. The rock types maftrite and katungite,together kamafugitic, may be distinguished by the prefix
with the closely associatedleucitic rock ugandite o'kalsilite".Thus, synnyrite becomeskalsilite syenite,
(which is excludedfrom Table 1. asit doesnot contain andyakutitebecomeskalsilite-biotite pyroxenite.
kalsilite and is more logrcally classifiedas an olivine
leucitite), constitutethe kamafugitic seriesof Sahama Classffication of kimberlite s
A MELILITITE
X M E L I L I T EN E P H E L I N I T E
20 AA K 64
A
AL
ur 18 A
F A oo
2rc {io"oo
E
4 '+ ^"a
J14
'ffi
ul
A
?tz A A
r
AA xJ-
=10 -
(E
o
z8
F' {rr
lt
rf
:bf{
I
I
2 4 6 8'to12 14 16 1820222426283.O
N O R M A T I V EN E P H E L I N E
Flc. 3. Plot of normativenephelineversusnormatle lamite for melilitic lavas showing
the proposedboundary(dashedline) betweenthe melilitites and melilite nephelinites.
The data plotted are taken from eastem,western atd southemAfric4 Europe, the
former USSR,Australia, andU.S.A., including Hawaii, andarevariously describedas
olivine melilitite, melilitite or melilite nephelinite (see Le Bas 1989, Table 2).
Also plotted are typical potassic melilitic volcanic rocks: A, melilite ankmatrite;
K, katungite;L, leucitemelilitite; M, potassicolivine melilitite; V, venanziteftalsilite
- phlogopite- olivine - leucite melilitite).
;e
Eto
q
Y8
oAI
to
37 41 45 49 53 s7 61 65 69 73
SiOzwt%
FIG. 4. Percentagefrequencydisribution diagram for 112 samplesof leucitite plotted
in the TAS diagram,showingthat only about507oplot in the foidite fiel{ with major
concentrationsin the basanite-tephriteand phonotephritefields. Reproducedfrom
Fig. 23 oflr Bas et al. (1,992),Star indicatesthe peakofthe frequencydistribution.
The Subcommissionno longer endones the terms 5. If the rock is fine-grainedor glassyand has larnite
'lamprophyric rocks", or'lamprophyre clan", used in the norm. the rock should be classified as a
as
by Le Maitre et al. (1989) and Rock (1991) to MELILITICROCK.
encompasslamFrophyres,lamproitesand kimberlites,
becauselamproitesandkimberttes arebestconsidered 6. Ifthe volcanic rock containsessentialleucite"with
independentlyof lamprophyres. or without phlogopite (biotite), or is from a minor
intrusion vdth mafic phenocrystsonly (generallymica
Rsusm SseuBrflAL Sysrsr,rron or amphibole, or both), apply the following criteria
Crassn'yNc Iovnous Rocrs sequentially:
(a) If the rock is free of leucite but rich in olivine
The revised hierarchy, which modifies that of the (typically 35-55 modal % including macrocrysts,
wall chart accompanyingLe Maitre et al. (1989) anid xenocrysts and phenocrysts), and one or morg
Figure 8 of Le Bas & Sneckeisen(L991), is given dominaal primary minerals in the groundmassare
below @igs.5, 6). Eachstatementis a preconditionfor monticellite, phlogopite, carbonate, serpentine or
the next in the sequence. diopside, the rock should be classified as a
KIMBERLITE.
1. If the rock is fragmental, the rock should be @) If the rock containstitanian phlogopi0eas Al-poor
classifiedas aPYROCLASTIC ROCK. phenocrystsor groundmassgrains (or both), together
with common Fe-rich leucite or forsteritic olivine
2. If the rock contains more than 50Vo pimary (or both), as well as one or more of titanian potassium
carbonate. the rock should be classified as a richterite, Al-Na-poor diopside, Fe-rich sanidine,
CARBONATITB. accessorywadeite and priderite in the groundinass,
thenthe rock shouldbe classifiedas a LAMPROITE.
3. If the rock contains >107a modal melilite and (c) Any rcrnnining leucitic rocks should be classified
M > 90Vo. the rock should be classified as a using the terms provided in the classification of
MELILITIC ROCK. VOLCANIC LEUCMC ROCKS.
(d) Apart from certain pyroxene-and olivine-bearing
4. If the rock contains kalsilite. the rock should be rocks, e.g., ankaramiteand oceanite,which are not
classifiedas a KALSILITIC ROCK. lamprophyres (for tlese rocks proceed to the
182 THE CANADIAN MINERALOGIST
containskalsilite
leucite or
minor intrusion with Fto. 6. Flow chart for the
only mafic phenocrysts +lct+ol+ melilitic. kalsilitic and
leucitic rocks and the
kimberlites, lamproites
andlamprophyres(dashed
K2O/Na2O> 3.0 box ofFig. 5). It is entered
molar K2O/AI2O3> 0.8 after the "carbonates
and peralkaline >50Vo" box and exits to
the "charnockitic" box of
Fig. 5. The symbolsused
follow those of Kretz
(1983)wherepossible.
Lamproites have always been a difficult group The main problemshere concernvolcanic melilitic
of rocks in terms of their identification and rocks. In Le Maitre et al. (1989), the coarser-grained
nomenclafure.Recent interest in them has been melilitolite is classified on the basis of modal
prompted by the discovery of economically viable proportions,but a completelysatisfactoryclassification
diamond-bearingvarieties, which has led to a for the finer-grained rocks was not attained. A
detailed re-examinationof the group and complete definition basedon rock chemistry is desirable,but
revision of the nomenclature (Scott Smith & unfortunately these rocks cannot be distinguished
Skinner 1983, Mitchell & Bergman 1991). These adequatelyftom other volcanic rocks in the TAS
revisions have resulted in the reclassificationas system.However,the presenceof melilite in morethan
lamproites of some rocks previously regarded as tracemodal amountsresultsin the formation of lamite
kimberlites (e.g., Prairie Creek, Arkansas, and (or calcium orthosilicate)in the CIPW norm, and this
Majhgawan,India). can be used as a potential discriminant. Although
It is only in the last few decadesthat lamproites lamite may appearin the norm of some melilite-free
have been consideredto crysrallize from a distinct nepheliniticrocks containingclinopyroxenerich in the
type of magma. Formerly, the presenceof leucite, Tschermaks component(H.S.Yoder,Jr.,pers.comm.),
the similarity of some olivine-bearing lamproite we find that the lafier is typically expressedin the norm
to kimberlite, and the presence of some as anorthite.
"lamprophyrico'characteristics,e,g., abundantpheno- A furtherproblemremains,that thereis a continuous
crysts of pblogopite, led not only to a plethora of seriesfrom melilitite, tlrough melilite nepheliniteto
names, but to an ill-defined place in petrological nephelinite.Investigationof this problemindicatesthat
taxonomy. The problem was further exacerbatedby a reasonablyclear discriminantbetweenmelilitite and
their geochemical characteristics,with the magrna melilite nepheliniteis normative larnite. In Figure 3,
chemistry stabitzing a large number of unusual samplesof melilitite and nephelinite are plotted in
minerals(K-Ba titanatesand silicates,K-Z silicates), terrnsof normativelamite versusnotmatle nepheline.
someof which can be usedas discriminantsfor these The bestdivision appearsto be at LlVolarrtrte.
rocks.For most examplesef lamproite,the presenceof When classilying the melilitic rocks, the following
these minerals reflects derivation from a sourse should be taken into consideration:(a) The present
enriched in incompatible and large-ion-lithophile classification for melilitic rocks in I* Mao.neet al.
elements; this enrichment distinguishes lamproitic (1989,p. 12)is basedon thepresence of modalmelilite
rocks from Group-I kimberlites 6d lam.Frophyres. exceedingl0 vol.Voin either plutonic (melilitolite) or
A full discussionof the nomenclatureof lamproites, volcanic (melilitite) occlurences,in combinationwith
their relationshipsto other potassicand ultrapotassic M > 9AVo.O) In the IUGS scheme(see flow chart
rocks, in both mineralogical and chemical terms, accompanyingLe Maitre et al. 1989),their identifica-
together with a suggestedrevised nomenclature,is tion is made after excluding the lamprophyresbut
found in Mitchell & Bergman (1991). The beforeenteringQAPF. It is now consideredpreferable
Subcommissionessentiallyacceptedthe detailedwork to identify melilitic rocks before lamproites,
of Mitchell & Bergman(1991) and Scott Smith & kimberlitesandlamprophyres.(c) Evenin fine-gained
Skimer (1983), and neededonly to integrate these rocks, melilite canusually be idenffied in thin section
rocks into the IUGS hierarchicalsvstem. where it occurs in essential proportions, i.e.,
>10 voLvo.This assumes therock is not altered;if it is,
Kimberlites melilite is usually carbonated.(d) Some fine-grained
melilitic rocks are stronglypotassic,e.g.katungite,the
The Subcommissionconsidered it inappropriate potassic character usually being reflected in the
to re-investigatethe nomenclatureand definition of presenceof modal leucite or kalsilite (or both). (e)
kimberliles in detail, becausethis has been done Melilitite is characterizedby the presenceof melilite
extensively in the last few years by the many andperovskiteandcontainslessthan 38 wtVoSiO2and
specialistsof kimberlites (Skinner & Clement 1979, greaterthan 13 WVoCaO.
Dawson 1980,Clementet al. 1984,Mitchell 1986).
Nevertheless, a clear definition of kimberlite Kalsilitic rocl<s
should be formulated, particularly for purposes of
dist''rguishing these rocks from olivine lamproite, Kalsittic rocls havenot previouslybeenconsidered
and for placing kimberlites in the hierarchical by the Subcommission.Thesefall into two groups:the
classification system.Currently, the classification of kamafugrticseriesof Sahama(1974),andthekalsilite-
kimberlite is undergoing revision, and the nomen- bearing syenitesand pyroxenites,e.9., synnyrile and
clatureadvancedby Mtchell (1994b)hasnot yet been yakutite, occurring in the Aldan and North Baikal
tully explored. petrologicalprovincesofRussia(Kogarkoet al.1995,
CLASSIFICATION OF T.AMPROPTIYRES 185
Kostyuk et al. 1990). Someof the kamatugitic rocks International Kimberlite Conference, when agreement
contain leucite or melilite (or both) and might be was reached on some of the major problems.
consideredfeldspathoidalor melilitic rocks.However,
the presenceof kalsilite is consideredso importantthat RSFERB{cEs
it requiresassignmentoftheserocksto a specialgroup.
ANDREVA,E.D.,Basrore, V.A. & BocArtr<ov,O.A. (1985):
Foiditic and leucitic rocl<s Magmatic Rocks: Classification, Nomenclature and
Petrography.Nauka,Moscow,Russia(2 volumes).
The problemsposedby theserocks arerestrictedto
Crrrranrn, C.R., Srnwnn, E.M.W. & Scom Surru, B.H.
the fine-grainedmembers.The coarser-grainedrocks (1984):Kimberliteredefined.J. Geol.92,223-228.
of equivalent composition containing nepheline or
leucite (or both) and, despiteheteromorphismin some DAwsoN, J.B. (1980): Kimberlites and Their Xenoliths.
cases (Yoder 1986), can be satisfactorily classified Springer-Verlag,Berlin, Germany.
using the QAPF and other mineralogical systems
(Le Maitre et al. L989). FoLEy, S.F., VENTURET,G., Gnm{, D.H. & ToscaNr,L.
The boundariesbetweenthe feldspathoidalfield and (1987):The ultrapotassicrocks: characteristics,classifica-
the basanite+ephrite,phonotephrite,tephdphonolite tion, and constraintsfor petrogeneticmodels Earth-Sci.
Rev.?4.81-134.
andphonolitefields in the TAS systemarenot wholly
satisfactory, as they do not provide an acceptable VoN GuMBEL, C.W. (1874): Die Paleolithischen
boundaryfor the nephelinitic and leucitic rocls. The Eruptivgesteine des Fichtelgeberges. Ftanz, Munich'
problem with regardto the leucitic rocks is illustrated Germany.
by Figure 4.
It is evident that leucitic rocks cannot be distin- Kocamo, L.N., KoNoNova, V.A., ORLovA, M.P. &
guishedchemicallyon the TAS diagram.However,as Woorrrv, A.R. (1995):Alkaline Rocl<s
and'Carbonatites
leucite is, with few exceptions,a phenocrystphase,or of the WorM.2. Former USSI?.Chapman& Hall, London,
forms small but identifiable crystals,a modal system U.K.
shouldbe feasible.This approachwas not adoptedby
Le Maitre et al. (L989). The distinction between KoNoNovA,V.A., ed.(1984):Alkaline IgneousRocks.Nauka"
Moscow.Russia.
nepheliniteandbasanitehasbeenconsideredby Le Bas
(1989). KosryuK V.P., Par,rNe,L.I., Zmrov, A.Y., ORtovA,M.P.
& Bea.ova, T.Y. (1990): PotassicAlkaline Magmatism
AcIC{OWLEDGENmNIS of the Baikal-Stanovoy Rifting System. Nauka'
NovosibirslgRussia.
The authorsthank their colleaguesin the working
groups and the Subcommissionfor their constructive Knsz, R. (1983): Symbols for rock-forming minerals.
approachto the controversialproblems encountered. Am.MineraL 68"n7-n9.
The members of the working groups and others
who contributed include D.S. Barker, J.L. Brandle, Ls Bas, M.J. (1989): Nephelinitic and basanitic rocks.
A. Cundari,S.V. Efremovq J. Keller, S. Kravchenko, J. Petrol. 30, 1299-L312.
E. Lazko, A.N. Mcl.aurin, H.O.A. Meyer, E.A.K.
Ls MAFRE,R.W. & Woor.trv, A.R. (1992):The
Middlemost, T.F.D. Nielsen, A. Streckeisen, constructionof the total alkali-silica chemicalclassifica-
E.J.Visentin,K.Yag1,H.S.Yoder,Jr. andB. Zanettin. tion of volcanicrocks.MiruraL Petrol 46,l'22.
We acknowledgethe numeroususeful suggestionsof
two referees,particularly Frank Dudas, and of the - & SrRrcrctsw, A.L. (1991):TheIUGS systematics
Editor for his major "tidying" operations on the of igneousrocks../. Geol. Soc.Inndon 14{i, 825-833.
manuscript.
Sadly,Nick Rock died in Februaryof 1992,before Le MArrRE, R.W., Berruar, P., DUDEK,A., IfurER, J.,
he sawthe final dmft of theserecommendations. He is LATEYRE, J., Ln Bas, M.J., SABNE,P.A., Sctnao, R.,
included as a coauthorhere not only becauseof his SOnr.NssN, H., Smscr<srssx,A., Woor,lrt, A.R. &
significant participation in the discussions of the Zawerrw, B. (1989): A Classificatianof lgrcow Rocks
working groups, but also becauseof his immense and Glossary of Terms: Recommendations of the
International Union of Geological Sciences
contributionto the investigationsof lamprophyresand Subcommissionon the Systelnaticsof lgneous Rocks.
relatedrocks andthe enthusiasmwith which he studied Blackwell Scientific Publications,Odord, U.K.
them. Although he may not have agreedwith all the
ideasand conclusionspresentedin this reporl he saw MDDlio\losr, E.A.K. (1986):The nomenclatureandorigin of
most of its components,supporled them, and was the noncumulate ultramafic rocks and the systematic
active in their discussionalmost to the final stage, position of kimberlites. /z ExtendedAbstr., Fourth Int.
includingthe meetingin Brazil (1991),duringthe Fffi Kimberlite Conf. (Perth).Geol.Soc,Aust. 16'12-74.
186 TIIE CANADIAN MINERALOGIST
Mncrru,, R.H. (1979): The alleged kimberlite-carbonatire & SrrNNER, E.M.W. (1983):A new look at Prairie
relationship: additional contrary mineralogicalevidence. Creek" Arkansas. Proc. Third Int, Kimberlbe Conf. I
Am. J. Sci.U9, 570-589. (J.Komprobsged.).Elsevier,New York"N.Y. (255-283/.
(1,986): Kimberlites: Mineralogy, Geochemistry Sxwrm., E.M.W. (1989): Contrastinggroup-l and group2
anl Petrology.PlenumPress,New York, N,Y. kimberlite petrology: towards a genetic model for
kimberlites./z Proc. Fourth Int. Kimberlic Conf. (Perth).
(1994a):The lamprophyrefacies.Mineral. petrol. Geol. Soc.Awt, Spec.Publ. 14,528-544.
51.137-t46.
& CI-nmlr, C.R. (1979): Mineralogical classi-
(L994b): Suggestions for revisions ro the fication of southernAfrican kimberlites./n Proc. Second
terminology of kimberlites and lamprophyres from a Int. Kimberlite Conf. 1. Kimberlites. Diatremes and
geneticviewpoint, .fn hoc. Fifth Int Kimberlite Conf. 1. Diamonds: their Geology, Petrology and Geochemisfy
Kimberlites and Related Rocks and Mantle Xenoliths @.R.Boyd & H.O.A.Meyer,eds.).Am. Geophys.Union,
(H.O.A.Meyer & O.H. konardos, eds.).Companhiade Washington,D.C. (129- 139).
Pesquisade RecursosMinerais (Brasilia), Spec. Publ.
ua. 15-26. SMrn{,C.8., Gunr:er,J.J.,Srnnwn,E.M,W.,Cmmn, C.R.
& EsRAHn4,N. (1985): Geochemical character of
- (1995):Kimberlites,Orangeitesand Related Rocks. southernAfrican kimberlites:a new approachbasedupon
Plenumhess, New York, N.Y. isotopic constraints. Trans. Geol, Soc. S. .lfrica EE,
267-280.
- & BERcuan,S.C. (1.991):Petrologyof lamproites.
PlenumPress,New York, N.Y. TArNroN, K.M. & Bnowrswc, P. (1991): The group-2
kimberlite - lamproiteconnection:someconstraintsfrom
& PurNrs, A. (1988): Polygonal serpentinein the Barkly-West District, northernCapeProvince,South
segregation-textured kimberlite, Can. Mineral. 26, Afica. In ExtendedAbstr.. Fifth Int. Kimbedite Conf.
991,-997. (Araxa). CPfuMSpec.PubL A9l, Bra*ilia (405407).
Roctg N.M.S. (1986): The nature and origin of ultramafic WAcNER,P.A. (1914): The Diamond Fields of Southem
lamprophyres,alniiites and allied rocks. J. Petrol. 27, \frica Tmrsvaal l-eader,Johannesburg,
SouthAfrica.
155-196.
(1928): The evidenceof kimberlite pipes on the
- (1991):Lamprophyres.
Blackie,Glasgow,U.K. constitutionofthe outerpartofthe Earth.S.\fr, J. Sci,25,
ln-r48.
Rosarnuscn, H. (1877): Mikroslapischz Physiographiedzr
Mineralien und Gesteine, Schweizerbart'scheVerlag- YoDm, H.S. (1986):Poassium-richrocks:phaseanalysisand
handlung,Stuttgart,Germany. heteromorphicrelations.J. Petrol. n, nl5-L228.