Earth-Science Reviews - Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

ROCKS COMPOSED OF VOLCANIC F R A G M E N T S A N D THEIR CLASSI-

FICATION

RICHARD V. FISHER

University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif. (U.S.A.)

SUMMARY

WENTWORTH and WILLIAMS' (1932) and BLYTHE'S (1940) reviews of pyroclastic

nomenclature are excellent accounts of pre-1940 terminology. Changes or additions
to pyroclastic names since that time have come mainly from vigorous research on
processes of pyroclastic flow and their resulting depositional product, ignimbrite.
It has long been realized that pyroclastic fragments become mixed with other types
of fragments, but only recently has this been recognized in classifications. Russian
workers (BLOKHINAet al., 1959; VLODAVETSet al., 1962), PANT6 (1959), FISHER
(1961) and T(JROK 0962) have attempted to unify pyroclastic and epiclastic rock
terminology. Russian authors do this by classifying rock mixtures composed of
pyroclastic and non-volcanic ("sedimentary") mixtures. FISHER (1961) attempts to
unify the terminology by naming genetic terms for processes of fragmentation,
viz., pyroclastic, epiclastic and autoclastic, to which may be added alloclastic
(WRIGHTand BOWES, 1963) and hyaloclastic (RITTMANN, 1960), and by using the
standard clast-size limits of the Wentworth Scale for all of the genetic types.
Perhaps the most fundamental disagreements in volcaniclastic names arise
from disagreement or misconceptions about some common terms such as "sedi-
mentary", "volcanic", "epiclastic" and "pyroclastic". For example, the terms
pyroclastic and epiclastic refer to different processes of fragmentation, not to
different processes of deposition. Both types of particles may be deposited by
streams or wind in any physiographic environment, but this does not alter their
original mode of fragmentation. The terms sedimentary and volcanic are much
broader in meaning than epiclastic and pyroclastic. International agreement on
nomenclature of volcaniclastic sediments and rocks will very likely never come
about until agreement is reached on the meaning and use of these four terms.

INTRODUCTION

The present-day state of flux of classifications, and the continued additions to the
list of names for volcanic rocks, indicate much the same state of vigor and con-

Earth-Sei. Rev., 1 (1966) 287-298

288 R.V. VlSHER

fusion that prevailed when the literature of pyroclastic and related rocks was re-
viewed by WENTWORTH and WILLIAMS (1932). It also reflects the large amount of
research on pyroclastic flows (such as nu6es ardentes) and their resultant rocks
over the past two decades, and the attention that has been given in the past 5 years
to rocks with mixtures of pyroclastic and epiclastic volcanic fragments. The deci-
sive presentation of pyroclastic nomenclature by Wentworth and Williams, and
the later discussion by BLYTHE(1940) give a clear picture of pre-1940 terminology.
Recent additions to volcanic nomenclature are given in the GIossao, of
Geology and Related Sciecy (AMERICANGEOLOGICALINSTITUTE,1957) and in the dic-
tionary Geological Nomenclature (SCHIEFERDECKER, 1959). The latter contains def-
initions in English, French, German, and Dutch.

SOME GENERAL TERMS

Whether a worker accepts one classification or parts of it, or puts together his own,
depends almost entirely upon his opinions concerning certain definitions. Most
basic to this discussion are the general terms "volcanic", "pyroclastic", "epiclas-
tic" and "sedimentary".
Volcanic is defined in the following m a n n e r (AMERICAN GEOLOGICALINSTI-
TUTE, 1960a, p.315): " . . . of, pertaining to, like, or characteristic of, a volcano;
characterized by or composed of volcanoes, as a volcanic region, volcanic belt;
produced, influenced, or changed by a volcano or by volcanic agencies; made of
materials derived from volcanoes, as a volcanic cone". A fundamental difference of
opinion over the meaning and use of the word "volcanic" is shown by the recent
criticism by WRIGHT and BOWLS (1963) of the author's classification of volcanic
breccias (FISHER, 1960). WRIGHT and BOWLS(1963, p.80) maintain that "volcanic"
is an adjective referring only to the process of volcanism, whereas I hold that it is
an adjective which can apply as well to sediments derived from volcanic sources
as to those produced directly by volcanic explosion. This difference in opinion
appears to be a minor argument in semantics, but application of these different
meanings leads to large differences in classification. Wright and Bowes, for exam-
ple, must reject any combined epiclastic-pyroclastic classification and nomencla-
ture, even though in nature there is every gradation between pyroclastic and non-
pyroclastic sediments.
Pyroclastic was defined by WENTWORTH and WILLIAMS (1932) as " . . . an
adjective applied to rocks produced by explosive or aerial ejection of material from
a volcanic vent". A "pyroclastic" rock is, therefore, one that has been produced
directly by volcanism. The words "pyroclastic" and "volcanic" have different
meanings but sometimes are used synonymously. The dictionary of Geological
Nomenclature (ScHIEFERDECKER, 1959), for example, uses the term "volcanic" syn-
onymously with "pyroclastic", in the term "volcanic sand". "Sand", in this in-

Earth-Sci. Rev., l (1966) 287.-298

ROCKS COMPOSED OF VOLCANIC FRAGMENTS 289

stance refers to a fragment size range between 2 and 0.5 mm (between lapilli and
ash), and volcanic refers to a process of breaking. If, however, "volcanic" means
" o f volcanic composition" as well as "produced by a volcanic process", then a
volcanic sand may be composed of volcanic, although non-pyroclastic, fragments
eroded from lava flows.
Sedimentary is defined (AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 1960b, p.59) as:
" . . . 1. Solid material settled from suspension in a liquid. 2. Solid material, both
mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported or has been moved
from its site of origin by air, water or ice and has come to rest on the earth's surface
either above or below sea level." This definition does not imply any special compo-
sition of fragments or any special way in which the fragments are formed. "Sedimen-
tary" is often used synonymously with epiclastic, but epiclastic refers to "mechani-
cally deposited sediments (gravel, sand, mud) consisting of weathered products of
older rocks. Detrital material from pre-existent rocks." The substitution of "sedi-
mentary" for "epiclastic" is muddy usage, but causes little confusion when a clastic
deposit is composed of the weathered and eroded products of volcanic flows. Con-
fusion may arise, however, when unconsolidated pyroclastic debris (i.e., fragments
produced by a volcanic process) is transported by erosional agents (rivers, wind, ice),
or when pyroclastic debris is deposited directly from an eruption into a basin
where epiclastic particles (either volcanic or non-volcanic in composition) are accu-
mulating. The important point is that pyroclastic and epiclastic refer to different
processes of fragmentation, but not necessarily to different processes of deposition.
Both pyroclastic and epiclastic particles, for example, may be deposited by streams
or by the wind.
"Ash", "lapilli", "blocks", "bombs", "tuff" and "agglomerate" are pri-
marily size terms applied to fragments in unconsolidated deposits or in rocks of
pyroclastic origin. Thus, there is no reason to prefix "pyroclastic" or "volcanic"
to these terms, such as in "volcanic tuff" or "pyroclastic lapilli". The term "pyro-
clastic sandstone" is correct in the context presented here, but because it is synony-
mous with tuff (a rock composed of sand-size pyroclastic fragments), the term is
unnecessary. "Sedimentary tuff", although correct, is unnecessary because the
fragments of tuff, like all sediments, are deposited by "settling out" from water or
air. "Epiclastic tuff", however, is a contradiction in terms because tuff is composed
of pyroclastic fragments. They are not broken by weathering or erosion as the word
"epiclastic" implies.
Tephra, a recent addition to the nomenclature (THORARINSSON, 1954), is a
collective term for deposits of volcanic material thrown through the air from a
volcanic vent.
Volcanic clastic (BLOKmNA et al., 1959) and volcaniclastic (FISHER, 1961) are
used to encompass the entire field of clastic rocks composed in part of, or entirely
of volcanic fragments. "Volcaniclastic" is used to pinpoint and include the entire
spectrum of fragmental volcanic rocks formed by any mechanism or origin, era-

Earth-Sci. Rev., 1 (1966) 287-298

290 R.V. FISHER

placed in any physiographic environment (on land, under water or under ice), or
mixed with any other volcaniclastic type or with any non-volcanic fragment types
in any proportion.

PYROCLASTIC ROCKS

Pyroclastic.[tows

A great many terms and differing classifications have arisen from research on
pyroclastic flows and their deposits. Because of continuing research, matters of
terminology are not yet settled.
Smith (In: ARAMAKI and YAMASAKI, 1963, p.90) defines pyroclastic flow as
" . . . all fragmental flows or avalanches composed of pyroclastic material irre-
spective of temperature of emplacement", a definition implied in the discussion of
pyroclastic flows by Waters (GILLULY et al., 1951, p.447), and accepted herein.
This method of dispersal, whether on land or under the sea (cf. FISKE, 1963), may
be regarded as one of the three main mechanisms of extrusive volcanic dispersal
along with (1) lava flows and (2) aerial transportation.
Ross and Smith (SMITH, 1960 a, b; Ross and SMm~, 1961) review the pre-
vious literature, the development of concepts, point out unsolved problems, and
give the stratigraphic and petrographic characteristics of pyroclastic flows and
their deposits. In this series of papers, they use the term "ash flow" synonymously
with "pyroclastic flow".
Rock types that result from pyroclastic flows are extremely diverse, ranging
from loose unconsolidated ash to solid rock. This diversity is caused by initial
differences in temperature, composition and volume of pyroclastic flows. MAR-
SHALL(1935) introduced and defined the term "ignimbrite" (fire cloud rock) as the
rock deposited by a "nu6e ardente" (one type of pyroclastic flow) without regard
for degree or manner of solidification or for the size of the fragments. "Welded
tuff" (IDDINGS, 1909, p.331) has been used synonymously with "ignimbrite" by
many workers, although, as has been pointed out, a "welded tuff" may be neither
"welded" nor always "tuff". It is regarded here as only one type of ignimbrite.
WErE (1954) recognized three main ignimbrite rock types, namely, "lockerer
Gluttuff" (uncemented "glowing" tuff), "Kristallisationstuff" (indurated by crys-
tallization due to rise of hot gases during cooling of the pyroclastic flow; equivalent
to "sillar" as defined by FENNER, 1948), and "Schmelztuff" (indurated by welding
of glass shards; equivalent to "welded tuff"). PANT6 (1963) illustrates the great
number of terms that are applied to rocks produced by pyroclastic flows.
Examination of Table I shows a rather consistent grouping of nu6es ardentes
into two main types, namely, avalanches and directed explosions (low pressure
vertical or horizontal eruptions). WILLIAMS(1957) adds a third distinct group, the

Earth-Sci. Rev., 1 (1966)287 298

ROCKS COMPOSED OF VOLCANIC FRAGMENTS 291

TABLE 1

CLASSIFICATIONS OF PYROCLASTIC FLOWS

LACROIX (1930)
I nu6es ardentes p616ennes
(a) nu6es ardentes d'explosion dirig6e
(b) nu6es ardentes d'avalanche
11 nu6es ardentes d'explosion vulcanienne
III nu6es ardentes du massif du Katmai

ESCHER (1933)
1 (a) gloedwolken van het Pel6e type
(b) gloedwolken van het Merapi type
I1 gloedwolken van her St. Vincent type

NEUMANN VAN PADANG (1933)

I afstortingsgloedwolken (formed by avalanches)
II explosiegloedwolken (formed by explosions)

MACGREGOR (1952)
I avalanches of domal disintegration (Merapi)
II discharged domal avalanches (Pel6e)
Ill directed domal avalanches (Pel6e)
IV vertically initiated domal nu6es ardentes (Pel6e)
V vertically initiated crateral nu6es ardentes (St. Vincent)

WILLIAMS (1957)
l Pel6an type: explosions through flank of a dome or collapse of
dome
II Krakatoan type: vertical low pressure explosions through craters
11I fissure type: low-pressure upwelling of effervescing magma
through fissures

fissure type, to include the process which forms thin widespread sheets of ignim-
brite of the type described by MACKIN (1960) that cover vast tracts of land in the
Great Basin province in the United States.
Classifications of the processes and the resultant rock types have grown
simultaneously and separately. The term pyroclastic flow is preferred here as an
inclusive term for the various mechanisms of dispersal, and ignimbrite is preferred
as the name for all of the various rock types produced by the emplacement of a
pyroclastic flow. These terms do not imply specific fragment sizes or temperature
of emplacement, but yet are genetic in the sense that they apply to a particular set
of volcanic processes and products.

Volcaniclastic rocks formed by rapid quenching of hot lava

Rocks formed by steam explosions and rapid hydration of hot lava flowing into

Earth-Sci. Rev., I (1966) 287 298

292 R.V. FISHER

water and mud, or onto or beneath snow and ice have long been known. The pro-
cess is not entirely pyroclastic nor is it an entirely volcanic process, but is included
in this section for convenience. The literature of these rocks is partly reviewed by
SILVESTRI (1963). MCBmNEY (1963) discusses aspects of submarine extrusions,
showing that explosive disruption of basalt is not possible at depths greater than
500 m. Both of these papers, along with many others, were part of a 1961 sympo-
sium in Italy. CARLISLE(1963)gives an account of the origin of subaqueous shards in
the formation of "aquagene tuff". FISKE (1963) describes evidence that many of the
graded volcaniclastic rocks mapped by him in Mount Rainier National Park
(FlSKE et al., 1963) originated as submarine pyroclastic flows.
RITTMANN (1960, p.82; 1962, p.72-73) introduced the term "hyaloclastite"
for rocks fragmented by rapid quenching of hot lava, and the term "hyaloclastic"
for the process of producing a hyaloclastite. Thus, "hydrovolcanic breccias"
(FISHER, 1960, p. 977) would be more aptly called "hyaloclastic breccias".

Pyroclastic mixture names

Mixture terms for the various size grades of pyroclastic fragments is a necessary

Blocks and bombs

> 6 4 mm

Pynodostic
breccia

Tuff-breccia

/Loo stone LaPu k # Tuff

6 4 - 2 mm < 2 mm
Lapilli Ash

Fig. l. Mixture terms and e n d - m e m b e r terms used for pyroclastic flagments.

Earth-Sci. Rev., I (1966) 287-298

ROCKS COMPOSED OF VOLCANIC FRAGMENTS 293

part of the language. The most commonly used mixture names in pyroclastic
terminology are "tuff-breccia" and "lapilli-tuff".
Tuff-breccia, a firmly entrenched name, was originally defined by NORTON
(1917, p. 120) as " . . . made up of fragmental products of explosive eruptions. The
matrix consists of the finer materials of the eruption and in some instances has been
washed in by mudflows. Or the matrix may be formed by gangue and are stuffs
deposited in the interstices by heated waters. Tuff breccias often include fragments
of the country rock torn from the sides of the duct below the base of the volcanic
cone." The term was restricted by WENTWORTH and WILLIAMS (1932, p.46) to
volcanic breccias of pyroclastic origin with abundant tuff matrix. Most authors
have'followed the definition of Wentworth and Williams, although the term "tuff" as
used'in tuff-breccia, has in some instances been used synonymously with "pyro-
clastic". Lapilli-tuff is also a mixture term, but was defined by WENTWORTH and
WILLIAMS (1932, p.52) as the indurated aggregate of lapi!li. FISHER(1961) proposed
"lapillistone" as an end-member term. Mixture terms and end-member terms
are shown in Fig.l. Precise percentage boundaries for the mixtures are not given,
because they vary from perhaps as much as 40 % to as little as 15 ~ , depending
upon the prejudices of the individual.

GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF VOLCANICLASTIC ROCKS

Genetic categories

Many different types of genetic terms may be used in the classifications of vol-
caniclastic rocks. Preferred terms in my classification (FISHER, 1960, 1961) refer
to processes o~ fragmentation, namely, pyroclastic, epiclastic and autoclastic.
WRIGHT and BOWES(1963) add alloclastic, and, because of recent attention given to
hyaloclastites (cf. SILVESTRI, 1963), it may be advisable to add hyaloclastic to this
list because it is a unique process of fragmentation. Such mercurial shifting or
adding of genetic terms is a necessary adjunct of continued research and the con-
sequent clarification of origins.

Grade size categories

One of the earliest classifications of pyroclastic and non-pyroclastic rock mixtures,

and the first application of precise size terms to pyroclastics was by BAILEY(1926,
p.109, Table II). The terminology and definitions of pyroclastic and epiclastic mix-
tures were given by WENTWORTH and WILLIAMS (1932), but this class of rocks
received scant attention in separate classifications until recently (BLOKHINAet al.,
1959; PANT6, 1959; FISHER, 1961 ; TOROK, 1962; VLODAVETSet al., 1962). The classi-
fication by a Soviet committee (VLODAVETSet al., 1963) shows that agreement has

Earth-Sci. Rev., 1 (1966) 287-298

294 R.V. FISHER

TABLE II

SEDIMENTARY AND PYROCLASTIC TERMINALOGY

(Modified after BAILEY,1926)

Component fragments Pyroclastic rocks 1 Epiclastic volcanic rocks 2

diameter percentage

> l mm > 50~ Volcanic breccia Volcanic conglomerate

1/16-1 mm > 50~ Sand-tuff Tuffaceous sandstone
< 1/16 mm > 50~ Dust or mud-tuff Tuffaceous shale

1 Show no effect of erosion.

2 Volcanic material transported by running water.

not yet been reached in the Soviet Union. The bibliography of this translated Soviet
paper demonstrates the continuing and active interest in the subject by Russian
workers.
Even though different grade scales have been used for fragment sizes (U.S.
Bureau of Soils, Atterberg Scale, Wentworth Scale, and many others), different
designations in grade sizes by different authors for pyroclastic fragments are not
greatly different (Fig. 2). The lowest size limit dividing lapilli from blocks and bombs
is set at 25 m m (TOROK, 1962), although the tendency has been to raise this limit
from the 32 m m set by WEYTWORTH and WILLIAMS (1932). PANT6 (1959) uses 50
m m as does the dictionary of Geological Nomenclature (ScmEFERDECKER, 1959, p.
256). FISHER (1961) uses 64 m m to correspond to the limit between pebbles and
boulders.
The lower size limit of lapilli was placed at 4 m m by WENTWORTH and
WILLIAMS (1932), but recent attempts to combine pyroclastic and epiclastic classi-
fications have resulted in lower limits, such as 1 m m (PANT6, 1959), 2 m m (SO,E-
FERDECKER, 1959; FISHER, 1961), and 2.5 m m (TOR6K, 1962). Russian workers
(VLODAVETS et al., 1962) have set 10 m m as the lower limit to lapilli but have insert-
ed a size term "volcanic gravel" between lapilli and ash with its lower limit set at
2 ram. In this usage, however, "volcanic" is synonymous with "pyroclastic".
Comparison of WENTWORTH and WILLIAMS(1932) grade size limits for pyro-
clastic fragments to those set by various authors shows that attempts to unify py-
roclastic and non-pyroclastic terminology has led to the alteration of pyroclastic
fragment size limits to conform with some standard scheme of epiclastic grade-size
terminology.

Discussion o f classifications

Russian workers have long been involved in pyroclastic-epiclastic rock terminology.

Earth-Sci. Rev., 1 (1966) 287 298

ROCKS COMPOSED OF VOLCANIC FRAGMENTS 295

GRADE SIZE LIMITS USED IN GRADE SIZE LIMITS USED BY AUTHORS RELATING DICTIONARY
PYROCLASTIC CLASSIFICATION~ PYROCLAST1CANDEPICLASTIC SEDIMENTS AND ROCKS DEFINITIONS
WENTWORTH~d SCHIEFERDECK-
WILLIAMS,1932 BLYTHE,1940 PANTO,1959 FISHER)1961 VLODAVET$ etal, TOROK,1962
1962 ER) 1959

Blocks Blocks
Blocks
and Blocks end
Blocks Blocks and Blocks
bombs and
and and bombs and bombs
64 - bombs bombs bombs bombs
5O

~g
25
Lapilli
Lapilli Lapilli Lo filli Lapilli
10
Lopilli
Lopilli
Volcanic
gravel

2.5
2

L
Volcanic
I-
IJ sand
o
o Sand
0.5
<
m L

~.25 a
0 o
<
Ash
Dust
0.1
< <
0.0625- ~:
0.05 -
Ash
Dust oP and
•- Dust Dust
- - Dust - ash

Fig. 2. Grade size limits and terms for unconsolidated pyroclastic debris.

SHATALOV (1937) classified rock types produced by mixtures of pyroclastic and

"sedimentary" (i.e., epiclastic) material. The procedure of classifying rock mixtures
is followed by BLOKHINAet al. (1959). This classification includes (1) pyroclastic
rocks (100% pyroclastic fragments), (2) tuffites (~> 50% pyroclastic, < 50% "sed-
imentary" [epiclastic] material), (3) tuffogenic rocks (:> 50% "sedimentary"
[epiclastic] material, < 50% pyroclastic material). This practice of classifying
mixtures is essentially followed by the 1962 Soviet proposal on pyroclastic classi-
fication (VLODAVETSet al., 1963).
Rather than classify mixtures, the author's first consideration (FISHER, 1961)
is to the process of breaking, and secondly to the size of the fragments. Genetic

Earth-Sol. Rev., 1 (1966) 287-298

296 R.V. FISHER

categories are autoclastic, pyroclastic, and epiclastic (to which hyaloclastic should
be added), thereby placing the emphasis on the manner of fragmentation. It is
important to distinguish between fragments that are produced instantly such as the
pyroclasts, and those that are produced over a longer period of time by the
weathering of volcanic rocks, because these processes include fundamental energy
differences. Pyroclastic fragments :may be dispersed and deposited by streams, but
such dispersal does not alter the fact that the fragments are pyroclastic in origin.
Thus, there may be "primary" (unreworked) as well as "secondary" (reworked)
pyroclastic deposits.
Epiclastic fragments that originate by weathering and erosion of volcanic
rocks may, like the pyroclastic fragments, be later transported and form epiclastic
deposits. Lithification of these deposits results in epiclastic volcanic rocks, and
include epiclastic volcanic sandstone (a rock composed of sand size fragments
eroded from volcanic rocks), or epiclastic volcanic siltstone. If desirable, admix-
tures of pyroclastic fragments in these epiclastic volcanic rocks may be indicated
by using the word "tuffaceous" as a prefix. Such admixtures include tuflites and
tuffogenic rocks of BLOKHINA et an. (1959) depending upon the percentages of the
respective pyroclastic and epiclastic fragments.

CONCLUSIONS

Developments in pyroclastic classification and nomenclature since the WENTWORTH

and WILLIAMS' review (1932) are involved mainly with processes of pyroclastic
flows and the ignimbrites formed from the flows. Recent proposals to include all
clastic rocks containing a significant percentage of volcanically derived fragments
and/or minerals into a single classification is a second area where matters of
nomenclature remain unsettled. Continued work on rocks with pyroclastic and
epiclastic mixtures has forced critical examination and clarification of the language
used to describe mixtures of pyroclastic debris with non-volcanic material, and
also has caused a sharpening of the usage of pyroclastic terms.
It should be said again that "volcanic" is not a synonym for "pyroclastic"
and that "sedimentary" is not a synonym for "epiclastic". It is clear that inter-
national agreement on the classification and use of terms for volcaniclastic sedi-
ments and rocks will never be even closely approximated until agreement is reached
on the meaning of these four terms.

REFERENCES

AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 1957. Glossary of Geology and Related Science, 1st ed.
Washington, D.C., 325 pp.

Earth-Sci. Rev., 1 (1966) 287-298

ROCKS COMPOSED OF VOLCANIC FRAGMENTS 297

AMERICAN GEOLOGICALINSTITUTE, 1960a. Glossary of Geology and Related Science, 2nd ed. Wash-
ington, D.C., 352 pp.
AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 1960b. Glossary of Geology and Related Science, Suppl., 1st
ed. Washington, D.C., 72 pp.
ARAMAKI, S. and YAMASAKI, S., 1963. Pyroclastic flows in Japan. Bull. Volcanol., 26: 89-99.
BAILEY, T. L., 1926. The Gueydon, a new Middle Tertiary formation from the southwestern
coastal plain of Texas. Univ. Texas Bull., 2645:187 pp.
BLOKHINA, L. 1., KOPTEV-DVORNIKOV, V.S., LOMIZE, M . G . , PETROVA, M. A., TIKHOMIROVA,
E. I., FROLOVA, I. I. and YAKOVLEVA, E. B., 1959. Principles of classification and nomen-
clature of the ancient volcanic clastic rocks. Intern. Geol. Rev., 1(12): 56-61.
BLYTHE, F. H., 1940. The nomenclature of pyroclastic deposits. Bull. Volcanol., 6: 145-156.
CARLISLE, D., 1963. Pillow breccias and their aquagene tufts, Quadra Island, B. C. J. Geol., 71:
48-71.
ESCHER, B. G., 1933. On a classification of central eruptions according to gas pressure of the mag-
ma and viscosity of the lava. Leidsche Geol. Mededel., 6: 4 5 4 9 .
FENNER, C, N., 1948. Incandescent tuff-flows in southern Peru. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 59: 879-
893.
FISHER, R. V., 1960. Classification of volcanic breccias. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 71:973 982.
FISHER, R.V., 1961. Proposed classification of volcaniclastic sediments and rocks. Bull. Geol.
Soc. Am., 72: 1409-1414.
FISKE, R. S., 1963. Subaqueous pyroclastic flows in the Ohanapecosh Formation, Washington.
Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 74: 391406.
FISKE, R. S., I~OPSON,C. A. and WATERS,A, C., 1963. Geology of Mount Rainier National Park,
Washington. U.S., Geol. Surv., Prof. Papers, 444:93 pp.
GILLULY, J., WATERS, A. C. and WOODFORD, A. O., 1951. Principles of Geology. Freeman, San
Francisco, Calif., 631 pp.
IDDINGS, J. P., 1909. Igneous Rocks. Wiley, New York, N.Y., 464 pp.
LACRoIX, A., 1930. Remarques sur les matdriaux de projection des volcans et sur la gen+se des
roches pyroclastiques qu'ils constituent. Livre Jubilaire Centenaire Soc. Gdol. France, 2:
431472.
MACGREGOR, A. G., 1952. Eruptive mechanisms: Mt. Pel6e, the soufri6re of St. Vincent, and the
Valley of the Ten Thousand Smokes. Bull. Volcanol., 12: 49-74.
MACKIN, J, H., 1960. Structural significance of Tertiary volcanic rocks in southwestern Utah.
Am. J. Sci., 258: 81-131.
MARSaALL, P., 1935. Acid rocks of Taupo Rotorua volcanic district. Trans. Roy. Soc. New Zea-
land, 64: 323-366.
McBIRNEY, A. R., 1963. Factors governing the nature of submarine volcanism. Bull. Volcanol.,
26: 455469.
NEUMANN VAN PADANG, M., 1933. De uitbarsting van de Merapi (Midden Java) in dejaren 1930-
1931. Vulkanol. Seismol. MededeL, 12:135 pp.
NORTON, W. H., 1917. Studies for students. A classification of breccias. J. Geol., 25: 160-194.
PANTd, G., 1959. Vorschlage zur Schaffung einer einheitlichen Terminologie ffir vulkanische Ge-
steine. Z. Angew. Geol., 5: 373-376.
PANTd, G., 1963. Ignimbrites of Hungary with regard to their genetics and classification. Bull.
Volcano/., 25: 174-181.
RITTMANN, A., 1960. Vulkane und ihre Tiitigkeit, 2. Aufl. Enke, Stuttgart, 335 pp.
RITTMANN, A., 1962. Volcanoes and their Activity. Wiley, New York, N.Y., 305 pp.
Ross, C. S. and SMITH, R. L., 1961, Ash-flow tufts; their origin, geologic relations and identifi-
cation. U.S., Geol. Surv., Prof. Papers, 366: 1-77.
SCHIEFERDECKER, A. A. G. (Editor), 1959. Geological Nomenclature. Noorduijn, Gorinchem,
523 pp.
SHATALOV, YE. T., 1937. On a rational nomenclature for some sedimentary and pyroclastic rocks.
Materialy po Izuch. Okhotsko-Kalymskogo Kraya, Ser. H.
SILVESTRI, S. C., 1963. Proposal for a genetic classification of hyaloclastics. Bull. Volcanol., 25:
316-321.
SMITH, R. L., 1960a. Ash flows. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 71: 795-842.

Earth-Sci. Rev., 1 (1966) 287-298

298 R.V. FISHER

SMtXH, R. L., 1960b. Zones and zonal variations in welded ash flows. U.S., Geol. Surv., Prof.
Papers, 354-F: 149-159.
THORARINSSON,S., 1954. The tephra-fall from Hekla on March 29, 1947. The Eruption of Hekla,
1947-1948. Museum Nat. Hist. Soc. Sci. Islandica, Reykjavik, 68 pp.
T(~ROK, Z., 1962. Vorschlag for eine Verbesserung der Klassifizierung und der Forschungsmetho-
dik der Pyroklastite. Acta Geol. Acad. Sci. Hung., 7: 351-357.
VLODAVETS,V. I., MALEYEV.YE. F., PETROV,V. P., GAPEYEV,G. M., KHABAKOV,A.V., FROLOVA,
T. I., MILLER, YE. YE., DZOTSENIDZE,G. S., SHIRINYAN,K. G. i KVASHA, L.G., 1962.
Klassifikatsiya vulkanogennykh oblomochnykh gornykh porod. Gosgeoltekhizdat, Moscow.
VLODAVETS,V.I., MALEYEV,YE. F., PETROV,V. P., GAPEYEV,G. M., KHABAKOV,A. V., FROLOVA,
T. I., MILLER, YE. YE., DZOTSENIDZE,G. S., SHIRINYAN,K. G. and KVASHA,L. G., 1963.
Draft of the proposal submitted to the commission of the classification of pyroclastic rocks
elected at the First All-Union Volcanology Conference. Intern. Geol. Rev., 5 (5): 516-524.
WENTWORTH,C. K. and WILLIAMS,l-L, 1932. The classification and terminology of the pyroclas-
tic rocks. Natl. Acad. Sci. - Natl. Res. Council, 89: 19-53.
WEYL, R., 1954. Die Schmelztuffe der Balsamkette (Beitr~,ge zur Geologie E1 Salvadors). Neues
Jahrb. Geol. PalaeontoL, Abhandl., 99: 1-32.
WILLIAMS, H., 1957. Glowing avalanche deposits of the Sudbury Basin. Rept. Ontario Dept.
Mines, 65: 57-89.
WRIGHT, A. E. and BOWLS, D. R., 1963. Classification of volcanic breccias. A discussion. Bull.
Geol. Soc. Am., 74: 79-86.

(Received April 4, 1964; revised November 5, 1965)

Earth-Sci. Rev., 1 (1966) 287-298