Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STUDENT MATERIALS
Remind students to bring items you check below.
_____ laboratory manual with worksheets linked to the assigned activities
_____ laboratory notebook
_____ pencil with eraser
_____ calculator or smartphone with calculator app
_____ igneous rock samples with identifying numbers/letters (or provided by instructor)
_____ chart for visual estimation of percent (GeoTools sheet 1 or 2, or use Fig. A5.5.1)
_____ hand-held magnifying lens (optional)
_____ metric ruler (also available on GeoTools sheet 1 or 2)
_____ mineral analysis tools (see below, or provided by instructor)
INSTRUCTOR MATERIALS
(Check off items you will need to provide.)
Note: The same set of numbered igneous rock samples can be used for Activities 5.1,
5.2, 5.3, and 5.7. It should include samples with the textures referenced in
INSTRUCTOR NOTES
1. Rock samples in the set of rock samples (same set for Activities 5.2, 5.3, and 5.7)
must be marked with an identifying number.
2. Maintaining a safe environment in your laboratory space where students are learning
is your responsibility. If you do the experiment in Activity 5.2, thoroughly review the
relevant Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for thymol before you consider using it
during your lab. MSDS data are available from several sources on the web. You
might need to have the use of thymol in your laboratory approved by your
institutional chemical-safety officer. If you have students melt thymol to observe its
cooling and crystallization, you must melt and cool the thymol under a fume hood. Be
sure that students do not directly touch the thymol.
3. If you do the experiment with the sugar solution in Activity 5.3, do the full
experiment prior to lab so that you will know exactly how to do it and can advise
students based on your direct knowledge. Take care not to overflow the aluminum
sheet when the molten sugar is poured out. Make sure the aluminum sheet is not on a
table surface that might be damaged by the heat.
4. Some nodes in Activity 5.6 are all or mostly one color, some are about half one color
and half another, some are about a third of each of three colors, and one or two seem
to be half one color and a quarter of each of two other colors. The lack of an obvious,
unambiguous answer in assessing the composition of some node points might be
frustrating. Encourage students to be decisive and record their best estimate, using
halves, thirds, or quarters as necessary. The total of the “number of nodes filled with
the mineral” for all 4 minerals in each grid (C, D, E, F) should be 25.
5.1B Reflect & Discuss Answers will vary. The easiest grouping schemes will be
based on texture because composition is indeterminate/unknown based on visual
evidence for specimens 2, 3, and 6. Color is the basis of another likely grouping
scheme.
5.2C Reflect & Discuss The large white crystals formed in the magma slowly while
it was still below the surface. The aphanitic groundmass crystallized rapidly as the
magma (containing the early-formed crystals and liquid melt) erupted onto
Earth’s surface and cooled.
5.3B Viscosity increased as the molten sugar cooled on the aluminum foil.
5.3D The gas bubbles could not escape from the molten sugar because the molten sugar
was too viscous to allow the gas bubbles to escape.
5.3E Reflect & Discuss First, the molten sugar was so viscous that sugar molecules
could not move about freely and assemble into crystals. Second, the molten sugar
cooled so quickly that there was too little time for visible crystals to form.
5.3F Answers will depend on your numbered set of rock samples, but a specimen of
obsidian is a likely choice.
5.3G Answers will depend on your numbered set of rock samples, but a specimen of
vesicular basalt is a likely choice.
5.4B Reflect & Discuss Mafic minerals in Fig. A5.4.1 include olivine (1), biotite (4),
augite (5), and hornblende (6), which are dark-toned minerals. Felsic minerals
include muscovite (2), quartz (3), plagioclase feldspar (6), and alkalai feldspar
(7), which are light-toned minerals.
5.5E A reasonable estimate is ~90–100% mafic minerals. With its abundant olivine,
this is an ultramafic rock.
The results of the point count of grid C fall within one standard deviation of the
average of grids D, E, and F for each of the major minerals. Hence, there seems to
be no statistical difference between the results using grid C and the other grids.
The phaneritic igneous rock in photograph A is granite, based on Figure 5.16.
5.8B Based on the evidence provided in this map, most students will interpret features
like B as ring dikes. (They are actually sills that have been folded and weathered
to create the ring-like map pattern.)
5.8C Reflect & Discuss The information provided would support the inference that
this area included volcanoes about 200 Myr ago. Basalt, radial dikes, and ring
dikes are all associated with volcanoes (see Fig. 5.19A). There might have also
been geysers or hot springs in this area.
The red-colored areas in Figure A5.8.1 are described as “basalt,” and they
correspond to a generally aphanitic igneous rock. In some, if not all instances,
they might better be described as “diabase,” which is a fine-grained intrusive
igneous rock with the same general composition as basalt and gabbro. Diabase is
not a rock type that is described in the text, however.
REFERENCES
Barbarin, B., 2005, Mafic magmatic enclaves and mafic rocks associated with some granitoids of the
central Sierra Nevada batholith, California––nature, origin, and relations with the hosts: Lithos, v. 80,
pp. 155–177.
Best, M.G., 2003, Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology [2nd edition]: Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing,
729 pages.
Bowen, N.L., 1928, The Evolution of the Igneous Rocks: Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University
Press, 334 pages.
Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., and Zussman, J., 2013, An Introduction to the Rock-Forming Minerals
[3rd edition]: London, The Mineralogical Society, 498 pages.
Ernst, W.G., 1976, Petrologic Phase Equilibria: San Francisco, California, W.H. Freeman and Company,
333 pages.
Folk, R.L., 1951, A comparison chart for visual percentage estimation: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 21, no. 1, pp. 32–33.
Gillespie, M.R., and Styles, M.T., 1999, BGS Rock Classification Scheme, Volume 1, Classification of
Igneous Rocks: British Geological Survey Research Report Number RR 99-06, accessed 29 November
2016 via http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/3223/1/RR99006.pdf, 54 pages.
Hibbard, M.J., 2002, Mineralogy, A Geologist’s Point of View: New York, McGraw-Hill Higher
Education, 562 pages.
Klein, C., and Hurlbut, C.S., Jr., 1999, Manual of Mineralogy (after James D. Dana) [21st edition, revised]:
New York, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 681 pages.
Le Bas, M.J., and Streckeisen, A.L., 1991, The IUGS systematics of igneous rocks: Journal of the
Geological Society, London, v. 148, pp. 825–833.
Le Maitre, R.W., editor, 2002, Igneous Rocks––A Classification and Glossary of Terms [2nd edition]:
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 236 pages. Recommendations of the International Union
of Geological Sciences (IUGS) Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks.
Neuendorf, K.K.E., Mehl, J.P., Jr., and Jackson, J.A., 2011, Glossary of Geology [5 th edition, revised]:
Alexandria, Virginia, American Geosciences Institute, 800 pages.
Reid, J.C., 1985, Comparison chart for estimating volume percentages of constituents in rocks and
concentrates in the range of 1.0 to 0.1 volume percent: American Mineralogist, v. 70, pp. 1318–1319.
Sylvester, P.J., Kamenetsky, V.S., and McDonough, W.F., 2000, Melt inclusion evidence for Komatiite
genesis in the Gorgona plume: Journal of Conference Abstracts, v. 5, no. 2, p. 975.
Terry, R.D., and Chilingar, G.V., 1955, Summary of “Concerning some additional aids in studying
sedimentary formations” by M.S. Shvetsov: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 25, no. 3,
pp. 229–234.