Abstract
In Professor Shand's reply to my criticism of his original paper on the application of the principle of saturation with respect to silica in the classification of igneous rocks, some points arise which make it clear that he has misunderstood me in several particulars. In the beginning of my paper, it was explicitly stated that what was to be considered was (1) whether the principle, as enunciated by Professor Shand, could be extended to minerals other than the silica ones (quartz, tridymite, etc.), the felspars and the felspathoids, and (2) whether the criterion whereby the rock minerals were divided into the two groups of saturated and unsaturated was sufficiently exact. The criterion used was that of “the observed facts of distribution”, and any mineral which was found coexisting with quartz or some other form of silica in igneous rocks was said to be saturated, while those which did not occur along with quartz were said to be unsaturated. Correspondingly, rocks which consisted entirely of minerals of the former type were classed as saturated, those consisting of mixtures of the two types as part-saturated, and those consisting solely of the second type as unsaturated. I endeavoured to show that the rock-forming minerals cannot be satisfactorily divided into two classes in this empirical fashion, without any consideration of the cooling-histories of the individual rocks in which the minerals may be found.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.