Classification of Igneous Rock Series

1931 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Peacock
Keyword(s):  
Igneous Rock ◽  
Rock Series

Igneous Rock-Series and Mixed Igneous Rocks

1900 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 389-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Harker
Keyword(s):  
Igneous Rock ◽  
Igneous Rocks ◽  
Rock Series

1986 Values for Fifteen GSJ Rock Reference Samples, “Igneous Rock Series”

1987 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi ANDO ◽  
Naoki MITA ◽  
Shigeru TERASHIMA
Keyword(s):  
Igneous Rock ◽  
Rock Series ◽  
Reference Samples

Of the American Quantitative Igneous Rock Classification: Part 5

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis Young
Keyword(s):  
Igneous Rock ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Igneous Rocks ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Chemical Analyses ◽  
Rock Classification ◽  
Natural Classification ◽  
Quantitative Classification ◽  
The Creation

The preference of the authors of the quantitative igneous rock classification for an artificial rather than a natural system, coupled with their invention of a new nomenclature to accompany the classification, indicates that some essential elements of scientific work are not empirically ascertained but are proposed and accepted (or rejected) by the relevant scientific community as a matter of free choice. The use of igneous rocks as exemplars in the education of novice geology students is discussed. It is claimed that the CIPW classification could not have been produced by a single individual geologist. The factors that allowed for the collective success in the creation of the quantitative classification are examined.Upon publication of their monumental quantitative chemico-mineralogical classification (CIPW 1902, 1903), C. W. Cross, J. P. Iddings, L. V. Pirsson, and H. S. Washington immediately received numerous letters of congratulation. Initial published reviews ranged from highly supportive to suspicious. To help buttress their classification, Washington (1903) published a compilation of igneous rock chemical analyses and Iddings (1903) published several diagrams to drive home the point that a natural classification of igneous rocks was not feasible. Led by Washington, Pirsson, and Cross, several geologists began using the CIPW classification in their petrological studies and some contributed new sub-rang names. In the meantime, Iddings worked on the first volume of a projected two-volume work on igneous rocks based on the quantitative CIPW scheme. Unsympathetic to artificial, overly precise classifications, Harker in particular rejected the CIPW system and its norm calculations and European geologists generally were unenthusiastic. Cross (1910b) offered a major rebuttal to the criticisms, particularly those of Harker, in which he challenged the likelihood of producing a valid natural classification of igneous rocks. Iddings (1913) published the second volume on igneous rocks in which he developed an elaborate correlation between the old qualitative system and the new quantitative CIPW scheme. Washington and Pirsson produced many more petrological studies of Mediterranean volcanic rocks, New Hampshire, and Hawaii that incorporated the quantitative system. Washington (1917) produced a vastly expanded compilation of chemical analyses arranged in accord with the CIPW system. Criticisms, however, continued to mount from Fermor, Daly, Shand, and others, while Tyrrell and Johannsen were lukewarm toward the new classification. The criticism that the CIPW system was of little value in fieldwork repeatedly surfaced. Dissatisfaction with the quantitative scheme led to the publication of many new classifications by geologists, such as Hatch, Winchell, Lincoln, Shand, Holmes, Johannsen, and Niggli. With the creation of satisfactory quantitative mineralogical classifications, the increasing ability to determine the proportions of minerals quantitatively, and the death of Iddings and Pirsson, enthusiasm for the CIPW system gradually began to wane. By the 1960s the classification had become a thing of the past. The value of the norm calculation, however, gained recognition and has survived to the present, assisted no doubt by the capability for doing the necessary calculations by computer.

Mugearites and Their Place in Alkali Igneous Rock Series

1961 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. D. Muir ◽  
C. E. Tilley
Keyword(s):  
Igneous Rock ◽  
Rock Series

Origin of the American Qantitative Igneous Rock Classification: Part 2

2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis Young
Keyword(s):  
Igneous Rock ◽  
Premature Death ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Rock Classification ◽  
Quantitative Classification ◽  
International Geological ◽  
International Geological Congress ◽  
Major Factors

After the tragic premature death of George Huntington Williams in 1894, the attempt by four young American petrographers to collaborate on construction of a quantitative classification of igneous rocks fell apart. The three survivors of the original quartet, C. Whitman Cross, Joseph P. Iddings, and Louis V. Pirsson, kept up their close friendship but produced their important petrological papers, including some contributions relating to classification, independently. In time, Henry Stephens Washington befriended the three.Discussions about igneous rock classification at the VII International Geological Congress (St Petersburg, 1897); establishment of the International Committee on Rock Nomenclature; efforts to develop an international classification; and renewed discussion at the VIII International Geological Congress (Paris, 1900) re-ignited Iddings' passion to develop a cooperative American scheme. Beginning with preliminary conferences at Iddings' instigation at annual meetings of the Geological Society of America in Washington, DC (1899), and Albany, NY (1900), Cross, Iddings, Pirsson, and Washington renewed the effort to produce a new classification to be based on chemico-mineralogical principles.In the first three months of 1901, Iddings and Washington offered proposals on the number and identity of major factors, namely chemically-based mineral groups, on which to base initial subdivision into major rock groups. They also generated ideas for diagrams on which to represent major rock groups in terms of the major factors, and they took tentative steps toward a new rock nomenclature. Remaining somewhat in the background, Cross and Pirsson cheered on their friends and offered an occasional response to the proposals.

The geochemistry of some igneous rock series

1953 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 105-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.R Nockolds ◽  
R Allen
Keyword(s):  
Igneous Rock ◽  
Rock Series
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document