No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
The present nomenclature of igneous rocks is generally acknowledged to be unsatisfactory, for not only is it without useful meaning, but it is also so unsystematic that it forms a severe tax upon the memory. The manifest and urgent need of reform, which these circumstances create, must be my excuse for presenting in a short note a suggestion likely to require much elaboration. A systematic nomenclature, I need hardly say, can only rest upon a systematic classification, so that the proposals I shall herewith make would have been fitly accompanied by an attempt at producing a classification of the kind. As I have found, however, that much expenditure of time and labour will be necessary to accomplish this task, I have decided upon publishing at once certain proposals with regard to nomenclature, which could be largely applied to classifications at present in use.
page 304 note 1 I use the term family throughout in the sense in which it is used by Rosenbusch in his “Elemente der Gesteinslehre,” that is to say, for groups like the granites, diorites, etc.
page 305 note 1 See Rosiwal, A.: Verhandlungen der k. k. geol. Reichs-Anstalt, 1898, p. 143.Google Scholar
page 306 note 1 The word schliere is here used in the sense defined by Rosenbusch (“Elemente der Gesteinslehre,” 1898, p. 41)Google Scholar, Reyer, (“Theoretische Geologie,” p. 81)Google Scholar, and Zirkel, (“Petrographie,” 1893, i, p. 787)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It has been introduced into the English language by Holland, (“The Charnockite Series”: Mem. Geol. Surv. India, vol. xxviii, p. 217).Google Scholar
page 310 note 1 The name was given by Rosenbusch in 1877. He himself anticipates the objection which I am about to raise (see Mik. Phys., 1877, ii, p. 204), and proposes that, if it be insisted on, the name foyaite should be adopted instead.Google Scholar
page 313 note 1 The a of natro- and of kali- is pronounced long as in ‘state.’ The i of kali- is short as in ‘pit,’ but it is dropped in the name kalijolite, in which the first i should be pronounced long as in ‘write.’
page 314 note 1 See footnote on preceding page.
page 314 note 2 See “Elemente der Gesteinslehre,“ 1898, and Mikr. Phys., 1896, vol. ii.Google Scholar