Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:21:46.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heyite and brackebuschite compared

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

R. F. Symes  and
S. A. Williams
R. F. Symes
Affiliation:
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7
S. A. Williams
Affiliation:
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Heyite (see preceding paper) is so strikingly similar to brackebuschite that a close comparison of the two species seemed advisable. Topotype brackebuschite (B.M. 55819) was used for this purpose.

Brackebuschite is a vanadate of lead, manganese, and iron, heyite a vanadate of lead and iron. Both species are monoclinic with diffraction symmetry P21 or P21/m. The X-ray cells are remarkably close: a = 8·810, 8·910; b = 6·155, 6·017; c = 7·651, 7·734; β = 111° 30′, 111° 53′ (brackebuschite first). As might be expected, powder patterns are strikingly close as well.

Other than the similarities noted above, the minerals differ so fundamentally that they cannot be the same—they are valid and distinct species. Optic orientations show α: [001] 20° (in acute β) for brackebuschite, 36° (in obtuse β) for heyite. Indices are (brackebuschite first): α 2·28, 2·185; β 2·38, 2·219; γ 2·49, 2·266 for the sodium D line.

Chemical differences are irreconcilable and reaffirm brackebuschite as Pb2(Mn,Fe,Zn)(VO4)2.H2O while heyite is Pb5Fe2(VO4)2O4.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 39 , Issue 301 , March 1973 , pp. 69 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, (W. H.) and Qurashi, (M. M.), 1952. Amer. Min., 37, 407–22.Google Scholar
Berry, (L. G.) and Graham, (A. R.), 1948. Ibid. 33, 489-95.Google Scholar
Doering, (A.), 1883. Bol Acad. Nac. Cienc., Cordoba, 5, 501-5Google Scholar
Fanfani, (L.) and Zanazzi, (P. F.), 1967. Min. Mag., 36, 522–9.Google Scholar
Larsen, (E.S.) and Berman, (H.), 1934. The microscopic determination of non-opaque minerals. US. Geol. Surv. Bull., 848.Google Scholar
Mason, (P. K.), Frost, (M. T.), and Reed (S. J. B.), 1969. B.M.-I.C.-N.P.L. computer program for calculating corrections in quantitative X-ray microanalysis. N.P.L, Report, 1.Google Scholar
Rammelsberg, (K. F.), 1880. Zeits. deutsch. GeoL GeselL, 32, 708–13.Google Scholar
Sweatman, (T. R.) and Long (J. V. P.), 1969. Journ. Petrology, 10, 332–76.Google Scholar