Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hawthorne, F. C. Articles by Oberti, R. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Classification of the Amphiboles

Department of Geological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada, clhawth@ms.umanitoba.ca

Roberta Oberti

Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche I-27100 Pavia, Italy, oberti@crystal.unipv.it

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

	INTRODUCTION

 
Classification is always a highly contentious issue, particular when dealing with a group of minerals as structurally and chemically complicated as the amphiboles, and when trying to satisfy the needs and different scientific philosophies of crystallographers, mineralogists, petrologists and geochemists. As a result, the classification of the amphiboles has long been a work in progress. Leake (1968) provided a classification for calcic amphiboles, and this was expanded into the IMA (International Mineralogical Association) classification of Leake (1978). An IMA Subcommittee on Amphibole Classification was formed, and eleven years and approximately 1200 pages of memos later, Leake et al. (1997) reported on the current classification, as modified by Leake et al. (2003) to incorporate new discoveries in amphibole compositions in the intervening years. Here, we will (1) describe the current IMA-approved classification scheme, (2) discuss some shortcomings of the current scheme, and (3) discuss some of the features that may be considered as desirable in any new scheme of amphibole classification that may emerge in the future. We make no apology for dealing with these issues here; if the community who deals with amphiboles is to get the classification that it wants, that community has to be prepared to involve itself in the process of developing such a classification.

	THE CURRENT CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES

 
The first thing to note is that the above title refers to classification schemes. There are two distinct classification schemes:

1. Hand-specimen and thin-section classification;
   
2. Classification by chemical formula.
   

Virtually all attention has focused on classification (2) and classification (1) seems to have escaped the attention of most critics of amphibole classification. Here, we will describe both schemes which are given by Leake et al. (1997, 2003).

	HAND-SPECIMEN (FIELD) CLASSIFICATION OF AMPHIBOLES

 
To quote from Leake et al. (1997), "for amphiboles of which the general nature only is known, for instance from optical . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Oberti, G. D. Ventura, and F. Camara New Amphibole Compositions: Natural and Synthetic Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, October 1, 2007; 67(1): 89 - 124. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Gunter, E. Belluso, and A. Mottana Amphiboles: Environmental and Health Concerns Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, October 1, 2007; 67(1): 453 - 516. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Cipriani Amphiboles: Historical Perspective Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, October 1, 2007; 67(1): 517 - 546. [Full Text] [PDF]