Ma Ficult Rama Fic Class 2

Mafic & Ultramafic Classification
PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE

CLASSIFICATION OF PLUTONIC MAFIC AND
ULTRAMAFIC ROCKS
Ray Brown
Report ID: MaficUltramaficClass
Contact: Ray Brown
Date: 4 January 2008
The information contained in this document was the best available to RTB at the time of writing.
RTB accepts no responsibility or liability for how any of the contents of this document may be
understood, used, or further interpreted by the client, nor any consequence thereof.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND TERMINOLOGY
2.1 CLASSIFICATION ON MODAL MINERALOGY
2.2 CLASSIFICATION ON CUMULUS STATUS
2.3 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION

2.3.1 Proposal
2.4 ROCK NOMENCLATURE
2.5 SUMMARY
3. A REVISED COMBINED MODAL AND CUMULUS ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 TESTING OF THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION TRIANGLES

3.2.1 The Clinopyroxene – Orthopyroxene – Plagioclase Assemblage
3.2.2 The Olivine – Plagioclase – Orthopyroxene Assemblage
3.2.3 The Olivine – Clinopyroxene – Plagioclase Assemblage
3.2.4 The Chromite – Orthopyroxene – Plagioclase Assemblage
3.2.5 The Magnetite – Olivine – Plagioclase Assemblage
3.3 BUSHVELD ROCK PHOTOGRAPHS
3.4 MAJOR ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION
3.5 SUMMARY
4. REFERENCES & FURTHER READING
Cover Photograph: Medium crystalline plagioclase orthopyroxenite from the upper Critical Zone, Bushveld
Complex.
2
1. INTRODUCTION
It is both essential and appropriate to discuss the classification and nomenclature of plutonic
mafic and ultramafic rocks in the light of some of the inaccurate classifications and terminology
that all too commonly emerge from both individual geologists and the literature. Also a focus of
attention of this contribution is the inadequacy of the current IUGS modal classification system,
and a proposed amended system of classification. Only if these rocks are definitively,
realistically and properly classified can indisputably correct identifications be made, their inter-
relationships understood, and their geochemistry more meaningful and diagnostic.
Plutonic igneous rocks must be classified on a number of criteria, which constitute modal
mineralogy, cumulus status, texture, alteration status, and accessory minerals. The emphasis of
this contribution is placed on the mafic and ultramafic rocks of the Bushveld Complex (also
common to the Great Dyke of Zimbabwe), and largely considers the most important components
of classification, ie the descriptive attributes of modal mineralogy, cumulus status, and texture, all
of which can be seen either with the naked eye, or with a hand lens. Modal mineralogy alone is
an inadequate means of classification.
2. PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION & TERMINOLOGY
2.1 CLASSIFICATION ON MODAL MINERALOGY
Rocks are composed of constituent minerals of two categories, essential minerals and accessory
minerals.
a) Essential minerals are those minerals that are essential to the compositional makeup and
therefore fundamental classification and naming of a rock. A norite, for example, must consist of
the three essential minerals orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene (or olivine), and plagioclase, within the
respective specified modal ranges. If any one of these minerals are either absent, or its
abundance outside the specified modal range, the rock can no longer be classified as such.
b) Accessory minerals are those minerals that are not essential to the compositional makeup of
the rock, and whether they occur or not has no influence on the fundamental classification of the
rock. For example, norite could contain pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite in minor amounts. These
minerals classify as accessory minerals, as their presence or absence does not change the norite
status of the rock. Where such minerals do occur to some influential level the rock name is
appropriately modified with a mineral qualifier to ‘sulphide-bearing norite’, or ‘sulphide norite’.
Similarly, plagioclase orthopyroxenite, composed of the essential minerals orthopyroxene,
plagioclase, and clinopyroxene (or olivine), commonly contains accessory minerals such as
pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, pentlandite, pyrite, phlogopite, etc, none of which unduly influence its
classification as a plagioclase orthopyroxenite, other than to include the most abundant /
important of these minerals as a qualifier in the name, eg ‘sulphide-bearing plagioclase
orthopyroxenite’, or ‘sulphide plagioclase orthopyroxenite’. Note in this example that two mineral
qualifier terms have been used, ie ‘sulphide-bearing / sulphide’ and ‘plagioclase’, which is
acceptable. However, it is recommended to keep the number of qualifiers used in a single rock
name to a minimum, where beyond three qualifier terms tend to become clumsy and unwieldy. It
should be noted that mineral qualifiers should ideally consist of the actual mineral name, and not
a mineral group name (ie pyrrhotite chalcopyrite norite is more accurate and specific than
sulphide norite). In this respect too, the old qualifier ‘feldspathic’ is no longer acceptable, and
should be replaced with ‘plagioclase’.
3
Note that the convention is that a sulphide-bearing rock, for example, contains less sulphide that
a sulphide rock, which in turn contains less than sulphide-rich rock (Gillespie & Styles, 1999).
Since rocks are composed of a discrete range of essential minerals, the fundamental principle of
rock classification is based on fields that encompass appropriate modal mineral ranges within the
overall global field, as defined by the end member constituent minerals. This is illustrated in
Figure 1, which shows the current IUGS modal classification tetrahedron for igneous plutonic
mafic and ultramafic rocks. Rock types are classified according to their three essential minerals
in each case, where the triangles defined by these are subdivided into rock name fields of various
modal mineral ranges. Therefore knowing the modal percentages of each of the essential
minerals, a rock would plot as a point somewhere on the relevant triangle, which would indicate
its rock name classification.
The rock fields around the peripheries of the classification triangles allow for zero percentage of
the third constituent, opposite mineral. For example, norite can consist of 60% plagioclase, 40%
orthopyroxene, and 0% clinopyroxene. Pure ‘end member’ monomineralic rocks, however, are
rare.
2.2 CLASSIFICATION ON CUMULUS STATUS
It is important to recognize the cumulus status of the minerals in a rock, as this can influence its
classification over and above the simple modal mineralogy. This concept has existed for a long
time, where Wager et al (1960) proposed that cumulate rocks be named according to their
cumulus minerals. Similar and updated recommendations were given by Irvine (1982).
Bushveld Complex rocks consist of plagioclase cumulates, orthopyroxene cumulates,

clinopyroxene cumulates, olivine cumulates, chromite cumulates and magnetite cumulates (the
latter two are not considered in the IUGS modal classification system). The root name is derived
from the dominant cumulus mineral in each case, and is preceded by a main mineral qualifier that
refers to the dominant intercumulus phase, eg plagioclase orthopyroxenite. Commonly more
than one mineral is cumulus, but the subordinate phase, although essential to the classification,
does not normally appear in the rock name.
Cumulate refers to the primary cumulus framework mineral of the rock, and may be described as
the network / framework of mostly touching subhedral to euhedral crystals that form the primary
building blocks, and therefore basic connecting and supporting structure of the rock. Between
most of these crystals are irregularly shaped interstitial spaces, determined by the edges of the
cumulus minerals, which are occupied by anhedral intercumulus minerals, eg in all the
plagioclase-bearing rocks such as plagioclase orthopyroxenite, plagioclase is the dominant
intercumulus mineral that occupies this space.
Where it is particularly important to recognize the dominant cumulus mineral is in rocks that occur
at or near the boundaries of their modal classification fields, or even overlap into adjacent fields.
The distinction between plagioclase orthopyroxenite and melanorite is one of the more pertinent
examples of this. Plagioclase orthopyroxenite almost invariably contains more than the currently
stipulated maximum 10% intercumulus plagioclase, as is abundantly demonstrated later. Where
this is the case the rock should then theoretically be classified as a norite based on modal
mineralogy alone. However, provided orthopyroxene is the cumulus framework mineral (and
dominant cumulus mineral), and plagioclase is the intercumulus mineral, the rock, by convention,
remains a plagioclase orthopyroxenite. Norite is characterized by cumulus plagioclase (Irvine,
1982). Quite apart from this, plagioclase orthopyroxenite looks completely different from norite in
4
both colour and texture, has different mineralogical relationships (that may include clinopyroxene
oikocrysts), and has completely different chemistry (eg see Figure 4).
Figure 1 The current International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) modal mineralogy
classification tetrahedron (flattened) for orthopyroxene-clinopyroxene-olivine-plagioclase mafic and
ultramafic plutonic igneous rocks. (modified from Streckeisen, 1976)
5
2.3 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION
The term ‘texture’ refers to the general physical appearance or character of a rock, including the
geometric aspects of, and the mutual relationships among, its component particles or crystals,
such as the crystallinity, granularity, fabric, etc. Textural classification is included in rock names
as textural qualifiers.
Textural qualifiers may be included to make rock names more specific, and should only be used
where they contribute information of value to the rock name. As such conspicuous textures
influence rock nomenclature, but not their fundamental classification. A textural qualifier, as
used in conjunction with a rock name, always precedes the root name, and any mineral qualifiers,
eg pegmatoidal plagioclase orthopyroxenite, poikilitic pyroxene anorthosite.
An example of a controversial textural qualifier follows:
Pegmatoidal – is the textural term used that encompasses both the very coarse and coarse
crystalline categories, ie 2mm - >16mm (see crystal size classification on next page). This is
typical of pegmatoidal plagioclase orthopyroxenite where these crystal size ranges invariably
occur together, and in which individual crystals can reach ≥40mm across.
Notes:
i) Bushveld Complex pegmatoidal plagioclase pyroxenite is believed to have formed from recrystallisation as
a result of hydromagmatic hydration melting of the original cumulate (Mathez, 1995).
ii) The term ‘pegmatitic’ should not be used to describe a very coarse-crystalline texture because of the
genetic implications of using this word, in that pegmatites, which form by four well-known and specific
mechanisms (Jahns, 1955), are quite different from pegmatoidal rocks.
Apart from this, it is not essential that pegmatites be very coarse-crystalline, and in fact they are defined as
rocks that are at least in part very coarse crystalline but also characteristically demonstrate extreme
variability in grain size (Jahns, 1955). Therefore, since it is not essential that pegmatites be very coarse
crystalline throughout (which they very seldom are in reality), the use of the term ‘pegmatitic’ is neither
appropriate, nor specific enough as a textural qualifier, and against convention, also introduces a genetic
connotation.
Gillespie & Styles (1999) (p21) however suggest that, ‘the term pegmatitic can be used in a rock name only
as a qualifier term in conjunction with a root name (or a less well-defined approved name) and only to
describe a relatively coarser grained facies developed in a relatively finer-grained rock mass’. For the
reasons described above the author is of the opinion that the term pegmatoidal should be used instead, as
defined above (a term that Gillespie & Styles do not consider in their document).
2.3.1 Proposal
Pyroxene anorthosite of the Bushveld Complex, which occurs abundantly throughout the upper
Critical Zone, Main Zone and Upper Zone, has a very specific and recognizable texture in the
form of small (< 1cm across), tightly packed aggregates of fine to medium crystalline, dominantly
cumulus orthopyroxene crystals that occur relatively widely dispersed throughout the rock
(Figure 2). This rock has been colloquially known as ‘spotted’ anorthosite, but no proper
acceptable term has yet been assigned to describe the texture. It is therefore proposed that the
term protokilidic be adopted for this purpose. Protokilidic is derived from the Greek words protos
meaning primary, and kilida meaning spot. The rock would therefore be known as protokilidic
pyroxene anorthosite (protokilidic being the textural qualifier, and pyroxene the mineral qualifier).
The ‘spots’ themselves could be termed kilidocrysts (although the aggregates are actually
composed of numerous crystals). This texture is quite distinct from the other dominant Bushveld
6
anorthosite texture of poikilitic pyroxene anorthosite, where considerably larger, more diffuse
pyroxene oikocrysts poikilitically enclose cumulus plagioclase. These oikocrysts are also multi-
crystalline, and commonly in optical continuity.
Figure 2 ‘Protokilidic’ pyroxene anorthosite.
As far as crystal/grain size classification is concerned, it is recommended that the classification

defined by Gillespie & Styles (1999) be officially adopted, as follows:
Crystal diameter
Very coarse crystalline: ≥16mm
Coarse crystalline: 2mm to <16mm
Medium crystalline: 0.25mm to <2mm
Fine crystalline: 0.032mm to <0.25mm
Very fine crystalline: 0.004mm to <0.032mm
Cryptocrystalline: <0.004mm (4μm)
Note that the term ‘crystalline’ is preferable to ‘grained’, as it is more appropriate for igneous
rocks. Crystal size classification may be included in a rock name as a qualifier, but must
precede textural and mineral qualifiers, eg medium-crystalline poikilitic plagioclase
orthopyroxenite. The textural term pegmatoidal encompasses both the coarse and very coarse
crystalline categories.
2.4 ROCK NOMENCLATURE
It is important to comply with the accepted rock classification system of the day. Most Bushveld
Complex rock types are adequately catered for in a logical and systematic way, and there is no
need to revert to poor rock naming practices. There is also a considerable amount of literature
7
available on the subject, eg Jahns (1955), Streckeisen (1976), Le Maitre (1976), Irvine (1982),
Lee (1987), Morimoto (1988), Le Maitre (Ed) (1989), Le Bas & Streckeisen (1991), Middlemost
(1991, 1994), Wilson (1992), Scoon & Mitchell (1994), Gillespie & Styles (1999).
Some of the unprofessional rock naming practices that exist include instances such as prefixing a
rock name with that of another, eg anorthositic norite. There is no such rock type, and this
practice is unacceptable by any standards, except only in the case of certain metamorphic rocks,
eg granite gneiss (and even this is disputed to some extent, where mineral, rather than rock
qualifiers, are preferred). It is also completely meaningless, particularly from the point of view
that in this case, anorthosite, as a valid rock type itself, occurs as four different textural
derivatives, as well as within a defined modal mineralogy range. There is therefore no clarity as
to what is meant by the term ‘anorthositic norite’ - perhaps it is the fact that this norite contains a
little more plagioclase than ‘ordinary’ norite. This being the case, this rock type has been
adequately catered for by the nomenclature leuconorite, which is well defined and understood in
terms of modal mineralogy, cumulus status, and texture.
Another bad practice when describing or reporting on rocks is suffixing their names with –itic or –
ic, eg a noritic, pyroxenitic, or doleritic rock. As soon as these suffixes are added to any word it
immediately changes the meaning to ‘pertains to’ or ‘resembles’. So, a ‘noritic’ rock must be
some little known rock that resembles norite, but isn’t precisely one for some unexplained reason.
Rocks do not ‘resemble’ one another to the point that their proper identification should be
compromised by this type of inferior practice.
There are a few redundant terms in petrology that are still used, one prominent example being
‘pegmatoid’. The term was introduced by Evans (1912, in Bates & Jackson, 1990) as ‘an
igneous rock that has the course grained texture of a pegmatite but lacks graphic intergrowths
and/or typically granitic composition’. The definition is as meaningless as the term itself. It is
not in any way specific as to what this rock type actually is, other than the bare facts that it lacks
graphic intergrowths and/or is not of granite composition. The definition appears to assume that
pegmatites are only of granite composition, in that graphic intergrowths are common therein, and
that pegmatites are always very coarse crystalline. Nothing could be further from the truth (eg
Jahns, 1955). It seems that Evans attempted to define what we now know to be mafic and
ultramafic pegmatites, which are common in the Bushveld Complex as discordant metasomatic
replacement phenomena (eg Viljoen & Scoon, 1985; Scoon, 1987; Scoon & Mitchell, 1994), and
which typically classify as plagioclase dunite pegmatite, plagioclase wehrlite pegmatite, and
plagioclase olivine clinopyroxenite pegmatite. The use of the term pegmatoid has long been
discouraged by a number of authors including Irvine (1982) and Lee (1987), as it is not
recognised as a valid rock type. Bates & Jackson (1990) in the Glossary of Geology also state
‘Not recommended usage’. The use of the basic term has since been diverted to the more
appropriate textural qualifier, ‘pegmatoidal’, as defined earlier.
3.2.5 SUMMARY
It is accepted/proposed for mafic and ultramafic plutonic rocks that:
a) they are initially modally classified according to the three essential minerals of which they are
composed, eg orthopyroxene-plagioclase-clinopyroxene.
b) the root name is derived from the dominant cumulus mineral (irrespective of the modal
proportion of any intercumulus minerals), eg orthopyroxenite.
8
c) the root name may be preceded by qualifier terms that impart important or essential
information to the name, and that qualifiers, as and when they are required, are specifically
ordered as follows: Alteration status – Grain/crystal size – Texture – Accessory mineral – (Main
mineral and/or Root name), eg serpentinised medium-crystalline poikilitic phlogopite plagioclase
orthopyroxenite, where serpentinised is the alteration qualifier, medium-crystalline the crystal size
qualifier, poikilitic the textural qualifier, phlogopite the accessory mineral qualifier, plagioclase the
main mineral qualifier, and orthopyroxenite the root name.
d) where an intercumulus mineral occurs as one of the three essential minerals, that this mineral
be included in the name as the main mineral qualifier immediately preceding the root name, eg
plagioclase orthopyroxenite. A cumulus mineral may also be used as the main qualifier provided
it is not the dominant cumulus mineral, but is one of the essential minerals, eg olivine
orthopyroxenite, where both orthopyroxene and olivine are cumulus. Two main qualifiers may
also occur, eg plagioclase olivine orthopyroxenite, where plagioclase is intercumulus, olivine is
cumulus, and orthopyroxene is the dominant cumulus mineral from which the root name is
derived, and, all three are essential minerals. Pyroxene anorthosite exists somewhat as a
special case, where the pyroxenes that comprise the oikocrysts and kilidocrysts usually consist of
both orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene in not readily recognizable proportions, where the simpler
main mineral qualifier pyroxene is preferred.
e) more than one accessory mineral qualifier may be used, but mineral qualifiers, including the
main mineral qualifier, should be restricted to not more than three so as to prevent the name from
becoming unwieldy The accessory mineral qualifier(s) must always precede the main mineral
qualifier(s), and be listed in order of decreasing abundance, eg pentlandite chalcopyrite
plagioclase orthopyroxenite.
3. A PROPOSED COMBINED MODAL AND CUMULUS ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Good accounts of the history and evolution of the systematics of igneous rock classification are
given by Irvine (1982), Le Bas & Streckeisen (1991), Middlemost (1991, 1994), and more
recently, by Gillespie & Styles (1999). Much of the original work is attributed to Streckeisen
(1976). Most of these contributions, however, deal far more with volcanic and felsic-intermediate
plutonic rocks than they do with mafic and ultramafic plutonic. Nevertheless, as all these authors
have suggested, it is a science that continues to evolve.
Henceforth through this process of evolution, Le Bas & Streckeisen (1991) have laid down the
following ten principles of classification:
a) Igneous rock nomenclature should be based on descriptive attributes.
b) Classification should depend on actual attributes and not on interpreted characters.
c) The basic or root name given to a rock should be one that is suitable for all geologists to use.
d) The terms used in any classification should follow, as far as possible, those which are currently
and widely accepted as useful terms.
e) The classification must consist of classes which are separated by boundary conditions.
9
f) Well established simplicity.
g) Any classification of igneous rocks should follow fundamental geological relationships.
h) Classification should be based on modal mineralogy, as far as possible.
i) If the modal mineralogy of an igneous rock cannot be determined satisfactorily, then chemical
analytical parameters should be the next property used.
j) All terminology should be internationally acceptable.
All ten of these principles are acceptable, but some of them invoke additional discussion more
applicable to plutonic mafic and ultramafic rocks, to that already shared by Le Bas & Streckeisen
(1991) (herein abbreviated to LB&S). Using the same a) to j) as above:
a) This is most agreeable, but it should be pointed out that the three most important descriptive
attributes are modal mineralogy, cumulus status, and texture, in that order. Attributes such
accessory minerals, alteration status, and crystal size probably follow these in importance. Apart
from modal mineralogy and cumulus status, which are essential, the remainder may be included
in rock names as and when they are considered necessary.
b) LB&S correctly recommend the avoidance of interpreted characteristics in classification, as

they do vary between individuals. Although mentioned, more emphasis needs to be placed on
the fact that in classification nomenclature (ie rock names themselves) the inclusion of genetic
terms should be vigorously avoided. Although Irvine (1982) considers the genetic aspect from a
wider perspective than is being considered here, the author is not entirely in agreement with his
statement that classification purely on descriptive bases is virtually impossible, and in many
cases not even desirable. Certainly, as he points out, a classification level up to ‘igneous’ is
indeed genetic (as are metamorphic and sedimentary), and unavoidable where this level of
classification is required. As he further suggests, the term ‘cumulate’ may also be genetic,
although not actually defined as such. However, as far as rock names are concerned, the author
believes it is both possible, and highly desirable, to avoid genetic terms in nearly all cases. One
obvious exception to this, however, is the naming of a pegmatite (assuming the rock is a genuine
pegmatite, and not a pegmatoidal variant of some other rock), where the term ‘pegmatite’ is
genetic (eg Jahns, 1955), but unavoidable in that it must form part of the name to properly
distinguish it from other rocks that may share similar or identical mineralogy, eg plagioclase
wehrlite pegmatite.
c) The suitability of use of a root rock name for all geologists is clearly desirable, but it should be
added here that in so doing, it should be based on the dominant constituent mineral, or more
specifically, the dominant cumulus mineral.
d) This, of course, does not exclude the introduction of new terms, provided they are necessary,
well founded, unambiguous, and non-contentious.
f) Simplistic to a limit. Petrology is a science practiced by qualified professionals, and provided

information and methodology are clearly defined, geologists have no excuse over and above any
other profession, eg medical doctors, to practice any more simplistically, in that the
consequences of errors as a result of such simplicity may not be as serious. For some obscure
reason, certain geologists have been quick to point out how complicated or confusing some
10
things are. If this is the case perhaps such individuals should not be practicing science. It is
through over-simplicity that so many inaccuracies and errors occur in geology.
h) Yes, classification should be based on modal mineralogy, as far as possible – but never
exclusively. It is essential that mineral cumulus status also be considered, as this will correctly
determine the root name, and, where appropriate, the main mineral qualifier to the root name.
i) A rock classification system should be as ‘user friendly’ as possible so that most geologists
have relatively easy access to most components of it. Modal classification is desirable over
chemical classification, and where measured modal data are available they should be
preferentially used. Accurately measured modal analyses, however, are relatively rare in that the
equipment to properly do this is not readily available to the average practitioner. Although the
CIPW norm has its inherent limitations, CIPW norm calculation software has improved over the
years. The CIPW normative composition may never be quite as precise as the measured modal
composition, but is as close an approximation as one can get, and far more available to the
average geologist. In the light of this, the profession largely has to rely on norms calculated from
whole-rock major element data, which consequently ought to be considered reliable. Chemical
data can provide both normative and elemental classifications, where the CIPW norm may still be
preferentially used, and where appropriate, supplemented by elemental classification.
Southern Africa no doubt has the greatest abundance, and probably the greatest variety of
plutonic mafic and ultramafic rocks of anywhere on earth. The various complexes in which these
rocks occur are of major economic importance, and consequently more geologists than anywhere
else in the world are engaged in their study and exploitation. The region ought then to be in a
good position to contribute to global knowledge of these rocks, and to their classification.
While the IUGS mafic-ultramafic classification triangles are fundamentally sound there are major
problems with the class boundaries, which make some class fields far too small or slender, and
others far too large or elongated. The consequence is that real rocks either seldom plot in their
designated fields, or they only ever occupy relatively small portions of their fields. Examples of
the former are plagioclase orthopyroxenite, plagioclase websterite, plagioclase clinopyroxenite,
and to some extent anorthosite, norite, and gabbro; and examples of the latter being norite,
gabbronorite, and gabbro. In particular, the gabbronorite field is ridiculously large, and allows for
rocks of between 6% & 89% clinopyroxene, 6% and 89% orthopyroxene, and between 11% &
89% plagioclase. This is completely unrealistic – a rock containing 89% orthopyroxene, for
example, is hardly likely to be classified as a gabbronorite in anyone’s mind, and besides, the
orthopyroxene would no doubt be cumulus at this concentration anyway. The same goes for
rocks that plot close to the existing clinopyroxenite, websterite, and anorthosite fields. Olivine –
orthopyroxene – plagioclase rocks show the same problems, where the pyroxenite, troctolite,
dunite, harzburgite, and olivine pyroxenite fields, in particular, are equally inadequate.
An example of this is shown in Figure 3, where 935 samples from various localities throughout
the eastern and western Bushveld Complex are plotted on the existing IUGS clinopyroxene-
orthopyroxene-plagioclase classification triangle. Save for a few misidentifications between
norite and gabbronorite (a separate issue that is mentioned later), there is no question as to the
identity of the rocks, yet a great many of them do not plot in their designated fields (in particular
the orthopyroxenites, and to some extent the anorthosites), while the remainder only occupy
limited portions of their designated fields (the norites and gabbronorites).
In reality, plagioclase pyroxenite, plagioclase websterite, and plagioclase clinopyroxenite

commonly contain up to 35% intercumulus plagioclase, but very seldom more than this (and
seldom less than 10%); and anorthosite up to 20% pyroxene. As is evident from Figure 3, of the
11
640 plagioclase orthopyroxenite samples plotted, only a few from the Lower Zone make the grade
into the IUGS plagioclase orthopyroxenite field (and are amongst the ‘cleanest’ plagioclase
pyroxenites that exist anywhere). The remainder, consisting of both Lower and Critical Zone
material, plot as plagioclase websterite, norite, and gabbronorite. Those that plot as plagioclase
websterite highlight another shortcoming of the triangle, in that these samples contain no more
clinopyroxene than the adjacently plotted rocks, and in fact considerably less than those that plot
as gabbronorite, and therefore cannot possibly be websterite. Clearly the pyroxenite (both),
websterite, and anorthosite fields are inadequate, closely followed by the norite and gabbro fields.
As is also clear from Figure 3, norite almost never plots closer to the existing orthopyroxenite field
than the 30% plagioclase line, and gabbronorite, although not that obvious from this particular
plot, seldom closer to the websterite field than the 35% plagioclase line (this will become more
evident in later plots). The problems that the triangle has for these rock types is that the norite
and gabbro fields are too elongated in that they allow for pyroxene contents that seldom, if ever
occur, and they are too slender in that up to 5% cpx and opx respectively is too small an amount
to adequately distinguish between these rocks and gabbronorite in the ordinary course of rock
identification (hence the norite-gabbronorite misidentifications referred to earlier), and
consequently, the gabbronorite field is far too large.
These issues are by no means restricted to the Bushveld Complex, as will become apparent
later.
Figure 3 The existing IUGS clinopyroxene-orthopyroxene-plagioclase classification triangle, on

which are plotted 935 samples from various localities throughout the eastern and western Bushveld
Complex. Purple = Lower Zone plagioclase orthopyroxenite, green = Critical Zone plagioclase
orthopyroxenite, light green = Lower, Critical and Main Zone norite, olive green = Lower, Critical and
Main Zone gabbronorite and norite, light blue = Critical and Main Zone anorthosite. However, most
rocks plot as gabbronorite and norite, and save for a few Lower Zone plagioclase orthopyroxenites,
no other pyroxenites plot as such. Note that the average pyroxenite intercumulus plagioclase
content far exceeds the stipulated maximum of 10%.
12
During the course of a number of months the author has examined many data sets from various
localities including the Bushveld Complex, Pilbara/Halls Creek Australia, Alto Condoto Complex,
Duluth Complex, Fiskenaesset Complex, Great Dyke, Lac des Iles Complex, Dundonald Sill,
Pechenga, Noril’sk Complex, Sudbury Complex, and Stillwater Complex. Hundreds of plots of
data from these localities, such as those given as examples in Figures 3 to 8, have also been
scrutinized, and the conclusion is that a great many, if not the majority, of plagioclase
pyroxenites, plagioclase websterites, plagioclase dunites, plagioclase harzburgites, etc, contain
more than 10% intercumulus plagioclase, and that many anorthosites contain pyroxene or olivine
in excess of 10%.
It is obvious that classification field boundaries must be adjusted to better accommodate this
range of mafic and ultramafic rocks. This is proposed in the sets of classification triangles
presented in the self-explanatory Figures 9 to 11 (and their respective overleaf legends on the
rock nomenclature), in which certain fields have been enlarged and others reduced. The
proposal also includes classification triangles for rocks that contain chromite and magnetite as
one of the essential minerals, systems that are otherwise conspicuously absent. This is followed
by section 3.2, in which test data for the proposed triangles are presented.
13
Figure 4 Average CIPW normative clinopyroxene plagioclase orthopyroxene profile through

borehole BF199 (NE Bushveld Complex). The x-axis is zeroed on the Merensky reef top contact
(MRTC). Pyroxenite plagioclase content averages around 18 wt% (UMP = upper Merensky
pyroxenite, PegLMP = pegmatoidal lower Merensky pyroxenite, LMP = lower Merensky pyroxenite,
hw = hanging wall, fw = footwall). See Figure 5 for detailed sampling of the upper portion.
14
Figure 5 Detailed individual sample CIPW normative clinopyroxene plagioclase orthopyroxene

profiles through the upper portion of borehole BF199, showing the variability in pyroxenite plagioclase
content. The vertical orange lines represent the average plagioclase contents of the various
pyroxenite layers.
15
Figure 6 CIPW normative composition of the upper Merensky pyroxenite exposed in borehole
ZG217 (NE Bushveld Complex).
16
Figure 7 CIPW normative composition of the Merensky reef pyroxenite intersected in borehole
ZG217.
Figure 8 CIPW normative composition of the pegmatoidal lower Merensky pyroxenite intersected in
borehole ZG217.
17
a) cpx-opx-pl b) ol-pl-opx
c) ol-cpx-pl d) ol-opx-cpx
e) ol-(opx+cpx)-hbl
Figure 9 The proposed clinopyroxene (cpx) – orthopyroxene (opx) – olivine (ol) – plagioclase (pl) –
hornblende (hbl) classification triangles.
18
The following gives the field rock names for the classification triangles in Figure 9:
a) cpx- opx - pl
1= plagioclase clinopyroxenite.
2 & 9 = plagioclase websterite (provided pyroxene is cumulus and plagioclase intercumulus, otherwise 9 =
gabbronorite).
3 = plagioclase orthopyroxenite.
4 = norite.
5 = anorthosite.
6 = gabbro.
7 = gabbronorite.
8 = clinopyroxene gabbronorite (provided plagioclase is cumulus, otherwise plagioclase clinopyroxenite).
9 = gabbronorite (provided plagioclase is cumulus, otherwise plagioclase websterite).
10 = orthopyroxene gabbronorite (provided plagioclase is cumulus, otherwise plagioclase orthopyroxenite).
b) ol – pl – opx
1 = plagioclase dunite.
2 = troctolite.
3 = anorthosite.
4 = norite.
6 & 10 = plagioclase olivine orthopyroxenite (provided orthopyroxene and olivine are cumulus and
plagioclase intercumulus, otherwise 10 = olivine norite).
7 & 9 = plagioclase harzburgite (provided olivine and orthopyroxene are cumulus and plagioclase
intercumulus, otherwise 9 = olivine norite).
8 = olivine norite.
c) ol – cpx - pl
2 & 9 = plagioclase wehrlite (provided olivine & clinopyroxene are cumulus and plagioclase intercumulus,
otherwise 9 = olivine gabbro).
3 & 10 = plagioclase olivine clinopyroxenite (provided clinopyroxene and olivine are cumulus and plagioclase
intercumulus, otherwise 10 = olivine gabbro).
4 = plagioclase clinopyroxenite.
5 = gabbro.
6 = anorthosite.
7 = troctolite.
8 = olivine gabbro.
d) ol – opx - cpx
1 = dunite.
2 = harzburgite.
3 = olivine orthopyroxenite.
4 = orthopyroxenite.
5 = websterite.
6 = clinopyroxenite.
7 = olivine clinopyroxenite.
8 = wehrlite.
9 = lherzolite.
10 = olivine websterite.
e) ol – (opx+cpx) - hbl
1 = dunite. 8 = olivine hornblendite.
2 = pyroxene peridotite. 9 = hornblende peridotite.
3 = olivine pyroxenite. 10 = pyroxene hornblende peridotite.
4 = pyroxenite. 11 = olivine hornblende pyroxenite.
5 = hornblende pyroxenite. 12 = olivine pyroxene hornblendite.
6 = pyroxene hornblendite.
7 = hornblendite.
19
a) cr-opx-pl b) cr-ol-pl
c) cr-pl-cpx d) cr-cpx-ol
e) cr-cpx-opx f) cr-ol-opx
Figure 10 The proposed chromite (cr) – orthopyroxene (opx) – clinopyroxene (cpx) – olivine (ol) –
plagioclase (pl) classification triangles.
20
a) cr – opx - pl
1 = chromitite (plagioclase orthopyroxene chromitite).
2 & 7 = plagioclase chromite orthopyroxenite (provided orthopyroxene and chromite are cumulus and
plagioclase intercumulus, otherwise 7 = chromite norite).
4 = norite.
5 = anorthosite.
6 = chromite norite.
b) cr – ol - pl
1 = chromitite (plagioclase olivine chromitite).
2 & 7 = chromite troctolite (provided olivine and chromite are cumulus and plagioclase intercumulus,
otherwise 7 = chromite norite).
4 = norite.
5 = anorthosite.
6 = chromite norite.
c) cr – pl - cpx
1 = chromitite (plagioclase clinopyroxene chromitite).
2 = chromite gabbronorite.
3 = anorthosite.
4 = gabbro.
6 & 7 = plagioclase chromite clinopyroxenite (provided clinopyroxene and chromite are cumulus and
plagioclase intercumulus, otherwise 7 = chromite gabbronorite).
d) cr – cpx - ol
1 = chromitite.
2 = clinopyroxene chromitite.
3 = chromite clinopyroxenite.
6 = wehrlite.
7 = dunite.
8 = chromite dunite.
9 = olivine chromitite.
e) cr – cpx - opx
1 = chromitite.
2 = clinopyroxene chromitite.
3 = chromite clinopyroxenite.
5 = websterite.
7 = chromite orthopyroxenite.
8 = orthopyroxene chromitite.
f) cr – ol – opx
1 = chromitite. 9 = orthopyroxene chromitite
2 = olivine chromitite.
3 = chromite dunite.
4 = dunite.
5 = harzburgite.
8 = chromite orthopyroxenite.
21
a) mt-ol-pl b) mt-opx-pl
c) mt-pl-cpx d) mt-cpx-ol
e) mt-cpx-opx f) mt-ol-opx
Figure 11 The proposed magnetite (mt) – orthopyroxene (opx) – clinopyroxene (cpx) – olivine (ol) –
plagioclase (pl) classification triangles.
22
a) mt – ol - pl
1 = magnetitite (plagioclase olivine magnetitite).
2 & 7 = magnetite troctolite (provided olivine and magnetite are cumulus and plagioclase intercumulus,
otherwise 7 = magnetite norite).
4 = norite.
5 = anorthosite.
6 = magnetite norite.
b) mt – opx - pl
1 = magnetitite (plagioclase orthopyroxene magnetitite).
2 & 7 = plagioclase magnetite orthopyroxenite (provided orthopyroxene and chromite are cumulus and
plagioclase intercumulus, otherwise 7 = magnetite norite).
4 = norite.
5 = anorthosite.
6 = magnetite norite.
c) mt – pl - cpx
1 = magnetitite (plagioclase clinopyroxene magnetitite).
2 = magnetite gabbronorite.
3 = anorthosite.
4 = gabbro.
6 & 7 = plagioclase magnetite clinopyroxenite (provided clinopyroxene and magnetite are cumulus and
plagioclase intercumulus, otherwise 7 = magnetite gabbronorite).
d) mt – cpx - ol
1 = magnetitite.
2 = clinopyroxene magnetitite.
3 = magnetite clinopyroxenite.
6 = wehrlite.
7 = dunite.
8 = magnetite dunite.
9 = olivine magnetitite.
e) mt – cpx - opx
1 = magnetitite.
2 = clinopyroxene magnetitite.
3 = magnetite clinopyroxenite.
5 = websterite.
7 = magnetite orthopyroxenite.
8 = orthopyroxene magnetitite.
f) mt – ol – opx
1 = magnetitite. 9 = orthopyroxene magnetitite.
2 = olivine magnetitite.
3 = magnetite dunite.
4 = dunite.
5 = harzburgite
8 = magnetite orthopyroxenite.
23
3.2 TESTING OF THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION TRIANGLES
This section tests the validity and suitability of the proposed mafic-ultramafic rock classification
triangles by applying real whole rock data acquired from numerous localities around the world.
The examples are presented as the following self-explanatory Figures 14 to 55, and cover the
more widely used assemblages of clinopyroxene–orthopyroxene- plagioclase, olivine–
plagioclase-orthopyroxene, olivine-clinopyroxene-plagioclase, chromite– orthopyroxene-
plagioclase, and magnetite–olivine-plagioclase. In nearly all cases, the pre-identified samples
plot comfortably and realistically within their newly defined fields. There is little doubt as to the
identity of the plotted rock samples, but plotting on the existing IUGS triangles results in
completely erroneous classifications in a number of instances.
3.2.1 The Clinopyroxene – Orthopyroxene - Plagioclase Assemblage
Figure 14 The same 935 Bushveld Complex samples as in Figure 3, plotted on the proposed
clinopyroxene-orthopyroxene-plagioclase classification triangle. Just about all plagioclase
orthopyroxenite samples plot as such (purple & green), most norites as such (light green), mixed
gabbronorites and norites as both norite and gabbronorite (olive green), and all anorthosites as such
(light blue). All samples that do not plot in their expected newly defined fields, eg the pyroxenites
and norites, are in fact plagioclase websterites and gabbronorites respectively. All rock samples had
been pre-identified by various geologists, and have been plotted here with these original
identifications unchanged (as is the case in all plots that follow). See Figure 9 for classification field
names.
With smaller, more realistic fields for norite, gabbronorite, and gabbro, it is probably not necessary to
retain the leuco- and mela- sub classifications. Melanorite, for example, has just been troublesome
in that some geologists have had difficulty distinguishing between plagioclase orthopyroxenite and
melanorite, simply because classifications are erroneously attempted on modal mineralogy alone.
24
Figure 15 Merensky succession hanging wall norite (light green) and hanging wall plagioclase
orthopyroxenite (green)) from borehole BF199, NE Bushveld Complex. Apart from two norite
samples at the contact with overlying anorthosite, which contain enough plagioclase to plot as such,
all other samples plot favourably. (Total n = 122, including the samples plotted in Figures 16 and 17)
Figure 16 The Merensky reef plagioclase orthopyroxenite (red) and immediate footwall pegmatoidal
plagioclase orthopyroxenite (purple) from borehole BF199. One pegmatoidal and one reef sample
plot as plagioclase websterite, this more than likely being due to the presence of oikocrystic
clinopyroxene. Another pegmatoidal sample plots as norite, this not being unexpected as
plagioclase content of this rock is highly variable.
25
Figure 17 Footwall plagioclase orthopyroxenite (blue) and norite/gabbronorite (olive green) from
borehole BF199.
Figure 18 Merensky succession hanging wall norite (light green) and plagioclase orthopyroxenite
(green) from borehole ZG217, NE Bushveld Complex. (Total n = 180, including the samples plotted
in Figures 19 and 20)
26
Figure 19 Merensky reef plagioclase orthopyroxenite (red) and immediate footwall pegmatoidal
plagioclase orthopyroxenite (purple) from borehole ZG217.
Figure 20 Footwall plagioclase orthopyroxenite (blue) and norite/gabbronorite (olive green) from
borehole ZG217.
27
Figure 21 Merensky succession hanging wall norite (light green) and plagioclase orthopyroxenite
from borehole ZG74, NE Bushveld Complex. (Total n = 176, including the samples plotted in
Figures 22 and 23) (M.D. Davis, pers com, 2007)
Figure 22 Merensky reef plagioclase orthopyroxenite (red) and immediate footwall pegmatoidal
plagioclase orthopyroxenite (purple) from borehole ZG74.
28
Figure 23 Footwall plagioclase orthopyroxenite (blue) and norite (olive green) from borehole ZG74.
Figure 24 Merensky succession hanging wall anorthosite (plum), hanging wall norite (light green),
hanging wall plagioclase orthopyroxenite (green), Merensky reef pegmatoidal plagioclase
orthopyroxenite (red), and footwall norite (olive green) from borehole R27A, Rustenburg, SW
Bushveld Complex. (n = 52) (Brown, 1994)
29
Figure 25 Merensky succession hanging wall norite (light green), hanging wall plagioclase
orthopyroxenite (green), Merensky reef pegmatoidal plagioclase orthopyroxenite (red), immediate
footwall reaction anorthosite (light blue), and footwall norite (olive green) from borehole GC10, W
Bushveld Complex. (n = 65) (M.D. Davis, pers com, 2007)
Figure 26 UG2 succession hanging wall plagioclase orthopyroxenite (green), hanging wall
norite/gabbronorite (light green), hanging wall norite (olive green), hanging wall anorthosite (grey),
footwall pegmatoidal plagioclase orthopyroxenite (purple), footwall plagioclase orthopyroxenite (dark
blue), footwall norite (teal), and footwall anorthosite (light blue) from borehole ZG219, NE Bushveld
Complex. Note the distinct chemical differences between the norites of the three environments. (n
= 219) (C. Fitzhenry, pers com, 2007)
30
Figure 27 Norite, anorthosite, gabbronorite, and gabbro from the Main Zone (green) & Upper Zone
(purple) from a sampling traverse across the upper portion of the E Bushveld Complex. (n = 180)
(von Gruenewaldt, 1971)
Figure 28 The same samples as in Figure 3.27 plotted as rock types as identified by von
Gruenewaldt (1971), where light blue = anorthosite, light green = norite, dark green = plagioclase
orthopyroxenite, red = gabbronorite, dark blue = gabbro, grey = olivine diorite, and plum = olivine
norite. Probably most significantly in this plot, more than half of the rocks he identified as gabbro are
actually gabbronorite, and none of the samples identified as plagioclase pyroxenite plot as such. (n
= 180)
31
Figure 29 A suite of 274 samples taken from a complete traverse across the E Bushveld Complex,
where purple = Upper Zone (gabbronorite, anorthosite), light green = Main Zone (plagioclase
orthopyroxenite, norite, anorthosite, gabbro, gabbronorite), red = Critical Zone (plagioclase
orthopyroxenite, norite, gabbronorite, anorthosite), and dark green = Lower Zone (plagioclase
orthopyroxenite, gabbronorite). (M.R. Sharpe, pers com, 2007)
Figure 30 Marginal rocks of the E Bushveld Complex (green = plagioclase orthopyroxenite, light
green = norite, and teal = gabbronorite). (n = 21) (Harmer & Sharpe, 1985)
32
Figure 31 Samples from borehole CH6 drilled through the upper portion of the Lower Zone, NE
Bushveld Complex, where purple = plagioclase orthopyroxenite, light green = norite, and teal =
gabbronorite. Note the relatively wide plagioclase range of these pyroxenites. (n = 50) (C.A. Lee,
pers com, 2007)
Figure 32 Samples from the upper Critical – Main Zone interval, NW Bushveld Complex. Dark
green = plagioclase orthopyroxenite, light green = norite, teal = gabbronorite, and light blue =
anorthosite. (n = 20) (Eales et al, 1986)
33
Figure 33 Sample suite through the Hartley Complex P1 Pyroxenite succession, Great Dyke, from
the hanging wall norite/gabbronorite (light green), hanging wall plagioclase websterite (teal), P1
plagioclase orthopyroxenite, including the MSZ reef (dark green), and into plagioclase
orthopyroxenite beneath the P1 layer (purple). On average Great Dyke pyroxenites contain less
intercumulus plagioclase than the Bushveld Complex pyroxenites. (n = 230) (A.H. Wilson, pers
com, 2007)
Figure 34 Samples from Lac des Iles Complex, where the authors classified the rock types as:
green = pyroxenite, olive green = gabbronorite, light green = websterite, and red = gabbro. Their
pyroxenites are clearly plagioclase websterites, as are two of their gabbronorite samples. Three of
their gabbronorite samples classify as norite here, and their gabbros mostly as norite. As with Figure
33, this plot demonstrates the inadequacy of the current IUGS plagioclase websterite field. (n = 16)
(Sutcliffe et al, 1989)
34
Figure 35 Samples from the norite zone (green, light green, & light blue), and gabbro zone (olive
green) of the Stillwater Complex. Rocks from the norite zone predominantly plot as norite, with
some as gabbronorite, and two samples as plagioclase orthopyroxenite and anorthosite respectively,.
Those from the gabbro zone mostly as gabbronorite, with two as gabbro and two as norite. (n = 38)
(Hess, 1960)
Figure 36 Samples from various localities: purple = Dundonald Sill (norite, gabbronorite, plagioclase
websterite), teal = Pechenga (gabbronorite), light green = Noril’sk (gabbronorite, gabbro), green =
Sudbury (norite, gabbronorite), red = Bushveld (plagioclase orthopyroxenite, gabbronorite, gabbro),
blue = Stillwater (plagioclase orthopyroxenite, norite, gabbronorite), black = typical komatiite
(gabbronorite), and light blue = hyaloclastites (norite, gabbronorite). (n = 40) (Naldrett & Cabri,
1976)
35
Figure 37 Samples from the west Pilbara Block and Halls Creek mobile zone, Australia. The
symbols and colours merely represent various localities within these regions. Most rocks plot as
gabbronorite, with just a few as plagioclase orthopyroxenite, plagioclase websterite, and norite. (n =
50) (Sun et al, 1991). Note from this, and the numerous forgoing plots that show gabbronorite and
norite, that they seldom plot outside the newly proposed fields.
36
3.2.2 The Olivine – Plagioclase – Orthopyroxene Assemblage
Figure 38 Samples taken from a complete traverse across the E Bushveld Complex (see Figure 29),
where purple = Upper Zone (anorthosite, troctolite, olivine norite), red = Critical Zone (plagioclase
orthopyroxenite, plagioclase olivine orthopyroxenite), and dark green = Lower Zone (norite,
plagioclase orthopyroxenite, plagioclase olivine orthopyroxenite, plagioclase harzburgite, plagioclase
dunite). (n = 36) (M.R. Sharpe, pers com, 2007)
Bushveld Complex, where purple = plagioclase orthopyroxenite, green = plagioclase olivine
orthopyroxenite, red = plagioclase harzburgite, and blue = plagioclase dunite. (n = 10) (C.A. Lee,
pers com, 2007)
37
Bushveld Complex, where black = plagioclase orthopyroxenite, green = plagioclase olivine
orthopyroxenite, red = plagioclase harzburgite, and blue = plagioclase dunite. (n = 52) (C.A. Lee,
pers com, 2007)
Figure 41 Samples from dunite pipes in the E Bushveld Complex, which classify as plagioclase
dunite, plagioclase harzburgite, and plagioclase orthopyroxenite. (n = 8) (Scoon, 2004)
38
Figure 42 Samples from the Upper Zone, E Bushveld Complex (see Figure 3.28), where blue =
Subzone C (anorthosite, troctolite, norite), and grey = Subzone D (anorthosite, troctolite, olivine
norite). (n = 12) (von Gruenewaldt, 1971)
Figure 43 Plagioclase harzburgite and plagioclase olivine orthopyroxenite samples from the Lower
Zone, E Bushveld Complex. (n = 5) (Harmer & Sharpe, 1985)
39
Figure 44 Samples from the west Pilbara Block and Halls Creek mobile zone, Australia (see Figure
37). The symbols and colours merely represent various localities within these regions. Most
samples are plagioclase harzburgite, with two plagioclase olivine orthopyroxenite, and one olivine
norite. (n = 11) (Sun et al, 1991)
Figure 45 Samples from the troctolite succession of Dunka Road Deposit, Duluth Complex. All plot
as troctolite save for three as olivine norite. (n = 27) (Rao & Ripley, 1983)
40
Figure 46 Anorthosite (light blue), troctolite (olive green), plagioclase dunite (dark Blue), and
plagioclase harzburgite (black) samples from Fiskenaesset Complex. (n = 15) (Weaver et al, 1981)
Figure 47 Olivine norite (red & purple), plagioclase olivine orthopyroxenite (olive green & green),
and plagioclase orthopyroxenite (green) samples from Lac des Iles Complex. (n = 6) (Sutcliffe et
al, 1989)
41
Figure 48 Samples from various localities: purple = Dundonald Sill (norite, plagioclase harzburgite),
teal = Pechenga (olivine norite), light green = Noril’sk (norite, olivine norite, troctolite), red = Bushveld
(plagioclase orthopyroxenite, plagioclase harzburgite), blue = Stillwater (norite, plagioclase olivine
orthopyroxenite, plagioclase dunite), black = typical komatiite (olivine norite, plagioclase olivine
orthopyroxenite, plagioclase dunite), and light blue = hyaloclastites (norite, plagioclase dunite). (n =
21) (Naldrett & Cabri, 1976)
42
3.2.3 The Olivine – Clinopyroxene – Plagioclase Assemblage
Figure 49 Samples from Bushveld Complex ultramafic replacement pegmatites. These rocks
classify as plagioclase clinopyroxenite, plagioclase olivine clinopyroxenite, plagioclase wehrlite, and
plagioclase dunite. (n = 12) (Viljoen & Scoon, 1985)
Figure 50 Samples from Alto Condoto Complex. As identified by the author, Tistl (1994), (and by
this classification in brackets): olive green = dunite (plagioclase dunite), light green = olivine
clinopyroxenite (plagioclase olivine clinopyroxenite), dark green = wehrlite (plagioclase
clinopyroxenite), black = magnetite clinopyroxenite (plagioclase olivine clinopyroxenite, plagioclase
wehrlite), blue = hornblende clinopyroxenite (plagioclase clinopyroxenite, plagioclase olivine
clinopyroxenite), red = clinopyroxenite (plagioclase olivine clinopyroxenite, olivine gabbro), and light
blue = hornblendite (plagioclase wehrlite). (n = 24) (Tistl, 1994)
43
Figure 51 Plagioclase dunite (olive green), plagioclase wehrlite (dark blue), olivine gabbro (black),
and anorthosite (light blue) samples from the Fiskenaesset Complex. (n = 12) (Weaver et al, 1981)
Figure 52 Samples from the Upper Zone, E Bushveld Complex, as identified by von Gruenewaldt
(1971) (his identification follows in brackets): troctolite (olive green) (troctolite, anorthosite), olivine
diorite (grey) (olivine gabbro, gabbro, troctolite), olivine gabbro (purple) (gabbro, olivine gabbro,
anorthosite), anorthosite (light blue) (anorthosite), olivine gabbronorite (teal) (gabbro), and gabbro
(dark blue) (gabbro). (n = 26)
44
3.2.4 The Chromite – Orthopyroxene – Plagioclase Assemblage
Figure 53 Chromitite samples from the lower Critical Zone, W Bushveld Complex. Green = LG1
Blue = LG2 Light green = LG3 Light blue = LG4 Red = LG6. (n = 11) (von Gruenewaldt &
Worst, 1986)
Figure 54 UG2 chromitite samples from borehole ZG219, NE Bushveld Complex. (n = 16) (C.
Fitzhenry, pers com, 2007)
45
3.2.5 The Magnetite – Olivine – Plagioclase Assemblage
Figure 55 Magnetitite and magnetite troctolite samples from borehole PK22-10, drilled through
magnetitite layer 21, Upper Zone, SE Bushveld Complex. Blue = magnetitite (olivine plagioclase
magnetitite), and green = magnetite troctolite (one plots as magnetite norite), as visually logged at
the time. (n = 302) (Brown & Lee, 2007)
46
3.3 BUSHVELD ROCK PHOTOGRAPHS
Figures 56 to 69 show photographic examples of some of the Critical Zone and Upper Zone
Bushveld Complex rocks, whose modal data is plotted in some of the foregoing figures.
Figure 56 From the top row: Poikilitic pyroxene anorthosite grading into varitextured pyroxene
anorthosite, to protokilidic pyroxene anorthosite, and back to varitextured pyroxene anorthosite. The
slightly pink colouration of the plagioclase is due to hydrogrossular alteration (rodingitisation).
Figure 57 Norite. Both plagioclase and orthopyroxene are cumulus, with plagioclase being the
dominant cumulus mineral. This rock type is visually, modally, texturally, and chemically quite
distinct from Bushveld Complex plagioclase orthopyroxenite (see Figures 59 and 60).
47
Figure 58 Gabbronorite. In this instance the clinopyroxene (the bright green mineral) forms quite
distinct layers.
Plagioclase orthopyroxenite deserves special mention, as it is sometimes confused with

melanorite. Barnes & Maier (2002), for example, in their Impala Platinum study classified
Merensky reef pegmatoidal plagioclase pyroxenite as melanorite, with the explanation that they
were using the IUGS system rather than that of Irvine (1982). In the author’s opinion, this
situation is primarily a failing of the IUGS classification system in that the plagioclase pyroxenite
fields are unrealistically restricted, and based only on modal mineralogy. When first proposed,
these minute fields (both ortho- and clinopyroxenite) could not possibly have taken into account
the true characteristics of the abundance of real plagioclase orthopyroxenites throughout the
world, and in particular those from the world’s biggest repositories of such rocks, the Bushveld
Complex and Great Dyke, as has been adequately demonstrated in the foregoing discussions
and presentations. The plagioclase in plagioclase orthopyroxenite is clearly intercumulus, and it
is not the dominant mineral species, of any cumulus status, neither of which satisfies the criteria
for classification as a norite (eg Irvine, 1982). It is obvious, in a comparison of the plagioclase
pyroxenites shown in Figures 59 and 60 with a genuine norite in Figure 57, where plagioclase is
the dominant (and cumulus) mineral, that they cannot possibly both be norite. They are
completely different visually, modally, texturally, and chemically (Figures 4, 5, 76 & 78). In
addition, the author has yet to see a norite containing a clinopyroxene oikocryst, or a pegmatoidal
norite for that matter.
It has been well documented, eg Von Gruenewaldt et al (1985), that plagioclase first occurs as a
cumulus mineral at the MG3 of the Middle Group chromitite layers, and only from this point do
norite and anorthosite appear for the first time in the Bushveld stratigraphy (besides where the
Marginal Zone is developed). This point also marks the lower – upper Critical Zone boundary. It
is clear from this alone that a rock cannot be classified as a norite unless plagioclase is both
cumulus and dominant. An abundance of plagioclase orthopyroxenite occurs in the lower Critical
Zone, none of which has ever been classified as norite, though it shares exceptionally similar
characteristics to the plagioclase pyroxenite of the upper Critical Zone. Only Lower Zone
plagioclase orthopyroxenite has a lower average plagioclase content (Figure 14).
48
Figure 59 Poikilitic plagioclase orthopyroxenite (the arrow indicates a clinopyroxene oikocryst).

Orthopyroxene is the dominant cumulus mineral. Plagioclase is intercumulus and clearly exceeds
10% in abundance.
Figure 60 Pegmatoidal plagioclase orthopyroxenite. As with medium crystalline plagioclase

orthopyroxenite (Figure 59), orthopyroxene is the dominant cumulus mineral, while plagioclase is the
subordinate intercumulus mineral, but exceeds 10% in modal abundance.
49
Figure 61 Plagioclase harzburgite (central row). The relict olivine is very dark coloured due to
magnetite exsolution through alteration to orthopyroxene.
Figure 62 Plagioclase dunite from Driekop dunite pipe, E Bushveld Complex (partially weathered).
50
Figure 63 An example of the UG3 chromitite, immediately underlain by poikilitic pyroxene

anorthosite. In the second row of core from the top, two thin layers of pure anorthosite, ie apparently
pyroxene-free, occur.
Figure 64 Magnetite ultramafic replacement pegmatite.
51
Figure 65 A discordant intermediate to mafic replacement pegmatite mass that has invaded altered
anorthosite. A younger near-vertical felsic pegmatite vein occurs to the right.
Figure 66 Felsic pegmatite veins in plagioclase orthopyroxenite.
52
Figure 67 Magnetite-bearing gabbronorite (Upper Zone, SE Bushveld Complex).
Figure 68 Magnetite troctolite. The white patches are anorthosite lenses. (Upper Zone, SE
Bushveld Complex)
53
Figure 69 Olivine plagioclase magnetitite (Upper Zone, SE Bushveld Complex).
3.4 MAJOR ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION
Major element classification of rocks is also useful, either in addition to norm classification, or
independently where norm data are unavailable or cannot be calculated. This section
commences by plotting the 935 Bushveld Complex samples discussed in the previous section on
a number of readily available classification diagrams, such as TAS (Middlemost, 1985, 1994; Cox
et al, 1979) and R2-R1 (de la Roche et al, 1980). These plots, presented as Figures 70, 71, 72
and 74, were accessed from the geochemical data processing software, GCDkit for Win 2.1.1, by
V. Janousek, C. Farrow, and V. Erban (2006). As is evident from the plots, these diagrams were
essentially designed for the classification of felsic and intermediate rocks, and, as they currently
exist, have evolved as to be quite unsuitable for plutonic mafic and ultramafic rocks. However,
the TAS diagram of Middlemost (1985) can be modified to accommodate these rocks, as is
proposed in Figure 73. Similarly, the R2-R1 diagram can be modified as suggested in Figure 75.
Simple whole-rock elemental ternary diagrams can also be useful for rock classification, such as
those presented as Figures 76 to 79. Figure 76 shows the 935 Bushveld Complex samples
plotted on a MgO-FeOtot-CaO ternary diagram, in which the various rock types occupy quite
distinct fields, while Figure 3.77 shows the same plot for Great Dyke rocks. Figure 78 shows a
similar situation using the Al2O3-MgO-CaO ternary diagram. The 302 Upper Zone, layer 21
magnetite samples initially shown in Figure 55, are plotted on a SiO2-FeOtot-Al2O3 ternary
diagram in Figure 79, a system that best distinguishes between magnetitite and magnetite
troctolite, where increasing SiO2 primarily reflects the increasing olivine and plagioclase content.
54
Figure 70 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples discussed earlier plotted on the TAS diagram of
Middlemost (1985). The rock types mostly do not agree with the fields in which they plot in this
diagram. (See Figure 73)
Figure 71 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples plotted on the TAS diagram of Middlemost (1994).
The diagram imparts no information, and is obviously not suitable for mafic and ultramafic rocks, in
that high-plagioclase anorthosite begins plotting into the quartz diorite field, and given the available
fields, nearly all mafic and ultramafic rocks do not feature at all.
55
Figure 72 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples plotted on the TAS diagram of Cox et al (1979).
Similarly, this diagram essentially tells us nothing, other than that a few samples plot in the broad
classification of gabbroic rocks. It too seems largely unsuitable for these rock types in that the
ultrabasic rocks not only plot in the intermediate sector, but also outside the range of the
classification fields.
Figure 73 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples plotted on an independent TAS diagram, in which
fields are modified from Figure 70, where 1 = foidolite, 2 = foid gabbro, 3 = monzogabbro, 4 =
monzodiorite, 5 = diorite, 6 = gabbro, gabbronorite, norite, 7 = anorthosite, & 8 = ultramafic rocks.
Fields 6 & 7 could be combined as a mafic rock field. (The y-axis here is considerably expanded
compared to that of Figure 56) (blue = anorthosite, light green = norite, olive green = gabbronorite,
purple = Lower Zone pyroxenite, & dark green = Critical Zone pyroxenite).
56
Figure 74 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples plotted on the R 2 – R1 diagram of de la Roche et al
(1980). Note (from Figure 75) that anorthosite plots in the ‘ultramafic rock’ field, while the ultramafic
rocks themselves actually plot to the right of the gabbro-diorite and diorite fields, while the majority of
the highly ultramafic rocks of the Lower Zone plot off the scale completely. The gabbronorite and
norite are the only rock types that mostly agree with the field that the authors have assigned.
Figure 75 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples plotted on an independent R 2 – R1 diagram, in which
fields are modified from Figure 74, where 1 = anorthosite, 2 = gabbro, 3 = gabbronorite, norite, 4 =
gabbrodiorite to ultramafic rock, & 5 = ultramafic rocks. Fields 2 & 3 could be combined as a single
gabbro, gabbronorite, norite field, and, the extent of field 1 could be reduced. (See Figure 73 for
rock type colour coding)
57
Figure 76 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples plotted on a MgO-TotFeO-CaO ternary diagram, on
which they occupy distinct fields (purple = Lower Zone plagioclase orthopyroxenite, dark green =
remainder of BC plagioclase orthopyroxenite, olive green = mixed gabbronorite/norite, light green =
norite, light blue = anorthosite).
Figure 77 96 samples from the P1 Pyroxenite succession of the Great Dyke plotted on a MgO-
TotFeO-CaO ternary diagram, on which they also occupy distinct fields. The pyroxenites are more
Mg-rich, and the gabbronorites/gabbros slightly more Fe rich than those of the Bushveld Complex
(Figure 3.76) (purple = plagioclase orthopyroxenite below P1, black = P1 plagioclase orthopyroxenite,
light green = P1 hanging wall norite/gabbronorite). (A.H. Wilson, pers com, 2007)
58
Figure 78 The 935 Bushveld Complex samples plotted on a Al 2O3-MgO-CaO ternary diagram, on
which they again occupy distinct fields. Al2O3 correlations do react to alteration, so this plot may not
be entirely suitable for weathered rock. The Al 2O3 – (CaO+Na2O) – K2O ternary diagram (Nesbitt &
Young, 1984, 1989) is a good test for degree of weathering/alteration.
Figure 79 The 302 magnetitite layer samples from borehole PK22-10 plotted on a SiO2-FeOtot-
Al2O3 ternary diagram, which appears to be the most appropriate for distinguishing between
magnetitite (blue) and magnetite troctolite (light green).
59
3.5 SUMMARY
It has been adequately demonstrated above that the existing IUGS plutonic mafic-ultramafic
classification triangles are inadequate, and are likely to result in erroneous identifications. This is
particularly true of the rocks of the Bushveld Complex and Great Dyke, the two largest
repositories of such rocks, but certainly also applies to those presented from other parts of the
world. In contrast, the proposed classification triangles have more realistic fields that properly
accommodate the different rock types, and result in more accurate classifications. This too has
been more than adequately demonstrated with the use of a substantial amount of real rock data
from various mafic-ultramafic complexes throughout the world. In addition, classification
triangles are proposed for rocks whose major constituents are chromite and magnetite. These
are major components of the plutonic mafic-ultramafic suite, worldwide, but are conspicuously
absent from the current IUGS classification. Along with newly defined modal proportions,
recognition of the dominant cumulus mineral is an integral part of this classification, and is
consistent with the theory discussed beforehand. Since the newly proposed plagioclase
cumulate fields, eg norite, gabbronorite, gabbro, are less elongated, smaller, and more realistic, it
is probably not necessary to retain a mela- and leuco- sub classification. A norite, for example,
is still a norite whether it is sub classified as a leuconorite or melanorite, and since the proposed
norite field is shorter and broader it would no longer be particularly meaningful to burden the
name with these prefixes. The proposed classification triangles and their various cumulus status
conditions are presented as logically, simply and as user-friendly as possible. Proper rock
identification cannot, in reality, be any simpler than this. Modal classification alone is completely
inadequate, and will in many instances result in incorrect rock identification.
Rock classification by major elements has also been considered. In the absence of modal data,
major element classification is both possible and useful. This concept has been well reviewed by
Rollinson (1993), but this publication, along with those of Middlemost (1985, 1994), Cox et al
(1979) and de la Roche et al (1980), deals almost exclusively with felsic and intermediate plutonic
rocks, and the full range of volcanic rocks. Again, the importance of mafic-ultramafic plutonic
rocks is somewhat ignored. Though a great deal of major element data for all the different rock
types would be needed for a comprehensive system of this type to properly evolve, a few ternary
diagram examples are shown for some of the important Bushveld Complex rocks. The current
TAS and R2-R1 classifications are not suitable for these rock types, but can be modified to some
extent to accommodate them. These types of classifications are too broad however, and not
really suitable for accurate rock identification, but do nevertheless serve a fundamental
comparative function based on meaningful elemental relationships.
60
4. REFERENCES & FURTHER READING
Andersen O. (1931) Discussions of certain phases of the genesis of pegmatites

Norsk Geol. Tidsskr., 12, p1-56
Ballhaus G.C. (1988) Potholes of the Merensky Reef at Brakspruit Shaft Rustenburg Platinum
Mines: Primary Disturbances to the Magmatic Stratigraphy
Econ. Geol., 83, p1140-1158
Barnes S-J. & Maier W.D. (2002) Platinum-group Elements and Microstructures of Normal
Merensky Reef from Impala Platinum Mines, Bushveld Complex
J. Petrology, 43, p103-128
Barton J.M., Cawthorn R.G. & White J. (1986) The Role of Contamination in the Evolution of
the Platreef of the Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 81, p1096-1104
Bates, Robert L. & Jackson, Julia A. (Eds) (1990) Glossary of Geology

3ed, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA, 788pp
Boudreau A.E. (1992) Volatile Fluid Overpressure in Layered Intrusions and the Formation of
Potholes
Aust. J. Earth Sci., 39, p277-287
Brown R.T. (1991) The Inter-Relationship between the Variability of the Merensky reef and its
Footwall Stratigraphy at Frank Shaft, Rustenburg Platinum Mines
JCI Geologists Technical Meeting, 6, p24-44
Brown R.T. (1994) The Petrology and Geochemistry of the Merensky Reef in the Rustenburg
Area.
M.Sc. Thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, (unpublished), 101pp
Brown R.T. (1998) Hartley Platinum Mine – Geology and Grade Control
th
In: Prendergast M.D. (Ed), 8 International Platinum Symposium, The Great Dyke of Zimbabwe,
Guidebook for the Pre-Symposium Excursion, Geol. Soc. Zimbabwe, p16-18
Brown R.T. & Wilson A.H. (2005) Exploration and Geochemistry of the Merensky succession on
Lebowa Project, north-eastern Bushveld Complex
th
In: Tormanen T.O. & Alapieti T.T (Eds), 10 International Platinum Symposium, Extended
Abstracts, Geological Survey of Finland, p47-50
Brown R.T. & Lee C.A. (2007) The Stoffberg Magnetite Deposit. Part I: Exploration, Geology
and Geochemistry
Veremo Minerals Ltd Report, (unpublished), 147pp
Buntin T.J., Grandstaff D.E., Ulmer G.C. & Gold D.P. (1985) A Pilot Study of Geochemical and
Redox Relationships between Potholes and Adjacent Normal Merensky Reef of the Bushveld
Complex
Econ. Geol., 80, p975-987
Burger A.J. & Coertze F.J. (1975) Age determinations: April 1972 – March 1974
South Africa Geol. Survey Annals, 10, p135-141
61
Butcher A.R. (1985) Channelled metasomatism in Rhum layered cumulates – evidence from
late-stage veins
Geol. Mag., 122, p503-518
Cameron E.N. & Desborough G.A. (1964) Origin of Certain Magnetite-Bearing Pegmatites in
the Eastern Part of the Bushveld Complex South Africa
Econ. Geol., 59, p197-225
Campbell I.H. (1986) A Fluid Dynamic Model for the Potholes of the Merensky Reef
Econ. Geol., 81, p1118-1125
Carr H.W., Groves D.I. & Cawthorn R.G. (1994a) The importance of synmagmatic deformation
in the formation of Merensky Reef potholes in the Western Bushveld
Econ. Geol., 89, p1398-1410
Carr H.W., Groves D.I. & Cawthorn R.G. (1994b) Controls on the distribution of Merensky reef
potholes at the Western Platinum Mine, Bushveld Complex, South Africa: implications for
disruptions of the layering and pothole formation in the Complex
S. Afr. J. Geol., 94, p431-441
Cawthorn R.G. (1999) The discovery of the platiniferous Merensky Reef in 1924
S. Afr. J. Geol., 102 (3), p178-183
Cawthorn R.G., Barton J.M. & Viljoen M.J. (1985) Interaction of Floor Rocks with the Platreef
on Overysel, Potgietersrus, Northern Transvaal
Econ. Geol., 80, p988-1006
Cawthorn R.G. & Webb S.J. (2001) Connectivity between the western and eastern limbs of the
Bushveld Complex
Tectonophysics, 330, p195-209
Coertze F.J., Burger A.J., Walraven F., Marlow A.G. & McCaskie D.R. (1978) Field relations
and age determinations in the Bushveld Complex
Geol. Soc. S. Afr. Trans., 81, p1-11
Coetzee H. & Kruger F.J. (1989) The geochronology, Sr- and Pb- isotope geochemistry of the
Losberg Complex, and the Southern Limit of the Bushveld Complex Magmatism
S. Afr. J. Geol., 92, p37-41
Cousins C.A. (1959) The structure of the mafic portion of the Bushveld Igneous Complex
Trans Geol. Soc. S. Afr., 62, p179-189
Davies G. & Tredoux M. (1985) The Platinum-Group Element and Gold Contents of the Marginal
Rocks and Sills of the Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 80, p838-848
Eales H.V. & Reynolds I.M. (1986) Cryptic Variations within Chromitites of the Upper Critical
Zone, Northwestern Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 81, p1056-1066
62
Eales H.V., Marsh J.S., Mitchell A.A., de Klerk W.J., Kruger F.J. & Field M. (1986) Some
geological constraints upon models for the crystallization of the upper Critical – Main Zone
interval, northwestern Bushveld Complex
Min. Mag., 50, p567-582
Gain S.B. & Mostert A.B. (1982) The geological setting of the platinoid and base metal sulphide
mineralisation in the Platreef of the Bushveld Complex in Drenthe, north of Potgietersrus
Econ. Geol., 77, p1395-1404
Gillespie M.R. & Styles M.T. (1999) BGS Rock Classification Scheme Volume 1 Classification of
igneous rocks
British Geological Survey, Research Report No. RR 99-06, 50pp
Hamilton P.J. (1977) Sr-isotope and trace element studies of the Great Dyke and Bushveld mafic
phase and their relation to early Proterozoic magma genesis in southern Africa
Harmer R.E. & Sharpe M.R. (1985) Field relations and strontium isotope systematics of the
marginal rocks of the east Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 80, p813-837
Hess H.H. (1960) Stillwater igneous complex, Montana – a quantitative mineralogical study
Geol. Soc. America, Memoir 80, 230pp
Hiemstra S.A. (1985) The distribution of some platinum-group elements in the UG2 Chromitite
layer of the Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 80, p944-957
Hiemstra S.A. (1986) The distribution of chalcophile and platinum-group elements in the UG2
chromitite layer of the Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 81, p1080-1086
Irvine T.N. (1980) Magmatic infiltration metasomatism, double-diffusive fractional crystallization

and adcumulus growth in the Muskox Intrusion and other layered intrusions
In: Hargreaves R.B., (Ed), Physics of Magmatic Processes, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University
Press, p325-383
Irvine T.N. (1982) Terminology for Layered Intrusions

Jahns R.H. (1955) The Study of Pegmatites

th
Econ. Geol., 50 Anniv. Vol., p1025-1130
Kingston G.A. & El-Dosuky B.T. (1982) A Contribution on the Platinum-Group Mineralogy of the
Merensky Reef at the Rustenburg Platinum Mine
Econ. Geol., 77, p1367-1384
Kinloch E.D. (1982) Regional Trends in the Platinum-Group Mineralogy of the Critical Zone of
the Bushveld Complex, South Africa
Econ. Geol., 77, p1328-1347
63
Kinloch E.D. & Peyerl W. (1990) Platinum-Group Minerals in Various Rock Types of the
Merensky Reef: Genetic Implications
Econ. Geol., 85, p537-555
Kruger F.J. (1990) The Stratigraphy of the Bushveld Complex: a reappraisal and the relocation of
the Main Zone boundaries
S. Afr. J. Geol., 93, p376-381
Kruger F.J. (1991) Authors Reply to Discussion on the Stratigraphy of the Bushveld Complex: a
reappraisal and relocation of the Main Zone boundaries
S. Afr. J. Geol., 94, p187-190
Lambert D.D. & Simmons E.C. (1988) Magma Evolution in the Stillwater Complex, Montana: II.
Rare Earth Element Evidence for the Formation of the J-M Reef
Econ. Geol., 83, p1109-1126
Le Bas M.J. & Streckeisen A.L. (1991) The IUGS systematics of igneous rocks
J. Geol. Soc. London, 148, p825-833
Le Maitre R.W. (1976) The chemical variability of some common igneous rocks
Le Maitre R.W. (Ed) (1989) A Classification of Igneous Rocks and Glossary of Terms:
Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission of the
Systematics of Igneous Rocks
Blackwell, Oxford, 193pp
Lee C.A. (1983) Trace and Platinum-Group Element Geochemistry and the Development of the
Merensky Unit of the Western Bushveld Complex
Mineral. Deposita, 18, p173-190
Lee C.A. (1990) Platinum-Group Element Geochemistry in Geological Modelling and Resource
Evaluation
Lee C.A. (1996) A review of mineralization in the Bushveld Complex and some other layered
intrusions
In: Cawthorn R.G. (Ed), Layered Intrusions, Elsevier Science, p103-145
Lee C.A. & Tredoux M. (1986) Platinum-Group Element Abundances in the Lower and the Lower
Critical Zones of the Eastern Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 81, p1087-1095
Lee C.A. & Butcher A.R. (1990) Cyclicity in the Sr Isotope Stratigraphy through the Merensky
and Bastard reef units, Atok Section, Eastern Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 85, p877-883
Lee C.A. & Brown R.T. (1994) The Geochemical Nature of the Merensky Reef: Evidence for
Late-Stage Reactions and Controls on the Platinum-Group Element Mineralisation
64
Lomberg K.G., Martin E.S., Patterson M.A. & Venter J.E. (1999) The Morphology of Potholes
in the UG2 Chromitite and Merensky Reef (pothole reef facies) at Union Section, Rustenburg
Platinum Mines
S. Afr. J. Geol., 102, p209-220
Lurie J. (1986) Mineralization of the Pilanesberg Alkaline Complex

In: Anhaeuser C.R. and Maske S. (Eds), Mineral Deposits of Southern Africa II, Geol. Soc. S.
Afr., Johannesburg, p2215-2228
Mathez E.A. (1995) Magmatic metasomatism and formation of the Merensky reef, Bushveld
Complex
Contrib. Mineral. Petrol., 119, p277-286
Mathez E.A. (1999) On Factors Controlling the Concentrations of Platinum Group Elements in
Layered Intrusions and Chromitites
In: Keays R.R., Lesher C.M., Lightfoot P.C. & Farrow C.E.G. (Eds), Dynamic Processes in
Magmatic Ore Deposits and their Application in Mineral Exploration, Geological Association of
Canada, Short Course Volume 13, p251-285
Mathez E.A., Agrinier P. & Hutchinson R. (1994) Hydrogen Isotope Composition of the
Merensky Reef and Related Rocks, Atok Section, Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 89, p791-802
Mathez E.A., Hunter R.H. & Kinzler R. (1997) Petrologic evolution of partially molten cumulate:
the Atok section of the Bushveld Complex
Mathez E.A. & Waight T.E. (2003) Lead isotopic disequilibrium between sulfide and plagioclase
in the Bushveld Complex and the chemical evolution of large layered intrusions
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 67, p1875-1888
McBirney A.R. & Sonnenthal E.L. (1990) Metasomatic replacement in the Skaergaard Intrusion,
East Greenland: preliminary observations
Chem. Geol., 88, p245-260
McCarthy T.S., Lee C.A., Fesq H.W., Kable E.J.D. & Erasmus C.S. (1984) Sulphur saturation
in the lower and critical zones of the Eastern Bushveld Complex
McLaren C.H. & de Villiers J.P.R. (1982) The Platinum-Group Chemistry and Mineralogy of the
UG2 Chromitite Layer of the Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 77, p1348-1366
Middlemost E.A.K. (1991) Towards a comprehensive classification of igneous rocks and

magmas
Earth-Science Reviews, 31, p73-87
Middlemost E.A.K. (1994) Naming materials in the magma / igneous rock system
Morimoto M. (1988) Nomenclature of pyroxenes

Fortschr. Miner., 66, p237-252
65
Mossom R.J. (1986) The Atok Platinum Mine

In: Anhaeusser C.R. and Maske S. (Eds), Mineral Deposits of Southern Africa, Geol. Soc. S. Afr.,
Johannesburg, p1143-1154
Mostert A.B. (1982) The Mineralogy, Petrology and Sulphide Mineralization of the Plat Reef
North-West of Potgietersrus, Transvaal, Republic of South Africa
RSA Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Geological Survey, Bulletin 72, 47pp
Mostert A.B., Hofmeyr P.K. & Potgieter G.A. (1982) The Platinum-Group Mineralogy of the
Merensky Reef at the Impala Platinum Mines, Bophuthatswana
Econ. Geol., 77, p1385-1394
Naldrett A.J. & Cabri L.J. (1976) Ultramafic and Related Mafic Rocks: Their Classification and
Genesis with Special Reference to the Concentration of Nickel Sulfides and Platinum-Group
Elements
Econ. Geol., 71, p1131-1158
Nesbitt H.W. & Young G.M. (1984) Prediction of some weathering trends of plutonic and
volcanic rocks based upon thermodynamic and kinetic considerations
Nesbitt H.W. & Young G.M. (1989) Formation and diagenesis of weathering profiles
J. Geol., 97, 129-147
Nell J. (1985) The Bushveld Metamorphic Aureole in the Potgietersrus Area: Evidence for a Two-
Stage Metamorphic Event
Econ. Geol., 80, p1129-1152
Nicholson D.M. & Mathez E.A. (1991) Petrogenesis of the Merensky Reef in the Rustenburg
section of the Bushveld Complex
Page N.J., Von Gruenewaldt G., Haffty J. & Aruscavage P.J. (1982) Comparison of Platinum,
Palladium, and Rhodium Distributions in Some Layered Intrusions with Special Reference to Late
Differentiates (Upper Zone) of the Bushveld Complex, South Africa
Econ. Geol., 77, p1405-1418
Peach C.L. & Mathez E.A. (1993) Sulfide melt-silicate melt distribution coefficients for nickel and
iron and implications for the distribution of other chalcophile elements
Propach G. (1976) Models of filter differentiation

Lithos, 9, p203-209
Rao B.V. & Ripley E.M. (1983) Petrochemical Studies of the Dunka Road Cu-Ni Deposit, Duluth
Complex, Minnesota
Econ. Geol., 78, p1222-1238
Roach D.E. & Fowler A.D. (1993) Dimensionality analysis of patterns: Fractal measurements
Comput. Geosci., 19, p849-869
66
SAMREC (2000) South African Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves
(The Samrec Code)
The South African Mineral Resource Committee (SAMREC), South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 38pp
Schwellnus J.S.I., Hiemstra S.A. & Gasparrini E. (1976) The Merensky Reef at the Atok
Platinum Mine and its Environs
Econ. Geol., 71, p249-260
Scoon R.N. (1987) Metasomatism of cumulus magnesian olivine by iron-rich post cumulus liquids
in the Upper Critical Zone of the Bushveld Complex
Min. Mag., 51, p389-396
Scoon R.N. (2004) Petrogenesis of Discordant Magnesian Dunite Pipes from the Central Sector
of the eastern Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 99, p517-541
Scoon R.N. & Mitchell A.A. (1994) Discordant Iron-Rich Ultramafic Pegmatites in the Bushveld
Complex and their Relationship to Iron-Rich Intercumulus and Residual Liquids
Sharpe M.R. (1982) Noble Metals in the Marginal Rocks of the Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 77, p1286-1295
Sharpe M.R., Bahat D. & Von Gruenewaldt G. (1981) The concentric elliptical structure of
feeder sites to the Bushveld Complex and possible economic implications
Trans. Geol. Soc. S. Afr., 84, p239-244
Sinclair A.J. & Blackwell G.H. (2002) Applied Mineral Inventory Estimation
Cambridge University Press, 381pp
South African Committee for Stratigraphy (SACS) (1980) Stratigraphy of South Africa. Part 1
Lithostratigraphy of the Republic of South Africa, South West Africa / Namibia, and the Republics
of Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda
Comp. L. Kent, Handbook Geol. Surv. S. Afr., 8, 690pp
Sparks R.S.J, Huppert H.E., Kerr R.C., McKenzie D.P., & Tait S.R. (1985) Postcumulus
Processes in Layered Intrusions
Geol. Mag.,122, p55-568
Spiegel M.R. (1972) Theory and Problems of Statistics

McGraw-Hill, 359pp
Streckeisen A. (1976) To each plutonic rock its proper name

Sun S-S., Wallace D.A., Hoatson D.M., Glikson A.Y. & Keays R.R. (1991) Use of geochemistry
as a guide to platinum group element potential of mafic-ultramafic rocks: examples from the west
Pilbara Block and Halls Creek Mobile Zone, Western Australia
Precam. Research, 50, p1-35
67
Sutcliffe R.H., Sweeny J.M. & Edgar A.D. (1989) The Lac des Iles Complex, Ontario: petrology
and platinum-group elements mineralization in an Archean mafic intrusion
Can. J. Earth Sci., 26, p1408-1427
Tankard A.J., Jackson M.P.A., Eriksson K.A., Hobday D.K., Hunter D.R. & Minter W.E.L.
(1982) Crustal Evolution of Southern Africa, 3.8 Billion Years of Earth History
Springer-Verlag, New York, 523pp
Tistl M. (1994) Geochemistry of Platinum-Group Elements of the Zoned Ultramafic Alto Condoto
Complex, Northwest Colombia
Econ. Geol., 89, p158-167
van der Merwe M.J. (1976) The Layered Sequence of the Potgietersrus Limb of the Bushveld
Complex
Econ. Geol., 71, p1337-1351
Vermaak C.F. & Hendriks L.P. (1976) A Review of the Mineralogy of the Merensky Reef, with
Specific Reference to New Data on the Precious Metal Mineralogy
Econ. Geol., 71, p1244-1269
Viljoen M.J. & Scoon R.N. (1985) The Distribution and Main Geologic Features of Discordant
Bodies of Iron-Rich Ultramafic Pegmatite in the Bushveld Complex
Econ. Geol., 80, p1109-1128
von Gruenewaldt G. (1976) Sulfides in the Upper Zone of the Eastern Bushveld Complex
Econ Geol., 71, p1324-1336
von Gruenewaldt G., Sharpe M.R. & Hatton C.J. (1985) The Bushveld Complex: Introduction
and Review
Econ. Geol., 80, p803-812
von Gruenewaldt G. & Worst B.G. (1986) Chromite deposits at Zwartkop Chrome Mine,
western Bushveld Complex
In: Anhaeusser C.R. & Maske S. (Eds), Mineral Deposits of Southern Africa, Vol II, Geol. Soc. S.
Wager L.R., Brown G.M. & Wadsworth W.J. (1960) Types of igneous cumulates
Walraven F. (1986) A Note on the Stratigraphic Terminology of the Bushveld Complex

In: Anhaeusser C.R. and Maske S. (Eds), Mineral Deposits of Southern Africa, II, Geol. Soc. S.
Weaver B.L., Tarney J. & Windley B. (1981) Geochemistry and petrogenesis of the
Fiskenaesset anorthosite complex, southern West Greenland: nature of the parent magma.
Wilson A.H., Lee C.A. & Brown R.T. (1999) Geochemistry of the Merensky reef, Rustenburg
Section, Bushveld Complex: controls on the silicate framework and distribution of trace elements
Mineral. Deposita, 34, p657-672
68

Ma Ficult Rama Fic Class 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ma Ficult Rama Fic Class 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mafic & Ultramafic Classification

PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE

Report ID: MaficUltramaficClass

Contact: Ray Brown

Date: 4 January 2008

2. PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND TERMINOLOGY

2.1 CLASSIFICATION ON MODAL MINERALOGY

2.2 CLASSIFICATION ON CUMULUS STATUS

2.3 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION

2.4 ROCK NOMENCLATURE

3. A REVISED COMBINED MODAL AND CUMULUS ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

3.2 TESTING OF THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION TRIANGLES

3.3 BUSHVELD ROCK PHOTOGRAPHS

3.4 MAJOR ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION

4. REFERENCES & FURTHER READING

2. PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION & TERMINOLOGY

2.1 CLASSIFICATION ON MODAL MINERALOGY

2.2 CLASSIFICATION ON CUMULUS STATUS

Bushveld Complex rocks consist of plagioclase cumulates, orthopyroxene cumulates,

2.3 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION

An example of a controversial textural qualifier follows:

Figure 2 ‘Protokilidic’ pyroxene anorthosite.

As far as crystal/grain size classification is concerned, it is recommended that the classification

2.4 ROCK NOMENCLATURE

It is accepted/proposed for mafic and ultramafic plutonic rocks that:

3. A PROPOSED COMBINED MODAL AND CUMULUS ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

a) Igneous rock nomenclature should be based on descriptive attributes.

b) Classification should depend on actual attributes and not on interpreted characters.

f) Well established simplicity.

g) Any classification of igneous rocks should follow fundamental geological relationships.

h) Classification should be based on modal mineralogy, as far as possible.

j) All terminology should be internationally acceptable.

b) LB&S correctly recommend the avoidance of interpreted characteristics in classification, as

f) Simplistic to a limit. Petrology is a science practiced by qualified professionals, and provided

In reality, plagioclase pyroxenite, plagioclase websterite, and plagioclase clinopyroxenite

Figure 3 The existing IUGS clinopyroxene-orthopyroxene-plagioclase classification triangle, on

Figure 4 Average CIPW normative clinopyroxene plagioclase orthopyroxene profile through

Figure 5 Detailed individual sample CIPW normative clinopyroxene plagioclase orthopyroxene

3.2 TESTING OF THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION TRIANGLES

3.2.1 The Clinopyroxene – Orthopyroxene - Plagioclase Assemblage

3.2.2 The Olivine – Plagioclase – Orthopyroxene Assemblage

3.2.3 The Olivine – Clinopyroxene – Plagioclase Assemblage

3.2.4 The Chromite – Orthopyroxene – Plagioclase Assemblage

3.2.5 The Magnetite – Olivine – Plagioclase Assemblage

3.3 BUSHVELD ROCK PHOTOGRAPHS

Plagioclase orthopyroxenite deserves special mention, as it is sometimes confused with

Figure 59 Poikilitic plagioclase orthopyroxenite (the arrow indicates a clinopyroxene oikocryst).

Figure 60 Pegmatoidal plagioclase orthopyroxenite. As with medium crystalline plagioclase

Figure 63 An example of the UG3 chromitite, immediately underlain by poikilitic pyroxene

Figure 64 Magnetite ultramafic replacement pegmatite.

Figure 66 Felsic pegmatite veins in plagioclase orthopyroxenite.

Figure 67 Magnetite-bearing gabbronorite (Upper Zone, SE Bushveld Complex).

Figure 69 Olivine plagioclase magnetitite (Upper Zone, SE Bushveld Complex).

3.4 MAJOR ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION

4. REFERENCES & FURTHER READING

Andersen O. (1931) Discussions of certain phases of the genesis of pegmatites

Bates, Robert L. & Jackson, Julia A. (Eds) (1990) Glossary of Geology

Irvine T.N. (1980) Magmatic infiltration metasomatism, double-diffusive fractional crystallization

Irvine T.N. (1982) Terminology for Layered Intrusions

Jahns R.H. (1955) The Study of Pegmatites

Lurie J. (1986) Mineralization of the Pilanesberg Alkaline Complex

Middlemost E.A.K. (1991) Towards a comprehensive classification of igneous rocks and

Morimoto M. (1988) Nomenclature of pyroxenes