2020
DOI: 10.2475/11.2020.01
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining the origin of inclusions in garnet: Challenges and new diagnostic criteria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
48
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
3
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first hypothesis implies that magnetite and the potentially accompanying phases nucleated on the surface of the growing plagioclase. The newly forming magnetite and potentially accompanying phases thus would grow in contact with the plagioclase, at least along parts of their surfaces, allowing for the evolution of systematic CORs by topotaxy (Griffiths et al 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The first hypothesis implies that magnetite and the potentially accompanying phases nucleated on the surface of the growing plagioclase. The newly forming magnetite and potentially accompanying phases thus would grow in contact with the plagioclase, at least along parts of their surfaces, allowing for the evolution of systematic CORs by topotaxy (Griffiths et al 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The observed SORs and CORs are still compatible with oriented nucleation of magnetite and potentially accompanying phases on the surface of growing plagioclase (hypothesis 1) as well as with the precipitation from supersaturated plagioclase (hypothesis 2). It has been shown recently that specific SORs tend to be selected depending on the orientation of the growth facet, if needle-shaped micro-inclusions are formed by oriented nucleation on the surface of a growing crystal (Griffiths et al 2021). In the plagioclase under consideration, the SORs of the magnetite micro-inclusions always follow specific crystallographic directions, and differences in SOR between different domains in a plagioclase grain are only due to the effect of twinning.…”
Section: Pl(150)n-mt Micro-inclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In total, 88% of rutiles have at least one of the investigated alignments <101> rutile //<100> garnet which accounts for 22% of the data (Table 2). This is a result of its widespread prevalence in sample HS00704 in the data of Griffiths et al (2020) but does not reflect a universal commonality; COR A* rutile constitutes 1% of the data of Griffiths et al (2016) and is absent from the data of Keller and Ague (2019). The most common rutile COR that is present in each dataset is the edge-to-edge matching COR A rutile : {100} rutile //{134} garnet + <103> rutile //<111> garnet , which accounts for 13% of the analysed data (Table 2).…”
Section: Rutilementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rocks studied by Griffiths et al (2016Griffiths et al ( , 2020 are kyanite-bearing metapegmatites from near Wirtbartl in the Austrian Alps. The metapegmatites were subjected to Cretaceous eclogite facies metamorphism and crop out as pods in crystalline Alpine basement alongside eclogites (Rogowitz & Huet, 2021).…”
Section: Rock Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation