Proposed New Chemical Classification of Volcanic Rocks by B. Zanettin The GS Commission on Systematics in Pettoloay has long been engaged ina thorough study and review of the nomenclature of igneous rocks, Its tecommen- dations fot the classification of many volcanic. and plutonic tocks based on theét mineral content have boon widely accepted, and wotk on utrabasio, ultca- makic and metamorphic rocks i in the planning stages. In this shott review the Chaétman of the Subcommission on Igneous Rocks sets out its recent tecommendations fot a chemical classixication of volcanic rocks. Introduetion to the TAS Diagram In onder to be consistent with the classification of plutonle rocks (Streckelsen, 1978), the Subeommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks has sgreed that the primary classification of voleanic rocks should be based on thelt ‘modal composition. However, where this is not possible, as in the case of most voleanies which are glassy. or microcrystalline, the Subcommission now recommends the ise of chemical parameters plotted on the Totel Alkali Silica (TAS) diagram as a basis of classification. ‘This decision followed cereful consideration of the use of the GAP diagram, the normative version of the QAPF modal diagram now widely used for plutonic rocks, (Streckeisen, 1976; Streckeisen and Le Maitre, 1979). Also considered were the AnOr (100An/An + Or) diagtam, also based on normative ‘minerals and corresponding to a chemical approximation of the QAPF classification (Rittman, 1878), and the Ry-Ro iagram of de le Roche and others (1980) based on atomic humbers. ‘Tests performed on the diagrams that used CIPW norms were affected by the uncertainty in dividing normative albite between alkali feldspar and plagioclase, and the Subeommission deeded in favour of the use ‘of simple ‘chemical parameters such as proposed long ago by Harker in his elkali-siliea diagram, ‘The TAS diagram was also ehosen beeause it is favoured by many petrologists (e.g. Bogatikey, Gonshakova and Efremovay 1981; ‘Middlemost, 1972, 1980), because it is useful for separating various rock types (eg. Cox, Bell and Pankhurst, 1978; Irvine and Baragar, 1871; Le Maitre, 1976), and because SiO Is now widely used as a parameter to separate several common voleanie rocks (Peccerillo and Taylor, 1976; Hatch, Wells and Wells, 1949). Moreover, the Subcommission prefers a simple classification with straight-line boundaries, and one that permits classification without knowledge of the loeality of the sample or the rocks with which it is associated in the field. In short, there should be no element of interpretation, other than that the rock is voleanie. A first draft of the classifieation was prepared by « small working group led by R. Le Maitre and ineluding G. Bellieni, E. Justin-Visentin, M.J. Le Bas, E.M. Peceerillo, R. Schmid, A, Streckeisen, and the author. A revised version has now been published for the Subcommission by Le Maitre (1984), who provides the criteria and details on which the TAS fields sre based. ‘The essential features of the TAS diagram, shown on Figure 1, were obtained by using chemical analyses selected from Episodes, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 1984 the CLAIR and PETROS data files (Le Maitre, 1982). Accurate classification of voleanie rocks with the TAS diagram is subject to the conditions that specimens should be fresh (preferably with Hg0 and CO contents less than 2% and 0.5% by weight, respectively), unmetemorphosed and free from_erystal accumulation, Cheinieal analyses should be recalculated to 100% by weight on a H70 and COg free basis. Siliea Saturation (On the TAS diagram (Pig. 1) two divenging tines separate three seetors with different degrees of silica saturation in the CIPW norm, Rock compositions plotting in the lower (oversaturated) "set (basaltic andesite, andesite, dacite, rhyolite) are almost exclusively quartz-normative, while rock compositions plotting in the upper (undersaturated) set (basanite, tephrite, phonotephrite, tephriphonalite, phonolite) are almost exelusively nepheline-normative. Rock composi tions with variable degrees of silica saturation plot within the intermediate set. For compositions plotting between the heavy lines on Figure 1, it may be useful to specify values for quarts. normative (Qn), olivine-typersthene normative (Otn) and foid normative (Wen) types. Since these are dependent, at least in part, on the oxidation state of the iron, it is recommended that the ratio of FeO to Fep03 be used as determined any modification of this ratio should be clearly stated and Justified by the user. Each of the three sets of fields on the TAS diagram include commonly associated rock types. Generelly, the evolutionary trend of comagmatic rocks is ‘subparellel’ to the boundary Lines of the three sets. The transversal lines subdividing the sets into TAS fields may be regarded as aporoximate lines of equal evolution. Proposed Classifiestion The classifiestion scheme illustrated in Figure 1 is hierarchical, A root _name is first obtained. Further subdivision may be made by means of selected ehemica! criteria, yielding a sub-root name. Figure 1: The TAS diagram chowing root names. The two heavy Lines distinguish three sets of fields with Gitterent degrees of silica saturation. Bin = CLPW sermaine siee Paral Ine Pal ha, Vis 8 [au 18The Precambrian — Cambrian Boundary in Siberia by A. Yu. Rozanov For more than ten years, the difficult problem of the Pre~ eambrian-Cambrian boundary has been intensely stutlied bya Working Group of the IUGS Subcommission on Pre cambrian Stratigraphy together with IGCP Project 29. Candidates for the stratotype boundary have been narrowed to locatities in China, Newfoundland, and Siberia, Although there are, naturally, arguments for and against each section proposed, Its expected that a final choice wilt be made within the near future. In this article, the author describes key sections in Siberia, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, including ‘one of the main boundary candidates on the Aldan River ‘of Westem Siberia, in the Ulokhan-Sulugur section at the ase of the Aldanocyathus sunnaginicus zone of the Tom motian stage. Fundamental Considerations Since the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary” is rather special, suggestions have long been made for its establishment based on geological oF physical characteristics rather than on purely. palacontolagical criteria. However, it is now Clear that only biostratigraphical criteria will lead to a solution of this peoblem. With such profound differences between late Precambrian and Cambrian biotas, it was necessary to accept the principle that "the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary stratotype point should be placed as close as is practicable t0 the base of the oldest Sstratigraphical unit to yield Tommotian (consi lato) fossil assemblages" (Cowie, 1978). This. principle was based on the idea that the boun- dary should be along the base of the first zonal assemblage bearing abundant skeletal fossils, in this case archaeocyathids, gastropods, hyolithids, tommotiids and brachiopods (eg. Rezanov, 1966, 1967; Rozanoy et al-, 1969). ‘The appearance of a _wide variety of skeletal fauna in the early Tommotian does not, of Course, mean that those groups arose here’ for the first time. This was the time when many {groups of animals first developed the ability. #0 form skeletons, although the cause of this in- stantaneous geological phenomenon is not yet clear. There are also certain interesting connections with global ablotic changes associated with the transition from the Vendian to the Cambrian. These include a decrease in dolomite accumulation, a sharp drop in strema- tolite formation, the first widespread appearance of red biogenic limestones, and 2 global accumulation of phosphorite =the largest and richest deposits in the U.S.S.R., Mongolia ‘and China are Tommotian (Fig. 1). Although the causes for these events are not yet clear, the finding of what Is regarded as the earliest rich Tommotian association in a 2 particular section does not lead us to suspect a migration effect or the presence of another rich assemblage In older layers elsewhere. (Of course the process of skeletalization, in the broad sense, was probably prolonged. Moreover, there was fiesta long period (probably the major part of the Yendian) when all skeleton formation was just partial scleritization of certain bedy-parts, and only in the Tommotian (or a litte earlier in a few groups) did the formation of "real" skeletons begin, for ‘example, in molluscs and brachiopods. Palacogeographic considerations are also of great importance (Fig. I By the early Tommotian, the palacogeographic situation was such that normal marine carbonate sedimenta- tion was localized primarily in eastern Siberia. —Conse- quently, sections with the richest faunas are located there, and it is there that the centres of origin and initial diversifi~ ‘ation of a number of skeletal-forming groups were located Figure 1: Tommotian pataeogeograpiy: 1 - volcanic rocks; 2 ~ land; 3 ~ dolomites; 4 — evaporites; 5 — limestones: 6 — terrigencus rocks. Open circles - archaeocyathids; solid tri= tangles ~ rich associations of small shelly fossils (SSF); open triangles — poor associations of SSF; open squares ~ Platy= solonites: solid squares — the richest deposits of Tommotian Dhosphorites, PL-region of Platysolenites distribution, and ‘TR-region of rich Tommotian associations of SSF. Episodes, Vol. 7, No. |