Reply to the comment by C. K. Brooks and J. Gittins on my paper "Pseudoleucite from the Gardar of South Greenland"
Brooks and Gittins make three main criticisms of my paper. The first, and perhaps the most impor-tant, is that they (Gittins et al. 1980) have already described and illustrated "all the textures de-scribed by Hesselbo and some additional ones". However, the four photomicrographs referred t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.494.9019 http://2dgf.dk/xpdf/bull36_03-04-339.pdf |
| Summary: | Brooks and Gittins make three main criticisms of my paper. The first, and perhaps the most impor-tant, is that they (Gittins et al. 1980) have already described and illustrated "all the textures de-scribed by Hesselbo and some additional ones". However, the four photomicrographs referred to (Gittins et al. 1980, p. 121) are only of inter-growth sets from plutonic rocks and devoid of crystal outlines, which, by their own conclusions, should not actually be called pseudoleucite at all. In my paper, not only are the intergrowth tex-tures from true icositetrahedral pseudoleucite clearly illustrated (from thin sections and a pol-ished face), but also the relationships of these intergrowths to crystal faces, inclusions and |
|---|