The genesis of calcite and dolomite carbonatite-forming magma by liquid immiscibility: a critical appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Liquid immiscibility has become the preferred mode of genesis for the carbonatite rocks, which commonly, but not exclusively, accompany silicate rocks in alkaline-rock complexes. This concept has been universally based on the presumption that nephelinitic and phonolitic magmas can evolve to a stage where two conjugate immiscible liquids separate. It is assumed that these two liquids separate quickly, or even instantaneously, into discrete bodies of magma capable of being intruded or extruded with subsequent independent crystallization. Supporting evidence generally given is: alleged consanguinity as discrete occurrence of the two rock types; similarity of radiogenic isotope ratios; trace element contents similar to those predicted from experimentally derived partition coefficients. We do not accept that a general case for liquid immiscibility has been demonstrated; although we do accept that silicate and carbonate liquids are inherently immiscible, we maintain that they are not conjugate in a petrogenetic context. We have reviewed and critically examined the experimental data purporting to establish liquid immiscibility and find that when applied to natural rocks, they are based on inappropriate experimental designs, which are not relevant to the genesis of calcite or dolomite carbonatites, although they might have some relevance to Oldoinyo Lengai nyerereite–gregoryite lavas. The design of these experiments guarantees immiscibility and ensures that the carbonate liquids formed will be calcitic or sodium-rich. We dispute the validity of comparing the trace element contents of natural rocks, which in many instances do not represent liquid compositions, to experimentally determine partition coefficients. We consider that experimental design inadequacies, principally assuming but not proving, that the liquids involved are conjugate, indicate that these coefficients are merely an expression of the preference of certain elements for particular liquids, regardless of how the liquids formed. Proof of consanguinity in alkaline complexes requires more accurate age determinations on the relevant rock types than has generally been the case, and in most complexes, consanguinity can be discounted. We dispute the contention that melt inclusions represent parental melts, although they might elucidate the character of magmas undergoing fractional crystallization from magmatic to carbothermal stages. Radiogenic isotope data are shown to be too widely variable to support a case for liquid immiscibility. We address the contention that calcite cannot crystallize from a dolomitic liquid formed by direct mantle melting, and must therefore have crystallized from a calcite carbonate liquid generated by liquid immiscibility, and demonstrate that it is an unsupported hypothesis as calcite can readily crystallize from dolomitic liquids. We observe that, because immiscible dolomite liquids have never been produced experimentally, the liquid immiscibility proposition could at best be applied only to calcite carbonatites, thus leaving unexplained the large number of dolomite carbonatites and those of either type, which are not accompanied by alkaline silicate rocks. The assumed bimodality of alkaline-rock carbonatite complexes is considered to be fallacious and no actual geological or petrographic evidence for immiscibility processes is evident in these complexes. Several examples of alkaline rock carbonatite complexes for which immiscibility has been proposed are evaluated critically and shown to fail in attempts to establish them as exemplifying immiscibility. We conclude that no actual geological or experimental data exist to establish liquid immiscibility being involved in the genesis of calcite or dolomite carbonatite-forming magmas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".