Talk:Pelite

Comment

Umm... I'm no geologist, but? I'm sure someone could work these two links into the article.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861724644/pelite.html http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pelite But I doubt you could work this one http://www.jmsplastics.com/thermoplastic/pelite.html :P

~AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 16:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelite - metamorphic and/or sedimentary

Pelite as a term for a type of metamorphic rock seems problematic in a similar way to komatiite and some oceanic basalt. All three are metamorphic and could be/should be/are more accurately described as metapelite, metakomatiite and metabasalt respectively, but geologists usually drop the "meta" prefix for convenience at the expense of clarity and accuracy.

There is a case to support pelite being defined as the sedimentary protolith of metamorphic metapelite now, not only in the older geological literature, which is the approach taken in the current version of this article on pelite..

For example, in Fettes D. and Desmons, J. (editors) (2007) "Metamorphic Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms — Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the Systematics of Metamorphic Rocks", Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-86810-5, page 181, pelite is descibed as: "Term for a sedimentary rock composed of clay-sized particles. It has also been used locally for the metamorphosed equivalent of these sedimentary rocks, that is, a metamorphic rock with a high modal ratio of mica to quartz + feldspar. The SMCR recommends that it should be used only for sedimentary rocks and the term metapelite should be used for the metamorphic equivalents".

Neuendorf et al. (editors) (2005) "Glossary of Geology" (5th edition), American Geological Institute, ISBN 978-0922152896, page 478, give three meanings for pelite, two are sedimentary and one is metamorphic.

Perhaps this article could be changed to more accurately reflect this? GeoWriter (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology is such a pain. There are two clearly different uses. I just searched on "pelite metamorphic" and "pelite sedimentary" on google scholar for papers published this year, getting 2080 hits and 2330 hits respectively, although I've not delved too deeply to check for false positives. So yes, we probably need to have the two usages with equal status I think. The SMCR can recommend all they like (and there are 590 hits for "metapelite" over the same period), but we need to recognise actual usage, although their view should probably be included. Mikenorton (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KFMASH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect KFMASH. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 16:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of pilite from article

I'd not come across it before but there is reference to 'pilite' at https://www.mindat.org/min-5688.html and at https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_5/b_fdi_08-09/10020.pdf and at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-Fl6bmDc3-IC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=pilite+olivine&source=bl&ots=EUKQnsZYNn&sig=ACfU3U3LOcmL-UGBemBUP7RYwLQKu07L_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjk1aL4_eToAhUTfMAKHeS_Czs4ChDoATACegQICxAp#v=onepage&q=pilite%20olivine&f=false and at http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_45/rsnz_45_00_003500.html cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it was described by Becke. But with its rare and antiquated usage for a variety of tremolite I feel it shouldn't occupy a paragraph in the lede of an article about day-to-day pelite. No petrologist who is familiar with it would confuse the word with pelite. In fact no petrologist who is familiar with it would be using wikipedia! I've never read it or heard it used (and I use "pelitic" and "meta-pelite" occasionally) and its very rare occurrence in the literature (your examples date from 1912 and 1948) will mean no-one else would come across it. regards John beta (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right - more of an historic footnote than anything! cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]