Bissell 1967

Chapter 4
CLASSIFICATION O F SEDIMENTARY CARBONATE ROCKS
HAROLD J. BISSELL AND GEORGE V. CHILINGAR
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (U.S.A.)

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. (U.S.A.)
SUMMARY
The objective of this chapter is to evaluate some of the proposed classifications of

sedimentary carbonate rocks, and to present suggestions for naming and describing
them. It is not an historical review of existing schemes of classification alone,
although a critical appraisal has been made of the various systems that have been
published in the past 60 years in an attempt to arrive at a svstematic petrologic
and petrographic plan of study.
INTRODUCTION
It should be noted, that more than three-fourths of the surface of the earth is
covered by water, and certain modern-day carbonates are forming. About three-
fourths of the total land area is directly underlain by sedimentary rocks, and
approximately one-fifth of these consists of carbonate rocks. Thus, it is desirable
to study present-day environments of carbonate sedimentation and carefully to
investigate indurated equivalents in the geologic record, in order to group carbo-
nate rock types into a single classification or, more likely, multiple classifications
having value to both field and laboratory investigators.
No single scheme of classification appears to have universal appeal or utili-
tarian value to geologists, as is evinced by the blizzard of nomenclatural and clas-
sification proposals in recent years; and any proposal must be meaningful if it is
to be applicable to the tremendously variable and areally extensive carbonate
suites. As a beginning, the field classification should be workable to the investi-
gator equipped with no more than a hand lens and acid bottle. This same scheme
should be expandable to the degree necessary for the worker whose laboratory
contains higher power magnification, as provided by various binocular, petro-
graphic, and electron microscopes, X-ray equipment, and analytical physical and
chemical apparatuses.
Perusal of the literature indicates that geologists normally define carbonate
rocks as those containing more than 50 % of carbonate minerals; investigators
88 H. J. BISSELL AND G. V. CHILINGAR
customarily recognize limestone and dolomite (or dolostone) as the two composi-
tional types. Some workers prefer to treat the two divisions separately, whereas
others demonstrate that a scheme of classification can be devised to include both.
Rocks containing as little as 10% CaC03 often weather like limestones. Never-
theless, it seems that limestones are best defined as sedimentary rocks containing
more than 50% of the minerals calcite (plus aragonite) and dolomite (possibly
including ankerite), with calcite dominant. Dolomite (or dolostone) is a sedimen-
tary rock containing more than 50 % of the minerals dolomite (perhaps including
ankerite) and calcite (plus aragonite), with dolomite more dominant. In the dis-
cussion which follows, limestones are treated separately from dolomite rocks
(dolostones), largely because numerous dolomites are the result of diagenetic
alteration of limestones. The dual classification, therefore, may result in a more
objective approach in the investigation. It will be pointed out, however, that a
classification which includes both rock types is nonetheless workable, but of neces-
sity must be handled by a trained petrographer.
CLASSIFICATION OF LIMESTONES
General stutemenl
At least 60 years ago, GRABAU (1904) realized that the general term “limestone”
was inadequate to identify correctly the numerous species which geologists allocate
to this group. Accordingly, he (GRABAU, 1904, 1913) classified these carbonates
genetically under the groupings of hydroclastic, bioclustic, and biogenic (or organic).
Most workers since Grabau’s pioneer efforts have agreed that composition (or
mineralogy) and texture are compelling parameters in carbonate-rock classification;
some of the more recent investigators also included the parameter of environmen-
tal energy. In a combined or composite classification, degree of diagenesis and epi-
genesis (or alteration) is also a parameter of tremendous significance. From the
standpoint of composition alone, certain subdivisions are made by most petro-
logists and petrographers whether in the field or laboratory. For example, pure
limestone is regarded by many as the rock containing 90% or more of calcite
(possibly with some aragonite). Magnesian limestone could be considered a
variety, if appreciable magnesium is present, but not as the mineral dolomite. This
would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in the field with hand lens and
acid bottle. Dolomitic limestone is that variety in which both calcite and dolomite
are present, but calcite is more abundant. Calcitic dolomite, by definition, is that
carbonate rock containing both dolomite and calcite with the former more abun-
dant. The end-member dolomite (without particular qualification) contains more
than 90 % of the mineral dolomite (possibly with ankerite). These subdivisions have
limited utility in the field, but can find certain acceptance by laboratory workers,
CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENTARY CARBONATE ROCKS 89
TABLE I
QUANTITATIVE SCHEME OF CALCITE-DOLOMITE-CLAY SERIES
(After TEODOROVICH,
1958, p.299)
~
Name of rock Content (%)

~- ~~ ~~
clay calcite dolomite
Clayey limestone 30-10 35-90 045

Slightly-clayey dolomitic limestone 5-10 9045 547.5
Slightly-clayey limestone 5-10 95-85 0-5
Limestone 0-5 100-90 0-5
Slightly-dolomitic limestone 0-5 95-80 5-20
Dolomitic limestone 0-5 80-65 15-35
Highly-dolomitic limestone 0-5 6547.5 30-50
particularly if the petrologist (field geologist) supplements his investigations by

his own petrographic (laboratory) studies.
Composition
PETTIJOHN (1949, pp.289, 313) pointed out that limestones are a polygenetic group
of rocks, and proposed a chemical scheme of classification that shows intergrada-
tions of carbonate rocks. GUERRERO and KENNER (1955, pp.46-48) also proposed a
classification of limestone-dolomite series on the basis of CaO/MgO molar ratio,
more or less a modification of Pettijohn’s quantitative scheme. On the basis of
relative amounts of calcite (CaCOs), dolomite (CaMg(CO&), and clayey material,
TEODOROVICH (1958, p.299) proposed the divisions given in Table I.
Several methods of classification of carbonate rocks on the basis of chemical
composition were reviewed by CHILINGAR (1960). Table I1 gives types of limestones
that can be recognized on the basis of Ca/Mg (weight) ratios.
TABLE 11
CLASSIFICATION OF LIMESTONES ON BASIS OF ca/Mg RATIO
(Modified after CHILINGAR,

1957a, p.187; see also CHILINGAR
and BISSELL,
1963a, p.1)
~- __ ._ - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~
Rock name Range in CalMg ratio
Highly dolomitic limestone 4.74-16

Dolomitic limestone 16-60
Slightly dolomitic (or magnesian) limestone 60-105
Calcitic limestone >105
90 H. J. BISSELL AND G . V. CHILINGAR
Students of carbonate petrology and petrography recognize at least seven

different forms of CaC03 and MgC03 as follows: ( I ) calcite; (2) aragonite; (3)
dolomite; (4) magnesite; (5) solid solution between calcite and dolomite, such as
in skeletons of organisms; (6) nesquehonite; and (7) hydromagnesite. The latter
two forms are rare, but have been shown by FROLOVA (1955) to be present in the
carbonate-sulfate rocks of the Kuybyshev area of the U.S.S.R. Details of carbo-
nate mineralogy are provided by GRAF(1960a).
In addition to detrital quartz, precipitated silica, siderite, ankerite, clay,
and glauconite, various minor constituents are present in many limestones. These
include detrital and/or authigenic feldspar euhedra, chalcedony, pyrite, and bi-
tuminous (organic) matter. If present in amounts less than 10 % of the total bulk,
they hardly justify consideration in the compositional classification. They may,
however, comprise 10% or more of the rock and belong in the nomenclature.
There should be some rational plan of designating them in the rock name, and this
can be done easily with the use of the hyphen (-). The usage is systematic, however,
and should be consistent. For example, a carbonate rock having slightly more than
50% calcite (possibly with aragonite) and slightly less than 50% (or, 30-50%)
dolomite (perhaps with ankerite), is termed a dolomitic-limestone. If the rock is
definitely a limestone, but contains more than 10% but less than 30% dolomite
it is termed a dolomitic limestone. If noncarbonate clay is present in an amount
greater than 10 % (e.g., 15 %), and dolomite constitutes 29 ”/, with calcite corn-
prising the remaining 56 %, the rock is named a clayey, dolomitic limestone. The
term argillaceous may seem more useful than clayey. Usage of the hyphen is
best reserved for those compositional classification schemes of limestones that
are arranged in tabular form. It has utility in limestone classifications which also
involve texture as one of the parameters (MOSHERand PINNEY,1963, pp.219-222).
In his scheme of classification of limestones, MOLLAZAL (1961, pp.9-18)
utilized composition as an important parameter. As limestones he considered those
rocks that contain 50% or more of calcite and possibly aragonite. He noted that
any specific limestone may contain up to but not in excess of 50% “adulterant”
materials that are composed singularly or in combination of dolomite, silica
(commonly quartz sand and silt), silicates, clay, bituminous materials, and others.
He utilized a triangular diagram with three end-members to demonstrate the com-
position of the spectrum of carbonates that he studies. The end-members consist of
( I ) calcite, as the major constituent at the top of the triangle, (2) dolomite, which
is placed at the lower right, and (3) silica and clay, on the lower left (see Fig.]).
In his triangular arrangement by composition, Mollazal divided the side of
his triangle into a five-fold horizontal arrangement, with each subdivision rep-
resenting 20 % of the corresponding constituents or end-members. The surface of
the triangle is divided into one triangle and 20 trapezoids by extending lines down-
ward from the top horizontal bar to intersect equally-spaced points along the base
of the triangle. The trapezoids are numbered from upper left to lower right in
CALCITE
S I L I C A and C L A Y DOLOMITE
Fig. 1. Triangular diagram illustrating classification of carbonates on the basis of composition.
(After MOLLAZAL, 1961, fig.2, p.18; see also MIS~K,1959.)
numerical sequence, and each number shows percentage of the end-members that
are representative of the composition of the rock. The closest number to each
member is approximately 100 % of that end-member. For example, in Mollazal's
diagram, 1 means essentially pure calcite (or calcitic limestone), 21 is dolomite,
and 5 approximates 75% (60-80%) calcite, 18% (16-24%) dolomite, and 7 %
(4-16%) silica and clay. Thus, it .is possible to demonstrate the composition of
a carbonate rock, and in particular limestones, by one number only.
Texture
As pointed out by LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962, p.33, most limestones are
characterized by the types and relative amounts of textural components, of which
four types are dominant: (1) grains, (2) lime mud (micrite), (3) cement, and ( 4 )
pores. Based on their experience, as well as that of scores of other workers in re-
search and petroleum companies with which they were affiliated, these four com-
ponents form the basis for describing and classifying a large proportion of lime-
stones. They pointed out that grains are discrete particles capable of forming a
rock framework, and are, therefore, similar to sand and silt grains in a sandstone
92 H. J . BISSELL AND ti. V. CHILINGAR
or siltstone. As examined under the binocular microscope, an arbitrary lower size

limit of 0.03 mm was taken (division between medium and coarse silt).
Micrite is used for those particles that were once mud-like, of either chemi-
cal or mechanical origin, and have an arbitrary upper size limit of 0.03 mm.
Cement forms the clear crystalline component that fills the spaces between the
grains; sparry calcite or dolomite cement in limestones, dolomites, and some res-
tricted environment arenites fit this category.
Porosity is difficult to place quantitatively in routine examination of lime-
stones, but pore spaces are of significance when carbonates are viewed from the
standpoint of oil genesis, migration and ultimate storage. Pore space varies with
such characteristics as packing, sorting, shape, and size of discrete particles in
limestones and type and disposition of cement. The structures of pore spaces of
carbonate rocks have been classified by TEODOROVICH (I 943 ; see also CHILINGAR,
1957b, and ASCHENBRENNER and ACHAUER, 1960) into six types (Fig.2).
TYPE \ TYPE I\ TYPE III TYPE I V
Fig.2. Classification of pore spaces of carbonate rocks.

Type Z. The pore spaces of this type consist of pores and of rather isolated more or less
narrow conveying canals. Commonly the narrow canals (inner diameter of 0.01-0.005 mm)
which connect the pores of this type are not visible in a thin section. If the minimum diameter
of a canal is larger, however, the canal can be detected in a transparent thin section.
Type ZZ. The communicating ducts of the pore spaces of this type consist merely of con-
strictions in the pore space which become wider and pass gradually into the pores proper.
Type ZZZ. This type of structure is characterized by the presence of pores connected by
finely-porous broad canals, which are observed in a thin section in the form of branches. Occa-
sionally, the conveying canals may consist of coarser pores, which sharply increases the permea-
bility. The pore-space configuration of this type is usually found in dolomites; less frequently, it
is observed in dolomitic limestones.
Type ZV. This type of structure is characterized by a system of pores distributed between the
grains and near the grains of the main mass of the dolomite rock or of its cement, reflecting the
outlines of the greatest part of these grains (intergranular pores). The interrhombohedral porosity
in dolomites serves as an excellent example.
Type V. The pore space is formed by fractures.
Type VZ. The pore space is characterized by two or more elementary types of pore-space
configuration.
Legend: 1 = fine conveying canals between pores; 2= pores clearly observable on thin
sections; 3= fine and extremely fine-grained conveying branches; 4 = intergranular pores.
Illustration after TEODOROVICH (1943); see also CHILINGAR (1 957b) and ASCHENBRENNER
and ACHAUER (1960).
It is to be noted that the four textural groups proposed by LEIGHTON and

PENDEXTER (1962), which are grains, lime mud, cement, and pores, contain the
subdivisions for grain types as follows: ( I ) detrital grains, (2) skeletal grains,
(3) pellets, ( 4 ) lumps, and (5) coated grains. These, however, do not adequately
describe the reefoid (or reefal) limestones and their dolomitized equivalents.
LEICHTON and PENDEXTER (1962, p.35) term these “in-place organic structures”.
The rigid in-place framework of such limestones may be constructed of corals,
bryozoans, Algae, sponges, and perhaps others, as well as their combinations.
Micritic and/or sparry carbonate cement and infilling may also be present. Not to
be overlooked as a textural type, though of relative insignificance in many carbo-
nate rocks, is that resulting from overgrowth, authigenic mineral development,
diagenetic crystallization, and recrystallization. This is not necessarily restricted
to dolomitization, but may be no more than syndiagenetic (= early diagenetic)
crystallized calcite, such as forms in encrinal limestones and as zoned overgrowth
in finely crystalline calcitic limestones, and development of authigenic calcite (and
at times albite) in the matrix (i.e., interstitial) material of “hashy” limestones, reef
trash debris, etc.
Various categories of grain types have been erected by petrographers in their
efforts to classify objectively the detrital, mechanical, or clastic carbonates.
GRABAU (1904, 1913) was among the early workers to attempt this, and some of
his terms are still applicable and widely used, such as culcirudite, calcarenite,
calcisiltite, and calcilutite. Later workers have added textural terms, and have
modified some of those proposed by Grabau; terms such as autochthonous,
allochthonous, calcarenitic, bioaccumulated, bioarenite, biocalcirudite, intra-
clastic, lumpal, pellet (or pelletal), calclithite, biolithite, skeletal, and others have
been used with varying degrees of success. FOLK(1959, 1962) modified some of
Grabau’s terms, and added others such as micrite, intrasparrudite, intraclast, and
others. BRAMKAMP and POWERS (1958), and POWERS (1962) succesfully applied such
textural terms as fine-grained limestone, calcarenitic limestone, calcarenite, and
coarse carbonate clastic. Mention is made of these few examples (because the list
is much longer) to point out the utility of objectively applying texture as a para-
meter in carbonate rock classification.
Among the grain types, the following are of prime importance to the petro-
logist and petrographer in carbonate-rock study: ( I ) detrital grains, (2) skeletal
grains, (3) pellets and oopellets, ( 4 ) lumps, and (5) coated grains (see LEIGHTON and
PENDEXTER, 1962, pp.35-36). Detrital grains are lithoclastic (i.e., fragmental) and
thus include debris derived from pre-existing rocks. Part of this may be from
material washed into the depositional basin or depocenter and thus be allogenic or
allochthonous; or it may be carbonate debris within the basin. In the latter case,
it is termed intraclastic by FOLK(1959, 1962). Within the repository this detrital
material may consist of disrupted weakly consolidated penecontemporaneous se-
diment that is later indurated, or it may have originated from pre-existing rigid
rock. Various types of calcirudites, biocalcirudites, edgewise conglomerates, flat-

pebble conglomerates, polymictic and oligomictic conglomerates, calcarenites,
biocalcarenites, reef-front breccias, calcisiltites, calcilutites, dismicrites, and others
originate in this manner.
Skeletal grains may be fragmental, or nonfragmental. Some workers prefer to
reserve the term “skeletal limestones” for those varieties which are in-place frame-
builders, or bioaccumulated with little or no abrasion. Some fossiliferous limestones
and biostromes fit this category. Perhaps a more realistic approach to application
of the term skeletal grain is to view it as an intra-basin (or any type of sediment
depositional repository such as shelf, platform, etc.) deposit, and, therefore, of
either fragmental or nonfragmental nature. The division between a fragmental
skeletal limestone and an intraclast composed of abraded and water-worn fossil
debris (= fossiliferous-fragmental), however, may be arbitrary. Workers apply the
term “bioclastic” today, not necessarily in the sense suggested by GRABAU (1904,
1913), but more commonly to the fossiliferous-fragmental limestones. THOMAS
(1960, pp.1833-1834) objected to the latter practice, but geologists have evidently
made the slight departure from GRABAU’S earlier (1904) usage and the term is
more or less ingrained in the language. Even GRABAU (1913) later modified his
first suggestion.
Skeletal grains, whether fragmental or nonfragmental, may consist of Fora-
minifera, Algae, crinoids (or crinoidal debris), brachiopods, molluscs, and others.
These grains may be combined with detrital grains (whether allogenic or intraclas-
tic, or both), and/or with micritic material, pellets, lumps, etc. MOSHER and PINNEY
(1963, pp.219-222) devised an excellent scheme in their textural classification of
limestones (which is a modification of that by LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER, 1962),
by applying the hyphen ( - ) and the comma ( , ). For example, skeletal-micritic
limestone indicates approximately equal amounts of skeletal and micritic material,
but skeletal, micritic limestone is one composed mostly of micrite in which 10-25 %
of skeletal elements are embedded. This scheme was utilized earlier by CHILINGAR
and BISSELL(1963a) in a classification of limestones.
DUNHAM (1 962) classified limestones according to depositional texture, and
suggested terms such as mudstone, wackestone, packstone, grainstone, and bound-
stone. PRAYand WRAY(1963) utilized some of these textural terms in their study
of Pennsylvanian porous algal facies exposed along Honaker Trail and the canyon
walls of the San Juan River in southeastern Utah. By contrast, BAARS(1963)
pointed out that unaltered limestones are composed of lime mud (“micrite” or
“matrix” of some writers), particles or grains, cement, and pore space. He fol-
lowed the suggestion of LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962) and subdivided particles
into: ( I ) skeletal, (2) detrital, (3) composite grains, ( 4 ) coated grains, and (5)
pellets. FERAY et al. (1962) indicated in their classification that skeletal material is
biochemical in origin and is secretionary in nature, and stated that: “Skeletal
material is produced by organisms progressively secreting calcium carbonate in
order to provide progressive enlargement of the skeletal structure in keeping with

the growth of organisms” (FERAYet al., 1962, p.25). It is to be noted, therefore,
that geologists are not in full agreement as to how the term skeletal should be
applied in limestone nomenclature. Arguments have been advanced by both sides
in defense of their usage; the term has utility, and perhaps each worker should
indicate whether he connotes fragmental or nonfragmental texture.
NELSONet al. (1962) proposed a utilitarian skeletal limestone classification,
and devoted considerable attention to various usages of such terms as reef, bank,
bioherm, and biostrome. Thus, their skeletal limestones are in-place accumulations
that consist of, or owe their characteristic to, essentially bioaccumulated skeletal
matter. These rocks are formed through biologic processes, and are in contrast to
fragmental limestones which are formed by mechanical processes of transportation,
abrasion, sorting and deposition (NELSON et al., 1962, p.234). In their limestone
classification (which has four parameters), skeletal limestones include reefs and
banks (both of which are biohermal or biostromal); but the fragmental limestones
include the shell debris (coquina), calcarenites (or granular limestones),calcirudites,
and sedimentary breccia.
The textural terms pellet, pelletal, and pelletoid (or pelletoidal) appear to
have utility in limestone (and dolomite) nomenclature and classification. LEIGHTON
and PENDEXTER (1962) and BAARS(1963) pointed out that pellets may be fecal
debris, or grains of micrite. Modern fecal pellets formed by brine shrimp in
sediments of Great Salt Lake of Utah have been described and illustrated by
EARDLEY (1938), and many marine examples have been cited. Similar pellets in
ancient carbonate rocks have been considered by workers to be of fecal origin.
Pellets may be no more than grains of micritic material that lack discernible inter-
nal structure, and may be ovoid to subround in shape; these may be of silt to sand
(or even granule) size. Perhaps some formed through a process of accretion
during transportation within the depocenter. In algal limestones (particularly
those of the Osagia and Mizzia types) in which a certain amount of disruption has
occurred, algal “dust” may subsequently accumulate as pellets through accretion.
Oopellets appear to be intermediate pelletoid grains, and display features sugges-
tive of an origin in an agitated environment wherein particulate pelletal material
receives additional material through accretion. Vestiges of concentric, radial
or axiolitic features may be shown in such oopellets.
Lump limestones, according to geologists of Jersey Production Research
Company (see LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER, 1962), are those composed of composite
grains that possess surficial irregularities and are believed to have formed by a
process of aggregation. WOLF(1960) observed that lumps are aggregates of one
or more types of grains such as composite oolites and (or) composite pellets.
MOSHER and PINNEY(1963) also considered lumps significant in limestone nomen-
clature, but applied such names as “lumpal limestone,” “lumpal-micritic limestone,’’
and others to limestones in which lumps form a significant constituent. LEIGHTON
and PENDEXTER (1962) pointed out that lumps may range in size up to algal
“biscuits”. Workers may encounter difficulties in distinguishing lumps from grape-
stones (see IMBRIE and PURDY,1962, p.266); or from bits of lime mud torn from the
sea floor, that through agitation are rolled around and increase in size through
aggregation and composite clustering. Lime ooze in the littoral zone may become
disrupted, rolled around and shaped into lobate or irregular masses, and ultimately
become indurated. Such material could be termed lumps. Furthermore, flocculated
lime ooze particularly through mingling of brackish and saline waters may form
lumpal limestones, lumpal-micritic limestones, etc. ; this would result in a “glom-
eroclastic” texture. Thick and areally extensive limestones that contain numerous
lumps, and in fact are to be termed lump limestones, occur in Cenozoic deposits of
the western interior of the United States. These limestones are largely of the lacu-
strine environment although many may have accumulated in saline to penesaline
waters, and others are evidently strictly of fresh-water origin.
Numerous Permian algal limestones in parts of the eastern one-half of
Nevada and western one-half of Utah contain lumps; it is believed that many of
these lumpal limestones are composed of disrupted algal colonies some of which
were broken and re-shaped to form lumps through current and wave action in
shallow marine waters. Algal “dust”, as pointed out herein, may have become
organized into pellets, intermediate pelletoid grains, or micritic grains; these may
be termed the “grains of matrix” of ILLING (1954).
The textural term oolitic has been applied to limestones for many years;
WOLF(1960, p.1415) preferred the term coated grains for “ooids” or “oolites” to
include concentrically formed materials up to the size of pisolites. Wolf’s classi-
fication is identical in most respects to that of Jersey Production Researchcompany
(LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER, 1962). Thus, coated grains are those having concentric
or enclosing layers of calcium carbonate around a central nucleus, and include
oolites, pisolites, Algae-encrusted or Foraminifera-encrusted skeletal grains.
These coated grains fall into three principal categories, as follows: ( I ) OoZites-
small spherical or subspherical accretionary grains generally less than 2.0 mm in
diameter that in thin section display concentric and/or radial structure. A variety
in this group is the superficial oolite in which the thickness of the accretionary
coating is less than the radius of the nucleus. (2) Pisolites-grains similar to but
larger than oolites, and less regular in form (commonly crenulated); they are
generally 2.0 mm or more in diameter. (3) Algae- or Foraminifera-encrustedgrains
-these are carbonate grains having a nucleus (generally a skeletal or rock frag-
ment) about which Algae or Foraminifera have formed encrustations.
It is herein suggested that the textural term “axiolitic” (radial-cylindrical)
should be added, either as a subdivision within (I) and (2) above, or as a fourth
category of the oolitic class. The term was applied originally to igneous rocks
(ZIRKEL,1876), but has utility for sedimenta. carbonate rocks if no attempt
is made to assign a particular genetic significance it. Axiolitic is a textural term
Fig.3. Textural classification of limestones. (After TEODOROVICH,
1958, p.291; see also BISSELL
and CHILINGAR,
1961, fig.1, p.612.)
W
4
referring to spherical or subspherical coated grains which have a type of acicular

structure extending at right angles from a central axis or rod rather than from a
point. Concentric structure may be present, but it is subtle. Axiolites range in
size from micro-oolitic to pisolitic. As pointed out by BISSELLand CHILINGAR
(1961, p.612), this term was applied by TEODOROVICH (1958, p.291) in his structural
(i.e., textural) classification of limestones to a variety of spherulitic ray-aggregate
limestones in which the main mass of the rock consists of grains, and cementing
material does not exceed 10 % of the bulk (see Fig.3).
Useful generalizations are not easy to make concerning texture typical of lime-
stones composed of protective and skeletal structures of organisms. GRABAU
(1904, pp.229-230) proposed the term “endogenetic” for sedimentary rocks that
owe their origin chiefly to chemical agents or agents acting from within, and thus
are intimately associated with the formation of rocks. One of his four groups of
endogenetic rocks is termed “biogenic” or organic; also termed bioliths. Accor-
ding to GRABAU (1913, p.280), these are the only true organic rocks that are due
directly to the physiological activities of organisms; if the rock has definitive
structure and texture formed during transportation, sorting, and deposition, the
dimensional terms rudaceous, arenaceous, lutaceous, etc. are applicable. By
contrast, if the organic limestone is reefal, such textural terms may not be of value
except to infilling or matrix materials. The bulk of limestones that have organic
structures was formed through secretion; the organisms responsible for construc-
tion of this framework may include corals, stromatoporoids, Algae, bryozoans, and
others. Fossil remains are still in growth position, or an approximation thereof.
These fossils may be closely packed, or have more of an open-work structure
(Le., lack interstitial matrix, and are cemented only at points of contact); inter-
skeletal (nonfragmental type) spaces commonly are occupied by micrite (including
dolomitized micrite), skeletal material (fragmental), lumps, pellets, and intraclasts.
This interstitial “paste” or matrix material may consist of comminuted algal
“dust”, coralgal detritus, calcarenitic material, lutite, and the like. The name of
essential framework-building organisms (which may have opposed waves) is
necessary and not merely accessory in the nomenclature; coralline, algal, bryozoan,
coralgal, and bryalgal are terms commonly utilized in the classificatory schemes.
Some plans of limestone classification incorporate the terms “biochemical”,
“physicochemical”, and “mechanical”, and subdivide these to include the terms
“skeletal”, “nonskeletal”, “secretionary”, “accretionary”, “particulate”, etc.
FERAYet al. (1962, p.24) developed such a scheme of limestone classification.
Limestones that are largely, if not wholly, in-place accumulations of orga-
nisms should be defined in terms of the ecological potential of the organisms
responsible for forming this important group of sedimentary carbonate rocks.
A reefis a nonfragmental skeletal limestone deposit formed by organisms possessing
the ecologic potential to construct a wave-resistant framework that is more or less
rigid and has definitive topographic structure. The term “bank” has received a
certain amount of attention from geologists; LOWENSTAM (1950) indicated banks

to be the product of organisms which could not raise their own substrate very
high above the surrounding bottom. NEWELL et al. (1953) considered banks as
accumulations of bioclastic debris as well as in-place accumulations of shells,
e.g., oyster banks. The definition advanced by NELSON et al. (1962, p.242) is as
follows: “Bank-A skeletal limestone deposit formed by organisms which do not
have the ecologic potential to erect a rigid, wave-resistant structure”. It is to be
remembered that NELSON et al. (1962, p.234) regarded skeletal limestones as those
accumulations which consist of, or owe their characteristics to, virtually in-place
calcareous skeletal matter. These rocks, they argued, formed through biologic pro-
cesses and they contrasted them with the fragmental limestones that formed through
transportation, abrasion and sorting. They followed the definitions of CUMMINGS
(1932) for bioherm and biostrome, which in essence are as follows: Bioherm-
“. . . a reef, bank, or mound; for reeflike, moundlike, or lenslike or otherwise cir-
cumscribed structures of strictly organic origin, embedded in rocks of different
lithology.” (CUMMINGS, 1932,p.333). Biostrome- “. . . purely bedded structures,
such as shell beds, crinoid beds, coral beds, etc., consisting of and built mainly by
sedentary organisms, and not swelling into moundlike or lenslike forms,. . .,
which means alayer or bed.” (CUMMINGS, 1932, p.334). GRABAU (1913, pp.384-457)
presented a rather extensive discussion on the biogenic rocks, with a detailed treat-
ment of reefs. He applied the names “zoogenic” and “phytogenic” for animal-
formed and plant-formed deposits, respectively. If the term biogenic has utility
today in limestone nomenclature, then biogenic limestones can conveniently be
divided into these two groups: (I) reefs and (2) banks. Reefs, therefore, owe their
origin to dynamic growth upward and outward of framework-building organisms,
in opposition to waves and currents. These organisms are capable of surviving in
high-energy environments, and include certain corals, Algae, bryozoans, and rudis-
tids. Varieties of bioherms and biostromes which accumulate through this process
and owe their origin to these organisms are then reefs in the true sense. Banks, on the
other hand, are in situ accumulations of skeletal material which are largely, if not
wholly, nonfragmental but do not have the structural framework of reefs. Some
bioherms and biostromes fit into the category of banks; some accumulations of
Foraminifera, crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans, bryalgal and coralgal materials,
and molluscs are best classified here.
A discussion of textural types and groups among limestones (and dolomites)
is incomplete without reference to some of the terms extant in the literature. The
names calcirudite, calcarenite, calcisiltite, calcilutite, calcargillite, and many others
are established in geologic literature, and need no further discussion here. FOLK
(1959, 1962) has extended or modified this list to include such terms as “intra-
sparrudite”, “intramicrudite”, “oosparrudite”, “pelmicrite”, and others. Such
terms as course-grained,$ne-grained, medium-crystalline, aphanitic, etc. are particle-
and crystal-size terms for which there is no general concensus. LEIGHTON and
100 H. J , BISSELL AND G. V. CHILINGAR
TABLE 111
SIZE CLASSIFICATION
1922; modified by LEIGHTON

(After WENTWORTH, and PENDEXTER,
1962)
~~
Grade-size Reference
scales (mm) _ _ _ _ _ ~~ ~ ._ ~~
WENTWORTH
(1922) LEIGHTON
and PENDEXTER
(1962)
-- ~ ~ _ - -~ - _ _ _ _ _
~ ~ . ~-~ ____~-
8.0
Pebble gravel
4.0 ~~ Breccias and conglomerates
Granule gravel
2.0 .~ ~ ~~
Very coarse sand Very coarse-grained

1 .o ~- ~~~ ~
Coarse sand Coarse-grained

0.5 ~ ~
Medium sand Medium-grained

0.25 ~~ ~- ~
Fine sand Fine-grained

0.125 ~. ~. ~- ~
Very fine sand Very fine-grained

0.0625 ~~
Coarselv
0.0312 - Silt Micrograined
0.016
0.002
0.001 Clay Cryptograined
PENDEXTER (1962, p.52) modified the Wentworth grade scale, that was proposed
for “clastic sediments”, to apply to carbonate rocks, as shown in Table 111.
The above textural terminology may find a certain application for petrolo-
gists and petrographers; it is hardly scientific when an author’s description of
limestone states that the rock is “fine-grained’’ when in reality it is micritic,
finely crystalline, or cryptocrystalline. FOLK (1959, 1962) also modified the Went-
worth scale, but used a crystallinity scale for the “authigenic constituents”. A
comparison of some of the prevailing particle size scales is presented in Table IV.
It is herein pointed out that certain terminology of DEFORD(1946) has utility, and
has generally been overlooked by petrographers. The term aphanitic is still
used by numerous sedimentary petrographers, although the term aphanic is pre-
ferred. MOLLAZAL (1961, pp. 14-18) discussed crystallinity of limestones, parti-
cularly those that have been diagenetically altered. In following usage of DEFORD
(1946), he applied the term aphanic to those limestones which have a crystalline
(and/or grained) texture, the discrete particles of which are smaller than 0.004 mm
in size. Microcrystalline and cryptocrystalline textures are also included here;
but aphanic is a term to apply in the field when magnification no greater than 10 x
hand lens is available. Subsequent work in the laboratory with thin sections and
polarizing microscope will determine if it is micro- or cryptocrystalline. In following
the usage of DEFORD (1946) and the variation of MOLLAZAL (1 96 1, p. 1S), the writers
believe that the textural term aphanic should replace the term aphanitic for sedi-
mentary carbonate rocks, and that the upper limit of particles should be considered
as 0.01 mm. Both grained and crystalline textures are included in Table IV;
micrograined and microcrystalline, and for the smaller particles, cryptograined and
cryptocrystalline are appropriate terms, defined in the laboratory. Aphanic is an
excellent field term, particularly for micritic limestones and dolomites, lithographic
limestones, etc.
On the basis of extensive research work, KHVOROVA (1958, p.1 I ) proposed
the following useful classification: ( I ) very coarse-grained (or crystalline)--> 1 mm:
(2) coarse-grained-0.5-1 mm; (3) medium-grained-0.25-0.5 mm; ( 4 ) finc-grained
-0.1-0.25 mm; (5) very fine-grained-0.01-0.1 mm; (6) micrograined - <0.01
mm; and (7) cryptograined (pelitomorphic, cryptocrysta11ine)- <0.005 mm.
Additional proposals that are made at this time include revisions in size
limits of the phaneric sedimentary carbonate-rock particles. Inasmuch as textural
classification includes grained as well as crystalline particles, it is important that
the petrographer should distinguish between these in both field and laboratory
studies. The term macrocrystalline is used, with slight modification, after that of
HOWELL(1922); this also includes macrograined textural types if they are macro-
clastic. Limits of size grades are identical to those given by DEFORD (1946) for
megagrained rocks. Perhaps the terms megagrained and megacrystalline are more
appealing to some geologists than the terms adopted by the writers. The terms meso-
crystalline and mesograined are valuable, and although d o not correspond precisely
to the lower limit set by DEFORD (1946) are, nonetheless, within the limitations of
normal routine field and laboratory investigations. It is not necessary that the
medium- and coarse-textured sedimentary carbonate textural types correspond
precisely with the size-grade limits of the WENTWORTH (1922) sandstone textural
groups. Sands are segregated into textural types and sizes commonly by sieving,
whereas carbonates are examined with the hand lens and microscope and, there-
fore, lend themselves to study by the scales indicated herein. Aphanic has utility
in both field and laboratory studies as a scale size; in the laboratory it can be ascer-
tained if the carbonate has a microcrystalline or micrograined (i.e., microclastic)
texture, or should be termed cryptocrystalline or cryptograined. It is possible to
determine finely crystalline or finely grained textures in the field with the 10 x hand
lens, and more precisely establish size limits later in the laboratory. With the above
information available, it should be possible to classify more objectively the sedi-
TABLE IV
PARTICLE SIZE SCALES
Kr nine Howell DeFord Petti'ohn

(1$48) (1922) (194 6) (194d)
2 oarsely Macro- Mega- Calci-

:rystalline crystalline grained rudite
grained)
4.0
Medium
2.0 :rys t alline
grained) Calc-.
arenite
1.0 Meso- Meso-

Tinely
xystalline Crystalline grained
grained)
0.5
0.25
0.1 Micro- Pauro-

crystalline grained
0.062
Calci-
0.05 lutite
0.025
0.016
0.01 Crypto-
crystalline
0.004 Micro-
grained
0.002i
0.001
Crypto-
:rained
Size
I I I (mm)
Mollazal Folk The present
(1-961) (1959,1962) authors
'
Macrocry- Coarse Extremely
stalline coarsely
Medium crystalline
4.0
Fine Very
1 coarsely 2.0
Coarse Crystalline
1.0
Coarsely
crystalline
0.5
Medium
Medium 0.25
Fine
lI
crystalline
Fine 0.1
fine
0.062
Finely crystalline
Finely
crystalline crystalline 0.05
(grained) 0.025
I
0.016
Very
finely Micro-
0.01
crystalline crystalline
(grained)
0.004
Micro- Aphano -
xystallinc crystalline
0.0025
Crypto- Crypto- 0.001

xystalline crystalline
(grained)
mentary carbonate rocks, particularly by those workers who investigate the pro-
blems of diagenesis and permeability-porosity.
Any scheme of sedimentary carbonate-rock classification should take into
account, if at all possible, the energy level of the depocenter (= depositional en-
vironment). PLUMLEY et al. (1 962) have provided detailed information concer-
ning this parameter in the classification and stated that: “The depositional energy
level, which is a function of wave and current action, varies in space and time and
leaves its record in the rocks” (PLUMLEY et al., 1962, p.86). Their classification
plan includes five major limestone types and fifteen subtypes based upon inter-
pretation of the energy level, and in part upon the biota. Sedimentary petrologists
are more aware than ever that fossils are part of the rock and are not primarily a
tool for the paleontologist. In many instances fossils provide the data necessary
for environmental interpretation where other evidence might be open to subjec-
tive appraisal. Algae in particular fit this category.
In their classification of Arabian carbonate rocks, BRAMKAMP and POWERS
(1958, pp.1305-1317) indicated two major energy types: ( I ) quiet-water deposits,
and (2) current-washed deposits. Coarse carbonate clastics (calcirudites) and some
calcarenites, as would be expected, were classified as current-washed deposits;
whereas calcarenitic limestones and fine-grained limestones (calcilutites) were
assigned to the quiet-water group. CHILINGAR and BISSELL(1963a, table 3, p.9)
utilized a somewhat similar plan in their classification of limestones. RICH(1963,
1964) expanded the carbonate-rock classification scheme of BRAMKAMP and POWERS
(1958), but did not stress the energy-level factor. It is herein recommended that
petrologists and petrographers devote considerable time to the objective study of
this parameter in sedimentary carbonate-rock classification. The study of turbidites,
for example, is not limited to noncarbonate rocks, and the field worker can map and
plot the major depositional energy levels; he can also enhance these studies ob-
jectively with detailed laboratory studies.
Serious consideration should be given, it is contended, to the Energy Irzdex
(EI) classification of PLUMLEY et al. (1962). They proposed the following five
major types: I-quiet water; 11-intermittently agitated water; 111-slightly
agitated water ;IV-moderately agitated water; and V-strongly agitated water.
As they pointed out, each type is a pigeonhole with boundaries that, although
arbitrary, can be determined by semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis of the
primary textural properties. BOUMA(1962) demonstrated that an objective study
is possible with noncarbonate sedimentary rocks; it is herein contended that
an equally valid scientific and objective approach is possible with all sedimentary
carbonate rocks. Field work is an obvious prerequisite to detailed laboratory inves-
tigations; one discipline must complement the other. PLUMLEY et al. (1962) have
provided detailed information relating to criteria by which a semi-quantitative
interpretation of agitated-water environments can be made; their paper is generally
available, and that information need not be repeated here. Geologists are devoting
considerable time and energy mapping environments, and any worthy tool must
be given serious consideration (see BOUMA, 1962; ~ M B R I Eand PURDY,1962; and
G. E. THOMAS, 1962).
LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962, p.50) suggested that determination of the
grain/micrite ratio has value in their textural classification of limestones. This
ratio appears along the vertical axis of their chart, and is the sum of the percentages
of grains divided by the percentage of mud-like material (micrite). Essentially, this
grainlmicrite ratio (GMR) is equal to:
% (detrital grains + skeletal grains + pellets + lumps + coated grains +

mineral grains
% micrite
As pointed out by LEIGHTON and PENDEXTEK (1962, p.50), the following ratio
may be of value in studying limestones with organic structures: (framebuilder +
grains)/micrite ratio.
Both micrite and matrix appear in the G M R ratio; micrite is the lime mud
having an aphanic to finely crystalline (or grained) texture, whereas matrix con-
sists of interstitial material between grains that may be difficult to assign to one of
the followi~igcategories: detrital or skeletal grains, pellets, coated grains, or lumps.
Matrix should not be confused with micritic material. PLUMLEY et al. (1962,
pp.86-87) noted that matrix is defined as the material in which any sedimentary
particle is embedded, and may be microcrystalline or granular.
In his studies of the limestones of the Bird Spring Group (Carboniferous-
Permian) in southern Nevada, RICH(1963, 1964) proposed a classification which
is a modified form of the classification of BRAMKAMP and POWERS (1958) combined
with some of the features of the carbonate classifications of FOLK(1959), CAROZZI
(1960), and WOLF(1960); see also LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962). RICH(1963,
pp. 1662-1 665; 1964) showed percentages of clastic noncarbonate particles and
of allochemical grains in his charts.
Emphasis is placed by the writers on objectivity in determining the relative
proportions of the textural components of sedimentary carbonate rocks. A lime-
stone may originate through the induration of lime ooze (mud), and thus be termed
micrite; or it may consist of a major proportion of grains with only very minor
amounts of micritic or sparry cement. A grain/micrite ratio serves the purpose of
assigning a numerical value which denotes the gradations between the two extre-
mes. These divisions, it is true, are arbitrarily drawn and if for no other reason
than semantics allocate rock types to a nomenclatural system. Semantics, however,
is not the ultimate reason for carbonate classification, although a language must
be available to permit the exchange of ideas and concepts. Thus, a high GMR
(> 1) indicates that the rock contains more than 50 % grains, and one with a GMR
of 1 defines a rock with about 50% grains and 50% micrite material; finally if
106 H. J. BISSELL A N D G. V. CHILINGAR
the GMR is < 1 the rock contains less than 50 % grains. This is shown in the clas-
sification of limestones by MOSHER and PINNEY (1963) as modified after the one by
L EIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1 962).
In any tabular form of rock classification, various “pigeonholes” are usually
set up arbitrarily for the grain types, and many rocks consist largely of one tex-
tural type, such as micrite, calcarenite, etc. Seemingly, most limestones contain
two or more grain types. Where two or more grain types are present in approxi-
mately equal amounts in the rock, it is suggested that the two names be hyphenated,
such as detrital-micritic limestone. Most generally, however, one grain type pre-
dominates over the other. In this case, the limestone is given the name of the pre-
dominating grain type with the other as an adjectival modifier, or essential prefix.
For example, the carbonate may contain 60% skeletal grains and 40% detrital
grains; this would be termed detrital-skeletal limestone. If the rock is composed of
15 % detrital grains and 85 % skeletal grains, however, it is termed detrital, skeletal
limestone. In other words, the contents of grains (in %) are arranged in tabular form
in the order of increasing percentage in the classification scheme. A rock composed
of 10 % detrital grains and 70 % skeletal grains, all embedded in micritic material
composing 20 % of the whole, could be named detrital, micritic, skeletal limestone.
If detrital grains and micrite are present in about equal amounts, such as 15 % each,
and skeletal material comprises the remaining 70%, the rock is named detrital-
micritic, skeletal limestone. The name should be euphonious, and pronounce-
ability will dictate the order of arrangement where the hyphen is used.
WOLF(1960; see also LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER, 1962) applied a plan of
pigeon-holing limestones according to textural types; the vertical and horizontal
lines in their charts are arbitrarily assigned for guidance, not limitation. For exam-
ple, a carbonate may consist of approximately equal amounts (say 30% each) of
detrital, skeletal, and pelletal material, cemented with micrite; it could, according
to the suggestions advanced by the present writers, be termed detrital-skeletal-
pelletal limestone cemented with micrite. It may be more pleasing to the ear of a
listener to term the rock a detrital-pelletal-skeletal limestone cemented with mi-
crite. It would not be termed micrite; perhaps preference would dictate that it
should be identified as a micritic, detrital-pelletal-skeletal limestone. This differs in
no fundamental fashion, other than constituents involved, from the naming of
an igneous, or a metamorphic rock; for example, quartz-muscovite-albite schist,
etc.
CLASSIFICATION OF DOLOMITES
General statement
Dolomites have been defined as carbonate rocks composed of more than 50 % by

weight of the mineral dolomite (LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER, 1962, p. 53). Some
TABLE V
CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS INTERMEDIATE IN COMPOSITION BETWEEN PURE LIMESTONES AND DOLOMITES
(After data by CAYEUX,

1935; CAROZZI,1960, p.264)
Rock name Content (%)

calcite dolomite
Limestone >95 <5

Magnesian limestone 90-95 5-10
Dolomitic limestone 50-90 10-50
Calcitic dolomite 10-50 50-90
Dolomite <10 >90
geologists, however, prefer the term dolostone (cf. RODGERS, 1954) for the rock in
which dolomite content exceeds 50%. It is a truism that most geologists regard
any carbonate rock that contains less than 50 % calcite as a dolomite. As pointed
out by PETTIJOHN (1957, p.416), despite the possible ambiguity arising from the
use of the same term (dolomite) for both the mineral and the rock, this term will
probably continue to be used for both. CAROZZI(1960, p.264) stated: “Dolomites
are carbonate rocks primarily composed of the mineral dolomite.” The context
invariably shows which is which.
CAYEUX (1935) classified the rocks intermediate in composition between pure
limestones and dolomites as given in Table V. TEODOROVICH (1958, p.299) recogni-
zed several groups of dolomite as given in Table VI.
Some dolomites contain magnesite in addition to calcite and dolomite,
TABLE VI
TEODOROVICH’S CLASSIFICATION OF DOLOMITES
(After TEODOROVICH,
1958, p.299)
Group name Content (%)

dolomite calcite clayey material
Clayey dolomite 35-90 045 30-10

Slightly-clayey calcitic dolomite 90-45 5-47.5 5-10
Slightly-clayey dolomite 95-85 0-5 5-10
Dolomte 100-90 0-5 0-5
Slightly-calcitic dolomite 95-80 5-20 0-5
Calcitic dolomite 80-65 15-35 0-5
Highly-calcitic dolomite 65-47.5 30-50 0-5
108 BISSELL AND G . V. CHILINGAR
H. .I.
TABLE VII
FROLOVA’S CLASSIFICATION OF DOLOMITE-MAGNESITE-CALCITE SERIES
(After FROLOVA,
1959, p.35)
Name Content (%) CaOIMgO

- ~ _ _ _ ratio
dolomite calcite magnesite
Limestone 5-0 95-100 > 50.1

Slightly dolomitic limestone 25-5 75-95 9.1 -50.1
Dolomitic limestone 50-25 50-75 4.0 -9.1
Calcitic dolomite 75-50 25-50 2.2 -4.0
Slightly calcitic dolomite 95-75 5-25 1.5 -2.2
Dolomite 100-95 0-5 - 1.4 -1.5
Very slightly magnesian dolomite 100-9 5 - 0-5 1.25-1.4
Slightly magnesian dolonlite 95-75 5-25 0.80-1.25
Magnesian dolomite 75-50 25-50 0.44-0.80
Dolomitic magnesite 50-25 50-75 0.18-0.44
Slightly dolomitic magnesite 25-5 75-95 0.03-0.18
Magnesite 5-0 95-100 0.00-0.03
and thus FROLOVA (1959, p.53) proposed a new classification of dolomite-magne-

site-calcite series (see Table VII).
On the basis of Ca/Mg weight ratios, CHILINGAR (1957a) recognized the
following groups of dolomites: ( I ) magnesian dolomites (Ca/Mg = 1.0-1.5), (2)
dolomites (Ca/Mg = 1.5-1.7), (3) slightly calcitic dolomites (CaIMg = 1.7-2.0),
( 4 ) calcitic dolomites (Ca/Mg = 2.0-3.5). The upper limit of calcitic dolomites was
chosen because the Ca/Mg ratio of 3.44/1 is the lowest ratio known in skeletal
structures of organisms (Goniolithon, a calcareous Algae, has a Ca/Mg ratio of
3.44/1). A pure dolomite has a ratio of 1.648/1, and some dolomites contain an
excess of magnesium (magnesian dolomites).
Before discussing the classification of dolomites, it is important that atten-
tion should be directed to some of the prevailing concepts regarding types of dolo-
mites. For example, VISHNYAKOV (195 1,p. I 12) recognized the following major gene-
tic types: (I) epigenetic, (2) diagenetic, and (3) primary. He considered those
dolomites as epigenetic which resulted from the alteration of completely lithified
limestones either by downward percolating meteoric solutions or by rising hy-
drothermal solutions, mainly along fractures. These dolomites have obscure strati-
fication, patchy distribution, non-uniform grain size (clear-grained), relic structure
and are cavernous. Diagenetic dolomites are considered to be those of great extent
and volume; they were formerly limestones. Fossil relics are commonly present in
diagenetic dolomites. Primary dolomites result from direct chemical precipitation
out of water, and are recognized when associated with other primary sediments.
They are well stratified and are pelitomorphic ( ~ 0 . 0 1or ~0.005-0.003mm, with
coagulating centers in some), possess characteristic microlayering, and very rarely

contain fossils. Primary dolomites lack appreciable porosity (in fact are normally
rather dense) and are commonly interlayered with evaporites, clays, marls, micrite
with suspended oolites, gypsum (commonly containing pseudomorphs after gyp-
sum), and oopelletal to micritic limestones with bladed and/or spherical to sub-
spherical algal bodies. TEODOROVICH (1958, p.303) does not believe in very wide-
spread occurrence of epigenetic dolomites because of difficulty in explaining the
source of huge amounts of magnesium which is necessary to effect dolomitization.
MCKINLEY(1951, pp. 169-1 83) categorized the theories relating to marine
replacement of limestones to form dolomites as follows: ( I ) penecontemporaneous
replacement, (2) syndiagenetic replacement, and (3)post-diagenetic (i.e., epidiagene-
tic) replacement. He defined penecontemporaneous as that type of replacement
that takes place immediately after deposition of the sediment, before consolidation
or lithification into rock, and prior to superposition of any great thickness of
additional material. According to him, syndiagenetic dolomitization takes place
during diagenesis of calcareous material, and should be considered a factor in
transformation of the sediment into rock. Post-diagenetic replacement (which
McKinley indicated as occurring in the marine realm) involves alteration of the
completely lithified limestone to dolomite by the action of sea water, or of static
connate waters. He pointed out that many dolomitized reef limestones appear to
have been altered after lithification by continued exposure of the calcareous reef
rocks to sea water in an environment conducive to replacement. SKEATS(1918),
who studied coral reefs in the south Pacific, concluded that marine dolomitization
took place in shallow water (and as deep as 150 ft.), under slightly increased pres-
sure, with abundant COZ,and in porous limestone allowing free circulation of
sea water.
The present chapter is not a treatise on processes of dolomitization, but
rather it relates to problems of classification. The foregoing is, therefore, but a
brief discussion serving as a prelude to an organization of these carbonates into a
rational scheme of classification. According to LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962, pp.
53-57), the different types can best be accomodated by a descriptive system of no-
menclature, one based primarily on compositional grouping and with appropriate
modifying textural terms. They recognized two groups: (1) calcareous dolomites-
those containing 50-90 % dolomite, and (2) dolomites -those containing 90 % or
more dolomite. For each type, description in parentheses follows the major name
to designate the precursor; for example, a rock may be termed calcareous dolomite
(calcareous skeletal fragments with calcareous matrix and cement).
Schemes of carbonate-rock classification, which include both limestones and
dolomites, by their very nature assume that the latter resulted from alteration of
the former. This works very well for dolomites which originated through diagenesis
af the various types of limestones; the classification scheme then requires only
spaces in the table to indicate the degree of alteration. BRAMKAMP and POWERS
Cleor -grained
dolomites Other micro-groined
e,
Micro-grained Cryptograined-pelitomorphic -
from irregular groins
dolomites
wilh relics
Nodules, onlltes, etc
Detrital
19
Detrital and biomorphic I A
Biomorphic 1 %
9
Fa
Oolitic or pisolitic
-
U
3
1 .^
%
Clear-grained wifh negofive Detrital 0
relic structure
Biornorphic-detritol
'0
rn
Biornorphic lc!
a
m"
oollllc or plsolltlc m
cn
3
Detrifal
1 V6
15
Micro-grohed with negative
Biomorphic - detrital
relic sfructure
0
Biomorphic 18
F
SlltY
v
I cd
Sandy
W
u)
2
E
Conglomerate and breccia 1 'f
3
5
0
n
a
W Radiolife, etc. cr
LL
_I
Wifh relic. chemical or
Lumpy (or clotted or nodular1
and micro- lumpy
v
8
._
4
] 5C8x
bio-chemical strucfure
I-
W
I
Oolitic-like
Oolitic
and
and
bean-shoped
pisolitic
13-
0
5
3
F +
8
z Bio-dctrital
5
W
0 With relic-organic structure Biomorphic - d e t r i l a l
Biomorphic .-
a
(1958), TEODOROVICH (1958), FOLK(1959, 1962), MOLLAZAL (1961), POWERS

(1962), CHILINGAR and BISSELL(1963a), RICH (1963, 1964), and others have
successfully demonstrated this possibility. BRAMKAMP and POWERS(1958), for
example, were among the first to allocate “pigeonholes” in their chart for those
limestones that are not visibly altered, those that are moderately altered, and those
that are strongly altered, and for those whose original texture has been obliterated.
RICH(1963, 1964) modified the classification of BRAMKAMP and POWERS (1958) by
assigning percentage parameters to the various degrees of alteration, and by adding
such identifying names as “porphyroblastic” and “granoblastic” to two of the
columns. MOLLAZAL (1961) indicated relative degree of diagenetic alteration of
limestones by assigning objective data relating to size and fabric of crystals.
TEODOROVICH (1958, p.295; also in: BISSELL and CHILINGAR, 1961, p.614) devised
a plan of classification (Fig.4) which indicates whether the relics are positive
(former fossils and minerals identifiable) or negative (former fossils and minerals
discernible but not readily recognizable).
In his discussion of carbonate rocks, CAROZZI (1960, pp.264-284) was con-
cerned with the petrography (and minor petrology) of dolomitic sediments, and
categorized them into the following groups: magnesian limestones and magnesian
chalks, dolomitic limestones, bioconstructed dolomitic limestones, bioaccumulated
dolomitic limestones, fine-grained dolomitic limestones, dolomi tic chalks, dolomi-
tic lithocalcirudites and lithocalcarenites, dolomitic biocalcirudites and biocalca-
renites, dolomitic oolitic calcarenites, dolomitic calcilutites, and dolomites. This
approach to the study of these carbonates has merit, and obviously could be a
guide to the orderly-minded investigator.
It is obvious that dolomites are susceptible to classification utilizing two
major parameters, viz.: (I) relic textures (and structures), and (2) crystallinity
(which is a function of degree of alteration in diagenetic dolomites, but is commonly
lacking in primary types). It may be pointed out that some dolomites which have a
high degree of crystallinity (including medium- and coarse-crystalline varieties),
lack all vestiges of relics, positive or negative. It is not to be inferred, however, that
in all cases high degree of crystallinity is indicative of complete obliteration of
relics. It is possible that primary dolomites of the evaporitic and otherwise
restricted environments may lose their aphanic to fine-textured character and be-
come medium- to coarsely-crystalline during diagenesis just as limestones do.
By utilizing the particle size grade chart (see Table IV), this objectivity in assigning
degree of crystallinity can be realized. Furthermore, if the original carbonate was
a variety of limestone and has been diagenetically dolomitized, the charts devised
by BRAMKAMP and POWERS (1958), POWERS (1962), or the modified version of
RICH(1963, 1964) can aid in assigning a percentage parameter to this type of dolo-
mitization. Eventually, petrographers may be able to state more objectively the
stage of diagenesis that was attained (such as early or penecontemporaneous,
medial, and late).
LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962, p.57) stated the following concerning the
genetic implications in naming of dolomites: “In spite of attempts to avoid genetic
implications in naming dolomites and dolomitic rocks, it is impossible to do so
completely.” They cited the example of “dolomitic limestone”, and also pointed
out that the association of finely micrograined dolomites, laminated dolomites, and
dolomitic breccias with anhydrite, chert, and microcrystalline micritic limestone,
has led t o the use of the term primary dolomites in evaporitic sequences. Some
TABLE VIII
CHARACTERISTICS OF DOLOMITE GROUPS~
and PENDEXTER,
(After LEIGHTON 1962; modified by the present authors)
_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~
Dolomites in evaporitic sequences Dolomitized rocks
~. ~~~ -
Generally finely micrograined. May be very coarse grained (sucrosic).
Commonly aphanic t o finely crystalline with May be meso- to macrocrysfalline.

uniform texture.
Associated with limestone sequences.
May be laminated or brecciated.
May contain fossil molds.
May be interlayered with dolarenites.
May contain relic limestone textures and
May have admixed clay andfine silt. belong to gradational sequences showing
increased development of dolomite.
Associated with anhydrite, chert, and micro-
crystalline micritic limestone. May be associated with transgressive or
regressive deposits that display truncation
May be associated with micrific limestones. of other beds.
(some of which may contain “floating” oolites
and pellets). Positive and negative relics of fossils, pellets,
detrital particles, lumps and coated grains in
Associated with red shales and siltstones. dolorhombic mosaic.
Associated with gypsum and anhydrite that Reef and bank deposits retain topographic
contain scattered dolorhombs. .form but are nodular, lumpy, vary-grained
(and may be cavernous, andlor brecciated) .
Contain no relic limestone texture.
Areally extensive, moderate to large volume,
May be interbedded with dololutites some of subtle facies changes.
which are bituminous.
May correlate with tectonic features, fault
Collapse limestone- and dolomite-breccias may zones, anticlines, etc.; or with former land
be present. surfaces.
Variation in porosity and permeability, from

low to very high values.
~
ICharacteristics in italics were added by the present authors.

petrographers avoid the word “primary” when referring to the dolomites in such a
sequence, but this appears to be no more than a play on words. If the entire se-
quence is an evaporite sequence or suite, then the dolomite is possibly an evaporite;
if it is “primary” then no justification can be found to avoid the term. It should be
remembered, however, that some very early diagenetic dolomites are classed as
“primary” by many geologists (see BISSELL and CHILINGAR, 1962).
After making a survey among various geologists concerning the terminology
of carbonate rocks, RODGERS (1954, p.232) stated: “ . . . common American usage
calls dolomite primary only if the particles were dolomite when first formed, as by
direct precipitation from sea water; otherwise they are secondary.” SANDER(1936)
termed dolomite primary if the particles were dolomite when they reached their
present position in the rock fabric, secondary only if they are replacements of
some material that occupied the same position. Rodgers has made an excellent
point, in that if the terms “primary” and “secondary” are to be used, their meaning
must be defined.
LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962, pp.57-58) pointed out that each of their two
groups of dolomites has particular textural characters and rock associations; these
are listed in Table VIIi, with additions of the present authors.
PROPOSED LIMESTONE AND DOLOMITE CLASSIFICATlONS
The proposed classification of limestones in this chapter (Table IX) is intended

to demonstrate the utility of application of these parameters: ( I ) composition,
(2) texture, (3) grain/micrite ratio (GMR), and (4) energy index (Ei). i f properly
applied, these will also be of great value in dolomite classification, particularly
for the diagenetically altered limestones. Of utmost importance is the identifica-
tion of types and relative amounts of carbonate grains (detrital, skeletal, pelletal,
lumpal, coated, etc.) in the field with no more than 10 x hand lens, dilute (3 %)
HCI, and eye-dropper bottle with glycerin and water (the latter is merely a wetting
medium). The field worker (petrologist) should also be able to make a semi-
quantitative estimate of grain/niicrite ratio, and/or grain/matrix ratio. The classi-
fication should also have utility in the laboratory where microscopes, chemicals,
and other materials and equipment (such as X-ray, DTA, etc.) can establish greater
precision and thereby provide adequate definition. it is argued that any classi-
fication should not be a mere play on words which would result in a semantic
struggle; the present authors believe that, after certain basic definitions, if a word
is not self-explanatory it has no real value to the sedimentary petrologist and petro-
grapher.
The grain/micrite ratio shows the relative amounts of coarse and fine-tex-
tured carbonate material; this theoretically is controlled by wave or current action
and thus gives an insight into the degree of agitation. If the worker can arrive at
TABLE IX
CLASSIFICATION OF LIME ST ONES^
(Modified after LEIGHTON

and PENDEXTER, et al., 1962; and others)
1962; PLUMLEY
Energy index (EI) Graiiz/ Percentage Moved and deposited by waves

micrite of grains and currents
ratio
abraded grains
detrital skeletal
-
Strongly agitated Detrital Skeletal

(growth and deposition limestone2 limestone
in strongly agitated
HzO)
9/1 90 ________
Moderately agi- Micritic, Micritic,
tated (deposition detrital skeletal
in moderately limestone3 limestone
agitated HzO)
75
Slightly agitated Micritic- Micritic-
(includes to-and- detrital skeletal
fro HzO action) limestone limestone
1/1 50
Intermittently Detrital- Skeletal-
agitated (alter- micritic micritic
nately agitated limestone limestone
and quiet HzO)
25
Relatively quiet Detrital, Skeletal,
(deposition in micritic micritic
quiet HzO - limestone limestone
not necessarily
stagnant-may
be gently agi- 119 10
tated) Micritic Micritic
limestone limestone
1Horizontal combinations are useful, as detrital-skeletal, oolitic-micritic, etc.

2If size connotation is deserved, such terms as calcirudite, calcarenite, calcisiltite, calcilutite, etc.
may be used instead.
If the particles in the rock are of different orders of size magnitude, and are larger than micrite,
the term matrix is used for the smaller individual units that fill the interstices between larger
grains.
Accumulated in place
_. ~~
accretion-aggregation grains organic chemical,

~ frame builders bio-
pellets lumps coated grains chemical
Pelletal Lump Oolitic, Colonial corals,

limestone limestone pisolitic, stromatoporoids, a
oopelletal, colonial Algae,
bryalgal, bryozoan,
s
algal,
etc. foraminiferal,
limestone etc.
limestone
Micritic, Micritic, Micritic, Micritic coralline,

pelletal lump oolitic, algal, bryalgal,
limestone limestone pisolitic, etc.
etc. limestone
limestone (use appropriate
comma and/or hyphen
Micritic- Micritic- Micritic- for correct
pelletal lump oolitic combination)
limestone limestone pisolitic,
etc.
limestone
Pelletal- Lump- Oolitic- Corailine, algal,

micritic micritic pisolitic bryozoan, bryalgal,
limestone limestone etc. etc.
micritic micritic limestone
limestone (use appropriate
comma and/or hyphen
Pelletal, Lump, Oolitic, for correct
micritic micritic pisolitic, combination)
limestone limestone etc.,
micritic
limestone
Micritic Micritic Micritic

limestone limestone limestone
116 H . J. BISSELL AND G. V. CHILINGAR
some measure, even semi-quantitatively, of the level of energy, he can ultimately

set up a more objective energy index. Consequently, some measure of success
will result in identifying turbulence, energy level, and, of course, the most sound
interpretation of particular environments within the depocenter. The grain/micri-
te ratio (GMR) and energy index (EI) can be used as indicators of the amount
of physical (mechanical) energy necessary to transport and deposit the carbonate
sediment. These are shown in the left-hand column of the proposed classification
(Table IX). The remainder of the chart contains the various compositional-tex-
tural groups, and their combinations.
Various sedimentary carbonate-rock classifications have been published
within the past quarter-century, and many of these are worthy of careful analysis
by the student of sedimentary petrology and petrography. The present authors
have tested some of these classifications in recent field and laboratory investiga-
tions; perhaps certain classifications appear to have more value than others,
largely because some proposals relate to a certain province and, therefore, repre-
sent the geologist’s particular experience in that area. The classification proposed
in this chapter is, therefore, a reflection of the present authors’ researches in the
limestone provinces in the western United States. The classification of FOLK
(1959, 1962) was proposed for Beekmantown (Ordovician) rocks of Pennsylvania;
it has been applied successfully in certain other regions. The classification of
LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962) was set up originally in Jersey Production
Research Company’s Carbonate Rock Manual and was tested in Montana and con-
tiguous areas, and later was given a rigorous test on Paleozoic carbonates in the
Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, and Colorado Plateau regions of western United
States. Subsequently, it has been shown to have utilitarian value in many other
places. MOSHER and PINNEY (1963), for example, slightly modified this classifica-
tion, and demonstrated its value for most carbonate rocks.
PLUMLEY et al. (1962) developed a scheme of limestone classification which
incorporates the parameter of energy index (EI), thereby providing for a certain
objectivity in environmental interpretation. The present authors have added
this parameter in the classification given in this chapter. DUNHAM (1 962) classified
carbonate rocks according to depositional texture; these textures are: ( I ) mudstone
(less than 10% grains), (2) wackestone (more than 10% grains), (3) packstone,
( 4 ) grainstone, and (5) boundstone. I and 2 are mud-supported, 3 is grain-suppor-
ted, and all three contain mud; 4 lacks mud and is grain-supported. These four
textural groups d o not show evidence of the original components having been
bound together during deposition. Boundstones, by contrast, are those limestones
in which the original components were bound together during deposition, as
shown by intergrown skeletal matter, lamination contrary to gravity, and other
features. If the depositional texture is not recognizable, it was recommended that
this type of limestone be termed a crystalline carbonate (DUNHAM, 1962, p.121).
PRAYand WRAY(1963) indicated that the classification of DUNHAM (1962) proved
useful in their studies of the porous algal limestones of Pennsylvanian age along
Honaker Trail in the canyon walls of the San Juan River, southeastern Utah.
BRAMKAMP and POWERS(1958) and POWERS(1962) demonstrated the utility of
their classification of limestones and diagenetically altered limestones for Arabian
Upper Jurassic reservoir rocks. G. E. THOMAS (1962) tested his classification of
carbonate rocks on selected Paleozoic carbonate cycles and reef complexes in a
western Canada basin; in his scheme of classification, carbonate rocks can be des-
cribed and grouped into textural and porosity units for mapping purposes. NELSON
et al. (1962) used the term skeletal limestones for rocks which consist of, or owe
their characteristics to, the in-place accumulations of calcareous skeletal material.
Their limestone classification is, therefore, one in which the rock is classified accor-
ding to the organism primarily responsible for its formation. These workers re-
viewed usage of the terms reef, bioherm, biostrome, and bank, and related terms,
as well as making certain recommendations as to correct usage.
Attempts have been made to classify the modern Bahamian carbonate
sediments; one such classification is that of IMBRIE and PURDY(1962). Their scheme
identifies five discrete sample groups, as follows: ( I ) oslitic, (2) grapestone, (3)
coralgal. (4) oolite, and (5) lime-mud facies. They tested their scheme of classifi-
cation together with that of FOLK(1 959), with substantial success. Their shelf
lagoon sands, for example, include the oolite, oolitic, and grapestone facies, and
are comparable to the oosparites and intrasparites of Folk. Outer platform sands
of the Bahamas embrace their coralgal facies, equivalent to Folk's biosparites and
biopelsparites. Their muddy sands of the shelf lagoon are the lime-mud facies,
thus equivalent to oomicrites, intramicrites, biomicrites, biopelmicrites, and pel-
micrites of Folk. RICH(1963, 1964) proposed a limestone classification, based on
his studies of rocks of Late Paleozoic age in southern Nevada; his classification is,
however, mostly a modification of the scheme of BRAMKAMP and POWERS (19x9, and
of others.
Many of the classifications just mentioned were published by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists in 1962 as a symposium Classification of
Carbonate Rocks (HAM,1962). This work is generally available, and the charts which
it contains need not be reprinted here. BAARS(1963, p.101) pointed out that this
". . . symposium is a monument to the advancement of our understanding of the
carbonate rocks and is highly recommended as an introduction to the study of
carbonates. However, no particular classification was found to be mutually
agreeable to all authors. And so it goes. For every carbonate petrographer there
is a unique system of classification." Although BAARS(1963) did not propose a
scheme of classification of limestones, he did discuss them in terms of these com-
positional types: lime mud (= micrite or matrix), particles or grains, cement, and
pore space. He recognized five kinds of particles (which are the ones suggested by
LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER, 1962), as follows: ( I ) skeletal particles, (2) pellets, (3)
coated grains, (4) detrital particles, and (5) composite particles.
TABLE X
CLASSIFICATION OF DOLOMITES
(Modified after SHVETSOV,

1958)
Main genetic groups of Main textural types Characteristics, features, examples,

dolomite varieties
Y
h
9 Major Reefs Coralline, algal, bryozoan, etc.

~~-~~- -~
a part ~
9 organic Banks Biostromes, layered, coquinites

-~ - - -~ --
2 Skeletal
___
Foraminiferal, sparry criquinites,

~
brachiopods, molluscs, algal
Y Micrograined Dolomitized chalk

.-
.e
Y _ _ -~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i; Major Detrital Dolarenite (original dolomite sand)
a
v part -
z
~ ~ ~~
detrital Dolomitized lithocalcarenite

Y
E _ _ _ ~
~. ~ ~~ --
.-
(u
Y
Pellets Positive pelletal texture
-
- - .~
2; ~
0 Lumps and composite Megalumps to microlumps

n ~ - ~-
Major Lumps Algal lumpal dolomite
part
chemical
grains concentric rings
or -~ -
biochemical
~
Superficial oolites Dolomitized spherical to subspheri-

and pisolites cal grains with few concentric rings
Moderately Sutureddolorhombssurround- Skeletal, detrital, pelletal, etc. ele-

to strongly ing skeletal-detrital particles ments as positive relics
altered -~ -~
(but Brecciated lumpal dolomite Matrix may be micrograined

preserving calcite
vestiges of ~ _- __
texture and Vary-grained, with mosaic of Matrix-micromosaic of dolorhombs
composition sutured incompletely rhombic -
~
of original dolomite surrounding positive Sucrosic dolomites, including sand-

rock) skeletal, detrital material
-- _-
stones being ieplaced;
~~~
relics + ~-
Cryptogenic- Reef and bank limestone Dolomitized reefs, negative relics
completely deposits originally; lumpy, ~~ ~-
altered to cavernous, patchy, vary-crys- Fully dolorhombic; vary-grained

complete talline
obliteration. Uniformly crystalline; relics rare
Few negative - -~
relics may be Micro- to finely crystalline Dolomitized chalks and tuffs

present, -~
suggesting Nodular, lumpy, brecciated, Vary-grained lumpal dolomites

texture and may be cavernous; some rocks __
composition are meso- to macro-grained Completely replaced micrites
of original sucrosic, having granular,
carbonate translucent appearance; Calcarenites and quartz sands origi-
relics absent nally; dolarenites, sucrosic
Main genetic groups of Main textural types Characteristics, features, examples,

dolomite varieties
Crystalline (relics completely destroyed, or were never present)
Phaneric Sparry
dolomite
(dolosparite)
Micri tic Finely crystalline (uniform textures

___- dolomite or ___ may be primary; - 0.01 mm
Aphanic dolomicrite Microcrystalline some contain
(some types __________ ~
fine silt and clay. - 0.001 mm
are primary Cryptocrystalline
dolomicrite,
and may be
laminated)
TAFTand HARBAUGH (1964) made a detailed study of the mineralogy and

physical chemistry of the modern carbonate sediments of southern Florida, the
Bahamas, and Espiritu Santo Island, Baja California; they did not classify the
sediments according to any prevailing scheme nor did they present a new clas-
sification, but their data contribute in a very substantial manner to an understan-
ding of some of the processes of sedimentation and diagenesis of modern carbonate
materials. If judiceously utilized, this information can assist any petrographer
working with modern or ancient sedimentary carbonates.
Soviet geologists have made excellent contributions to the knowledge of
sedimentary carbonate rocks, and particularly to their classification. The two
classifications recommended by the present writers include the one by TEODORO-
VICH (1958, p.291), which is presented in Fig.3 of this chapter, and the one by
SHVETSOV (1958, p.292). These classifications were published in English by BISSELL
and CHIUNGAR(1961, pp.612 and 615, respectively). KRUMBEIN and SLOSS(1963,
pp. 179-1 SO) also called attention to the classifications of these Soviet workers.
Obviously, no single classification of the sedimentary carbonate rocks and
particularly the limestones will immediately suit taste and fit the needs of each
120 H. I. BISSELL AND G . V. CHILINGAR
sedimentary petrographer. The suggestions made in this chapter are advanced

at a time of expanding knowledge of sedimentary petrology and petrography, and
should serve as guides for future studies.
Some classification plans, such as the ones by BRAMKAMP and POWERS
(1958), FOLK(1959, 1962), POWERS(1962), and RICH(1963, 1964), include space
for altered limestones and dolomitized limestones. These are herein recommended
with the suggestion that each worker, or team of workers, may seek to discover
the utilitarian values in each; however, they may have to be modified for particu-
lar provenances and perhaps also for certain sedimentary suites. Some have real
value for surface work, some for well cuttings and cores, and others may assist the
investigator in field and laboratory research (see MOLLAZAL, 196I). The proposed
classification of TEODOROVICH (1958, p.295; see also BISSELLand CHILINGAR,
1961, p.612) is recommended for critical analysis and testing; the present authors
have discovered that it is of great value.
The classification of dolomites proposed in this chapter (Table X) is the out-
growth of field and laboratory work by the present authors with strata of Paleo-
zoic age in the western United States. This classification embodies certain elemental
parts from published classifications, which were rigorously tested. Principal para-
meters are crystallinity, high degree of alteration, and low degree of alteration.
No effort was made to allocate particular types to one environmental type only,
because this is unrealistic. Careful examination of the two classifications (one for
limestones and one for dolomites), proposed by the present authors, however,
reveals their utility. If tested in both the field and the laboratory, their strengths
and weaknesses can be ascertained, and evaluated accordingly.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of various classifications of carbo-
nate rocks up to the year 1959 is found in the excellent article by M I ~ (1959).
K
A glossary or terms considered necessary for petrologic and petrographic
work of sedimentary carbonate rocks is also included in this chapter; this is
in no way exhaustive, but does embrace numerous terms that are now scattered in
geologic literature. Finally, various plates of photomicrographs illustrate the rock
types mentioned in the proposed sedimentary carbonate classifications in this
chapter (Plates I-XVI).
EXPLENATION OF PLATES
PLATE I
A. Detrital limestone (calcarenite). Composed of sand-size particles of limestone, pelletal mate-

rial, and quartz sand grains in finer-grained matrix. Derryan age Oquirrh Formation, Blue Spring
Hills, Oneida County, Idaho; x 3.
B. Detrital limestone, composed of silt- and sand-size limeclasts, lumps, algal material, and some
quartz sand grains. Bird Spring Formation (Pennsylvanian), Lee Canyon area, Clark County,
Nev.; x 3 .
C. Detrital limestone, composed of silt- and sand-size limeclasts, with some skeletal grains, in
finer-grained matrix. Ely Limestone (Pennsylvanian), Burbank Hills, Millard County, Utah; x 3.
D. Detrital limestone, composed of oolites, pellets, limeclasts, and some quartz grains, with minor
interstitial lime mud. Morrowan age part of Morgan Formation, Duchesne River Valley,
Duchesne County, Utah; x 4.6.
E. Calcarenitic limestone, composed of sand-size limeclasts, crinoid ossicles, some algal material,
and subangular to subrounded quartz grains, embedded in matrix of finer-grained material.
Derryan age portion of Wood River (?) Formation, Arc0 Hills, Butte County, Idaho; x3.
F. Calcarenite showing graded bedding. Rock is composed of limeclasts, algal material, pellets,
and micro-lumps, with quartz sand grains. Cedar Fort Member @esmoinesian age) of Oquirrh
Formation, Cedar Mountains, Tooele County, Utah; x 3.
PLATE I1
A. Micritic limestone. Rock is composed of very fine-textured to micritic limestone with minor
amount of skeletal material. Ely Limestone (Pennsylvanian), Pancake Range, Nye County, Nev.;
x 30.8.
B. Detrital limestone, composed of abraded and broken brachiopod shells, crinoid ossicles, algal
material, lumps, and bryozoan fragments in finer textured particulate lime material and micritic
material. Hall Canyon Member (Morrowan age) of Oquirrh Formation, Oquirrh Mountains,
Utah County, Utah; x 7.7.
C. Skeletal-detrital limestone. Fusulinids (Triticitessp.) in silt- and sand-size particulate limestone,
algal material, pelletal material; and quartz silt and sand grains. Missourian portion of Oquirrh
Formation, Hobble Creek Canyon, Utah County, Utah; x 7.7.
D. Skeletal-detrital limestone, composed of disarticulated brachiopod tests, limeclasts, in matrix
of calcilutite containing some quartz silt and sand grains. Garden Valley Formation (Permian),
Diamond Range, White Pine County, Nev.; X 3.
E. Detrital limestone, composed of sand- and silt-size limeclasts, pelletal material, and some quartz
silt and sand grains. Ely Limestone (Pennsylvanian), Leppy Range, northeast of Wendover,
Tooele County, Utah; x 3.85.
F. Detrital limestone, composed of interlayered calcilutite and calcarenite, with fractures filled
by sparry calcite. Ely Limestone (Pennsylvanian), Pancake Range, Nye County, Nev.; x 7.7.
PLATE I11
A. Calcarenite, slightly quartzose. Rock is composed of limeclasts, algal and pelletal material in
fine-grained quartzose-calcareous material, and with subrounded quartz grains also present.
Derryan age portion of Weber Formation at Pullem Creek, Wasatch County, Utah; x3.85.
B. Micritic limestone (calcilutite), composed of lime mud in which quartz silt grains and some
silt-size limeclasts are embedded. Virgin Limestone Member (Lower Triassic) of the Moenkopi
Formation, Blue Diamond Mountain, Clark County, Nev.; x 61.6.
C. Calcisiltite with calcilutite layers. Rock consists of silt-size limeclasts and lime mud, with
silt-size and very fine-grained sand-size quartz particles. Summit Springs Member (Medial
122 H. J . BISSELL AND G. V . CHILINGAR
Leonardian age) of Pequop Formation, Southern Butte Mountains, White Pine County, Nev.;
x23.1.
D. Dolomicrite with very fine-grained quartz and with few negative fossil relics. Wolfcampian age
portion of Weber Formation, Morris Ranch area on south side of Uinta Mountains, Uinta County,
Utah; x 61.6.
E. Dolosiltite with admixed quartz silt grains. Rock consists of cross-stratified particulate silt-
size dolomite, and some interlayered dololutite. Leonardian age portion of Spring Mountains
Formation, west side of Kyle Canyon in Spring Mountains, Clark County, Nev.; x 30.8.
F. Primary dolomicrite with interlayered fine-grained dolosiltite and some silt-size quartz grains.
Incipient diagenesis has occurred in some layers. Leonardian age portion of Spring Mountains
Formation, Love11 Wash area in Spring Mountains, Clark County, Nev.; x 61.6
PLATE IV
A. Biocalcarenite (= criquinite, or encrinal limestone). Rock consists of crinoid ossicles, bryozoan

fragments, and some bladed Algae, with interstitial material (= matrix) composed of sparite
and calcisiltite. Riepe Spring Limestone (Wolfcampian age), Moorman Ranch area, White Pine
County, Nev.; ~ 4 . 6 .
B. Skeletal-detrital limestone, consisting of abraded fragments of crinoid ossicles, bryozoan frag-
ments, pelletal material, and algal material; interstitial material is calcisiltite. Virgilian age
portion of Wood River Formation near Hailey, Blaine County, Idaho; x 7.7.
C. Reefal limestone with admixed skeletal and detrital material. Rock consists of bryalgal material
enclosing tests of schwagerinid fusulinids, crinoid ossicles, algal pellets, and minor limeclasts.
Lime mud fills open spaces. Pequop Formation (Leonardian age), Diamond Range, White Pine
County, Nev.; ~ 7 . 7 .
D. Skeletal-detrital limestone with admixed quartz sand grains. Rock consists of pelecypod shell
fragments, few crinoid ossicles, limeclast lumps, and algal material. Virgin Limestone Member
(Lower Triassic) of Moenkopi Formation, Bird Spring Range (Cottonwood Pass area north of
Goodsprings), Clark County, Nev.; x 7.7.
E. Skeletal-detrital limestone, composed of the alga Mizzia sp. with intertwined bryozoans and
bladed Algae (= bryalgal limestone), and with admixed silt-size limeclasts. Pequop Formation
(Leonardian age), Cherry Creek Range, Elk0 County, Nev.; X 23.1.
F. Diagenetically-altered biocalcarenite. Rock consists of crinoid ossicles and intertwined bryo-
zoans with interstitial calcilutite. Rim cement, impingement, and secondary overgrowth are
present. Toroweap Formation (Permian), Blue Diamond Mountain, Clark County, Nev. ; x 7.7.
PLATE V
A. Skeletal-detrital limestone. Rock is composed of fossiliferous-fragmentalmaterial, consisting

of lithoclastic carbonate detritus admixed with bioclastic detritus of bryozoans, encrinal material,
and algal fragments. Garden Valley Formation (Permian), Diamond Range, White Pine County,
Nev.; ~ 3 . 8 5 .
B. Skeletal-micrite. Tests of Triticites sp. and some crinoid ossicles (some replaced by sparite),
embedded in micrite. Ferguson Mountain Formation (Wolfcampian, Permian), Ferguson
Mountain, Elko County, Nev.; x 7.7.
C. Calcarenite. Rock consists of crinoid ossicles (some of which are slightly altered diagenetically),
with interstitial space filled with calcilutite and calcareous cement. Bridal Veil Falls Member
(Morrowan age) of Oquirrh Formation, Provo Canyon, Utah County, Utah; x 3.85.
D. Detrital limestone. Rock consists of slightly abraded tests of the fusulinid Pseudoschwugerina
sp. in a matrix of organic-rich calcisiltite. Mid-portion of the Ferguson Mountain Formation
(Wolfcampian, Permian), Ferguson Mountain, Elko County, Nev.; x 4.6.
E. Skeletal limestone. Consists mostly of “tailings” of pelecypod valves, with interstitial space
filled by calcarenite and sparite cement. Thaynes Formation (Triassic), Aspen Range, Caribou
County, Idaho; X 1.1.
F. Skeletal-pelletal limestone. Rock consists of brachiopod shells, crinoid ossicles, fragments of

bryozoans, and other skeletal detritus, along with pellets; all in sparite. Brazer Formation
(Mississippian), Wellsville Mountain, Boxelder County, Utah; x 3.85.
PLATE VI
A. Skeletal-detrital limestone, consisting of particulate bryozoans, encrinal material, and prob-

able algal fragments, in part surrounded by sparite and in part filled by sparite. Toroweap
Formation (Permian), Spring Mountains, Clark County, Nev.; x 3 .
B. Skeletal limestone, consisting of bioclastic detritus, algal and lithic carbonate pellets, brachio-
pod shells, bryozoan fragments, and minor quantity of millerellid Foraminifera. Hall Canyon
Member (Morrowan) of Oquirrh Formation, east of Manning Canyon in Oquirrh Mountains,
Utah County, Utah; x 7.7.
C. Skeletal-detrital limestone, composed of fossiliferous-fragmental (i.e., bioclastic) detritus,
mostly crinoid ossicles and bryozoan material. Calcarenite and calcilutite fill interstitial space.
Ely Formation (Pennsylvanian), North Burbank Hills, Millard County, Utah; x 7.7.
D. Pzlletal bryalgal limestone. Rock consists of algal and other pelletal debris enmeshed in frame-
work of bryozoans and thread-like to blady Algae which form a rigid framework. Pequop For-
mation (Leonardian, Permian), northern Cherry Creek Range, Elko County, Nev.; x 7.7.
E. Skeletal limestone, consisting of bioclastic debris, largely lioclemid bryozoan fragments, some
crinoid ossicles, and minor algal detritus. Dead oil is present in part of the interstitial space;
micrite comprises the remainder of the rock. Gerster Formation (Guadalupian, Permian), Medi-
cine Range, Elko County, Nev.; x 7.7.
F. Micrite with skeletal material. This rock consists of bryozoans, ostracods, algal pellets, algal
filaments, small brachiopods, and lithic carbonate debris in oil-rich micrite. Ferguson Mountain
Formation (Wolfcampian, Permian), Dolly Varden Mountains, Elko County, Nev.; x 7.7.
PLATE V11
A. Skeletal limestone, consisting of pelecypod shell fragments, some algal filaments and pellets,
and calcarenitic interstitial material. Sparry calcite fills some interstitial space. Thaynes Limestone
(Triassic) on Dry Ridge, Lanes Creek quadrangle, Caribou County, Idaho; x 3.
B. Calcarenite with skeletal material. Rock consists of silt- and sand-size limeclasts and some
quartz sand grains, surrounding tests of schwagerinid fusulinids and some crinoid ossicles.
Carbon Ridge Formation (Permian), Carbon Ridge, Eureka County, Nev.; ~ 4 . 6 .
C. Pelletal-skeletal limestone, composed of algal pellets, limeclasts, bryozoan material, and some
brachiopod shells (filled with sparite). Gerster Formation (Permian), Medicine Range, Elko
County, Nev.; x 3.85.
D. Lumpal (= lump) limestone, consisting of limeclasts, few crinoid ossicles, algal pellets, and
Foraminifera (including fusulinids); in calcisiltite matrix. Bird Spring Formation (Pennsylvanian),
Spring Mountains west of Mountain Pass, Clark County, Nev.; x 7.7.
E. Micrite with skeletal material. Rock consists of silty micrite containing brachiopod shell frag-
ments that have sparite fillings. Hall Canyon Member (Morrowan age) of Oquirrh Formation,
Fivemile Pass area, Utah County, Utah; ~ 2 3 . 1 .
F. Sparite after skeletal limestone. Rock consists of straparollid gastropods and some crinoid
ossicles, with replacement and infilling of sparite. Gerster Formation (Permian), Currie Hills,
Elko County, Nev.; x 3.
PLATE VIII
A. Pelletal calcarenite, consisting of algal pellets, limeclasts, and silt- to sand-size quartz grains.
Wolfcampian age portion of Oquirrh Formation, Right Fork of Hobble Creek Canyon, Utah
County, Utah; x7.7.
B. Skeletal calcisiltite. Rock is composed of tests of triticitid fusulinids, few limeclasts, and rare
algal pellets, all in matrix of petroliferous calcisiltite. Ferguson Mountain Formation (Wolfcam-
pian, Permian), Ferguson Mountain, Elko County, Nev.; x 7.7.
C. Encrinal limestone (= criquinite), composed of abraded crinoid ossicles, rare limeclasts, in
matrix of calcisiltite that contains few quartz grains. Encrinal material has been diagenetically al-
tered to a slight degree. Morgan Formation (Pennsylvanian), Weber Canyon, Morgan County,
Utah; ~ 7 . 7 .
D. Skeletal calcisiltite, consisting of brachiopod “tailings” (= fragniental) that are in part re-
placed by sparite, in organic rich calcisiltite that contains few fine-textured quartz sand grains.
Bridal Veil Falls Member (Morrowan age) of Oquirrh Formation, Provo Canyon, Utah County
Utah; ~ 7 . 7 .
E. Diagenetically altered skeletal limestone. Rock is composed of algal (?)pellets, crinoid ossicles,
bryozoan fragments, and abraded brachiopod shells, all in various stages of replacement by
sparite. Toroweap Formation (Permian), Star Range, Beaver County, Utah; x 7.7.
F. Calcisiltite with Algae. Rock consists of calcisiltite enclosing the alga Solenopora sp., and smal-
ler algal pellets. Upper Member (Late Leonardian age) of Pequop Formation, Southern Butte
Mountains north of Moorman Ranch, White Pine County, Nev.; x 7.7.
PLATE IX
A. Sparite with skeletal material. Rock consists of medium- to coarsely-crystalline sparite enclos-
sing crinoid ossicles, brachiopod fragments, bryozoan material, and millerellid Foraminifera.
Morgan Formation (Pennsylvanian) at type locality in Weber Canyon, Morgan County, Utah;
x23.1.
B. Pelletal-skeletal limestone, composed of fossiliferous-fragmental material, algal pellets and
limeclasts, Foraminifcra, in sparite matrix. Brazer Formation (Upper Mississippian), Wellsville
Mountain near Deweyville, Boxelder County, Utah; X 7.7.
C. Pellet limestone, composed of algal pellets and limeclast pellets, encrinal material, bryozoan
fragments, and silt- to sand-size quartz grains. Morrowan age portion of Oquirrh Formation,
Gilson Mountain area, Juab County, Utah; x 7.7.
D. Skeletal limestone showing effects of diagenesis. Rock consists of fragments of bryozoans,
rare crinoid ossicles, and few pellets, with interstitial material composed of calcisiltite. Kaibab
Limestone (Permian), Gold Hill District, Tooele County, Utah; x 7.7.
E. Coated grains. Rock consists of oolites, pellets, algal plates, and limeclasts in micrite. Virgin
Limestone Member (Lower Triassic) of Moenkopi Formation, east of Blue Diamond Mountain,
west of Las Vegas, Clark County, Nev.; ~ 7 . 7 .
F. Coated grains in sparite. Rock is composed of oolites showing both radial and concentric
structure, skeletal material with coatings, and few limeclasts in coarsely crystalline sparite. Lodge-
pole Limestone (Mississippian), Western Judith Mountains, Fergus County, Mont.; x 7.7,
PLATE X
A. Pelletal-detrital limestone, consisting of algal pellets, limeclast pellets and limeclast detrital
material, lumps, and scattered abraded skeletal material; much of the material has been diageneti-
cally altered. Morgan Formation, west end of Uinta Mountains, Wasatch County, Utah; x 7.7.
B. Lump limestone in sparite. Rock consists of organic-rich limeclast lumps (and possibly algal
material) surrounded by coarsely-crystalline sparite. Toroweap Formation (Permian), Bird Spring
Mountains west of Arden, Clark County, Nev.; X 15.4.
C. Coated grains in sparite. Rock is composed of skeletal and limeclast grains with oolite over-
growths, all in medium-crystalline sparite. Brazer Formation (Mississippian), Weber River
Canyon, Morgan County, Utah; ~23.1.
D. Pellet limestone, composed of spindle-shaped and rod-shaped pellets (for the most part filled
with sparite) in interstitial material of Algae and calcarenite. Pequop Formation (Permian), central
part of Cherry Creek Range, White Pine County, Nev.; X23.1.
E. Coated grains in micrite. Rock consists of oolites showing both concentric and radial structure;
some are distorted. Interstitial material is largely micrite, with local patches of sparite. Hannah
Formation (Mississippian), Saypo quadrangle in Sawtooth Mountains, Teton County, Mont.;
% 30.8.
F. Lump limestone in sparite. Rock consists of limeclast lumps, possible algal material, algal
pellets; in medium-crystalline sparite. Leonardian age portion of Spring Mountains Formation,
northern Spring Mountains, Clark County, Nev.; x 3.85.
PLATE XI
A. Biogenic limestone, consisting of organic frame-building alga, Kumia sp. (by some referred to
the stromatoporoids). Interstices consist of algal pellets and limeclasts. Derryan age portion of
Wells Formation, South Schmid Ridge, Dry Valley quadrangle, Caribou County, Idaho; x 7.7.
B. Diagenetically altered skeletal limestone, consisting of schwagerinid fusulinid tests, algal
filaments and plates, bryozoans, and encrinal material, altered in varying degrees to sparite.
Pequop Formation (Leonardian age), west end of Leppy Range, Elko County, Nev.; x 7.7.
C. Algal limestone (biogenic) in micrite. Rock consists of the alga Mizzia sp. (some surrounding
skeletal elements), in micritic limestone in which fine quartz silt grains and occasional crinoid
ossicles are present. Pequop Formation (Leonardian age), low hills east of Lund, White Pine
County, Nev.; x 15.4.
D. Organic-rich micritic limestone with Strornatactis (?).Rock consists of petroliferous limestone
containing elongate bodies referred with query to Stromatactis. Riepe Spring Limestone (Wolf-
campian, Permian), Rib Hill near Ruth, White Pine County, Nev.; ~ 2 3 . 1 .
E. Biogenic-skeletal limestone, consisting of alga (or stromatoporoid) Komia sp., fusulinid tests,
algal pellets, crinoid ossicles and limeclasts. Interstitial space partially filled with sparite and re-
mainder by organic-rich calcilutite. Derryan age portion of Ely Limestone, South Schell Creek
Range south of Patterson Pass, Lincoln County, Nev.; x 15.4.
F. Biogenic limestone in sparite, consisting of the alga Osugia sp., surrounding limeclasts, bry-
ozoans, and other material; in sparite. Some sparite has filled open spaces in skeletal material.
Rogers Spring Limestone (Redwall? Limestone), Star Range, Beaver County, Utah; x 15.4.
PLATE XI1
In place, organic frame-builders (biogenic).

A. Reefal limestone, composed of coraIs, Algae, and sponges, with micrite in interstitial space.
Permian of Guadalupe Mountains, Texas; x 7.7.
B. Bryalgal limestone, consisting of various bryozoans intermeshed with Algae, and infilled with
lime mud. Leonardian age portion of Pequop Formation, Maverick Spring Range, White Pine
County, Nev.; x 77.
C. Reefal limestone, consisting of brachiopods, Algae, and bryozoans, enclosed in micrite.
Garden Valley (?) Formation, east side of Diamond Range, White Pine County, Nev.; x7.7.
D. Reefal limestone, composed of bryozoans, sponges, spicular material, and few brachiopod
fragments enclosed in lime mud that is organic rich. Leonard Formation, Glass Mountains,
Texas; x6.2.
E. Reefal limestone, composed of lioclemid bryozoans, Algae, Foraminifera, and crinoid ossicles.
Largely fore-reef in situ accumulation. Pequop Formation (Leonardian age), Spruce Mountain
area, Elk0 County, Nev.; x 3.85.
F. Reefal limestone, consisting of bryalgal material, some of which has undergone diagenetic
change to sparite and microsparite. Gerster Limestone (Guadalupian age), Medicine Mountains,
Elk0 County, Nev.; x 7.7.
126 H . J. BISSELL AND G. V. CHILINGAR
PLATE XI11
Diagenesis.
A. Dolomitized calcilutite; rock consists of dolomite secondary after calcilutite. Original sediment
contained variable amount of organic matter and was stratified. Summit Springs Member (Medial
Leonardian age) of Pequop Formation, west end of Leppy Range, Elk0 County, Nev.; x 30.8.
B. Crystalline criquinite; rock consists of coarsely crystalline material, the fabric having resulted
from diagenesis of an encrinal limestone, with the original texture almost completely obliterated
in the process. Some algal material is relatively unaltered. Lower part of Kaibab Limestone, low
hills east of Ruby Marshes, Elko County, Nev.; ~ 7 . 7 .
C. Dolomitized biomicrite, consisting of dolomitized algal filaments and plates (now resembling
a form of Stromutuctis), in partially dolomitized micritic matrix. Leonardian age part of Spring
Mountains Formation, west side of Kyle Canyon, Clark County, Nev.; x 30.8.
D. Dolomitized micrite, consisting of porous rock that originally was a micrite and now is a
dolomite with substantial porosity and permeability. Pakoon Formation, east side of Frenchman
Mountain, Clark County, Nev.; ~ 4 6 . 6 .
E. Dolomitized skeletal limestone, consisting of medium- to coarsely-crystalline dolosparite,
secondary after bryozoans, encrinal material, algal filaments and pellets, and possibly Foramini-
fera. Both positive and negative relics are present. Toroweap Formation, south of Garnet R.R.
Siding, Clark County, Nev.; x 15.4.
F. Dolosparite, consisting of mosaic of dolospars, secondary after limeclast limestone. Thin unit
in Guilmette Limestone (Devonian), Toana Range north of Whitehorse Pass, Elko County, Nev.;
X 15.4.
PLATE XIV
A. Dolosparite, consisting of cloudy sparry dolomite, secondary after calcarenitic limestone with
impure matrix. Lower Kaibab Formation (Permian), Maverick Spring Range, northern White
Pine County, Nev.; x 30.8.
B. Diagenetically-altered skeletal limestone; rock consists of calcite spar developed in a stratified
skeletal-detrital limestone. Unnamed Wolfcampian age (Permian) carbonate sequence, Arc0
Hills, Butte County, Idaho; x 23.1.
C. Incipient dolomitization of a calcarenite. Rock is composed of subhedra to imperfect euhedra
of dolorhombs and less-altered sparry calcite, with relatively unaltered calcarenite matrix. Loray
Formation (Permian), Dead Horse Wash, west of Egan Range, White Pine County, Nev.; x 23.1.
D. Sparite, some of which is diagenetically altered to subhedra of dolospar. Rock originally was
a calcarenite with impure matrix, and now is a mosaic of sparite and dolosparite. Wolfcampian
age part of Weber Formation, Duchesne River area, south flank of Uinta Mountains, Duchesne
County, Utah; x23.1.
E. Diagenetically dolomitized skeletal limestone, consisting of vary-grained (vary-crystalline)
sparry calcite and sparry dolomite, anhedral to subhedral, with patches of less altered material.
Original texture strongly altered, some obliterated, but with negative skeletal relics (= crinoid
ossicles and bryozoans). Plympton Formation (Permian), Gold Hill district, Tooele County,
Utah; x15.4.
F. Coarsely crystalline sparite, consisting of calcite spar; no dolomite. Chilliwack Group (Per-
mian), Cascade Mountains, Wash.; ~ 2 3 . 1 .
PLATE XV
A. Diagenetically-altered calcilutite, showing development of “eyes” of silicified material (possibly

replaced algal material) in dololutite. Some quartz sand grains are present. Park City Group
(Permian), near “The Thumb”, 10-12 miles north of Knolls, Tooele County, Utah; x15.4.
B. Slightly altered skeletal-detrital liniestone, showing positive relic of fusulinid test, negative
CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENTARY CARBNOATE ROCKS 127
skeletal material, and limeclasts set in altered matrix. Upper Member (Late Leonardian age) of
Pequop Formation, west end of Leppy Range, Elko County, Nev.; x 15.4.
C. Dolomitized skeletal-detrital limestone, showing almost complete obliteration of original fab-
ric; spots or “eyes” of dolospar are the lighter colored areas, and darker colored spots may be
relics of algal pellets. Matrix is dololutite, secondary after limestone. Kirkman Limestone (Wolf-
campian age), South Tintic Mountains, Juab County, Utah; ~ 2 3 . 1 .
D. Dolomitized skeletal-detrital limestone, showing negative and positive relics of skeletal mate-
rial, in matrix of calcisiltite and dolosiltite. Grandeur Member of Park City Formation (Permian),
Southern Wasatch Mountains, Juab County, Utah; x 15.4.
E. Highly-altered diagenetic dolomite, showing negative relics of material not determinable as
organic or inorganic, in matrix of less altered dolosiltite. Few relatively unaltered quartz sand
grains are present. Plympton Formation (Permian), Granite Mountain area of Northern Confu-
sion Range, Juab County, western Utah; x 15.4.
F. Moderately advanced diagenesis in skeletal limestone, showing positive relics of bryozoans,
and the stromatoporoid Komia sp. Ely Limestone (Pennsylvanian), west side of Pequop Moun-
tains, southwest of Shafter, Elko County, Nev.; x 15.4.
PLATE XVI
A. Sucrosic dolomite, diagenetic after limestone. Rock shows considerable porosity and dead oil
in vugs. Wolfcampian age portion of Weber Formation at canyon of Duchesne River, Duchesne
County, Utah; x 30.8.
B. Diagenetically-altered skeletal-calcarenite, showing first-stage crystallization, but not dolo-
mitization, of limeclasts and algal to pelletal material. Wolfcampian age part of Oquirrh Formation
at South Mountain west of Stockton, Tooele County, Utah; x23.1.
C. Advanced diagenesis including partial dolomitization of a skeletal-detrital limestone. Rock
shows sparite and dolosparite in mosaic of subhedra and euhedra. Vuggy porosity has been devel-
oped and dead oil is present. Lower Member of Kaibab Formation, south of Cottonwood Wash
and east of Keystone Thrust, Clark County, Nev.; ~ 2 3 . 1 .
D. Diagenetic dolomite, secondary after limestone. Rock shows mosaic of anhedra and subhedra
of dolomite, with remnants of sparite. Toroweap Formation (Permian), Northern Muddy Moun-
tains just southwest of Glendale Junction, Clark County, Nev.; x 7.7.
E. Dolosparite. Rock shows advanced-stage diagenetic dolomitization of an earlier-formed
limestone. Well-developed dolorhombs (some by impingement) have formed a fabric having low
to moderate intercrystalline porosity. Fairly high permeability. Wolfcampian age part of Weber
Formation on south flank of Uinta Mountains near Morris Ranch, Uinta County, Utah; x 38.5.
F. Diagenetic dolomite, secondary after encrinal limestone. Rock shows mosaic of anhedra and
subhedra of dolomite, with remnants of calcarenite. Suturing has occurred at crystal-grain bound-
aries. Summit Springs Member (Medial Leonardian Permian) of Pequop Formation, Ferguson
Flat, Elko County, Nev.; x 7.7.
PLATE 1
Legend see p.121.

PLATE I1 129
Legend see p.121

PLATE 111
Legend see p. 12 1.
PLATE IV 131
Legend see p.122.

PLATE V
Legend see p.122.

PLATE V1 133
Legend see p.123.

PLATE VII
Legend see p. 123.

PLATE VIII 135
Legend see p.123.

PLATE IX
Legend see p.124.

PLATE X 137
Legend see p.124.

PLATE XI
Legend see p . 125.

PLATE XI1 139
Legend see p.125.

PLATE XI11
Legend see p.126.

PLATE XLV 141
Legend see p.126.

PLATE XV
Legend see p.126.

PLATE XVI 143
Legend see p.127.

I44 H. J. BISSELL A N D G. V. CHILINGAR
REFERENCES
ALDERMAN, A. R. and SKINNERH. C. W., 1957. Dolomite sedimentation in the southeast of

South Australia. Am. J. Sci., 255: 561-567.
ASCHENBRENNER, B. C. and ACHAUER, C. W., 1960. Minimum conditions for migration of oil in
water-wet carbonate rocks. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 44(2): 235-243.
BAARS,D. L., 1963. Petrology of carbonate rocks. In: R. 0. BASSand S. L. SHARPS (Editors),
Shelf Carbonates of the Paradox Basin, A Symposium-Four Corners Geol. Soc., Field
Con$, 4th, pp.101-129.
BATHURST, R. G. C., 1958. Diagenetic fabrics in some British Dinantian limestones. Liverpool
Manchester Geol. J., 2(1): 11-36.
BATHURST, R. G. C., 1959. Diagenesis in Mississippian calcilutites and pseudobreccias. J. Sedi-
ment. Petrol., 29: 365-376.
BEALES, F. W., 1956. Conditions of deposition of Palliser (Devonian) Limestone of southwestern
Alberta. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 40: 848-870.
BEALES, F. W., 1958. Ancient sediments of Bahaman type. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists,
42: 1845-1880.
BERRY,W. B. N., 1962. Comparison of some Ordovician limestones. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol.
Geologists, 46: 1701-1720.
BISSELL,H. J.; 1964. Lithology and petrography of the Weber Formation in Utah and Colorado.
In: E. F. SABATKA (Editor), Guidebook to the Geology and Mmeral Resources of the Uinta
Basin-Ann. Field Con5 Zntermountain Assor. Petrol. Geologists, 13th, pp.67-91.
BISSELL,H. J. and CHILINGAR, G. V., 1958. Notes on diagenetic dolomitization. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 28: 490498.
BISSELL,H. J. and CHILTNGAR, G. V., 1961. Comments on Teodorovich’s “Structural classification
of limestones and dolomites”, and Shvetsov’s “Genetic classification of limestones.” J .
Sediment. Petrol., 31 : 61 1-616.
BISSELL,H. J. and CHILINGAR, G. V., 1962. Evaporite type dolomite in Salt Flats of western Utah.
Sedimentology, 1 : 200-2 10.
BOUMA,A. H., 1962. Sedimentology of some Flysch Deposits. A Graphic Approach to Facies
Interpretation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 168 pp.
BRAMKAMP, R. A. and POWERS,R. W., 1958. Classification of Arabian carbonate rocks. Bull.
Geol. Soc. Am., 69: 1305-1318.
CAROZZI,A. V., 1960. Microscopic Sedimentary Petrography. Wiley, New York, N. Y., 485 pp.
CAROZZI, A. V. and SODERMAN, J. G. W., 1962. Petrography of Mississippian (Borden) crinoidal
limestones at Stobo, Indiana. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32: 397-414.
CAYEUX,L., 1935. Les Roches Sidimentaires de France, “Roches Carbonaties” (Calcoires et
Dolomies). Masson, Paris, 463 pp.
CHANDA, S. K., 1963. Cementation and diagenesis of the Lameta Beds, Lametaghat, M.P., India.
J. Sediment. Petrol., 33: 728-738.
CHAVE, K. E., 1954. Aspects of the biochemistry of magnesium. 2. Calcareoussediments and rocks.
J. Geol., 62: 587-599.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1953. Use of Ca/Mg ratio in limestones as a geologic tool. The Compass of
Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 30: 202-209.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1955. Soviet classification of carbonate rocks and chemically precipitated
CaC03-A review. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 39: 1885-1 889.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1956a. Note on direct precipitation of dolomite out of sea water. The Compass
of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 34: 29-34.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1956b. Dedolomitization-A review. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 40:
762-764.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1956c. Relationship between Ca/Mg ratio and geologic age. Bull. Am. Assoc.
Petrol. Geologists, 40: 2256-2266.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1956d. Use of Ca/Mg ratio in porosity studies. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol-
ogists, 40: 2489-2493.
CLASSIFI CATION OF SEDIMENTARY CARBONATE ROCKS 145
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1956e. Short note on classification of limestones. The Compass of Sigma
Gamma Epsilon, 33: 342-344.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1957a. Classification of limestones and dolomites on basis of Ca/Mg ratio.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1957b. A short note on types of porosity in carbonate rocks. The Compass of
Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 35: 69-74.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1958a. Is the low degree of cementation of chalk caused by the secondary
processes? The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 35: 98-99.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1958b. Some data on diagenesis obtained from Soviet literature-A summary.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 13: 213-217.
CHILINGAR, G. V., 1960. Notes on classification of carbonate rocks on basis of chemical composi-
tion. J. Sediment. Petrol., 30: 157-158.
CHILINGAR, G. V. and BISSELL,H. J., 1961. Dolomitization by seepage refluxion (Discussion).
Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 45: 679-683.
CHILINGAR, G. V. and BISSELL, H. J., 1963a. Calcari. In: C. COLOMBO (Redattore), Enciclopedia
del Petrolio e del Gas Naturale. Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, Roma, pp.1-12.
CHILINGAR, G. V. and BISSELL, H. J., 1963b. Dolomiti. In: C. COLOMBO (Redattore), Enciclopedia
del Petrolio e del Gas Naturale. Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, Roma.
CHILINGAR, G. V. and BISSELL, H. J., 1963c. Is dolomite formation favored by high or low pH?
Sedimentology, 2: 171-172.
CHILINGAR, G. V. and BISSELL,H. J., 1963d. Formation of dolomite in sulfate solutions. J.
Sediment. Petrol., 33: 801-803.
CHILINGAR, G. V. and TERRY, R. D., 1954. Simplified techniques of determining calcium and
magnesium content of carbonate rocks. Petrol. Engr., 26(12): 368-370.
CLOUD,P. E., 1952. Facies relationships of organic reefs. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 36:
2125-2149.
CRICKMAY, G. W., 1945. Petrography of limestones. In: Geology of Lau, Fiji. B.P.-Bishop
Museum Bull., 181: 211-250.
CUMMINGS, E. R., 1932. Reefs or bioherms? Bull. Geol. SOC.Am., 43: 331-352.
DAETWYLER, C. C. and KIDWELL, A. L., 1959. The Gulf of Batabano, amoderncarbonate basin.
World Petrol. Congr. Proc., 5th, N. Y., 1959, 1 , pp.1-22.
DEFORD,R. K., 1946. Grain size in carbonate rocks. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 30:
1921-1927.
DEFORD,R. K. and WALDSCHMIDT, W. A., 1946. Oolite and oolith. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol.
Geologists, 30: 1587-1588.
DIETRICH, R. V., HOBBSJR., C. R. B. and LOWRY, W.D., 1963. Dolomitization interrupted by
silicification. J. Sediment. Petrol., 33: 646-663.
DUNHAM, R. J., 1962. Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture. In:
W. E. HAM(Editor), Classification of Carbonate Rocks-Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists,
Mem., 1: 108-121.
EARDLEY, A, J., 1938. Sediments of Great Salt Lake, Utah. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists,
22: 1359-1387.
ELIAS,G. K., 1963. Habitat of Pennsylvanian algal bioherms, Four Corners area. In: R. 0. BASS
and S. L. SHARPS(Editors), Shelf carbonates of the Paradox Basin, A Symposium-Four
Corners Geol. Soc., Field ConJ, 4th, pp.185-203.
FAIRBRIDGE, R. W., 1955. Warm marine carbonate environments and dolomitization. Tulsa
Geol. SOC.Dig., 23: 3948.
FAIRBRIDGE, R. W., 1957. The dolomite question. In: R. J. LEBLANCand J. G . BREEDING(Editors),
Regional Aspects of Carbonate Deposition-Soc. Econ. Paleontologists Mineralogists,
Spec. Publ., 5 : 125-128.
FAIRBRIDGE, R. W., 1967. Some diagenetic processes involving authigenesis. In: G. LARSEN and
G. V. CHILINGAR (Editors), Diagenesis in Sediments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 19-89.
FERAY, D. E., HEUER,E. and HEWATT, W. G., 1962. Biological, genetic, and utilitarian aspects
of limestone classification. In: W. E. HAM(Editor), Classificationof Carbonate Rocks-Am.
Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Mem., 1: 20-32.
FOLK, R. L., 1959. Practical petrographic classification of limestones. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol.
Geologists, 43: 1-38.
FOLK,R. L., 1962. Spectral subdivision of limestone types. In: W. E. H.4M (Editor), Classification
of Carbonate Rocks-Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Mem., 1 : 62-85.
FRIEDMAN, G. M., 1959. Identification of carbonate minerals by staining methods. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 29: 81-97.
FROLOVA, E. K., 1955. Magnesite in Lower Permian deposits of Kuybyshev and Saratov Trans-
volga Region. Izv. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Ser. Geol., 1955(5): 89-96.
FROLOVA, E. K., 1959. On classification of carbonate rocks of limestone-dolomite-magnesite
series. Novosti Neft. Tekhn., Geol., 3: 34-35.
GINSBURG, R. N., 1956. Environmental relationships of grain size and constituent particles in
some south Florida carbonate sediments. Bull. Am. Assuc. Petrol. Geologists,40: 2384-2427.
GINSBURG, R. N., 1957. Early diagenesis and lithification of shallow-water carbonate sediments
in south Florida. In: R. J. LE BLANCand J. G. BREEDING (Editors), Regional Aspects of
Carbonate Deposition-Soc. Econ. Paleontologists Mineralogists, Spec. Publ., 5 : 80-100.
GINSBURG, R. N. and LOWENSTAM, H. A., 1958. The influence of marine bottom communities on
the depositional environment of sediments. J . Geol., 66: 310-318.
GORSLINE, D. S., 1963. Environments of carbonate deposition, Florida Bay and the Florida
Straits. In: R. 0. BASSand S. L. SHARPS (Editors), Shelf Carbonates of the Paradox Basin,
A Symposium-Four Corners Geol. SOC.,Field Conf., 4th, pp.130-143.
GRABAU, A. W., 1904. On the classification of sedimentary rocks. Am. Geologist, 33: 228-247.
GRABAU, A. W., 1913. Principles of Stratigraphy. Seiler, New York, N.Y., 1185 pp.
GRAF,D. L., 1960a. Geochemistry of carbonate sediments and sedimentary carbonate rocks.
Parts 1 and 2. Illinois State Geol. Surv., Circ., 297: 39 pp.; 298: 43 pp.
GRAF,D. L., 1960b. Geochemistry of carbonate sediments and sedimentary carbonate rocks.
Part 4-B. Bibliography. Illinois State Geol. Surv., Circ., 309: 55 pp.
GRAF, D. L., EARDLEY, A. J. and SHIMP, N. F., 1959. Dolomite formation in Lake Bonneville,
Utah. Bull. Geol. SOC.Am., 70: 1610.
GRAF,D. L., EARDLEY,A. J. and SHIMP,N. F., 1961. Apreliminary reporton magnesiumcarbonate
formation in Glacial Lake Bonneville. J. Geol., 69: 219-223.
GREENSMITH, J. T., 1960. Introduction to the petrology of the Oil-Shale Group limestones of
west Lithian and southern Fifeshire, Scotland. J. Sediment, Petrol., 30: 553-560.
GREINER, H. R., 1956. Methy Dolomite of Northeastern Alberta: MiddleDevonian reef formation.
GUBLER, Y., 1959. Problttmes des dolomies. Rev. Znst. FranG. Pe'trole Ann. Combust. Liquides, 14
(4-5): 474.
GUERRERO, R. G. and KENNER, C. T., 1955. Classification of Permian rocks of western Texas by
a versenate method of chemical analysis. J . Sediment. Petrol., 25: 45-50.
HALLA, F., CHILINGAR, G. V. and BISSELL,H. J., 1962. Thermodynamic studies on dolomite
formation and their geologic implications: an interim report. Sedimentology, 1: 296-303.
HAMW. E. (Editor), 1962. Classificationof CarbonateRocks. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Tulsa,
Okla., 279 pp.
HAMBLETON, A. W., 1962. Carbonate-rock fabrics of three Missourian stratigraphic sections in
Socorro County, New Mexico. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32: 579-601.
HARBAUGH, J. W., 1959. Small scale cross-lamination in limestones. J . Sediment. Petrol., 29: 30-37.
HOBBSJR., C. R., 1957. Petrography and origin of dolomite-bearing carbonate rocks of Ordovi-
cian age in Virginia. Bull. Va.Polytech. Inst., 50(5): 128pp.
HOWELL,J. B., 1922. Notes on pre-Permian Paleozoics of the Wichita Mountain area. Bull.
Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 6: 413425.
ILLING,L. V., 1954. Bahaman calcareous sands. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 38: 1-95.
IMBRIE,J. and PURDY, E. G., 1962. Classification of modern Bahamian carbonate sediments. In:
W. E. HAM(Editor), Classification of Carbonate Rocks- Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists,
Mem., 1: 253-272.
JENKINS JR., M. A., 1954. On the origin of dolomite. The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 31:
296-302.
JOHNSON, J. H., 1949. An introduction to the study of organic limestones. Quart. Colo. School
Mines, 44(4): 139 pp.
JOHNSON,J. H., 1961. Limestone-building Algae and algal limestones. Quurt. Colo. School Mines,
56: 297 pp.
KHVOROVA, I. V., 1958. Atlas of Carbonate Rocks of Middle and Upper Carboniferous of Russian
Platform. Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Moscow, 170 pp.
KORNICKER, L. S . and PURDY,E. G., 1957. A Bahamian faecal-pellet sediment. J . Sediment.
Petrol., 27: 126-128.
KRUMBEIN, W. C. and SLOSS,L. L., 1963. Stratigraphy and Sedimentation, 2 ed. Freeman, San
Francisco, Calif., 660 pp.
KRYNINE,P. D., 1948. The megascopic study and field classification of sedimentary rocks. J.
Geol., 56: 130-165.
LALOU,C., 1957. Studies on bacterial precipitation of carbonates in sea water. J. Sediment. Petrol.,
27: 190-195.
LAPORTE,L. F., 1962. Paleoecology of the Cottonwood Limestone (Permian), Northern Mid-
Continent, Bull. Geol, Soc. Am., 73: 521-544.
LEIGHTON, M. W. and PENDEXTER, C., 1962. Carbonate rock types. In: W. E. HAM(Editor),
Classification of Carbonate Rocks-Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Mem., 1: 33-61.
LOWENSTAM, H. A., 1950. Niagaran reefs of the Great Lakes area. J . Geol., 58: 430487.
LOWENSTAM, H. A., 1955. Aragonite needles secreted by Algae and some sedimentary implications.
LOWENSTAM, H. A. and EPSTEIN, S., 1957. On the origin of sedimentary aragonite needles of the
Great Bahama Bank. J. Geol., 65: 364-375.
LUCIA,F. J., 1961. Dedolomitization in the Tansill (Permian) Formation. BufI. Geol. Soc. Am.,
72: 1107-1 110.
LUCIA,F. J., 1962. Diagenesis of a crinoidal sediment. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32: 848-865.
MARCHER, M. V., 1962. Petrography of Mississippian limestones and cherts from the North-
western Highland Rim, Tennessee. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32: 819-832.
MAXWELL, W. G. H., DAY,R. W. and FLEMING, P. J. G., 1961. Carbonate sedimentation on the
Heron Island Reef, Great Barrier Reef. J . Sediment. Petrol., 31: 215-230.
MCKINLEY,M. E., 1951. The replacement origin of dolomite- a review. The Compass of Sigma
Gamma Epsilon, 28: 169-183.
MJS~K,M., 1959. Entwurf einer einheitlichen Klassifikation und Terminologie von gemischten
karbonatischen Gesteinen. Geol. Prcice, Zpravy, 16: 61-78.
MOLLAZAL, Y . , 1961. Petrology and petrography of Ely Limestone in part of Eastern Great
Basin. Brigham Young Univ. Res. Studies, Geol. Ser., 8: 3-35.
MOORE,R. C., 1957. Mississippian carbonate deposits of the Ozark Region. In: R. J. LE
BLANCand J. G. BREEDING (Editors), Regional Aspects of Carbonate Deposition-Soc.
Econ. Paleontologists Mineralogists, Spec. Publ., 5: 101-124.
MORETTI, F. J., 1957. Observations on limestones. J. Sediment. Petrol., 27: 282-292.
MORRIS,R. C. and DICKEY,P. A., 1957. Modern evaporite deposition in Peru. Bull. Am. Assoc.
Petrol. Geologists, 41 : 2467-2474.
MOSHER, L. C . and PINNEY,R. I., 1963. Limestone nomenclature. The Compass of Sigma Gamma
Epsilon, 40: 219-222.
MURRAY,R. C., 1960. Origin of porosity in carbonate rocks. J. Sediment. Petrol., 30: 59-84.
MURRAY, R. C., 1964a. Origin and diagenesis of gypsum and anhydrite. J . Sediment. Petrol., 34:
512-523.
MURRAY,R. C., 1964b. Preservation of primary structures and fabrics in dolomite. In: J. IMBRIE
and N. D. NEWELL(Editors), Approaches to Paleoecology. Wiley, New York, N.Y., pp.
388-403.
NELSON,H. F., BROWN,C. W. and BRINEMAN, J. H., 1962. Skeletal limestone classification. In:
W. E. HAM(Editor), Classification of Carbonate Rocks-Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists,
Mern., 1: 224-252.
NEWELL,N. D., 1955. Depositional fabric in Permian reef limestones. J. Geol., 63: 301-309.
NEWELL,N. D. and RIGBY,J. K., 1957. Geological studies on the Great Bahama Bank: In. R. J.
LE BLANCand J. G. BREEDING (Editors), Regional Aspects of Carbonaie Deposition-Soc.

Econ. Paleontologists Mineralogists, Spec. Publ., 5: 15-72.
NEWELL, N. D., IMBRIE, J., PURDY, E. G. and THURBER, D. L., 1959. Organism communities and
bottom facies, Great Bahama Bank. Bull. Am. Museum Mat. Hist., 1 17(4): 177-228.
NEWELL,N. D., RIGBY,J. K., FISCHER,A. G., WHITEMAN, A. J., HICKOX, J. E. and BRADLEY,
J. S., 1953. The Permian Reef Complex of the Guadalupe Mountains Region, Texas and New
Mexico. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif., 236 pp.
NEWELL, N. D., RIGBY,J. K., WHITEMAN, A. J. and BRADLEY, J. S., 1951. Shoal-water geology and
environments, eastern Andros Island, Bahamas. Bull. Am. Museum Mat. Hist., 97(1): 1-29.
PARKINSON, D., 1957. Lower Carboniferous reefs of northern England. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol.
Geologists, 41: 51 1-537.
PERKINS,R. D., 1963. Petrology of the Jeffersonville Limestone (Middle Devonian) of south-
eastern Indiana. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 74: 1335-1354.
PETTIJOHN, F. J., 1949. Sedimentary Rocks, 1 ed. Harper and Row, New York, N.Y., 526 pp.
PETTIJOHN, F. J., 1957. Sedimentary Rocks, 2 ed. Harper and Row, New York, N.Y., 718 pp.
PLUMLEY, W. J., RISLEY,G. A., GRAVES JR., R. W. and KALEY,M. E., 1962. Energy index for
limestone interpretation and classification. In: W. E. HAM(Editor), Classification of Carbo-
nate Rocks-Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Mem., 1 : 85-107.
POWERS, R. W., 1962. Arabian Upper Jurassic carbonate reservoir rocks. In: W. E. HAM(Editor),
Classification of Carbonate Rocks-Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Mem., I : 122-1 92.
PRAY,L. C., 1958. Fenestrate bryozoan core facies, Mississippian bioherms, southwestern United
States. J. Sediment. Petrol., 28: 261-273.
PRAY,L. C. and WRAY,J. L., 1963. Porous algal facies (Pennsylvanian), Honaker Trail, San
Juan Canyon, Utah. In: R. 0. BASSand S. L. SHARPS (Editors), Sheff Carbonates of the
Paradox Basin, A Symposium-Four Corners Geol. Soc., Field Con$, 4th, pp.204-234.
REVELLE, R. and FAIRBRIDGE, R. W., 1947. Carbonates and carbon dioxide. In: J. W. HEDG-
PETH (Editor), Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology. 1. Ecology-Geol. Soc. Am.,
Mem., 67: 239-296.
RICH, M., 1963. Petrographic analysis of Bird Spring Group (Carboniferous-Permian) near Lee
Canyon, Clark County, Nevada. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 47: 1657-1681.
RICH, M., 1964. Petrographic classification and method of description of carbonate rocks of the
Bird Spring Group in southern Nevada. J. Sediment. Petrol., 34: 365-378.
RODGERS, J., 1954. Terminology of limestone and related rocks: an interim report. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 24: 225-234.
Ross, C . A. and OANA,S., 1961. Late Pennsylvanian and Early Permian limestone petrology
and carbon isotope distribution, Glass Mountains, Texas. J. Sediment. Petrol., 31 : 231-244.
RUSNAK,G. A., 1960. Some observations of Recent oolites. J. Sediment. Petrol., 30: 471430.
SABINSJR., F. F., 1962. Grains of detrital, secondary, and primary dolomite from Cretaceous strata
of the western Interior. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 73: 1 1 83-1 196.
SANDER, B., 1936. Contributions to the Study of depositionalFabrics-Rhythmically deposited Triassic
Limestones and Dolomites. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, Tulsa, Okla., 207 pp. (Translated
from German by E. B. Knopf, 1951.)
SARIN,D. D., 1962. Cyclic sedimentation of primary dolomite and limestone. J. Sediment. Petrol.,
32: 451471.
SCHLANGER, S. O., 1957. Dolomite growth in c o r a l h e Algae. J . Sediment. Petrol., 27: 181-186.
SCHLANGER, S. O., 1964. Petrology of the limestones of Guam. U.S., Geol. Surv., Profess. Papers,
403-D: 52 pp.
SCHWARZACHER, W., 1961. Petrology and structure of some Lower Carboniferous reefs in
northwestern Ireland. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 45: 1481-1503.
SHVETSOV, M. S., 1958. Petrography of Sedimentary Rocks, 3 ed. Gosgeoltekhizdat, Moscow,
416 pp.
SIEGEL,F. R., 1961. Variations of Sr/Ca ratios and Mg contents in Recent carbonate sediments of
the northern Florida Keys area. J. Sediment. Petrol., 31: 336-342.
SKEATS, E. W., 1918. The coral-reef problem and the evidence of the Funafuti borings. Am. J. Sci.,
45: 81-90.
SOKOLOV, D. S., 1955. About possible reasons of evolution of primary dolomite formation. Buyl.
Mosk. Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody, Otd. Geol., 30(5): 105-1 15.
STAUFFER,K. W., 1962. Quantitative petrographic study of Paleozoic carbonate rocks, Caballo
Mountains, New Mexico. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32: 357-396.
STEHLI,F. G. and HOWER,J., 1961. Mineralogy and early diagenesis of carbonate sediments.
STRAKHOV, N. M., 1953. Diagenesis of sediments and its significance for sedimentary ore forma-
tion. Izv. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Ser. Geol., 5: 1249.
SUGDEN, W., 1963. Some aspects of sedimentation in the Persian Gulf. J . Sediment. Petrol., 33:
355-364.
SUJKOWSKI, ZB. L., 1958. Diagenesis. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 42: 2692-2717,
TAFT,W. H., 1961. Authigenic dolomite in modern carbonate sediment along the southern coast
of Florida. Science, 134: 561-562.
TAFT,W. H. and HARBAUGH, J. W., 1964. Modern carbonate sediments of southern Florida,
Bahamas, and Espiritu Santo Island, Baja California: A comparison of their mineralogy
and chemistry. Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser., Geol. Sci., 8(2): 133 pp.
TEODOROVICH, G. I., 1943. Structure of the pore space of carbonate oil reservoir rocks and their
permeability, as illustrated by Paleozoic reservoirs of Bashkiriya. Dokl. Akad. Nauk
S.S.S.R.,39: 231-234.
TEODOROVICH, G. I., 1946. On the genesis of the dolomite of sedimentary rocks. Dokl. Akad.
Nauk S.S.S.R., 53: 817-820.
TEODOROVICH, G. I., 1958. Study of Sedimentary Rocks. Gostoptekhizdat, Leningrad, 572 pp.
THOMAS, G. E., 1962. Grouping of carbonate rocks into textural and porosity units for mapping
purposes. In: W. E. HAM(Editor), Classification of Carbonate Rocks-Am. Assoc. Petrol.
Geologists, Mem., 1: 193-223.
THOMAS, G. E. and GLAISTER, R. P., 1960. Facies and porosity relationships in somc Mississippian
carbonate cycles of western Canada Basin. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 44: 569-588.
THOMAS, H. D., 1960. Misuse of “bioclastic limestone”. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 44:
1833-1834.
TOWSE,D., 1957. Petrology of Beaver Lodge Madison Limestone reservoir, North Dakota.
Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 41 : 2493-2507.
VANTUYL,F. M., 1916a. The origin of dolomite. Geol. Surv. Zowa, Ann. Rept., 25 (1914): 251422.
VANTUYL,F. M., 1916b. New points on the origin of dolomite. Am. J. Sci., 42: 249-260.
VANTUYL,F. M., 1918. Depth of dolomitization. Science, 48: 350-352.
VATAN,A., 1958. Dolostone. J. Sediment. Petrol., 28: 514.
VINOGRADOV, A. P., 1953. The elementary chemical composition of marine organisms. Sears
Found. Marine Res., Yale Univ., Mem., 2: 647 pp.
VISHNYAKOV, S. G., 1951. Genetic types of dolomite rock. Dokl. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., 76(1):
1 12-1 13.
WALKER, T. R., 1962. Reversible nature of chert-carbonate replacement in sedimentary rocks.
Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 73: 237-242.
WARDLAW, N. C., 1962. Aspects of diagenesis in some Irish Carboniferous limestones. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 32: 776-780.
WELLS,A. J., 1962. Recent dolomite in the Persian Gulf. Nature, 194 (4825): 274-275.
WENTWORTH, C . K., 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J . Geol., 30:
377-3 92.
WOLF,K. H., 1960. Simplified limestone classification. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 44:
1414-1416.
ZELLER,E. J. and WRAY,J. L., 1956. Factors influencing precipitation of calcium carbonate.
ZIRKEL,F., 1876. Microscopical Petrography. U. S . Geol. Surv., Washington, D.C., 167 pp.
150 H. J . BISSELL AND G. V. CHILINGAR
GLOSSARY]
Accretionary: added through overgrowth upon a pre-existing grain and/or organic structure or
framework; may be concentric, and may originate through rolling.
Aggregation: added through coagulation, flocculation, adherance or other method to result in

a composite grain or structural mass. May be algal, foraminiferal, algal-dust, or other
materials aggregated together or to another mass, fossil, or grain. May be a method of
forming lumps.
Algal: relating in any manner to algal limestones or dolomites; more commonly the Rhodophyta
or red Algae and some genera of the Cyanophyta or blue-green Algae.
Algal dust: a term designated to describe micro-textured to finely textured dark-colored (usually
brown and brown-gray) micritic and matrix material in carbonates which also contain
discernible algal remains.
Allochthonous: an accumulation of transported material; for sedimentary carbonate rocks this

amounts to transported grains, fossil fragments, rock fragments, and organic matter into
the depocenter from adjacent area(s).
Allogenic: term meaning generated elsewhere; in a manner similar to allochthonous, in that the
constituents came into existence outside of, and previous to, the rock of which they are
now a part. For example, quartz sand blown from land into an evaporite sequence; gravel
washed into a basin and mixed with lime mud.
Anadiagenetic: this term applies to dolomitization (secondary) that occurs under considerable
burial, including most tectonic dolomitization (cf. syndiagenetic and epidiagenetic).
(After FAIRBRIDGE, 1966.)
Anhedral: individual crystals devoid of crystal boundaries or faces; particularly applicable to dolo-
mites and dolomitized limestones of certain varieties.
Aphanic: term to describe the texture of most micritic limestones and dolomicrites; individual
crystals and grains less than 0.01 mm in size. A useful field term to describe lithographic
and sub-lithographic carbonates. To be used in lieu of uphunitic.
Articulate: refers to fossils having two or more parts joined together in their natural relationship;
for example, valves of brachiopods or molluscs, fronds of bryozoans, columnals of crinoids,
etc.
Authigenic: generated on the spot; refers to those constituents that came into existence with or
after the formation of the host rock. For example, albite that forms in some limestones,
calcite or dolomite rhombs over grains, etc.
Autochthonous: pertaining to objects that originated in the places where they now occur, and
therefore are in situ; examples are frame-building organisms such as corals, algal masses,
various bioherms, etc.
Autoclastic breccia: refers to a common structure observed in dolomites; a result of diagenetic

shrinkage followed by recementation.
1 To be used as an aid in describing sedimentary carbonate rock terms. It is not intended to cover
all definitions of the rock names.
Axiolitic: a type of elongated or subspherical oolite or pisolite in which the radial structure(usu-
ally acicular needles) develops toward the periphery at right angles to a central axis; may
have superimposed concentric structure.
Bahamite: name of granular limestones that closely resemble the present deposits of the interior
of the Bahama Banks. The texture varies from calcisiltites to calcirudites, in which the
grains are accretionary and commonly are composite, consisting of smaller granules bound
together by precipitated material into aggregate grains.
Bank: an in situ skeletal limestone deposit formed by organisms which do not have the ecological
potential to erect a rigid, wave-resistant structure.
Beach-rock: a friable to well-cemented beach sediment consisting of calcareous debris (detrital

and/or fragmental skeletal) cemented by calcium carbonate.
Bioaccumulated: applied to limestone deposits formed by sedentary but noncolonial organisms

and their related ecologic communities. Characterized by a predominance of unbroken
fossils, diverse organic components, lack of (or poor) sorting, and scarce fine-grained
matrix.
Biocalcarenite: special group of calcarenites, mechanically deposited carbonate detritus of sand

size (1 /16-2 mm in diameter); predominantly composed of organic fragments of any kind,
the products of organic activity which have an internal structure such as foraminifera], al-
gal, and faecal pellets, and recognizable fossil detritus worn to sand size. Numerous en-
crinal limestones fit in this category.
Biocalcirudite: rudaceous, sedimentary carbonate rock, the discrete particles of which are compo-
sed of fragmental fossiliferous material; individual particles are larger than 2 mm in dia-
meter. Almost any type of reef-building organisms such as stromatoporoids, branched
corals, and calcareous Algae can be broken away, worn to a variable degree, and concen-
trated into biocalcirudites.
Bioclastic: a clastic sedimentary carbonate rock which owes its essential character to organisms
(GRABAU, 1913). In view of disparity of definition, it is herein suggested that this term be
expanded to embrace fossil detritus that is largely intraclastic, whether of rudaceous,
arenaceous, or lutaceous texture, and which originates (or originated in the past) largely
by being broken and transported by water currents and waves before coming to rest.
Bioclastic limestone, therefore, may be poorly sorted, moderately sorted, or well sorted;
and it may be clean or have a matrix of finer detritus.
Bioconstructed: term applied to limestone deposits resulting from the vital activities of colonial
and sediment-binding organic communities. Algal, bryozoan, bryalgal, stromatoporoidal,
coralline, and coralgal colonies are predominant.
Biogenic: sedimentary carbonate rock, a deposit of organic material or materials formed through
the physiological activities of the organisms.
Bioherm: an organic reef or mound built by corals, stromatoporoids, gastropods, echinoderms,

Foraminifera, pelecypods, brachiopods, Algae, and other organisms. It is a reef, bank, or
mound that is reeflike, moundlike, lenslike or an otherwise circumscribed structure of
strictly organic origin, embedded in rocks of different lithology.
Biolithite: a limestone characterized by an organic framework of carbonate laminae that bind

grains and skeletal elements as a rigid framework; typical of the cores of some organic
reefs.
Biomicrite: a major group of biogenic limestones containing a significant admixture of fine-tex-

tured carbonate material filling the spaces between organic tests and fragments.
Biosparite: a foraminifera1 limestone composed largely of tests of bottom-dwelling and floating

organisms, and lacking a fine-textured matrix; mostly crystalline.
Biostrome: a term for stratiform deposits, such as shell beds, crinoid beds, and coral beds, con-
sisting of, and built mainly by, organisms or fragments of organisms (mostly sedentary),
and not swelling into moundlike or lenslike forms.
Birdseye: spots or tubes of sparry calcite in limestones (and some dolomites). These “calcite eyes”
are common to pelsparites, and may have resulted from one of the following (or certain
combinations thereof): ( I ) precipitation of sparry calcite in animal burrows, or in worm
tubes; ( 2 ) soft-sediment slumping or mud cracking; (3) precipitation of sparry calcite in
tubules resulting from escaping gas bubbles; (4) re-working and rapid deposition of soft
sediment containing semicoherent clouds of calcareous mud and spar; (5) recrystalli-
zation of calcareous (or dolomitic) mud in patches; and ( 6 ) “arrested” dolomitization.
Boundstone: applies to most reef rock, stromatolites, and some biohermal and biostromal rocks
in which the original components were bound together during deposition, and remain
substantially in position of growth.
Breccia (sedimentary) : a rock composed of consolidated angular fragments, most of which are
larger than 2 mm in diameter, plus matrix and/or cementing material. CAROZZI (1960)
mentioned a crystallization breccia that resulted from the differentiation in place of a homo-
geneous calcilutite. Crystallization began at numerous points scattered throughout thc
rock but was incomplete, and as a result the crystallized patches appear as fragments In
a groundmass that was spared by the process.
Bryalgal: a term for limestones composed largely of materials constructed in situ by organic
frame-building bryozoans and Algae; the word is a contraction of bryozoan-algal frame-
building organisms. Resultant deposits range in thickness from thin units to biostromes,
bioherms, patch-reefs, and larger reefs.
Calcarenite: a mechanically deposited carbonate rock consisting of sand-size carbonate grains

(1 /16-2 mm in diameter); the particulate material in this rock may be of lithoclastic and/or
bioclastic derivation, and comprises 50 % or more of the rock.
Calcilutite: by decrease in grain size, a calcarenite grades through a calcisiltite into a calcilutite,
thus forming a rock composed of 50% or more of clay- (plus some silt-) size carbonate
particles; includes biocalcilutites and lithocalcilutites.
Calcirudite: the term is used as a general designation for mechanically deposited carbonate
rocks that are composed of 50% or more of angular to rounded fragments over 2 mm in
diameter, and have matrix and/or cementing material.
Culcisiltite: a rock type intermediate between calcarenite and calcilutite, in that it consists mostly
of silt-size carbonate detritus that comprises 50% or more of the rock; includes biocal-
cisiltites and lithocalcisiltites.
Calclithite: a limestone containing 50 % or more of fragments of older limestone(s) that experi-

enced erosion and redeposition. The individual particles are termed extraclasts.
Calcsparite: see sparite.
Caliche: it is a lime-rich deposit found in soils and is formed by capillary action drawing the lime-
bearing waters to the surface where, by evaporation, the lime is precipitated. In bajadas,
intermonts, alluvial fans and colluvium of parts of the Great Basin of the western United
States some of the caliche deposits are dolomitic due to presence of extensive dolomite
rubble. Caliche, whether calcareous and/or dolomitc, also cements alluvial fans to form
Janglomerale.
Carbonate: rocks composed of more than SO%, by weight, of carbonate minerals. For practical
microscopic work, area percentages, which approximate weight percentages, are used
because they are easier to estimate and measure.
Cement: clear to opaque, crystalline material occurring in the interstices between grains and matrix
material, or between grains. It may be sparry calcite and/or dolomite, and thus is termed
sparite; but more commonly, it is smaller than 0.03 mm in crystal size. Cement commonly
is chemically precipitated material into voids and in situ onto the surfaces of the host-
framework. The calcareous cement in limestones may be of different crystal size-grades:
micrite (often mistaken for detrital matrix), microsparite, and sparite. The morphologic
and textural types are cryptocrystalline, microcrystalline, granular, fibrous, blady, and
drusy. Carbonate cement often resembles products formed by recrystallization and grain
growth.
Chalk: a porous, fine-textured material, light colored, friable to subfriable, largely to wholly
calcareous. It may be slightly tuffaceous. Commonly finely grained, not crystalline, and
may be composed largely of foraminifera1 tests and/or comminuted remains (notably of
Coccolithophoridae). Chalk can also be of partly chemical origin, although it normally
represents the “flour” formed by break-down of skeletal, nonskeletal, and pelletoid grains
and algal “dust”. It is largzly micro-textured (about 0.01 mm or smaller).
ClaJt: an individual constituent of detrital sediment or sedimentary rock produced by the physical
disintegration of a larger mass either within or outside the depocenter of accumulation.
A limeclast, therefore, may be an intraclast of the limestone particle, or a fragment dis-
rupted from partially consolidated lime mud on the sea floor or lake bottom. Particulate
material may also be doloclasts (see extraclast and intraclast). Clasts of all dimensions are
recognized in the older literature in part as penecontemporaneous intraformational
detritus.
Clastic: particles of either fragmental or chemical origin that have been rolled around and
abraded before coming to rest in a sediment. The variety intraclast originates in the depo-
center of sedimentation.
Coated grains: grains possessing concentric or enclosing layers of calcium carbonate (or dolomi-
tized remnant); for example, oolites, pisolites, superficial oolites, and algal-encrusted
skeletal grains.
Composite grain: aggregation grains (detrital, skeletal, pelletal, algal, coated grains, etc.) formed
from clustering of two or more discrete particles. It may also result from aggregation of
lumps. Some resemble grapestones.
Compound-pellet: a pellet of silt-, sand-, or granule-size or larger originating from pelletal 01’
pelletoid limestone with micritic or sparry cement, and may also have matrix or interstitial
material.
Coquina: carbonates consisting wholly or largely of mechanically sorted fossil debris, weakly
to moderately cemented but not completely compacted and indurated; interstitial material
does not necessarily fill all interstices. Commonly applied to shell debris. For the finer
shell detritus of sand size or less, the term mesocoquina may be applied; microcoqarina
usually implies a variety of chalk.
Coquinite: for the most part, indurated equivalent of coquina. Coquinites are carbonates which
are nearly all fossil debris, mechanically sorted in large measure, and may have finer-
textured matrix together with cement. It is a compact and well-indurated, cemented rock.
Most discrete particulate fossil material is larger than 2.0 mm in size, and some fossils may
still be articulated. This carbonate is the indurated equivalent of loose shell debris. For
the finer shell detritus of sand- to silt-size, the term mesocoquinite is used, and microco-
quinite applies to still smaller size fossil debris.
Coquinoid (limestone) :a distinction should be made between coquina, coquinite, and coquinoid
limestone. Coquina is loosely compact, poorly cemented, and weakly indurated (shell
debris), whereas coquinite is its indurated, firm rock equivalent. Coquinoid limestones are
autochthonous deposits consisting of coarse shelly materials which have accumulated in
place and generally have a finer grained matrix, or may be enclosed in micritic limestone.
Coquinas and coquinites experienced substantial to considerable abrasion and transit
before reaching the depositional site, but coquinoids have formed largely in situ, and under
certain conditions can build up to biostromes.
Coralgal: intergrowth of Algae (particularly coralline types) and corals, to form a firm carbonate
rock. This may result in a reef rock, a bank deposit, or a biolith which has a lesser degree
of framework. Normally, this rock is composed in large measure of frame-building or-
ganisms arranged in an interwoven to interlaced arrangement. It is an excellent sediment-
binder.
Criquina: coquina of crinoidal debris.
Criquinite: indurated equivalent of criquina. Commonly this rock is an encrinal limestone com-
posed wholly or largely of disarticulated crinoid stems and/or plate fragments, is firmly
cemented, is compact, and is matrix-bounded.
Cryptoclastic: micritic limestone (or dolomicrite) having an aphanic clastic or microgranular

texture, discrete particles of which are less than 0.001 mm in size, and under
high-power magnification display little or no crystallinity. This is “rock flour”, or extreme-
ly finely comminuted carbonate “dust”. Cryptograined is essentially synonymous, although
this type of texture could result from chemical precipitation and/or biochemical to physico-
chemical precipitation or flocculation.
Cryptocrystalline: micritic limestone (or dolomicrite) having an aphanic crystalline texture, dis-
crete subhedra and euhedra of which are less than 0.001 mm in size. Some varieties of
cryptocrystalline dolomites display a translucent “sheen” when broken, and may granulate
rather than flake.
Cryptograined: a size term for micritic sedimentary carbonate rocks referring to particles of cryp-
toclastic detritus (or flocculated, or precipitated), discrete grains of which are less than
0.001 mm in size (some workers prefer an upper limit of 0.004 mm).
Crystalline: refers to a texture characterized by interlocking crystals in a mosaic, or to discrete

crystals whether juxtaposed against each other or against grains, fossils, or matrix. It may
also refer to discrete crystals in finer grained matrix, or in niicrite.
Crust (algal): a deposit of algal “dust”, filamentous or bladed Algae, or clots of Algae on larger
particulate rocks or fossils, arranged due to accretion, aggregation, or flocculation. May
form “biscuit-like’’ encrustations on rocks, fossils, grains, pellets, etc. It is common to
fresh-water, lacustrine, and marine deposits, and may form large, bulbous masses or
“heads”, such as those formed in sediments of the Lake Bonneville Group (Pleistocene).
Dense: compact, having various parts crowded together. Its use is not restricted to aphanic and
finely textured rocks, and may be used for phaneric rocks as well because it defines the
degree of compactness. Micrites and dolomicrites (in particular the primary dolomicrites)
are dense.
Depocenteu: basin or other repository of sedimentation; it may be lacustrine, paludal, or fluvial,

but more commonly is marine to terrestrial-marine for carbonate sedimentary rocks.
Derrital: formed from debris of pre-existing rocks; detrital limestone is one formed from the de-
tritus of older carbonate rocks, whether derived from an extra-depocenter or intra-depo-
center source (or both). Petroclastic limestone is considered synonymous with detrital
limestone. If composed of discrete particulate fossils or of older fossil fragments, the term
skeletal-detrital may apply for the rock name.
Diagenesis: all those processes which change a fresh sediment into a stable rock of substantial
hardness, under conditions of pressure and temperature not widely removed from those
existing on the earth’s surface in various depocenters. Diagenesis refers primarily to the
processes and reactions which occur within a sediment between one mineral and another
or among several minerals and the interstitial fluids. It includes all those processes leading
up to final induration of the rock but just before incipient metamorphism. Syndiugenesis
occurs penecontemporaneously, at the interface in lime ooze or mud, and during early
stages of compaction, cementation, and water-expulsion, but before deep burial. Deep-
burial diagenesis, but still in the realm of temperature-pressure conditions normal to
the depocenter, is late diagenetic.
Diagenetic dolomite: dolomitized limestone, or dolomitized lime ooze or mud while still in an
uncompact (possibly watery) state, and prior to complete lithification. The process involves
all those changes leading up to final dolomitic limestone or dolomite (= dolostone),
with positive and negative relics still discernible.
Dolarenite: dolomite sand, and thus largely “primary” in the sense of being reworked and abra.
ded pre-existing rock. Some dolarenite results from clotting, coagulation, and aggregation
of dolomite mud, with concomitant and later rolling and shaping into sand-size partic-
ulate material. The rock has a sucrosic or “sugary” appearance. Dolurenaceous is a term
describing the texture of dolarenites, or dolomite “sand” derived from crystalline dolomite.
Dolocast: casts in a dolostone, dolomitic limestone, or in gypsum or anhydrite, indicating former

presence of dolorhombs.
Dolobtite: dolarenites range downward in size-grade through dolosiltites to dololutites, which

are silt-size and silty-clay to clay-size dolomitic rocks, respectively. Dolosiltites and dolo-
lutites are common in evaporitic sequences and may be interlayered with dense primary
dolomites.
Dolomicvite: aphanic to finely crystalline and grained micritic dolomite, resulting from induration
of magnesium-rich mud, or diagenetic dolomitization of micritic limestone. Dolomicrites
are common to evaporitic sequences.
Dolomite: the hexagonal rhombohedra1 mineral, CaMg(C03)~;it may be used by some workers
to define a carbonate rock composed of more than 50 % by weight of the mineral dolomite
(other workers may prefer the term dolostone for the rock). For practical microscopic
work, areal percentages are used instead of weight percentages.
Dolomitic: where used in a rock name, “dolomitic” refers to those rocks that contain 5-50 % of
the mineral dolomite. Dolomitic can also be used as a general term applying to those
rocks which are dolomite-bearing.
Dolomitic mottling: arrested dolomitization, or arrested (or incomplete) dedolomitization.

Common to limestones that have large particulate skeletal or non-skeletal material embed-
ded in finer textured matrix that, under the effects of dolomitization, preferentially re-
place or alter the matrix but not the large particles. Also common to more or less homo-
geneous textured limestones that have been incompletely dolomitized, leaving patches,
blotches, “birdseyes”, laminae, or other structures and textures unaffected.
Dolomitized: refers to rocks or portions of rocks in which limestone (and sandstone) textures are
discernible, but which have been converted wholly or largely to dolostone or dolomite
rock. If a rock has been dolomitized, positive and negative fossil or grain relics commonly
are recognizable.
Dolomolds: molds or partially filled molds in dolomite, dolomitic rock, or in gypsum and anhy-
drite, indicating former presence of dolorhombs.
Dolorudite: as dolarenites pass upward in size grade, they are called dolorudites. They can con-
sist of older rock fragments, subangular to round, of mtraclasts, particularly if reworked,
and of dolomitized reef “trash” detritus in the fore-reef tract. Dolomite mud (ofearly dia-
genetic types) can be disrupted from the floor of the depocenter, reworked and indurated
to form dolorudite, such as edgewise conglomerate or flat-pebble conglomerate.
Dolosparite: see sparite.
Druse (drusy): sparry calcite (or sparry dolomite) lining or filling shells, open spaces such as
voids, pore spaces, interstices, cavities, etc. The druse is crystalline.
Drusy coating: calcarenite grains, regardless of origin, may be surrounded by a thin layer of needle-
like calcite (or dolomite) crystals that grow normal to the grain surface. The coat, com-
posed of tightly packed scalenohedral or rhombohedra1 crystals projecting outward into
the intergranular pore space, forms a rind generally not more than 100 ,LA thick.
Earthy: refers to a variety of argillaceous to slightly argillaceous carbonate (limestone or dolomite)

with earthy texture, generally closely associated with chalky deposits and commonly
showing similar porosity values. Contrasts in some respects with the term dense. It is
microtextured (0.01 mm and less in size). Some primary dolomites have an earthy texture.
Encrinal (encrinite) : containing crinoid stem and/or plate fragments in the carbonate. If the
content of crinoidal fragments is more than 10 % but less than 50 % of the bulk, the rock
is an encrinal limestone (or dolomite); whereas if there is more than 50 ”/o of such material,
it is an encrinite or dolomitized encrinite.
Endogenic: refers to components derived from within the depocenter.
Energy Zndex: inferred degree of water agitation in the depositional environment.
Energy level: the kinetic energy that exists in the water at the depositional interface and a few
feet above. This energy of motion may be due to either wave or current action, or to surf
surge.
Eolianite: sedimentary accumulation formed by wind action. Oolites, oopellets, pellets, and some
other particulate material that originally formed in a water environment may subsequently
be transported by wind action (such as across a tidal flat, beach area, etc.) and ultimately
heaped into dunes and other deposits. Discrete particles may be carbonates, gypsum, and
some other materials. Wind-drifted oolite sands, pelletal sands, and gyparenites adjacent
to Great Salt Lake and in the Salt Flats of Utah are such examples.
Epidiagenetic: lithologic changes of a rock under ground or artesian water influence. Applies
especially to topographic dolomitization (FAIRBRIDGE,1966).
Epigenesis: this includes all processes at low temperature and pressure that affect sedimentary
rocks after diagenesis and up to metamorphism in the depocenter. This gradation may
occur: syngenesis +-diagenesis + epigenesis + metamorphism. Some geologists reserve
the term “epigenesis” to mineral replacements near the earth’s surface.
Equant: equidimensional crystalline fabric, whether aphanic or phaneric.
Equigranulur: equidimensional grained fabric, whether aphanic or phaneric.
Euhedral: refers to individual crystals with well-developed crystal boundaries or faces; these can
be equant, or inequant.
Evaporite-solution breccia: solution breccias are created when intervening soluble evaporites
(salt, anhydrite, gypsum, etc.) are dissolved away, letting the carbonate beds crush under
the weight of overlying sediments. This rock type is an extremely angular collapse breccia,
and the matrix commonly is of the same material as the rock fragments. These chaotic
breccias normally are associated with evaporites, and may also be adjacent to reef lime-
stones, which, upon removal of the evaporites, collapse and may be “healed” or cemented
by calcareous and/or dolomitic material.
Exogenic: referring to components derived from outside, i.e., from either above or below, the
sedimentary formation and from an extra-depocenter provenance.
Extraclast: fragment(s) of calcareous sedimentary material produced by erosion of an older

rock outside of the depocenter in which it accumulated.
Fabric: arrangement of discrete particles (grains), crystals, and cement relative to each other in a
sedimentary carbonate rock.
Fibrous: see cement.
Fore reef: the seaward side of the reef trend. The fore-reef sediments, composed primarily of reef
detritus, interfinger with the reef and basin sediments. The terms fore reef and back reef
apply only to linear reef trends, in contrast to reef core and reefflank, which apply to all
types of reefs. The back reef is the landward side of the reef trend, and its sediments are
largely reef-derived fossil debris, calcarenite, and calcilutite, which may interfinger with
both the reef and lagoonal facies.
Fragmental: refers to broken or detached debris. Detrital fragments and those derived from the
skeletons of organisms, are included under this term. Fragmental limestone is, therefore,
a mechanically-formed rock; fossiliferous-fragmental limestone is common in strati-
graphic sections, and commonly is termed bioclastic limestone.
Framework: rigid, wave- and current-resisting structures bioconstructed by sedentary organisms

capable of erecting a limestone upward and outward in a high-energy environment.
Framework-building organisms include sponges, stromatoporoids, corals, bryozoans,
Algae, and combinations (such as coralgal, bryalgal, etc.).
Fusulinal: a term denoting presence, in minor to major (and even dominating) amourlth of fusulinid
tests in a carbonate sedimentary rock. These may be in a micrite, or other iirriestone, or
may remain as relics in dolomitized rock particularly if silicified prior to dolomitization.
Glomeraclustic: a textural term applied to sedimentary carbonate rocks in which lumpal particles
are grouped together in clusters.
Grain growth: this process acts in monomineralic rocks of low porosity. The intergranular boun-
daries migrate causing some grains to grow at the expense of their neighbors. The reaction
takes place in the solid state, ions being transferred from one lattice to another without
solution. Larger grains tend to replace smaller ones, and a fine mosaic is gradually replaced
by a coarser one. As grain growth proceeds, many of the enlarged grains are themselves
replaced by their more successful neighbors. In limestones grain growth appears to affect
only the very fine mosaics with grain diameters from 0.5 to 4.0 mm. These include calcite-
mudstones, the walls of Foraminifera, algal frameworks, Bahamite particles, and ooliths
(BATHURST, 1958,1959).
Grain-supported: rocks in which grains are so abundant as to support one another, with little or
no interstitial mud-matrix, but with various cement types.
Grains: discrete particles larger than 0.01 mm (for most routine work), but technically particles
can be cryptograined and micrograined. They may form the rock framework, similar to
sand grains in a sandstone, or they may be subordinate to smaller particles in the rock.
Grains include detrital (lithoclastic) particles, skeletal grains (bioclastic), pellets, coated
grains, oopellets, and glomeroclastic grains (many of which may have formed by clotting,
coagulation, flocculation, aggregation, etc.).
Grainstone: mud-free carbonate rocks, which are necessarily grain-supported, are termed grain-
stone; some are current laid, some are the product of mud being by-passed while locally
produced grains accumulate, or of mud washed out.
Granular: applied to sedimentary rocks made up of grains, usually larger than 2.0 mm in diameter.
Grapestone: composite grains, clusters of pellets, or irregularly-shaped grains having protuber-

ances resulting from overgrowths, aggregation, flocculation, clotting, coagulation, etc.
of lime mud. May be of silt-size, but more commonly are of sand- and granule-size.
Grumous: textural feature seen in limestones that experienced pervasive crystallization. Such
crystallization (and recrystallization) develops patches of coarsely crystalline carbonate
which invade, in an irregular way, shell debris, oolites, and matrix alike. The uncrystal-
lized areas remain dark, dense, and finely textured, and are ultimately surrounded by water-
clear coarse crystalline calcite (sparite). Such a rock has a clotted or grumous texture;
and in some respects resembles spotted dolomite. This texture is common in diagenetic
dolomites.
High-energy: the environment of lithoclastic and bioclastic carbonate working and accumulation,
mostly in a zone of turbulence created by waves, currents, and surf-surge. Has the highest
Energy Index.
Hydroclust: lithoclastic and bioclastic carbonate detritus that is transported, worked, and depo-
sited in a water environment. Hydrolith is the resulting rock.
Impingement: a mechanism or process in dolomitization in which dolomite crystals replace

limestones, commonly skeletal particles such as crinoid ossicles and plates, but not in
optical continuity with the calcite of the original particle.
Interface: depositional boundary condition separating two different physicochemical regions.

When particles come to rest on the bottom of a depocenter, they form a solid matrix having
water-saturated pores. The water has the same composition as the medium above, but
marked changes occur once it is sealed from free circulation by confinement in the pores.
As deposition continues, the lamina of sediment passes from the water-sediment interface
to successively lower positions and enters a realm of greater pressure, higher temperature,
and of changed chemical and biologic conditions. These new conditions promote the
consolidation or lithification of the sediment into a sedimentary rock.
Intergranular porosity: void space between grains, whether bioclastic or Iithoclastic. In sedimentary
carbonate rocks the term granular commonly refers to the grains, whether skeletal or
nonskeletal. Some geologists, however, regard a granule as a size-grade textural term, with
discrete particles larger than 2.0 mm in diameter.
Internal sedimentation: allochthonous clastic and/or chemical sediment derived from the surface
or from within the rock framework and accumulated in cavities within the sedimentary
rock formation. It is a collective term including both mechanical and chemical internal
sediments.
Interstitial: of, pertaining to, existing in, or forming an interstice or interstices (Standard), In
sedimentary carbonate rocks, interstitial denotes the space between grains and/or crystals.
Intraclast: fragments of penecontemporaneous, generally weakly consolidated carbonate sedi-

ment that have been eroded from adjoining parts of the sea bottom and redeposited to
form a new sediment. The particles have been reworked within the area of deposition and
within the same formation.
Inversion: the process by which unstable minerals change to a more stable form of the same chem-
ical composition (except for a possible change in content of trace elements and/or iso-
topes) but with a different lattice structure.
Limestone: pertains to a carbonate rock composed of more than 50 % by weight of the mineral
calcite. For practical purposes in microscopic work, area percentages are used instead of
weight percentages.
Lithocalcarenite: that variety of calcarenite in which detrital and/or intraclastic fragments pre-
dominate; these are devoid of organic structures originating from aggregation processes.
This is the lithic calcarenite, or lithoclastic variety of calcareous arenite. Lithocalcarenites
contain a predominant number of sand-size carbonate grains, angular to well rounded,
which are fine-grained to coarse-grained and are devoid of any internal structure. The name
bahumite includes deposits varying from calcisiltites to calcirudites, in which the grains are
accretionary and commonly are composite, consisting of smaller particles bound together
by precipitated material into aggregate grains.
Lithocalcilutite: fine-grained equivalent of Iithocalcarenite, and also the fine-grained equivalent

of practically all the allochthonous types of calcareous deposits, particularly of the litho-
calcarenites of aggregation origin (bahamites). Many of the original lithocalcilutites appear
now entirely crystallized; they have a crystallinity coarser than 0.002 mm and consist of
a finely crystalline mosaic of interlocking anhedral to subhedral crystals of calcite or of
dolomite (dololutite).
Lithoculcirudite: composed of uniform to nonuniform, or composite nonskeletal particles of

microcrystalline calcite generated by aggregation processes (bahamites), pisolites, compo-
site oolites, and coarse particles disrupted and torn from any pre-existing autochthonous
and allochthonous limestones. Lithodolorudite, like lithodolarenite and lithodololutite,
is of CaMg(CO& composition.
Lithocalcisiltite: companion term for silt-size carbonate lithic fragments; lithodolosiltite is the
dolomitic equivalent.
H. J. BISSELL AND G. V. CHILINGAR
Lithoclastic: autochthonous or allochthonous carbonate detritus; mechanically formed and depo-

sited carbonate clasts, derived from previously formed limestone and/or dolomite, within,
adjacent to, or outside the depositional site. Some linieclasts are intraclasts and were
derived from particulate material torn from the sea bottom (or lake bottom) and incorpo-
rated in the new unit.
Lithographic: pertaining to a compact carbonate rock having about the same particle size and
textural appearance as the stone used in lithography. Characterized by conchoidal fracture,
extreme smoothness of texture (aphanic), and uniformity of grains. Internally, the rock
may be entirely micro- or cryptograined, entirely micro- or cryptocrystalline, or variously
combined. Lithographic is a term to describe the appearance, fracture habit, utility in
lithography, etc. and applies (in part at least) to the micrites and dolomicrites. Sub-litho-
graphic is a term designating a minor degree of the above features.
Lump: in recent sediments, “Iumps” are composite grains typically possessing superficial re-
entrants and believed to have formed by a process of aggregation; or lumps may result
from disruption of partially indurated lime mud or dolomite mud in the depocenter. In
ancient sediments, the “composite grain character,” may not be easily distinguished, but
“lumpal” material of larger dimensions will be readily discernible. The following criteria
are useful in recognizing lumps: ( I ) lobate outline, reflecting superficial re-entrants, (2)
grains texturally similar to the material in which they occur, and (3) rock associations.
Lumps may originate through clotting, flocculation, aggregation, and through disruption
of newly-deposited lime mud or dolomite mud. In the latter case the fragments are re-
worked and redeposited within the unit from which they were disrupted.
Luster-mottling: sandstones of various compositional types may become cemented with calcite
and/or dolomite which assumes crystallinity; each pore may be filled with a single crystal
or with several crystals, some of which are up to a few millimeters in size. Freshly broken
arenites so cemented by sparry calcite or dolomite display luster-mottling when turned in
the light. Many dolomitic quartz sandstones illustrate this phenomenon.
Luiite: this is mud, and is thus a combination of clay- and silt-size particles with the former
predominating; the term can carry prefixes such as calci-, dolo-, lithocalci-, biocalci-, etc.
Mad: semifriable mixtures of clay materials and carbonates. The better-indurated rocks of like
composition are marlstones or marlite, which can be considered more correctly as earthy
or impure limestones rather than shales. Marl contains 30-70 % of carbonates and a
complementary content of clay. Most commonly, the term marl has been used to denote
certain friable carbonates (usually earthy) which accumulated in Recent or present-day
fresh-water lakes. It may result from precipitation, flocculation, or physical settling out
of the water; photosynthesis of plants in lakes, shallow seas, etc. can hasten the precipita-
tion of marl. Certain microorganisms likewise can aid in precipitating, flocculating and
settling of the sediment.
Matrix: the natural material in which any fossil, rock fragment, crystal, grain, etc. is embedded.
In a rock in which certain grains are much larger than the others, the grains of the smaller
size comprise the matrix. If the particles in a rock are of different orders of magnitude of
size, the term matrix applies to the smaller individual units that fill the interstices between
the larger grains. Sand-, silt-, and clay-sized material which is resolvable only by size and
shape analysis is included in the definition of carbonate matrix. Micritic material may also
be called matrix when it encloses grains or fills interstices between them.
Maturity (sediment) :the extent to which clastic carbonate material approaches the end product
to which it is driven by the formative processes that operate on it.
Mechanical: pertaining to particles of sediment brought to their place of final deposition by agents
such as water currents, wind currents, or gravity.
Megalump: most lump (= lumpal) limestones contain silt-size and sand-size clots, coagulated
irregularly-shaped grains, and aggregate grains (bahamite); some, however, contain mega-
lumps, which are coarser-textured and lie in the granule- to boulder-size classes. These
are “lithocalcibreccia-” and “lithodolobreccia-” like masses, and may originate through
tearing up by waves, currents, and surf-surge of very high energy-index values, and possi-
bly by turbidity currents. Partly indurated lime mud or dolomite mud could be ripped up
into fragments which are shaped to resemble rudites, and then incorporated within the
unit from which they were derived. In the early literature, these are known as penecontem-
poraneous intraforniational mud-pebble conglomerates or breccias.
Metusomatism (dolomitic) :diagenetic differentiation is the redistribution of the materials within

a sediment, leading to segregation of the minor constituents into nodules, concretions,
and related bodies. Diagenetic metasomatism involves introduction of materials from with-
out, leading to replacement.
Micrite: consolidated or unconsolidated ooze or mud of either chemical or mechanical origin.

FOLK(1959) originally stated that the term should be reserved for those rocks that, under
the petrographic microscope, are seen to consist almost entirely of microcrystalhne calcite.
LEICHTON and PENDEXTER (1962) defined the micritic material as that consisting of parti-
cles less than approximately 0.03 mm in diameter. In the present chapter, micrite is
employed for material, whether crystalline or finely grained, that is 0.05 mm or smaller
in diameter or across faces. Micrite is lime mud or its indurated equivalent, and dolomicrite
is dolomite mud or its indurated equivalent.
Micritic limestone: a limestone which consists of 90 % or more micrite. Microclastic and micro-
crystalline limestones are two varieties of micritic limestone (LEIOHTON and PENDEXTER,
1962), the former possessing a clastic texture and the latter a texture of microscopic size
interlocking crystals. Aphanic (aphanitic of some authors) limestone, matrix limestone,
calcilutite, and lithographic limestone are practically synonymous with micritic limestone.
Microcrystalline: usage varies (see Table IV), but it refers to crystallinity in limestones and dolo-
mites between 0.001 and 0.01 mm across crystal faces. Some petrographers prefer the limits
of 0.004 to 0.062 mm.
Micrograined: clastic carbonate particles between 0.001 and 0.01 mm in diameter, or it may he
preferred (see LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER, 1962) to have an upper limit of 0.0625 mm and a
lower limit of 0.004 mm. They apply the terms coarsely micrograined (0.03 to 0.06 mm)
and finely micrograined (0.004 to 0.03 mm), with cryptograined particles being smaller
than 0.004 mm in diameter.
Micropelfetoid: particles of pellet nature, or possibly true pellets (faecal or otherwise), of a fine
to very fine grade size, possibly smaller than 0.01 mm in diameter. FOLK (1962) places all
pellets in the size range of 0.03 to 0.15 mm.
Mosaic: a textural term, more applicable to dolomites than to limestones (except the non-dolom-
itized, but diagenetically altered varieties). Secondary overgrowth of dolomite on rhombs
produces mosaic-like texture. This destruction of original intercrystalline porosity by
continuing growth of dolomite is analogous to the “cementation” phenomena of well-
sorted skeletal and nonskeletal limestones, such as encrinal limestones and the like.
Mud: silt-clay mixture (the latter size commonly predominant) in water without connotation as
to composition. Lime mud dolomite mud, etc. identify the variety.
Mud aggregate: any aggregate of mud grains, commonly having the size of a sand or silt particle,
and usually mechanically deposited. Initially the aggregate may have been a faecal pellet,
or a rounded, subspherical aggregate of mud grains cemented originally by aragonite
with no signs of organic control, or a fragment of algal precipitate, or a spherical or
ovoid growth form of a calcareous alga (BATHURST, 1959).
Mud-supported: muddy carbonate rock which contains more than 10% grains, but not in suffi-
cient amount that they support one another; such grains are “floating”, and thus they are
mud-supported.
Mudstone: muddy carbonate rocks containing less than 10% grains (grain/bulk ratio being 0.1);
the name is synonymous with calcilutite, except that it does not specify mineralogic com-
position, and does not specify that the mud is of clastic origin (DUNHAM, 1962).
Nodular limestone: a variety characterized by nodules, lumps, clots, and grapestone accumulations
within argillaceous and micritic limestones. Nodules are not necessarily concretions, but
may represent lumps, flocculated material, and round to subround aggregations, and simi-
larly-shaped very large coated grains. Most commonly nodules are composed of the same
type of material that encloses them.
Nonclastic: having a texture showing no evidence that the sediment was deposited mechanically.
Nondetrital: minerals that are precipitated from solution by chemical, physical, physicochemical,
biochemical, or biologic means. Accumulation occurs at, or generally close to, the site
of precipitation. This group also includes the authigenic minerals formed in the sediment
after deposition.
Nonskeletal limestone: lithocalcarenites and lithocalcisiltites containing subrounded to rounded

grains devoid of internal structure, organic or otherwise. These grains have been termed
pellets, granules, false oolites, oopellets, intermediate pelletoid grains, pseudo-oolites, etc.
Olistolith: exotic blocks of older strata apparently transported by gravity sliding: “calcolistoliths”
are limestone exotic blocks of this type, whether transported by turbidity currents or by
gravity sliding. “Olistostrome” is an entire formation of slumps and exotic blocks.
Oolite (or ooid): spherical or subspherical accretionary grain generally less than 2.0 mm in dia-
meter. In section, oolites display concentric structure, and may also exhibit radial struc-
ture. Oolite is a coated grain, and may or may not have a nucleus. Superficial oolite is a type
of oolite in which the thickness of the accretionary coating is less than the radius of the
nucleus. Some workers prefer the name oii[ith for the rock, and oolite (or ooid) for the
discrete coated grain; some petrographers use the two terms interchangeably, regardless
of whether it is a rock or a grain.
Oolitoid: similar shaped and sized bodies to oolites and ooliths, but which lack the internal struc-
ture normally found in oolites; they consist of a fine-grained aggregate of Fe-rich dolomite
(GREENSMITH, 1960).
Oopellet: spherical or subspherical grain displaying characters of both an oolite and a pellet, and
should not be confused with superficial oolite. The internal part is pelletoidal, and thus
may be ovoid in shape, but it has an accretionary coating, the thickness of all layers being
equal to or slightly greater than the diameter of the pellet which they enclose.
Open-space structures: they are structures in carbonate rocks which formed by the partial or com-
plete occupation with internal fillings composed of internal sediments and/or cement of
one to several generations.
Organic lattice: reef-building framework, in situ.
Organic linzestone: biogenic limestone owing its origin directly to physiological activities of plants
and animals.
Organic structures limestones: the major framework of these limestones has been secreted by
organisms such as Algae, stromatoporoids, sponges, corals, bryozoans, and combinations
thereof (bryalgal, coralgal, etc.); and the fossil remains are still in their approximate growth
position.
Orthochemical: carbonate sediment or rock equivalent which is of straight or direct chemical origin.
Flocculated and precipitated lime mud may form micrites; and primary dolomites are
orthochemical because they have been precipitated directly out of sea or lake water.
Primary dolomite is, therefore, an orthodolomite.
Ovoid grains: pellet-shaped grains having a length two or more times as long as the diameter;
these are “football-shaped” grains, and are commonly 0.1-2.0 mm long (though some are
up to 5.0 mm in length). They commonly lack an internal structure, although weakly-
developed radial structure, and rarely concentric structure, can be seen.
Packstone: a limestone in which the grains are arranged in a self-supporting framework, and yet
contains some matrix of lime mud. If no mud is present the rock is called grainstone;
and if grains comprise less than 10% of the rock mass, it is a mudstone.
Paragenesis: a general term for the order of formation of associated minerals, textures, and struc-
tures in time succession, one after another.
Purticulate: discrete particles, grains, fossils, fragments, skeletal material, and crystals.
faurocrystalline: lowest size-grade group of the phaneric crystalline carbonate rocks; subhedra
and euhedra lie in the size range of 0.01 to 0.1 mm. The termpaurograinedis the clastic or
grained equivalent.
Pelagosite: this is a deposit (generally white, gray, to brownish with a pearly luster) composed of
CaC03 with higher MgC03, SrC03, CaS04.HzO and SiOz contents than those found in
normal limy sediments. It is restricted to intertidal spray-formed incrustations a few milli-
metres thick (see REVELLE and FAIRBRIDGE, 1957).
felite: size-grade of lutite, and is of clay- to silt-size material (the former predominant). Pelitomor-
phic is an all-embracive term for carbonate particles of this size; but more commonly it
connotes anhedra to subhedra.
Pellet: a grain composed normally of micritic material, lacking significant internal structure and
generally ovoid in shape; it may also be sub-ovoid. Most pellets in limestones are of silt-
size to coarse sand-size (some are slightly larger). In some respects pellets are pseudo-
oolites, for they are spherical to subspherical to oval bodies with distinct boundaries, and
resemble oolites; however, they do not possess comparable internal structure, for example,
faecal pellets. Carbonate muds are commonly pelleted, pelletal, or pelletoid, displaying
rounded or ellipsoidal aggregates of “grains of matrix” material. These muds are thought
to be pelleted either by faecal activity, gas bubbling, or by algal “budding” phenomena.
Penecontemporaneous: a term used in connection with the formation of sedimentary rocks, and
implies “formed at almost the same time”.
fhaneric: textural term for carbonates, particularly limestones, which are crystalline (and/or
grained), and the discrete particles of which are larger than 0.01 mm. faurograined (0.01
-0.1 mm), mesograined (0.1-1 .O mm), and megagrained (1 .O-10.0 mm) are the three textural
subdivisions. The term phaneritic is a term applied to texture in igneous rocks in which
individual crystals are visible to the unaided eye, and should not be used as a textural term
for carbonate rocks.
Pisolite: a grain type similar to an oolite, and generally 2.0 mm or more in diameter. The term
pisolite is restricted to crenulated, rounded or semi-rounded, commonly composite carbon-
ate grains or bodies thought to have been formed by biochemical algal-encrustation
processes. They could, therefore, become enlarged by accretion to form “algal-balls”,
“algal-biscuits”, and the like.
Porphyroblastic: textural term to describe limestones and in particular dolomites, in which large
crystals (porphyroblasts) are scattered through a crystalline matrix of finer textured
materials. Crystallized crinoid ossicles in micrite or in fine-textured matrix would display
this texture in limestones; and sparry dolorhombs embedded in finer crystalline or dolo-
micrite material would be one example among dolomites.
Preferred fabric: preferential crystallinity, particularly in diagenetically altered limestones and

dolomites; and also a primary depositional fabric in mechanically deposited !ithodastic
and bioclastic sedimentary carbonate rocks. Preferred fabric is characteristic in primary
dolomites, as deduced with the universal stage and thin sections. For example, the C-axes
of crystals in primary dolomites lie parallel to the plane of bedding.
Pressure solution: a preferential solution takes place on the higher stressed parts of a grain (or
crystal) and deposition of matter 011 surfaces with lower potential energies. The pressure
is supplied by the overburden and should result in recognizable grain fabric, with the grains
flattened at right angles to the pressure. Regarded as perhaps the most important process
in closing the original pore spaces of sediment (BATHURST, 1958, 1959).
Primary dolomite: resulting from direct precipitation out of sea water or lake water. It may have a
preferred fabric, and is aphanic to finely textured (crystalline and grained). Dolomite
“sand”, regarded by some workers as a primary deposit of first-cycle dolarenite, is hardly
categorized as primary dolomite, but is a derived clastic carbonate.
Pseudobreccia: masses of grain growth mosaic which lie in a “matrix” of less altered limestone:
most of these are visible to the naked eye. The “fragments” are irregularly shaped lumps
of coarse calcite mosaic usually between 1.O mm and 20.0 mni in diameter, and are dark
gray in hand specimen. They lie in the finer, pale-gray, “ground mass” of calcite-mudstone.
In thin section, the “fragments” appear light and the “ground mass” dark. (See Bathurst,
1959.)
Pseudomorphic replacement: a diagenetic process whereby the original character of a limestone is

altered during dolomitization; skeletal material for example (and specifically crinoidal
material) is replaced in such a manner that single crystals of dolomite are in optical
continuity with the calcite of the original crinoid fragment. The process contrasts with
that of impingement, in that in the latter case there is lack of optical continuity of dolomite
crystals with the original crinoid fragment.
Pseudo-oolites: some varieties of pellets and oopellets.
Recrystallization: a term signifying a process wherein original crystals of a particular size and
morphology become converted into crystal units with different grain size or morphology,
but the mineral species remains identical before and after the process occurs. First-stage
crystallization is not to be termed recrystallization. This latter term is usually used today
loosely for a number of processes that include inversion, recrystallization sensu stricto,
and grain growth, all of which may result in textural and crystal-size changes. Recrystalli-
zation proper occurs when nuclei of new unstrained grains or crystals appear in or near
the boundaries of the old, strained ones. These nuclei grow until the old mosaic has been
wholly replaced by a new, relatively strain-free mosaic with a nearly uniform grain (or
crystal) size.
Recrystallization fabric: mosaic or other crystalline textural features which identify the pattern
of any sedimentary carbonate that has undergone recrystallization. This is not the fabric
of metasomatically replaced limestones (by dolorhombs). Replacement crystallization
is not recrystallization if the mineral species are no longer the same, such as dolomite after
calcite.
Reef: a structure erected by frame-building or sediment-binding organisms. At the time of depo-

sition, the structure was a wave-resistant or potentially wave-resistant topographic feature.
Reefs and the heterogeneous reef-derived materials form the reef complex. The following
types of reefs can be recognized: (1) fringing reefs, for those veneering types that lie or
were ad,jacent to the pre-existing land; (2) barrier reefs, for sublinear structures that are or
were separated from nearby older land by a lagoon; (3) atolls, for composite structures
with ring-like outer reefs that surround or once surrounded a central lagoon devoid of
pre-existing land; ( 4 )patch reefs, for small, sub-equidimensional or irregularly shaped reefs
that are parts of reef complexes; ( 5 ) table reefs, for flat-topped, isolated, characteristically
small reef-mounds of the open ocean; (6)pinnacle reefs, which have a very small area and
grow almost vertically; ( 7 ) bank reefs, that grow over submerged highs of tectonic or other
origin-these reefs are large and have an irregular shape, and the marine bottom water
surrounding them is too deep to support growth of reef-forming organisms; and (8) shoal
reefs, that grow on the shoals of the fore-reef and back-reef areas; these are smaller in
area than the bank or platform reef types, and generally grow on the debris of a larger reef.
Reefal: this is purely a descriptive and not genetic term having reference to carbonate deposits in
and adjacent to any of the numerous varieties of reefs, and to any or all of their integral
parts.
Reef milk: matrix material of the back-reef facies, consisting of microcrystalline white and opaque
calcite ooze, and derived from abrasion of the reef core and reef flank.
Reef tufa: fibrous calcite which forms thin to thick deposits, layered or unlayered, in the myriads
of voids in reefs and other organic frame-builders; the fibrous calcite is prismatic in struc-
ture and is radial in respect to the depositional surfaces. The fibrous calcite or reef “tufa”
is deposited directly upon the framework of the reefs and within the various voids and
interstices, from supersaturated water. The mechanism may be largely physicochemical,
or, aided by profuse algal growth to extract CO? from the water, may also be biological
to biochemical deposition. Development of reef tufa follows and/or accompanies growth
of organic frame-builders, and precedes infilling of detritus such as lime mud, calcarenite
etc.
Relic: vestige(s) of skeletal and nonskeletal material in a sedimentary carbonate rock, commonly
dolomites. Crystallization, recrystallization, impingement, and other diagenetic alteration
has not completely obliterated these features if they are to be termed relics. There can be
two types of relics: ( I ) positive-the skeletal or nonskeletal element can be identified,
though it is altered; (2) negative (“dissolved out”)-it is known that there was a skeletal
or nonskeletal item present, but it cannot be identified as having been a part of an organic
or non-organic species.
Rim cement: cement which grows into interparticle voids and is optically continuous on single
crystal particles such as crinoid fragments, etc. Thus, the host is a single crystal and the
cement forms a single rim in lattice continuity with it. The overgrowth is a continuation of
this crystal, and the overgrowth can form by filling the pore space.
Saccharoidal: a descriptive term meaning “sugary” texture. More specifically it is a result of diage-
netic process (or result of dolomitization) in which crystallization or recrystallization gives
rise to a new texture. It may be first-stage crystallization, but more commonly is recrys-
tallization that occurs early in a newly-deposited carbonate mud; it does not alter gross
primary structures of the sediment such as ripple marks, thin bedded to laminated layers,
etc., but does tend to destroy minor structures such as shells of organisms. Saccharoidal
texture is recognized by the well-developed rhombs of dolomite of approximately uniform
size resting one against the other with point contact and, likewise, commonly separated by
exceptionally large as well as small pore openings. The fabric displays loose packing, and
suggests that dolomitization occurred when the grains were loose and before compaction
altered the original texture (i.e., a packing typical of loose beach and shore-line sands).
Recrystallization of the original smaller dolomite grains, or replacement crystallization of
the original calcite grains destroys the original particle-size distribution, and substitutes a
new, highly restricted, crystal-size distribution ranging from medium- to coarse-sand
dimensions.
Secondary: a general term applied to minerals and rocks formed as a consequence of alteration.
This term is too all-inclusive and ambiguous in detailed studies and should be used only
as a very general colloquial term when misinterpretation is absolutely impossible.
Ske/etal: pertaining to debris derived from organisms that secrete hard parts and hard material
around or within organic tissue. NELSON et al. (1962) defined skeletal limestones as those
which consist of, or owe their characteristics to, virtually in-place accumulation of cal-
careous skeletal matter. These rocks, formed through biologic processes, are contrasted
with fragmental limestones. LEIGHTON and PENDEXTER (1962) considered the term bioclas-
tic to be synonymous with skeletal. The term skeletal is thus also used to indicate faunal
(or floral) fragments or wholecomponents of these organisms that are not in place of origin.
Solution transfer: this is a translation of the German Losungumsatz. It refers to the solution of
detrital particles around their points of contact where elastic strain and solubility are en-
hanced (pressure solution), followed by redeposition on less strained particle surfaces
(BATHURST, 1959).
Sparite: a contraction of, and therefore synonymous with, sparry calcite. Sparite is a loose des-
criptive term applied to any transparent or translucent crystalline calcite and aragonite.
It can occur in numerous morphologic forms, viz. granular, drusy, fibrous, and blady.
Three possible origins are recognized: ( 1 ) physicochemical precipitation, (2) recrystalli-
zation, and (3) grain growth. The first is distinguished by adding the genetic prefix ortho-,
and the latter two by adding prefix pseudo-. Sparite is larger than 0.02 mm in diameter.
Petrographers who prefer to use also the term nzicrosparite set its size limits at 0.005-0.02
mm. The prefix dolo- is used to indicate sparry dolomite crystals, i.e., dolosparite and tlolo-
’
microsparite. Some workers prefer the prefix calc- to distinguish calcsparite from the dolo-
mitic variety, but to some the term sparite is automatically understood to mean the
calcareous variety.
Sparry: refers to clear, transparent, or translucent, readily cleavable, crystalline particles generally
having an interlocking mosaic texture. FOLK (1959) referred to sparry calcite cement which
forms grains or crystals lop or more in diameter. The name spar alludes to its relative
clarity both in thin section and in hand specimen.
Speleothem: a carbonate cave deposit of any sort (also “speleal” limestone).
Spergenite: a coquinite (to niicrocoquinite), and/or a biocalcarenite composed of sorted fossil

debris, including bryozoan fragments, and Foraminifera (possibly endothyroids), together
with carbonate detritus of various types, cemented by sparry calcite; a biogenic calcarenite.
SpheruZite: a textural term, applicable to limestones and dolomitized equivalents, in which roun-
ded and subrounded, spherical to subspherical ooids are present. These may have either a
concentric, radial, or axiolitic structure, or a combination of all three. Spherulitic limestone
contains 50 % or more of these spherules; they range in size from about 0.5 to 2.0 mm, al-
though some are up to 5.0 mni in diameter. No particular genetic significance is attached
because they may be (1) detrital, (2) coated grains, (3)algal spherules, and ( 4 ) authigenic.
According to some workers only a radial structure is indicated; and according to some, a
sgherulite is a small spherical or spheroidal particle composed of a thin dense calcareous
outer layer with a sparry calcite core. According to PETTIJOHN (1957), spherulites are minute
bodies of oolitic nature in which only a radial structure is visible.
Stinkstein: “stink-stone”, or smelly rock; among carbonate rocks, both limestones and dolo-
mites, stinksteins are common. Normally these are of three types, or some combination
thereof: ( I ) “sweet” or hydrocarbon odor; (2) fetid, or foul odor (common to most cri-
quinites), or (3) “sweet-and-sour”, typical of carbonates rich in organic-phosphatic material,
particularly detectable if dilute HCl is applied to freshly-powdered rock.
Stromutuctis: these are open-space structures with horizontal flat to nearly flat bottoms, and are
filled by internal sediments and/or cement. Their genesis has been variously interpreted as
being caused by the burial of soft organisms which upon decomposition left an open space.
More recent studies, however, show that they are most likely syngenetic voids in calcareous
sediments, which are or are not changed by subsequent corrosion and corrasion. Algae are
only indirectly responsible by overgrowing surface pits and channels, and thus form an
internal cavity system. It seems that Strornaiuciis are most common to micritic limestones
formed by calcareous Algae, that left little or no evidence in most occurrences thus far
reported from Great Britain, North America, etc.
Stromutolite: laminated sediment formed by calcareous Algae, which bind fine detritus and/or
precipitate calciumcarbonatebiochemically. The deposit may form irregular accumulations
or structures that may remain fairly constant in shape, for example, Colleniu.
Subhedrul: refers t o individual crystals exhibiting a few crystal boundaries; the term unhedrul
defines those with no well-defined crystal boundaries, and the term euhedral indicates
excellent crystallinity. Subhedrul is midway between these latter two varieties.
Sucrosic: contraction of saccharoidal, thus meaning “sugary” texture. The term is commonly
applied to certain types of dolomites, e.g., dolarenites.
Syneresis cracks or vugs: cracks or vugs formed by a spontaneous throwing off of water by a gel
during aging. In some carbonates, precipitation evidently occurs as a colloidal gel encrusting
leaves of sea plants (photochemical removal of carbon dioxide from sea water by the plants
causes precipitation). The end-result may be the production of cryptotextured limestone
which contains “syneresis” cracks and associated contraction vugs.
Syngenetic: originating at about the same time; in sedimentary carbonate rocks, it refers to con-
cretions, authigenic minerals, nodules, and other bodies which form at identically, or
approximately, the same time as the rock which encloses them. Syndiugenetic dolomitizution,
for example, refers to diagenetic dolomitization which occurs at the interface while lime
mud is accumulating.
Syntaxid rims: a mechanism of replacement overgrowth, which develops during diagenesis as a

syntaxial extension of a detrital single crystal (e.g., a crinoid fragment). Not to be confused
with drusy mosaic, which is a convenient term for grain mosaics which have been deposited
on the walls of cavities. Whereas drusy mosaic and granular cement are entirely chemically
deposited, the mosaic formed by rim cementation processes consists of grains each of which
has a core composed of the detrital host. The textural relationships between lime mud and
calcite overgrowth in some limestones suggest that rim cementation is the dominant pro-
cess, and commonly dolomitization occurs after rim cementation.
Travertine: a massive to often finely layered colloform type of chemical limestone, often with po-
rous interlayers. In the type area, at warm carbonate springs at Tivoli near Rome, Italy, afine
type of sound-absorbing building stone is worked and exported all over the world. The
Tivoli River of Italy deposits travertine very rapidly because of agitation. Travertine
commonly forms about hot springs, faults, in caves, in soil crusts, as soil nodules, etc.
Tufa: a spongy, porous rock which forms a thin surficial deposit about springs and rivers, or may
form thick, bulbous or otherwhise swelling features in lacustrine environments, particu-
larly around the shore. It has a reticulate structure, and is weak and semifriable. Travertine,
by contrast, is fairly dense, banded CaC03, having tan, cream, and white colors.
Turbidity limestones: some litho- and biocalcarenites display features indicating resedimentation
by turbidity currents; exotic limestones, particularly relatively large blocks (“calcolisto-
liths”), are now known to have formed by agents other than waves and currents, possibly
by gravity-sliding and turbidity currents.
Winnow: eolian sorting; should not be used to describe sorting in water, which is “washing”.

Bissell 1967

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bissell 1967

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bissell 1967

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

CLASSIFICATION O F SEDIMENTARY CARBONATE ROCKS

HAROLD J. BISSELL AND GEORGE V. CHILINGAR

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (U.S.A.)

The objective of this chapter is to evaluate some of the proposed classifications of

QUANTITATIVE SCHEME OF CALCITE-DOLOMITE-CLAY SERIES

Name of rock Content (%)

clay calcite dolomite

Clayey limestone 30-10 35-90 045

particularly if the petrologist (field geologist) supplements his investigations by

CLASSIFICATION OF LIMESTONES ON BASIS OF ca/Mg RATIO

(Modified after CHILINGAR,

Rock name Range in CalMg ratio

Highly dolomitic limestone 4.74-16

Students of carbonate petrology and petrography recognize at least seven

or siltstone. As examined under the binocular microscope, an arbitrary lower size

TYPE \ TYPE I\ TYPE III TYPE I V

Fig.2. Classification of pore spaces of carbonate rocks.

It is to be noted that the four textural groups proposed by LEIGHTON and

rock. Various types of calcirudites, biocalcirudites, edgewise conglomerates, flat-

order to provide progressive enlargement of the skeletal structure in keeping with

referring to spherical or subspherical coated grains which have a type of acicular

certain amount of attention from geologists; LOWENSTAM (1950) indicated banks

1922; modified by LEIGHTON

Very coarse sand Very coarse-grained

Coarse sand Coarse-grained

Medium sand Medium-grained

Fine sand Fine-grained

Very fine sand Very fine-grained

PARTICLE SIZE SCALES

Kr nine Howell DeFord Petti'ohn

2 oarsely Macro- Mega- Calci-

1.0 Meso- Meso-

0.1 Micro- Pauro-

Crypto- Crypto- 0.001

% (detrital grains + skeletal grains + pellets + lumps + coated grains +

Dolomites have been defined as carbonate rocks composed of more than 50 % by

CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS INTERMEDIATE IN COMPOSITION BETWEEN PURE LIMESTONES AND DOLOMITES

(After data by CAYEUX,

Rock name Content (%)

Limestone >95 <5

TEODOROVICH’S CLASSIFICATION OF DOLOMITES

Group name Content (%)

Clayey dolomite 35-90 045 30-10

FROLOVA’S CLASSIFICATION OF DOLOMITE-MAGNESITE-CALCITE SERIES

Name Content (%) CaOIMgO

Limestone 5-0 95-100 > 50.1

and thus FROLOVA (1959, p.53) proposed a new classification of dolomite-magne-

coagulating centers in some), possess characteristic microlayering, and very rarely

(1958), TEODOROVICH (1958), FOLK(1959, 1962), MOLLAZAL (1961), POWERS

CHARACTERISTICS OF DOLOMITE GROUPS~

Generally finely micrograined. May be very coarse grained (sucrosic).

Commonly aphanic t o finely crystalline with May be meso- to macrocrysfalline.

Variation in porosity and permeability, from

ICharacteristics in italics were added by the present authors.

PROPOSED LIMESTONE AND DOLOMITE CLASSIFICATlONS

The proposed classification of limestones in this chapter (Table IX) is intended

CLASSIFICATION OF LIME ST ONES^

(Modified after LEIGHTON