THE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE SKAERGAARD INTRUSION - A DISCUSSION

We find no support for the claim that the Skaergaard magma followed the trend of common tholeiitic volcanic magmas, such as those of Iceland and the Scottish Tertiary. The end product of differentiation was not a large mass of rhyolite but an iron-rich, silica-poor liquid not unlike that deduced by Wager in 1960. The proposal that a large mass of rhyolitic liquid occupied the upper levels of the intrusion finds no support in the field. The thick series of ferrogabbos, which became richer in iron and poorer in silica until they reached a field of immiscibility cannot be reconciled with crystallization of a large mass of felsic magma. Mass-balance calculations that indicate otherwise are invalid, because they fail to take into account large volumes of rocks that differ in composition from those assumed in the calculations. While ignoring the existence of major units of the intrusion, Hunter and Sparks propose that lavas in Scotland and Iceland are more relevant to the liquid compositions than rocks that are intimately associated with the intrusion. Their argument that the Skaergaard Intrusion followed a trend of silica enrichment that is universal to tholeiitic magmas is based on an incomplete knowledge of the rocks and faulty calculations of mass-balance relations. We agree that much remains to be learned about the Skaergaard Intrusion and the basic mechanisms of magmatic differentiation. In this case, however, we are ready to hang our case on well-established field relations and a mass of laboratory data for what must be the most intensely studied body of rock on Earth. © 1990 Springer-Verlag.