3.

2 Lamprophyres

During most of my petrological career, I never understood lamprophyres well at all. Through research and discussions to prepare this chapter, I discovered that I am in good
and plentiful company. The concept began clearly enough when Von Gümbel (1874) coined the term to describe the lustrous porphyritic biotite-rich rocks of the
Fichtelgebirge in Germany. Lampros porphyros is Greek for “glistening porphry,” making “lamprophyre” one of the more appropriate and descriptive terms in the igneous
lexicon. Since then, the meaning has been broadened and degraded, as the term was applied to a wide variety of hypabyssal rocks containing mafic phenocrysts. The group
eventually became a repository for any difficult-to-characterize porphyritic rock. The unfortunate practice of type-locality nomenclature led to the introduction of a “legion
of obscure rock types named after equally obscure European villages” (Rock, 1991). Lamprophyres thus became an extremely diverse group of rocks with unintelligible (and
commonly unpronounceable) names that had little in common other than their porphyritic character. No wonder I had such a problem. As with lamproites, however, many
of the lamprophyres were composed of hydrous mineral assemblages dominated by mafic minerals (mica and amphibole), both as phenocryst and groundmass phases, and
had a similar hybrid nature, being rich in both compatible and incompatible elements. They thus provided important information bearing on the nature of the
subcontinental lithospheric mantle.

Rock (1987, 1991) has provided us with modern summaries of the lamprophyre group. He proposed a “lamprophyre clan,” which included lamprophyres, lamproites, and
kimberlites. His use of the term clan was meant to refer to a group of rocks that appear similar, are commonly associated in the field, and have a number of common
characteristics, such as porphyritic texture, high volatile content, and hypabyssal occurrence. Most petrologists use the term clan as synonymous with series, to refer to a
group of rocks derived from a particular parental magma type (tholeiitic, calcalkaline, etc.), and Mitchell (1994a, b) vigorously opposed Rock’s adaptation of the term. He
also opposed Rock’s inclusion of lamproites and kimberlites in a lamprophyre clan on the basis that only some lamproites and kimberlites qualified, and thus lamprophyres
were only being further diluted and confused by the addition of inappropriate members. The IUGS Subcommission (on which both Rock and Mitchell served) agreed that
the extended “lamprophyre clan” should not be endorsed, and that lamproites and kimberlites are best considered separately.

The great diversity of the lamprophyre group precludes an extensive discussion of their petrogenesis here. Because many of the members of the group are volatile-rich
variants on other series and associations that we have covered already, much of the discussion would overlap with the petrogenetic models presented earlier. Rather, I
prefer to simply provide some clarification as to what this group of rocks comprises.

If we exclude lamproites, kimberlites, and other improperly grouped rock types, lamprophyres sensu stricto are presently defined by the IUGS Subcommission (Le Maitre et
al., 2002, p.19) as follows: a diverse group of rocks that chemically cannot be separated easily from other normal igneous rocks. Traditionally they have been distinguished
on the basis of the following characteristics:

1. They normally occur as dikes and are not simply textural varieties of common plutonic or volcanic rocks

2. They are porphyritic, with (modal % mafics) typically 35-90, but rarely >90

3. Feldspars and/or feldspathoids, when present, are restricted to the groundmass

4. They usually contain essential biotite and/or amphibole and sometimes clinopyroxene
5. Hydrothermal alteration of olivine, pyroxene, biotite, and plagioclase (when present), is common

6. Calcite, zeolites, and other hydrothermal minerals may appear as primary phases

7. They tend to have contents of K2O and/or Na2O, H2O, CO2, S, P2O5, and Ba that are relatively high compared to other rocks of similar composition

The classification and nomenclature of lamprophyres, and the mineral characteristics of each, as recommended by the IUGS in 2002, are given in Table 7.

An earlier IUSG classification (Le Maitre et al., 1989) classified lamprophyres into three broad categories: calcalkaline lamprophyres, alkaline lamprophyres, and melilitic
lamprophyres. Rock (1987, 1991) preferred to call the melilitic lamprophyres “ultramafic lamprophyres” instead, arguing that melilite-free and melilite-rich varieties
commonly coexist. Not all melilitic lamprophyres were ultramafic, however, making either choice a compromise. The latest attempts by the IUGS Subcommission to classify
the melilitic rocks (Woolley et al., 1996, Le Maitre et al., 2002) considered them as varieties of a separate melilitic rock group, and not lamprophyres at all.

Calc-alkaline lamprophyres occur in subduction zone environments, generally in association with calc-alkaline granitoid suites or with the more alkaline shoshonites inboard
from the volcanic front. Alkaline lamprophyres and melilitic rocks typically occur in intraplate and rift environments, accompanying other alkaline magmas, from mildly
alkaline gabbros to highly alkaline carbonatite-alkaline silicate rock complexes.

Even when limited to the IUGS-approved types, lamprophyres encompass a wide range of compositions, from ultramafic to silicic and with variable alkalinity and K/Na
ratios (although generally ultrapotassic). Thus the term “lamprophyre” is best used only as a field term, and the more specialized names in Table 7 are preferred when the
petrography is known. As a group they tend to have high (but variable) H2O, CO2, F, Cl, SO3, K, Na, Sr, Th, P, Ba, and LREE, along with basaltic levels of Y, Ti, HREE, and Sc.
Petrographically, they are characterized by euhedral to subhedral phenocrysts (panidiomorphic) of mica and/or amphibole with lesser clinopyroxene in a (usually light
colored) groundmass which may contain glass, plagioclase, alkali feldspar, feldspathoid, mica, amphibole, olivine, carbonate, monticellite, perovskite, and/or an Fe-Ti oxide.
Like the lamproites, they tend to be intriguing hybrids with mafic character, yet enriched in incompatible elements.

Lamprophyres typically occur as minor hypabyssal intrusions (sills, dikes, stocks, pipes, or volcanic necks), but there are now several well-documented examples of extrusive
and larger plutonic lamprophyres as well. Perhaps the more deeply eroded plutonic lamprophyres fed into more typical shallow hypabyssal types. Calc-alkaline
lamprophyres commonly accompany larger granitoid intrusions as components of multiple or composite plutonic bodies. In such cases they occur either as dike swarms,
enclaves, globules (presumably immiscible liquids), or late-stage dikes. They commonly exhibit many characteristics of the associated granitoids and are thus not simply
associated by coincidence.

The high volatile content (particularly H2O) and the resulting abundant mica–amphibole phenocrysts are the predominant uniting characteristics of the lamprophyre group.
The implication is that lamprophyres develop as a consequence of volatile retention via crystallization at high pressure, or by prolonged normal differentiation processes
(Mitchell, 1994a). If so, many lamprophyres may be nothing more than the hydrous crystallization products of common magma types that occur under unusually H2O-rich
conditions. They are still worth considering, however, because they record part of the long-term evolution of some magma chambers, and the mechanisms by which such
hydrous variants are accomplished are both interesting and probably diverse (depending on the initial magma type and the conditions under which it crystallizes).
Recognizing that lamprophyres are polygenetic and may be variations on familiar themes, Mitchell (1994a) proposed adopting the facies concept from our sedimentary and
metamorphic colleagues for use in the sense that rocks in a given facies have some similar conditions in common (in this case, crystallization under volatile-rich conditions),
regardless of other genetic differences. Thus the micaceous kimberlites might constitute a lamprophyric facies of the kimberlite group, or camptonites may be a
lamprophyric facies of the alkali basalt series. This idea has merit, but, as of this writing, it has not been fully accepted or integrated into common usage. Mitchell and
Bergman (1991) also suggested that grouping rocks of such diverse character and origin under the lamprophyre banner “serves no rational petrogenetic purpose.” They
further stated that the practice of extending the lamprophyre group to include even more diverse rocks, such as lamproites and kimberlites, is “regressive, and that
petrologists, instead of creating more lamprophyres, should be working toward the complete elimination of the term.” Whether this suggestion is appropriate depends
upon the relative efficacy of considering lamprophyres as a group or not. Do we gain more by thinking in terms of a diverse group of rocks, all of which evolve under very
hydrous conditions, or in terms of how many of the magma series with we are now familiar could have a hydrous variant? Only time will tell.