<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "journalpublishing.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="archive">gsminmag</journal-id>
<journal-title>Mineralogical Magazine</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="full">Mineralogical Magazine</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0026-461X</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Mineralogical Society</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1180/minmag.1973.039.301.10</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Heyite and Brackebuschite Compared</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Symes</surname>
<given-names>R. F.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7</aff></contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Williams</surname>
<given-names>S. A.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Phelps Dodge Corporation, Douglas, Arizona</aff></contrib></contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub">
<month>3</month>
<year>1973</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>39</volume>
<issue>301</issue>
<fpage>69</fpage>
<lpage>73</lpage>
<history>
<date date-type="received">
<day>8</day>
<month>8</month>
<year>1972</year>
</date></history>
<copyright-statement>Copyright &#x00A9; 1973, The Mineralogical Society</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>1973</copyright-year>
<abstract>
<title>Summary</title>
<p>Heyite (see preceding paper) is so strikingly similar to brackebuschite that a close comparison of the two species seemed advisable. Topotype brackebuschite (B.M. 55819) was used for this purpose.</p>
<p>Brackebuschite is a vanadate of lead, manganese, and iron, heyite a vanadate of lead and iron. Both species are monoclinic with diffraction symmetry <italic>P</italic>2<sub>1</sub> or <italic>P</italic>2<sub>1</sub>/<italic>m</italic>. The X-ray cells are remarkably close: <italic>a</italic> = 8&#x00B7;810, 8&#x00B7;910; <italic>b</italic> = 6&#x00B7;155, 6&#x00B7;017; <italic>c</italic> = 7&#x00B7;651, 7&#x00B7;734; &#x03B2; = 111&#x00B0; 30&#x2032;, 111&#x00B0; 53&#x2032; (brackebuschite first). As might be expected, powder patterns are strikingly close as well.</p>
<p>Other than the similarities noted above, the minerals differ so fundamentally that they cannot be the same&#x2014;they are valid and distinct species. Optic orientations show <italic>&#x03B1;</italic>: [001] 20&#x00B0;  (in acute <italic>&#x03B2;</italic>) for brackebuschite, 36&#x00B0; (in obtuse <italic>&#x03B2;</italic>) for heyite. Indices are (brackebuschite first): &#x03B1; 2&#x00B7;28, 2&#x00B7;185; &#x03B2; 2&#x00B7;38, 2&#x00B7;219; <italic>&#x03B3;</italic> 2&#x00B7;49, 2&#x00B7;266 for the sodium D line.</p>
<p>Chemical differences are irreconcilable and reaffirm brackebuschite as Pb<sub>2</sub>(Mn,Fe,Zn)(VO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>2</sub>.H<sub>2</sub>O while heyite is Pb<sub>5</sub>Fe<sub>2</sub>(VO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>2</sub>O<sub>4</sub>.</p></abstract>
</article-meta>
</front>
</article>
