179

The distinction of pyrite from marcasite in
nodular growths.
By F. A. BANNISTER,M.A.
Assistant-Keeper in the Mineral Department of the
British Museum of Natural History.
[Read March 15, 1932.]

RECENT account of pseudo-meteorites by Dr. L. J. Spencer 1
includes a description of nodules of pyrite ' popularly thought tobe "thunderbolts" '. Dr. Spencer himself collected in 1931 a large
number from the Lower Chalk outcropping on the foreshore below' The Warren' at Folkestone, Kent.
Some of these show welldeveloped octahedra 5 to 10 ram. across on the outer surface, undoubtedly to be referred to pyrite. More commonly the nodules
exhibit small distorted octahedra which might easily be mistaken formarcasite.
Indeed, in the past, many of these nodules from the
Chalk at Folkestone and elsewhere, have been named marcasite, andthey were so labelled in the British Museum collection. Dr. Spencer,
therefore, suggested that modern methods should be applied to thosecases where the crystalline form is distorted or shOt sufficiently
developed to serve as a means of distinction between pyrite andmarcasite. The methods suggested in his paper are (1) X-rays, (2)polarized light reflected from polished sections of nodules.
Before passing to an account of the technique employed and theresults obtained by the present investigations, a short review will begiven of the methods employed by previous workers in this field.
The crystallographic distinction based on the difference in forms
exhibited by well-formed crystals of cubic pyrite and orthorhombic
marcasite is dealt with adequately in text-books, and need not be
dwelt upon here. The following table shows that all observers areagreed that marcasite is lower in density than pyrite (p. 180). If weplace most reliance on recent measurements the probable difference
in density of the two minerals is over 0.10, but certainly less thanA

1 L. J. Spencer, Nat. Hist. Mag. British Museum (Natural History), 1931,
vol. 3, p. 56.
O2

]~0

F. A. B A N N I S T E R ON

0.20. I t is clear t h a t density measurements on nodular growths
cannot be conclusive, and. arc quite useless if we are looking for a
mixture of the two minerals in the same sl)ecimen.

Authority.
Dana t.........
Spencer ~ . . . . . . . . .
Stokes a . . . . . . . . .
Alien 4 . . . . . . . . .
:Bannister (X-ray)....

Density ofMarcasite.
Pyrite.
4.85---4.90
4.95--5.10
4.609-4-887
4.970--5.169
4.88---4.90
5.02-5.04
4.887
5.027
4.90
5.03

The case for colour distinction has been put very clearly by H. N.
Stokes (loc. cir.), and my own observations are in agreement withhis conclusions. Text-book descriptions of colour are based in most
instances on tarnished specimens. Freshly fractured or polishedsurfaces of pyrite and marcasite are pale brass-yellow and tin-white
respectively ; the latter colour is not restricted to arsenical marcasite.
The comparison of fresh surfaces in ordinary white light is tile most
simple test t h a t can be applied. More elaborate methods are only
justified in the study of line-grained intergrowths, or where we suspect the presence of small quantities of pyrite in marcasite, or vicc
versa.
Chemical methods of distinguishing pyrite from marcasite havebeen described, b u t they arc not reliable unless the exact conditionsof the original experiments are repeated.
Surface effects more
especially influence the success of such qualitative tests.
The
studies of Stokes and later those of E. T. Allen, J. L. Crenshaw,
J. Johnston, and E. S. Larsen (lot. cir.), are, however, on a ditYercnt
footing, and the q u a n t i t a t i v e results obtained merit closer attention.
I n Stokes's method an excess of finely powdered nfineral is boiled
with an aqueous solution of a ferric salt in an atmosphere of carbon
dioxide. The oxidation is supposed to take place in two stages :(1) FcS~ + F%(S04) 3 = 3FeSO t-t- 2S,(2) 2S + 6Fe.,(S04) a + 8H.zO = 12FeSO 4 + 8H,,SO 4.
I t was found that in the ease of nlarcasite about 18 ~ of the total
1 E. S. Dana, System of Mineralogy, 6th edition, 1892, pp. 85, 94.
2 L. J. Spencer, Min. Mag., 1927, vol. 21, pp. 363-364.
s H. N. Stokes, :Bull. United States Geol. Survey, 1901, no. 186, p. 12.
4 E. T. Allen, J. L. Crenshaw, J. Johnston, and E. S. Larsen, Amer. Journ.
Sci., 1912, ser. 4, vol. 33, p. 170.

THE DISTINCTION OF PYRITE FROM MARCASITE

181

sulphur was oxidized according to the second equation above,
whereas 60 3o was the figure for pyrite. Apparently these figures arc
not affected by varying the grain of the material used, and so thedifference in the oxidation figures cannot be accounte:d for by surface
differences. Only the speed of the reaction, not the equilibrium
state, is affected by the fineness of powdering. Upon these experiments Stokes bases the determination of the amounts of marcasite
and pyrite in mixtures of known proportions, and then applies themethod to various specimens including nodular growths.
He
probably claimed too high an accuracy for his results.
The later
work of Allen, Crenshaw, Johnston, and Larsen, does, however, confirnl, with certain exceptions of detail, the main features of themethod. Since Stokes's work in 1901 new methods of investigation
have arisen, and thc results now obtained on specimens similar to
those he used should be in complete agreement.
The application of X-ray methods to this type of problem isgenerally straightforward and some freedom of choice is in this casepossible.
The powder method though, perhaps, the most obvious
method is subject to at least two disadvantages: (1) any orientationof crystalline matter in the original specimen is lost by powdering ;(2) the time of exposure is longer than for single crystal photographs.
When single crystal fragments, or fibrous or platy aggregates, can beisolated, the rotation method should be employed.
Even when aspecimen appears to be compact and very fine-grained it is better to
use a chip than to powder a fragment for investigation. I t was firstnecessary to take single crystal photographs of known material forcomparison, not only for marcasite about the three axes a, b, and c,
but also for pyrite about a cube axis. The published data for pyrite
comprise W. L. Bragg's original X-ray spectrometer results 1 (pyrite
was one of the first minerals to be examined in this classical "work),
Ewald's Laue photographs, ~ and data from powder photographs ofvarious other authors, a The rotation photographs constitute valuableidentifications of the minerals and are superior to powder photographs
since complete coincidence in the positions and intensities of spots
must occur in two dimensions, not merely in one. Rotation photographs
1 W. L. Bragg, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A, 1914, vol. 89, p. 468.
o. p. 1m. Ewald, Physikal. Zeits., 1914, vol. 15, p. 299.
a M. J. Buerger (Amer. Min., 1931, vol. 16, p. 361) in his work on the
structure of marcasite used molybdenum radiation. The indices and intensitiesof spots on marcasite photographs obtained in the present work using Cu-Kr
radiation are in substantial agreement with his data.

182

B A N N I S T E I ~ O1~,"r.A.

of marcasite about the a and b axes are at once distinguishable
from a photograph of pyrite about a cube axis, simply by the difference in the spacing of the layer-lines. ]n a cylindrical camera of

~::~

]" /

T//

I1' I

II

II I~1~~.:::_~:,~o T

i ~~q~,.,,oriT

Equator

! !

"r'*

I

Layer-Line

!
T

,

iii

I

~ I I

~

Ii

.

o

~

o

Second

o

~

ill

I

I II I
I[

I II

/I

I

mto

~

,

II

, i i: I

LO ~

~

o

r

c4

c~

,

~

o

~

Fro. 1. D i a g r a m s of r o t a t i o n p h o t o g r a p h s of p y r i t e ( a b o u t a cube axis) a n dof m a r c a s i t e ( a b o u t the c-axis). T h e w i d t h of e a c h d i f f r a c t i o n line r e p r e s e n t s thev i s u a l l y e s t i m a t e d i n t e n s i t y oil t h e ooriginal p h o t o g r a p h .
Camera diameter6.04 cm. ; Cu - K a r a d i a t i o n , 2 - 1.539 A . , u s i n g a n i c k e l filter.

diameter 6.04 cm., and using C u - K a radiation, tile distances 2 r
between the various layer-lines above and below the equator are :D i s t a n c e s 2 r.

M a r c a s i t e a b o u t [100]
.

.

[OLO]

. . . .

.

.

[ooH

. . . .

Pyrite about

Ill0]
[!00]

...
...
...
...
...

ls~layer.
line.
3-08 cm.
2.23
1.80
1.77
1.80

2nd l a y e r line.
*
5.80 cm.
4-20
3.97
4-19

3rd laverline.
**
10.07 cm.
8.90,(}.96* T h e s e l a y e r - l i n e s do n o t fall u p o n the tilm.

Spacing.
3.38 .&.
b4-44
5.39
5.58
5.40

T I I E D I S T I N C T I O N OF P Y R I T E :FRO3[ MARCASITE]83

In order to distinguish photographs of marcasite about the [001]and [110] axes from pyrite [100] photographs, it is necessary to study
also the distribution of spots along the layer-lines. This has been
done very carefully aud fig. 1 shows the rotation diagrams for photographs of marcasite and pyrite about the [001] axis. The laycr-line
spacing is practically identical and certain spots along the equator
A ~ A ~[E

PYRITE

o
~
o

Ill,

11

o
e~

,"~o

MARCASITE

Ill~oir r, l iJ ,lllOcm.

Fla. 2. 1)iagramof powder photographs of pyrite and marcasite. The heightsof the ordinates represent the visually estimated intensities of the lines on t.heoriginalphotographs. Camera diameter 6.04 cm. ; Cu-Kc~radiation, A=1.539.h..,using a nickel filter.
coincide, but the two diagrams arc not superposable and are readily
distinguished. Although the rotation diagram for marcasite about
the [110] axis differs from pyrite a little in its layer-line spacing, theequatorial spots are nearly coincident, and it is only when the firstand second layer-lines are compared that striking differences arefound. It is generally possible to set a crystal fragment of pyrite or
marcasite with a face parallel to the axis of rotation, so that it ishighly necessary to have a knowledge of photographs about important zone-axes of the mincrals concerned.
Having obtained the rotation photographs and indexed themcarefully it is possible to index the powder photograph of marcasitewith certainty. Fig. 2 shows a comparison of thc powder photographsof pyrite and marcasite. They are reproductions to scale of the

185

F.A.

BANNISTER ON

distribution of the lines, and the intensities are represented by thelengths of the ordinates. The important conclusions to be drawn
from the comparison are: (1) the number of coincident lines when
the two photographs are superposed ; (2) the possibility of ensuring
freedom of each specimen from its polymorph by considering certain
important lines. The powder photographs serve as standards forcomparison only when they have been studied in this way. It isbest to take these standard powder photographs on large films using
a circular aperture as Debye originally did and not a parallel-jawed
slit SYStem. If a crystal fragment set in chance orientation be rotated,
the resulting photograph cannot always be associated with one of therotation photographs about a zone-axis. I t is always possible tosuperpose it upon an ' extended' powder photograph of the same
substance.
The three X-ray methods employed may thus be summarized:(1) Rotation photograph of crystal fragment about, any importantzone-axis.

(2) Rotation photograph of crystal fragment about an axis inchance orientation.
(3) Powder photographs.
The nodules of iron disulphide, so abundant in the Chalk of thes o u t h of England, show a considerable variation in shape and size,
and all possible gradations between a smooth outer limonitized surface and a surface made up of quite large crystals. If a nodule bebroken open the bulk of the material is seen to be made up of compact radiating blade-like aggregates, pale brass-yellow in colour,
terminating at the surface in large or small crystal faces. The blades
do not, however, generally terminate at the centre ; a fine granularmaterial occupies the central space, which varies from a few millimetres to a centimetre in diameter. There is no appearance in any
nodule I have examined of concentric layers and the colour of a freshly
fractured nodule is always the pale brass-yellow typical of pyrite.
X-ray rotation photographs have been taken of blade aggregatesfrom the interior of several nodules, and also of crystal fragmentsfrom the surface. Powder photographs have also been taken of the
granular material from the centre. The granular material sometimes
contains gypsum crystals which were picked out before taking aphotograph. All the nodules from Folkestone, Kent, and Oxted,
Surrey (nos. 1, 2, and 3) yield pyrite photographs whichever part of
the nodule is tested. Long exposures failed to detect any weakTHE

DISTINCTIONOFPYRITEFROMMARCASITE

185

marcasite lines. The blade aggregates yield photographs which showthat the blades are elongated along a cubic axis and flattened parallel
to a cube face. Small ellipsoidal nodules showing no internal radial
structure from a pebble of calcareous shale collected on the beach at
Newhaven, Sussex (no. 4), also proved to be pyrite, and not marcasite
as labelled.
The only aggregated specimens of true marcasite examined werethe elongated cylindrical stalactites from Mineral Point, Wisconsin,
U.S.A. (no. 7). These break perpendicular to the axis of elongation
and are radiating structures terminating on the surface in large orsmall crystals with the form of marcasite. The colour on a fresh
surface is tin-white, and crystals from tile surface and also fragmentsfrom the interior yield marcasite photographs. No pyrite lines
could be detected.
The following table summarizes these results :No.
Locality.
1. Folkestone, Kent
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

ditto
Oxted, Surrey
Newhaven, Sussex
Sparta, Illinois, U.S.A. (disk in shale)
Bordean chalk pit, Langrish, Petersfield,
Hampshire
7. Mineral Point, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

B.M. No.
unregistered
duplicateditto
1931,141
88316
84424
1910,364
35744'X-ray result.
pyriteditto
pyritepyritepyritepyritemarcasite

X-ray methods afford the most certain means of distinction
between marcasite and pyrite. Only a small quantity of material,
however, can be photographed at any one time. Polished sectionsof nodules have therefore been examined by reflected polarized lightin order to discover any intergrowth of marcasite with pyrite. Thissecond method permits a comparatively rapid survey of an area 1-2
sq. cm., and its success depends upon a ready distinction between
marcasite and pyrite. Schneiderh6hn's data 1 show that this shouldbe easily achieved. I used as standards of comparison polishedsections of spear-head marcasite twins from the Chalk of Folkestone,
and fresh plane surfaces on large pyrite crystals from Morro Velho;
Brazil. Between crossed nicols, marcasite shows characteristic andvivid yellow, plum, and pale-green polarization colours. The pyrite
crystals are completely isotropic. The trace of the twin,plane (110)
1 H. Schneiderh5hn and P. Ramdohr, Lehrbuch der Erzmikroskopie, 1931
Berlin, vol. 2, pp. 157, 192 ; see also coloured plate, no. 2.

186

F.A.

BANNISTER

ON

in marcasite is a further aid to discrimination.
The nodules fromthe Chalk examined by X-ray methods yield isotropic sections madeup of radiating crystals weathered on the surface to limonite, whichappears a grey to brown finely grained mineral between crossed nicols.
Further sections of nodules from the Chalk give the same result.
In certain eases where weathering has been severe, the limonite
appears to reach down in dendritic growths between the blades ofpyrite. Not a single nodule from the Chalk so far examined has
revealed an intergrowth of marcasite. The true marcasite stalactites
from Wisconsin, U.S.A., possess an outer zone of large marcasite
crystals showing twinning and therefore giving alternate bands ofthe polarization eolours described above.
The inner portion of thestalactite is far more compact than a pyrite nodule and between
crossed nicols shows pale yellow and mauve blotches which changecolour on rotating the section. The anisotropy is manifest throughout the whole nodule.
A closer examination of two sections of pyrite nodules from the
Chalk revealed very weak anisotropy. These sections possessed ahigher polish than the others and neighbouring blades showed very
faint pink and blue polarization eolours which changed on rotating
the section. This effect may easily be overlooked, and it is sharply
distinguished from the anisotropy of marcasite. Moreover, one of thesections showing this effect had already been examined thoroughly by
X-ray methods and shown to be typical pyrite. The polarization
eolours though very faint can be followed over the whole section sothat it cannot be attributed to any local effect or inclusion. It is aproperty of the nodule as a whole. Several writers have referred toanisotropic pyrite and SchneiderhShn states that it can always be
distinguished from true marcasite. He attributes the anisotropy incertain cases to arsenic content. Ehrenbergl claims that powder
photographs of banded pyrite from Aachen show small differences in
the positions of the lines from those of a normal pyrite photograph,and he attributes this to the excess of iron found by chemical analysis.
His polished sections, however, are isotropie. Any replacement ofsulphur by arsenic atoms in the pyrite structure would affect theintensities of diffracted spots on a rotation photograph. Ehrenberg
does not give any X-ray data to support his contention that additional
iron atoms are present in the structure of the Aachen pyrite. Anysuch addition would certainly reveal itself more clearly in changes
1 tI. Ehrenberg, Neues Jahrb. Min., Abt. A, 1928, vol. 57, p. 1303.

THE DISTINCTION OF PYRITE FROM MARCASITE

187

of intensity than cell-size. The X-ray rotation photographs of blades
from the anisotropic nodules of pyrite from the Chalk at l~olkestone
appear to be normal in intensity and in the positions of the spots.
There is no X-ray evidence of departure from the normal pyrite
structure. I would attribute the anisotropy of these nodules to acondition of strain. The final appeal in any doubtful case that may
arise should be to X-ray methods.
I t is now necessary to see how the present results agree with
Stokes's work. The later work of Allen, Crenshaw, Johnston, andLarsen shows that the determination of any one component in a
mixture of pyrite and marcasite is accurate to • % and probably
less accurate for mixtures near to pure pyrite or marcasite. Stokes
examined one nodule, 'No. 25', from Folkestone, Kent, evidently
similar to those studied in the present work, in which he found 3 %of marcasite, but this result must be regarded as very doubtful. He
also states ' I have received several supposed marcasite concretions
from Folkestone all of which are clearly pyrite '. Some specimens he
examined were undoubtedly mixtures, and contained about 30 %pyrite ; but these were not nodular growths, and a fractured surface
revealed the two minerals by colour difference. Intergrowths ofpyrite and marcasite have been recorded by other writers. Interesting cases, in particular, are those of parallel growths of marcasite
twins on cubes of pyrite cited by Sadebeckl and Trechmann. 2 The
spear-head marcasite twins from Folkestone, Kent, show warty
excrescences of pyrite and in some cases a regular parallel growth ofpyrite cubes, the cube axes being arranged parallel to the twin-plane(110). In these cases, parallel growth occurs when the [001] and the[110] axes of marcasite are coincident with the cube axes of pyrite,
the spacings being 5.39, 5.58, 5.40~_. respectively. These examples
of intergrowth are quite obvious from an examination of the crystal
forms and colour. The nodules from the Chalk, however, are fromall methods definitely pyrite and no case has yet been found among
them of intimate intergrowth of the two minerals.
In conclusion I should like to thank Dr. W. R. Jones Of theImperial College of Science and Technology who has assisted me
personally throughout the course of the metallographic work and whoplaced additional sections, made under his supervision, at my disposal.
1 A. Sadebeck, Ann. Chem. P h y s . (Poggendorff), 1878, Erg.-band 8, p. 625.
2 C. O. T r e c h m a n n , Min. Mag., 1892, vol. 9, p. 209.