American Mineralogist, Volume 93, pages 1183–1186, 2008

LetterCrystal structure of glaucodot, (Co,Fe)AsS, and its relationships to marcasite andarsenopyrite
Hexiong Yang* and Robert T. Downs
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0077, U.S.A.

Abstract
The crystal structure of glaucodot, (Co,Fe)AsS, an important member of the FeAsS-CoAsS-NiAsS
system, was determined with single-crystal X-ray diffraction. It is orthorhombic with space group
Pn21m and unit-cell parameters a = 14.158(1), b = 5.6462(4), c = 3.3196(2) Å, and V = 265.37(5) Å3.
The structure is closely related to that of arsenopyrite or alloclasite, and represents a new derivativeof the marcasite-type structure. The As and S atoms in glaucodot, which are ordered into six distinct
sites (As1, As2, As3, S1, S2, and S3), form three types of layers [S, As, and mixed (S + As) layers] thatare stacked along a in the sequence of (S + As)-(S + As)-S-(S + As)-(S + As)-As-(S + As)-(S + As)...
In contrast, arsenopyrite contains the mixed (S + As) layers only and alloclasite consists of isolated
S and As layers only. There are no As-As or S-S bonds in glaucodot; all dianion units are formed between S and As, like those in arsenopyrite and alloclasite. The (Co + Fe) cations in glaucodot occupy
three nonequivalent octahedral sites (M1, M2, and M3), with M1(As5S), M2(As3S3), and M3(AsS5),
which form three distinct edge-shared octahedral chains, A, B, and C, parallel to c, respectively. These
chains are arranged along a in the sequence of A-A-B-C-C-B-A-A.... Whereas the configurations of
the A and C chains are analogous to those in safflorite and marcasite, respectively, the configurationof the B chain matches that in alloclasite, leading us to propose that the M1, M2, and M3 sites are
predominately occupied by Co, (Co + Fe), and Fe, respectively. Our study, together with previous
observations, suggests that glaucodot is likely to have an ideal stoichiometry of (Co0.5Fe0.5)AsS, witha limited tolerance for the variation of the Co/Fe ratio.
Keywords: Glaucodot, Co-Fe sulfarsenide, marcasite-type mineral, crystal structure, single-crystal
X-ray diffraction

Introduction
The ternary FeAsS-CoAsS-NiAsS system contains several
important sulfarsenides, including arsenopyrite FeAsS, cobaltite CoAsS, gersdorffite NiAsS, alloclasite (Co,Fe)AsS, andglaucodot (Co,Fe)AsS. These minerals are commonly foundin complex Co-Ni-As deposits, such as Håkansboda, Sweden(Carlon and Bleeker 1988), the Cobalt District, Ontario (Petruk
et al. 1971), Bou-Azzer, Morocco (Ennaciri et al. 1995), Modum,
Norway (Grorud 1997), and Spessart, Germany (Wagner andLorenz 2002). When precipitated from hydrothermal solutions,these sulfarsenides, along with pyrite/marcasite (FeS2), can incorporate considerable amounts of trace metals, especially so-called“invisible” gold (e.g., Palenik et al. 2004). Under oxidizing conditions, however, they can release significant amounts of arsenic
into natural water and soils, in some cases producing serious
arsenic poisoning and contamination (O’Day 2006). Therefore,
the crystal structures and bonding models of sulfarsenides havebeen the subject of extensive experimental and theoretical studies(e.g., Vaughan and Rosso 2006; Makovicky 2006)
The crystal structures of all minerals, except glaucodot, in the
FeAsS-CoAsS-NiAsS system have been determined. Topologically, each can be categorized into either a modified pyrite- or* E-mail: hyang@u.arizona.edu
0003-004X/08/0007–1183$05.00/DOI: 10.2138/am.2008.2966

marcasite-type structure (Hem et al. 2001; Makovicky 2006). A
common structural feature of these minerals is that each cation(M = Fe, Co, and/or Ni) is octahedrally coordinated by six
anions (X = As and S), and each anion is tetrahedrally bonded
to another anion plus three cations. The diversity of structuralsymmetries is attributed primarily to the octahedral linkage andthe order-disorder of As and S anions.
By analogy to marcasite, de Jong (1926) first derived anorthorhombic cell (a = 6.67, b = 3.21, and c = 5.73 Å) for glaucodot from X-ray powder diffraction data. Using rotating crystal
and Weissenberg methods, Ferguson (1947) also obtained anorthorhombic cell for the glaucodot sample from Håkansboda,
Sweden, but with a0 = 6.64, b0 = 28.39, and c0 = 5.64 Å, andspace group Cmmm. Nevertheless, Ferguson (1947) noticed
numerous systematically missing reflections that were not due
to space-group extinctions and suggested that the whole patternof reflections can be referred, without abnormal extinctions, totwo congruous subcells: Subcell I corresponding to the strong
reflections with a P-lattice and a1 = a0/2, b1 = b0/2, and c1 =c0, and subcell II corresponding to the weak reflections with aC-lattice and a2 = a0, b2 = b0/3, and c2 = c0. The subcell II actually matches the pseudo-orthorhombic lattice of arsenopyrite(Buerger 1936; Morimoto and Clark 1961; Fuess et al. 1987).
The powder diffraction data given by Ferguson (1947), which

1183

1184

Yang and Downs: Crystal structure of glaucodot, (Co,Fe)AsS

are in good agreement with those given by Harcourt (1942) for
glaucodot from the same locality, however, can all be indexedbased on subcell I. Petruk et al. (1971) examined powder X-ray
diffraction data on glaucodot from the Cobalt-Gowganda ores
and found extra reflections compared to those reported by
Ferguson (1947). Sulfarsenides with compositions (Fe0.75Co0.25)
AsS, (Fe0.96Co0.04)AsS, and (Co0.82Fe0.18)AsS from Håkansboda
were examined by Cervelle et al. (1973) and by Töpel-Schadt
and Miehe (1982) and Kratz et al. (1986). Their results showthat Fe-rich sulfarsenides are arsenopyrite, whereas the Co-richmineral may be cobaltite or alloclasite. Since then, no detailed
crystallographic study on glaucodot has been reported. In thispaper, we present the first structure solution of glaucodot using
single-crystal X-ray diffraction and describe its structural relationships with the marcasite-type sulfarsenide minerals.

Experimental methods
The glaucodot specimen used in this study is from Håkansboda and is in the collection of the RRUFF project (deposition No. R070294; http://rruff.info/R070294),
donated by Mike Scott. The chemical composition was determined with a CAMECASX50 electron microprobe. The average composition (15 point analyses), normalized to S = 1.0, yielded a formula of (Co0.52Fe0.47Ni0.01)Σ=1As1.00S1.00.
Based on optical examination and X-ray diffraction peak profiles, a nearly
equidimensional crystal was selected and mounted on a Bruker X8 APEX2 CCD
X-ray diffractometer equipped with graphite-monochromatized MoKα radiation.
X-ray diffraction data were collected with frame widths of 0.5° in ω and 30 s counting time per frame. All reflections were indexed on the basis of an orthorhombic
unit-cell (Table 1). The intensity data were corrected for X-ray absorption using the
Bruker program SADABS. Examination of the systematic absences of reflections
suggests possible space group Pnmm (no. 59) or its subgroup Pn21m (no. 31). A nonstandard setting was chosen to facilitate the direct comparison with the structures ofmarcasite, alloclasite, and arsenopyrite. SHELX97 (Sheldrick 2007) was used forboth structure determinations and refinements. No structure solution with R factors<20% could be obtained using space group Pnnm. The final crystal structure wassolved and refined with space group Pn21m (Table 1). No significant inversion twin
component was detected during the refinements. The refined Flack parameter was
0.06(3). Because of the similarities in X-ray scattering powers for Co, Fe, and Ni,
all cations were assumed to be Co and their site occupancies were not determined
during the refinements. However, these site occupancies were estimated throughother means discussed below. Final coordinates and displacement parameters of
all atoms are listed in Table 2, and selected bond distances in Table 3.

Results and discussion
The unit-cell parameters of glaucodot in this study are consistent with those for subcell I given by Ferguson (1947). The
Table 1.

Summary of crystal data and refinement
results for glaucodot

Structural formula(Co0.52Fe0.47Ni0.01)Σ=1As1.00S1.00
Crystal size (mm)0.06 × 0.06 × 0.08
Space group
Pn21m (no. 31)
a (Å)
14.158(1)b (Å)
5.6462(4)c (Å)
3.3196(2)3
V (Å )
265.37(5)Z
63ρcalc (g/cm )
6.175
λ (Å)
0.71069µ (mm–1)
28.31
θ range for data collection
3.89–35.05
No. of reflections collected
4057
No. of independent reflections
1214
No. of reflections with I > 2σ(I)1095
No. of parameters refined
62
Rint
0.019
Final R factors [I > 2σ(I)]R1 = 0.020, wR2 = 0.053
Final R factors (all data)
R1 = 0.023, wR2 = 0.054
Goodness-of-fit
1.093

topology of its crystal structure is similar to that of arsenopyrite
or alloclasite and can be regarded as a derivative of the marcasite
type. In all of these structures, anions (As and S) display distorted
hexagonal closest-packing, stacked along a, and cations (Fe,Co, and Ni) occupy half of the interstitial octahedral sites. The
major structural differences among these minerals are shownin Figure 1. The As and S atoms in alloclasite form isolated
layers (S layer and As layer) alternating along a, whereas they
form mixed layers (S + As layer) in arsenopyrite. The As and S
anions in glaucodot, on the other hand, are completely ordered
into six crystallographically distinct sites (As1, As2, As3, S1,
S2, and S3) and form all three types of layers, which are stacked
along a in a sequence of As-(S + As)-(S + As)-S-(S + As)-(S +As)-As... This ordering of anions results in the reduction of thesymmetry from Pnnm for marcasite to Pn21m for glaucodot andconcomitantly triples the length of the a cell edge. Nonetheless,the relative arrangement of S and As atoms in the mixed (S +As) layer in glaucodot is different from that in arsenopyrite, as
illustrated in Figure 2. Intriguingly, if we replace the mixed (S+ As) layers in arsenopyrite with those in glaucodot and viceversa, we can then obtain two hypothetical structures, one withthe arsenopyrite cell and space group P1, and the other with theglaucodot cell (but double c-dimension) and space group P21.
Furthermore, the relative arrangement of As and S atoms inglaucodot points to the possibility for other stacking sequencesof anionic layers in sulfarsenides.
A remarkable feature of the glaucodot structure is that, despite
the complicated ordering pattern of S and As atoms, there is no
S-S or As-As bonding. All anion-anion bonds, ranging from2.327(1) to 2.345(1) Å, are between S and As, as also found inarsenopyrite, alloclasite, and ordered cobaltite and gersdorffite.
Thus, this observation seems to suggest that S-As bonding isenergetically favorable over S-S or As-As bonding in sulfarsenides. Although the average bond angles for all tetrahedrally
coordinated anions are essentially alike (~109.2°), the individualbond angles within each tetrahedron vary significantly, from ~89
to ~123°. Similar results are also found in other sulfarsenides.
Measured in term of tetrahedral quadratic elongation and angle
variance (Robinson et al. 1971), the three As tetrahedra in glaucodot are all appreciably more distorted than the three S tetrahedra (Table 3) and the other As and S tetrahedra in alloclasite
and arsenopyrite.
There are three symmetrically nonequivalent octahedral
cation sites (M1, M2, and M3) in glaucodot, with M1 bondedby 5 As + 1 S, M2 by 3 As + 3 S, and M3 by 1 As + 5 S. The
individual M-S and M-As bond distances vary from 2.231(2)to 2.304(1) Å and from 2.306(1) to 2.368(1) Å, respectively,
agreeing well with those observed in other (Fe,Co)-bearing

Table 2. Coordinates and displacement parameters of atoms in glaucodot
Atom
x
y
z
Ueq
U11
U22
U33
U12
M1 0.0867(1) 0.6831(2) 00.0097(2) 0.0041(3) 0.0042(3) 0.0209(4) –0.0004(2)M2 0.2524(1) 0.2042(1) 1/2 0.0078(3) 0.0051(4) 0.0018(4) 0.0165(5) –0.0004(3)M3 0.4196(1) 0.6836(2) 00.0048(2) 0.0035(3) 0.0041(3) 0.0069(3) –0.0006(2)As1 –0.0215(1) 0.5574(1) 1/2 0.0065(2) 0.0085(3) 0.0038(3) 0.0073(3) 0.0003(3)As2 0.1905(1) 0.8228(1) 1/2 0.0064(2) 0.0084(3) 0.0038(3) 0.0071(3) 0.0001(3)As3 0.3533(1) 0.0636(1) 00.0060(2) 0.0064(3) 0.0045(3) 0.0071(3) –0.0013(3)S10.1495(1) 0.3206(3) 00.0070(3) 0.0081(6) 0.0060(6) 0.0070(5) –0.0011(5)S20.3197(1) 0.5667(3) 1/2 0.0042(2) 0.0058(5) 0.0023(5) 0.0046(5) 0.0000(5)S30.4843(1) 0.3126(3) 00.0048(3) 0.0058(6) 0.0037(6) 0.0050(5) 0.0011(5)Notes: U13 = U23 = 0 for all atoms are zero due to the site symmetry. Uij are in units of Å2.

Yang and Downs: Crystal structure of glaucodot, (Co,Fe)AsS

sulfarsenides. With increasing number of bonded As atoms,
the mean cation-anion distance for an M octahedron increases,
while the degree of octahedral distortion measured by the angle
variance decreases (Table 3). There is a good positive correlation
between the mean M-anion distance and the Ueq parameters for
the M cations (Table 2), suggesting that M1 is weakly bonded
and M3 strongly bonded.
There exist three distinct edge-shared octahedral chains, A, B,
and C, extending parallel to c in glaucodot (Fig. 3), where A, B,
and C represent chains made of the M1, M2, and M3 octahedra,
respectively. These chains are arranged along a in the sequenceof A-A-B-C-C-B-A-A... Interestingly, if the single S atom in
the M1 octahedron is switched with the single As atom in theM3 octahedron, then the configurations of the A and C chainsare analogous to those in safflorite CoAs2 and marcasite FeS2,
respectively. The configuration of the B chain corresponds wellto that in alloclasite (Co,Fe)AsS. Accordingly, the structure ofglaucodot may be considered as a mixture of FeS2 (marcasite) +(Co,Fe)AsS (alloclasite) + CoAs2 (clinosafflorite or safflorite).
The existence of the three kinds of octahedral chains in glaucodot raises an open question regarding the possible orderingof Fe and Co among the three M sites. Theoretical calculations
based on molecular orbital and band models (Vaughan andRosso 2006) have shown that the marcasite-type chains madeof MS6 octahedra will become destabilized when Co enters theoctahedral site, as its addition will introduce electrons into theanti-bonding eg* band. This explains why CoS2 (cattierite) crystallizes in the pyrite-type, rather than marcasite-type, structure innature. Because the C-chain corresponds to the marcasite type,
we postulate a dominant preference of Fe in the M3 site in glaucodot. For an edge-shared MAs6 octahedron, molecular orbital
theory predicts that, due to the interaction between the 3dσ(eg)orbitals of M2 + and the πb orbitals of As2–
2 , the Fe-As-Fe angle
subtending the M-M separation across the shared octahedral

1185

Figure 1. Comparison of crystal structures of (a) marcasite, (b)alloclasite, (c) arsenopyrite, and (d) glaucodot. Large, medium, and small
spheres represent As, S, and M (=Fe + Co + Ni) atoms, respectively.

Figure 2. Comparison of the mixed (As + S) anionic layers in (a)arsenopyrite and (b) glaucodot.

Table 3. Selected interatomic distances (Å) in glaucodot
Distance
M1-S1
2.231(2)
M1-As12.307(1)
M1-As1 ×2 2.368(1)M1-As2 ×2 2.353(1)Average
PAV
PQE

Distance
As1-M1 ×2 2.368(1)As1-M12.306(1)As1-S12.345(1)2.330		4.4		1.002		

M2-S1 ×2 2.304(1)M2-S2
2.258(2)
M2-As22.325(1)M2-As3 ×2 2.330(1)2.347		152.6		1.037		

As2-M1 ×2 2.353(1)As2-M22.325(1)As2-S22.332(2)Average
PAV
PQE

2.308		7.1		1.002		

M3-S2 ×2
M3-S3 ×2
M3-S3
M3-As32.279(1)2.267(1)2.286(2)2.342(1)Distance
S1-M1
2.231(2)S1-M2 ×2 2.304(1)S1-As12.345(1)S2-M2
2.258(2)S2-M3 ×2 2.279(1)S2-As22.332(2)2.340		158.0 		1.038		

As3-M2 ×2 2.330(1)As3-M32.342(1)As3-S32.327(1)

2.296
115.5
1.027

2.287
118.8
1.028

S3-M3
2.286(2)S3-M3 ×2 2.266(1)S3-As32.327(1)Average
2.286		2.332		
2.287
PAV
9.2		
163.3		123.6PQE1.003		1.040		1.030Note: PAV = polyhedral angle variance in degrees squared; PQE = polyhedral
quadratic elongation (Robinson et al. 1971).

Figure 3. Polyhedral view of the glaucodot structure. Large and small
spheres represent As and S atoms, respectively. The A, B, and C chains, madeof the edge-shared M1, M2, and M3 octahedra, respectively, are arranged
along a in the sequence of A-A-B-C-C-B-A-A...

edge should be substantially smaller than the Co-As-Co angle,
resulting in the so-called “compressed marcasite-type” structure(Tossell et al. 1981; Tossell 1984). Indeed, this angle is 74° in
FeAs2 löllingite (Lutz et al. 1987), but 83° in CoAs2 safflorite(Yang et al. 2008). In CoAs2 clinosafflorite, the Co-As1-Co and
Co-As2-Co angles are 73.5 and 92.3°, respectively (Kjekshus1971), with an average value of 83°. The two different Co-As-Co
angles in clinosafflorite is ascribed to the effective bond typesof Co3+-As1 and Co2+-As2 (Tossell et al. 1981). The respective
M1-As1-M1 and M1-As2-M1 angles subtending the M1-M1
separation in glaucodot are 89.0 and 89.7°. These two angles
are markedly greater than the Fe-As-Fe angle in löllingite, or the
Co-As-Co angle in safflorite, and close to the Co-As2-Co angle
in clinosofflorite, thus pointing to the strong Co2+ enrichment in1186

Yang and Downs: Crystal structure of glaucodot, (Co,Fe)AsS

the M1 site in glaucodot, consistent with the arguments that thevalence of Fe, Co, and Ni cations in pyrite- and marcasite-type
disulfides, diarsenides, and sulfarsenides is 2+, rather than 3+
or 4+ (Vaughan and Rosso 2006 and references therein). For theM2 octahedron in glaucodot, the respective M2-S1-M2 and M2As3-M2 angles subtending the M2-M2 separation are 92.2 and
90.9°, both of which are smaller than the corresponding angles(∠M-S-M = 93.6° and ∠M-As-M = 95.3°) in alloclasite with
M = 0.76 Co + 0.21 Fe + 0.03 Ni (Scott and Nowacki 1976),
suggesting that the M2 site in glaucodot should contain morethan 21% Fe. Accordingly, we propose an ideal crystal-chemical
formula for glaucodot as CoM1(Co,Fe)M2FeM3(AsS)3.
The formation conditions and stability relations of glaucodot
with respect to arsenopyrite and cobaltite have been a matter ofdiscussion. Because glaucodot could not be synthesized in the
FeAsS-CoAsS-NiAsS system at 650 °C for 8 days or 600 °C for
17 days, Klemm (1965) concluded that this mineral might be ametastable phase. Yet, further investigation by Bayliss (1969)shows that glaucodot was only partially converted to cobaltite
even after 30 days at 630 ± 20 °C, suggesting sluggish kinetics for the transformation between glaucodot and cobaltite andproviding an explanation for the experimental results of Klemm(1965). From the crystal-chemical point of view, the more
complex ordering arrangement of As and S atoms in glaucodot
compared to arsenopyrite or alloclasite could imply a prolonged
thermal process for the formation of this mineral. Currently,
based on the relative contents of Fe vs. Co, there are no definedchemical boundaries to distinguish arsenopyrite, glaucodot, alloclasite, and cobaltite along the FeAsS-CoAsS join. For example,
Töpel-Schadt and Miehe (1982) referred to (Fe0.96Co0.04)AsS
and (Co0.82Fe0.18)AsS as glaucodot, despite that neither of them
exhibited the glaucodot unit-cell parameters and that (Fe0.75Co0.25)
AsS and (Co0.76Fe0.21Ni0.03)AsS have been demonstrated to bearsenopyrite (Cervelle et al. 1973) and alloclasite (Scott and
Nowacki 1976), respectively. Törmänen and Koski (2005) assumed sulfarsenides between (Fe0.25Co0.75)AsS and (Fe0.75Co0.25)
AsS to be glaucodot, while the ideal chemical formula for thismineral in the International Mineralogical Association nomenclature documentation (January 2008) is CoAsS. A survey ofthe literature shows that glaucodot appears to always containnearly equal amounts of Fe and Co atoms (e.g., Ferguson 1947;
Gammon 1966; Petruk et al. 1971). The glaucodot sample in thisstudy is another example of this stoichiometry. This observation,
together with the fact that glaucodot is often found as exsolved
lamellae inter-grown with arsenopyrite and/or alloclasite (e.g.,Gammon 1966; Petruk et al. 1971), indicates that glaucodot ismost likely to have an ideal chemistry of (Co0.5Fe0.5)AsS with arestricted variation in the Co/Fe contents in glaucodot.

Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the support of this study from the RRUFF project andthe National Science Foundation (EAR-0609906) for the study of bonded interactions ofsulfide minerals. The electron microprobe analysis was conducted by G. Costin.

References cited
Bayliss, P. (1969) X-ray data, optical anisotropism, and thermal stability of cobaltite,
gersdorffite, and ullmannite. Mineralogical Magazine, 37, 26–33.
Buerger, M.J. (1936) The symmetry and crystal structure of the minerals of the arsenopyrite group. Zeitschrift für Kristallographie, 95, 83–113.
Carlon, C.J. and Bleeker, W. (1988) The geology and structural setting of the Håkans-boda Cu-Co-As-Sb-Bi-Au deposit and associated Pb-Zn-Cu-Ag-Sb mineralization,
Bergslagen, central Sweden. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 67, 279–292.
Cervelle, B., Malezieu, J.M., and Chevalier, R. (1973) Etude cristallochimique et optiqued’un monocristal du systeme arsenopyrite-glaucodot FeAsS-CoAsS. Bulletin de laSociete Francaise Mineralogie et de Cristallographie, 96, 48–54.
de Jong, W.F. (1926) Bepaling van de absolute aslengten van markasiet en daarmee
isomorfte mineralen. Physica, 6, 325–332.
Ennaciri, A., Barbanson, L., and Touray, J.C. (1995) Mineralized hydrothermal solution cavities in the Co-As Ait-Ahmane mine (Bou-Azzer, Morocco). Mineralium
Deposita, 30, 75–77.
Ferguson, R.B. (1947) The unit-cell of glaucodot. University of Toronto Studies:
Geological Series, 51, 41–47.
Fuess, H., Kratz, T., Topel-Schadt, J., and Miehe, G. (1987) Crystal structure refinement and electron microscopy of arsenopyrite. Zeitschrift für Kristallographie,
179, 335–346.
Gammon, J.B. (1966) Some observations on minerals in the system CoAsS-FeAsS.
Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 46, 405–426.
Grorud, H.F. (1997) Textural and compositional characteristics of cobalt ores from theSkuterud Mines of Modum, Norway. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 77, 31–38.
Harcourt, G.A. (1942) Tables for identification of ore minerals by X-ray powder patterns.
American Mineralogist, 27, 63–113.
Hem, S.R., Makovicky, E., and Gervilla, F. (2001) Compositional trends in Fe, Co, andNi sulfarsenides and their crystal-chemical implications: Results from the Arroyo
de la Cueva deposits, Ronda Peridotite, southern Spain. Canadian Mineralogist,39, 831–853.
Kjekshus, A. (1971) On the properties of binary compounds with the CoSb2 type crystal
structure. Acta Chemica Scandinavica, 25, 411–422.
Klemm, D.D. (1965) Synthesen und analysen in den dreiecksdiagrammen FeAsSCoAsS-NiAsS und FeS2-CoS2-NiS2. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Abhandlungen, 103, 205–255.
Kratz, T., Fuess, H., Miehe, G., and Töpel-Schadt, J. (1986) Strukturverfeinerung undtransmissionselektronenmikroskopie von glaukodot (Fe,Co)(As,S)2. Fortschritte
der Mineralogie, 64, 86.
Lutz, H.D., Jung, M., and Waeschenbach, G. (1987) Kristallstrukturen des loellingits
FeAs2 und des pyrits RuTe2. Zeitschrift für Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie,
554, 87–91.
Makovicky, E. (2006) Crystal structures of sulfides and other chalcogenides. In D.J.
Vaughan, Ed., Sulfide Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 61, p. 7–125. Reviews in
Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Mineralogical Society of America, Chantilly,
Virginia.
Morimoto, N. and Clark, L.A. (1961) Arsenopyrite crystal-chemical relations. American
Mineralogist, 46, 1448–1469.
O’Day, P.A. (2006) Chemistry and mineralogy of arsenic. Elements, 2, 77–83.
Palenik, C.S., Utsunomiya, S., Reich, M., Kesler, S.E., and Ewing, R.C. (2004) “Invisible” gold revealed: Direct imaging of gold nanoparticles in a Carlin-type deposit.
American Mineralogist, 89, 1359–1366.
Petruk, W., Harris, D.C., and Stewart, J.M. (1971) Characteristics of the arsenides,
sulpharsenides and antimonides. Canadian Mineralogist, 11, 150–186.
Robinson, K., Gibbs, G.V., and Ribbe, P.H. (1971) Quadratic elongation, a quantitative
measure of distortion in coordination polyhedra. Science, 172, 567–570.
Scott, D.J. and Nowacki, W. (1976) The crystal structure of alloclasite CoAsS and thealloclasite-cobaltite transformation. Canadian Mineralogist, 14, 561–566.
Sheldrick, G.M. (2007) A short history of SHELX. Acta Crystallographica, A64,
112–122.
Töpel-Schadt, J. and Miehe, G. (1982) Transmissionselektronenmikroskopische
untersuchungen an glaucodot, (Fe,Co)(As,S)2 von Håkansboda. Fortschritte derMineralogie, 60, 202–202.
Törmänen, T.O. and Koski, R.A. (2005) Gold enrichment and the Bi-Au association inpyrrhotite-rich massive sulfide deposits, Escanaba Trough, Southern Gorda Ridge.
Economic Geology, 100, 1135–1150.
Tossell, J.A. (1984) A reinterpretation of the electronic structures of FeAs2 and related
minerals. Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 11, 75–80.
Tossell, J.A., Vaughan, D.J., and Burdett, J.K. (1981) Pyrite, marcasite, and arsenopyrite
type minerals: Crystal chemical and structural principles. Physics and Chemistryof Minerals, 7, 177–184.
Vaughan, D.J. and Rosso, K.M. (2006) Chemical bonding in sulfide minerals. In D.J.
Vaughan, Ed., Sulfide Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 61, p. 231–264. Reviewsin Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Mineralogical Society of America, Chantilly,
Virginia.
Wagner, T. and Lorenz, J. (2002) Mineralogy of complex Co-Ni-Bi vein mineralization,
Bieber deposit, Spessart, Germany. Mineralogical Magazine, 66, 385–403.
Yang, H., Downs, R.T., Eichler, C., and Costin, G. (2008) Safflorite, (Co,Ni,Fe)As2,
isomorphous with marcasite. Acta Crystallographica, C, in press.

Manuscript received February 28, 2008
Manuscript accepted March 25, 2008
Manuscript handled by Bryan Chakoumakos