American Mineralogist, Volume 94, pages 1727–1730, 2009

LetterCrystal structure of argentopyrite, AgFe2S3, and its relationship with cubanite
Hexiong Yang,1,* WiLLiam W. PincH,2 and robert t. doWns1
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0077, U.S.A.
2
19 Stonebridge Lane, Pittsford, New York, U.S.A.

1

abstract
The structure of argentopyrite, AgFe2S3, was determined for the first time with single-crystal
X-ray diffraction. In contrast to the previously reported orthorhombic symmetry, our data show thatargentopyrite is monoclinic with space group P1121/n (non-standard setting) and unit-cell parameters
a = 6.6902(2), b = 11.4497(4), c = 6.4525(2) Å, γ = 90.2420(8)°, and V = 494.26(3) Å3. Similar to
cubanite (CuFe2S3), the structure of argentopyrite is also based on approximately hexagonal closepacked S atoms, with cations ordered over one half of the tetrahedral sites, forming corner-shared AgS4
and FeS4 tetrahedral sheets parallel to (001). The two structures differ chiefly in the linkage between
the two adjacent tetrahedral sheets and the ordering patterns of cations within a tetrahedral sheet.
Topologically, the structure of argentopyrite can be obtained by a displacement of a tetrahedral sheet
in the cubanite structure along the (a/2 + b/6) direction relative to the sheet beneath, giving rise to acluster of four edge-shared FeS4 tetrahedra in argentopyrite, as compared to two in cubanite. There are
two distinct Fe sites (Fe1 and Fe2) in argentopyrite, rather than only one, as in other MFe2S3 sulfide
minerals (M = monovalent cations). Together with published Mössbauer data, we suggest that there
exists some degree of Fe2+-Fe3+ order-disorder in argentopyrite, with Fe2+ favoring the more distorted
Fe2 tetrahedral site. Argentopyrite appears to possess all the features proposed by Putnis (1977) fora high-temperature ordered form of cubanite.
Keywords: Argentopyrite, AgFe2S3, Ag-Fe sulfides, cubanite-related mineral, sternbergite, crystal
structure, single-crystal X-ray diffraction

introduction
Ternary sulfides with a general chemical formula MFe2S3,
where M represents a monovalent cation, such as Cu+, Ag+, K+,
Cs+, Rb+, or Tl+, are characterized by Fe with a nominal valencyof +2.5, due to rapid electron exchange between Fe2+ and Fe3+
ions (Greenwood and Whitfield 1968; Vaughan and Burns 1972;
Amthauer and Bente 1983; Wintenberger et al. 1990; McCammon 1994; Reissner et al. 2004; Pareek et al. 2008). Thesematerials exhibit numerous interesting electronic-magnetic
properties (Sleight and Gillson 1973; Wintenberger et al. 1990;
Reissner et al. 2006), as well as polymorphism at different
temperatures or pressures (e.g., Putnis 1977; Miyamoto et al.
1980; McCammon 1994, 1995; Rozenberg et al. 1997; Pruseth
et al. 1999). Moreover, different building blocks formed by FeS4
tetrahedra in the MFe2S3 compounds are also found in several
enzymes, ferredoxins, and other Fe-S bearing proteins, in which
the valence-delocalized [Fe2+-Fe3+] clusters constitute active sitesthat are responsible for basic electron transfer reactions in many
key biochemical pathways (e.g., Holm et al. 1996; Beinert etal. 1997). Geologically, although the MFe2S3 minerals, such as
cubanite CuFe2S3, argentopyrite or sternbergite (a dimorph of
AgFe2S3), rasvumite KFe2S3, pautovite CsFe2S3, and picotpaulite TlFe2S3, are relatively rare when compared to many binary
sulfides, they reflect more extreme conditions of ore formation,and thus, may bear important information on geologic occur* E-mail: hyang@u.arizona.edu
0003-004X/09/1112–1727$05.00/DOI: 10.2138/am.2009.3324

rence and significance of the various minerals and assemblages
involved (Taylor 1970; Osadchii and Chareev 2006).
The crystal structures of all MFe2S3 minerals, except argentopyrite, have been previously determined, including cubanite(Buerger 1945, 1947; Azaroff and Buerger 1955; Fleet 1970;
Wintenberger et al. 1974; Szymanski 1974; McCammon et al.
1992), sternbergite (Pertlik 1987), rasvumite (Clark and Brown
1980; Mitchell et al. 2004), pautovite (Mitchell et al. 2004),
and picotpaulite (Balić-Žunić et al. 2008). A common structural feature of these minerals is that they all contain only one
symmetrically nonequivalent tetrahedral Fe site. Their majordifferences are manifested in the coordination of M cations andthe linkage of FeS4 tetrahedra. In cubanite, each Cu is bonded
to four S atoms and each FeS4 tetrahedron shares one edge withanother FeS4 tetrahedron, forming a cluster of paired FeS4 tetrahedra. In sternbergite, Ag is also coordinated by four S atoms,
but each FeS4 tetrahedron shares two edges with other FeS4
tetrahedra, forming a single tetrahedral chain. In the isostructural minerals, rasvumite, pautovite, and picotpaulite, the large
M cations are bonded to 10 S atoms and each FeS4 tetrahedronshares three edges with other FeS4 tetrahedra to form a double
tetrahedral chain.
Argentopyrite and sternbergite are the two best-documented
ternary sulfides in the Ag-Fe-S system. Relative to sternbergite,
argentopyrite is the stable form at lower temperatures (<150 °C)(Czamanske 1969; Taylor 1970) and is more common in nature.
However, despite the long history since its first description (von1727

YANG ET AL.: CRYSTAL STRUCTURE OF ARGENTOPYRITE

1728

Waltershausen 1866), the presence of severe twining in all examined crystals has prevented the structural determination for thismineral. Argentopyrite from the type locality Joachimstal, Bohemia, Czech Republic, was originally described as monoclinic(von Waltershausen 1866). However, Murdoch and Berry (1954)
studied argentopyrite from both Freiberg (Saxony, Germany)and Joachimstal, and concluded that the mineral is orthorhombic
with a = 6.64, b = 11.47, c = 6.45 Å, and space group Pmmn.
They further reported that all minerals examined are markedly
pseudohexagonal due to a combination of interpenetrating andlamellar twinning. The chemistry of argentopyrite from Andreasberg (Harz, Germany) was determined by Czamanske (1969)
and its Mössbauer spectra by Vaughan and Burns (1972). Šrein
et al. (1986) studied mineralogical features of argentopyrite andsternbergite from a polymetallic vein in a skarn deposit (Czech
Republic). Since then, no detailed crystallographic study onargentopyrite has been reported. In this paper, we present thefirst structure solution of argentopyrite based on single-crystal
X-ray diffraction data and depict its structural relationships withcubanite and other MFe2S3 minerals.

chromatized MoKα radiation was used for the X-ray diffraction study. Detailed
procedures for data collections and processes were similar to those described by
Yang and Downs (2008). X-ray diffraction data collected to 2θ ≤ 70° show thatargentopyrite crystals from the two specimens have similar unit-cell parameters,
matching those given by Murdoch and Berry (1954), and both are twinned, with theR090026 sample characterized dominantly by lamellar twinning and R090027 byboth pseudohexagonal and lamellar twins. Examination of the X-ray intensity datafrom both specimens reveals that argentopyrite is actually monoclinic with spacegroup P1121/n, rather than orthorhombic with space group Pmmn (Murdoch andBerry 1954). The adaptation of the non-standard setting provides consistency withthe published unit-cell data and facilitates direct comparison with other MFe2S3
minerals. The structure was solved and refined using SHELX97 (Sheldrick 2008),
which yielded the R1 factors of 0.045 and 0.072 for the R090026 and R090027
samples, respectively.
However, with additional examinations of the argentopyrite crystals from
R090026, we successfully found an untwined single crystal with a size of 0.06 ×
0.06 × 0.07 mm. A set of X-ray diffraction data were then collected from this crystal.
All reflections were indexed on the basis of a monoclinic unit cell (Table 1). The
systematic absences of reflections confirm the unique space group P1121/n andthe derived structure solution is identical to that obtained from the data collectedfrom the twinned crystals. A structure refinement with anisotropic displacement
parameters for all atoms produced an R1 factor of 0.029. No significant twin components were detected during the refinement. Final coordinates and displacement
parameters of all atoms are listed in Table 2, and selected bond distances and angles
in Table 3. CIF1 on deposit.

exPerimentaL metHods
Two argentopyrite samples were used in this study: one from Schaft 209, Aue,
Niederschlema, Erzgebirge, Saxony, Germany, and the other from the original
type sample (Joachimstal, Bohemia, Czech Republic) (von Waltershausen 1866).
Both samples are in the collection of the RRUFF project (deposition no. R090026
and R090027, respectively; http://rruff.info/). Argentopyrite crystals from the two
samples appear as simple pseudohexagonal prisms and are bright dark-gray whena fresh surface is exposed, with metallic luster. Their chemical compositions were
determined with a JEOL JXA-8900/R electron microprobe at the GeophysicalLaboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. The average composition,
normalized to S = 3.0, yielded a formula of Ag0.96Fe2.01S3 (9 analysis points) for
R090026 and Ag0.97Fe1.99S3 (10 analysis points) for R090027.
A Bruker X8 APEX2 CCD X-ray diffractometer equipped with graphite-mono-Table 1.

Summary of crystal data and refinement results for argentopyrite

Structural formulaAgFe2S3
Space group
P1121/n (no. 14)*a (Å)
6.6902(2)b (Å)
11.4497(4)c (Å)
6.4525(2)γ (°)
90.2420(8)3494.26(3)V (Å )
Z44.243
ρcalc (g/cm3)
λ (Å)
0.7106910.79µ (mm–1)
θ range for data collection
3.52–34.95
No. of reflections collected
8409
No. of independent reflections
2144
No. of reflections with I > 2σ(I)1652
No. of parameters refined56
R(int)
0.031
Final R factors [I > 2σ(I)]R1 = 0.029, wR2 = 0.060
Final R factors (all data)
R1 = 0.042, wR2 = 0.064
Goodness-of-fit
1.061* A non-standard setting (see the text for explanation).

resuLts and discussion
The structure of argentopyrite contains six symmetricallydistinct atomic sites: one occupied by Ag, two by Fe (Fe1 andFe2), and three by S (S1, S2, and S3) (Table 2), and it is analogous to that of cubanite in many aspects. For example, both
structures are based on approximately hexagonal close-packed
S atoms, with cations ordered over one half of the tetrahedral
sites. Topologically, the two structures are composed of thesame type of corner-shared tetrahedral sheets parallel to (001)(Fig. 1). One of the key differences between the two structures
Deposit item AM-09-055, CIF. Deposit items are available
two ways: For a paper copy contact the Business Office of theMineralogical Society of America (see inside front cover of recent issue) for price information. For an electronic copy visit the
MSA web site at http://www.minsocam.org, go to the American
Mineralogist Contents, find the table of contents for the specificvolume/issue wanted, and then click on the deposit link there.

1

Table 3. Selected interatomic distances (Å) in argentopyrite
Ag-S1
Ag-S1
Ag-S2
Ag-S3

Distance
2.4985(8)2.5348(8)2.5427(7)2.5557(7)Fe1-S1Fe1-S2
Fe1-S3Fe1-S3Distance
2.2333(8)2.3095(8)2.2577(7)2.3008(8)Fe2-S1Fe2-S2Fe2-S2Fe2-S3Distance
2.2311(8)2.2615(7)2.3136(8)2.2894(8)2.27532.2739Average 2.5329
7.39
10.62
TAV
2.77
1.00191.0026TQE
1.0006
Note: TAV = tetahedral angle variance in degrees squared; TQE = tetrahedral
quadratic elongation (Robinson et al. 1971).

Table 2. Coordinates and displacement parameters of atoms in argentopyrite
Atom
x
Ag
0.33197(4)Fe1
0.83066(5)Fe20.32872(5)S10.14775(10)S20.64979(9)S30.68393(10)Note: Uij are in units of Å2.

y0.16461(2)0.32887(3)0.49989(3)0.34665(6)0.48920(6)0.17049(5)z0.38491(4)0.37493(6)0.37518(6)0.27103(12)0.26747(11)0.23119(11)U110.0313(1)0.0146(2)0.0131(2)0.0154(3)0.0147(3)0.0180(3)U220.0351(2)0.0142(2)0.0148(2)0.0198(3)0.0190(3)0.0156(3)U33
0.0345(2)0.0186(2)0.0184(2)0.0261(3)0.0184(3)0.0186(3)U23–0.0040(1)–0.0019(1)–0.0005(1)–0.0041(3)0.0023(2)–0.0039(2)U130.0003(1)0.0004(1)–0.0010(1)0.0018(3)0.0015(2)0.0009(2)U12–0.0034(1)–0.0008(1)–0.0006(1)–0.0045(2)0.0015(2)–0.0014(2)Ueq
0.0336(1)0.0158(1)0.0154(1)0.0204(2)0.0174(2)0.0174(2)YANG ET AL.: CRYSTAL STRUCTURE OF ARGENTOPYRITE

is the linkage (or relative position) between the two adjacenttetrahedral sheets. Without regard to the chemical contents in thetetrahedra, the structure of argentopyrite can be generated by adisplacement of a tetrahedral sheet in the cubanite structure alongthe (a/2 + b/6) direction relative to the tetrahedral sheet beneath.
Another noticeable dissimilarity between the two structures isthe ordering patterns of M and Fe cations within a tetrahedral
sheet. As illustrated in Figure 1, the MS4 tetrahedron in cubanite
is situated at the apical position of a three-member ring, whereasthat in argentopyrite is at one of the basal positions. As a consequence, there is a cluster of four edge-shared FeS4 tetrahedra inargentopyrite, but only two in cubanite (Fig. 2). For comparison,
the edge-shared linkage of FeS4 tetrahedra in sternbergite andrasvumite are also illustrated in Figure 2.
In argentopyrite there are two nonequivalent Fe sites, rather
than only one, as in other MFe2S3 minerals. Although the average Fe-S bond distances for the two FeS4 tetrahedra are similar,
the Fe2S4 tetrahedron appears to be slightly more distorted
than the Fe1S4 tetrahedron in terms of the tetrahedral angle
variance (TAV) and quadratic elongation (TQE) (Robinson etal. 1971) (Table 3). Intriguingly, Vaughan and Burns (1972)
measured Mössbauer spectra of several sulfides containing
four-coordinated Fe atoms, including cubanite, sternbergite,
and argentopyrite. They noted that, while the Mössbauer spectra of both cubanite and sternbergite consist of only one single
hyperfine set of six-lines, as have also been observed by others(Greenwood and Whitfield 1968; Wintenberger et al. 1974,
1990; McCammon 1994, 1995; Rozenberg et al. 1997; Pareek
et al. 2008), the spectrum of argentopyrite is clearly characterized by two overlapping six-line sub-spectra, A and B, of equal
intensity, suggesting that Fe in argentopyrite may occur in two
distinct tetrahedral positions. This observation is evidently supported by our structural data. The room-temperature isomer-shift
and quadrupole-splitting parameters are 0.49 and 2.36 (mm/s),
respectively, for subspectrum A and 0.35 and 2.21 (mm/s) for
subspectrum B. These values indicate that subspectrum A is of
more ferrous character than subspectrum B (Vaughan and Burns

Figure 1.
Comparison of
crystal structuresof (a) cubanite and(b) argentopyrite.
The green andyellow tetrahedra
represents MS4 andFeS4 groups (M = Cu
for cubanite and Ag
for argentopyrite),r e s p e c t i v e l y. A
three-member ringof tetrahedra in eachstructure is outlinedwith a circle, showing
the positional
difference of theMS4 tetrahedra.

17291972) and corresponds to a more distorted FeS4 tetrahedron. Accordingly, we attribute subspectra A and B to originating fromthe Fe2S4 and Fe1S4 tetrahedra, respectively. In other words,
unlike other MFe2S3 minerals (e.g., cubanite, sternbergite, andrasvumite) that show complete disorder between Fe2+ and Fe3+,
argentopyrite exhibits some degree of cation ordering, with Fe2+
favoring the slightly more distorted Fe2 tetrahedral site.
From the crystal-chemical point of view, the preference ofFe2+ for the Fe2 site over the Fe1 site may be explained by how
the Fe1S4 and Fe2S4 tetrahedra are linked to each other withina cluster. As shown in Figure 2, each Fe2S4 tetrahedron shares
two edges with adjacent tetrahedra: one with the Fe1S4 tetrahedron and the other with another Fe2S4 tetrahedron. In contrast,
each Fe1S4 tetrahedron shares only one edge with a neighboring
Fe2S4 tetrahedron. As a result, not only is the Fe2S4 tetrahedron
more distorted than the Fe1S4 tetrahedron, but it is also moreenergetically favored by Fe2+ so as to minimize the cationcation repulsion between the two edge-shared Fe2S4 tetrahedra
and within the cluster. Additionally, the Jahn-Teller effect may
play a role in enhancing the order of Fe2+ in the Fe2 site as wellbecause high-spin Fe2+ can gain extra stabilization energy in amore distorted tetrahedral environment (Vrajmasu et al. 2004
and references therein). The relatively longer distance between
Fe2-Fe2 [2.8013(7) Å] vs. Fe2-Fe1 (2.7502 Å) is also a good
indication of the enrichment of Fe2+ in the Fe2 site (see review
by Makovicky 2006).
Cubanite is known to transform irreversibly to a disordered
cubic polymorph, isocubanite, at ~210 °C (Pruseth et al. 1999 andreferences therein). Annealing of the cubic phase below 210 °C
results in exsolution of chalcopyrite from the isocubanite matrix(Cabri et al. 1973; Dutrizac 1976). However, using in-situ hightemperature transmission electron microscopy, Putnis (1977)
found that cubanite actually starts to undergo the cation disordering process at ~200 °C, giving rise to a hexagonal wurtzite-type
structure. Annealing of the hexagonal phase below 200 °C yields
a high-temperature ordered (HTO) phase that Putnis (1977)
claimed was probably orthorhombic. Although the unit-cellparameters of this HTO phase are similar to those of cubanite,
we find that its symmetry is definitely different from that (Pcmn)
for cubanite because the electron diffraction patterns given by
Putnis (1977) show the presence of (h00) and (00l) reflections
with h or l ≠ 2n, which are prohibited in space group Pcmn. By
assuming that the transformation from the disordered hexagonal
to the HTO phase results from cation ordering within the hexagonal close-packed sulfur structure, Putnis (1977) proposed a

Figure 2. Comparison of the linkage among the FeS4 tetrahedra in(a) cubanite, (b) argentopyrite, (c) sternbergite, and (d) rasvumite.

YANG ET AL.: CRYSTAL STRUCTURE OF ARGENTOPYRITE

1730
Figure 3. Cation
ordering schemes in(a) cubanite, (b) hightemperature orderedphase of cubanite,
proposed by Putnis(1977), and (c)argentopyrite. They
are represented interms of sulfur atoms
coordinated by metal
cations. Green, gray,and small yellow
spheres represent M(=Cu in cubanite or
Ag in argentopyrite),Fe, and S atoms,
respectively.

possible cation ordering scheme for the HTO phase that is better
viewed in terms of the distribution of sulfur atoms coordinatedby metal cations (Fig. 3). Analysis of the atomic distribution in
Figure 3b, nevertheless, reveals that such a structure can only
have symmetry lower than orthorhombic, though it may display
a pseudo-orthorhombic unit cell. In fact, irrespective of thechemical difference in the M cation, the atomic arrangementin Figure 3b is just what we have observed in argentopyrite—apseudo-orthorhombic cell with P1121/n symmetry (Fig. 3c). Additional research is needed to verify whether the HTO phase of
cubanite really possesses the argentopyrite-type structure. If thatis the case, then argentopyrite might transform to the cubanite
structure upon application of pressure.

acknoWLedgments
This study was supported by the NSF grant EAR-0609906 for the study ofbonded interactions of sulfide minerals. The samples used in this study were kindly
donated by Mark N. Feinglos. We are grateful for the electron microprobe analysis
by N. Boctor at the Geophysical Laboratory. The constructive reviews from Emil
Makovicky and Milan Rieder are greatly appreciated.

reFerences cited
Amthauer, G. and Bente, K. (1983) Mixed-valent iron in synthetic rasvumite, KFe2S3.
Naturwissenschaften, 70, 146–147.
Azaroff, L.V. and Buerger, M.J. (1955) Refinement of the structure of cubanite, CuFe2S3.
American Mineralogist, 40, 213–225.
Balić-Žunić, T., Karanović, L., and Poleti, D. (2008) Crystal structure of picotpaulite,
TlFe2S3, from Allchar, FYR Macedonia. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 55, 801–809.
Beinert, H., Holm, R.H., and Munck, E. (1997) Iron-sulfur clusters: Nature’s modular,
multipurpose structures. Science, 277, 653–659.
Buerger, M.J. (1945) The crystal structure of cubanite, CuFe2S3 and the coordination offerromagnetic iron. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 67, 2056.
——— (1947) The crystal structure of cubanite. American Mineralogist, 32,
415–425.
Cabri, L.J., Hall, S.R., Szymanski, J.T., and Stewart, J.M. (1973) On the transformationof cubanite. Canadian Mineralogist, 12, 33–38.
Clark, J.R. and Brown Jr., G.E. (1980) Crystal structure of rasvumite, KFe2S3. American
Mineralogist, 65, 477–482.
Czamanske, G.K. (1969) The stability of argentopyrite and sternbergite. Economic

Geology, 64, 459–461.
Dutrizac, J.E. (1976) Reactions in cubanite and chalcopyrite. Canadian Mineralogist,
14, 172–181.
Fleet, M.E. (1970) Refinement of the crystal structure of cubanite and polymorphismof CuFe2S3. Zeitscrift für Kristallographie, 132, 276–287.
Greenwood, N.N. and Whitfield, H.J. (1968) Mössbauer effect studies on cubanite andrelated iron sulfides. Journal of the Chemical Society (London) A, 1697–1699.
Holm, R.H., Kennepohl, P., and Solomon, E.I. (1996) Structural and functional aspectsof metal sites in biology. Chemical Reviews, 96, 2239–2314.
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.
McCammon, C.A. (1994) High-pressure in situ investigation of cubanite (CuFe2S3):
Electronic structure. Hyperfine Interactions, 93, 1511–1514.
——— (1995) Equation of state, bonding character and phase transition of cubanite,
CuFe2S3 studied from 0 to 5 GPa. American Mineralogist, 80, 1–8.
McCammon, C.A., Zhang, J., Hazen, R.M., and Finger, L.W. (1992) High-pressure
crystal chemistry of cubanite CuFe2S3. American Mineralogist, 77, 937–944.
Mitchell, R.H., Ross, K.C., and Potter, E.G. (2004) Crystal structures of CsFe2S3 and
RbFe2S3: synthetic analogs of rasvumite KFe2S3. Journal of Solid State Chemistry,
177, 1867–1872.
Miyamoto, M., Ishii, T., Kume, S., and Koizumi, M. (1980) A new polymorph of
cubanite, CuFe2S3. Materials Research Bulletin, 15, 907–910.
Murdoch, J. and Berry, L.G. (1954) X-ray measurements on argentopyrite. American
Mineralogist, 39, 475–485.
Osadchii, E.G. and Chareev, D.A. (2006) Thermodynamic studies of pyrrhotite-pyrite
equilibria in the Ag-Fe-S system by solid-state galvanic cell technique at 518–723 K
and total pressure of 1 atm. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 70, 5617–5633.
Pareek, S., Rais, A., Tripathi, A., and Chandra, U. (2008) Mössbauer study on microwave
synthesized (Cu,Fe) sulfide composites and correlation with natural mineral—
Cubanite. Hyperfine Interactions, 186, 113–120.
Pertlik, F. (1987) Crystal structure of sternbergite, AgFe2S3. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Monatshefte, 10, 458–464.
Pruseth, K.L., Mishra, B., and Bernhardt, H.J. (1999) An experimental study on cubanite
irreversibility: Implications for natural chalcopyrite-cubanite intergrowths. European
Journal of Mineralogy, 11, 471–476.
Putnis, A. (1977) Electron microscope study of phase transformation in cubanite. Physics
and Chemistry of Minerals, 1, 335–349.
Reissner, M., Steiner, W., and Holler, H. (2004) 57Fe Mössbauer investigation of
K0.3Ba0.7Fe2S3. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 383, 131–134.
Reissner, M., Steiner, W., Wernisch, J., and Boller, H. (2006) Debye temperature andmagnetic ordering in KxBa1–xFe2S3. Hyperfine Interactions, 169, 1301–1304.
Robinson, K., Gibbs, G.V., and Ribbe, P.H. (1971) Quadratic elongation, a quantitative
measure of distortion in coordination polyhedra. Science, 172, 567–570.
Rozenberg, G.Kh., Pasternak, M.P., Hearne, G.R., and McCammon, C.A. (1997) Highpressure metallization and electronic-magnetic properties of hexagonal cubanite(CuFe2S3). Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 24, 569–573.
Sheldrick, G.M. (2008) A short history of SHELX. Acta Crystallographica, A64,
112–122.
Sleight, A.W. and Gillson, J.L. (1973) Electrical resistivity of cubanite: CuFe2S3. Journalof Solid State Chemistry, 8, 29–30.
Šrein, V., Řídkošil, T., Kašpar, P., and Šourek, J. (1986) Argentopyrite and sternbergite
from polymetallic veins of the skarn deposit Měděnec, Krušné hory Mts., Czechoslovakia. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Abhandlungen, 154, 207–222.
Szymanski, J.T. (l974) A refinement of the structure of cubanite, CuFe2S3. Zeitschrift
für Kristallogaphie, 140, 218–239.
Taylor, L.A. (1970) The system Ag-Fe-S: Phase equilibria and mineral assemblages.
Mineralogical Deposita, 5, 41–58.
Vaughan, D.J. and Burns, R.G. (1972) Mössbauer spectroscopy and bonding in sulphideminerals containing four-coordinated iron. Report of the Session International
Geological Congress 24th, 14, 158–167.
von Waltershausen, W.S. (1866) Der silberkies, eine neue mineralspecies aus Joachimsthal. Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 3, 2–8.
Vrajmasu, V.V., Munck, E., and Bominaar, E.L. (2004) Theoretical analysis of the
Jahn-Teller distortions in tetrathiolato iron(II) complexes. Inorganic Chemistry,
43, 4862–4866.
Wintenberger, M., Lambert-Andron, B., and Roudaut, E. (1974) Détermination de lastructure magnétique de la cubanite par diffraction neutronique sur un monocristal.
Physica Status Solidi, A26, 147–154.
Wintenberger, M., Andre, G., Perrin, M., Garcin, C., and Imbert, P. (1990) Magnetic
structure and Mössbauer data of sternbergite AgFe2S3, an intermediate valency Fe
compound. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 87, 123–129.
Yang, H. and Downs, R.T. (2008) Crystal structure of glaucodot, (Co,Fe)AsS, and its relationships to marcasite and arsenopyrite. American Mineralogist, 93, 1183–1186.
Manuscript received June 18, 2009
Manuscript accepted July 22, 2009
Manuscript handled by bryan chakouMakos