[Rockhounds] "list where the knowledge of many is shared freely"

[Lanny]

Don,

We need to get an expedition together, anyone interested in looking at 
Idaho metamorphics is welcome. See you there next summer (when the snow 
is much less of a problem!).

On Dec 22, 2007, at 11:53 AM, DonH wrote:

> Lanny wrote:
>> Just curious Don. You mean to say that the outcrop is gone? There are 
>> no kyanites and no garnets remaining?
>
> Hi,
>
> The large, collectible kyanites are gone from that particular outcrop 
> (garnets weren't part of the discussion in this case, and I've never 
> found ).  They appear to have been restricted to particular layers in 
> this rock (I hesitate to call it a schist!)  There are still fine, 
> well-formed little kyanites in the top remaining layer.  This is about 
> where I found that couple wandering around with a copy of your book in 
> hand, and called you, but there was no answer (I still can't believe I 
> had a cell signal out there).  The outcrop was pretty hammered before 
> I got there, and I did some hammering myself, until I realized it was 
> too unique to take apart further until I had someone look at it.  It 
> is definitely layered, but also exhibits a gentle undulatory folding, 
> and is shot through in places with massive, white, porcealainous 
> feldspar and chunks of anhedral quartz.  The mica looks like biotite 
> but in thinner sections it has a green tint.  The last person I had 
> out there was mumbling something about this area being the missing 
> link between two formations, but I didn't quite get what she was 
> thinking.

I am totally confused on what outcrops you are referring too; one 
reason why I'm looking forward to visiting it with you. When I looked a 
few years ago, the outcrop with the kyanite I direct people too had not 
been significantly touched by hammer and chisel. The garnet outcrop I 
refer people to has been heavily worked by rockhounds since at least 
the early 1960s, before I ever saw it.
>
> There is garnet amphibolite up there as well as the schistose 
> material, plus another outcrop I found where white laths (of kyanite?) 
> surround small, subhedral, reddish-orange garnets.  Very odd.
>
> But yes, the garnets are up there and still able to be collected.  
> Many of them are worn out of the matrix and can be found in the road.
>
> My earlier comment referred to the fact that the outcrop has been 
> changed, to the point where a full interpretation is probably not 
> possible any longer.  But then again, that is just fate.

But then the outcrop had undoubtedly been changing for at least 10,000 
years...

>
> The bottom line is that this area has been studied since the 1950s, 
> and this particular ridge should have been more closely studied 
> already.  At least I have a team of worthwhile professors ready to go 
> take a look--and in a sense we do owe it to you!  I don't know how 
> long I'll be around after I graduate, but I'd like to go take a look 
> up there together, if you still have that Mammoth Car and the snow 
> cooperates.
>
> Best,
> Don
>
I need to get back up in that area again, so I'm looking forward to 
making it up there with you. It's a "fun" region to explore; I recently 
learned that during road construction several decades ago, a friend 
found a 3 inch sharp, lustrous almandine crystal in an ara to the east 
by Larkins Peak. It was in roadfill, the source wasn't located (and now 
he can't find his 40 year old notes that would provide the road 
location). Still a lot to see in a huge, forested mountainous area with 
garnets, kyanite and staurolite over a zone from Emerald Creek to the 
Montana Border, an area around 70 miles long and 30 miles wide. We'll 
never see it all, should have been Anna Hiatenen's field assistant (as 
if that could have ever happened!).

Regards,

Lanny