This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Ultramafic and ultrabasic are actually different terms. Ultramafic is an igneous rock which is composed of greater than 90% mafic minerals, but ultrabasic is an igneous rock which has silica content lower than 45% (weight%). First is mineralogic and second is chemical classification and they should be different articles. Rock can be ultrabasic but it doesn't mean that it should be automatically ultramafic. Siim20:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fairly pedantic at best. Its like saying a highly mafic-mineral rich granitoid isn't felsic because it has >10% mafic minerals. Anorthosite; since it's got >45% silica due to being >90% plagioclase, and isn't ultramafic because it's >90% 'felsic' minerals...? But it's formed by accumulation from ultramafic magmas? So I disagree with you. Ultramafic rocks are ultrabasic rocks, and arguing specifics ignores the fact that they are all hot, fairly primitive (in a fractional crystallisation sense) rocks.Rolinator09:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]