Pleistocene Glacial Transport of Nephrite Jade from British Columbia, Canada, to Coastal Washington State, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

REVIEW Geosciences-3167602

Pleistocene Glacial Transport of Nephrite Jade from British Columbia, Canada to Coastal Washington State, USA

George E. Mustoe

 

This scientific paper is considered important as it “is the first time that the origin of this glacially-transported coastal nephrite” has been described according to mineralogical analytical data. Three analyses on a single “black jade” sample (see Table 1) are not of significance for major geological conclusions.

Jade is not a proper mineralogical name (for example, in mineralogy and gemmology are accepted three main varietal names: jadeite jade, omphacite jade and nephrite jade; in this case, in the title it is well defined as “nephrite jade”). In the whole text the name “jade” has to be replaced by “nephrite” or “nephrite jade” (r. 21, 24, 41, 66, 67).

r. 26 – citation (…)

r. 53-54: The following text is not correct and without citation – the Neolithic in Europe, Asia and North America has a different time span: “Because of its ability to withstand abrasion and impact, nephrite has been used for making stone tools since Neolithic times (12,000-6,500 BC)” [?].

r. 57-58: “In North America, native people have been using nephrite for tools and decorations for thousands of years [3]” [How many thousands – are there modern methods for dating?]

r. 65-66: The following text is not correct and without any citation: “The Kuniun [Kunlun] Mountains of China were a major source of nephrite [dominant in Medieval times; the oldest known and well dated Neolithic nephrite culture so far is the Xinglongwa culture ~6000 BC, in NE China], and jade artifacts from Yakut [Siberia], Russia date back to 3000 BC [?], but by the 1700’s, China jade sources were becoming depleted.

r. 153: …“black jade”

r. 198, 220, 245 and 285: …“black jade”

r. 208-209: The official formula from the IMA Master List for tremolite is ☐Ca₂(Mg₅._0-4.5Fe²⁺_0.0-0.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂, for actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_4.5-2.5Fe²⁺_0.5-2.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂ and for ferro-actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_2.5-0.0Fe²⁺_2.5-5.0)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂

r. 220: Error in Table 1 for data of SiO₂ (listed for TiO₂). All data [?] are mixed and not correct – please see “standard” data (as elements and as oxides) for the minerals tremolite and/or actinolite. Probably (if correct), the proper average (measured from three points) FeO_total content is ~4 wt.%, thus the sample is likely actinolite, and not ferro-actinolite (r. 17).

r. 243: Salish Sea “black jade” nephrite has a different microstructure compared to serpentinite-associated nephrite [from the Washington State, USA] (Figure 12). Why not compared to nephrite from British Columbia, Canada (source of raw material)? Colour and microstructure are different characteristics of nephrite, which must not be linked together. Colour depends mainly on Fe-content and impurity mineral phases, and microstructure depends on a number of local geological and paragenetic criteria. In an “impure nephrite” (no matter of its serpentinite-linked of carbonate-linked genesis) the volume of the amphibole species can change (X-ray analyses), and probably this is the case with the Salish Sea “black jade” (unfortunately only with a single sample with SEM and microprobe analysis, Table 1). Black nephrite is known from Wyoming, USA; Karakash River in Kunlun Mountains, Xinjiang, China, as well as Qinghai and Guangxi provinces, China. As a celt, it is known also probably from Alberta, Canada. Both tremolite-bearing nephrite and actinolite-bearing nephrite can be almost black. Trace elements are also of importance.

r. 245-246: No data or citation: This texture is reminiscent of black jade that is commercially mined in the Perth area of Western Australia (Figure 14). The parent material for the Australian material is probably metabasite… The “Ninghan black jade” in Western Australia is a not a true nephrite, but a nephrite-like amphibolite. It has been studied by some spectroscopic (FTIR; Raman) methods.

r. 248: Citation for: “In both materials, iron levels are very high, and the texture involves interlocking crystal clusters.”

r. 276: Subtitle Discussion seems to substitute the subtitle Conclusion.

r. 277 and 285-286: The question “what is jade” is more a matter of art than science [the text is submitted to a scientific journal, and not to a science-popular magazine]……. Gemologists and lapidary artisans will likely continue to debate the nomenclature.[there has been no debate in the text in this respect]. The conclusion must underline and confirm the mineral in the title – nephrite jade.

Some fundamental papers on nephrite artifacts in British Columbia (Canada) and their use by the natives can be added to the references. For alluvial nephrite, see comparison study with samples from New Zealand.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the careful review of the manuscript, and for your many suggestions for its improvement. I appreciate these contributions. Below are my detailed responses.

Thanks, George

This scientific paper is considered important as it “is the first time that the origin of this glacially-transported coastal nephrite” has been described according to mineralogical analytical data. Three analyses on a single “black jade” sample (see Table 1) are not of significance for major geological conclusions.

Reply: The coastal nephrite specimens have a high degree of uniformity in mineralogy, and I intended the data in Table 1 to show the variation in individual crystals within a single specimen. I have added a clearer explanation of this presentation choice. I have added some discussion of this issue, noting the number of specimens that I analyzed

Jade is not a proper mineralogical name (for example, in mineralogy and gemmology are accepted three main varietal names: jadeite jade, omphacite jade and nephrite jade; in this case, in the title it is well defined as “nephrite jade”). In the whole text the name “jade” has to be replaced by “nephrite” or “nephrite jade” (r. 21, 24, 41, 66, 67).

Reply: Thanks for the advice. I have changed the wording from “jade” to “nephrite” in most situations. The popular reference to his material has long been “black jade”, and whenever I use this term I place it in parentheses to indicate that it is an informal name.

1. 53-54: The following text is not correct and without citation – the Neolithic in Europe, Asia and North America has a different time span: “Because of its ability to withstand abrasion and impact, nephrite has been used for making stone tools since Neolithic times (12,000-6,500 BC)” [?]. r. 57-58: “In North America, native people have been using nephrite for tools and decorations for thousands of years [3]” [How many thousands – are there modern methods for dating?]r. 65-66: The following text is not correct and without any citation: “The Kuniun [Kunlun] Mountains of China were a major source of nephrite [dominant in Medieval times; the oldest known and well dated Neolithic nephrite culture so far is the Xinglongwa culture ~6000 BC, in NE China], and jade artifacts from Yakut [Siberia], Russia date back to 3000 BC [?], but by the 1700’s, China jade sources were becoming depleted.

Reply: Thanks, I have rewritten this section, adding dates and citations

1. 153: …“black jade”
2. 198, 220, 245 and 285: …“black jade”

Reply: Please see above comment. One of my goals is to provide a description of this transported nephrite to replace the common popular “black jade” terminology. To accomplish this, I need to refer to that informal nomenclature.

5. 208-209: The official formula from the IMA Master List for tremolite is ☐Ca₂(Mg₅._0-4.5Fe²⁺_0.0-0.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂, for actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_4.5-2.5Fe²⁺_0.5-2.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂ and for ferro-actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_2.5-0.0Fe²⁺_2.5-5.0)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂
6. 220: Error in Table 1 for data of SiO₂ (listed for TiO₂). All data [?] are mixed and not correct – please see “standard” data (as elements and as oxides) for the minerals tremolite and/or actinolite. Probably (if correct), the proper average (measured from three points) FeO_total content is ~4 wt.%, thus the sample is likely actinolite, and not ferro-actinolite (r. 17).

Reply: I have adopted the IMA formula for tremolite, actinolite, ferroactinolite. Based on Mg/(Mg+Fe) ratios, the nephrite is ferroactinolite.

1. 243: Salish Sea “black jade” nephrite has a different microstructure compared to serpentinite-associated nephrite [from the Washington State, USA] (Figure 12). Why not compared to nephrite from British Columbia, Canada (source of raw material)? Colour and microstructure are different characteristics of nephrite, which must not be linked together. Colour depends mainly on Fe-content and impurity mineral phases, and microstructure depends on a number of local geological and paragenetic criteria. In an “impure nephrite” (no matter of its serpentinite-linked of carbonate-linked genesis) the volume of the amphibole species can change (X-ray analyses), and probably this is the case with the Salish Sea “black jade” (unfortunately only with a single sample with SEM and microprobe analysis, Table 1). Black nephrite is known from Wyoming, USA; Karakash River in Kunlun Mountains, Xinjiang, China, as well as Qinghaiand Guangxi provinces, China. As a celt, it is known also probably from Alberta, Canada. Both tremolite-bearing nephrite and actinolite-bearing nephrite can be almost black. Trace elements are also of importance.

Reply: I have tried to provide clarity for this issue. Neprite transported from British Columbia during the late Pleistocene cannot be traced to any particular source area. For example, nephrite from the Fraser River watershed clearly represents multiple sources, and most of the known specimens are alluvial, Compositions are varied Morin (2016) studied ~5000 nephrite celts from British Columbia, describing a variety of nephrite types, but there is a scarcity of compositional information. Constructing a comparative table is therefore impractical. Leaming (1978) included a table showing compositions of 9 BC nephrites, but these are all from the Cassiar/Omineca region, which is not a source area for Salish Sea nephrite.

As for the “impure nephrite” issue, virtually all nephrite is impure. At every nephrite deposit, the amount of pure gem-grade material is very small, commonly less than 10% of the total. For the rest of the material, there are commonly minor amounts of chlorite, diopside, chromite, etc.

. 245-246: No data or citation: This texture is reminiscent of black jade that is commercially mined in the Perth area of Western Australia (Figure 14). The parent material for the Australian material is probably metabasite… The “Ninghan black jade” in Western Australia is a not a true nephrite, but a nephrite-like amphibolite. It has been studied by some spectroscopic (FTIR; Raman) methods.

Reply: I have added a reference. There is scant analytical.information regarding the Perth material. I have corresponded with the claim owner, and I have done SEM/EDS work on a single specimen. The Mg/(Mg/Fe) ratio of 0.52 is indicative of actinolite. The original brief Western Australia Geological Survey report described the parent material as a tholeitic basalt. Whether or not this material is nephrite remains unresolved.

1. 248: Citation for: “In both materials, iron levels are very high, and the texture involves interlocking crystal clusters.”

Reply:  These data are from my own SEM/EDS analysis, and the cited reference.

1. 276: Subtitle Discussion seems to substitute the subtitle Conclusion.

Reply: Thanks, I have rewritten the Discussion and added a Conclusions section.

1. 277 and 285-286: The question “what is jade” is more a matter of art than science [the text is submitted to a scientific journal, and not to a science-popular magazine]……. Gemologists and lapidary artisans will likely continue to debate the nomenclature.[there has been no debate in the text in this respect]. The conclusion must underline and confirm the mineral in the title – nephrite jade.

Reply I have done some rewriting, but there are a multitude of jade enthusiasts who appreciate information regarding nephrite and I believe that it is a desirable goal to present information that is useful both to scientists and non-scientists. This is particularly applicable to an open-access journal like Geosciences, where ordinary people have the ability to access information.

Some fundamental papers on nephrite artifacts in British Columbia (Canada) and their use by the natives can be added to the references. For alluvial nephrite, see comparison study with samples from New Zealand.

Reply: I have added some citations that provide some historical overview (e.g., the lengthy 1887 paper by Dawson). The papers by Morin provide lengthy bibliographies. Morin’s publications are readily available online for readers who want more information about nephrite artifacts.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 2-3: Title is suitable and informs about content of the manuscript.

Lines 7-20, Abstract: It is well-written and it includes enough information about aim of research, methods, results and new conclusions about jade deposits in North America. Only few editing issues should be considered during revision as shown in the annotated pdf attached herewith.

Line 21, Keywords: They are ok but it is much better if you replace "sillimanite" by “muttonfat jade” which is the other jade-like material consisting of sillimanite and quartz intermixture.

Line 26: You need to provide a reference or two for the documentation that nephrite deposits in Western Washington are associated with ophiolitic serpentinite bodies, and that they were tectonically brought to the present-day outcrops along deep-seated faults.

Lines 32-33: You need to provide references in the figure caption (Fig. 1).

Lines 39-40: Reference is missing in caption of Fig. 2. Also, you need to insert geographic north and an arrow in the northeast corner of the map that shows location of ultramafic rocks in western Washington.

Line 89-90: You need to mention the reasons that the black jade on the cobblestone beaches is characterized by low gemological value.

Line 128: Again, please insert a Geographic North and an arrow inside the frame of Fig. 5.

Lines 133-136: Please shorten the caption of Fig. 6, which shows the granitic rocks erratic.

Lines 138-144: The field photos shown in Fig. 7 are good and they show bar scale to document size of nephrite pebbles and cobbles in (C) and (D). There are no scale for (A) and (B), which can be simply done by including Field of View (FOV) in meters, for example, in the figure caption.

Line 148: Please replace C¹⁴ by ¹⁴C. This is the correct way to write an isotope symbol, same as the authors did in the following line for Ar (Argon).

Line 162: In the methods section, please show that the microanalysis obtained for the investigated minerals were done using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with an EDS attachment.

Lines 164-168: It is better to say that the obtained images are back-scattered electron images (BSE) and not SEM images. Also, you need to mention the conditions of the SEM/EDS operation and if there are softwares for correction or not. In addition, you need to document the radiation type used for the XRD analysis, e.g. Co or Cu, and mention the conditions too including tilting and what so else for the regular routine of x-ray diffraction.

Line 189: If you need to present new and solid information about the investigated jade, you need to give number of the analyzed samples. Of course homogeneity of the ultramafic source is not guaranteed too. In addition, colour, petrography and distance from source are influencing factors on mineralogy and accordingly difference in XRD patterns result.

Line 198: BSE images are enough, so delete SEM from the beginning of Fig. 9's caption.

Line 190: Also here, you need to report number of your nephrite samples subjected to SEM/EDS investigation taking in consideration size, colour, type of plagioclase, ….etc.

Line 193: Did you confirm the pyrite composition with at least one EDS analysis?.

Lines 207-208: In order to fit this chemical formula for actinolite in your nephrite samples, you need a quantitative analysis, which is not the case of SEM/EDS that you used. Some electron microprobe analyses (EMPA) would have much higher credibility and accuracy in this case.

Line 209: Distinction between ferrous Fe²⁺ and ferric iron Fe³⁺ in the amphibole structure is very sensitive so I wonder who did you calculate it using the EDS semi-quantitative analysis. Accordingly, considering some of the amphibole crystals are ferroactinolite in the nephrite is inaccurate.

Line 220: They are anhydrous analyses, so who did you calculate the hydroxyl content?.

Line 220, lower part of Table 1: Calculation of cations in the amphibole structural formula is doubtful here. Please indicate the basis of cation calculation and check the number of atoms or cations obtained. Also, cations are not measured in wt% like oxides but as cations or atoms per formula unit (apfu).

Line 222, Fig. 11, and text therewith: It appears in the graphical presentation of the analyzed nephrite amphibole are three crystals only, which is a very limited number. Please justify and give more data.

Line 244: Please replace "amphibolite" by "amphiboles".

Lines 258-259: Which one in Fig. 14?, when you talk about Muttonfat jade?.

Line 284, Discussion: Which report do you mean?!.

Lines 276-286: Author is asked to enhance the discussion section and present more explanations for the results. Also, there should be comparison with international examples of jade and nephrite like those from SE Asia and elsewhere worldwide.

Line 287: Conclusions are completely missing. Author is asked to give some concluding remarks or 2-4 bullets of short conclusions. They are a must and essential requirement for publication in an international journal with good reputation like "Geosciences". Conclusions are completely missing. Author is asked to give some concluding remarks or 2-4 bullets of short conclusions. They are a must and essential requirement for publication in an international journal with good reputation like "Geosciences".

Please check the updated list of the references used and consider the style of their editing using a recent copy of a MDPI article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some polishing of the English language is recommended.

Author Response

I appreciate your careful reading of the manuscript, and the many helpful suggestions. Me detailed replies to your comments appear below.

Thanks, George

Lines 7-20, Abstract: It is well-written and it includes enough information about aim of research, methods, results and new conclusions about jade deposits in North America. Only few editing issues should be considered during revision as shown in the annotated pdf attached herewith.

Line 21, Keywords: They are ok but it is much better if you replace "sillimanite" by “muttonfat jade” which is the other jade-like material consisting of sillimanite and quartz intermixture.

Reply: I have added muttonfat jade

Line 26: You need to provide a reference or two for the documentation that nephrite deposits in Western Washington are associated with ophiolitic serpentinite bodies, and that they were tectonically brought to the present-day outcrops along deep-seated faults.

Reply: Citations have been added

Lines 32-33: You need to provide references in the figure caption (Fig. 1).

Reply: The figure is based on two open-access sources, which have been cited.

Lines 39-40: Reference is missing in caption of Fig. 2. Also, you need to insert geographic north and an arrow in the northeast corner of the map that shows location of ultramafic rocks in western Washington.

Reply: Refereence added, also north arrow.

Line 89-90: You need to mention the reasons that the black jade on the cobblestone beaches is characterized by low gemological value.

Reply: Change has been made.

Line 128: Again, please insert a Geographic North and an arrow inside the frame of Fig. 5.

Reply: North arrow added

Lines 133-136: Please shorten the caption of Fig. 6, which shows the granitic rocks erratic.

Reply: Caption has been shortened.

Lines 138-144: The field photos shown in Fig. 7 are good and they show bar scale to document size of nephrite pebbles and cobbles in (C) and (D). There are no scale for (A) and (B), which can be simply done by including Field of View (FOV) in meters, for example, in the figure caption.

Reply: Inserting scale bars is difficult because of the broad persective views. I have added scale bars relative to cliff height.

Line 148: Please replace C¹⁴ by ¹⁴C. This is the correct way to write an isotope symbol, same as the authors did in the following line for Ar (Argon).

Reply: Change has been made.

Line 162: In the methods section, please show that the microanalysis obtained for the investigated minerals were done using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with an EDS attachment.

Reply: Change has been made.

Lines 164-168: It is better to say that the obtained images are back-scattered electron images (BSE) and not SEM images. Also, you need to mention the conditions of the SEM/EDS operation and if there are softwares for correction or not. In addition, you need to document the radiation type used for the XRD analysis, e.g. Co or Cu, and mention the conditions too including tilting and what so else for the regular routine of x-ray diffraction.

Reply: I have added this information to the Methods section.

Line 189: If you need to present new and solid information about the investigated jade, you need to give number of the analyzed samples. Of course homogeneity of the ultramafic source is not guaranteed too. In addition, colour, petrography and distance from source are influencing factors on mineralogy and accordingly difference in XRD patterns result.

Reply: I have changed the text to address these issues.

Line 198: BSE images are enough, so delete SEM from the beginning of Fig. 9's caption.

Reply: Change has been made.

Line 190: Also here, you need to report number of your nephrite samples subjected to SEM/EDS investigation taking in consideration size, colour, type of plagioclase, ….etc.

Reply: Information has been added.

Line 193: Did you confirm the pyrite composition with at least one EDS analysis?.

Reply: Yes, this identification is from EDS.

Lines 207-208: In order to fit this chemical formula for actinolite in your nephrite samples, you need a quantitative analysis, which is not the case of SEM/EDS that you used. Some electron microprobe analyses (EMPA) would have much higher credibility and accuracy in this case.

Reply: I don’t have access to EPMA, but the SEM’EDS data are useful for characterizing the composition.Although EDS data tend to be semiquantitative, the numbers tend to be pretty good for heavy elements, but poor for light elements like Cand O. I analyzed flat polished specimens, the same kind of samples that would be used for EPMA, which improves to accuracy of the EDS method.

Line 209: Distinction between ferrous Fe²⁺ and ferric iron Fe³⁺ in the amphibole structure is very sensitive so I wonder who did you calculate it using the EDS semi-quantitative analysis. Accordingly, considering some of the amphibole crystals are ferroactinolite in the nephrite is inaccurate.

XRF spectra do not distinguish between oxidation states. The calculations were made with total iron expressed as Fe for % oxide values. The tremolite/actinlite/ferroactinolite distinctions were based on a Mg/(Mg+Fe) ratio of 0.18, which is indicative of ferroactinolite.

Line 220: They are anhydrous analyses, so who did you calculate the hydroxyl content?.

Reply:As I describe in the new text, oxygen values were calculated on the basis of stoiciometry, because the O peak is so poorly quantifiable.

Line 220, lower part of Table 1: Calculation of cations in the amphibole structural formula is doubtful here. Please indicate the basis of cation calculation and check the number of atoms or cations obtained. Also, cations are not measured in wt% like oxides but as cations or atoms per formula unit (apfu).

Reply: I reported the data that was calculated by the Oxford AzTek program.

Line 222, Fig. 11, and text therewith: It appears in the graphical presentation of the analyzed nephrite amphibole are three crystals only, which is a very limited number. Please justify and give more data.

Reply: I have added some explanatory text. I displayed results from three amphibole crystals in a single specimen to show the analytical variations. I chose six samples for XRD and SEM/EDS analysis, out of a collection of more than a dozen freshly-collected specimens. I was also offered a multitude of specimens in other people’s collections, but chose to work only with specimens that I personally collected. The uniformity of this material is a consistent characteristic, so I chose to show a typical example rather than a comprehensive table.

 

Line 244: Please replace "amphibolite" by "amphiboles"

Reply: Change has been made.

Lines 258-259: Which one in Fig. 14?, when you talk about Muttonfat jade?.

Reply: Sorry, the reference number was wrong.

Line 284, Discussion: Which report do you mean?!.

Reply: Wording has been changed for clarity.

Lines 276-286: Author is asked to enhance the discussion section and present more explanations for the results. Also, there should be comparison with international examples of jade and nephrite like those from SE Asia and elsewhere worldwide.

Reply: I have rewritten the Discussion section. In the interests of brevity and sharp focus. I would prefer not to include references to nephrite from international localities. The basic goals of the manuscript are to identify the “Salish Sea back jade” as a variety of nephrite based on XRD and SEM.EDSA data, and to interpret the transportation processes. I am working on another manuscript that describes nephrite from bedrock sources in Washington, and that would be a more appropriate place for broad comparisons.

Line 287: Conclusions are completely missing. Author is asked to give some concluding remarks or 2-4 bullets of short conclusions. They are a must and essential requirement for publication in an international journal with good reputation like "Geosciences". Conclusions are completely missing. Author is asked to give some concluding remarks or 2-4 bullets of short conclusions. They are a must and essential requirement for publication in an international journal with good reputation like "Geosciences".

Reply: I have added a Conclusions section

Please check the updated list of the references used and consider the style of their editing using a recent copy of a MDPI article.

Reply, I will take a close look at the reference format, I have published many papers in MDPI journals, but there always a few glitches that get corrected in the final production stage. The editors are always very keen-eyed about such things.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW Geosciences-3167602_v2

Pleistocene Glacial Transport of Nephrite Jade from British Columbia, Canada to Coastal Washington State, USA

George E. Mustoe

 

Additional notes and comments:

r. 21: …; nephrite jade: ………..: “muttonfat jade”: …

r. 59: …Yakutia  [delete; this is the old administrative name for the Republic of Sakha], Sibiria

r. 59-60: There are many important for the Sibiria region Neolithic nephrite-yielding (with both green and white nephrite artifacts) sites, mainly around the Baikal Lake (also, there are possible early interactions with China in prehistoric times). Cited is an old reference with a single, not important probably Late Neolithic site with a few nephrite artifacts - see r. 398 [Semyontsov, A. A.; Dolukhanov, P. M.; Romanova, Ye. N.; Timofeyev, V. I.]

r. 75: … tribes…

r. 82: …Kunlun…

r. 98 and 100: Figure 4

r. 104 and 110: Figure 5

r. 113 and 115: Figure 6

r. 116, 122, 353: Late Pleictocene

r. 133 and 149: Figure 7

r. 135 and 153: Figure 8

r. 147 and 157: Figure 9

r. 174: Figure 7

r. 194: “black jade”

r. 202: 2.9 g/cm³.

r. 206 and 215, as well as 258: Figure 10

r. 219, 221, 225, 227, 233 and 244: Figures 11 and 12

r. 220: Figure 11-B

r. 246 and 260: Figure 13

r. 252-254: The official formula from the IMA Master List for tremolite is ☐Ca₂(Mg₅._0-4.5Fe²⁺_0.0-0.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂, for actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_4.5-2.5Fe²⁺_0.5-2.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂ and for ferro-actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_2.5-0.0Fe²⁺_2.5-5.0)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂

r. 254, 256, 258, 375: ferro-actinolite

r. 257 and 270: Figure 14

r. 266-267: “black jade”

r. 266-268: In Table 1 - in third column (N2): 42.646/5

K₂O – no data?

r. 277 and 281: Figure 15. Felted microtexture of Washington nephrite: A – backscattered electron image of polished nephrite, specimen WWU-DC-3; Felted microtexture of Washington nephrite. ((B – SEM image, nephrite specimen WWU-DC-4; C – specimen DC-4, showing partial alignment of tremolite microcrystals; D – specimen WWU-DC-2 has with randomly-ordered bladed microcrystals.

r. 278 and 286: Figure 16

r. 292, 293, 294, 301, 306, 323 – see further on proper numbers for correspondent Figures

r. 320: species

r. 330: among

r. 351: … have mineralogic copositions with mineralogical composition

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the quick response. I value your careful proofreading. I have made all of the suggested changes, which are listed below. Thanks for the suggestions for improving the reference to Russia jade.  I have added the Semypmtsov et al. reference. I have used the generally-accepted "Siberia" spelling in preference to "Sibiria", I greatly appreciate your catching the figuring numbering errors.

Thanks, George

1. 21: …; nephrite jade: ………..: “muttonfat jade”: …
2. 59: …Yakutia [delete; this is the old administrative name for the Republic of Sakha], Sibiria
3. 59-60: There are many important for the Sibiria region Neolithic nephrite-yielding (with both green and white nephrite artifacts) sites, mainly around the Baikal Lake (also, there are possible early interactions with China in prehistoric times). Cited is an old reference with a single, not important probably Late Neolithic site with a few nephrite artifacts - see r. 398 [Semyontsov, A. A.; Dolukhanov, P. M.; Romanova, Ye. N.; Timofeyev, V. I.]
4. 75: … tribes…
5. 82: …Kunlun…
6. 98 and 100: Figure 4
7. 104 and 110: Figure 5
8. 113 and 115: Figure 6
9. 116, 122, 353: Late Pleictocene
10. 133 and 149: Figure 7
11. 135 and 153: Figure 8
12. 147 and 157: Figure 9
13. 174: Figure 7
14. 194: “black jade”
15. 202: 2.9 g/cm³.
16. 206 and 215, as well as 258: Figure 10
17. 219, 221, 225, 227, 233 and 244: Figures 11 and 12
18. 220: Figure 11-B
19. 246 and 260: Figure 13
20. 252-254: The official formula from the IMA Master List for tremolite is ☐Ca₂(Mg₅._0-4.5Fe²⁺_0.0-0.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂, for actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_4.5-2.5Fe²⁺_0.5-2.5)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂ and for ferro-actinolite ☐Ca₂(Mg_2.5-0.0Fe²⁺_2.5-5.0)Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂
21. 254, 256, 258, 375: ferro-actinolite
22. 257 and 270: Figure 14
23. 266-267: “black jade”
24. 266-268: In Table 1 - in third column (N2): 42.646/5

K₂O – no data?

15. 277 and 281: Figure 15. Felted microtexture of Washington nephrite: A – backscattered electron image of polished nephrite, specimen WWU-DC-3; Felted microtexture of Washington nephrite. ((B – SEM image, nephrite specimen WWU-DC-4; C – specimen DC-4, showing partial alignment of tremolite microcrystals; D – specimen WWU-DC-2 has with randomly-ordered bladed microcrystals.
16. 278 and 286: Figure 16
17. 292, 293, 294, 301, 306, 323 – see further on proper numbers for correspondent Figures
18. 320: species
19. 330: among
20. 351: … have mineralogic copositions with mineralogical composition

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As mentioned in the first revision, a dot (.) must be deleted at the beginning of two sentences in lines 9 and 18.

For the ophiolite sequence shown in Fig. 1A, it is much better to add that it is not to scale.

Check for the green tone for all occurrences of ultramafic rocks in Fig. 2. The tone at the Mt. Stuart occurrence looks darker than the northern one, e.g. at Mt. Higgins.

Line 188: Please correct "stoiciometry" to "stoichiometry".

Lines 194, 215, 244, 291 and 360: Insert “the” before Salish Sea.

In the caption of Table 1 (line 266), please correct "back" to "black”.

K₂O content in the three analyzed black jade crystals is missing although the there are 0.2 K cations (0.18-0.19 at.%) as indicated by the middle and lower parts of Table 1. Please check for this oxide from the original output.

Line 377: Correct “mineralogic” to “mineralogical”.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok, and needs fine tuning only.

Author Response

Thanks for the careful second-round review. I have made all of the suggested changes (listed below). Your attention to detail is evident in your noticing the variations in colors used in Figure 2. I have changed the figure so that the same RGB values are used for all of the ultramafic rock areas. The missing K2O values have been added for Table 1.

Thanks, George

As mentioned in the first revision, a dot (.) must be deleted at the beginning of two sentences in lines 9 and 18.

For the ophiolite sequence shown in Fig. 1A, it is much better to add that it is not to scale.

Check for the green tone for all occurrences of ultramafic rocks in Fig. 2. The tone at the Mt. Stuart occurrence looks darker than the northern one, e.g. at Mt. Higgins.

Line 188: Please correct "stoiciometry" to "stoichiometry".

Lines 194, 215, 244, 291 and 360: Insert “the” before Salish Sea.

In the caption of Table 1 (line 266), please correct "back" to "black”.

K₂O content in the three analyzed black jade crystals is missing although the there are 0.2 K cations (0.18-0.19 at.%) as indicated by the middle and lower parts of Table 1. Please check for this oxide from the original output.

Line 377: Correct “mineralogic” to “mineralogical”.