Testing Specific Gravity: Hydrogrossular Garnet or Chalcedony?

Three weeks ago I found a stone on Gemstone Beach that could be a hydrogrossular garnet. But perhaps it could be chalcedony instead. It had a rough coating that sometimes is seen on chalcedony. Although chalcedony is rare on Gemstone Beach, I have found a piece nearby (at McCracken’s Rest). However, the stone has a faint green hue that is often seen in hydrogrossular and it feels especially heavy, another characteristic of hydrogrossular. In our recent book on Gemstone Beach, I included in the hydrogrossular section an example of a similar stone (page 23, stone #44) which Nick Mortimer noted could instead be chalcedony. Having seen how Michelle Harrington had tested some Gemstone Beach stones recently for their specific gravity, I decided to do this myself to see if it would throw light on what my find might be.

TESTING FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY

I don’t fully understand all the physics involved, but I followed this displaced water procedure: I weighed the dry stone on a good digital scale that gives measures to the gram, then dangled it in water using cotton without touching the bottom or sides of the container, measuring the increase in the weight of the container and water that resulted. The dry weight is then divided by the displaced water weight to give the specific gravity. This is more fully explained in this video:

***

THE SIX STONES TESTED FOR THEIR SPECIFIC GRAVITY

I weighed six stones:

Stone A is the recently-found stone in question and stone B is stone #44 from page 23 in the book (found on Gemstone Beach in April 2023) – both could be either hydrogrossular or chalcedony:

Stones C and D are hydrogrossular garnets I found on Gemstone Beach – stone C was found in March 2022 and stone D was found on 26 February 2021:  

Stone E is another Gemstone Beach stone that I suspect is vesuvianite (also known as idocrase) which appears in the book on page 23 as stone #43:

Vesuvianite frequently looks similar to hydrogrossular garnet, shares a similar crystal structure, and often grows in the same metamorphic rock environments alongside grossular garnet (What is Vesuvianite). It is said to have a vitreous and resinous lustre (Mindat), which characterises stone E and sets it apart from the hydrogrossular garnets I tested. And Stone F is a piece of botryoidal chalcedony that I had found near Moeraki village a few years ago – see the entry for Day 20, Monday 8 March 2021 in this Post. It is the purest piece of chalcedony in my collection.

The specific gravity of chalcedony is standardised at 2.6 (see Mindat). As I noted when describing Michelle’s testing, there are conflicting views on the specific gravity of hydrogrossular garnet.

WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF HYDROGROSSULAR GARNET?

Wikipedia gives hydrogrossular’s secific gravity as 4.15 but a lot of other sources give it more around 3.5. For a while I considered the specific gravity of similar garnet varieties. When you look for hydrogrossular in Mindat, you find the following in the hibschite entry: “Hibschite is now an informal intermediate composition in the Grossular-Katoite Series, mostly previously known as hydrogrossular”. The specific gravity of hibschite is given there as 3.06-3.25 while the specific gravity in Mindat of katoite is calculated as 3.013. AlexStrekeisen notes that hydrogrossular is at the grossular end of the grossular-katoite series and Mindat gives grossular garnet’s specific gravity as 3.6. These observations place hydrogrossular as much closer to 3.5 than 4.15.

Then I dug a little deeper into Wikipedia’s view of hydrogrossular’s specific gravity. It notes that its source is the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) – I searched for the GIA Gem Reference Guide and was able to access it here.  Making my way through an attack of pop-up ads, found that the specific gravity of hydrogrossular is recorded as 3.47 (so I don’t know where Wikipedia got 4.15). I also found an article on the GIA website that had analysed two bangles claiming to be jadeite but proved to be hydrogrossular, their specific gravity being determined as 3.42 and 3.45 – using the Reference Guide figure.  When I asked Google for hydrogrossular’s specific gravity, its AI Overview stated: “The specific gravity of hydrogrossular garnet typically ranges from 3.35 to 3.55 (with broader or mineralogical reference ranges spanning from 3.25 to 4.15 depending on the exact degree of hydroxyl (OH) substitution for silica [SiO₄]).” I have checked the references given for the AI Overview but did not find what any that could be referred to as “mineralogical sources”. I have consulted a number of my general texts on rocks and minerals and they don’t refer to hydrogrossular though they have entries for grossular garnet which agreeing on 3.6. 

In conclusion, I believe we can say that the specific gravity of hydrogrossular garnet is certainly greater than that of chalcedony and could be expected to be around 3.5. Of course, the presence of other minerals in a stone can make the specific gravity a little higher or lower. 

TESTING RESULTS

My testing calculated the botryoidal chalcedony (labelled F) to have a specific gravity of 2.57 – dry weight was 54 grams and water displacement was 21 grams. So it is pratically spot on what we would expect for chalcedony. The two hydrogrossular garnets labelled C and D respectively had specific gravities of 3.5 (dry=144 grams, water displacement=41 grams) and 3.36 (dry=205 grams, water displacement=61 grams) – both noticeably higher than the chalcedony and very close to what is expected for hydrogrossular. My recent find (labelled A) has a dry weight of 386 grams and water displacement of 113 grams, giving a specific gravity of 3.42, demonstrating it is not chalcedony and showing a consistency with hydrogrossular (though of course not providing that as a certain identification). Stone B, with similar visual characteristics to stone A, turned out to have a specific gravity of 3.48 (dry=80 grams, water displacement=23 grams), very similar to that of stone A, meaning it too is not chalcedony. Stone E, which I suspect to be vesuvianite, has a specific gravity of 3.5 (dry = 95 grams, water displacement=27 grams) – Mindat records its specific gravity as 3.32-3.43, just a tad lower than hydrogrossular.

Taking everything into account (including its visual characteristics and weight), I am now happy that my recent find, and others similar to it from Gemstone Beach, is highly likely to be hydrogrossular garnet. 

September 2026 Book Launch Trip – Part 13, Thirty Minutes at Kakanui Beach Road Reserve, Wednesday Morning 23 September

After my time at Seadown Beach this morning, I drove north to Kakanui Beach Road Reserve, arriving at 8.30am. This Reserve lies three kilometres from the southern end of Seadown Beach, all of it one long stretch of beach uniterrupted by rock outcrops. The road is closed just past the Reserve, probably due to coastal erosion. I visited the area a number of years ago but found few stones. 

Sand dominates the beach in this area. However, I walked north about 100 metres to a small stream and found some interesting stones exposed on its bed.

Below are featured seven of my finds from the stream bed. Probably the most interesting was this large hematite jasper. It was partially covered in green algae which I cleaned off before taking these photos:

Another very interesting stone, very dark in colour, with great detail:

Four of the common local quartzites found in the stream:

Finally, lots of quartz in this stone:    

In the afternoon, I returned to Seadown Beach when the tide was much higher (Post not yet available). An Index to all the Posts in this Series is here. 

Newsletter Article: “Fifteen Minerals First Identified in New Zealand – and the Ambiguity of Hydrogrossular Garnet”

I have written a number of Reviews for “StoneSpeak”, the Newsletter of the Southland Geological and Lapidary Club. An Index to them can be found here. For the most recent (October 2026) edition of “StoneSpeak”, I contributed this piece which is more of an Article than a Review. It is a revision and expansion of a Blog Post “What is Hydrogrossular’s Place Among the Thirteen Minerals First Described From New Zealand?” that I wrote seven years ago (which contains photos of all of the first 13 minerals, if you’re interested). The version of the Newsletter Article that I have posted below has also been slightly edited, especially the second of the two paragraphs on hydrogrossular garnet, and a number of photos have been added. The Southland Club’s website is here and its Facebook Page is here.     

As someone who spends time on Gemstone Beach, I have become very interested in hydrogrossular garnets. It takes a while to learn to identify these heavy shiny waxy stones, especially to distinguish them from quartz. Hydrogrossular garnet turns out to have an interesting New Zealand-related history, as I found out while doing research on it. Hydrogrossular garnet was first identified as being a variation of grossular garnet by Colin Hutton in the 1940s. Hutton, from Dunedin, worked for the New Zealand Geological Survey as a mineralogist. During World War Two, he examined a lot of geological material from South Island beaches, identifying a number of rare minerals, including the radioactive thorium mineral that was later named huttonite. He also identified the mineral hydrogrossular garnet as a major constituent of a Nelson rock that had been named rodingite after the Roding River in that region. See here for an account of Hutton’s life.     

A mineral is usually defined as a naturally occurring, inorganic solid substance that has a fixed chemical composition and an ordered internal atomic structure. To put it another way, a mineral is an element or a chemical compound that is normally crystalline and that has been formed as a result of geological processes. Every mineral has a “type locality”, the specific place where it was first discovered, defined, and scientifically documented. However it can usually be found elsewhere as well and often in greater amounts. The International Mineralogical Association (IMA), founded in 1958, keeps a list of over 6,230 officially-recognised minerals compiled by its Commission on New Minerals, Names and Classification.

In the course of my research on hydrogrossular garnet, I came across Simon Nathan’s article in Te Ara, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, outlining 13 minerals that had their type localities in New Zealand, having first been identified here. Simon Nathan (photo below, second row) started out as a geologist and became a science administrator before he started to write about the history of New Zealand science. One of his books is “Harold Wellman, A Man Who Moved New Zealand” (2005). Wellman, who died in 1999, was a geologist who in 1940 first identified the South Island’s Alpine Fault, partly due to the similarity of rocks in Southland and Nelson on either side of the faultline. Nathan also published “James Hector: Explorer, Scientist, Leader” (2015). In the 1860s, Hector (photo below), a Scotsman, was the first geologist to examine the rocks of Otago and Southland, exploring and mapping a huge area. He moved to Wellington to set up the New Zealand Geological Survey and Colonial Museum in 1865. As well as writing these and other books, Simon Nathan between 2004 and 2007 assisted with the science content of Te Ara, producing over 200 articles for it. One of those was on the minerals first identified in New Zealand, from which the following information is mainly taken. I have also added two more, for reasons set out at the end.

Of the 13 minerals that Nathan lists as first identified in New Zealand, seven of them have been named after a New Zealand place or region. First, “taranakite” is a fine-grained cream-coloured phosphate first described in 1865 by James Hector (NZ’s leading scientist at the time) and William Skey (an analytical chemist). It was named after the Province of Taranaki as it was first found on small islands near New Plymouth. Second, “awaruite” is a natural nickel-iron alloy, first described in 1885 by William Skey. It had been obtained from gold miners south of Haast on the West Coast of the South Island, around the Gorge River, and was named after nearby Awarua (also known as Big Bay). It was by electron micro-probe analysis of awaruite in the 1960s that another mineral, “wairauite”, was identified. This was announced in 1964 by two mineralogists who worked in the Department of Mineralogy and Petrology at the University of Cambridge, England. It is a natural cobalt-iron alloy and is the first mineral in New Zealand discovered by electron micro-probe analysis. Wairauite occurs as microscopic, scattered grains in serpentinite, often alongside awaruite, the grains rarely exceeding 5 microns (0.005 millimetres), so electron micro-probe is the only way to see it. It is named wairauite as the grains initially analysed were found in the Red Hills serpentinites of the Wairau Valley in Marlborough.

To now go back to the 1930s for the discovery of another mineral named after a New Zealand place: “Tuhualite”, a violet crystal that is unique to New Zealand (photo below), was first identified by geologist Patrick Marshall (photo also below) in 1932. He had found it on Tuhua/Mayor Island in the Bay of Plenty, its only source. The next mineral was identified in the 1950s. “Wairakite” is a colourless to white crystal found in geothermal environments. A zeolite, it was discovered and named in 1955 by Alfred Steiner, a pioneer geothermal scientist originally from Czechoslovakia. He had found it while examining hydrothermally altered drill cores at Wairākei. Sixth, “akatoreite”, a fibrous yellow-orange to orange-brown mineral, was recognised by Peter Read and Tony Reay (geologists from Carleton University and the University of Otago respectively). It is a previously unknown manganese silicate mineral. They reported in their 1971 publication that the mineral was found in a manganese-rich patch of chert and carbonate on the South Otago coast, three kilometres south of the mouth of the Akatore Creek, about 12 kilometres east of Milton.   

In 1941, John Bartrum, a Professor of Geology, came across an unusual mineral on Motukorea/Browns Island in the Waitematā Harbour, that he called “beach limestone”. What eventually became “motukoreaite”, our sixth mineral, is a poorly cemented fine-grained calcareous rock. It was not officially described and named as motukoreaite until 1977 in an article in “Mineralogical Magazine”. It occurs as a boxwork of tiny crystals, each about 3 microns (0.003 millimetres) across. The crystals are semi-transparent and are white, pale yellow, pale yellow-green, or colourless. Wikipedia notes that a study in 1989 suggested that motukoreaite is a common, widely occurring mineral arising from the alteration of basaltic glass to calcite.   

Two of Nathan’s 13 minerals first identified in New Zealand are named after people. First, “huttonite” (photo below) is a radioactive cream–coloured crystal, first discovered in beach sands from the West Coast by Colin Hutton in the 1940s who sent it to Adolf Pabst, an American mineralogist, to analyse. It was first described in publication in 1951 by Pabst who named it in honour of Hutton. It is most prevalent in the sand at Gillespies Beach, near Fox Glacier. Second, “coombsite” in 1991 was named in honour of Douglas Coombs, Professor of Geology at the University of Otago. This mineral consists of tiny brownish-yellow fibrous crystals. They were found in brown patchy aggregates from a small area of manganese-rich rock at Watsons Beach on the South Otago coast (only about 3.5 kilometres south of where akatoreite is found). Two Japanese mineralogists, Teruhiko Sameshima and Yosuke Kawachi, discovered this new manganese mineral and described it in 1991. Coombsite is very rare and has been found in only three localities worldwide, in New Zealand, Brazil and Romania.   

The remaining four of Nathan’s list of minerals first identified in New Zealand are named after what they consist of. First, “hydrogrossular garnet” is a variation of the calcium-rich grossular garnet. The presence of water and thus hydroxide in its chemical make-up led to its name. The 1943 article in which Hutton announced its discovery can be found here. Interestingly, hydrogrossular garnet does not appear in the International Mineralogical Association’s official list of minerals. This was so unexpected to me that I checked it a number of times, even looking at previous versions of the official list. I could access the list going back to the 1960s but it did not appear even then. It took me a while to work out the reasons for its omission.

It turns out that, under the IMA’s rules, hydrogrossular is classified as a series name or variety name for a type of grossular garnet, rather than a unique mineral species. It needs to be noted at this point that minerals can often be described as solid solutions with varying compositions of some of their chemical constituents, rather than as substances with an exact chemical formula. There are often two “end-members” in a group or series of minerals – these are minerals at the extreme ends of the mineral series in terms of the purity of their chemical composition (Wikipedia). Hydrogrossular garnet is considered to lie between two officially recognised end-members of a garnet series, grossular garnet and katoite. As AlexStrekeisen puts it, “Hydrogrossular is a general term for OH-bearing garnet compositions from the grossular-dominant portion of the grossular-katoite series.” This does not mean that hydrogrossular does not exist as a mineral – rather its chemical composition is viewed as only a very minor variation of grossular garnet, failing to qualify as a separate mineral under IMA’s rules. A technical discussion of this can be found in a 2013 article in “American Mineralogist” titled “Nomenclature of the Garnet Supergroup”, see especially the “Hydrogarnets” section on page 790.  Nevertheless, the term “hydrogrossular” is informally in common use in a consistent way, including in petrology, mineralogy and gemology, and does refer to a specific mineral composition closely related to grossular garnet.      

“Feruvite” is a mineral that is part of the uvite group, and as it is rich in iron (iron’s symbol being Fe), it was named feruvite. It is a dark brownish-black iron-rich variety of tourmaline found in a coarse-grained granitic rock on Repanga/Cuvier Island which is located 23 kilometres south-east of Great Barrier Island. Philippa Black from the University of Auckland had noted the occurrence of an iron-rich tourmaline on Cuvier in 1971. She later provided specimens to Joel Grice and George Robinson of the National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, who found they contained this previously unknown mineral. Grice and Robinson published their discovery in 1989.    

“Ferroceladonite” and “Ferroaluminoceladonite” were discovered in the 1990s when crystals from the Hokonui hills, east of Gore, were analysed by electron micro-probe. Previously the crystals had been identified as celadonite, a well-known mica group mineral found in altered volcanic rocks. However, the micro-probe analysis revealed two new minerals, their crystals being extremely small, only 1 to 2 microns thick. Ferroceladonite is clay-like, usually green, and includes fine coatings and powdery masses. It was named for its ferrous content and its relation to celadonite. Ferroaluminoceladonite is also reported to be usually green in colour though sometimes an off-white, is described as earthy, and its name reflects the significance of the presence of aluminium.   

I have gone through the latest official list of minerals and have discovered two more New Zealand-origin ones that Simon Nathan didn’t note – a very old one, “taenite”, and a very new one, “waipouaite”. Taenite (see photo below left) is an alloy of iron and nickel found naturally on Earth but mainly in iron meteorites. It is opaque with a metallic greyish to white colour. Its name is derived from the Greek word for “band” as it sometimes is found in meteorites in bands interleaving with another mineral. It was originally described in an 1861 German-language article by Carl von Reichenbach (photo below), a German chemist, geologist, metallurgist, and industrialist with an interest in iron, magnetism, and meteorites, among many other things. The type locality for taenite is recorded as Gorge River in Westland. Von Reichenbach had contacts with Austrian geologist Ferdinand von Hochstetter, who conducted the first systematic geological surveys of New Zealand in 1858–1859 – that may have been the source of his taenite samples.  

Waipouaite (above right) is a rare mineral noted in 2020 but not officially described until 2024, notable as the first natural “polyoxovanado silicate” ever discovered. It forms as tiny glassy dark olive-green to nearly black prismatic crystals. It was found in Aranga Quarry (also known as Stone’s Quarry or Hood Road Quarry) in Aranga in the Kaipara District, and is named after the local Waipoua Basalt formation which provides its host rock. Because of their unique and highly complex molecular architectures with industrial applications, synthetic polyoxovanadates have been heavily researched. Now waipouaite has proved for the first time that these molecular architectures can naturally form under specific geological conditions. I don’t understand any of the details of such matters, but it’s interesting to know that New Zealand geology has provided something like this.

The next Article in this Series is not yet available. The Series Index is here.      

September 2026 Book Launch Trip – Part 12, An Early Morning Visit to Seadown Beach, Kakanui, Wednesday 23 September

On Tuesday I drove from the south coast of Southland to Kakanui in North Otago. I stopped off at Dunedin to meet Nick Mortimer, the geologist who provided comments on the final draft of “What’s This Stone? A Photographic Collection of Finds from Gemstone Beach”. I stayed that night at a crib/bach/holiday home in Kakanui village that I booked through Booking.com.

It was 7am on Wednesday morning when I arrived at Kakanui’s Seadown Beach, just a few minutes after low tide. My aim was to get access to the rocks at the south end of the beach while the tide was out. It was only five degrees with a light wind blowing though the sun was out, sitting low in the sky. On the way there, I had noticed at least a dozen cars parked at the bridge over the Kakanui River, whitebaiters who had risen even earlier than myself. I found that at least a metre of sand had been moved from the rocks at the south end of Seadown Beach, making access easier than usual, though I did not find much of interest among the scattered stones there during my 90 minutes on the beach. I did come across a couple of large quartzite rocks, one of which appears in the photos below. The close-up image shows what is sometimes called fingernail marks on its surface.

This was probably one of my most unproductive fossicks here. However, here are eight stones I collected this morning. Two of them are what is called limonite prase, a type of brown jasper often with black markings:    

One of the gorgeous yellow/orange quartzites common on this beach:

I thought this stone might also be a quartzite but it has unusual white flecks in it – it’s probably a variation:

Interesting dark red jaspers can also be found here – see the entry for Saturday 22 May 2021 in this Post. This morning I found this small brecciated one with quartz veins:

I picked up this lemon coloured quartz:

This dark stone with circular (sphericular) features is one I’ve seen two or three times before and I know it occurs further north, near Timaru, as well:

Finally, even though it is not a stone for tumble polishing. I sometimes pick up a specimen of Kakanui Mineral Breccia, like this one – which contains green and dark red crystals, the former probably chrome diopside and the latter probably garnet:

Kakanui Mineral Breccia is a rare, mineral-rich fragmental volcanic rock formed approximately 34 million years ago when ascending magma interacted violently with water in an underwater volcanic vent. It has attracted international geological attention. For more information, see this Post.

After my time at Seadown Beach, I drove a couple of kilometres north to Beach Road Reserve for a brief fossick. An Index to all the Posts in this Series is here. 

September 2026 Book Launch Trip – Part 11, Last Visit to Gemstone Beach, Monday 21 September

This afternoon I spent two-and-a-quarter hours on Gemstone Beach with fellow rockhound Chrissy and her dog Ohla. We arrived just over an hour before low tide, easily avoiding the recent high levels of waves coming up the beach. At the start, the weather was the best of any day during my current trip, it being sunny with temperatures being around 17 degrees though with some wind. There were three cars in the car park when we arrived and a handful of people on the beach, one person being as far down as the Waimeamea River. We ourselves also made it to the Waimeamea though rain started coming down shortly after that. Halfway back to the car park, the wind came up, almost to gale strength, and the accompanying rain might have included some hail. The temperature dropped quickly to eight degrees. We were buffetted, cold and very wet during the last 400 metres or so.

But the stones were worth it. I saw a lot of trace fossil stones, quite a few interesting patterned stones, and the odd hydrogrossular garnet and poppy jasper. Below features 19 of my finds.

This find had the most interesting looking texture:

A stone with circular features in it – I have found two or three of these before on Gemstone Beach but am unsure of its identification:

A colourful breccia ( a stone consisting of angular, not rounded, fragments):

A different kind of breccia:

Sometimes I think this next kind of stone is also a breccia, consisting mainly of quartz plus epidote with maybe a little feldspar – but it could instead be a cluster of crystals:

An igneous stone with white crystals plus some intriguing orange circular features: 

Two different igneous stones with white crystals, probably diorite with feldspar crystals – the second one seems to include two different variations distinguished by the size and number of the white crystals:

A nice brown hydrogrossular garnet:

This is my favourite kind of poppy jasper: 

This second and much smaller small poppy jasper has small widely-spaced orbs/spheres and its silvery-grey hematite shows through well between them:

The following were among the diverse trace fossils in argillite stones I picked up. This first one has a large raised trace on one side while its other side is very different, seeming to contain many small faint traces:

Well defined slightly-raised traces: 

A long solitary trace: 

A faint but nevertheless recognisable trace:     

My favourite of today’s trace fossil stones, containing a couple of obvious large traces, some small traces, and three or four large faint traces – there’s a lot going on here:     

This the smallest of my trace fossil finds is also a favourite because its clearly defined traces cover around half of its surface:

When I saw this next stone, a red one, I wondered initially if it might be a breccia of some kind but close inspection of especially the longest of the lighter-coloured fragments (down its centre section) strongly suggests there are trace fossils too:    

Finally, I wonder whether the little central feature in this stone could be a trace fossil – it’s very unusual and shaped like some trace fossils I have seen:      

So it’s farewell to Gemstone Beach once again, my next fossick taking place on my drive north, at Kakanui’s Seadown Beach. An Index to all the Posts in this Series is here.

September 2026 Book Launch Trip – Part 10, A Solitary Fossick on Gemstone Beach, Friday 18 September

Note: This Post (and the rest of the Posts in this Series) is being published more than two weeks after it took place due to other things taking up my time recently.

Yesterday, on Thursday, I had a quick visit to Gemstone Beach in the late afternoon with my brother-in-law Ray. Unfortunately, the conditions were not good at all, with the waves coming high up the beach, the temperatures being cold, and rain starting to come down. 

There were a few other visitors there, and there were exposed stones in front of the car park. But we did not stay long, only a few minutes.

I returned to Gemstone Beach on the Friday, arriving earlier in the day at 11am when the tide was a lot lower. The only other person on the beach was one of the local part-time gold miners. The temperature was about 10 degrees with a cold wind and the occasional spot of rain but I was wearing warm waterproof clothing. I made it down to the Waimeamea River which was flowing out to the sea over the beach, preventing further progress.

 I was on the beach for just over two hours, and found a number of very interesting stones. Fourteen of them are featured below.

The most unusual and intriguing find today is this small stone – I don’t know what it is but find its complex texture attractive:

I collected three small poppy jaspers. The following are images of three sides of the first of them:

This is the smallest of the three but with well-formed “poppies”:     

The third one has the smallest “poppies”:

Poppy jaspers are composed of orbs or spheres, with the two terms used interchangeably, as in Mindat: “Orbicular Jasper is a name given to a highly silicified rhyolite or tuff that has quartz and feldspar crystallized into radial aggregates of needle-like crystals, forming orbicular (spherical) structures.” As Geologyscience puts it: “Orbicular jasper is a variety of jasper, a type of chalcedony, known for its distinctive orb-like patterns. These patterns can vary in size, color, and arrangement, creating unique and visually striking stones. Orbicular jasper often displays concentric circles, spherical shapes, or irregular spots resembling orbs, hence the name ‘orbicular’.” Some of the “poppies” in poppy jaspers I find on Gemstone Beach are tiny and don’t seem to have any internal structure – I tend to think of these as orbs. Other stones have “poppies” which seem to have a centre, sometimes of a different hue, and tiny radial lines, as in these three stones above – I tend to think of these as spheres. However, this distinction between orbs and spheres may just be my own concoction.

The next four stones are ones with hydrogrossular garnet in them. They all have the waxy feel associated with this type of stone. The first is the most translucent of the four, with a tint of grey, a few dark lines and some dark-coloured diopside crystals in it:   

The second is also at the more translucent end of the spectrum: 

The third is much more opaque, a nice orange colour:

The fourth has an interesting black and white character, and I lingered longest over its identification, wondering if it might instead be a form of quartz but deciding hydrogrossular garnet was the more likely:

Three argillite stones with well-defined trace fossils:

A banded argillite with an unusual top:

A stone that could be rhodonite, with its purplish-pink and black colouring:

This looks like it could be rhyolite:    

My next fossick will be the final one I undertake at Gemstone Beach this month. An Index to all the Posts in this Series is here.