60 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [ FEB. 1, 
The Elaeolite Syenite near Beemerville, Sussex Co., N. J. 
BY J. F. KEMP, COLUMBIA COLLEGE. 
The elaeolite syenite exposure near Beemerv ille, N. J., is of great 
interest, not alone because it is a rare and unique type of rock, but 
also because it is quite remote from any other igneous outbreak 
which is commensurate with it. Throughout the whole adjacent 
region only sedimentary and metamorphic rocks occur, with the ex- 
ception of a few subordinate basic dikes. 
Elaeolite syenites are not abundant the world over, and are only 
known in a few places on this continent. The other "American ex- 
posures are at Montreal, Canada; Litchfield, Maine; Salem and 
Marblehead, Massachusetts; and the region about Magnet Cove, 
Arkansas. The hornblende syenites described by Hawes from New 
Hampshire have also been lately shown to contain elaeolite by W. 
S. Bayley. (Geol. Soe. of America, Columbus meeting, 1891.) 
Basic dike rocks of a kind usually, found in association with elae- 
olite syenites have been recently studied by the writer on Lake 
Champlain, and it would be quite natural if an exposure should be 
found in the neighboring Adirondacks." 
Rocks with elaeolite or nepheline were announced years ago by 
Hunt? from Montreal, and Rosenbusch. speaks familiarly of the sy- 
enite in his second edition, evidently from specimens.* Mr. Lacroix‘ 
has also published a short preliminary note, and a subsequent fuller 
account which appeared in 1891.° The syenites at Montreal were 
intruded after the close of the Lower Silurian and before the Lower 
Helderberg. The elaeolite syenite at Litchfield, Maine, has received 
as yet but limited petr ographic study, and the most that has been 
adit concerns its mineralogy. OC. T. Jackson,’ J. D. Whitney,’ 
Gibbs,’ and F. W. Clarke? have written of them. The last- 
1 ee considers the sodalite as derived from elaeolite. Elaeolite 
syenite in boulders at Salem, Massachusetts, has been briefly noted 
! J. F. Kemp and V. F. Marsters, Trap Dikes of the Lake Champlain Val- 
ley, etc. Annals, N. Y. Acad. of Sci., 1891. 
27. S. Hunt, Geol. Surv. Canada, 1883, p. 665. 
3 Massige Gesteine, p. 90. 
MING Lacroix, Comptes Rendus, June 2, 1890, p. 1152. 
5 Syenite-nephelinique de Moutreal, Bull. Soc. Geol. de France, 1889-90, p. 
323. 
6 ©. T. Jackson, Cancrinite, Nepheline, Zircon, from Litchfield, Me., Proc. 
Geol. Soc., 1845, Am. Jour. Sci., ii, i, 119. 
7 J. D. Whitney, Poggendorf’s Annalen, Ixx, 431. 
8 W. Gibbs, Poggendorf’s Annalen, Ixxi, 559. 
9, W. Clarke, The Minerals of Litchfield, Me., A. J. S., iii, xxxi, 262. W. 
S. Bayley’s paper, read at the Columbus meeting G. 8. A., Christmas, 1891, 
will appear too late for comparison in this contribution. 
Se 
