654 



Blake — Solving Crystal Problems. 



Fig. 3. 



• 

 b' 



• 



• • • ft, 



• • 



• ••,•• • 





h 



V 





O'A. t 

 <j» 0^ 







91 » 



• 



s 



e?0 e^T«eX 

 ,• •, 



0€/v 



r 





// \ \\ \v 



y 





A>- 



s6h / 



° /*"' W\aV\a' «£ 









\ 



• o 'is m/ 



^ 



• 





0^ 



A 



• 



> 



• 



s 



/ 



O'A. 5 



• • 



eJi e\P eK e'A. «> 

 • • • • • • 



e? 6 



• 



• 

 • 



• • • • 



•V 



• • •„ • 

 h% «•-'*• b^ V 



• • 



8* 



• 



► , ,• « 



c 

 • « 



9' 



9' 



• 

 9 X 



A 





V Yvw. 





A 



• o'/j- \ 

 0'A| d \ 





^ 



\b'A- i a ' M 





sti 



W 



* h\ 





^\ 





/i 





\ 



/ e ^ 



X 



u b'/n a ' h l'f H v 



• 9 • • • 





„'efe 





eX 



9' 



• • • ♦ ♦ 



• • • •» • 



eh e\-peK e k < 



9' 



9' 



00*% 



• or 1 w» # ^ #>n 0o j 

 S • •OH. •& 



---44 



e% 



1% 



^s 



/£ 



• • 

 b' V 



S^ 



ejK 



<*/*• 



i 





\e\ 



Fig. 3. Orthoclase. 



second one has a more rectangular outline. This is a 

 remarkable showing when we take into account that the 

 two projections were made nearly ninety degrees apart, 

 and that the two similar figures result from different 

 sets of normal contacts made with the two widely sep- 



