PROFESSOR HEDDLE ON THE MINERALOGY OF SCOTLAND. 89 
This is an aluminous chloropheite. The specimen had been kept for several 
years, and may have lost some water. 
HULLITE. 
’ In the “ Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,” Mr HarpMan has given a 
description and analysis of a mineral from Carnmoney Hill, Antrim, which he 
names after Professor Hutt, but which possibly is merely a dessicated chloro- 
pheeite. 
Mr HarpMaN states that ‘“‘in physical characters it somewhat resembles the 
chloropheite of Maccutiocn, but is entirely different in composition.” Seeing 
that no analysis of the chlorophzeite of Maccuttocu has ever been published, it 
is not easy to account for this statement; probably the analysis by ForcHAMMER 
of the mineral from Farée was founded upon by Mr Harpmay. 
The description of the Carnmoney mineral 77 all respects agrees with the 
chloropheeite of the Giant’s Causeway. 
The analysis given is as in number 1. 
i, 2. 
Silica, , i : - 39° 437 35° 061 
Alumina, : : - dO ss geet: 
Ferric Oxide, , ; 5 202 18 421 
Ferrous Oxide, : no 099 SO Wal 
Manganous Oxide, ; trace 
Lime, . : : . 4484 3° 987 
Magnesia, . : . 7:474 6 + 645 
Water, . ‘ : 713:7628 23 + 203 
99 - 782 go 752 
Now, supposing this to be a chloropheite partially dehydrated, either 
from exposure to a warm atmosphere, or from having been carried in the waist- 
coat pocket, or dried in the bath previous to analysis,—and suppose there is 
given to it the same quantity of water which the Causeway mineral contains, 
then the analysis would stand as in No. 2. This would clearly make it chloro- 
pheite. The resemblance to this last mineral is altogether so close as to make 
it worth Mr Harpmay’s time to pick from the freshly broken rock, and secure in 
a bottle with greased stopper, a quantity of chips sufficient for a redetermination 
of the total water, and of the amount of loss at 212°. 
