English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It is widely assumed that mineral inclusions and their host diamonds are ‘syngenetic' in origin, which means that they formed simultaneously and from the same chemical processes. Mineral inclusions that, instead, were formed earlier with respect to diamonds are termed protogenetic. However, minerals can have the same age as the diamonds in that they become enclosed in and isolated from any further isotopic exchange. But this is termed ‘synchronous' not ‘syngenetic'. Here we demonstrate conclusively the protogenesis of inclusions in diamonds, based upon data from an exceptional fragment of a diamond-bearing peridotite, its clinopyroxene and a gem-quality diamond. Clinopyroxenes in the xenolith had the same chemistry and crystallographic orientation as those for inclusions in the diamond. With our results with garnets, olivines and sulfides, we can state that a major portion of the mineral inclusions in non-coated, monocrystalline-lithospheric diamonds are protogenetic. Our discovery here presented has implications for all genetic aspects of diamond growth, including their ages.

Mineral inclusions in diamonds may be synchronous but not syngenetic