This document discusses various classifications of ore deposits that have been proposed over time. It describes six major classifications: Niggli (1929), Schneiderhöhn (1941), Lindgren (1913, revised 1933, modified 1968), Bateman (1942, revised 1950, revised 1979), Stanton (1972), and Guilbert and Park (1986). The classifications vary in their criteria but most are based on the nature of the ore-bearing fluid, origin, environment of formation, or process of deposition. The purpose is to group deposits with similar characteristics to better understand their genesis and aid in exploration. No single classification is perfect as deposits can have complex origins and classifications are subject to revision.

2. CONTENTS
 Introduction
 Niggli’s classification of ore deposits
 Schneiderhohn’s classification of ore
deposits
 Lindgren’s classification of ore deposits
 Lindgren’s classification of ore deposits
modified 1985
 Bateman classification of ore deposits
 Stanton classification of ore deposits
Guilbert and park classification of ore
deposits
 Conclusion
 Reference

3. INTRODUCTION
 The purpose of any classification is to group similar objects
into classes or sets either for convenience, organization ,
or access , as in a collection ,a library , or a computer data
base , or for the purpose of learning more about the
items being classified .
 The study of ore deposits through the last century has
required and still requires the examination of great
numbers and many types of mineral districts and the
recording of their similarities and differences .Grouping
together deposits with similar characteristics facilitates
description, permits generalizations concerning genesis
and ore controls and location, and improves our
collective abilities for exploration

4. Descriptive classifications could be very tedious, as each ore body has its
own unique properties! Classifications based on the morphology of the
ore body could be quite useful, but have a tendency to mix apples with
oranges (two ore bodies of similar shapes may be very different in type
of ore, texture, origin, temperature of formation… etc.).
Classifications based on the type of commodity are of little use in
exploration; they are more useful for economists than geologists. Genetic
classifications have always been the most fascinating, and genetic
models have been used extensively in the past as a basis for
classification. However, genetic classifications are very dangerous, as
they assume that we know the origin of the ore deposit, which, in many
cases, we don’t! They are also subject to change as scientists revise their
models for the genesis of an ore deposit. This leaves us with using the
“environment” of the ore body or its “geologic setting” as perhaps the
best criterion for the classification of ore bodies.

5. Classifications vary, and in general
they depend on one or more of the
following criteria:
•Descriptive
•Morphology
•Commodity
•Genetic
•Environment

6. The purpose of classifying mineral deposits is to group them into a small
number of types having certain features in common.
•Classifications of mineral deposits
should propose generalizations about the origin and
should be applicable in field descriptions of deposits
• Since Middle Ages (that is since the time of Agricola), several classifications of
mineral deposits have been proposed.
The significant criteria used in these classifications were:
morphology or form of deposit (shape, size, attitude),
origin or source of ore-bearing fluid (magmatic: plutonic/volcanic, meteoric,
commodity content (Cu, Pb-Zn, Au-Ag, etc.),
environment of formation or physical-chemical conditions (temperature,
pressure, place of deposition: deep/shallow, host rocks, etc.),
processes of deposition (open space filling, replacement, crystal settling,
liquid immiscibility, evaporation, etc.)

7. Six classifications are worth mentioning.
•Niggli (1929)
•Schneiderhöhn (1941)
•Lindgren (1913, revised 1933, modified 1968)
•Bateman (1942, revised 1950, revised 1979)
•Stanton (1972)
•Guilbert and Park (1986)
•Niggli (1929) and Schneiderhöhn (1941) classifications have
historical significance.
•Lindgren (1913, revised 1933, modified 1968) classification is
still the most important genetical classification.
•Bateman (1942, revised 1950, revised 1979), Stanton (1972),
and Guilbert and Park (1986) classifications are easier to use in
field studies.

8. Niggli Classification
•Niggli considered only mineral deposits related to magmatic
processes
•The deposits formed under high temperature-high pressure, deep-
seated conditions are termed as plutonic, or intrusive; and the
deposits formed under low temperature-low pressure, near-surface
conditions are termed as volcanic, or extrusive.
•Plutonic deposits are divided into
orthomagmatic,
pneumatolytic to pegmatitic, and
hydrothermal deposits.
Here, the criterion is the nature of the ore-bearing fluid: magma, gases
or fluids under high pressure, or aqueous solutions.
•Each group is further subdivided according to metal content and
mineral associations.

9. Niggli Classification
I. PLUTONIC, OR INTRUSIVE
A.Orthomagmatic
1.Diamond, platinum-chromium
2. Titanium-iron-nickel-copper
a. Iron-nickel-copper senideulfide/ars
b. Titanium-iron oxide
B.Pneumatolytic To Pegmatitic
1.Heavy metals - phophorus - titanium
a. Copper-lead-zinc
b. Tourmaline-rutile
2.Silicon-alkali metals-fluorine-boron-tin-molybdenum-
tungsten
3. Tourmaline-quartz

10. C.Hydrothermal
1.Iron-copper-gold-arsenic
2. Lead-zinc-silver
3. Nickel-cobalt-arsenic-silver
4. Carbonates-oxides-sulfates-fluorides
II.VOLCANIC, OR EXTRUSIVE
A.Tin-silver-bismuth
B. Heavy metals
C. Gold-silver
D. Antimony-mercury
E. Native copper
F. Subaquatic-volcanic and biochemical deposits

11. Schneiderhöhn Classification
•Schneiderhöhn also considered only mineral deposits related
to magmatic processes.
•Four main classes are recognized depending on the nature of
the ore-bearing fluids:
intrusive and liquid-magmatic (magma),
pneumatolytic (gases under high temperature-pressure
conditions),
hydrothermal (aqueous solutions), and
exhalation (gases and hot springs).
•Further subdivisions were made according to deep-seated
versus near-surface conditions, mineral associations, type of
deposition, host rock or gangue minerals.

12. Schneiderhöhn Classification
I. INTRUSIVE AND LIQUID-MAGMATIC DEPOSITS
II. PNEUMATOLYTIC DEPOSITS
A. Pegmatiti veins
B. Pneumatolytic veins and impregnations
C. Contact pneumatolytic replacements
III. HYDROTHERMAL DEPOSITS
A. Gold and silver associations
B. Pyrite and copper associations
C. Lead-silver-zinc associations
D. Silver-cobalt-nickel-bismuth-uranium associations
E. Tin-silver-tungsten-bismuth associations
F. Antimony-mercury-arsenic-selenium associations
G. Nonsulfide associations (Iron-manganese-magnesium
oxide/carbonate)
H. Nonmetallic associations (Fluorite-barite-quartz)
IV. EXHALATION DEPOSITS

13. Lindgren Classification
•Lindgren considered all types of mineral deposits, not only those related to magmatic
processes.
•Primary subdivision is into chemical and mechanical processes of concentration.
•Chemical processes are divided into groups according to place of deposition of minerals:
Deposits formed in magmas
 magmatic segregation deposits and
 pegmatites.
•Deposits formed in bodies of rocks are
volcanic exhalations (sublimates, fumarolic deposits),
igneous metamorphic deposits (contact metamorphic, contact metasomatic,
hypothermal in carbonate rocks),
hydrothermal deposits (hypothermal, mesothermal, epithermal, telethermal,
xenothermal),
metamorphic deposits
chemical weathering deposits.
•Deposits formed in bodies of surface waters are termed as
chemical sedimentary deposits (chemical precipitates),
evaporates,
volcanogenic.

14. Bateman’s Classification
•Bateman also considered all types of mineral
deposits.
•His classification is a simplified version of
Lindgren's, but subdivisions are according to
processes of deposition and form of deposit.

15. Stanton Classification
•Stanton considered only metallic mineral
deposits.
•The primary subdivision is according to
associated host rocks.
•Then, each group is subdivided using
metallic associations.

16. Guilbert and Park Classification
•Guilbert and Park considered all types of
mineral deposits (Table 6.6). The primary
subdivision is two-fold:
according to the associated host rocks for
deposits related to magmatic rocks; and
according to the process of deposition for
other deposits.

17. CONCLUSIONS
•Formation of mineral deposits is a complex process, and most of the
processes grade into each other by changing variables of the system such as
temperature, pressure, host rock, fluid composition.
•Thus the classifications of mineral deposits should be flexible, and should
allow gradations or intermediate classes.
•Niggli, Schneiderhöhn, Lindgren, and Bateman classifications are essentially
similar; genesis or nature of the ore-bearing fluid is the basis of the primary
subdivision in all of them.
•Niggli and Schneiderhöhn classifications include subdivisions for mineral-
associations or metal content of the deposits. So, they may be used in the
field.
•Lindgren tried to place physical and chemical processes in depth-
temperature zones.
•Bateman classification is the simplest; it emphasizes the process of
formation and the form of the deposit.

18. BIBLIOGRAPHY
John M. Guilbert , The Geology of Ore deposits
Bateman A .M , 1950 . Economic mineral deposits
New York ; wiley , 961 pp.
Buddington, A.F., 1935. High –temperature mineral
associations .at shallow to moderate depths .
Econ.geol. 30:205-222.
Clark L.A, 1960 . The Fe –As-s system ; phase relations
. Eco. Geol. : 55:1345-1381-1631-1652.

19. THANK YOU