Pseudotachylite, first described by Lapworth (1885) and Clough (1888) and named by Shand (1916), refers to a dark colored glassy rock apparently resembling the volcanic glass tachylite. These rocks are formed along domains of high momentary strain such as fault planes or at large meteorite impact sites. Such instantaneous high strain rate leads to localized high heat generation and flow whereby the rocks in the immediate vicinity undergo frictional melting followed by rapid quenching. The quickly congealed dark colored glassy material along the fault is called fault vein whereas the veins of pseudotachylite generated at high angles to the fault plane are called injection veins. Although pseudotachylites are normally associated with brittle faulting regime (Jeffreys, 1942; Sibson, 1975; Grocott, 1981; Pas chier et al., 1990; Maddock, 1983; 1992; Spray, 1985) or meteorite impact (Shand, 1916; Thompson and Spray, 1994), they can also develop in domains of rock ductility and crystal plastic deformation where local strain hardening can lead to sudden failure, fracturing and localized melting (Sibson, 1980; Passchier, 1982; Maddock, 1992; Takagi et al, 2000; Roy et al, 2008; Mahapatro et al., 2009). Such pseudotachylites in ductile domains are subsequently mylonitized and it is generally difficult to identify them after moderate to intense deformation and recrystallization. Local melting and pseudotachylite development may also be associated with large landslides (Masch et al, 1985; Legros et al, 2000).
A problem with pseudotachylite identification is the fact that pseudotachylite, as well as ultramylonite, microbreccia and microcataclasite are all extremely fine grained, dark colored rocks and are frequently associated with each other. Also pseudotachylites tend to get crystallized/ devitrified and easily altered. Passchier (1982) and Krikpatrick and Rowe (2013) have provided a number of criteria to differentiate pseudotachylites from other ultrafine deformation related rocks or to identify recrystallized equivalents of pseudotachylites. The following is a list of criteria that may help in identification of pseudotachylite:
Ultracataclasites may also appear dark and near aphanatic with flow bands of different compositions formed due to differences in degree of communion of minerals (rheology dependent) or due to subsequent mylonitization of the cataclasite (fig 8.1m). Observations under higher magnifications (SEM) help in identification of cataclastic texture at submicroscopic scale. Also the size distribution of crushed rock fragments vs frequency of occurrence of different size fractions in pseudotachylite follow the ‘modified power distribution law’ which is different from the pattern observed in cases of microbrecciation (Behera et al., 2017; Morozov et al, 2019). Similarly rounding factors of the clasts can be calculated (Behera et al., 2017). Lin (1999) has documented that roundness < 0.4 are indicative of cataclastic crushing (fig 8.1L) while roundness > 0.4 is suggestive of melting origin pseudotachylte
Psedotachylites that are later subjected to mylonitization will yield to crystal plasticity in the clasts but the degree of internal deformation will be much less than the host mylonites. Also biotite preferred orientation are generally developed in such mylonitized pseudotachylites. Metamorphosed pseudotachylites may be identifiable as long as degree of alteration or metamorphism is low. Due to their higher proportion of ferromagnesian and calcic components, the minerals developed in pseudotachylite veins will initially be different from the surrounding rocks and the vein shapes may still be discernible. However with progressive metamorphism, the chemical gradient between the melt-vein and adjoining rocks will tend to homogenize the system ultimately obliterating the vein itself