Winchite and the actinolite–glaucophane miscibility gap
Leake et al.1 have recently emphasized the apparent scarcity of winchite s.l., NaCa(Mg, Fe2+)4(Al, Fe3+) [Si8O22/(OH)2] (ref. 2), an amphibole intermediate in composition between the glaucophane–riebeckite series of high-pressure blueschists and the tremolite–actinolite series of lower-pressure greenschists. The rarity of winchite is considered consistent with the existence of a miscibility gap3,4 between these two amphibole series at the metamorphic P–T conditions normally attained in nature. Here we present optical and X-ray properties of Mg- and Al-rich winchite from Venezuela and draw attention to several other recent winchite analyses. In fact, as Schliestedt's5 new data on co-existing sodic and calcic amphiboles in blueschists show, only the present Mg–Al-rich winchite definitely lies within the above miscibility gap.
Comparison of the Mineralogy and Phase Relations of Blueschists from the North Cascades, Washington, and Greenschists from Otago, New Zealand
Blueschists of the Shuksan unit can be related to greenschists from Otago by the following general reaction:

crossite + epidote = albite + actinolite + iron oxide + H 2 O
Greenschists within the Shuksan unit lack sufficient ferric iron to develop sodic amphibole. Ferric-iron–rich greenschists in Otago contain iron oxide rather than sodic amphibole. Complete solid solution between sodic amphibole and actinolite is observed, and zoning in this composition range is common. Gradation from actinolite core to sodic amphibole rim is interpreted, from the observed phase relations, to represent growth during decreasing T/P; and rims of actinolite over sodic amphibole, growth during increasing T/P. The composition of sodic amphibole is related to the mineral assemblage in which it occurs, as well as to the physical conditions of metamorphism. Invariant and univariant compositions of sodic amphibole are defined for assemblages containing quartz + albite + epidote + muscovite plus combinations of chlorite, stilpnomelane, magnetite, and hematite.
Italian Influence on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism
THIS ARTICLE TRIES to show that the rise of Calvinist scholasticism, which was the most important development in Calvinist theology during the second half of the sixteenth century, stemmed largely from several converging Italian influences, particularly from the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi. Here Calvinist theology refers not only to the personal thought of John Calvin but also to the teachings of the founders of the Reformed or Calvinist tradition as it spread out from Geneva and Switzerland to France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland, and the Low Countries. In this context Calvin emerges as the brightest star in a galaxy of Reformed theologians which includes Heinrich Bullinger, Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza and Wolfgang Musculus as well as Martyr, Zanchi and others. These theologians were often more influential than Calvin himself at a given place or time or on a given point of doctrine. Bullinger, Martyr, and Martin Bucer were all more important for spreading Calvinist ideas to Edwardian England than was John Calvin. Early Elizabethan Protestantism looked more to Zurich than to Geneva, as did early Polish Calvinism. German Calvinism owed more to Heidelberg than to Geneva.' These leaders developed their theologies sometimes in mutual dependence, sometimes with surprising independence. By no means was their relation to Calvin simply that of disciple to master, for each gave a personal nuance to his style of Calvinism. Thus the sixteenth century Jesuit Cornelius Schulting states on the opening page of his five volume polemic against Calvin and Peter Martyr that Martyr was clearer and far more learned than Calvin.2 Recently John Bray has pointed out that research in seventeenth century Calvinism leads "to the conclusion that the impact of Calvin upon the Calvinistic movement has been greatly over-rated. It may well be that some of