The Comment by Kostrovitsky & Yakovlev aims to demonstrate that Abersteiner et al. (2018) ‘presented erroneous statements regarding the genesis’ of the mineralogically and geochemically unique Serpentine-Free Udachnaya-East (SFUE) kimberlite (Russia) as it contradicts the views presented by Kostrovitsky et al. (2013). Furthermore, these authors reassert that ‘the supposition that surfaces salts and sulphates represent the main source for Na–Cl–S mineralization of kimberlites with unaltered olivine (Kostrovitsky et al., 2013) is still valid’ and ‘the mantle origin of salts is doubtful’. Numerous hypotheses are presented in both Kostrovitsky & Yakovlev (Comment) and Kostrovitsky et al. (2013) advocating a crustal brine origin for salts in the SFUE kimberlite. However, we find these interpretations to be poorly substantiated by empirical evidence and often contradictory. It is, therefore, important to revisit the earlier publication by Kostrovitsky et al. (2013) that is used to support the Comment by Kostrovitsky & Yakovlev. Here we address some of the erroneous and contradictory points presented by Kostrovitsky et al. (2013), which render their interpretations tenuous and misleading:

• Presence of evaporites in country rocks: Kostrovitsky et al. (2013) contradict themselves by suggesting that evaporites in the country rocks are both present and absent at the Udachnaya-East kimberlite. These authors stated that the Udachnaya-East kimberlite ‘does not intersect massive evaporites’ (p. 77), but later claimed that ‘…the highest (8 vol %) abundance of halite is restricted to depth levels of southern diatremes (Mir, Udachnaya, and International’naya) where they cut through halite-rich evaporite’, (p. 84) and ‘The absence of all textural types of serpentine in SFUE kimberlite is easily explained by the model of the evaporite country rock contamination’ (p. 88). The published and unpublished reports for parametric and geotechnical drill holes [figures 1 and 2 of Kamenetsky et al. (2014)] showed no evidence of sedimentary evaporite beds in or around the Udachnaya-East kimberlite.
• The composition of the putative kimberlite melt: The composition of the melt that is supposedly parental to Udachnaya-East was suggested by Kostrovitsky et al. (2013) to have resulted from ‘assimilation of evaporite xenoliths at relatively high, magmatic temperatures producing hybrid melt with elevated contents of Na, K, Cl, and S ‘, (p.88) and that ‘the hybrid residual kimberlite that digested evaporite xenoliths had lower H₂O activity due to increased halogen and alkali abundances’ (p. 88). However, these authors also stated that ‘the contents of H₂O, Na₂O, and, by inference, the mode of halite are thus controlled only by the spatial position of the kimberlite specimen, rather than by the composition of the kimberlite melt’. Again, Kostrovitsky et al. (2013) did not present a consistent view as to whether salt was controlled by assimilation of alleged ‘evaporites’ or by the spatial position of the kimberlite rock.
• Primary versus secondary enrichment in Na and Cl: (Kostrovitsky et al., 2013) again presented conflicting views on the origin of Na and Cl mineralisation. On the one hand, these authors considered Na and Cl to be primary magmatic: ‘Na-rich kimberlite compositions are not solely restricted to unserpentinized kimberlites and that groundmass serpentine does not replace primary alkali- and chlorine-bearing minerals’. (p. 84), and ‘… alkali-, sulfur-, and chlorine-rich minerals may have crystallized from this late hybrid melt and may be “comagmatic” with kimberlite’ (p.88), but on the other hand they pushed for their secondary origin: ‘the strongest evidence for the secondary origin of Na-, Cl-, and S-rich minerals in the Udachnaya-East kimberlite … is the regional correlation between the geology and hydrogeology of the local country rocks and the mineralogy of Yakutian kimberlites’ (p.86).

中文翻译：

---

对Kostrovitsky，S.和Yakovlev，D.关于“地壳污染是否涉及无蛇纹的Udachnaya-East Kimberlite形成的评论”的答复。Abersteiner等人的《关于父母融解，液相线集合和变迁效应的新见解》。（J.岩石学，59，1467–1492，2018）

Kostrovitsky和Yakovlev的评论旨在证明Abersteiner等人的观点。（2018）'提出了关于矿物学和地球化学独特的无蛇纹石的乌达奇纳亚-东部（SFUE）金伯利岩（俄罗斯）的成因的错误陈述，因为它与Kostrovitsky等人的观点相矛盾。（2013）。此外，这些作者重申“表面盐和硫酸盐是橄榄石未变的金伯利岩Na–Cl–S矿化的主要来源的假设（Kostrovitsky等，2013）仍然有效”，“盐的地幔来源是疑'。Kostrovitsky和Yakovlev（评论）和Kostrovitsky等人均提出了许多假设。（2013年）提倡在SFUE金伯利岩中形成盐的地壳盐水。但是，我们发现这些解释缺乏经验证据的证实，而且常常是矛盾的。因此，重要的是重新审视Kostrovitsky等人的早期出版物。（2013），用于支持Kostrovitsky和Yakovlev的评论。在这里，我们解决了Kostrovitsky等人提出的一些错误和矛盾的观点。（2013），这使他们的解释含糊不清，并具有误导性：

• 乡村岩石中存在蒸发岩：Kostrovitsky等。（2013年）通过暗示在Udachnaya-East金伯利岩中同时存在和不存在乡村岩石中的蒸发物来自相矛盾。这些作者指出，Udachnaya-East金伯利岩“不与大量蒸发岩相交”（第77页），但后来声称“……最高（8体积％）的盐岩丰度仅限于南部diatremes的深度水平（Mir，Udachnaya） （第84页）和“ SFUE金伯利岩中没有所有质地类型的蛇纹石的存在，可以通过蒸发岩乡村岩石污染模型很容易地得到解释”（第84页）。 88）。参数化和岩土钻孔的已发布和未发布的报告[Kamenetsky的图1和图2等。（2014）]没有显示Udachnaya-East金伯利岩或其周围有沉积蒸发岩床的证据。
• 推测的金伯利岩熔体的组成：Kostrovitsky等人提出了据认为是Udachnaya-East的母体的熔体组成。（2013年）是由于“蒸发岩异岩在较高的岩浆温度下同化而产生的混合熔体，其中Na，K，Cl和S的含量升高”（第88页），以及“消化了蒸发岩的混合残余金伯利岩”由于卤素和碱的丰度增加，异种石料的H ₂ O活性较低（第88页）。但是，这些作者还指出，“ H ₂ O，Na ₂的含量O，并且据此推断，仅通过金伯利岩标本的空间位置而不是金伯利岩熔体的成分来控制盐岩的模式。同样，Kostrovitsky等。（2013年）对于盐是通过吸收所谓的“蒸发物”还是通过金伯利岩岩石的空间位置来控制，并没有给出一致的看法。
• Na和Cl的一级富集与二级富集：（Kostrovitsky等。（2013年）再次提出了关于钠和氯矿化成因的相互矛盾的观点。一方面，这些作者认为Na和Cl是主要的岩浆岩：“富含Na的金伯利岩成分不仅限于未经蛇纹石化的金伯利岩，而且地面蛇纹石不能代替主要的含碱和含氯矿物”。（第84页），以及“…富含碱，硫和氯的矿物可能已从这种晚期混合熔体中结晶出来，并可能与金伯利岩“交融””（第88页），但另一方面，它们推动了其次要起源：“ Udachnaya-East金伯利岩中富含Na，Cl和S的矿物次生起源的最有力证据……是当地乡村岩石的地质和水文地质与该地区矿物学之间的区域相关性。雅库特（Yakutian）金伯利岩（第86页）。