Numerous classification models have been developed for kimberlites and the large textural and mineralogical variations seen in these rocks doesn't help to make the task any easier. A well known and generally accepted classification designed by Clement and Skinner (1985) can be seen below. This classification is generally accepted and is widely used. However, it is important to note here that there are genetic implications in this model. The term tuffisitic means 'formed through fluidization processes', and, as is apparent after reading section 4.0 on kimberlite emplacement models, there is still debate as to how kimberlites form.

A Textural-Genetic Classification of Kimberlites

From Clement and Skinner 1985

Facies subdivisions are determined by textural differences, many of which are mentioned in section 2.0 on kimberlite morphology. In short, distinguishing features are as follows: crater facies kimberlite is recognised by sedimentary features; diatreme facies are recognised by pelletal lapilli and other features formed during degassing (ie. paucity of volatiles); and hypabyssal facies is commonly recognised by segregationary textures and the presence of abundant calcite. The division between breccia and non-breccia terms (column two - Rock Type) is based on the volume per cent of macroscopically visible fragments. Any rock with greater than 15 volume per cent of visible fragments is termed breccia. Fragments may be accidental or cognate. Further sub-division in the third column, Macroscopic Textures, is more complex and will not be discussed here. For an explanation of the third column read Clement and Skinner, 1985.

Again, it is important to note that there is no fully accepted classification for kimberlite. The Clement and Skinner flow chart is widely used and, for this reason, is presented here.

Introduction
1.0 Kimberlite Definition
2.0 Morphology of Kimberlite
4.0 Kimberlite emplacement models