The classification adopted by geologists is based on the fossil remains and on the stratigraphical position of clays relative to other rocks, as described in [Chapter II]. This is of great value for some purposes, but the composition of the substances termed 'clay' by geologists differs so greatly, even when only one formation is considered, as to make their classification of little or no use where the value or worthlessness of the material depends upon its composition. Thus the so-called Oxford clay ranges from a hard silicious shale to a comparatively pure clay; some portions of it are so contaminated with calcareous and ferruginous matter as to make the material quite useless for the potter or clayworker. A geological classification of clays is chiefly of value as indicating probable origins, impurities and certain physical properties; but the limits of composition and general characteristics are so wide as to make it of very limited usefulness.
The classification of clays on a basis of chemical composition is rendered of comparatively little value by the large number of clays which occupy ill-defined borders between the more clearly marked classes. Moreover, attempts to predict the value and uses of clays from their chemical composition are generally so misleading as to be worse than useless, unless a knowledge of some of the physical characters of the clays is available. It is, of course, possible to differentiate some clays from others by their composition, but not with sufficient accuracy to permit of definite and accurate classification.
A classification based exclusively on the composition of clays is equally unsatisfactory for other reasons, the chief of which is the placing together of clays of widely differing physical character, and the separation of clays capable of being used for a particular purpose. To some extent the latter objection may be disregarded, though it is of great importance in considering the commercial value of a clay.
Classification based on the uses of clays of different kinds has been suggested by several eminent ceramists, but is obviously unsatisfactory, particularly as it is by no means uncommon to use mixtures of clays and other minerals for some purposes. Thus stoneware clays must be vitrifiable under conditions which may be defined with sufficient accuracy, but many manufacturers of stoneware do not use clays which are naturally vitrifiable; they employ a mixture of refractory clay and other minerals to obtain the material they require.
A classification based on the origin of clays regarded from the petrological point of view offers some advantages, but is too cumbersome for ordinary purposes and suffers from the disadvantage that the origin of some important clays is by no means clearly known.
The author prefers a modification of Grimsley's and Grout's classification ([31]) as follows:
I. Primary clays.
(a) Clays produced by 'weathering' silicates—as some kaolins.
(b) Clays produced by lateritic action—very rich in alumina, some of which is apparently in a free state.
(c) Clays produced by telluric water containing active gases (hypogenically formed clays)—as Cornish china clay.