Mindat Logo
bannerbannerbannerbanner
Welcome!

Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?

Posted by Bela Feher  
Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 13, 2008 09:54AM
Sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferro-anthophyllite, sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite, sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite. All these amphiboles have A (approved) IMA status according to the IMA/CNMNC list of mineral species (http://pubsites.uws.edu.au/ima-cnmnc/MINERALlist.pdf) and MINDAT (although sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite are missing in MINDAT). I could not find any mineralogical descriptions or at least chemical analyses of these amphiboles in the literature. Can anybody help me?
Thanks, Bela
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 13, 2008 10:53AM
Hi Bela,
there are some mineral names that are approved (only name approved). They are amphiboles and they was approved by the previous Amphibole Subcommittee, 1997.
If all data in my database are correct also the following "minerals" are only semi-approved (in my database status S for "semi-approved"):

S Aluminobarroisite
S Alumino-ferrobarroisite
S Alumino-ferrotschermakite
S Aluminokatophorite
S Aluminotschermakite
S Cannilloite
S Clinoferriholmquistite
S Clinoferroholmquistite
S Ferribarroisite
S Ferri-ferrotschermakite
S Ferritschermakite
S Ferro-eckermannite
S Ferroleakeite
S Ferronybøite
S Ferrowinchite
S Ottoliniite
S Pedrizite
S Permanganogrunerite
S Potassic-aluminosadanagaite
S Potassichastingsite
S Sodic-ferropedrizite
S Sodicpedrizite

Probably the present Amphibole Subcommittee sort out the problem.
Ciao. Marco
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 13, 2008 11:00AM
I can't see how these can be regarded as valid mineral species. There are plenty of other theoretical end members that have not yet been found in nature which don't have valid species status.

Maybe there needs to be a distinction between an approved NAME and an approved mineral species.

The name could be approved when talking about amphibole compositions (if that's really necessary, why not just talk about them in terms of chemical composition), but NOT as a valid species.

No specimen = no species in my mind.
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 13, 2008 01:29PM
I have pictures of three of these
Aluminotschermakite - [www.mindat.org]
Ferri-ferrotschermakite = Ferro-ferritschermakte - [www.mindat.org]
Ferro-eckermannite - [www.mindat.org]

I would be appreciative if someone can straighten out this mess - the problem is more general, in that species get redefined, and garner an 'approved' status, without ever having a formal description
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 13, 2008 03:03PM
Type descriptions are inexistent, but a part of the "minerals" listed were found in nature (EPMA results). I sent some specimens to Giancarlo Della Ventura and/or Roberta Oberti that are members of the new Amphibole Subcommittee.
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 13, 2008 08:43PM
    
Bela,

you can find analytical data on sodicgedrite and sodic-ferrigedrite and other Amphiboles in:

Deer, Howie, Zussmann (1997): Rock-forming minerals, Volume 2B, Double-chain Silicates, second edition, Geological Society, London.

Christof
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 06:38AM
Following is my information about the six amphiboles queried by Bela:

Sodicanthophyllite: Name approved by the IMA (Can. Mineral. 35 (1997), 219, but no description published yet.

Sodic-ferro-anthophyllite: ditto

Sodic-ferrogedrite: Name also approved in 1997. A description of a mineral that corresponds to the definition of this species can be found in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), Table 2, analysis 17.

Sodic gedrite: Name also approved in 1997. A description of a mineral that corresponds to the definition of this species can be found in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), Table 2, analyses 13, 14 and 16.

Sodic-ferropedrizite: Name approved by IMA as IMA 1998-061. Full description published in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578.

Sodicpedrizite: Name approved by IMA (Can. Mineral. 41 (2003), 1355, but no description published yet.

Cheers, Ernie...
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 06:54AM
From the Marco list I have Ferroeckermannite, Ferronyböite, Ferrowinchite and Potassichastingsite from 4 different dealers and one expert. Are they all false specimens?
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 08:25AM
Hans Kloster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the Marco list I have Ferroeckermannite,
> Ferronyböite, Ferrowinchite and
> Potassichastingsite from 4 different dealers and
> one expert. Are they all false specimens?

Probably not. Perhaps that they are valid... but it is not so easy correctly characterize and normalize the amphiboles.
Ernst A.J. Burke
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 08:45AM
Oh, these amphiboles and their names!
Ernie, the amphibole with IMA no. 98-061 published in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578-585 is NOT sodic-ferropedrizite, BUT sodic-ferripedrizite.
All six sodic amphiboles mentioned by Bela (sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferroanthophyllite, sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite, sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite) are theoretical end members which were given a name in amphibole nomenclature reports.
The qualification "semi-approved" as used by Marco is a bit misleading, only a name has been given in case of their appearance some day; "theoretical" would be a better qualification until that time.
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 10:11AM
Ernst A.J. Burke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, these amphiboles and their names!
> Ernie, the amphibole with IMA no. 98-061 published
> in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578-585 is NOT
> sodic-ferropedrizite, BUT sodic-ferripedrizite.
> All six sodic amphiboles mentioned by Bela
> (sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferroanthophyllite,
> sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite,
> sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite) are
> theoretical end members which were given a name in
> amphibole nomenclature reports.
> The qualification "semi-approved" as used by Marco
> is a bit misleading, only a name has been given in
> case of their appearance some day; "theoretical"
> would be a better qualification until that time.


OK, I agree with "theoretical end member". Thanks Ernst.
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 12:17PM
Thank you for the answers. I totally agree with Jolyon that there needs to be a distinction between an approved name (if only the name is approved!) and an approved mineral species. I will check Ernie's data in DHZ.
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 01:14PM
    
We do have a mindat IMA classification of "hypothetical" which should be used for these types of approved names where natural material has not been found.
avatar Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 14, 2008 08:29PM
Yes Dave I think that it is a good solution: the unique difference is that the name, in these cases, was regularly approved.
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 15, 2008 12:45AM
I agree with David that the status "H" (for "hypothetical") should be applied to mineral names that have been approved but for which no descriptions have been published, and I will do this in my working database. Eventually this will show up in the IMA list and in the version of MINERAL distributed by MDI. In the meantime I will compile a list of such mineral names and send them to Jim Ferraiolo in the expectation that he will make the necessary status changes in Mindat.

Thanks for the correction, Ernst. Sodic-ferropedrizite is another of the approved names without a published description, hereafter with "H" status.

Cheers, Ernie...
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 15, 2008 01:04AM
Hans:

I can give you a bit of information about the 4 amphiboles in your message:

Ferronyböite: Description not yet published; status "H".

Ferro-eckermanite: Description in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), vol. 2B, Table 31, analysis 6.

Ferrowinchite: Description in DHZ, 1st ed., vol. 2 (1963), p. 352.

Potassichastingsite: Description in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), vol. 2B, Table 15


Cheers, Ernie...
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 15, 2008 01:24AM
With regard to my previous message, I must point out that the name nybøite and its various derivatives should be written with the alphabetical symbol "ø", not "ö", as reported in the recent paper by Ernst Burke in Min. Rec. 39 (2008), 131-135.

Ernie...
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 15, 2008 11:26AM
    
Ernie's list has been added or corrected.
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 17, 2008 06:46PM
    
Note that Mindat has the option to choose "hypothetical" as IMA approval status.
[Sorry David: just seen you had mentioned that already in a prior posting.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2008 06:13PM by Uwe Kolitsch.
Re: Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?
October 18, 2008 07:55PM
Aluminotschermakite is one of Uwe's "semi-approved" amphiboles. It is also IMA-approved and you might expect it to therefore be a "hypothetical" species. However, amphibole with the composition of aluminotschermakite is reported in Zenk & Schultz 2004 Zoned Ca-amphiboles and related P-T evolution in metabasites from the classic Barrovian metamorphic zones of Scotland. Min. Mag. 68, 769-786.
As far as I know this "species" has never been formally described - so what is it? - "semi-approved", "hypothetical", "confirmed species" or something else?
With the amphibole group also host to "named species" (Burke & Leake 2005 Amer Mineral. 90, 516-517), perhaps it should have this status?

I'm also aware of published data for aluminokatophorite and ferrowinchite.

In my mind "hypothetical" means "not found in nature" - so how can "species" like "potassichastingsite" (data reported in DH&Z) be given H status?
Author:

Your Email:


Subject:


Attachments:
  • Valid attachments: jpg, gif, png, pdf
  • No file can be larger than 1000 KB
  • 3 more file(s) can be attached to this message

Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
CAPTCHA
Message:
Mineral and/or Locality  
Search Google  
Copyright © Jolyon Ralph and Ida Chau 1993-2014. Site Map. Locality, mineral & photograph data are the copyright of the individuals who submitted them. Site hosted & developed by Jolyon Ralph. Mindat.org is an online information resource dedicated to providing free mineralogical information to all. Mindat relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Mindat does not offer minerals for sale. If you would like to add information to improve the quality of our database, then click here to register.
Current server date and time: September 17, 2014 15:35:04
Mineral and Locality Search
Mineral:
and/or Locality:
Options
Fade toolbar when not in focusFix toolbar to bottom of page
Hide Social Media Links
Slideshow frame delay seconds