Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Mineralogical ClassificationZhonghuacerite-(Ce)

1st Nov 2005 20:59 UTCLaszlo Horvath

This is my second attempt to remove this species from the valid list. See my earlier note under validity of zhonghuacerite-(Ce)in MINDAT. Perhaps Dr. Burke can answer this question. Was there ever an IMA CNMMN number issued for this species? My information is that the mineral was never submitted to IMA CNMMN, so there should not be a number. If this is the case the species should be removed from the IMA (MDI) approved minerals list and MINDAT.

If I am missing some key information on this I would like to know.

Laszlo

1st Nov 2005 22:06 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Laszlo,

in my knowledge zhonghuacerite-(Ce) is an approved species

.

Ciao. Marco

2nd Nov 2005 13:28 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Zhonghuacerite-(Ce) does not appear to have been submitted to the IMA. The 1987 Am. Min. reference added the Levinson-type suffix to the name.

MDI-MINERAL database does list its status as "A"(approved), but also notes "Probably = kukharenkoite-(Ce)"

2nd Nov 2005 13:42 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

My version of MDI-MINERAL stated zhonghuacerite-(Ce) as approved.

Here is the "fiche":

Card 4821

Status A

2003-06

Zhonghuacerite-(Ce)

----------------------------------------------------------------

Synonym : Zhonghuacerite-(Ce), Zhonghuacerite

Formula : Ba2Ce(CO3)3F

Unit Cell : 13.365 5.097 6.638 90 106.45 90

Axial Ratio : a/b = 2,6221, c/a = 0,4967

Cell Volume : 433.6805

Space Group : P21/m (11)

XI Class : 2/m

Crystal System : Monoclinic

Strunz Class : 5.BD.10

Group : Kukharenkoite

Mohs : 4.6

SGm : 4.3

SGc : 4.7

Z : 2

Name Ref. : Zhang, Tao, 1981

Compare with : Kukharenkoite-(Ce)

ICDD Nr. : 41-1414

Appearance : Vitreous/resinous yellow

Type Locality : Bayan Obo iron mine, Baotou (Paotow), Inner Mongolia, China

d & Intensity: 3.92/8 3.419/4 3.216/10 2.512/6 2.123/3 2.103/10 1.979/10 1.638/3

Notes : Originally called zhonghuacerite. Levinson-type suffix added by CNMMN (1987). Probably = kukharenkoite-(Ce)

References : 1. American Mineralogist 67 (1982), 1078

2. European Journal of Solid State and Inorganic Chemistry 30 (1993), 207

3. Scientia Geologica Sinica (in Chinese) (1981), 195

4. American Mineralogist 72 (1987), 1031 (Appendix 2)

2nd Nov 2005 14:02 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Jim,

I think that Ernie simply forgot to cancel the note after the updating. I think...

Ciao.

Marco

2nd Nov 2005 14:37 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Jim,

see the IMA list:

http://www.geo.vu.nl/users/ima-cnmmn/IMA-list.pdf

the species is listed as A status (approved) and the reference is the "special procedure" American Mineralogist 72 (1987), 1031 (Appendix 2).

Ri-ciao. Marco

2nd Nov 2005 16:59 UTCLaszlo Horvath

My information is that the mineral was published in Chinese (Sci. Geol. Sinica, Ref #2 above) without being submitted to IMA, hence there is no IMA number. If this is the case, officially it should not exist as an approved species. The Am. Min. abstract was published without anybody checking IMA approval status. The inclusion of the species in the 1983 Glossary was based on the Am. Min. abstract. So this species has been around for more than 20 years.

Laszlo

2nd Nov 2005 17:38 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Dear Laszlo,

I think that the information in MINDAT are correct: officially zonghuacerite-(Ce) is an approved species.

They are many species that was approved by CNMMN with "special procedures" (exactly n. 340 species). Some of them was species published without submission to IMA, other are ex-grandfathered species.

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1960-s.p. 1

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1962-s.p. 77

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1966-s.p. 7

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1967-s.p. 111

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1968-s.p. 24

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1971-s.p. 16

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1972-s.p. 1

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1973-s.p. 2

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1974-s.p. 1

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1975-s.p. 1

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1977-s.p. 1

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1978-s.p. 3

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1979-s.p. 3

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1980-s.p. 22

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1982-s.p. 8

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1983-s.p. 1

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1987-s.p. 60

Special procedures CNMMN approvals: 1988-s.p. 1

Total IMA CNMMN approvals by "special procedures" 340

Privately I can pass the list to you. Zonghuacerite-(Ce) is only one of this list.

2nd Nov 2005 22:19 UTCRoy Kristiansen

Hello Laszlo,

According to the book "Mineralogy and geology of Rare earths in China" by Zhang Peishan et.al.1995 (in English) the correct ref.to zhonghuacerite-(Ce) is:

Zhan Peishan ,Tao Kejie & Li Fanghua.1981.Zhonghuacerite - a new rare earth Mineral. Acta Mineralogica Sinica, (2): 65-74 (in Chinese. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of this.

Roy

3rd Nov 2005 11:19 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

The first reference (always in Chinese) was:

Zhang, Peishan & Tao, Kejie (1981): Zhonghuacerite Ba2Ce(CO3)F - A new mineral. Scientia Geologica Sinica 1981(2), 195-196.

following by the one that Roy announced in the prevoius message.

P.S.: Also if officially zhonghuacerite-(Ce) is an approved species, I think that it is highly questionable and probably a poorly/incompletely(?) <(?) = I have not the original article> characterized kukharenkoite-(Ce) or simply the same phase. Chemical, physical and crystallographic data are very very similar.

3rd Nov 2005 11:31 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Sorry for letting you wait for some time, but I needed to check a number of things.

Zhonghuacerite was published in 1981 without having been submitted to the CNMMN. It should figure thus in the MDI database as 'non-approved', letter N.

As mentioned by other contributors, the name was changed by the CNMMN in 1987 to zhonghuacerite-(Ce).

We have thus the strange construction that we seem to have a CNMMN-approved name for a non-approved mineral.

Does zhonghuacerite exist at all? The note in the MDI database that the mineral may be kukharenkoite-(Ce) stems from the approval of that mineral (as 99-040). The authors of kukharenkoite saw similarities in chemical composition and some physical properties of their mineral with those of zhonghuacerite. They contacted the Chinese authors of that mineral, and they got as answer that 'all available material was used for previous investigations', so that a comparison of the two minerals could not be made.

It should be noted that zhonghuacerite is trigonal, and that kukharenkoite is monoclinic. The abstract of zhonghuacerite in the American Mineralogist of 1982 ends with the remark that the principal X-ray lines of zhonghuacerite are very close to those of huanghoite (a mineral approved by the CNMMN in 1967, another Ba-Ce fluocarbonate). This huanghoite is trigonal like zhonghuacerite. The chemistry of those two minerals is very similar, but there we have another problem, I quote the 1982 abstract: "Important discrepancies exist in the empirical formulas given in the Chinese original and its English abstract. The number of oxygen atoms is too high in all formulas." So, what is zhonghuacerite really?

In a relatively recent paper in Mineralogy and Petrology (Vol. 70, 2000, p. 221 ...) four different Ba-Ce fluocarbonates are described from the Bayan Obo deposit, type locality for zhonghuacerite and huanghoite: cebaite, cordylite, zhonghuacerite and huanghoite. But chemical data are given for only three of these, zhonghuacerite is only mentioned by name.

My impression would be that zhonghuacerite is identical with huanghoite, but in the absence of any material (what did the authors do with the holotype material??), this cannot be confirmed.

3rd Nov 2005 11:39 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Ohps! Sorry. The correct names of the Chinese authors should be write without comma: Zhang Peishan & Tao Kejie.

Zhang, Peishan or Zhang, P. are two incorrect forms.

3rd Nov 2005 12:09 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Effectively, also if in MINERAL and other databases zhonghuacerite-(Ce) is with monoclinic P21/m data cell: 13.365 5.097 6.638 90 106.45 90, in the original article, abstracted on Amer.Mineral. (1982), it is described as trigonal. So it is very similar to huangoite-(Ce), instead of kukharenkoite-(Ce).

In exceptional cases such as of zhonghuacerite-(Ce), horsfordite, etc. (no holotype, no material, etc.) perhaps that a good solution is to add, to the CNMMN protocoll rule for the discreditations of the species, the possibility that, on demand of the President of the Commission, the cases are voted by the members.

3rd Nov 2005 13:09 UTCJolyon

I have marked Zhonghuacerite-(ce) as Not Approved

Jolyon

3rd Nov 2005 13:25 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Jolyon,

for the IMA CNMMN it is approved . So officially it is approved. You can add in the note the message of Prof. Burke (of course, with his OK).

Ciao.

Marco

3rd Nov 2005 13:42 UTCJolyon

Marco,

That's not my understanding of what Ernst wrote above - which is that Zhonghuacerite-(Ce) was never officially approved, and that the IMA database is incorrect and needs updating to set it to "N".

I'm going to leave it as "Not Approved" for now.

Jolyon

3rd Nov 2005 16:19 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Jolyon, you are right: the mineral was not approved, only the name was approved. There is a difference between mineral and name. Even a non-approved mineral can and should be be named correctly!

3rd Nov 2005 16:33 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

So the IMA list is only a list of mineral names and not of minerals?

The presentation of the list says:

".......

Minerals presented include those voted as “approved” (A), “redefined or renamed” (R) and “discredited” (D) species by the CNMMN as well as a number of former mineral names the CNMMN decided would better be used as group names (g). Their abbreviated symbol appears at the left margin."

It is more correct to specify that for zhonguacerite-(Ce) there is a mistake or a little difference (only name approved), because for all other cases there are the minerals thaw was approved and not only the names. I think...

3rd Nov 2005 17:34 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Oh no, I am afraid that anybody may find similar or other mistakes in that list. After all, nobody is perfect!

3rd Nov 2005 18:02 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Errare umanun est.

With sincere sympathy, Marco

5th Nov 2005 01:15 UTCMarcelo Machado Brum

Hello,friends!

Traduction of the name zhonghuacerite-(Ce):"cerium mineral of China".The status of it species is nebulous for me and in my apointments are labeled non-clear staus of aproved mineral.

Are other minerals with identical problem?

Thanks.

6th Nov 2005 17:09 UTCLaszlo Horvath

I am delighted that we are making some changes to the status of this mineral which has been around for such a long time and nagging me personally. I thank Prof. Burke and all the contributors to this subject who took the time and interest in helping to sort this out.

The connection to kukharenkoite-(Ce) originated with the early recognition of similarity and comparison of UK65 from Mont St-Hilaire and St-Amable to "zhonghuacerite-(Ce)." Dr. Chao who worked on UK65, tried to obtain a sample of "zhonghuacerite-(Ce)" for comparison without success. He was reluctant to submit UK65 as a new species without having a chance compare the two species. He was also the reviewer of "zhonghuacerite-(Ce)" for the Am.Min. abstract. Later "zhonghuacerite-(Ce)" was identified from Khibiny and this name appeared in some publications. I even purchased a specimen of this mineral from a reputable source. Eventually it was recognized that the Khibiny and later Vuorijarvi mineral was the same as UK65 which became the new species kukharenkoite-(Ce).

Laszlo

9th Nov 2005 02:05 UTCJeffrey de Fourestier

I am intrigued by the debate. In preparation for my Glossary I had to deal with this issue and my research at the time, including contact with the CNMMN brought me to the conclusion that it had never been approved by the CNMMN and was essentially Kukharenkoite.

That was in 1999.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 25, 2024 09:03:52

Go to top of page