Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Mineralogical ClassificationSecret Mineral Names:WHY?

9th Mar 2007 23:41 UTCArmand Dutroux

Hello,friends

In my search for new minerals I found in a great site of mineral dealers a behavior in my sense not good.I cited the examples:

IMA#2006-31: Langban, Varmland, Sweden

A NEW SPECIES from this prolific locality, occurring here as

isolated, water-clear platelets from 1mm to 2mm across with very

strong adamantine luster, typically in calcite/hausmannite

matrix. Formula:

+xMg4.5<(Si,Al)5O14>(BO3)(BO3,AsO4)(CO3)(OH,O)7, with x <0.5,

triclinic, IMA # 2006-031.

Named for a specialist in mineralogy of

carbonatite and skarn deposits and meteorites(=WHO IS THE VERY IMPORTANT PERSON?)

Type locality

material, offered here as small grains in <2mm matrix specimens

Name supplied with our label upon purchase!=NOT GOOD BEHAVIOR,I BELIEVE

IMA#2006-014: Qinglong, Quizhou Province, PR China

This NEW SPECIES occurs as tiny brownish single grains without

matrix, here from the type locality, of course. Formula: (Na,K)3(Sb2O3)3(SbS)2*3H2O, hexagonal, IMA # 2006-014. This is analyzed material from the author, only a few <1mm specimens available

Name supplied with our label upon purchase!(=AGAIN,WHY THE MINERAL NAME REMAIN NOT PUBLISHED?

IMA#2006-033: Kirovskii Mine, Khibiny, Kola, Russia

This NEW SPECIES occurs as excellent, water-clear, micro

prismatic crystals up to 3mm tall well scattered in radiating

groups and clusters nicely perched on matrix. Many are doubly

terminated and highly vitreous, often sitting among well formed

natrolite crystals, some with minute but perfect clusters of

ilmenite as well. Formula: BaCa2(CO3)2F2, orthorhombic, IMA

#2006-033. The mineral is also nicely fluorescent pinkish orange

under SW UV,

and is named for a Russian amateur mineralogist and professional miner. =WHY THE FEAR ABOUT THE PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OF MINERAL CITED HERE?

Type locality, of course, for this new structural type (space

group Cmcm) remotely related to carbonates of the aragonite

group. Well crystallized, fine micro's and fluorescent as well:

what could be better for a new species? Specimens range from

about 2cm to 4cm across

WHAT IS THE MOTIVES FOR THE NON-PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OF IT MINERALS?

AFTER A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT UNPUBLISHED MINERALS,A NEW PROBLEM ARISED:THE CONFIDENTIAL NAMES OF MINERALS FOR ONLY THE HAPPY BUYERS...

I REGRETT IT PRATICE.NOT A SCIENTIFIC,ONLY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE...

THANKS.

10th Mar 2007 00:43 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Armand,

according to the IMA rules the authors have the right/duty not to publish the names of the new approved species before the publication of the type-description.

The IMA CNMNC strictly reccommend the respect of this rule.

10th Mar 2007 01:05 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Marco, I had understood this rule in the opposite sense: that ONLY the authors have the right to release the name before publication; i.e they can do it or not, as they choose, but the custom is that no one else other than the author can do it before the author does.

Armand, If a dealer releases the name, it is usually because the author of the species told the dealer when he sold the specimens to the dealer. In that case the name is already released by the author and can then be used by other people. (Or not used by other people, as they wish.)

There have been occasions when academics have gotten annoyed when other scientists have sold specimens before publication, but there are economic realities that must be dealt with. Most of the new species on sale come from countries where a mineralogist might earn only us$ 300-400 a month - not enough to survive. The mineralogists who occasionally complain about such commerce generally come from countries where mineralogists earn us$ 4,000 - 8,000 per month.

With regard to secrecy, I don't like secrecy any more than you do, Armand. Science generally benefits by rapid, transparent and open exchange of information, and suffers when information is not freely and rapidly distributed. But in the case of the dealer you refer to in your post, his current policy of secrecy is not done for purely commercial reasons, but rather as a reaction to criticism he received last year for publishing names in his catalogue before the authors had published them (although of course he had the permission of the authors to do so). So now he doesn't publish the names in the catalogue and... criticism again! Can't win.

10th Mar 2007 01:30 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

Armand,

Ottensite was published in the Mineralogical Record, January February 2007 issue, Vol. 38 Number 1 pages 77 - 81, Ottensite a New Mineral from Qinglong, Guizhou Province, China. The authors were Jifi Sejkore and Jaroslav Hyrsl.

10th Mar 2007 01:58 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Podlesnoite is also already here in Mindat.

Armand, sometimes you can find a mineral name by putting the IMA number into the mineral search box here at the bottom of the page.

10th Mar 2007 02:46 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Alfredo and Marco,

The actual 'guideline' given in each "New Minerals Approved" publication is "The names of these approved species are considered confidential information until the authors have published their description or released information themselves."

10th Mar 2007 03:40 UTCAlan Plante

I think Alfredo hit the nail on the head in this particular case: The dealer got "a slap on the wrist" for using the names of new species before they were "officially" published - so now he doesn't post them at his website (which he used to do). Curiously, the fact that the describers of the species gave him the names to use didn't seem to deflect the ire of the people who gave him a hard time about it.

I deplore the secrecy, too. - But I have to side with the dealer in this case. If he can't use new mineral names - even though they are given to him by the describers - before the "official" publication of the descriptions without being taken to task for it, then I can't say as I blame him for refusing to post them on his website.

Of course now he is getting the backlash from his new policy. Sounds like a no-win situation to me: He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't!

I think if I were in his shoes, I'd tell the whole lot of us to take a hike and close my doors - or at least stop supplying species which haven't been published yet. (And someone would be sure to take me to task for THAT, as well... :~} )

Alan

10th Mar 2007 08:38 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Jim Ferraiolo Wrote:

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

> Alfredo and Marco,

>

> The actual 'guideline' given in each "New Minerals

> Approved" publication is "The names of these

> approved species are considered confidential

> information until the authors have published their

> description or released information themselves."

Yes Jim, I know. My reply to Armand was rather speedy...

All the names of the minerals posted in the Armand message are known (and are in mindat): IMA 2006-031 is britvinite; IMA 2006-014 is ottensite (published see above); and IMA 2006-033 is podlesnoite.

Ciao. Marco

22nd Mar 2007 21:37 UTCTony Nikischer 🌟 Manager

A belated reply to Armand's observation about NOT using a newly approved species name in our catalogs: As was accurately pointed out by Alfredo Petrov and others, we (and several scientists) took a fair amount of heat from third parties about using newly approved species names (yes, with author's permission) prior to formal publication of the species.

And that heat resulted from an unauthorized use of one of our private communications, subsequently quoted and posted here on MinDat. It initiated a long discussion about new mineral name use, and it created considerable, unwarranted difficulty for a number of scientists. We are not talking about un-approved, ficticious or simply proposed species names here, nor are we talking about unauthorized "theft" of intellectual property, just approved mineral names that are pending formal publication that have been used with author's permission!

So, to protect our suppliers in the scientific community from future bureaucratic acrimony, we decided to not release new mineral names to the general public via our publically accessible website. Yes, we still use the names in confidential communications, but it was a confidential communication that was broadcast to the world here some months ago (by we-all-know-who!) that precipitated the whole incident. Now, we plainly label our privately distributed catalogs as "Confidential" to reinforce the message. It is, indeed, our own way of stopping unauthorized distribution of mineral names and descriptions outside of those we entrust with the information that has been given to us. If someone betrays our trust, we simply dump them from our confidential list and effectively withhold any further information from them. It is both a just and elegant reaction to an earlier over-reaction, I think. (And it gives me great pleasure to note that some are now demanding that we put this information back on our website!)

4th Apr 2007 01:32 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I personally think the rule should be simple. If the author wants to keep the name secret, he shouldn't tell anyone.

If he starts telling people (except those involved in the direct process of approval and publication), then he should not be surprised/upset if the information leaks out into the big wide world.

None of this is the fault of the dealers. It's the fault of the authors who release the names early.

Having said that, I personally think you should have a policy of either releasing the name or not using it. You can sell material with an IMA number if the author doesn't want the name released. It's then up to the author to balance his potential financial reward (releasing the name early) against his obligations for secrecy (which really benefits no-one except the scientific journals).

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, to find a balance to try and keep everyone happy, but I don't think in reality it will work. Information will always leak and however hard you try, someone somewhere is going to turn around and moan at you about it! It's a thankless task.

Jolyon

p.s. If you do use a name early, you should say WHO told you the name. That would make it very clear that you're using the name with permission, and if anyone does complain, they'll complain at the person who passed on the information to you instead of you.

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: May 14, 2024 01:17:44

Go to top of page