Does the looseness of the term "Hiddenite" make anyone else irrate?

I don't think I am disagreeing with any of you. What I was saying is that if a variety of spodumene is found with an IDENTICAL colour to that of the original "Hiddenite" material then there is no reason not to call it Hiddenite regardless of what the colouring agent is, in exactly the same way that vanadium-rich beryl with the right colour is called Emerald.

After all, the amount of the colouring agent present is so tiny as to be meaningless. The only thing with any meaning in terms of a definition is the original mineral species (Spodumene) and the physical properties, including exact colour. Whether it contains Chromium, Iron or Plutonium really doesn't matter.

Now, if an iron-rich variety of spodumene is green, but a different shade of green, then I agree it should not be called Hiddenite.

Jolyon

I've got a couple of even early editions of Dana (3rd and 4th) and they both mention hiddenite as just being green - no mention of chromium. So it looks to me like when the term "hiddenite" was coined they didn't know what the coloring agent was. They just knew it was green and came from that locality. It wasn't until later that it was learned that Cr was the culprit that gives it its color.

I think the same is true for emerald and aquamarine, etc.: No one knew what made them the colors the are when they were named. So the coloring agent was not part of the original definition. Just the color itself. "Ruby red." "Emerald green." "Amethyst purple." And so on...

So I guess the question is: Once we learn what causes a particular shade of color in a mineral, does that causative factor then become a part of the definition? I know that in the case of Cr vs. V in beryl the IGA came down with the descision that it was the color that was important - not what caused it. They legitimized "vanadium emeralds" as being just as much emeralds as chromium ones. (Much to some people's distress - but they did it none the less.)

So, basically, I come down on the side of "its the color that counts" when dealing with varietal names that are given because of color. "Hiddenite" can be found elsewhere, and it doesn't matter what causes the color so long as the color is the same as the stuff from the original source. "Goshenite" is pink to milky white and even colorless beryl no matter what the reason or where it is found. Ditto amethyst, citrine, ruby, and so forth...

KOR!

Alan

ok... having just written a short piece on the early history of hiddenite...

Kunz described hiddenite from Hiddenite, North Carolina as:

always transparent, ranges from colorless (rare) to a light yellow, into a yellowish green, then into a deep yellow emerald green. Sometimes an entire crystal has a uniform green color, but generally one end is yellow and the other green.

Kunz was "on the ground" during the heyday of the "hiddenite rush;" he saw the stones being produced from there first hand.

Also, the fact that the first finds of hiddenite were originally thought to be merely gemmy diopside would suggest that an *emerald green* color was not strictly and narrowly the color definition of hiddenite. So, as with most undefined or poorly defined 19th Century hiddenite is whatever ya want it to be... emerald green, yellow green, green yellow, yellow. From deep to almost imperceptibly pale.

The only color it apparently *isn't* is the color of Pala Kunzite... described as the "color of a baboon's butt on the western slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro during an especially mauve dawn, right after the end of the rainy season."

Excellent! Now of course the meanings for such *non scientific* names do tend to vary over time, which is why they are such a pain, but its good to see the original name was even more vague than I expected it to be!

Jolyon

It appears that "triphane" entered the literature not so much to describe colorless to grotty-yellow gem spodumene, but through descriptions of the same species by different mineralogists at roughly the same time. D'Andrada described the mineral Spodumene (derived from the Greek for "ash colored") in 1800, and Hauy described the same thing in 1801 but called it Triphane (in allusion to the three planes of separation he percieved in the crystals). [D'Andrada's choice of name takes precedence because 1) he published first and 2) he wasn't French. They later erected a statue to D'Andrada here in New York City, although spodumene probably had very little to do with it.]

To quote from an earlier post: "Triphane is a species color variety term used for describing the colors green, yellow, or blue - where iron plays the role of determining hue."

The presence or absence of iron has no applicability to the definition of common spodumene aka "triphane". Triphane is not a species color variety term. Triphane is best thought of as merely an error in the mineralogical literature. Like most "varieties", its use as a name is perpetuated only by slovenly mineralogy, cupidity, and stupidity.

Again to quote: "To drive the point home, Hiddenite was named after Professor Hidden by Doctor Kunz. A few years later, Kunz (of Kunzite) did not refer to the blue or green spodumene found in Pala as Hiddenite, but used the term Triphane to describe it. If anyone would have thought it correct to call it Hiddenite, you would think it would have been Kunz."

Hiddenite was not named by Kunz. It was named by John Lawrence Smith who authored the description in 1881. Smith was an important chemist and mineralogist of his era, and assembled a very important collection of meteorites that eventually went to Harvard. Further, Kunz is more aptly described as being of New York than as being of Kunzite.

Triphane appears to have persisted as an optional name for *common* spodumene, regardless of its suitability as a gem material. Felix Pisani noted a large recovery of facet grade common spodumene in Minas Gerais around 1877, (and which was being passed off as "chrysoberyl" to the unsuspecting - indicating both that it was some shade of yellow, and that the gem industry hasn't changed much in 130 year) and that he observed nearly a ton of rough from Brazil in Idar, Germany stockpiled for facetting. Interestingly Kunz, in recounting the tale, never applies the term "triphane" to the material. Its just "spodumene". [Could that merely mean that Tiffany's had not yet received a concession to pimp spodumene... errr, I meant the exquisite new golden yellow triphane from the mysterious jungles of Brazil!... to the people of New York??]

Thank you again for illuminating us on the history of these names! The point seems to be clear - Triphane and Hiddenite are both possibly names for coloured varieties of Spodumene that have no clear and formal definition, the meaning of the name depends entirely on what you want it to be. From a scientific, and serious collector's point of view, maybe both names should be avoided.

Jolyon

I think this whole discussion points up the difficulties of using terms that have no accepted "official" defination. A lot of folks seem to think that "hiddenite" is a green, Cr-bearing spodumene, but if the above quotes are accurate, the original description and application of the name says nothing about chromium content and includes colors other than green. Just because a later author such as Sinkankas states that hiddenite IS Cr-bearing and green, does this officialy redefine the use of the term, or is this just one person's opinion?

The argument can be made that since the varietal name hiddenite comes from a specific location where the mineral was found, then its use should be restricted to material from that location. However, we have an analogous situation with the term "Pariaba Tourmaline", which despite being a specific location, is now applied (apparently with the GIA's approval) to any blue, Cu-bearing tourmaline regardless of where it is found. Confounding the situation, at least to my thinking is the fact that not all tourmaline from Pariaba is blue. Does this mean that green tourmaline from Paraiba is not "Paraiba Tourmaline"?

Until such time as some recognized authority takes on the issue of standardizing and defining all these varietal names, their application is likely to remain random at best, and largely geared toward marketing. Maybe Mindat should set up a varietal names committee to hash it out. Could be exciting. Need another challange, Jolyon?

Cheers,
Jesse

Excellent write up Daniel, and as I have oft said candidly, you are one of the true "gems" of mindat, as well as a personal mentor.

Now, while we can safely call our "gem varieties" whatever name we choose without fear of state sponsored prosecution, I will be still likely be caught using the variety terms Hiddenite = chrome spodumene, Kunzite = Pink/Purple spodumene, and Triphane = everything else spodumene; when there is a dire need to specify a difference beyond noting the actual spectral hue observed, when it comes down to the only way left that I can relate something to somebody so that they understand what it is I'm talking about. However, I totally agree with you and Jolyon that all these variety names should be avoided, and must always be prefaced with the species when known, and color should be describe as what is seen by the observer, avoiding pretty names or pretty-silly names, and those annoying Crayola-style terms for color.

Now scientifically speaking, if chromium is present in the Spodumene crystal lattice, why should we take such great measures to dismiss this fact, or conversely not take note of said, and I suppose the same goes for iron etc. This is where Jolyon brings up an interesting point, one that I think is at the crux of Justin's original post here. That point being..."if a variety of spodumene is found (emphasis added) with an IDENTICAL colour to that of the original "Hiddenite" material then there is no reason not to call it Hiddenite regardless of what the colouring agent is".

A common problem facing collectors of spodumene is the ENHANCEMENT of what is found as naturally occurring by MAN in order to sell minerals. The naturally unstable iron-based color centers found in the lattice of what we will call Triphane (for the sake of argument) are being bombarded with gamma-ray photons in the laboratory in order to shift the color centers for the purpose of producing hues of deep blue and deep bluish green. This is primarily done to the Spodumene from Afghanistan due to availability, but really any "Kunzite" will do, and probably has been done.

The problem with this treatment aside from the fact that most of the mineral dealers are not disclosing the enhancement, or even aware of it - is that the color produced by the bombardment is NOT STABLE and therefore not permanent, and will in time and esp. with exposure to sunlight, FADE back to the original color of the material treated, which is generally the more pale lavender colored specimens. During this fading color experience, human exposure to the dangerous radioactive particles emitted can produce nasty cancerous growths in soft tissues! Beware oh beautiful women with the pseudo-hiddenite necklace!

It appears that the term Hiddenite was historically reserved for naturally occurring green colored Spodumene, which was suspected and later known that because of its chromium content, maintains a green color that is stable, most unlike the iron-colored variety of similar hue. It has been well noted that much of the naturally occurring pink/purple found in Pala was a deep blue or bluish green when taken from the earth, then when exposed to sunlight for several days or months, faded into a relatively stable purple or pink color of varying intensity. This I believe is why the name Triphane was chosen to describe the blue to green spodumene from Pala, versus Hiddenite. The primary difference being that Hiddenite enjoys a stable green color, while Triphane does not.

So man can replicate a process found in nature, somewhat... and uses the process to defraud unwitting collectors - but this is not a scientifically valid reason to dismiss the efforts and names associated with historic findings, even when the facts are not fully sorted at the time of hypothesis, or even a century (or centuries) later. With mineralogy as with gemology, there is a reason for variety names being used, other than for the ego of namesake mineralogy or pure gemological marketing ploy - it is a way for us to categorize and sort the facts and findings made via the diligent research of others. Of course as with anything in the known universe, there are always exceptions to the rules, and the future will most definitely rewrite much of the current scientific "facts" as we now perceive them to be; regardless of how "enlightened" we think we are when viewing history from the lazyboy armchairs of our present-day knowledgebase.

An interesting side note to the Hiddenite story is that it was prolific inventor Thomas A. Edison who sent George F. Kunz and professor William E. Hidden to North Carolina to find a source of platinum to be used in light bulb filaments. Funny that some of the greatest inventions attributed to Edison were not actually his original ideas, but improvements of earlier inventions, or simply new inventions created by the numerous employees working under his direction. Lesson learned: the successful scientist always should keep things in proper perspective and remain open to building improvements on "old" ideas.

As for naming minerals whether they be "valid" or "grandfathered" species, or variations of color or clarity or form or locality - just as it was in the past and persisting today... follow the money! Kunzite was once known as "California Iris", promoted as the "engagement ring stone" that ended runner-up to DeBeer's massive banker-backed Diamond marketing campaign. I suppose it was only fitting to choose diamond as the symbol for "holy matrimony", especially considering the consortium's enormous wealth and power stemmed from the enslavement of his fellow man in Africa, whereas human slavery had been outlawed in the United States prior to the "New Kimberley" gemstone discoveries in California.

Now please excuse me good sirs, for I am currently busy renaming all my old labels to Spodumene var. Baboon's Butt.

:-P

Sounds like you are volunteering.

"Now scientifically speaking, if chromium is present in the Spodumene crystal lattice, why should we take such great measures to dismiss this fact, or conversely not take note of said, and I suppose the same goes for iron etc"

What "great measures" are being taken to "dismiss this fact"? We already have in place a useful system for passing along the information that something contains chromium or manganese as non-essential, minor to trace amounts. We say it is "chromian Spodumene" or "manganoan Spodumene". Beyond the fact that its just plain inaccurate, to call something "Xanthite" when we simply mean (tatty yellow-brown) manganoan vesuvianite will 1) require most collectors and mineralogists to spin off in an unnecessary search for a definition of what the arcane term "xanthite" means, and 2) invites people to misapply the term to the magenta-violetish manganoan vesuvianite from the Jeffrey mine in Quebec.

I believe most people are introduced to the periodic table somewheres about grade school, so anyone with an education beyond Jethro Bodine's should have little difficulty grasping the concept of "manganoan" or "manganiferous". [If they have difficulty, they need to recite their "gazzintas" - "one gazzinta two two times, two gazzinta four two times". Anyone seeking to become a "Double Naught Spy" should submit their application to the new revamped CIA by August 15th for immediate posting to the War On Terror.] Even most lapidaries can tell you that manganese is the plural of mongoose. {Okay... admittedly not much of an evolutionary accomplishment there.}

"It appears that the term Hiddenite was historically reserved for naturally occurring green colored Spodumene, which was suspected and later known that because of its chromium content, maintains a green color that is stable, most unlike the iron-colored variety of similar hue."

I recall no discussion of the color stability of hiddenite in the early literature. Or even the later literature. Further, reinvestigation of colors that are "obviously" caused by transition metal dopants have shown that what is "obvious" may in some cases be wrong. Our understanding of the causation of color has evolved. How "tigereye" was formed was "obvious" until (whoops!) it was discovered to be wrong.

"is not a scientifically valid reason to dismiss the efforts and names associated with historic findings, even when the facts are not fully sorted at the time of hypothesis, or even a century (or centuries) later. With mineralogy as with gemology, there is a reason for variety names being used, other than for the ego of namesake mineralogy or pure gemological marketing ploy - it is a way for us to categorize and sort the facts and findings made via the diligent research of others."

Incorrect. The use of varietal names and nicknames merely serves to obfuscate and confuse. There is no room for the perpetration and perpetuation of obfuscation and confusion in science. Mineralogy is a science. Gemology is *supposed* to be a science. Recognizing that a varietal name is invalid - such as abandoning the grotesque use of Hauy's "idocrase" in favor of Werner's "vesuvianite" - does in no way "dismiss the efforts and names associated with historic findings". The "efforts and names associated with historic findings" are, in aggregate, an important part of the mineralkulture. Abandoning "kunzite" and "hiddenite" would not invalidate Kunz's or Hidden's contributions to mineralogy. And Kunz's contributions to mineralogy, like those of Hauy, will result in his name being writ large (in Hauy's case, most likely writ in the snow in bright yellow letters. Luckily its only 4 letters as we're out of beer!)

The use of varietal names does nothing to provide "a way for us to categorize and sort the facts and findings made via the diligent research of others"... it does the very opposite! It is more edifying to call something "a bright pink elbaite from Pala" than calling it "Pala Mexican Bordello Hot Pants Pink Tourmaline". In this instance "tourmaline" fails to tell you *which* of the tourmaline group it is... did someone find a pink uvite? Is it something intriguing in Liddicoatite? By calling it "elbaite" we can now begin to categorize it and sort it. That specific specimen of "Pala Mexican Bordello Hot Pants Pink tourmaline", through Boolean logic, now becomes part of the vast subset of tourmaline group minerals that we call "elbaite," and the specific specimen is pink rather than colorless, green, blue, or any of the other colors that elbaite displays. Its not necessary to incorporate the descriptors "Mexican Bordello Hot Pants Pink" because the operative concept is "pink" rather than "gaudy, tacky pink". Each specimen making up the "elbaite" subset may exhibit different colors but they all share the same chemistry and crystallography. And uvite, liddicoatite, dravite, rossmanite all share the same crystallography as elbaite, but their chemistries are different. Hmmm... we're *really* beginning to sort and characterize now! Elbaite is beginning to actually *mean* something, and how that pink stuff fits into the "big picture" is getting much clearer!

I dropped a sentence in the last paragraph by accident.

"because the operative concept is "pink" rather than "gaudy, tacky pink"" should read as:

"because the operative concept is "pink" rather than "gaudy, tacky pink" - gaudy and tacky are subjective concepts".

Ooops...

I forgot something kind of important.

Apparently, when "hiddenite" was first discovered, the community was known as "White Plains". It didn't change its name to "Hiddenite" until years after the mining of "hiddenite" had begun. So "hiddenite" is named for Hidden, and "Hiddenite" is named for "hiddenite".

I think that one would have to agree with D.E. that "Cr-bearing spodumene" and "Fe-bearing spodumene" provide a level of scientific communication that "hiddenite" does not. What we lose when we relegate an old varietal name to the obscurity of "a quaint but obsolete term" is not scientific information but cultural flavoring of the nomenclature. What we gain when we replace it with "Fe-bearing," "Cr-rich," etc..., is scientific clarity.

Not that I'm going to relabel my "Spodumen v. Hiddenite" and "Spodumene v. Kunzite", mind you - I LIKE the cultural flavoring! :~} - I'm just saying that I recognize the simple fact that most varietal names can be replaced with more scientifically precise terms that provide clarity rather than obfuscation. I'm afraid that those who try to argue that varietal names have inherent scientific value don't understand what "scientific value" is... It took me along time to get it myself!

:~}

Alan

Gentlemen, it appears all sides have been covered for the purpose of debate. Obviously irate was an appropriate word to use in the thread title, and passion about minerals is a good thing in my book.

Now if we can put rhetoric into practice, I think its fine time to add the variety "Chrome Spodumene" or something equivalent in the mindat terminology. A quick search of the database today reveals nothing has yet to be created to cover this term. I for one would feel good about it being there, and using it where applicable in the strictest sense. I believe a rarity issue similar to this one was resolved by gemologists several years ago relating to chomium-bearing pyrope, aka "Chrome Pyrope".

Thanks to Justin for the inspiration to resolve this issue in a way that will preserve rarity of spodumene containing the element chromium as it appears on mindat, and to Daniel for the historic outline describing the archaic variety names Hiddenite, as well as the Triphane roots. Hopefully this will have some long-term positive impact on education in the real world.

This isn't a "rarity" issue. Mineralogy is not predicated upon bolstering sales of tatty gemstones by granting special names and designations that make them seem "special". I think you have confused "mineralogy" with "gemology". In gemology, anyone can simply rename pectolite as "Larimar" or to designate their newest drek brought back by Captain Sapulding from deepest darkest Africa "unicorn stone".

There is no reason to add "chrome spodumene" to the database. Anyone with an IQ above a hamster's should be able to figure out that "chrome pyrope" is a variety of pyrope that contains chromium... as opposed to pyrope that has been chrome plated and mounted on a Harley. Which is probably why "chrome pyrope" hasn't be added either. Adding tens of thousands of extra entries for every mineral species that has slightly different minor to trace impurities - like "beryllium vesuvianite", "manganoan vesuvianite", "chromian vesuvianite", "cuprian vesuvianite" - accomplishes very little. The IMA has not recognized these to be discrete mineral species. They are all "vesuvianite".
In fact, the IMA has been trying very, very hard to rid mineralogy of the unnecessary proliferation of "terminology" ("names") that has no validity.

Just because a handful of folks have inexplicably placed special value on green spodumene - regardless of the color cause - does not elevate green spodumene or "chrome spodumene" to a special level of significance in mineralogy (or any other part of the real world). If the gem industry wants to differentiate "chrome spodumene" from other green spodumenes in order to increase their "pimp leverage" of one sort of green spodumene over another in the marketplace, let them. The gem industry already has dozens of pseudoscientific groups whose sole function seems to be railroading through unscientific nonsense in order to maximize profit. It would be a pity to see Mindat buying into that sort of thing.

Its just spodumene. They grind spodumene up and mix it into ceramics to make sinks, toilets and urinals. Since the gem industry is having problems with finding a good name for the yellow spodumene may I suggest "pissspodumene"?

D.E. raises a good point about there being a difference in the way the IGA and the IMA approach naming things. The IGA (or its national affiliates, such as the GIA) don't have a problem with coining terms such as "chrome spodumene" because their focus is marketing. The IMA, on the other hand, cringes every time that happens - because their focus is on scientific clarity.

The fact is that if someone were to submit a paper to a mineralogical journal with the phrase "chrome spodumene" in it the editors - per current IMA guidelines - would require that it be changed to "Cr-rich" or "Cr-bearing" spodumene. They would probably want the valance noted as well to provide complete clarity.

Since Mindat is a *mineralogical* website - not a *gemological* one - it is not it's duty to add to the vastness of gemological nomencalture by coining new gemological terms. It doesn't even add to the mineralogical literature by coining/proposing mineralogical terms. It just records those of either type that are in common usage so that when people come across them they can find out what they mean. If, by some chance, "chrome spodumene" managed to come into vogue - appear often enough in the gemological or general rockhound literature - then Mindat would add it and note (per IMA guidelines) that it is "Cr-bearing spodumene." And the only reason it would note this is to make it clear that it means spodumene which happens to contain some Cr - and not a species named "chrome spodumene." The point would be to educate people that "chrome spodumene" is *not* a mineral species.

KOR!

Alan

The only thing wrong with gemology is that it hasn't had a really *good* Inquisition to root out all the little heresies that abound. You'd be amazed how thumbscrews will motivate people to stop calling vesuvianite "idocrase".

bwahaha! nobody expects the IGA Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pyrope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Humm...just what the world needs, a mineralogical Torquemada. Or is it really just Michael Palin in disguise?

I Like Where This Is Going!

That reminds me...

"I've come here for an argument"
Oh no, this is being hit on the head lessons...Arguments are two doors down.