Monohydrocalcite

Monohydrocalcite [www.mindat.org] is showing as Grandfathered, but with the Year of Discovery=1964. There are other conflicts like that -- they may be easily discovered by querying the DB.
It may be helpful to introduce a UI validation rule for the Year of Discovery, so that a year later than 1959 could not be entered for a Grandfathered mineral.
I was raising this issue some time ago [www.mindat.org], but received no response from the IT team. Maybe this time?

Thanks, Michael, for the opportunity to rant about one of my pet peeves: If it were up to me, the word "grandfathered" would be deleted from the database entirely, as it has only legal and political significance, and is a meaningless concept in the hard sciences. Minerals described pre-IMA (pre-1959) are valid species when "generally accepted" as such by the mineralogical community because their status is obvious, like Quartz or Native Gold, and not because a lawyer declared them to be "grandfathered". Invalid species are those which are not "generally accepted", like "horsfordite" and "native iodine". In between these two groups is a grey area whose minerals were inadequately described and require further research. But in no case does a dubious mineral magically become a valid species because of some mysterious "grandfathering" process - This was a big misunderstanding among systematik collectors.

Alfredo,
I agree that the concept of "grandfathering" is not quite straightforward... But I am not rebelling against the definitions here - I am actually lobbying for adhering to the definitions.
All I am saying is that if 'IMA Status' = G then 'Year of Discovery' must be equal to or lesser than 1959.

You are of course right, Michael, but I needed the excuse to have my little rant.
We'll have to check the date of first publication.

Webmineral lists it as IMA approved, with the 1964 reference but no IMA number. Mineralienatlas lists it as pre-IMA but generally accepted.

Pekov gives a complicated history: first noticed1935, chemically analysed in 1948, described in 1959 (chemistry and x-ray data), but not named until 1964. So, as is not uncommon among pre-IMA minerals, the discovery was a long drawn out process and it's hard to say exactly when the species came into being. One could tell similar stories about other now well-accepted pre-IMA minerals, like magnesioriebeckite, for example.

I'll change the year of discovery to 1948, or perhaps 1959 would be better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2012 03:13AM by Alfredo Petrov.

In some cases the IMA number was not assigned. Monohydrocalcite is just one of the several minerals approved without number.
So the IMA list is correct: "Approved 1964".

Marco, do you have the reference for where the approval was published?

The type-description and the best crystal strcture are the following:

- Semenov, E.I. (1964): Hydrated carbonates of sodium and calcium. Kristallografiya, 9, 109-110.

- Swainson, I.P.. (2008): The structure of monohydrocalcite and the phase composition of the beachrock deposits of Lake Butler and Lake Fellmongery, South Australia. American Mineralogist, 93, 1014-1018.

About the approval the name is just in an IMA CNMNC file without number and was not published anywhere.

Marco,
If the Year of Approval is 1964, is it correct to show IMA Status = 'Grandfathered'? Maybe the IMA Status shall be 'Approved'?

Michael Hatskel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marco,
> If the Year of Approval is 1964, is it correct to
> show IMA Status = 'Grandfathered'? Maybe the IMA
> Status shall be 'Approved'?


Yes, the status should be "Approved".
Done!

Thanks, Marco.

Here are some more "Granfathered" minerals with the Year of Discovery showing later than 1959:
Cuprostibite - 1969
Zincocopiapite - 1964
Uralolite - 1964

An analysis from 1913 from Rammelsberg mine indicated a zinc dominant copiapite. Zincocopiapite

Michael Hatskel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, Marco.
>
> Here are some more "Granfathered" minerals with
> the Year of Discovery showing later than 1959:
> Cuprostibite - 1969
> Zincocopiapite - 1964
> Uralolite - 1964


The same case of monohydrocalcite.

Another one:
Franconite - 1984, although IMA1981-006. Looks like it was discovered earlier and approved in 1984, as it was published in 1984 (Jambor et al. (1984) - Can Min 22, 239–243).

The IMA ref. is exactly 1981-006a.

Franconite is an example of the publication date being assumed to be, or regarded as the discovery date.

Jim,
I would agree to that assumption for the pre-IMA minerals. But even then minerals were first found, then published, would you agree?
When we definitely know the year of IMA approval, the year of discovery MUST be at least the same year as the latest. But actually it shall be earlier, as it normally takes time to do all of the characterization required for IMA approval.

Another example: Franciscanite - mindat page says Approved 1985, Yr of Discovery 1986.