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

Improving Mindat.orgTynaugh Mine!

24th Sep 2006 23:21 UTCBarry Flannery Expert

HOW did somebody possibly get away with creating a NEW locality called Tynaugh!

The correct locality is Tynagh Mine. Please delete Tynaugh.

Barry

24th Sep 2006 23:22 UTCBarry Flannery Expert

http://www.mindat.org/photo-73458.html

This is the specimen and I suspect the poster of it created the new locality!

25th Sep 2006 08:54 UTCLloyd Llewellyn Expert

Calm yourself, Barry!

It seems like a decent photo of a good specimen and it will be lost if the Tynaugh locality is merged with the original Tynagh one. Or is 'Tynaugh' worth adding as an alternative name if, for instance, it is occasionally used on old or foreign collectors' labels? We should always consider why people might be using a Mindat search for a 'wrongly' named locality, even if it's in Galway County and not Co. Galway!

Perhaps we could give Mr. Rourke (who obviously isn't too familiar with the conventions in place on Mindat to prevent duplicate and misnamed localities appearing on the database) a chance to post his picture into Tynagh before dismissing it out-of-hand.

25th Sep 2006 11:26 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

When localities are merged, mineral lists, descriptions and photos are transfered to the surviving record.

25th Sep 2006 13:44 UTCLloyd Llewellyn Expert

Ah! I've always been a bit cautious about deleting/merging localities. I'll go ahead and do it, then.

I still think it should be worth adding alternative names, if there are many occurences of them being used, even if the locals think they're outrageous.

25th Sep 2006 16:21 UTCBarry Flannery Expert

Tynaugh Mine isn't an alternative. Just a one off mispell, do you also think that it is worth adding for example, Rogerly Mine, Weredale...etc

I never said to get rid of the picture, just the locality.

Barry

25th Sep 2006 16:27 UTCAlan Plante

Hi Barry

Llloyd is right. - I have had to grit my teeth at times when I've added alternate names to a locality header - feeling like I was perpetuating poor or erroneous information - but if that info is imbedded in the literature for a site then people are going to come across it and use it, UNLESS Mindat uses it in such a way as to bring people to the correct locality name.

A good example is a noted old staurolite locality here in New Hampshire in the USA. Every book and label you are likely to come across written before at least 1990 has it as either "Mink Pond" or "Pearl Lake" (the pond has been known by both names over time). The thing is, the locality isn't at the pond! - It's on the side of and along the base of Pond Hill, across the road and into the woods from the pond. In effect, the locality was mis-named! It should have been called the "Pond Hill Staurolite Locality" from the start. But the Harvard collector/mineralogist who first wrote the site up - one James Edward Dana - didn't know the name of the hill, so when he visited the site back in the mid-1800s and was told the pond was "Mink Pond" (which it was known as at that time) that's what he called the locality. Anyway... - If you type either "Mink Pond" or "Pearl Lake" into Mindat you find yourself at:

-Pond Hill Staurolite Locality (Mink Pond Staurolite Locality; Pearl Lake Staurolite Locality), Lisbon, Grafton Co., New Hampshire, USA

...with a little explanation about the names in the description box.

The solution to your little spelling problem is simple. Make the locality entry read:

- Tynagh Mine (Tynaugh Mine), Barryville, Claire Co., Ireland

...and in the description box put:

- While "Tynaugh" may be found on some labels and/or in some references, it is a mis-spelling and should not be use.

(Or whatever you think is the best way to state the issue.)

This is the way Mindat helps to set the record straight over time - by directing people with old or bad locality info to the current/best info.

KOR!

Alan

25th Sep 2006 16:52 UTCBarry Flannery Expert

I agree with you Alan but I'm just saying that even if you were to use the Tynaugh name, it just does not come up in labels to merit being added...

I have never seen it on a label..

Barry

25th Sep 2006 17:14 UTCAlan Plante

Barry:

How many specimen labels can you say you've truely seen? How many collections - public and private - have Irish materials in them that you've never seen? Probably never will...?

I've been at this for 40 years or so at this point - probabl;y have seen tens of thousands of labels, thousands for the region I live in alone - and I would NOT consider myself to be an expert on labels, even from just my region of the US - haven't seen enough of them to know how much variation there is in spelling and alternative names. I just "know those that I know."

Maybe the "u" variant was a one time mis-spelling that could be ignored. But - based on what little experience I have - I kind of doubt it. It is more likely that at one time in history "Tynagh" was spelled with the "u" - which has subsequently been dropped. I don't *know* that - but I know that it is the sort of thing we come across now and then with old labels: Old spellings - sometimes variants which have little resemblance to the present-day spelling. (Look at the variations on Kameriza in the Lavrion District of Greece - or of Lavrion, itself.)

At any rate, I will allow that the "u" variant could be deleted for now - considered a one time accident. But if it comes up a second time, then it would most certainly be wise to add it to the locality header as an alternate spelling or mis-spelling. 'Cause then you can be pretty sure it is "out there" - and needs to be "in here."

:~}

Alan

25th Sep 2006 17:48 UTCKnut Eldjarn 🌟 Manager

If you think locality naming and confusion is just an english problem...

You will find a famous locality ofr large, white apatite crystals in Mindat named "OksÃ¸ykollen" in Modum, Norway. This spelling has been introduced during the last decades by the mineralogist community reflected in the Mindat spelling. The "old" name was "OxÃ¸iekollen" which can be found on many old labels. You may ask what is the correct geographical name ? There is none for the small hill on which the locality is situated but the name was originally derived from a small, round tarn close by which on my last official local map is called "Uxaue" or "OksÃ¸ye" ("bull`s eye"). This corresponds to the old name " OxÃ¸iekollen" which in modernized Norwegian should be "Ã˜ksÃ¸yekollen". The mis-spelling introduced by the mineralogist community in recent scientific papers etc would translate into "bull`s island" which has no meaning locally or historically.

Personally I have kept on using the name "OksÃ¸yekollen" which would be the correct spelling of the locality derived from the name of the lakelet. But as languages evolve - so do names also through mistakes! To what extent mineralogists and collectors over time may influence naming traditions and spelling of mineral locality related names, is an interesting question.

Knut

25th Sep 2006 19:35 UTCBarry Flannery Expert

Alan,

Thank you! I maintain that it is not a variety. Tynaugh would NOT have been a variety, Tína/agh would have which was subsequently been anglocied to Tynagh.

I have seen a lot of labels from all the major collectors of Irish minerals and institutions that hold Irish specimens.

Barry

26th Sep 2006 13:15 UTCLloyd Llewellyn Expert

There you are Barry - it's gone (and Mr. Rourke's pic survived)!

See you a week on Saturday.

26th Sep 2006 16:22 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Knut: have added the two other variants of the Norwegian locality. Please check if non-standard letters are correct.

26th Sep 2006 21:32 UTCKnut Eldjarn 🌟 Manager

Uwe: You have used the non-standard letters quite correctly. One important source for the spelling on old labels for Scandinavian localities is the on-line database of the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet in Stockholm. The information including old spellings of locality names are listed for the minerals in the collection. Among the old specimens Hydroxylapatites from "Oxøjekollen" are listed. "j" was used in Swedish when "i" was used in Norewgian. Thus your reference to "Oxøiekollen" when written in Norwegian on old labels are quite correct.

Thanks for making the changes. It helps link informations on old labels with current naming of localities.

Knut

28th Sep 2006 23:35 UTCHelen Wilkinson

Tynaugh may be an incorrect spelling, but if you google it there are several instances of its use for mineral specimens.

29th Sep 2006 06:20 UTCLloyd Llewellyn Expert

Thanks Helen, I think that clinches it, doesn't it?

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 26, 2024 12:14:44

Go to top of page