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 ClassificationLazurite is the same mineral as Haüyne ?

16th Jun 2014 07:19 UTCUwe Ludwig

In the actual Mineralogical Record of May/June 2014 the authors T.P. Moore and R.W. Woodside established that Lazurite is not a autonomous mineral but it is Haüyne. What is your opinion to this information?

Rgds

Uwe Ludwig

16th Jun 2014 13:04 UTCLuca Baralis Expert

It is stated as possibility in the lazurite description on Mindat, too.

Imho, possibility is not enough, it should be proved.

Luca

19th Jun 2014 17:26 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

When I first noticed this I was quite surprised. The reaction from others ranged from "surprise" to "so what". There's not a lot to prove here. The IMA defines Lazurite as a sodalite with essential calcium and dominant sulfide in the cages. Ideally, and as the IMA formula says, the cages in the aluminosilicate framework of lazurite contain (Na,Ca)₄(S). However this has never been found in nature. All the wonderful specimens labelled Lazurite are sulfate dominant in the cages and this the IMA defines as Hauyne.

19th Jun 2014 17:56 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

I presume then that lazurite has been synthesized and it is at this time just a hypothetical mineral? So why are there so many photos of lazurite in Mindat? Shouldn't they all be moved to the Haüyne page and be labeled Haüyne variety "lazurite".

19th Jun 2014 18:10 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Yes I believe it has been synthesized, but it is unstable and doubtful to ever occur naturally. The 'lazurite' specimens are a variety of Hauyne, but it is doubtful that the IMA would accept a discreditation, since it is a hypothetical species and is historically important. 'Lazurite' is well characterised and distinct from other hauynes as an opaque, non fluorescent, ultramarine to midnight blue mineral with a bright blue streak.

19th Jun 2014 18:30 UTCJosé Zendrera 🌟 Manager

As demonstrated by Dr. Woodside, is a fact that all lazurite specimens do not fit into the current IMA lazurite definition. However these specimens considered until yesterday as lazurite have distinctive differences with common haüyne: are mostly opaque, have not orange/pink fluorescence and give his own spectra in XRD.

From my daring ignorance, I can think of two possibilities:

1 - to reclassify lazurite as a variety of haüyne

2 - change the lazurite theoretical definition to fit it to lazurite real characteristics.

This second possibility implies to change the "sulfide dominant" exigence to any other definition which fits the stuff considered lazurite, e.g. a sulfide percentage.

19th Jun 2014 18:51 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

One note on x-ray diffraction: Spotting the oxidation state of Sulfur is difficult and requires spectroscopies that are now being undertaken. Before this it was noted that sulfide was smaller than sulfate so hauynes with a small unit cell were considered to have lots of sulfide and so be Lazurite. This is the origin of the green "Lazurites". However in addition to sulfide there are a lot of anions smaller than sulfate that can give a sulfate dominant hauyne a small cell size.

Josele, I think we are stuck with these beautiful specimens being a variety of Hauyne. Your second suggestion requires abandoning the dominant lattice occupant as a species definer. There are other examples where this has happened such as actinolite which is an iron rich tremolite with insufficient iron to be the end member ferro-actinolite. Actinolite was retained for the convenience of its published history.

12th Jul 2014 21:27 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Goodbye Lazurite as a species name!

We have now demoted Lazurite to a variety of Hauyne on mindat.org!

Jolyon

12th Jul 2014 23:59 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Great!!! Now are there any takers for making Vladimirivanovite a crystallographic variety of Hauyne?

8th Sep 2014 14:49 UTCCristiano Ferraris

For the latest IMA -CNMNC (COMMISSION ON NEW MINERALS, NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION) list of approuved minerals (upgradet to the end of 2013), Lazurite is a grandfathered species so a valid mineral species never discredited!

Best regards

Cristiano FERRARIS (Member for France of the IMA-CNMNC)

8th Sep 2014 15:45 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Thanks Cristiano, but what the IMA calls Lazurite is a hypothetical sulfide dominant sodalite group mineral with essential calcium that has never been observed. The blue stuff in Lapis Lazuli that supplied the material suggesting the IMA hypothetical mineral is all hauyne with dominant sulfate.

8th Sep 2014 16:02 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

Rob, if there are no verified lazurites, shouldn't the existing locations listed at Mindat all have "erroneously reported" on their pages and lazurite, as defined remain listed, but with no known localities?

8th Sep 2014 16:15 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Van, you are right. I did get a private report of a real IMA Lazurite, but the reference given didn't support that conclusion. I don't know if this was a simple mistake or if it was further unreported work supporting IMA lazurite. The person never replied when I pointed out the lack of support in their reference. So maybe it is time for the correction you suggest.

8th Sep 2014 16:31 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

The problem now is that we have two meanings for the name Lazurite:

1) The hypothetical IMA species, which may or may not exist in Nature.

2) The varietal name or gem name for sulphide-rich Hauyne, which has such a long history of use that it isn't going to go away easily or quietly.

The simplest and most painless solution would be to keep the name Lazurite for the material it is now most commonly attached to, but just demote it from a species to a variety. The lapidary folk will still keep their name and be happy.

But this would require formal discreditation submitted to the IMA, and a new name for any future sulphide-dominant material. I predict that the dual usage will continue for quite a long time, as it has for numerous other mineral names (jadete, biotite, psilomelane, piemontite....). Not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we are aware of the dual meaning. Lots of words in the dictionary have multiple meanings and civilization has not collapsed as a result. ;-)

8th Sep 2014 19:29 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

You are right in many ways, Alfredo. However, we really can't be the ones to discredit a species and make it a variety. We can and should question labeling and the chance of incorrectness of a specimen. Eventually, I guess that lazurite would probably become a very dark blue color variety of hauyne? The current problem is that the reports listed at Mindat do not actually have much chance of being lazurite as currently defined. Because the data that need to be collected are extraordinary and have rarely been done on lazurite, an alternative may be to relabel the locality reports "hauyne-lazurite series" as well as the photos and let the verifications begin. That way, the lazurite species page would remain intact, but with changes to suggest what data have to be collected to verify lazurite. The listed "lazurite" data could be inserted in the hauyne-lazurite page. There would be no data at the simple lazurite page, because they were certainly collected on "unverified" lazurite. Nonetheless, simple "lazurite" shouldn't be a labeling option for a photo unless there are enough data to be convincing that the world's first verified lazurite was proven.

8th Sep 2014 19:40 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Question: Is the word lazulite referring to a ultramarine "lapis lazuli" older than the name huayne? If so then should huayne be discredited and lazurite grandfathered in?

Ron

8th Sep 2014 20:18 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Van, I would never suggest that we ourselves declare lazurite to be discredited, we should simply recognize that the name Lazurite is currently being used with two different meanings, whether we like it or not. As the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary say, they record the meanings of words as they are used, without prescribing how they ought to be used. Whatever the IMA eventually decides, the milk has already been spilled and "Lazurite" will forever have two different meanings, unless the IMA decides to demote Lazurite from a species to a varietal name for the lapidary material, in which case everyone inside and outside the mineralogical community will know what it means and there will be only one meaning.

8th Sep 2014 21:07 UTCUwe Ludwig

As mineral collectors we have different names for the several kinds of quartz as amethyst, smoky quartz etc. For the IMA it is always quartz. Why should we collectors have no different names for the kinds of the Lasurite?

Rgds

Uwe Ludwig

8th Sep 2014 22:13 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Tom Moore credits Abbey Hauy as the first to call Hauyne (later named after Abby Hauy),"lazurite" at the turn of the nineteenth century. RRUFF has good historical references and under Lazurite they first list http://rruff.info/uploads/Bergmannisches_Journal_1_1789_369.pdf which seems to be a 1789 general mineralogy. However my gothic German is weak and I can't find whatever might have been Lazurite there. The next paper listed is http://rruff.info/uploads/Zeitschrift_fur_Kristallographie_18_1890_231.pdf from 1890 and both Lazurite and Hauyne are there.

The stuff has been mined for 9,000 years and I have no idea of the earlier names. By 55 AD Dioscorides was calling it Sapheiros Lapis and in 79 AD Pliny called it Saphirus. It wasn't until the 6th century AD that the name Lapis Lazuli emerged from Lapis = stone and Lazuli from the Persian 'Lazhuward' meaning blue. However Lapis Lazuli refers to the rock with Hauyne, nepheline or calcite (the white), and pyrite.

I haven't seen Tom's reference, but that would indicate that Lazurite is older than Hauyne. The original Hauyne http://rruff.info/uploads/Journal_des_mines21_1807_365-380.pdf was the Italian volcanic material and differentiated from lazuLite !!! as lazulite was not volcanic but hauyne was. In 1807 Hauyne was placed between gadolinite and lazulite!!!

8th Sep 2014 22:19 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

The IMA likes to have theoretical end members named regardless of whether they are proven to exist or not, eg with the amphiboles, so maybe someone should nominate a new name (Hauyne-(S)?) for this theoretical entity and we use Lazurite for the variety it seems to be? Not much different to epidote.

8th Sep 2014 23:13 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Uwe, so far no IMA lazurite has been found, so you can't put the the two "kinds of the Lasurite" beside each other and compare them. The IMA uses 'lazurite' for the hypothetical sulfide dominant member of the sodalite group. The rest of the world uses 'Lazurite' for the opaque, non fluorescent Hauyne with a bright blue streak in Lapis Lazuli.

If all the "lazurites" were relabeled Hauyne then the IMA list would not need changing. The IMA is not responsible for mislabeling Hauynes as "lazurite" and no one is arguing that there isn't a hypothetical sulfide dominant, calcium bearing sodalite. (No work for IMA, lots of work for collectors)

There is a tension in the IMA over following the general nomenclature rules or bowing to custom and retain names that are well embedded in the literature. Actinolite, the third name in the tremolite-ferroactinolite series, should have been abandoned as a series should only have two names, one for each end member. IMA lazurite, Lazurite and Hauyne could be another three member series. This would have the advantage of using Lazurite as the rest of the world does, but then the IMA lazurite should be renamed . (Renaming is work for IMA and proposers, but this is no work for collectors)

Another solution is to live with the confusion until a real IMA lazurite is found and then rename it and demote Lazurite to a lapidary variety of Hauyne. (No work for anyone until an IMA lazurite is found)

There are probably other possibilities?

8th Sep 2014 23:24 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Ralph, I like Hauyne-(S) as that says what it is. I had in mind Hassanite as Hassan has done significant work on this group and he is one of the authors of the IMA Lazurite paper.:-)

9th Sep 2014 02:16 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

Rob, I never really bought into Fischer's 1869 assertion that lapis lazuli was a rock. As a poor mineralogist, Fischer probably couldn't afford decent specimens of pure lapis lazuli and his cheapness meant he acquired the low grade stuff with impurities. Reading Dana and Brush (System of Mineralogy, 1868), they clearly show that they considered lapis-lazuli to be the dark blue dodecahedral crystals we think of today, complete with physical data and chemistry. They describe a mineral, not a mixture. Brogger's naming lazurite, in 1890, to somehow 'save" the species from oblivion was accepted by the younger Dana, when he inherited the System in 1892. By that time, the applause from Brogger's developing the concept of paragenesis had yet to die down (in fact you can still hear a few "huzzahs for his benefit on a still night). Dana's caving in on the subject assured that the name lazurite would prosper. Nonetheless, if you read the example analyses in Dana and Brush (1868) you see that lapis-lazuli composition is reported as elemental percentages while by 1892, the analyses are oxides. That is, the analysis of S is reported as SO₂. In these tables, hayune is more SO₂-rich than lazurite.

I'd like to see Tom's references also. Hauyne was supposedly named by Tønnes Christian Bruun de Neergard in 1807. Gismondi tried to give a name, but he didn't follow through.

As far as Haüyne-S goes, not only could it be confused with the plural, haüynes, in computer searches, the proliferation of suffixes does more to homogenize and hide mineral differences than is useful. When there are truly close relationships, chemically, as in the rare earths or zeolites, the suffix is explanatory. The widespread use of suffixes is now over-taxed. This is becoming apparant as species with suffixes become more generic by dropping the suffixes, both in writing and conversation, even though the suffixes are supposedly intended to make the difference between species.

9th Sep 2014 12:29 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Van, fair point, these names can get messy but prefixes as with amphiboles look worse ( we could have sulphidohauyne I guess). I agree most people call Fluorapophyllite-K just apophyllite, and this seems fair unless you have an analysis.

The epidote series is a precedent, it should really all be called clinozoisite but there is a hypothetical endmember pistacite commonly used by mineralogists too, when discussing compositions.

9th Sep 2014 13:53 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Alternatively,

"We have met the enemy and he is us" Pogo

9th Sep 2014 14:47 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Nice Van. I'll add:

'Words mean what I choose them to mean. The question is who is master?' Humpty-Dumpty (from the pen of Lewis Carrol, authors of two well loved children's books - aka the Reverend Charles Dodgson, theologian, mathematician and logician).

9th Sep 2014 16:49 UTCJason Evans

I suppose this is good news as it now means I dont need to add Hauyne to my collection as I already have some lazurite!

9th Sep 2014 16:53 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Yes, Jason, the world is divided into lumpers and splitters. Today the lumpers are happy and the splitters are in agony. :-D

9th Sep 2014 17:42 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Reading Dana and Brush (System of Mineralogy, 1868), they clearly show that they considered lapis-lazuli to be the dark blue dodecahedral crystals we think of today, complete with physical data and chemistry. They describe a mineral, not a mixture.

Very interesting! That raises another possibility. Just call the opaque non fluorescent Hauyne with a bright blue streak Lapis Lazuli!!! Then Lazurite remains the IMA lazurite. Collectors can relabel their "lazurites" as Hauyne or Lapis Lazuli and the IMA list is unchanged.

9th Sep 2014 19:15 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

What was that Shakespeare quote? "A rose by any other name ...". In this day of computers the name of a mineral is just an identification tag. Computers don't care if they are all numbers never mind structured names! So why all the fuss about constructing names that mean something other than an ID tag? Let the earliest name have priority as the first and only ID tag. If any one wants to know something about the composition of the mineral look it up on the computer and examine the composition and go the listed references. Trying to build compositional info into the name is a study in fruitless frustration since what is important from a composition standpoint is very dependent upon a person's point-of-view and bias.

My personal opinion is that the IMA needs a new direction in their naming philosophy!

9th Sep 2014 20:37 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Ron you are right about ID tags and priority. So this blue stuff ought to be called Lapis Lazuli, the name it acquired in the middle ages.

I think the problem the IMA has been addressing is the abundance of names. With more names, there's more to publish, deal, and collect, as well as the honour of being remembered in a species name. So there's social pressure behind the splitters. However when the pros need a Fleischer's to accompany a conversation there's a problem. There are so many names that some collections are alphabetically arranged.

Levinsonizing or prefixing names is one way of cutting the numbers down. These have the advantage in simple situations of saying it is just like such and such mineral with the prefix or levinson symbol in a dominant lattice postion. Epidote-(Pb) tells you more than Hancockite, but people feel strongly about losing such a venerable name. Levonsonizing things like Eudialyte just gives a confusing mess. Prefixing names has the disadvantage of scattering the names through out the alphabet, rather than keeping them with the same first letter when they are Levinsonized. In complicated situations, like the amphiboles, they yield real mouthfuls and can possibly be constructed from more than one root name.

The move to change the hierarchy from from a single level- the species- to groups etc is another attempt to deal with the names. With a much smaller number of group names the species names are organized. If Hancockite arises in conversation and is quiried, the phrase "Pb member of the Epidote group" avoids Fleischer. I would have preferred it if the IMA had set the current species level at a variety or subspecies level and the current group level as the species level.

Anyway the real problem is that mineralogy is fundamental to so many diverse areas, from mining to petrology and gemology, each with a different focus that the IMA tries to respect with its nomenclature. You can't please everybody but the IMA does try. As many others have pointed out trying to fit nature into a simple classification scheme is pretty arrogant and unlikely to succeed, but it can aid our understanding...

7th Jan 2017 17:17 UTCJeffrey de Fourestier Expert

There is a fundamental problem with the discussion here with only a few exceptions. Since 1959, the scientific community has accepted that the IMA is the deciding body for the recognition or not and the naming of mineral species. Underlying this is that with out a proper regulated process mineral definitions and nomenclature would revert to chaos. That said it does not mean that the IMA does not make mistakes or that the process in place could not be improved. I believe both are true. Yet in the same way I fought to have horrible nomenclature mistakes like renaming hancockite or the apatite group in an arbitrary way that added nothing to the established science, the IMA recognised this and largely returned to long established norms. Hancockite is no longer the useless "Epidote-Pb" and a dentistry student can be certain that Hydroxylapatite and Fluorapatite are the official names he has to worry about. The system worked.

However, in the same fashion for individual mineralogists, even if there is a collective agreement (and I include Mindat in this), to unilaterally decide that Lazurite is a variety of Haüyne (i.e. discrediting an IMA approved name) is completely unacceptable. Mindat would be wise to return Lazurite to a separate species status. It is not an issue if Lazurite is or is not actually a variety of Haüyne or not. The issue is that there are procedures in place that need to be followed.

A few years ago I pointed out to the discoverer of "Clinotyrolite" that despite all Tyrolite being monoclinic, the chemistry that she and her colleagues had published meant it might still be a valid species although the name they had given could not be maintained knowing the reality of Tyrolite. Their mineral had never been properly discredited and at best, following the establishment of the GQN list (the first draft of which many know I had been asked to prepare for the IMA), needed to be reevaluated as per the IMA that permit a mineral to be reexamined, redefined and its description modified in accordance if need be. Confusion remained because the mineral had been published before China recognised the IMA so it was either a G or Q status mineral upon China's entry to the IMA. But due to the lead scientist's lack of knowledge of English and a general unfamiliarity witht the IMA process in place, this had been overlooked and never properly dealt with. Added to this was that the the scientists who subsequently determined that all Tyrolite was monoclinic had no access to the type-material of "Clinotyrolite" and could not properly discredit the mineral. In this case it was shown that the mineral was in fact, as originally described, a separate and distinct species that only require a name change and some adjustment in its description to maintain its status. At least it was I either a proper G status mineral or it was raised from a Q (questionable) status to an A (accepted) status. In the end the discoverer, original and lead scientist was very grateful for my helping her through the IMA process as her mineral was now clearly a recognised distinct species.

In the case of Lazurite the same needs to be done. If there is doubt or the natural material doesn't quite match the theoretical descripton, then work needs to be done to reexamineand redifine the mineral. Then determine is it distinct from Haüyne and if it is (my tells me there is a good chance it is). If so, the modify the description that fits with Lazurite as it exists in nature and submit it to the IMA for approval. If it is determined it is not a separate and distinct species then this too, needs to be submitted to the IMA for formal discreditation. THE WORK NEEDS BE DONE, SUBMITTED TO THE IMA, FORMALLY RECOGNISED AND NOT UNILATERALLY DONE - NOT BY ANYONE.

So does the process with the IMA need reform? I think so. For example, I believe the decisions once made need to be more open. As well, if there is a disagreement with the chairman there should be a process of dispute resolution in place so that disagreements can be settled in acordance with accepted rules in the open and in a fair and equitable manner. Secretivism does not really encourage this. The IMA has made improvements but there is still room for improvement.

That said, imperfect or not the IMA is what is in place. It is there for a reason and needs to be respected and not bypassed. Presently, the IMA status for Lazurite is G (grandfathered) - nothing else. My advice to Mindat, if it wishes not to undermine its credibility, is to relist Lazurite until such time as the IMA says otherwise.

7th Jan 2017 17:57 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

My suggestion is to put a message on the lasurite page that this mineral with this formula is on the IMAlist with the G-status, but that no specimens have been found and confirmed (yet) that conform to this definition.

7th Jan 2017 19:51 UTCTony Nikischer 🌟 Manager

Jeffrey is correct: despite some shortcomings, the IMA is still the final word. We can annotate however we like, but there is a formal discrediting process that is outside the scope and responsibility of Mindat. Elevate the discrepancies,of course, but we have no right to unilaterally discredit anything.

7th Jan 2017 20:28 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

I see the IMA as a form of "standard" making process/procedure. I have had considerable experience with the ISO standards making process which is designed to create standards in a volatile and diverse environment. They start with a proposed change/standard as a Draft Standard (DS) that is then circulated to all entities that the change/standard could impact. All comments that are submitted by affected entities are then considered and changes are made accordingly to the DS and a Draft International Standard (DIS) is then distributed for further comment, which includes the general public. The final step is the issue of the Standard after approval of all participating members of the standards committee has approved it.

My impression of the IMA procedure is that of a closed door dictatorship of "in" participants that can be very parochial in outlook. I think that the IMA needs to be restructured along the lines of the ISO to better consider the needs/impacts on all issues regarding the knowledge and use of minerals in industry as well as the sciences. The ISO process is particularly good at resolving disputes among affected parties. True, that this results in many compromises that not everyone likes, but is workable and effective in establishing international standards in an open and interactive way.

7th Jan 2017 23:38 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

8th Jan 2017 16:54 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

"dictatorship" - wow ...

8th Jan 2017 22:05 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Dictatorship may be too strong a word but Ron and Jeffery make a fair point about IMA being overly secretive. I have been a bit involved with scientific standards etc and its usual to get an expert panel together to make recommendations that then get sent out to all interested parties AFAP for discussion and comment before a final ruling is made. Recent political events, crazy or not, show what average people think of elitism!

12th Jan 2017 12:33 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

I updated the lazurite page a little to clarify its uncertain status.

12th Jan 2017 13:16 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

Well done ;-)

30th Jan 2017 18:18 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

This is an addendum to my previous post. In the Jan. 21, 2017 issue of Science News, p. 16, there is an announcement of four new elements having been assigned names in the periodic table: "the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry gave its seal of approval to the names . . . Tne names, proposed in June, underwent five months of public comment and review" (emphasis added by me). This naming of new elements by a recognized group is a very apt analogy to the IMA and its responsibility for mineral names with one very big exception: where is the IMA public comment and review process?.

30th Jan 2017 21:16 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Exactly, Ron!

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 13:21:40

Go to top of page