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 ClassificationStatus of martinite

10th Jan 2006 14:20 UTCRoy Kristiansen Expert

Hello,

How is the status of martinite, approved as IMA2001-059 , but still not

described , which is far beyond the dead-line ?? The rules are clear, but ??!

The name appears on several occasions on internet.

Roy

10th Jan 2006 14:30 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Hi Roy,

exactly as you stated. The species is not yet described at today.

Ciao. Marco

10th Jan 2006 15:51 UTCJim Ferraiolo

The 2-year 'deadline' is very flexible, sometimes to the point of non-existance.

11th Jan 2006 02:51 UTCErnie Nickel

A paper on martinite was presented at the 18th IMA meeting of the IMA at Edinburgh, and an abstract is given on page 139 of the Abstract booklet.

Cheer, Ernie...

11th Jan 2006 09:33 UTCRoy Kristiansen Expert

Thank you, Ernie, I should have recalled that ! I do have the Abstract booklet.

Roy

13th Jan 2006 20:52 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

On the base of my data, only the following 11 species was not described in the 2-year 'deadline':

Fluornatromicrolite 1998-018

Krieselite 2000-043a

Martinite 2001-059

Marumoite 1998-004

Paralabuntsovite-Mg Redefined 2000-A

Pizgrischite 2001-002

Rastsvetaevite 2000-028

Unnamed IMA 2000-016 2000-016

Unnamed IMA 2000-020 2000-020

Unnamed IMA 2000-030 2000-030

Zincalstibite 1998-033

I have considered the announced papers (forthcoming) as published and the IMA 2002 approvals are not included in this list because I think that the journals are in part the cause of the lated publication.

The situation is undoubtely a good situation!

14th Jan 2006 13:44 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Marumoite was described from Japan.

Reference:

â€¢ Shimizu, M., Ishizaki, Y., Honma, T., Matsubara, S., Miyawaki, R. (2005): Dufrenoysite and marumoite from the Okoppe Mine, Japan. 8th Biennal SGA Meeting, Beijing, August 18-21, 2005, Poster #100.

16th Jan 2006 10:16 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

2-year deadline:

The proposals 2000-016 and 2000-020 have not been approved by the CNMMN, proposal 2000-030 has been suspended.

Proposal 2000-43a was only approved in 2003 in a second vote.

As discussed earlier in this forum, more approved proposals from before 2002 are still missing, for various reasons: 68-003, 77-006, 78-064, 87-046, 87-049; two proposals (88-047a and 99-037) have been submitted to Canadian Mineralogist.

From the proposals approved in 2002, nine have not yet been published at this moment, but two of these are in print.

16th Jan 2006 10:56 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Dear Prof. Burke,

in the article published on Canadian Mineralogist (see reference) both IMA 2000-016 and IMA 200-020 are listed as approved. The same for IMA 2000-030.

Is it a mistake on the publication?

Reference:

â€¢ Grice, J.D. & Ferraris, G. (2001): New minerals approved in 2000 by the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names, International Mineralogical Association. Canadian Mineralogist, 39, 917-923.

Many thanks. Marco

16th Jan 2006 11:10 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Another question Prof. Burke.

About IMA 68-003: is it more correct to consider it as a potential new mineral or as an approved mineral?

Author is died and any information about the phase is known.

Thanks again.

Marco

16th Jan 2006 12:54 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Also if not type-description in sensu strictu, for keystoneite (87-049) I have the following two references:

â€¢ Back, M.E., Roberts, A.C., LePage, Y., Mandarino, J.A. (1988): Keystoneite, a new tellurite from the Keystone mine, Colorado, U.S.A. Joint Meeting Geological Association of Canada â€“ Mineralogical Association of Canada, Program and Abstracts, 13, A4.

â€¢ Miletich, R. (1995): Crystal chemistry of the microporous tellurite

minerals zemannite and kinichilite, Mg0.5â€¢4.5H2O, (Me2+ = Zn, Mn). European Journal of Mineralogy, 7, 509-523.

16th Jan 2006 15:45 UTCJim Ferraiolo

I also show 71-044, 72-008, 76-038 and 78-064 as approved, but not published, though I don't know how accurate that is.

I can understand 2000-030 being suspended, it is a tourmaline group mineral that is in nomenclature subcommittee.

Has any information been released on 68-003?

77-006 is whelanite and listed on Mindat.

16th Jan 2006 16:22 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Jim,

OK for 78-064: it is approved and unpublished, but, based on my data, 71-044, 72-008 and 76-038 are not approved species (a small doubt only about the status of 76-038).

Ciao. Marco

16th Jan 2006 16:28 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Thanks, Marco.

Do you know if the 1992 Approved list was ever published? I have all the other published lists from 1990 to the present.

16th Jan 2006 16:35 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Hi Jim,

I don't know.

Ciao. Marco

16th Jan 2006 17:02 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

"I can understand 2000-030 being suspended, it is a tourmaline group mineral that is in nomenclature subcommittee".

OK, I also I can understand, but it was prior approved (Grice & Ferraris, 2001). Perhaps that the Subcommitte on Tourmaline will change some thing (name, etc.) or suggest the discreditation or other solution. This is normal, I think...

Do you agree with me, Jim?

Under the name provisory(?) name of "hydroxyuvite" it is in Mindat!

16th Jan 2006 19:43 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Yes, Marco. My guess it has be suspended after approval pending the final report of the Tourmaline Subcommittee. We've seen this happen, or something similar happen, with the labuntsovites, amphiboles and eudialyte groups.

16th Jan 2006 20:03 UTCJim Ferraiolo

If possible, if someone has CanMin 1994 - I'd like to get a copy of the article "New Minerals recently approved by the CNMMN, IMA", p723

Thanks.

17th Jan 2006 09:54 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

The presence of 2000-016, 2000-020 and 2000-030 in the 2001 paper by Grice and Ferraris is indeed a mistake. The tourmaline-group mineral 2000-030 was not approved, but suspended, waiting for the tourmaline subcommittee to propose a new nomenclature scheme. I do not know the reason for this mistake, as other proposals not approved in 2000 are not included in this 2001 publication.

Proposal 78-064 was approved, but the author was the (in)famous W.W. Crook III (what's in a name?) of the texasite affair. So the fate of this phase is highly dubious.

Proposal 68-003 was approved, but the author passed away, and we have a gap in the CNMMN archives for that period. We only know that it is a copper arsenide. The name was never published, but we have it in the archives.

17th Jan 2006 10:34 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Thanks a lot, Prof. Burke.

Now all is clear and I provide to change/eliminate the phases if they are in Mindat. (Just a little note: yesterday I found on the web also the name of IMA 2000-020!).

Thanks again.

All the best.

Marco

17th Jan 2006 11:49 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

The "suspended" status is not in Mindat so the IMA2000-030 phase, with the provisory name of hydroxyuvite, is classified as "pending approval".

IMA2000-016 and IMA 2000-020 are now classified as "not approved".

The "questionables" IMA78-064 and IMA68-003 are not in Mindat (and probaly this is the better solution!?)

17th Jan 2006 19:06 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

" IMA2000-016 and IMA 2000-020 are now classified as "not approved". "

Maybe the error in the literature should be indicated in the entries for these two minerals.

17th Jan 2006 20:11 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Fixed.

18th Jan 2006 02:23 UTCJim Ferraiolo

IMA 78-064, if I remember correctly, was the orthorhombic dimorph of brochantite, and was offered for sale by several, if not many, dealers in the late '70s. Of course, this mineral was not addressed in Peacor, et al. (1982) discreditation of Crook's new 'minerals':'texasite', 'albrittonite', 'cuproartinite' , 'cuprohydromagnesite', and 'yttromicrolite'.

18th Jan 2006 09:15 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Thanks to Bill Birch, CNMMN secretary, news about three more 'missing' IMA numbers:

71-044: 'suspended indefinitely'

72-008: withdrawn by the authors

76-038: mineral and name approved, but not published.

18th Jan 2006 09:23 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Very well Prof. Burke.

Another small question solved! Thanks.

18th Jan 2006 10:07 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

"IMA 78-064, if I remember correctly, was the orthorhombic dimorph of brochantite, and was offered for sale by several, if not many, dealers in the late '70s. Of course, this mineral was not addressed in Peacor, et al. (1982) discreditation of Crook's new 'minerals':'texasite', 'albrittonite', 'cuproartinite' , 'cuprohydromagnesite', and 'yttromicrolite'."

Jim, I had a specimen of the pseudo orthorhombic brochantite in the late '70s from a dealer and I XRD-ed the crystal: it resulted monoclinic (P21/n).

Dealer was correct and I never payed the specimen.

Ciao. Marco

PS: The mistake about the approvals of IMA 2000-016, IMA 2000-020 and IMA 2000-030 is also in the paper of Jeffrey de Fourestier (2002).

Reference:

de Fourestier, J. (2002): THE NAMING OF MINERAL SPECIES APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON NEW MINERALS AND MINERAL NAMES OF THE INTERNATIONAL

MINERALOGICAL ASSOCIATION: A BRIEF HISTORY. Canadian Mineralogist, 40, 1721-1735.

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 9, 2024 01:16:58

Go to top of page