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 ClassificationVihorlatite

18th Oct 2006 16:25 UTCLeon Hupperichs Expert

Hi, all.

I have a question about Vihorlatite, is this a valid species or not ?

On mindat it is a IMA approved species (1988), but on webmineral it is an inadequately described species not approved by IMA.

On other websites Vihorlatite is also described as an approved species.

Any ideas ?

greetings

Leon

18th Oct 2006 18:29 UTCJim Ferraiolo

It is an approved species (IMA 88-047), but has never been formally described.

18th Oct 2006 21:37 UTCAlan Plante

I do not find it listed in either Fleischer's or Dana 8th.

As I understand it, once the commission has approved a species it's description must be published within two years, or the approval lapses. If that's correct, then this mineral is no longer a valid species - simply because the describer(s) failed to publish it. Someone else could now do a work-up on it, submit it to the commission with a new name, and have it approved - and if they then published the description, in a timely fashion, the new name would be the valid one.

Alan

18th Oct 2006 21:40 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

The approval is not taken back automatically.

18th Oct 2006 22:10 UTCAlan Plante

So what happens after the two year grace period is up?

18th Oct 2006 22:19 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

This was discussed in at least one old thread.

19th Oct 2006 04:20 UTCAlan Plante

..but not answered. As I recall, what ended up being said was basically what you wrote above. Then a couple of wishy-washy follow-ups that didn't really answer the question.

19th Oct 2006 10:31 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

This IMA rule just does not work in reality, that's why the rule is necessarily handled in a flexible way.

You can ask Mr. Burke for details, or send him a complaint if you want.

19th Oct 2006 11:40 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

A Czech friend tell me that the type-description is "on the road"...

19th Oct 2006 13:22 UTCJim Ferraiolo

According to the 1998 IMA Procedures and Guidelines, to quote, "If new-mineral descriptions, discreditations, redefinitions or revalidations are not published within that time , the proposals are no longer considered as approved (bolding is mine). Any extensions of this deadline must be approved by the chairman or vice-chairman, as appropriate."

The obvious reading of this is that the proposals are automatically recinded if not published within the two year rule, but in general, the rule is largely ignored by the mineralogical community. Obviously, there are exceptions - prassoite, for one.

So, Alan is correct in the statement of the rule, Uwe is correct in the flexibility of the rule.

If Dr Burke would like to add anything to this, it would be appreciated.

19th Oct 2006 14:44 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Thanks for the clarification, Jim. I should have reread the guidelines.

19th Oct 2006 15:39 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

The approval can be found at:

http://www.mineralmuseums.com/bol2006/vihorl.htm

19th Oct 2006 16:07 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Vihorlatite was approved in 2000 (even if the IMA ref. is 88-047).

19th Oct 2006 16:47 UTCAlan Plante

But has the description been published? - That's the question here. If it hasn't, more than two years has passed and the approval has again lapsed, unless the deescribers asked for and received an extension. Unless...

Alan

19th Oct 2006 16:53 UTCAlan Plante

I had thought it was as Jim quoted below, but I don't have it here at hand and couldn't check.

The reason I asked was because in the previous discussion of this topic I got the impression that while the rule was on the books, it wasn't paid attention to very much - sort of only trotted out to settle a dispute if one arose, but otherwise ignored.

The bottom line in regards to the current discussion about "vihorlatite" is that if the describers have not published it sine it's 2000 approval by the commission, and have not asked for and received an extension, then it's approval has lapsed again - it is no longer valid. The only way to answer this is to find out if it has been published - or an extension granted. Until then, we don't know what it's status is.

Alan

19th Oct 2006 17:08 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Well, about vihorlatite.

Yes, the mineral was approved in 2000, it has an 88 number, but the proposal needed several resubmissions before the data were deemed to be sufficiently correct to approve them.

Now the authors are quite slow, but the manuscript is with a journal, so be patient a bit longer.

Any comments on the two-year rule for publication after approval? The CNMNC keeps track of its approved minerals, of course, and indeed, some authors are slow for some reason(s). I contact these authors, not immediately after two years (some journals are also slow with their schedules), but after three years. Usually there are valid reasons for the delay (additional studies, etc.). The really, really, slow, slow authors are exceptions, only a few after three years.

Applying the rule (your mineral does not exist any more!!!) would cause unwanted problems and hard behaviour amongst scientists where it is not needed at all.

Since a few years, the CNMNC publishes monthly the approved minerals (OK, only numbers, no names, we have had that discussion also several times, please no repeat). In that list the corresponding author is also mentioned. So, you may keep track yourselves of the slow authors. If you are really pressed to know the full description of some slow mineral (and why should you?), why not contact the authors, any pressure may help!

I think that the premature publication of mineral names through mineral dealers (Excalibur!!!) is a bigger problem than the slow publications. All kinds of wrong information are spread to you without any means to check the data. Yes, the authors are of course responsible for this, they want money for their properties. Also this you can check now, with the monthly lists: who is selling his/her minerals before publishing properly? But I also understand that problem, why not? I have stated my opinion before in this medium: commodities with value are always potential problems, not only in mineralogy!

19th Oct 2006 20:15 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Many thanks Prof. Burke. For me, all is OK and is true, now, almost all type-descriptions are published in a correct time.

About "Excalibur problem", for alloriite, I can assure that the specimens was not proposed for sale by the collector.

According to my data, the type-descriptions of the following approved mineral species are not yet published:

1977-006

1987-046a

1998-004

1998-018

2000-043a

2001-059

The ones approved from 2002 on are not included, because I assume that the type-descriptions are not late.

Announcemets are considered as published.

19th Oct 2006 21:38 UTCJim Ferraiolo

The "Excalibur problem" appears to be primarily the result of the author(s) releasing the material for sale. If the material is 'author's material', the dealer has gotten the name and IMA number from the author. Excalibur does tend to note whether the new species is 'author's material' and give the IMA proposal number. The mineral name is easily matched to the proposal number.

This does not appear to contradict the IMA procedures. The following appears on the monthly "New Minerals Approved" list:

"The names of these approved species are considered confidential information until the authors have published their descriptions or released information themselves."

This also applies if the author has release the names to collectors who may have supplied material and allowed them to release the name.

19th Oct 2006 22:31 UTCArmand Dutroux

Hello!

If the author released the name and other little but significant informations I indeed:The mineral name are valid and not problems for your use are expected.The delay of description are an ancient problem who not solved in the past years and nowadays are clear remain whitout resolution.Well,if the real risk of lost of the propost after two years of non-published exist the behavior of mineralogist and all. are other.The afraid are a good catalyser for rapid resolutions,sorry but in the days of the speed of informations are regrettable the denied or delay of description.

Thanks.

20th Oct 2006 10:30 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

OK Jim I agree with you.

24th Oct 2006 15:05 UTCTony Nikischer 🌟 Manager

Hi Jim,

A recent quote from you on Min Dat regarding vihorlatite but citing "The Excalibur Problem" reflects what the IMA feels is a serious problem in that newly approved mineral names are sometimes released prior to publication. Apparently, I am the Infidel himself, the most prolific of practitioners of this evil deed. Indeed, I am one of the last of a dying breed of "rare species dealers" that still survives, and I am, indeed, the confessed Infidel (as Rock Currier once crowned me) in this regard.

Having specialized in rare minerals for more than 30 years, I have ALWAYS respected a scientist's right to keep his/her information confidential until published or willingly released to me or others. In many instances, I sit on new species for considerable lengths of time to honor that commitment, with no financial or congratulatory reward for doing so---often quite the contrary! So, I follow the IMA's own "rule" as you pointed out:

"The names of these approved species are considered confidential information until the authors have published their descriptions or released information themselves."

It is clear to me that if an author is comfortable enough with the IMA comments associated with an approval, and he or she then elects to release basic information such as name, composition etc. without undue concern for bad information being given to the collector population, there should be no stigma attached to those authors or others who use the acquired information. We are not talking about spying or "backroom leaks" of proprietary data here, nor are we talking about submittals that are rejected or retuned for more or better analyses. The data we offer with our mineral descriptions to those who have asked us to send them our mineral lists is clean, approved and useful. We have never knowingly passed along a spurious name, a concocted formula or any other data that could be detrimental to the science or the hobby, and that is how we have built up our relationships with the collector and scientific communities over the past 3+ decades.

I won't go into why some scientists release their data (and no, it is not all a matter of money), but let's just agree that they frequently decide to do so. They (the scientists) should not be harassed or ridiculed by others when they are, in fact, living by the rule cited above. And, it upsets me to see the Excalibur name used as some whipping boy for a problem that really is not a problem at all, particularly when it appears on the same website with the very descriptions I have provided to my clients. It would seem that my descriptions are taken from a non-public email and posted to a website without my permission to do so! Hmmm...

In any case, I have no desire to anger IMA officials, nor any desire to create undo stress for the many, many diligent scientists around the world with whom I have good relationships that have been built up over many years. I think that henceforth, all my email descriptions will be noted as strictly confidential, for the intended receipients use only, with no reprinting or excerpting in any format permitted until I post them personally to a public forum like my website. Needless to say, most new mineral descriptions will never make it to my website for general consumption as a result. In this way, Excalibur will not make "public" any hard-earned knowledge, only to see it attacked because it was provided in the first place. Screwy, isn't it? Me withholding timely, useful and important information from the world (that will eventually be published anyway in a year or two or three or more..), just to avoid criticism...just like the scientists are supposed to be doing, it seems....

The Infidel Himself

Tony Nikischer

Excalibur Mineral Corp.

1000 North Division Street

Peekskill, NY 10566 - USA

24th Oct 2006 16:16 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I don't think it is fair for Ernst (or others) to "Shoot the Messenger" here. If there has been a leak of information on a new species prior to publication, then it is due to those who have been researching the material and trying to sell it (and these people know very well that a mineral with a name, even one that should not yet be released, will sell far more than an IMAxxx-xx, or an "unnanmed" species). The problem is the people prepared to sell material alongside information about an unpublished mineral.

If they decided to release this name to people outside of those immediately responsible for the research, approval and publication of their new mineral, I believe they lose the right to keep the identity of the mineral secret - and Excalibur and everyone else is totally justified in distributing the information.

Like Excalibur, I am frequently provided with information in confidence, which is treated in this way. But if Excalibur, or anyone else, is provided with information along with mineral samples in order to raise the value of this material, then the original authors and researchers cannot later complain that the information is "out there".

Jolyon

24th Oct 2006 16:35 UTCTony Nikischer 🌟 Manager

For the record, I have never received a complaint from an author of a new mineral about sharing mineral information, but only from those who did not "own" that information in the first place. And the fact is: the authors do "own" the information, deciding when and how it is prudent (after discussion and approval) to release it.

And also for the record, many authors willingly release information about "their" minerals, not because they are selling specimens (many do not), but because they believe their approved information is for everyone to see once it has been peer-reviewed and accepted. We all realize that formal publication can take many months or years, as evidenced by other discussions seen on these pages. There should be no secrecy mandated in the science, once an author is comfortable with the approved data being offered.

The Infidel

24th Oct 2006 16:50 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Just for the sake of clarity: when I write to authors my letter of approval of their new minerals, that letter contains a paragraph in which it is stated that minerals should not be offered for sale before a formal description of the minerals is published.

It is not Excalibur that makes the mistakes, it is the authors who for some reason offer their material before publishing the mineral data. As I said before, I understand why it is done, but whether it is the right course ...

Of course, authors have the right to make available their data in what way they choose, but the CNMNC insists on formal descriptions.

There is of course no guarantee at all that material of new minerals offered by commercial compoanies is consistent with the data provided to the CNMNC, and this for all kinds of reasons. If it is not the author who provides the material, but other collectors who think they have the same stuff, nobody knows what is what.

Some authors have told me that they exchanged specimens of very rare material with colleagues in other scientific institutions, e.g., because of the paucity of material only two samples. A few weeks later, the original authors were offered no less than four or five specimens of so-called identical material from dealers, whic on inspection were of course something completely different.

Horrifying tales ... Beware, buyers of new, rare minerals!

24th Oct 2006 17:01 UTCAlan Plante

Way to go Tony! - Give 'em hell, and then some!

I have been trying to make the point for some time that you can't fault a dealer for passing on info given to him/her by those supplying the specimens it is attached to: If someone who has discovered a new mineral chooses to "release" its name along with samples, then that's *their* choice - not the dealers!

Yet people like Mr. Burke seem to feel that all scientists are lilly white and above reproach - and are never responsible for prematurely releasing new species names and specimens. It must be the dealer's fault, by George! - Mr. Burke even admitted on this board to contemplating witholding two new speices names - maybe even force them to be changed - just to give a dealer what-for. How professional was that? And there was NO proof the dealer somehow got hold of the specimens illegally or in any underhanded way. Yet I was chastised for suggesting the researchers who releaseed the materials and their names might have some measure of responsibility in the matter...

Hell - it even seems as though some in the IMA don't "get" their own rules: How is it a "premature release" when the IMA's own rule/procedure basically says the info is the researchers' to publish as they see fit. Just because it is "published" somewhere other than in a learned journal doesn't mean it has been "prematurely released." The researches have simply chosen a different venue than the IMA might like to see it published in. And that's their choice.

Anyway, I'm glad to see someone saying something that has needed to be said here for a long time now.

Give 'em another lick, Tony! :~}

Alan Plante

24th Oct 2006 17:03 UTCAlan Plante

Now, that's a very different tune than the one you were playing a while back, isn't it? - Alan

24th Oct 2006 17:34 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Ah how much simpler the world would be if we stop thinking that researchers "own" any rights at all to "their" mineral. Most researchers are working on mineral samples collected in the field by someone else, and they depend on expensive instruments paid for by my taxes, on time that is also paid for by me (their salaries), so I think the data belongs to ME (the taxpayer), A few (very few) independent researchers (in the tradition of Sid Williams) might be able to argue differently. A researcher should be happy that he gets his salary, and that he has the academic honour of having described a new mineral, along with the respect that brings from his academic peers and from collectors, but what is done with the name or the data AFTER approval by the IMA should be of no relevance.

24th Oct 2006 18:29 UTCTony Nikischer 🌟 Manager

Well, if any of this work were being done in the U.S., you would be absolutely right as a U.S. taxpayer. But descriptive mineralogy is largely dead here, it is not valued by U.S. institutions, and it receives little respect or funding in this country. So, we rely on "foreign" researchers to do the work on most new minerals!

Many don't care about the "ownership" of their information and freely give it away; others need to make a living beyond their meager salaries, and there should be no shame in trying to feed their families. Sticky rules, sticky situations....

But you are correct: after acceptance and approval, data should belong to the world at large once it is released by those who prepared it for ultimate dispersal.

The issue of spurious mineral identifications made by Mr. Burke is a different issue, and that's why we still use our SEM and EDS system to check material when it arrives from non-scientific sources. It really has nothing to do with "early release of information"!

The Infidel

24th Oct 2006 20:50 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Thanks, Tony! Wasn't too painful ;-)

Thanks, Dr Burke, for the additional clarification, though it definitely does seem that any requests to the authors fall under Commission 'guidelines', not strict rules.

Alan, I think that's the first time I've seen someone post a response to himself!

Jim

25th Oct 2006 03:51 UTCAlan Plante

Jim

Following is Mr Burke's post to the Sanmartinite thread - copy 'n' paste, verbatium:

*********************

I read Italian, your hope that the new minerals will be approved with the same name is of course your right, but I can assure you that I was not amused at all with this history of pure greed amongst mineral sellers and collectors. Mr. Gebhard has something to explain, and he should enter this discussion as soon as possible.

I have of course had contacts with the scientist working on those two minerals to hear his views on the story, and I accepted his explanations.

I have considered the possibility to postpone the whole CNMMN procedure on these two minerals, and even to force the future author to change the names of the two phases so that Mr. Gebhard would feel that he should not play games with scientists.

But this time I decided to leave things as they are because the scientist is not to blame.

Such stories are not favourable for any cooperation between professionals and collectors!!!

*********************

If that's not a different attitude than the one expressed in his post above, then I don't know what is.

And with this, I rest my case.

Alan

25th Oct 2006 09:28 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Of course, the attitudes are different, sometimes dealers do strange things, sometimes authors do strange things, and sometimes collectors do strange things with minerals. Well, even the CNMNC does strange things with minerals, from time to time.

25th Oct 2006 09:36 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Ernst A.J. Burke Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course, the attitudes are different, sometimes

> dealers do strange things, sometimes authors do

> strange things, and sometimes collectors do

> strange things with minerals. Well, even the CNMNC

> does strange things with minerals, from time to

> time.

It's normal! All is OK in my mind!

The important thing is the fact that you and CNMNC are doing important (not "strange") things for the mineralogical community!

25th Oct 2006 12:17 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Thanks, Alan, Dr Burke, and Marco.

25th Oct 2006 13:24 UTCMaurizio Dini Expert

Some fellows on this comunity has to bare in mind that CNMMN deals with different situations, basically because many peoples has different point of view and "work system culture"; any new discovered and approved mineral has it's own history to tell, we cannot judge from actitude.

The story of the Sanromanite is absolutely different, although I might understand that many people had consider it a "deja vu", but please don't bring as an example that situation, because each new approved mineral has something unique, that is uncomparable with others; this has been metaphorically and clearly stated by Dr. Burke.

regards from Chile

maurizio dini

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 19, 2024 01:39:09

Go to top of page