Arrojadite-(SrFe)

©

Click here for a list of articles that are not under construction but have had at least their first drafts finished.

This article is a place holder and needs someone to take it in hand and finish the first draft. If you would like to take this article in hand, leave a reply message below or contact Rock Currier via private message by clicking on the PM button next to my name at the top of the article.



Click here to view Best Minerals A and here for Best Minerals A to Z and here for Fast Navigation of completed Best Minerals articles.


Can you help make this a better article? What good localities have we missed? Can you supply pictures of better specimens than those we show here? Can you give us more and better information about the specimens from these localities? Can you supply better geological or historical information on these localities?

Below are some preliminary notes I have made about Arrojadite-(SrFe). This entry and thread has been made as a place holder for information that you will hopefully contribute about Arrojadite-(SrFe). It should be in no way be thought of as a claim I have staked out to write about this mineral, and in fact is an invitation for someone to step forward and create the article about this mineral. If you are so inclined and have questions about the format that such an article should have, go the The welcome topic at the top of the Best Minerals forum and read what has been posted there. Also take a look at some of the more mature articles that have already been written like Rhodochrosite, Adamite, Millerite etc. You will need also to pick out other images of Arrojadite-(SrFe)that will go into the article.



Arrojadite-(SrFe)
{Sr[ ]}{Fe²⁺[ ]}{Ca}{Na ₂[ ]}{Fe²⁺₁₃}{Al}[(OH)₂|HPO₄|(PO₄)₁₁] Monoclinic

There appears to be no pictures of Arrojadite-(SrFe) available. This appears to be a one locality mineral, at least thus far.


Arrojadite-(SrFe)
Sweden
Värmland, Torsby, Hålsjöberg (Horrsjöberg)

We need someone to tell us about the Arrojadite specimens from this locality.


Click here to view Best Minerals A and here for Best Minerals A to Z and here for Fast Navigation of completed Best Minerals articles.

Rock Currier
Crystals not pistols.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2012 08:28AM by Rock Currier.

I guess you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. I would argue and vote for combined articles on all arrojadites and all apatites, etc. Most of these chemical species are visually indistinguishable and often not what you would call the finest of Arrojadites or Apatites, etc. I think these Levinsonized species could be treated in the preamble with photos if available and the body of the article could concentrate on the better material.

I am don't agree with Rob. If we want sometimes to learn to distinguish these minerals, we must to give them separately. If we unable to divide them, or we want not to learn, we shouldn't use all these suffixes. And use only "old kind" Apatite, or Arrojadite, or Allanite. From my point of view, it would be step back in XIX century.

Thank Pavel, I'm not a Luddite wanting to return to some golden age of my youth. In spite of dominant lattice site concentrations, my personal view is that many of these should be regarded as well defined crystal chemical varieties. Both of us deplore the current treatment of previously well defined varieties that lax attitudes have rendered near meaningless. If a locality produces good material then it ought to be analysed to see just what it is. Then in the body of these articles one should refer to it by the known chemistry e.g. Arrojadite-(SrFe) etc. The problem occurs with things like Whitlockite and Bobdownsite that can only be distinguished by F contents or its resulting diffraction pattern or spectroscopy. Both known Bobdownsite localites produce both Whitlockite and the visually identical Bobdownsite. I'm sure there will be many localities that produce more than one of the Levinsonized species and in those cases the 19th century name might better be used. Otherwise the world's finest crystals of some things will have small bits broken off to find out the species. We are visual animals and the best of things are judged visually.

Well, I am sitting on the fence on this one. I thought I would try and get a few minerals started where they were all lumped together and then some like Arrojadite where they were all separate. Here we go again, the lumpers vs. the splitters. Perhaps by the time a couple of dozen more people weigh in on this we may be able to agree on how to handle this problem. We can always lump therm later or split them up later as we wish.

Rock Currier
Crystals not pistols.

I am already tired from this bobdownsite and conversations around it. :X It is only one example. It is remind me debates about are native mercury or opal minerals or not.
Yes it is difficult to confirm bobdownite, but the main problem is the absence of it in specimens.
In cse with arrojadites it is quite simple to check presence of Sr, Ba or Pb in them. It isn't problem at all.

Besides that I don't see any sense to open new page in this section for minerals, photos of which absent in the database, and apparently absent in collections our members and users. In such cases ANY specimen of such mineral is best.
I would be happy to obtain ANY specimen of REAL changbayite, and it become best for me. By the way I investigated specimen very similar to changbayite head photo, these yellow spots aren't changbayite, but are different REE fluorcarbonates and monazite.

But if we will not separate such species (levinsonized) we newer obtain answers on these questions. These questions don't arise at all.

From another hand, the funny situation arise: when epidote-(Ca) and -(Pb), or apatite-(CaF) and -(CaCl) were epidote and hankockite or fluorapatite and chlorapatite, they were quite different and recognizeble minerals, but after these "levinsonization" they become almost the same.

Pavel, You may be right about not bothering with minerals for which there are no images and I wonder about those images where you cant't see the mineral any way. But even if we can't see the mineral or if there is no image of it that tells you something. Combine that with information about how rare the mineral is, how many specimens found, how common it is is information that people often want to know and there is really no other place than the one we are creating for them to get this information other than doing quite a bit of research and even then they may not find it. I have decided to push through and create place holders for all the A minerals regardless of how rare or unavailable they are or weather there are pictures of them available or not. Already we have located good pictures for some of the rare items that would not be available otherwise and undoubtedly there will me more to come as people see what we are doing and want to help with the project. If we only concentrate only on the more common and or pretty things, serious people like yourself will loose interest in contributing. Somehow we must strike a balance. Once I am finished with a preliminary run through of the A minerals I think it might be in the wise for Best Minerals of mindat to concentrate on the more popular common pretty things because that is what most people will want to look up and use the site for. At the same time, when the opportunity presents itself, we should make notes about the rare stuff as well. Like if we can find a guy who specializes in that stuff, or who collected most of it, or did the work on that mineral and can give us information that did not make it into journals or armature magazines. We would be foolish to not snatch up such stuff and put it here. Occasionally people talk about such stuff here on mindat and then I run and create a thread for that mineral and stick that stuff in there. Thats the good stuff and this project is creating a place to put this kind of information.

Rock Currier
Crystals not pistols.

Dear Rock,
I am agree with you. I am very interested to know how many specimens of different retzians are known, 10-20? 100? 5? I don't met noone never, for example.
From another hand, some people don't like to see empty pages here. So they begin to propose to join DIFFERENT species in one conglomerate. It produce nothing instead of double work in future. I am think we need here One page for ONE mineral. Of course they may be connected by links. Besides that all late changing in nomenclatures were made only for grouping minerals of some groups in clusters - apatite-(XY), epidote-(Z), pyrochlore-(MN), etc., etc... Let this principle work here at least. In other case who needs in these nomenclature changes?

Arrojadite-(KFe) is the most widespread and abundant in the group. And it MUST be divided from more rare members of the group. Peoples should to want to see them. So they will try to find them.

For example the first attempt to make clear situation with arrojadites in my collection produce the find of arrojadite-(BaNa), which before was only hypotetical member of the group. And it looks quite different from usual arrojadite. Lets compare [www.mindat.org] with other arrojadite photos. It is very probably, that this crystals are arrojadite-(BaNa). Its locality and association is the same with mine one.

Pavel