Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Improving Mindat.orgRUTILE type locality

22nd Nov 2005 13:26 UTCJakub Jirásek

I would like to correct the type locality of rutile. It shoul be Velká Revúca, Slovak Republic - first described by I.E. Born in 1772. Thanks.

Jakub Jirásek

22nd Nov 2005 15:12 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti

Is it the description of Born (1772) with the name of rutile?

In my knowledge the T/L is Cajuelo, Burgos, Spain (Werner, 1803).

22nd Nov 2005 15:39 UTCPeter Haas

There is a big difference between the discovery locality and the type locality (TL). By definition, the TL is the locality that provided the material used to determine the physical, chemical and structural properties needed to classify the mineral in question as a new species.

A prominent example is wulfenite: it was discovered in a deposit near Annaberg in Lower Austria, but the material used to carry out the analyses came from Bleiberg, Carinthia. Therefore, the latter is the correct TL. The former is simply the locality of its first description.

22nd Nov 2005 16:33 UTCalfredo

I basically agree with Peter here. But to amplify further: Before the establishment of the CNMMN in 1959, the situation with regard to type localities is often rather vague, since there was often no one single description or characterization which resulted in a mineral's "formal acceptance". Each mineralogist who got a piece in his hands added a bit to its characterization, so it's often a subject of debate at which point we consider a new species to have been "born". In such cases it might be appropriate for us to list here on Mindat all the various conflicting type locality claims as "co-type localities" (of course, very important, with all appropriate references; no unreferenced claims should be accepted), and then the reader can make up his own mind according to his tastes. In most cases, no one can claim that locality X is the "official" type locality for a pre-1959 mineral, because the IMA hasn't made official pronouncements on most of those species.

One concrete example: Magnesioriebeckite was first described (chemistry and structure) using material from Alto Chapare, Bolivia, published by Whittaker in Acta Crystallographica in 1949. Although Whittaker invented no new name for this material, and the word "magnesioriebeckite" does not appear in the article, I would consider this to be the type locality. The name, as we now know it, was first used for japanese material about 7 years later, so those writers who base their type localities on literature searches to find the first use of a name, list Japan as the type locality.

Cheers,

Alfredo

23rd Nov 2005 17:16 UTCjohan

I agree with the Peter and Alfredo. I do not like when the TL data erases the whole history of a mineral. Dana's 6th edition (and some other encyclopedic works) lists all important references to a mineral directly after the name, with alternative name used, author, year and page. I find this style of presenting the information very useful and of course locality information could be added if relevant.

For rutile both Dana and Hintze list Romé de l'Isle 1783 as first author, who calls the mineral "Schorl rouge" from madagascar and Spain. The first von Born reference they mention is from 1790 (Rhoniz in Hungary). They may of course have missed out on your reference Jakub - but you need to substantiate it I think. Evidently von Born did not call it "rutile", and in what work of his have you found the reference?

cheers

johan

23rd Nov 2005 17:18 UTCjohan

maybe this one, Jakub?

Index fossilium / / Ignaz von Born. - Praga : Gerle, 1772

johan

2nd Dec 2005 18:00 UTCLaszlo Horvath

Hi,

For anyone interested in the history of the description of rutile, I recommend the newly published work: "History of minerals, rocks and fossil resins discovered in the Carpathian Region." by Gabor Papp. published by the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest.

Type localities of minerals "described" in the 18th Century are problematic, especially when the names used were like "basaltes ruber" <= red schorl> (Born 1772), as was the case with rutile. Velká Revúca is the most likely TL.

Laszlo

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 11, 2024 07:08:03

Go to top of page