wrong type locality of tapiolite-(Fe)

The type locality is given as Viitaniemi with a reference to Am. Min. 70, p. 217, which in turn refers to Lahti et al. 1983.
On reading these two papers it stands clear that the NEW mineral is manganotapiolite (now tapiolite-(Mn)), thus Viitaniemi is type locality for that mineral. Mentioned is also that IMA has approved the name ferrotapiolite (now tapiolite-(Fe) and at the time of publication of the mentioned papers only tapiolite) for Fe-dominant members in analogy to the naming of the new mineral. Tapiolite had been known since long and was described by that name already 1863 by Nordenskjöld, the type locality being Sukula, Tammela, Southern Finland Region, Finland.

Actually there are quite a few examples of misinterpreted IMA-re-namings, for example quite a few "grandfathered" REE-bearing minerals appears as "approved" after the "whole-sale" application of the Levinson rule back in...was it the eighties?


cheers

Hello Johan
The type locality of Tapiolite-(Mn) is Tiainen pegmatite (about 2-3 km from Viitaniemi). See Mistakes and Errors:
Tapiolite-(Mn) error, Oct 18, 2011.

Ilkka

fine, Erejärvi whatever, but my concern was tapiolit-(Fe), i.e. ferrotapiolite originally tapiolite.

cheers

and the type-locality of tapiolite-(Fe) is still NOT Viitaniemi

cheers

Hi Johan
Yes, you are right about Viitaniemi not being the TL of tapiolite-(Fe). TL is Sukula, Tammela, Southern Finland Region, Finland.

Nordenskiöld A E (1863): Om tantalitartade mineralier från nejden af Torro, Öfversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar, 20, 443-453, [rruff.info]
gives as TL a small Quartz prospect near Kumala [hemman] in the town of Sukula (Sukkula) in the parish of Tammela.
Besides giving an analysis of the mineral he name as Tapiolite, Nordenskiöld also states that "Mineralet är fritt från Mangan" (The mineral is free of Manganese).


The tapiolite-(Fe) page will be corrected, and reference added



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2012 07:02AM by Knut Edvard Larsen.

I agree. If a mineral acquires a chemical suffix due to simple changes in format, the original locality should remain the type locality as there was no error or variance with the new name format.

Best Wishes, Van King