Removing "type" localities for varieties and synonyms

(... continuing from [www.mindat.org])

We currently have no easy way to find these "type" localities, so I am removing them where I find them (and am adding note on "original" locality in the variety/synonym file).

Appreciate any help pointing out such "type" localities.


Best way seems to take a country with lots of minerals and check for all 'xxxx' names (sometimes varietal).
Have started with Germany.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2007 07:29PM by Uwe Kolitsch.

Rožná, czech republic - lepidolite (invalid - trilithionite-polylithionite series)

Gabbro Quarry (Bärenstein Quarry),Bad Harzburg,Harz Mts.: Brunsvigite (whatever it is now...)

I appreciate your initiative to improve the listings in mindat for varietal names and discredited species. I agree that listing "type localities" in these cases are unnecessary - mentioning where this variety was first observed/described is OK. But how do we handle species that " needs further study" ? Should TL then be retained ?

Anyway it is a huge task. I have started looking at my own country and can give you a preliminary list of varietal names ( A-F) which needs some kind of correction ( also adding data relating to original locality/description):
Acanthicone - synonyme of epidote used by d`Andrada 1800 on specimens from Arendal, Norway
Allochroite - varietal name for andradite used by d`Andrada 1800 on samples from mines near Drammen, Buskerud, Norway.
Alvite - TL can be deleted with reference to the localities where this variety of zircon was first observed. The text could be changed to " a metamict, often Hf-rich variety of Zircon from granite pegmatites".
Ånnerødite - TL can be deleted
Aphrizite - TL can be deleted
Atheriastite - TL can be deleted
Barbierite - TL can be deleted
Botryolite - It should be mentioned that this variety of datolite was first described by Hausmann (1808) from the Kjenlie mine near Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Calciothorite - it should be mentioned that this variety was first described by Brögger (1887)from the islands of Låven and Arøy in the Langesundsfjord, Vestfold, Norway.
Caryocerite - it should be mentioned that this variety was first described by Brögger (1890) from the Arøy skerries, Langesundsfjord, Vestfold, Norway.
Cleveite - it should be mentioned that this variety was first described by Nordenskiöld (1978) from the Garta feldspar quarry, Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Cryptolite - it should be mentioned that this synonyme of Monazite-Ce was used by Wöhler (1846) for inclusions in apatite from Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Cyprine - it should be mentioned that this variety wasa first described by Berzelius (1820) from Kleppan, Sauland, Telemark, Norway.
Donathite - TL can be deleted
Eucolite - it should be mentioned that this variety was first described by Scheerer (1847) from Barkevik, Langesundsfjord, Vestfold, Norway. (Today it would probably be regarded as a variety of ferrokentbrooksite and not eudialyte..)
Eucolite-titanite - it should be mentioned that this variety of titanite was first described by Scheerer ( 1853) from Barkevik, Langesundsfjord, Vestfold, Norway.
Falkenstenite - should be regarded as a discredited mineral following the publication in 1996 "Minerals originally described from Norway. Including notes on type material" , Bergverksmuseets skrifter no. 11 by G. Raade. He publishes data from re-examination of the type material showing that "Falkenstenite" shoould be regarded as a mixture - probably of plagioclase, clinopyrozene and chlorite. TL can be deleted.
Fuscite - as a synonyme for scapolite was used by Schumacher (1801) on a mineral from Kallevigen near Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.

Ref. for the informations: H. Neumann "Norges Mineraler" NGU-skrifter no 68 and the publication mentioned above by G. Raade ("Minerals originally described from Norway", Bergverksmuseets skrifter no. 11, 1996).

I can continue from G onwards later.

Knut

Additional remarks on varietal names A-F from localities in Norway:

"Dahllite" which is a synonym for carbonate-hydroxyapatite, was first described from the Ødegården mines, Bamble, Telemark, Norway. This should be mentioned and the locality listed under "dahllite".

Type localities should be retained for 'need further study' minerals.

The work started by Uwe should then probably procede based on some agreed guidelines. (There seems to be some "inherent" in the database-structure but not necessarily practiced in a logic way).
It seems possible to have names of varieties listed under the different localities, but not when entering a synonym. But still a list of localities are presented under some synonyms i.e. "Dahllite" - even if this varietal name cannot be entered to new localities.(There must have been a change in database structure) I think it is a good idea NOT to list localities for synonyms ( and also question the practice of listing localities for varieties but accept that there is a difference between a variety with distinctive features and a synonym). But then the term "variety" needs to be defined i.e. as "a name commonly used for a variety of an approved mineral species with distinctive features that makes it relevant to continue the use of this varietal name." ( Or some other definition that also can limit the use of unnecessary varietal names ?).

Proposed guidelines for information to be listed with mineral names others than those of approved species:
VARIETAL NAMES : the distinctive features/properties which is the basis for the status as a "variety". Reference/link to the correct mineral name for the species. From what locality, by whom and when this name was first applied. A listing of (additional) localities could be an option.
SYNONYMS : Reference/link to the correct mineral name for the species. From what locality, by whom and when this name was first applied. ( Additional localities should NOT be listed).
DISCREDITED MINERALS : From what locality, by whom and when this name was first applied. Basis for discreditation if possible with ref. ( synonym, mixture, incorrect data etc.) (Additional localities should NOT be listed).
MINERALS THAT NEED FURTHER STUDY OR AWAIT PUBLICATION OF DATA: a clarifying text stating the reference to the use of the name and stating if the material "needs further study" or "await IMA-approval, publication or ?". In this case locality information should be stated including a TL.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2007 06:05AM by Knut Eldjarn.

I think you may lose some serious information when you remove Rožná as TL for lepidolite because that mineral has turned into a synonym for a group-name. What is the TL for trilithionite? Rožná?
Lepidolite and Rožná is only an example. As suggested by Knut you have to do develop some seriously "thought-over" guidelines how to approach theses questions, BEFORE messing around. It is very easy for someone NOT aware of mineralogical history ARMED with the latest Fleischer to totally erase much of the HISTORICAL EVOLUTION of the mineralogical science.

all best

I agree with Johan that we would be losing historical information, for no good purpose, if we simply throw out all mention of "type locality" for varieties and discredited species. (Furthermore, such things sometimes get revalidated, and a type locality specimen may be required for selecting a neo-type specimen.)

For pre-IMA minerals, the term "type locality" anyway has not been well defined and often used inconsistently. I have long supported the idea that "type locality" should be defined by geological and paragenetic criteria rather than the current illogical practice among collectors of using political boundaries (like mine claim borders).

For example, if a new mineral is discovered in the Chuquicamata pit, and another specimen is found 3km away in the same pit, it's still called a "type locality" specimen. But if a new zeolite is found in a basalt quarry, and another sample is found 3km away in a different quarry, but the same basalt flow, with the same geological origin and age, same associations, it's NOT the TL, because the place has a different name! Seems a bit ridiculous.

Mineralogists, however, have no particular reason to care much about this (admittedly trivial) problem because they are much more concerned with the "type SPECIMEN" than the type locality. It is the one specimen that is important for validation, comparison, discreditation.

I agree with Johan and Alfredo that a reference to the original locality for the use of a varietal name or name of a discredited mineral should be listed in Mindat. But we would wastly improve the quality of the information in Mindat if we could agree on terminology and what information to be listed. There is NO consistency today. Most varietal names have been listed WITHOUT mentioning a "type locality" or the listing of additional localities. Should we put our efforts into correcting these omissions - or should we limit the information listed as proposed in my draft guidelines ? There would still be a lot of additional information that must be listed - ref. my comments to certain varieties from Norwegian localities. For historic reasons the "original locality" linked to the varietal name or discredited mineral and a precise reference to WHEN and by WHOM this name was used, would serve the preservation of mineralogical history. You lose no information by using "original locality" for such listings and reserve the term "TYPE LOCALITY" for approved species. In this way the "TL" -species listed for each locality represent approved species and any retrieval of information linked to "Type localities" will be limited in a logical way. As mentioned, in some cases listing additonal localities with varieties may be relevant - but in most cases with obsolete and out-of-use names it would be senseless to add additional localities. Also for synonyms the way we do it is not consistent - as shown by the example of "dahllite" where a number of other localities for carbonatehydroxyapatite is listed ( but curiously enough NOT the original locality ("type locality" !) Following this practice we could upload a huge number of additional localities under every synonym listed (sphene, idocrase etc.etc.) For what purpose ?
IT-technology and the internet is a huge resource with a great potential - but only if information is organized in a logic way. The future quality and usefullness of Mindat depends on the way this site is developed.

Thanks all for your input so far.

Norway A-F + dahllite fixed (all have now info on original locality).

Type localities will of course be retained for 'need further study' minerals.

Lepidolite is a 'special case' and the TL will be kept.

Uwe - thanks for the job of corrections and additions.

Here are further corrections/additions relating to varietal names and synonymes linked to original localities or publications in Norway G - Q:
Gjellebäckite - a varietal name used by Nordenskiöld (1849) for what was later shown to be an impure wollastonite from Gjellebekk, Lier, Buskerud, Norway.
Hartkobalterz - a synonym for skutterudite used by Hausmann (1847) for a mineral from Skutterud, Modum, Buskerud, Norway.
Hautefueillite - a synonym of bobierrite from the Ødegården apatite mines, Bamble, Telemark, Norway. First used by Michel (1893).
Högtveitite - first used by Eger (1910) and later by Shetelig (1922) for a mineral from a pegmatite at Høgetveit, Evje, Aust-Agder, Norway. Shetelig at first (1922) considered it a metamict variety of zircon but later ( 1931) concluded it probably was thalenite. Based on the original very incomplete description it was most likely identical with the more recently described mineral Keiviite-Y.
Hyposclerite - an obsolete name used by Breithaupt (1830) for an impure albite from Arendal. Aust-Agder, Norway.
Johnstrupite - a synonym of rinkite. The name was introduced by Brögger (1890) for a greenish variety of mosandrite from one of the skerries near Barkevik in the Langesundsfjord, Vestfold, Norway. It has recently been established that it is identical to the re-defined mineral Rinkite.
Keilhauite - a synonym of yttrian titanite, originally described by Erdmann (1844) Buøya, Arendal., Aust-Agder, Norway.( TL can be deleted. This case illustrates the problem with adding additional localities which probably could have been extended lists both for yttrian titanite, keilhauite and yttrotitanite).
Kobaltarsenikkies - a synonym of danaite - a cobaltian arsenopyrite. The name was first used by Wöhler (1838) on a mineral from Skutterud, Modum, Buskerud, Norway.
Lillehammerite - a synonym of pentlandite used by Weisbach ( 1875) on a mineral from a mine near the town of Lillehammer, Oppland, Norway. This mineral was first described by Scheerer (1843) as Eisen-Nickelkies.
Malacolite - a synonym of diopside used by Abildgaard (1800) on a mineral from a unnamed locality but believed to be from Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Mossite - There is an error in the description. Dunn ( 1979) showed the type material to be a mixture of "Ta-bearing ferrocolumbite and tapiolite". (not tantalite).
Oerstedtite - a varietal name used by Forchhammer (1835) for a metamict zircon from Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Olafite - a synonym of albite used by Breithaupt (1866) for a mineral possibly occuring as a pseudomorph of scapolite from Snarum, Buskerud, Norway.
Orangite - a variety of altered thorite. The name was first used by the mineral dealer Krantz (1851) on specimens from the syenite pegmatites in the Langesundsfjord-area.
Ostranite - an obsolete name for an altered zircon used by Breithaupt (1825) on a mineral probably from Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Paranthine - a synonym for wernerite used by Haüy (1804) and Lucas (1806) with reference to the iron mine at Arendal, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Polychroilite - used by Weibye (1846) for an altered cordierite from Valberg, Kragerø, Telemark, Norway.
Polymignite - described as a new mineral by Berzelius (1824) from Stavern, Vestfold, Norway. Later shown to be identical with Zirconolite described in 1956. In spite of its priority and widely use in the litterature polymignite is now considered a metamict variety of zirconolite.

This is all for now. To be continued from R- later on.

Knut



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2007 11:01PM by Knut Eldjarn.

Austria fixed.

Switzerland fixed.

France fixed.

Norway G-P fixed (+ all varietal presently listed from P-Z).

There is a problem with johnstrupite - it is presently defined as a synonym of mosandrite.

The mosandrite-rinkite problem has been a long story and I have not studied closely all publications. For many years Fleischer and others argued that mosandrite was just to be considered an altered rinkite. Now it seems rinkite and mosandrite have been re-established as separate species. In this context I believe I did see somewhere a reference to "johnstrupite" being redefined as similar to rinkite. I have looked but cannot find the article.
Such a conclusions would actually substantiate the findings of Brögger - who claimed that "johnstrupit" was a separate species closer to rinkite than mosandrite. ! In his large monography on the minerals of the pegmatites in the Langesundsfjord-area ( "Die Mineralien der Syenitpegmatitgänge der südnorwegischen Augit- und Nephelinsyenite", Zeitschrift für Krystallographie und Mineralogie, Band 16., 1890) he presents data both for mosandrite and "johnstrupite" showing a clear difference between the two and writes: " Die Verschiedenhet der beiden Mineralien ist, wie man aus der Zusammenstellung sieht, hinreichend gross, um zur Trennung derselben als gesonderter Species zu berichtigen; der Johnstrupit ist auffallender Weise chemisch näher mit dem Rinkit als mit Mosandrit verwandt, von dem Rinkit aber durch die Lage der optischen Axenebene leicht zu unterschieden." A comparison of the data for rinkite and mosandrite in Mindat with the original data published by Brögger support the view that "johnstrupite" should be considered a variety of rinkite rather than a variety of mosandrite.

The reference for högtveitite should be Schetelig (1922) not Shetelig (1922)

Sorry for the spelling error. Thanks Knut Edvard.

Schetelig fixed.

The latest IMA list has mosandrite with Grandfathered status,
and rinkite as Questionable (ref.: Can. Mineral. 44 (2006) 1273).

Italy fixed.

I probably have been a bit premature in thinking "rinkite" was redefined as an accepted species. If there is a separate place in the structure for Zr to be substituted with Ti, there are analysis that would support mosandrite and rinkite being separate species.( Brögger original data show great divergence in Ti and Zr-content between mosandrite and "johnstrupite". But we need not introduce this issue here.
Still after re-reading Bröggers original desription we still have a problem beacuse he actually launched "johnstripite" as a SEPARATE species close to "rinkite" than mosandrite. He treated the minerals "mosandrite" and "johnstrupite" in the same chapter but it was not Brögger who defined johnstrupite as a variety of mosandrite.We have the problem that if we still consider rinkite a doubtful/possible separate species due to the difference in chemistry, the analysis and conclusions provided by Brögger still probably would make "johnstrupite" a variety of the doubtful species "rinkite". We could ofcourse write:
"Johnstrupite" - described by Brögger (1890) as a possible new species related to mosandrite and rinkite with a chemistry similar to rinkite. It is now considered a variety of mosandrite but could also be considered a variety of the doubtful species rinkite."

Thanks, have modified Johnstrupite entry.

During cleaning up Hungary and Romania, I encountered type localities for polytypes. Have kept them for the time being.

Dunno about the lepidolite (trilithionite) now. Exactly said it's a problem because at Rožná occur both of them, though polylithionite very little. Many light-green colored micas from Rožná were also labeled lepidolite, much later was analysed that it is muscovite.

There are many minerals with more TLs, during 19th century was communication very slow so it could easily happen that some minerals were described from couple sites as more minerals and later was discovered that it is the same. E.g. egeran (TL Eger, which is german synonym for Cheb) was later named as vesuvianite, miesite (Mies which is german synonym for Stříbro) is special form of botryoidal light green pyromorphite etc. I can find several minerals like that in older czech literature.

I think this is abit academic and historical debate, it's interesting information but while publicating or building up-to-date database the latest and most accurate data should be used. It's maybe abit "cruel" but when trying to solve this TL schizma you could run into big trouble with database maintanance and structure later. Maybe it could be added as a MEMO or longtext field labeled "specimen history: or whatsoever. But I don't think it's the best idea to mix modern data with historical synonyms.

Finland fixed.

Spain fixed.

Ireland fixed.

UK A-H fixed.

Australia fixed.

UK I-Z fixed (already on the weekend).

Namibia + South Africa fixed.

Chile fixed.

Bolivia done.

Argentina done.

Brazil + New Zealand done.

Poland fixed.

Ukraine fixed.

India fixed.

Uwe,
you have done an excellent job, but there still seems to be a structural problem in the database. Even after removing the "type locality" (TL) for dubious/discredited species etc., they occur when you view lists of minerals from different localities/areas. I was today checking on the minerals with type localities in Poland (using the search engine for "Poland" as locality) and find that "Allophite" and Kerolite are still listed as TL species for Poland - even if you have removed the TL-designation on the pages decribing these species. Only in the first case is quotation marks used to signal that the species-status is dubious while Kerolite is listed as for an approved species. So it seems the job you have been doing will not automatically be reflected in such lists. It would be an advantage that minerals listed for a given locality with the designation TL only reflect grandfathered or IMA-approved species. If TL are to be retained for "need further study" minerals, such species should be listed with quotation marks : "xxxx".

Knut

I always clear the countries' caches when I'm finished.
I just opened Poland: "Allophite" and Kerolite are not listed as TL minerals.
Please check again (maybe you opened a cached version of your PC).

If TL are to be retained for "need further study" minerals, such species should be listed with quotation marks : "xxxx".

This can only be done by some programming (only Jolyon and David do this).
We know that the use of '...' for questionable minerals (or varieties etc.) it is somewhat inconsistent at present.

Uwe,

I just looked again by entering "poland" and then looking at the species listed form "Lower Silesia". The TL for Allophanite and Kerolite are still there - even after refreshing on my PC. Maybe the corrections you do for the country list are not reflected on lower levels ?

Czech Republic:

anauxite
argyripyrite?
phacolite
ganomatite
herbeckite
iserine
kolosorukite
lepidolite
siliciophite
valchovite
waltherite
wapplerite

Thanks, the Czech Republic is on my to-do-list.

Czech Republic done (lepidolite kept - see above).

Serbia + FYR of Macedonia fixed.

Greenland fixed.

Mexico fixed.

Sweden fixed.

Remaining countries A-G fixed.
(+ Added some small countries that were missing on Mindat.)

Countries H-J fixed (Japan was a big chunk).

Countries K-R fixed (incl. Russia).

Remaining countries S-Z fixed.

If anyone finds varieties or discredited or non-approved species with "type localities" in any country in the future, please report here or in a new thread.

Very good job Uwe !
Check out Carbonate-rich Apatite-(CaOH) : it's listed with a TL

Thanks, fixed. Some of the mineral pages might still show TL because I haven't cleared most of the respective caches - only cleared all the country caches after the corrections.