An Eternal Insult from the IMA: Hancockite Renamed for No Good Reason
Last Updated: 25th Jun 2008By Tony Nikischer
An Eternal Insult from the IMA:
Hancockite Renamed for No Good Reason
Tony Nikischer
tony@excaliburmineral.com
The phrase “beating a dead horse” has come to symbolize a valiant but futile effort for an already lost cause, or an attempt to accomplish something that is known to be impossible. And so it is for championing the mineral once named hancockite, now abandoned for the more modern “epidote-(Pb)”. But futility should not translate into submissive silence, and there has been a modest outcry from many, all apparently fallen on the deaf ears of the haughty International Mineralogical Association (IMA) and its chairman, Ernst A. J. Burke.
“So what’s the big deal,” you might ask? Mineral names come and go, some are discredited, some are redefined, some should never have been used in the first place; mineralogy continues to evolve. However, in the case of the distinctive and well known mineral hancockite, the name change had nothing to do with new science or new discovery. In fact, its inappropriate renaming seems to contradict long standing guidelines the IMA itself has promulgated over the years of its stewardship of mineral nomenclature. Some history:
Hancockite was described by noted mineralogist Samuel Louis Penfield in 1899. It was one of nearly two dozen species he either authored or analyzed on behalf of other well known mineralogists of his day like Brush and Dana. Penfield was a professor at Yale, and a competent scientist who brought many innovations to the field of mineralogy during his lifetime. As a young college student, Penfield was described as “a master of chemical manipulation and in the use of scientific apparatus of all kinds.” He subsequently developed what is now known as the Penfield Method of water determination in minerals. And to his credit, this analytical technique is still widely used today by modern mineralogists, even after more than a hundred years of superior scientific instrumentation and development!
In addition to hancockite, Penfield described a number of other Franklin, NJ species (roeblingite, clinohedrite, glaucochroite, nasonite, leucophoenicite) while at Yale. As has been the custom of mineralogists for centuries, the describer of a new mineral provides the name to be applied to it (now subject to IMA approval). Penfield chose to honor Elwood P. Hancock (1836-1916), a prolific collector of Franklin minerals whose collection currently resides in the Harvard Mineral Museum. Hancock’s is one of several private collections that forms an indispensable nucleus of scientifically and historically important Franklin holdings at Harvard. The honor bestowed on him by Penfield was neither frivolous nor undeserved.
Under the guise of bringing order to mineral nomenclature, the IMA has approved the renaming of hancockite to “epidote-(Pb)”. For the sake of consistency only, a valid name has been arbitrarily replaced. There was no new study, no new science, just an affront to the historical record. So much for honoring Elwood’s legacy!
In responding to the criticism that the name change generated, IMA chairman Ernst Burke was dismissive and responded:
“As for the more or less emotional sobbing on the disappearance of historical names: please take a good look at the compilations authored by Peter Bayliss and Jeffrey de Fourestier, and if you like to do so, please weep about all historical names which have been shown to be superfluous in the past 50 years!”
Of course, this argument is a red herring, a diversion that has little to do with the original objection raised by so many individuals. This was not a valid discrediting of a superfluous name as Burke implies. In legitimate cases of discredited mineral names, historical names are dropped when new science is undertaken that shows that a named mineral is, in fact, some other named mineral that has historic precedent, a mixture of other valid minerals, or simply a minor variety of another valid mineral. For example, we no longer use the mineral name “csiklovaite”, because new research had shown it to be a mixture of tetradymite, galenobismutite and bismuthinite. This is not the case with hancockite and its undeserved successor epidote-(Pb).
At the time of its description, Penfield observed that the mineral hancockite was related to epidote but with a considerable amount of lead. One can refer to any number of standard mineralogical references over the last one hundred years and find that this fact has always been known. The decision to change a valid name, simply for the purpose of “fitting in” with a new classification scheme, has little merit. Hancockite has historical precedent, and it has not been appropriately discredited through scientific examination, and scientific examination would not find fault with its current definition and name! That is the issue avoided by Dr. Burke’s derisive response. And while hancockite is not the only valid species to be summarily dismissed without scientific study by the current IMA regime, it has generated the most significant outcry.
MinDat, an internet based website readily accessible in the public domain, includes many message boards. One such message board recently displayed a number of postings regarding the hancockite issue. In contrast to Dr. Burke’s deflecting quote noted above, others have weighed in against such arbitrary nomenclature changes. One of my favorites, posted by Jeffery de Fourestier, author of the book Glossary of Mineral Synonyms (Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication No. 2) stated:
“I find it deeply disrespectful to the original authors, the person for whom the original name was given, the mineral's longstanding stature (i.e. the what that defines it as a separate species hasn't substantially changed), and the original IMA voters that approved some of these names. All the conservatism that Spencer worked so hard to maintain seems spat upon with these types of unnecessary name changes. Placing minerals within proper groups…….is one thing, but destroying a valid mineral’s original history by stripping it of a perfectly valid name seems to me to not be a valid contribution to the science.” Others have chimed in with similar observations about the disrespectful and ill-advised nature of the changes. I couldn’t agree more!
In the future, researchers will have to dig twice for complete and accurate data on such arbitrarily altered mineral names as “epidote-(Pb)”, certainly no service to the science. The explosion of mineral groups, the growing understanding of structural relationships, and the question of how many minerals does it take to make a group, will certainly complicate and confuse fundamental mineral names as we know them. Many more major changes to mineral nomenclature are expected if this alarming trend of change for the sake of change continues.
Some supporters of the recent IMA pronouncements have suggested that collectors can just continue to call minerals by whatever names they want; what’s the harm in that if everyone knows what they really mean? (After all, we are only collectors!) That position seems to be at odds with earlier IMA urgings to the collector community to abandon varietal and obsolete names in favor of scientific accuracy, that tune beaten into us since the early 1970’s. Mineral collectors have largely taken this concept to heart, and most try to use proper terminology with regard to species names. By doing so, they have essentially avoided the complete mess that exists in the gemstone trade, where the emergence or use of a name is not closely controlled and is subject to a wide range of interpretations (witness the great nomenclature battles currently raging in the jewelry industry over use of the term “jade”).
So, while the IMA certainly provides order, direction and a needed level of policing to mineral nomenclature, its recent attempts at retroactively forcing consistency for its own sake are both misplaced and inadvisable. After all, as Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” So true.
Scientists, like mineral collectors, should be able handle a little mineral name inconsistency, resisting that compulsive urge to make everything neat, tidy and orderly. It’s a nice wish, but let’s not throw out the baby along with the bathwater. Instead, let’s focus on preserving legitimate historical precedents, use parentheses in mineral names in a consistent manner, tidy up those nettlesome nomenclature problems that don’t involve unwarranted, indiscriminant change, and finally, follow our own guidelines about proper mineral discrediting procedures.
In the meantime, get ready to change a lot of your mineral labels, as this new fetish, like the beaten dead horse, is not going away anytime soon.
Hancockite Renamed for No Good Reason
Tony Nikischer
tony@excaliburmineral.com
The phrase “beating a dead horse” has come to symbolize a valiant but futile effort for an already lost cause, or an attempt to accomplish something that is known to be impossible. And so it is for championing the mineral once named hancockite, now abandoned for the more modern “epidote-(Pb)”. But futility should not translate into submissive silence, and there has been a modest outcry from many, all apparently fallen on the deaf ears of the haughty International Mineralogical Association (IMA) and its chairman, Ernst A. J. Burke.
“So what’s the big deal,” you might ask? Mineral names come and go, some are discredited, some are redefined, some should never have been used in the first place; mineralogy continues to evolve. However, in the case of the distinctive and well known mineral hancockite, the name change had nothing to do with new science or new discovery. In fact, its inappropriate renaming seems to contradict long standing guidelines the IMA itself has promulgated over the years of its stewardship of mineral nomenclature. Some history:
Hancockite was described by noted mineralogist Samuel Louis Penfield in 1899. It was one of nearly two dozen species he either authored or analyzed on behalf of other well known mineralogists of his day like Brush and Dana. Penfield was a professor at Yale, and a competent scientist who brought many innovations to the field of mineralogy during his lifetime. As a young college student, Penfield was described as “a master of chemical manipulation and in the use of scientific apparatus of all kinds.” He subsequently developed what is now known as the Penfield Method of water determination in minerals. And to his credit, this analytical technique is still widely used today by modern mineralogists, even after more than a hundred years of superior scientific instrumentation and development!
In addition to hancockite, Penfield described a number of other Franklin, NJ species (roeblingite, clinohedrite, glaucochroite, nasonite, leucophoenicite) while at Yale. As has been the custom of mineralogists for centuries, the describer of a new mineral provides the name to be applied to it (now subject to IMA approval). Penfield chose to honor Elwood P. Hancock (1836-1916), a prolific collector of Franklin minerals whose collection currently resides in the Harvard Mineral Museum. Hancock’s is one of several private collections that forms an indispensable nucleus of scientifically and historically important Franklin holdings at Harvard. The honor bestowed on him by Penfield was neither frivolous nor undeserved.
Under the guise of bringing order to mineral nomenclature, the IMA has approved the renaming of hancockite to “epidote-(Pb)”. For the sake of consistency only, a valid name has been arbitrarily replaced. There was no new study, no new science, just an affront to the historical record. So much for honoring Elwood’s legacy!
In responding to the criticism that the name change generated, IMA chairman Ernst Burke was dismissive and responded:
“As for the more or less emotional sobbing on the disappearance of historical names: please take a good look at the compilations authored by Peter Bayliss and Jeffrey de Fourestier, and if you like to do so, please weep about all historical names which have been shown to be superfluous in the past 50 years!”
Of course, this argument is a red herring, a diversion that has little to do with the original objection raised by so many individuals. This was not a valid discrediting of a superfluous name as Burke implies. In legitimate cases of discredited mineral names, historical names are dropped when new science is undertaken that shows that a named mineral is, in fact, some other named mineral that has historic precedent, a mixture of other valid minerals, or simply a minor variety of another valid mineral. For example, we no longer use the mineral name “csiklovaite”, because new research had shown it to be a mixture of tetradymite, galenobismutite and bismuthinite. This is not the case with hancockite and its undeserved successor epidote-(Pb).
At the time of its description, Penfield observed that the mineral hancockite was related to epidote but with a considerable amount of lead. One can refer to any number of standard mineralogical references over the last one hundred years and find that this fact has always been known. The decision to change a valid name, simply for the purpose of “fitting in” with a new classification scheme, has little merit. Hancockite has historical precedent, and it has not been appropriately discredited through scientific examination, and scientific examination would not find fault with its current definition and name! That is the issue avoided by Dr. Burke’s derisive response. And while hancockite is not the only valid species to be summarily dismissed without scientific study by the current IMA regime, it has generated the most significant outcry.
MinDat, an internet based website readily accessible in the public domain, includes many message boards. One such message board recently displayed a number of postings regarding the hancockite issue. In contrast to Dr. Burke’s deflecting quote noted above, others have weighed in against such arbitrary nomenclature changes. One of my favorites, posted by Jeffery de Fourestier, author of the book Glossary of Mineral Synonyms (Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication No. 2) stated:
“I find it deeply disrespectful to the original authors, the person for whom the original name was given, the mineral's longstanding stature (i.e. the what that defines it as a separate species hasn't substantially changed), and the original IMA voters that approved some of these names. All the conservatism that Spencer worked so hard to maintain seems spat upon with these types of unnecessary name changes. Placing minerals within proper groups…….is one thing, but destroying a valid mineral’s original history by stripping it of a perfectly valid name seems to me to not be a valid contribution to the science.” Others have chimed in with similar observations about the disrespectful and ill-advised nature of the changes. I couldn’t agree more!
In the future, researchers will have to dig twice for complete and accurate data on such arbitrarily altered mineral names as “epidote-(Pb)”, certainly no service to the science. The explosion of mineral groups, the growing understanding of structural relationships, and the question of how many minerals does it take to make a group, will certainly complicate and confuse fundamental mineral names as we know them. Many more major changes to mineral nomenclature are expected if this alarming trend of change for the sake of change continues.
Some supporters of the recent IMA pronouncements have suggested that collectors can just continue to call minerals by whatever names they want; what’s the harm in that if everyone knows what they really mean? (After all, we are only collectors!) That position seems to be at odds with earlier IMA urgings to the collector community to abandon varietal and obsolete names in favor of scientific accuracy, that tune beaten into us since the early 1970’s. Mineral collectors have largely taken this concept to heart, and most try to use proper terminology with regard to species names. By doing so, they have essentially avoided the complete mess that exists in the gemstone trade, where the emergence or use of a name is not closely controlled and is subject to a wide range of interpretations (witness the great nomenclature battles currently raging in the jewelry industry over use of the term “jade”).
So, while the IMA certainly provides order, direction and a needed level of policing to mineral nomenclature, its recent attempts at retroactively forcing consistency for its own sake are both misplaced and inadvisable. After all, as Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” So true.
Scientists, like mineral collectors, should be able handle a little mineral name inconsistency, resisting that compulsive urge to make everything neat, tidy and orderly. It’s a nice wish, but let’s not throw out the baby along with the bathwater. Instead, let’s focus on preserving legitimate historical precedents, use parentheses in mineral names in a consistent manner, tidy up those nettlesome nomenclature problems that don’t involve unwarranted, indiscriminant change, and finally, follow our own guidelines about proper mineral discrediting procedures.
In the meantime, get ready to change a lot of your mineral labels, as this new fetish, like the beaten dead horse, is not going away anytime soon.
Article has been viewed at least 10561 times.
