Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

How to ContributeCapitalization of mineral names

15th Oct 2014 00:56 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Should mineral names be capitalized even if they do not start a sentence. For example: Noname Lake Mica occurrence or should it be Noname Lake mica occurrence?

15th Oct 2014 01:02 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

Reiner, at my University we were told NOT to capitalize mineral names.......but I don't see it as an issue.....custom may be different in different societies. I don't know if there exists a hard, fast rule. What does the IMA say about it???

15th Oct 2014 01:41 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Hello Don,

I am wondering what Mindat says about it.

15th Oct 2014 03:34 UTCBob Harman

The biggest question might be if the mineral is named after an individual. So, for example, should it be Yedlinite or should it be yedlinite? Unless and until there is an official ruling I prefer to NOT capitalize the mineral name. But to get around that confusion and highlight the mineral being discussed you might put the whole name in upper case as with YEDLINITE. BTW, maybe I am butchering your original question??? CHEERS…….BOB

15th Oct 2014 04:28 UTCDoug Daniels

Well, we should make a rule where the first letter is lower case, and the rest is capitalized. Seriously, I'm with Don - we were taught to not capitalize them (look at most textbooks). Doesn't matter whether it's named after a person or not (ie smithsonite, willemite, covellite, to name just three). Unless you're in Germany, where I think the names are taken as nouns, whereby the first letter is capitalized.

15th Oct 2014 07:38 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

I questioned this when reviewing an article for Olav Revheim. He replied that the IMA convention was that minerals names should not be capitalized.

15th Oct 2014 08:26 UTCLuca Baralis Expert

Minerals are things, so, their names don't require to be capitalized (if not at the beginning of the sentence): IMA follows this rule. But, as Don Saathoff said, sure it is not a main issue!

15th Oct 2014 08:36 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

In the established English geoscientific literature, mineral names are never capitalised.

(Some chemistry and materials science journals don't follow that rule.)

15th Oct 2014 08:45 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

In the case a mineral name is part of the 'official' name of a locality, it should be capitalized, just like the other parts of the name, otherwise not.

15th Oct 2014 10:51 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Search engines don't care whether something is capitalized or not; they'll find it either way.

15th Oct 2014 11:49 UTCDon Swenson

During the winter I collect seashells in Florida; for the rest of the year I try to collect minerals (in New England it keeps getting harder and harder). Shell collectors fall under the scientific purview of malachology and have strict rules to follow. Each type of shell has a scientific name as well as a common one. Scientific names must be in italics and the first word must be capitalized but the second must not be. Common names are in normal writing and both parts must be capitalized. This system was devised by Carl Linnaeus and seems to be used by all the biological sciences. Obviously, the earth sciences aren't interested in using the same system. Why not? Who knows.

15th Oct 2014 12:02 UTCSusan Robinson

My husband and I saw a first edition text written by James D. Dana at Yale, and he attempted to classify minerals according to the Linnean system. For elements it seemed okay, but quickly got impossible to do with more complex species. Thank heavens the IMA exists today to keep mineral names and their formulas on track.

15th Oct 2014 12:31 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi Reiner

Your original question was "whether mineral names be capitalized even if they do not start a sentence. For example: Noname Lake Mica occurrence or should it be Noname Lake mica occurrence?"

In this example there could be two choices. - If the locality was in fact officially named that way then it would be capitalised.

If the locality was simply described in a generic sense then I would say no it should not.

To extend the question to capitalisation of a mineral name in a sentence such as "the mine is know for its tourmaline specimens" then the mineral name should not be capitalised. A good example is the style used in the Mineralogical Record. I believe this applies irrespective of whether a mineral is named after an individual or not.

I think that as a matter of general style a mineral name should not have its first letter capitalised unless it is the first word of a sentence.

Of course if one wants to emphasis the name it could be typed in bold, underlined or indeed each letter capitalised.

I note the reference to scientific names being italicised and the first name letter capitalised, but I "think" ??? this is generally only applicable to those names of Latin or Greek origin, hence the italics.

Having said that, when I write an article I prefer to capitalise the first letter of the mineral name, even in mid-sentence, but that's my choice.!!

Cheers

Keith

15th Oct 2014 14:28 UTCDebbie Woolf Manager

Keith Compton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I prefer to capitalise the first letter of the mineral name, even in mid-sentence, but that's my choice.!!

------------------------------------------------------

Your not alone there Keith !

15th Oct 2014 15:12 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

I have wondered about this same question. I agree that it is a personal issue and I capitalize in mid sentence to let the mineral name stand out in the rest of the text. I learned the Linnaeus system since I began in Biology but in minerals it is nice that it is a matter of personal preference.

Rolf

15th Oct 2014 15:27 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

PLEASE don't anyone invent a new personal format for Mindat content by making mineral names italicized, emboldened or totally CAPITALIZED!!!!!! We don't want to be graphically shouting at anyone reading our content! The original question requires a response by our supreme grand exhaulted fubah - Jolyon.

Chet

15th Oct 2014 17:24 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Reiner Mielke Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Should mineral names be capitalized even if they

> do not start a sentence. For example: Noname Lake

> Mica occurrence or should it be Noname Lake mica

> occurrence?

Reiner, the answer is simple and yet is also confused. It has all to do with the rules of grammar for the language one wishes to communicate in. Rules of grammar (and of spelling) have little to no absolute merit but are essential to a precise conveyance of meaning.

In German, all nouns are capitalised, thus identifying the word as a noun, subject or object in a simple sentence, no more of less. In English, the grammar rule used to be that common nouns were never capitalised whilst proper nouns were. Thus, one wrote a noun capitalised or not according to the exact meaning one wished to convey. The same noun could sometimes be written either capitalised or not, depending on what one meant by it and the stress/importance one wished to imply.

Thus, one would write of an 'aquamarine Beryl' (noun used as an adjectival modifier) but also of Aquamarine (the proper name of a beryl of light- or sea-blue or sea-green colour). Similarly, one spoke of (hard) coral, as a marine form of colonising exo-skeletal animalia but of Coralium rubrum (or Red Coral) as the archtypical gem coral.

About 50 years ago, began a movement in leftist, egalitarian educators to do away with the proper noun form as yet another bastion of the class system, forgetting in their blind political zeal that classification has very many good and friendly uses. No matter; they both won that little struggle for change and also lost it. How so, both? The logical end of their political (certainly not grammarian) endeavours would have been the entire elimination from modern English of the proper noun, distinguished in writing only by capitalisation. In that aim they failed. For reasons that are at the core of what it is to be human, the large majority of us do not mind too much if the 'World Socialism Today' crew say that, to be progressive and egalitarian, we should refer to the Secretary-General of the United Nations as the secretary-general - but we do draw the line at being told to uncapitalise the spelling of our own names and even of the names of our pet animals. It is human - at least it is English and human - to like to distinguish, quietly and without fuss, by quality, uniqueness and status.

In ways such as these it was sought to change thought processes by redirecting the use of language. The Marxian dialectic heavily relied on this tactic - as those who remember or even still use that will confirm. As in much else, the legacy of Marx is still with us.

15th Oct 2014 17:53 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Guess I will have to wait for the word from our " supreme grand exhaulted fubah " LOL

15th Oct 2014 18:57 UTCTony Albini

I capitalize all mineral names on my labels. Does anyone not do this?

15th Oct 2014 19:09 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Tony,

So did I. To blend in better and elsewhere (not that anyone complained) I (largely) gave up a life-long practice something over a year ago. I confess to still struggling with it.

To address you interesting example in particular....

If you look up Mica in Mindat's alphabetical index, it is capitalised - and rightly so in my view - as the proper noun naming a mineral group. Similarly, Muscovite should be capitalised as the proper noun labeling a distinct species of the Mica group.

However, dubiety may occur where proper names are grouped (as in your example 'Noname Lake Mica'. Does this mean Mica from Lake Noname or something called Noname from Lake Mica? Certainty is restored by writing either Mica from Noname Lake or (stronger genitive association) Lake Noname's Mica.

Do as you will, friend. The useful practice of capitalising proper nouns has become as optional as wearing a tie with a suit. Whatever, make your meaning unambiguous.

15th Oct 2014 20:24 UTCSteve Rust Manager

I am with you on this Debbie Woolf, just please yourself and don't get uptight, it ain't worth going with convention.

15th Oct 2014 20:54 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

OFFICIAL ANSWER

When I started mindat, I insisted that mineral names always be capitalised. This was before I knew any better, and now we're trying to reverse this. I often get into bad habits myself (see my show reports), but the official answer is without capitalisation.

However...

For localities, if the name is a formal name that contains a mineral name - normally an official name, eg

XYZ Quartz Mine

then it is capitalized.

If it is an occurrence without a formal name such as

Boot Hill quartz occurrence

Then no, it's not

Jolyon

15th Oct 2014 21:35 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OFFICIAL ANSWER

>

> When I started mindat, I insisted that mineral

> names always be capitalised. This was before I

> knew any better, and now we're trying to reverse

> this. I often get into bad habits myself (see my

> show reports), but the official answer is without

> capitalisation.

Ok, no problem - but why? You understand, for sure, that, whatever the answer is, it has damn-all to do with mineralogy :-)

15th Oct 2014 21:48 UTCDoug Daniels

Are we sure it's not our Supreme Grand Exhaulted Fubah?

15th Oct 2014 22:09 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Owen: Consistency with the rest of the mineralogical literature.

15th Oct 2014 22:58 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

And, sadly, much else.

De nada, amigo. Our views are largely formed by those employed to teach us. The damage done to the use of English since 60 years ago will either be a permanency or take another couple of generations to repair. Given the current decline in the general importance of the written word, I surely would not back any renaissance in the application of grammatical rules.

The Force is with you.

16th Oct 2014 01:41 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi again

Of course if we have a gold occurence or any other occurence with a mineral element it could be listed a for example:

"Xyz gold occurence, place, county, etc" ........................ or wait for it.....

"Xyz Au occurence, place, county, etc"

so you get to capitalise the mineral that way !!!

What fun.

Cheers

16th Oct 2014 08:27 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

I am surprised by the reactions here, but relieved to see that Jolyon is following IMA convention. We have many people on this site who spend much time trying to sort out accurate locality information, identification and correct mineral classification - and rightly so, for such a serious and important mineral database. Now, when the IMA guidelines are unfamiliar or uncomfortable, some of us simply respond "Just please yourself" or "I'm going to do whatever I want." How can that be appropriate? If you object to the IMA convention, then write a proper proposal to the IMA and challenge it. In the meantime, Jolyon is absolutely correct to follow IMA guidelines.

16th Oct 2014 11:06 UTCRock Currier Expert

I still use capitalized mineral names on my labels and use to use them in some of the articles I wrote but have been gradually nudged into thinking that it would be best to use the IMA suggestion to not capitalized mineral names. I also think that the world is moving in the direction of simplifying text on computers where in brief messages often capitals are not used at all, let alone diacritical marks. The only capital letters are reserved for things like LOL, OMG and IMHO.

16th Oct 2014 11:19 UTCPeter Haas

Rock Currier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only capital letters are reserved for things like LOL, OMG and IMHO.

Good point. Why would you want to capitalize ima ?

16th Oct 2014 11:29 UTCSusan Robinson

Do whatever you want on mineral labels re capitalizing names. However, if you are writing an article for publication, then do not capitalize a mineral name within the text, unless the mineral name starts a sentence., or, as Jolyon gave the example, it's the name of a mine or town. Pyrites, NY, is an example of the latter. Check out Mineralogical Record and Rocks & Minerals magazines to see how it's properly done.

16th Oct 2014 15:49 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Why should Pyrite, name of town (noun, used to differentiate in written communication Pyrite from all other towns around), be capitalised and yet pyrite, name of mineral (noun, used to differentiate in written communication pyrite from all other minerals around) be not capitalized? Who, exactly, are IMA to think that they set rules for the use of English? Answer, they can't and don't. But like many before and yet to come they like to set a style for their acolytes. Similarly, if Jolyon wishes - for orthagonality in the tidy presentation of information if nothing else - wishes mineral name entries in the Mindat (or should that be mindat?) database to be lower cased only, as the site owner that's his privilege.

For those not already familiar with his work, google for e.e.cummings's poetry; it's amongst the finest in the English language. The weirdness of written communication entirely without adherence to rules of grammar and punctuation is plain but he knew exactly what he was doing and wrote in this eccentric style to great and accurate effect. Few of us are so gifted and the rules of grammar are the stylistic crutches we use to make out meaning clear to others.

16th Oct 2014 16:20 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Earlier in this thread I deferred to Jolyon for his long-standing, original policy (now obviously changed) on this matter. I personally have only been capitalizing mineral names when they are a part of a proper mine name or begin a sentence. nouns are not automatically capitalized in English (king's or otherwise) as in the case of German; therefore, there is no reason to capitalize them unless they begin a sentence.

It is amazing how the rules have either changed, or have simply been ignored, within my lifetime. Two spaces between sentences and after colons and semi-colons??? Close quotations symbol outside of sentence punctuation symbol (not within them)?? Commas between numbers after every third numeral (American usage)?? etc., etc. Computers and texting have certainly had an effect on our language! On the other hand, I don't see similar mutations in other languages, unless I am simply missing them. I know German better than any other non-English language and I certainly don't see such changes there (Peter, am I correct ??).

16th Oct 2014 18:19 UTCSpencer Ivan Mather

Surely a minerals name must be a noun, and as such should start with a capital letter..?

Spencer.

16th Oct 2014 19:38 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Only proper nouns start with a capital letter!

Do you say Dog, Cat, Fish? or dog, cat, fish?

Jolyon

16th Oct 2014 19:42 UTCPeter Haas

Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you say Dog, Cat, Fish? or dog, cat, fish?

It's actually about writing it ...

16th Oct 2014 20:43 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Again, the point here is not personal preference, but the guidelines or conventions of the international bodies such as the IMA, and naming conventions do differ. For example, the IMA suggests that mineral names are not capitalized. In ornithology, on the other hand, common names of specific birds are capitalized, e.g. Common Eider, but not general group names, e.g. eiders.

If someone feels strongly that mineral names (in literature, etc.) should be capitalized, then why not submit a proposal to that end? You would need to present solid reasons for your proposal. In the meantime, it is appropriate for articles in mindat to follow international naming convention.

16th Oct 2014 21:09 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Becky,

It has nothing to do with personal preference and everything with why the rules of English grammar have become confused and sometimes irrational. IMA is no authority on the use of English.

16th Oct 2014 21:33 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Owen.

Which rules are these exactly? English, unlike other languages, doesn't have a formal set of rules defined by any kind of official body. It's the wikipedia of langauges, added to by anyone,horribly inconsistent yet used by everyone.

Jolyon

16th Oct 2014 23:09 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

I too have a terrible habit of capitalizing mineral names as if they were proper nouns . . . but I just blame my German roots for this! :D

In American english it would seem that it has long been the convention that mineral names were not capitalized. At least from the early-mid 19th century on, based on a review of the earliest reference volumes in my own library, on up to the latter, mineral names were simply not capitalized (unless used as a title or at the beginning of a sentence, as all words are). So no, this is not some kind of "language conspiracy", it is simply general convention which was established long before these "conspirators" were even around to have their say on the matter.

Noted mainstream publishers like Dana, Rogers, Ford, Kraus, Pough, Sinkakas . . . none of them ever capitalized mineral names, so why wouldn't we follow the same long established conventions?

17th Oct 2014 00:39 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

This entire thread must seem rather curious and inconsequential to writers of those languages like chinese and japanese where there is no distinction at all between capitals and "normal" letters. Nevertheless, somehow, miraculously, without the existence of capital letters, they manage to understand each other perfectly. :-D

17th Oct 2014 01:37 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

It is interesting. The one thing I learned while staying with friends who lived in one of the western or "chinese districts" of Shanghai is that the locals there predominately spoke Shanghainese which is not mutually intelligible with standard Mandarin. Although the two can't communicate verbally, they can by simply writing notes to one another!

Very different indeed!

17th Oct 2014 01:55 UTCRock Currier Expert

Capitalize ima? OMG

17th Oct 2014 02:43 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Owen.

>

> Which rules are these exactly?

The rules of a language - in this case English - are its grammar and syntax. English grammar is not as detailed as, say, that of Latin or German. An English speaker of today has no difficulty with the 400 year old grammar of Shakespeare's english and the changes over time are easily and quickly accommodated. Not so the spelling and vocabulary, that have changed substantially.

As just one example of a mini-set of (grammatical) rules in modern English; verbs have several tenses, past, present and future, the tense, case etc being determined by the form of words used. English has almost as many irregular forms that need to be learned individually as there are regular forms applying to whole groups of verbs.

e.g.

I will have come

I shall have come

I will come

I shall come

I am coming

I come

I came

I was coming

I have come

I had come

I would have come

I should have come

Just a dozen of the nominative case conjugations of 'to come'. According to which one chooses to use, so the meaning of one's communication is changed, sometimes subtly or sometimes drastically. Then choose your case, any one of four (I,you(s),he/she/it,you(p),they to draw in a few more variations - and that is all for one measly verb. Try the same little exercise for the verb 'to have' and see how many variations there are between the handling of the two verbs. There are of course, another seven cases in addition to the nominative case and then there are the variations in word form to associate the intended personal pronoun.

All the European languages use a related but not the same set of grammatical rules. These rules' origin is ancient - older then the languages in their modern forms..

> English, unlike

> other languages, doesn't have a formal set of

> rules defined by any kind of official body. It's

> the wikipedia of langauges, added to by

> anyone,horribly inconsistent yet used by

> everyone.

Firstly, there are tens if not hundreds of English dialects spoken around the world. I speak here only of the form called Standard English. If you think that doesn't have rules, try, metaphorically blindfolded, to pick with a pin your verb conjugations and see what a mess of misunderstanding you create :-) Whilst learning the subtleties, we all generally begin and get by (just) with one future, one present and one past tense but that is really not enough, is it?

Grammar does matter and it does exist. It changes slowly, much slower than does vocabulary and is less critical in English that it is in (say) German but it is still the backbone of the language without which there would be confusing babble.

Other forms of English may have some different rules and may have simpler structures. It was from my daughter, then aged six, that I first learned such locally useful phases such as 'Man, you no teef from we' and later in her life, 'See *you* pal!'.

Owen

17th Oct 2014 03:27 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

I disagree that english has rules - it doesn't; it only has "customary usage". It is an anarchic language, without any officially appointed body entitled to make "rules" (unlike say japanese, french, spanish or icelandic, which all have official rule-making bodies). English usage evolves naturally, and obviously changes can't be incorporated simultaneously by all english speakers everywhere, so variable usages will necessarily exist.

Furthermore, many of the so-called "rules" of english are not actually english at all, but just rules borrowed from latin by monks in the middle ages who were embarrassed to have to start writing in english for the uneducated masses. An example of this is my old school teacher criticizing my use of prepositions at the end of sentences... "A preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with." ;-) - That's a latin rule, not an english one, although historical attempts were made to "refine" english by forcing latin rules onto it.

The worldwide expansion of english is proof that officially appointed government rule-making bodies are entirely unnecessary to the success of a language.

17th Oct 2014 07:43 UTCRock Currier Expert

IMHO....OMG!

17th Oct 2014 12:31 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Alfredo,

You miss the point - deliberately, I think ;-) Do I really have to point out the tens of rules you have (very sensibly) observed in writing your eloquent post? Without quite a few rules, language is just noise or scribble - incomprehensible to others.

The rules for the entire group of European languages have a very similar core structure - we all structure the communication of our thoughts in quite a similar way. This is something thought to be much older than any Latin influence, extending as it does to non-European languages that seem to have the the same basic organizational ideas. Not so for other languages, such as the Far Eastern languages that have quite different structures (and, consequently, are harder for a European to learn as a second language than is another European language.

The key points are:

1. All languages are but a set of common rules for effective communication and storage of thought.

2, The differences in the rules and vocabulary are what makes the user of one language incomprehensible to the use of another - until one of both have learned the others rules and vocabulary, at least in part; the greater the learning, the more total the comprehension.

3, Certainly English grammar does change over time but very slowly. The 'standard English' of 400 years ago is still very recognisable today. Vocabulary in English changes much faster, responding to the development of new concepts and changes in popular fashion.

This discussion reminds me of the story of the man watching a millipede walking across his garden with the movement of all its legs perfectly synchronised. In wonder. the man asked, "How do you decide which leg to move next?" The millipede considered the question and promptly fell over, unable to walk, No-one had ever told it the rules that governed what it had, since birth, learned to do quite naturally.

18th Oct 2014 18:15 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

3 pages on grammer!!! god knows how many rules those first 4 words broke, but you understood it!!! We have no academy of English setting out the rules as others have noted.

However, many have noticed that young speakers, one or two years of age, are usually grammatically perfect. This suggested to Chomsky a Linguistic Analysing Device hard wired in the brain. When we find it and understand it, then we'll have the real rules.

18th Oct 2014 18:22 UTCTom Tucker

I think I'll brave the elements and go mineral collecting this afternoon.

18th Oct 2014 19:56 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Owen.

You haven't actually yet (and I checked) given us the rule in English that says mineral names (which are NOT proper nouns) should be capitalized.

Jolyon

18th Oct 2014 20:28 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

"Noted mainstream publishers like Dana, Rogers, Ford, Kraus, Pough, Sinkakas . . . none of them ever capitalized mineral names, so why wouldn't we follow the same long established conventions?"

Owen: What do you say to that?

19th Oct 2014 02:32 UTCRock Currier Expert

Should we not create the Mindat police force before we promote the police force for the proper use of English?

19th Oct 2014 07:26 UTCAnonymous User

i have a lot of friends in peru who never use any capital letters nor do they use any punctuation i think it is the result of poor schooling however when i used to try to understand them i always had to copy the text then splice it into segments adding capitals periods etc I think you will agree this lack of grammatical rules is maddening we need to use grammatical rules

19th Oct 2014 13:49 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

It was pointed out earlier about the German language and their use of capitalization but a good German friend pointed out a year or so ago when I was writing to him and capitalizing in what I had learned were the proper places that in Germany the trend was going along with the English language where the capitalizing was being dropped by the younger generation. I have stayed in the habit of capitalizing when I write my German friends but it is apparently not a must anymore.

I think in my case I have used capitals because of my biological background. This thread has given me things to think about.

As with many, I capitalize on my labels but have to think about other usage.

I have read a number of the old texts and have noticed in the ones that do not capitalize that it was a bit confusing to me and the mineral names, for some reason, just didn't stand out like I was used to in other uses.

Rolf

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 13, 2024 12:30:03

Go to top of page