Donate now to keep alive!Help|Log In|Register|
Home PageMindat NewsThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusManagement TeamContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatSponsor a PageSponsored PagesTop Available PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthMineral PhotographyThe Elements and their MineralsGeological TimeMineral Evolution
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
StatisticsThe ElementsMember ListBooks & MagazinesMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery
Modris Baum April 12, 2012 12:55AM
Something strange going on with this photo.

It's a POTD but it doesn't show up in the zircophyllite gallery, nor in the locality gallery
Alfredo Petrov April 12, 2012 02:01AM
That's because the identity has been questioned; might not have quite enough zirconium to be that species.
Pedro Alves April 12, 2012 12:27PM
and (Ti+Zr) ?
A Ti rich zircophyllite...

Marco E. Ciriotti April 12, 2012 01:28PM
Hi Pedro,
analysis (by Roma University) are current...
Ciao. Marco
Pedro Alves April 12, 2012 07:36PM
Ciao Marco,
grazie per le informazzioni.

Pavel Kartashov April 12, 2012 09:16PM
Pedro Alves Wrote:
> Hi,
> and (Ti+Zr) ?
> A Ti rich zircophyllite...

Rather it is Zr-bearing astrophyllite.;-)
Pedro Alves April 12, 2012 10:38PM
Hi Pavel,
your hypothesis seems to be more correct.
Since, in this particular case, we cannot see the F and the Fe content seems to be higher than the Mn one (not sure about that, and not sure also it this may be important).

Pavel Kartashov April 12, 2012 11:07PM
Real Zircophyllite should be Mn-dominant - it is Zr analogue of kupletskite, not astrophyllite.
what about F content, I am think all is OK with it in this mineral. F contents in such rocks are usually enough high.
Pedro Alves April 12, 2012 11:22PM
Two problems then.
First the Mn content, wich is probably more conclusive. The Zr is not the 'big problem'.
luigi chiappino April 24, 2012 11:57AM
Dear All,

I really appreciate this stimulating discussion, however, I feel the need to remind to you (as it
has been explained to me) that from qualitative EDS analysis it is not, and I repeat, it is not
possible to estimate accurately the relative abundances of the elements. Consequently,
every assignment must be considerd a mere and often a meaningless, speculation.

On the contrary, the attribution was based also on preliminary x-ray diffraction data, that are
probably a better method of identification than the "eye" of an experienced amateur or even a
professor in mineralogy.

Finally, I may be wrong, but there are many groups of minerals (e.g. H, B, Be,
REE and Li bearing minerals), in which also routinary structural and quantitative chemical
analyses, can not be far from sufficient to properly define a species.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Mineral and/or Locality is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2018, except where stated. relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: January 17, 2018 07:27:48
Go to top of page