Log InRegister
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat Articles
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
Mining CompaniesStatisticsThe ElementsUsersBooks & MagazinesMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery

IMA 95-020c published!

Posted by Ernst A.J. Burke  
Ernst A.J. Burke November 17, 2004 01:58PM
The description of the mineral jarandolite (95-020c) has been published by Malinko et al. in New Data on MInerals (Moscow) vol. 39 (2004).
In this publication the following explanation is given by me as IMA-CNMMN chairman for this considerable delay in publication:

The history of proposal 95-020 is a long, sad, and unique one in the history of the CNMMN! The initial data for this mineral were mailed by Dobrica R. Stojanović to Joe Mandarino, Chairman of the CNMMN, on 25 November 1992, but this letter never arrived in Toronto. A new letter was mailed on 16 June 1993, Joe Mandarino received it on 27 July 1993, and answered it on 28 July 1993, asking for more information on some data. Stojanović replied to this letter, without the data, on 28 December 1994, Joe Mandarino forwarded the letter to Joel Grice who had meanwhile taken over as CNMMN chairman. Joel Grice asked for the same additional info as Joe Mandarino in a letter of 23 March 1995, and got these data in April 1995. The proposal for the new mineral with the name 'srbianite' (95-020) was mailed to the CNMMN members on 31 May 1995. From this proposal it was evident that the name 'srbianite' had already been published, without CNMMN approval, in Serbian journals in 1992 and 1993.

The voting results of proposal 95-020 were published in CNMMN Memorandum Vol. 21 No. 8 of 30 August 1995: the mineral was approved, but the name ‘srbianite’ was suspended because of a lack of the requested majority of ‘yes’ votes. Joel Grice suggested to choose a more specific name for a second voting, but Stojanović requested that the name ‘srbianite’ would be submitted again. This was sent to CNMMN on 31 January1996, and the results appeared in Memorandum Vol. 22 No. 4 of 30 April 1996. The name was suspended for the second time, and Joel Grice suggested again a more site-specific name. In spite of this, Stojanović asked for a third vote, but now on the name ‘serbianite’. This name was submitted to the CNMMN on 29 August 1997, and the result of the voting appeared in Memorandum Vol. 23 No. 11 of 26 November 1997: the name was rejected with an overwhelming majority. Joel Grice was then very lenient in proposing Stojanović to choose a different name for a fourth voting.

Stojanović did not reply to this offer from Joel Grice until June 2002, asking indeed for a fourth vote, but again on the names ‘srbianite’ or ‘serbianite’. Joel Grice consulted his fellow CNMMN officers and myself, the new Chairman-elect, but did not reply to this letter. Next step: Stojanović sent a copy of his June 2002 letter to me (3rd CNMMN chairman involved!) in February 2003. I made it clear in my answer (12 February 2003) to Stojanović that his wish was impossible: we had had three CNMMN votings on these names, and all three were negative. Allowing a fourth vote on these names would be against all rules, and accepting one of these names would be a very significant, but inadmissible precedent for all authors wishing to circumvent CNMMN procedures.

In order to save the results of this new (and unique) borate mineral, I offered two alternatives to Stojanović: 1) propose a new name, like Joel Grice had already suggested three times; this could have been done easily, because the Serbian literature with the name ‘srbianite’ was apparently so obscure that it was never mentioned in GeoRef or Web of Science; 2) cooperate with a Russian team that had proposed the same mineral (from the same locality as 95-020) in March 1995, just after Joel Grice received the borate dossier from Joe Mandarino. In view of the previous gap of almost 5 years, I demanded from Stojanović that he would answer me before 11 April 2003; if I did not receive his reply by that date I would lift his priority for the mineral.

In the first week of April 2003 I received an answer from Stojanović on my proposals. He repeated his wish of June 2002 / February 2003 to have a fourth vote on the names ‘srbianite’ or ‘serbianite’. I consulted two members of the IMA Council (the past-president and the secretary), who backed my intention to stick by the CNMMN rules after having been lenient towards Stojanović twice (allowing a third voting on ‘serbianite’, and proposing a fourth vote on another name). I decided then to give the Russian team the opportunity to name the mineral, as Stojanović obviously refuses to follow the CNMMN voting results.

The present publication by Malinko et al. is the result of this long procedure to give a name for this borate mineral. Because the type locality is the same as in the original proposal 95-020 we have no problem there. Only the holotype material will of course be different. The decision to approve the mineral was already published (without the name, as usual) in the yearly list of new minerals, e.g., in Canadian Mineralogist, 34 (1996), 687. The outcome of the CNMMN vote on jarandolite was published in Memorandum Vol. 29 Nr. 9 of 30 September 2003.

The authors of the jarandolite publication have communicated to me that their main goal was to publish an extended set of data on this mineral under an approved name. In their paper they mentioned the previous work of the team of Stojanović, and corresponding references have also been given. I consider this as a very honourable attitude from the Russian team.

Ernst Burke.
Marco E. Ciriotti November 17, 2004 03:10PM
Chapeau! to the Russian team and to the CNMMN for the solution of this old "stubborn" problem.
Alfredo November 17, 2004 04:29PM
This is good news, although I'm somewhat curious as to why the CNMMN originally thought the name srbianite or serbianite to be unacceptable and requested a more site-specific name? There are many precedents for species named after country of origin: brazilianite, srilankite, etc. As an anti-nationalist myself, I think a policy to avoid promoting nationalisms to be a laudable thing, if that was the reason. Or perhaps the type locality is in an area that is arguably not really Serb territory, so the IMA didn't want to be put in the position of lending "international support" to a political policy? That would also be a noble policy, and might well be implemented in any part of the world where control is disputed, for example no Chinese names for minerals described from Tibet, no Hebrew names for species found in occupied territories, etc. (There are many examples of species named by those in colonial control of territories which are now independent and whose people undoubtedly wish that their type-locality species were named differently.) It would probably be a good idea in general to be more aware of ethnic sensitivities when naming species and not allow the naming of minerals to become a vehicle for expressing nationalism. But this is all conjecture on my part - perhaps the name srbianite was rejected for some totally unrelated reason. Maybe Prof. Burke or someone else will tell us. Anyway, I salute Dr. Burke and Malinko's team for bringing this particular issue to a satisfactory conclusion.
Alfredo November 17, 2004 04:51PM
Procedural question: When CNMMN members vote on acceptance of a proposed new species name, do they comment on reason for rejection, or is it just a simple yes-no vote? If reasons are not required to be recorded, then it will not be possible to say why a name was rejected. Perhaps srbianite was rejected mainly because the name was prematurely published, before approval, in violation of established rules. (If so, would that rule generally apply to any species whose authors have "jumped the gun" and published before approval? - like the infamous "rheniite".)
Marco E. Ciriotti November 17, 2004 05:49PM
Jarandol basin deposit is in Serbian (Serbia and Montenegro) territory.
Ciao. Marco
Alfredo November 17, 2004 05:59PM
Thanks, Marco. OK, that disproves my first speculation. Probably most members just didn't like the fact that the name had been published before approval. That's understandable since it shows some mineralogical arrogance on the part of the original authors, or perhaps just an excess of exuberance at their discovery :~))
Marcelo Machado Brum November 18, 2004 12:22AM
Hello for all!

Sorry but I not be convinced for the motives of rejection for the names srbianite or serbianite.Remmember for all the political situation at 1992-1993 in the now extinct Yugoslave and the war between Serbs and Croats and a later war against the Kossovo.In the now days the situation is not much good in the region but are signals of better days in the relation between all countries.The names of minerals in honor of the countries are a very usual motive.Iranite,Iraqite,Germanite and others are examples of use of nationalism in the determination of a name of mineral.Well,if a group of renomed scientists of mineralogical world honored the president George W.Bush with a name Bushiite are problem in the nomination of mineral?Or the name is Unitedstateite are possibility of rejection?.My impression is a lamentable mixture of politics in the determination of it unhappy mineral.Other mineralogists are denied the complete description about your minerals for many years and nothing of punishment or advertment are used.Sorry if my opinion is not agree with your positions but the suspect of it mixture of political motives are very hard in it case.

andy christy November 18, 2004 07:28AM

The IMA has well thought-out guidelines on allowable names. See page 9 of http://www.mineralogicalassociation.ca/doc/abstracts/ima98/ima98(01).pdf, also published in Canadian Mineralogt, vol. 36.

"Bushite" is out of the question. The paper above recommends J.D. Dana's precept that "the use of names of persons eminent in other sciences, or of such as are ignorant of all science, is wholly at vaiance with good usage and propriety; moreover, an attempted flattery of the politically distinguished is degrading to science, and cannot be too strongly discountenanced."

In general, any pandering to politics or commerce is distasteful in science. National names may have been OK once, but they should be avoided in these more sensitive times. Incidentally, germanite is not a "national name": it is named after the major constituent element germanium, which in turn WAS named after the country, but several decades earlier.

Stojanovic was unwise to push a nationalist agenda with his name, arrogant to use the name in publications before approval, and downright stupid to be so obstinate in rejecting CNMMN voting decisions so many times. All he has achieved by being so stubborn, uncooperative and disrespectful of international institutions is to delay the progress of world science, and bring discredit down on his own work and, by his chosen association, his country.

I am impressed by the fairness with which the IMA and Malinko's team have treated the earlier proposals.
Marco E. Ciriotti November 18, 2004 08:54AM
Almost one case of dedication of minerals to political persons, in the past time, exist: nyerereite (IMA 1963-014).
The CNMMN members can vote (yes/not/abstension) and can also add comments to explicate the vote. I think, however, that the comment of each member is "private" opinion.
Marco E. Ciriotti November 18, 2004 09:02AM
Please read "At least" instead of "Almost".
Sorry for the lapsus due to the Italian equivalent word "Almeno".
Ernst A.J. Burke November 18, 2004 09:26AM
A short note on the voting procedure within the CNMMN: NO or ABSTAIN votes must be elaborated by the members, giving reasons for voting so is mandatory. Comments and remarks (also of the YES votes) are then given anonimously to the authors of the new-mineral proposals, and are given (also anonimously) in the monthly Memorandum of the chairman to the CNMMN members. These data are confidential, and I will thus as a matter of course not provide the reasons for the multiple rejection of srbianite or serbianite.

Jim Ferraiolo November 18, 2004 06:44PM
If I recall, rooseveltite is named for Franklin D. Roosevelt, but that is pre-IMA.
Marcelo Machado Brum November 18, 2004 07:09PM

The error of Stojanovic is the publication of a non-aproved name but your war against nebulous motives for the rejection of your proposed names is a very right motive.Why the real motives for a rejection?Srbian is a name found in very good maps about Serbia but are confusion in the use of it because the existence of other names used for it deposit or locality.But Serbianite what is the motive for the non adoption of it name?The inexact of the ocurrence?Well,I found in the mineralogical world many names with not much exact localization for mineral for example Utahite,Nevadaite and others.Utah is a great state in USA.The search for the mineral is dificulty for it?.
Arrogance and desservice have all mineralogists who overtime the time of publication of mineral species in many years or published your descriptions in not facility acess magazines or only unremember your discovers in papers with much dificulty acess and the traditional club of names imposed without aprovation.It is the bad band of mineralogical world.Are punishment for it bad members?NO.Stojanovic are the true ethic father of imposed jarandolite.I not agree with Mr.Burke.The acts of the russian team are oportunistic and not ethics.Cited Stojanovic but the mineral are now yor creature and named it.
Jarandolite:The first mineral in the modern times with name imposed for motives not clears and the first mineral who is officialy usurped by another team of mineralogists.

Uwe Kolitsch November 19, 2004 04:02AM
Dear Marcelo,
I think you are completely wrong in your statements about the Russian team. I hope you did not deliberately chose the highly polemic and inappropriate words "oportunistic" and "usurped".

Cheers, Uwe
Thomas Witzke November 19, 2004 08:58AM
I found the mineral also at Niedersachswerfen, Harz, Germany, some years ago. The locality is known for an interesting borate association (probertite, tuzlaite, heidornite, strontioginorite, ....).

Marcelo Machado Brum November 20, 2004 10:39PM

Sorry for the inapropriate therms used by me but the history of jarandolite is polemic.A rigor against stojanovic and nothing punishment for a bad mineralogist for example a group of chinese mineralogists who systematic in the publication of non-aproved species year by year is not right.


ps:Are new mineral discover for you?
Rade Todoric December 24, 2004 11:34AM
W E L C O M E to the text of TRUTH and JUSTICE!

We very much appreciate all those members of CNMMN IMA for voting in an honest and just manner for our proposal of the name for the new boron mineral from Serbia!

We will use the correspondence of Mr. Dobrica Stojanovic who is the author of SERBIANITE, with the two chairmen of IMA, that is to say - we will use the facts that will remain in the history of Mineralogy in order to have a final judgement (according to the base of data from the computer of REFRACTORY INDUSTRY MAGNOHROM, Kraljevo, Serbia).

Our first application addressed to Dr A. Mandarino, with whom we had a correct cooperation, was sent on November 25, 1992. However, this application did not arrive to his office because of the sanctions. There was the discussion in which the claim of the post office in Kraljevo and CANADA POST CORPORATION, OTTAWA was used (see: Appl. 1996, p. 5, and the gratitude to the professor Dr F.A. Mumpton, p.6). Therefore, Mr. Stojanovic was forced to use the services of foreign embassies, i.e. of German Embassy and American Embassy.

Our proposal of the name includes several data:

1 - This mineral has been up to now found only in Serbia, about 20% in the deposit,
2 - The regulation was performed by the researcher,
3 - SERBIA is the current, modern name of the country,
4 - SRBIANITE is in the systematics beside FABIANITE (and that was the reason for the choice of the name, not nationalism),
5 - The first two letters Sr are the symbol of strontium which is the microelement in the mineral.

During the first voting, our proposal was really adopted, because it got about 70% of the votes YES, if the votes for SRBIANITE are added to the votes for SERBIANITE (see: Appl. 2002 - in the appendix). IMA Chairman caused the confusion among the members of CNMMN, because he proposed it for voting as the present name of the country SERBIA (which is actually a "vice versa" explication). It led to the division of votes for SRBIANITE AND SERBIANITE. And instead of discussing the moot letter "e", the chairman put it for another voting ...

They criticize the author Mr. Stojanovic for being persistent (we will talk about this when there will be the discussion on the Russian proposal and the pressure to name this mineral after the late Russian - Svetlana Malinko). All this is about ultimately worth and serious researcher that shows persistance in his researching work. This researcher is famous as such and that is why he many times received acknowledgement and gratitude. The example is also the gratitude of JCPDS (see: JCPDS-ICDD NEWSLETTER, Vol. IV, Number 2, 1974, see PDF JCPDS 18-618 - howlite, 18-281, 26-307...). This researcher is very modest, he still does not have a mobile phone or a computer ( he has an e-mail that is paid for: dobrica_kv@ptt.yu).

While the others worked only for their own good, he worked for Mineralogy! Although his eyesight is weak, he writes THE SAD PAGES OF SERBIAN MINERALOGY HISTORY and fights this imposed battle. We are convinced in the final victory of justice.

Prepared by:
Rade Todoric, Chief of Marketing
MAGNOHROM, Kraljevo, Serbia
Jim Ferraiolo December 27, 2004 10:03PM
We thank Mr Todoric for posting the application to the Commission concerning IMA 95-020, as well as the "rest of the story", or at least, another part to the story.

I am not knowledgeable enough about this saga, and will not comment on the history. However, in the list of the data in the proposal, the fifth point, that Sr is for the "microelement in the mineral", and tied to the fourth point - a relation to fabianite - (changing the "fa" to "sr"), does not make sense. Both minerals are calcium hydroxytriborates. There is no strontium in the end-member composition, and would as such, would not be reflected in the mineral name.

Also, if the voting totals given in Stojanovic's letter are correct, and only a simple majority of voting members is needed for name approval ....
Alfredo December 28, 2004 01:02PM
On a related note... The current system for new mineral species approval intermixes two distinct topics into one approval procedure: 1) approval of the material as a new mineral phase, i.e. the approval of the description of its unique chemistry and structure, which is a scientific process; 2) approval of the proposed name, which is more of a social, cultural or political event and has really nothing to do with science.

In the case of jarandolite/(serbianite)/(srbianite), no one disputes that Stojanovic and co. described a new species of mineral - their problem was with the naming procedure, and their unwillingness to adhere to that established procedure. History will note the fact that they described it first, even though their name was not accepted. Anyway, perhaps the voting for approval of new mineral phases ought to be divorced from the vote on approval of the name, which would at least keep the scientific part of the process pure and uncontaminated by social disputes.
Jim Ferraiolo December 28, 2004 05:46PM

The proposed mineral name and the proposed mineral species are voted on separately by the Commission. And without seeing the reasons for the negative or abstained votes from the Commission menbers on 95-020, we will never know why it was not approved.

Most of the mineral names proposed to the Commission are "scientifically" acceptable as well as "socially" acceptable, and hence generate not conflict. Although some of the names accepted can lead one to wonder why they were approved.

Stojanvic's letter gives the first and second voting results. Both appear to give the Name vote first, since the notation "suggestions for serbianite" is attached to the first line. The results are 5-8 and 10-11 votes against the name "srbianite", and a 9-4 and 13-8 votes for the mineral, though the second is not quite 2/3 of the votes.

Also, I was under the impression if the mineral species is approved it does not have to be voted on again, just the second (or third) proposed name.
Alfredo December 28, 2004 06:06PM
Jim, Thanks for the clarification.
Milorad Vucetic January 12, 2005 04:23PM
Dear Sirs,

If there is a possibility, please, be so kind and give the answers to the following questions:

1. Who was the initiator for putting the questions connected with SRBIANITE or SERBIANITE on the INTERNET (FORUM) - did the IMA-Chairman do it according to the (new) rules of IMA, or, it was, maybe, required by a member of CNMMN?

2. Was the confidential voting abolished? Is the public voting of CNMMN IMA members introduced instead? On which site are the results of voting for jarandolite?

3. What is the sense of the current discussion in the Forum and can it contribute to the adoption of Mr. Stojanovic' s proposal?

4. Could you send us the article on jarandolite by e-mail: primena@ptt.yu?

Thank you!

Refractories Institute
Milorad Vucetic
Ernst A.J. Burke January 13, 2005 11:01AM
I will try to answer your questions:
1. I did start this series of communications, see the first contribution. I did so because I wanted to announce that a mineral approved in 1995 by the CNMMN was finally published after 9 years, and also the reasons for this delay. This has nothing to do with the rules of the IMA or the CNMMN.
2. The confidential voting was certainly not abolished in the CNMMN: it is Rade Todoric who violated the confidentiality by publishing a letter of Dr. Stojanovic to me, without asking my permission to do so. The results of a voting are of course public, not who voted what and why, see my first contribution.
3. Whatever sense you want, my contribution was already public, as it is included in the jarandolite publication. What do you mean, adopting Dr. Stojanovioc's proposal? See my first contribution.
4. I do not have an electronic version, please contact the authors.

Ernst Burke,
CNMMN chairman.
Milorad Vucetic January 24, 2005 07:21PM
Author: Milorad Vucetic
Date: January 24, 2005


Dear Sirs,

1. We appreciate the FORUM on the name srbianite or serbianite, because it will
contribute to spreading of truth in the world. It was done at the initiation of IMA
Chairman, beyond the IMA rules. The persons that participate in the FORUM are
certainly informed in advance, but we do not know on the base of which data they

2. IMA Chairman does not agree with publishing of Mr. Stojanovic’s Appl. 2002 and he refers to the CONFIDENTIAL-correspondence that he interrupted before on his own.Now the ethics of IMA Chairman can be seen: In the FORUM, they discuss on the name of the new mineral as well as on the author, although
Mr. Stojanovic is previously not even informed about that! – Therefore, we thank the colleagues from Greece that informed us about the forum on the internet!

The question is: Can we use the authentic data in our future enclosures in the forum?

3. We like the conclusion of Dr. Jim Ferraiolo (December 27, 2004. 22:03): ‘if the voting totals given in Stojanovic’s letters are correct, and only a simple majority of voting members is needed for name approval...”

Besides our options, we are very much interested in the suggestions of other participants in the forum – How can we help Mr. Stojanovic?

4. The Russian Academy of Science exerted pressure to call the mineral after the name of late Mrs. Malinko S., and IMA Chairman suggests us to ask for the publication from the unknown authors.

• PS: Mr. Rade Todoric asks for the correction in his enclosure (December 24, 2004 11:34) – there should be written: 3 – SRBIA (not Serbia).

Thank you!

Refractories Institute
Milorad Vucetic
Jim Ferraiolo January 25, 2005 12:52PM
Dr. Vucetic,

From my December 28, 2004 post, correcting my first comment that you have quoted:

"Stojanvic's letter gives the first and second voting results. Both appear to give the Name vote first, since the notation "suggestions for serbianite" is attached to the first line. The results are 5-8 and 10-11 votes against the name "srbianite", and a 9-4 and 13-8 votes for the mineral, though the second is not quite 2/3 of the votes."

In both instances the votes indicated were against the name.
Milorad Vucetic February 18, 2005 01:15PM
Dear Mr. Ferraiolo,

Thank you very much for your participation in the forum. We could give you the following information:
- The author, that is to say, Mr. Stojanovic has properly used the symbol of the microelement Sr as a motive for the name of the mineral "srbianite". And of course, Sr is not in the formula of the mineral.
- We have cited your sentence because it suits us and we think that it is O.K.
- Your comment about "13-8 votes for the mineral ... is not 2/3 of the votes" is not correct, because it is discussed about "the name of the mineral" in the forum, and not about "the mineral species". (According to the Procedures involving the IMA CNMMN: "A proposed name will be considered approved if more than one-half (1/2) of the members who vote on the proposal vote 'yes'.")

Thank you!

Refractories Institute

Milorad Vucetic
Dobrica Stojanovic February 23, 2005 11:13AM

Dear Sirs,

I send you for inspection the mistakes of the Russian and IMA Chairman that will contribute to the truth.

1. Without the approval of CNMMN IMA, the name was published twice

The collaborationists of the Russian from Belgrade, without the approval of CNMMN IMA, published the name Rasite or Rashite (named after the Rashka Area – Rashka Country – the first Serbian country two times:

- Joksimovic D., Anicic S., et al., Geology and Metallogeny of the Kopaonik Mt., Symposium, pp. 350-368 (1995), and

- Cedomir Mudrinic and Stojan Anicic, Annales geologiques Peninsule Balkanique, pp. 449-459,
Belgrade (1996) (see: Appendix in Attachment).

In their proposal, the Russian kept secret the publication of these names, and IMA Chairman did not appropriately react. This misinformation was orally done in Belgrade, as well as by means of the publication in order to make Mr. Stojanovic give up the proposal 95-020.

2. The Russian do not have a right to nominate this boron mineral from Serbia

On may 20, 1996, in the Chamber of the Economy of Serbia, the meeting connected with the names of new boron minerals from Serbia was held. It was concluded that Geozavod-Nemetali, that is to say , the collaborationists of the Russian should withdraw their proposal for the sake of Mr. Stojanovic’s proposal (point three (3) of the protocol). This was based on the twofold priorities. (1) On the national priority, and according to the rules of Serbian Geological Society, as Mr. Stojanovic was the first to proclaim the results about the new mineral in 1992 (the explanation about the proclaimed name was given in the letter from March 27, 1995, COMMENT I: “The name acted in accordance with the rules of Serbian Geological Society for gaining the priority (author’s) rights…”). (2) And on the international priority, founded on the decision of CNMMN IMA about the acceptance of the new mineral 95-020.

On January 28, 2004 in the same institution , the representative of the Geozavod-Nemetali Mr. S. Anicic said that “the name Rasite was accepted in 1992 in Canada” on the basis of the phone information given by Ozal, “a close friend from Kazanj” (the laughter of those present!). He asked for “20 days” to inquire about what the Russian had done. However, his answer did not arrive even after a whole year. (It actually arrived, but from the IMA Chairman over this forum.).

Mr. S. Anicic agreed with the following statement: “Geologists of the Geozavod-Nemetali from Belgrade, as the collaborationists of the Russian on the exploration of borate in Piskanja, Serbia, were neither consulted by the Russian, nor gave the agreement to the Russian for the change of the originally proposed name Rasite”. The Russian used to often change the proposal of the name, as they wanted it, and illegally.

NOTE: Serbian Geological Society has the reason to examine the ethics of the geologists of Geozavod-Nemetali.

(To be continued with the following enclosure II.).

With best regards,

Dobrica Stojanovic E-mail: dobrica_kv@ptt.yu
Jolyon February 23, 2005 03:26PM

This thread must come to an end now. Whether you feel the right or wrong decision has been made, the IMA has chosen the name for this new mineral as Jarandolite, and that is the name that will be used in this database.

Please do not continue to post complaints here about this decision, which is nothing to do with mindat.org.

Dobrica Stojanovic March 02, 2005 01:33PM

3. The proposal of the representative of the Russian Academy of Science to name the mineral after the late Mrs. Malinko

In the letter from February 12, 2003, the IMA Chairman refused the Application for Revision of Voting about the name of Srbianite, or Serbianite IMA 95-020 to be examined: “CNMMN members have the right to vote ‘no’ or ‘abstein’ regardless of their motives to do so.” However, it is the comment of IMA Chairman on our warning that the name was accepted even in both the first and the second voting, when the votes for the two spellings are added that is always omitted: in the first voting, the result is 9:4 (69.2%), and in the second voting, the result is 13:8 (62%). Therefore, we have the right to demand an answer…

The IMA Chairman has suggested the two alternatives:

(1) The author should change the name of the mineral. “The new name would have to be voted on by the CNMMN”, and
(2) Or, he will otherwise put the Russian proposal to a vote. “I will declare the Russian proposal admissible on its own for discussion within the CNMMN.”

He writes: “Dr. Chukanov suggested to use for the mineral the name suggested by Dr. Malinko, to honour her memory.” The IMA Chairman has sent the representative of the Russian Academy of Science the same letter: Dr. Nikita V. Chukanov, contact person for the Russian team (--- icp.ac.ru). In this way, he has broken off the CONFIDENTIAL-correspondence!

The author, i.e. Mr. Stojanovic made a reply on March 27, 2003: “ My opinion about that is stated at the Application for Revision of Voting…”. Mr. Stojanovic also added: “Your proposals are out of proclaimed and in the world current not only human but also author’s rights. If you as IMA Chairman, want to give priority to Russian proposal, I ask you to inform me about that and suggest me legal advice for a complaint.”

There was the last answer of IMA Chairman instead of advice on May 28, 2003: “As a proposal 95-020 is no longer considered as approved by the CNMMN. This proposal will carry the IMA number 95-020C and will be mailed to the CNMMN members on June 30, 2003. In their paper (after CNMMN approved) they will suggest the previous work on the team of Stojanovic, and corresponding references will also be given. I consider this as very honourable attitude from Russian team.”

For that reason and on time, on June 24, 2003, Dr. Chukanov and IMA Chairman were informed that the Russian did not have the right to nominate the mineral 95-020. Therefore, they certainly gave up the proposal of the name after the late Dr. Malinko.

4. “IMA 95-020c published!”

In the forum under the title “Six Enigmatic names”, esteemed and clever Dr. Marcelo Marchado Brum (January 21, 2004 04:41) asked for the complete information about those names. The IMA Chairman answered (January 21, 2004 11:06):

“4) The name ‘srbianite’ was NOT approved by the CNMMN in three (!) consecutive votes, this borate mineral will be published this year with another name , not approved by the CNMMN.”

In means that the Russian were illegally given “jarandolite” as a present (according to the Turkish word “jaran” = dear, nice). Another new boron mineral from the same deposit in Serbia, i.e. studenitsite with bad X-ray powder diffraction data was also previously accepted as Russian, IMA 94-026.

Maybe the international society of mineralogists needs only the IMA Chairman and not CNMMN?

NOTE: CNMMN IMA has the reason to examine the IMA Chairman’s ethics.

With best regards,

Dobrica Stojanovic
Karl March 05, 2005 06:31AM
I would just like to note that the quote that is attributed Mr. Burke from “Six Enigmatic names" is NOT correct. The correct quote is:

“4) The name ‘srbianite’ was NOT approved by the CNMMN in three (!) consecutive votes, this borate mineral will be published this year with another name , now approved by the CNMMN.”

Instead of "now" it was misquoted as "not". This gives a differant meaning to the last part of the quote, that the IMA Chairman unilateraly accepted the Russian proposal without the input of the CNMMN. With the correct adjective in place it indicates that it was the CNMMN that chose the Russian proposal and not the IMA Chairman.
Dobrica Stojanovic April 04, 2005 03:32PM
The following text was put on the old site www.mindat.org/msg-14-1049.html=20, before the apperance of “Fatal error”:
Date: 03-10-05 09:09. Now we repeat it on this site: www.mindat.org/msg-14-664-664.html=20;

Mr Karl,

Thank you very much for the correction of “not”. Our printed text contains only “no”, as a result of bad right margin in “mindat.org”.

Could you please tell us how many CNMMN members voted “yes”? Are the data from Memorandum Vol. 29, No. 9 of September 30, 2003 accessible to the public?

Thank you! – DS

4. Continuation

Now we can remind of the fact that the IMA Chairman wrote to Mr. Stojanovic that the Russian proposal of the name would be sent to CNMMN on June 30, 2003, and in January 2004, he wrote that the name would be proclaimed “now approved by the CNMMN” (2004!). He explanation for the Russian proposal of the name was certainly similar as in the introduction to this forum: with the truths left out.

That is why we again ask the following question: How many members of CNMMN voted YES for “jarandolite”? We know the rule: “He includes the comments of the voting members, but the votes of individual members are not disclosed.” Therefore, it is not mentioned here that the results of voting (YES, NO, ABSTAINED) must not be reported for the public, on in this case, that they must not become known to the author. We can cite again the example of Dr. Ljudevit Baric from Zagreb who announced the voting results 9:4 for picatpaulite (1974).

NOTE: That is why we feel free to repeat that the members of CNMMN have the basis to reconsider the ethics of its Chairman,

Dobrica Stojanovic April 05, 2005 04:53PM

The author of the proposal 95-020 uses this unique opportunity to express his gratitude to a great number of colleagues from all over the world - i.e. to the participants of the forum, because he is convinced that they started discussing in the forum with the best intentions!
It is true that there has been an attitude expressed by only one side, and now it is the turn of the other side to speak - Audiatur et altera pars! The users of the forum can realize the mistakes that were done. Their number is not so small. Therefore, they are of a great influence on the destiny of one significant mineral and its author.

5. The remarks of the IMA representatives and the attitude of the author can be shown in the table as well:

The name was not adopted in the I voting and in the II voting.
The name was adopted in I voting and in the II voting although the IMA Chairman gave the confusing "vice versa" explanation of the name:
I voting 9:4 or 69.2%
II voting 13:8 or 62%

The name was published without the approval of CNMMN.
The collaborationists of the Russian (=the Russian) have also published the name without the approval
of CNMMN. They kept this fact secret in their proposal, and the IMA Chairmen have not reacted.

The author has not obeyed the advice of the two IMA Chairmen to change the name and choose the narrower locality.
The author thinks that the proposal of the name was adopted in the I voting and in the II voting.

The names of the countries cannot be recommended for the names of new minerals.
The names of the countries have been used for the names of new minerals: "Until the official rules are not changed, we cannot vote against this proposal" (a member of CNMMN).

The members of CNMMN have the right to vote in accordance with their motives.
They should vote according to the attitudes of their Governments towards Serbia, or even to exclude the political motives.

The IMA Chairman has turned down the Application for Revision of Voting.
There is a legal basis for reconsideration of the Application for Revision of Voting.

The Russian Academy of Science has proposed the name after the late lady Dr Malinko and helped the Russian team of the "unknown authors from three institutes"(the data given by D. S.).
The Russian do not have the right of nomination of the boron mineral 95-020, according to the decision in the institution of Republic of Serbia.

The IMA Chairman has accepted the name "jarandolite".
It is an decision, without the legal basis and legal effect.


(1a) Proposal for new borate CaB3O4(OH)3 was approved by the CNMMN on August 30, 1995, IMA 95-020: “Good work!”
(1b) On May 28. 2003. IMA Chairman unilaterally abolished recognition to Mr. Stojanovic: “Proposal 95-020 is no longer considered as approved by the CNMMN”, without any legality.

(2a) This is the longest and the saddest case of solving and giving the name of one mineral in the IMA that lasts over nine years.
(2b)This is a unique case in the history of IMA – of taking away the right to the name from one author and its granting to another team (according to M.M. Brum).

(3a) "Good name. What is the problem?" (a member of CNMMN). "The efforts made by the author to defend his mineral is worth admiring." (a member of CNMMN)
(3b) Thank you very much!


6. Conclusion

The Organ that makes incorrect decision has the right to revoke it as well. Therefore, CNMMN has the right to recognize the result of the first and the second votings on the name srbianite or serbianite to the author of the proposal 95-020.

The author will be grateful for the suggestions about the further concrete procedure:

- Should he submit an application, or the CNMMN will start the initiative?

The author thanks God for having fought this imposed fight and experienced to be active in his age of 75.

Thank you!

With best regards,
Dobrica Stojanovic
Jolyon May 06, 2005 01:19PM
The discussion is OVER.

The correct name is jarandolite.

Mr. Zdravko Ristic May 09, 2005 03:41PM
Dear Mr. Jolyon

Your last job is to cover this mess.
Anyhow for truth there is no time limit!

Thanks for all people who visit this forum.

Best wishes,
Mr. Zdravko Ristic
Associates of the author D.S. September 22, 2005 08:51AM
Dear Sirs and CNMMN memebers,

In our first letter R . Todoric: “WELCOME TO THE TEXT OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE!”, 12-24-04 11:34, it was stated that “we will use correspondence of Mr. Dobrica Stojanovic who is the author of SRBIANITE, with the two chairmen of IMA…” “Application 2002.jpg” was given in the ATTACHMENT. In the letter of the author Stojanovic: “THE RUSSIAN NOMINATION OF BORN MINERAL FROM SERBIA IS ILLEGAL”, 02-23-05 11:13, “Appendix10.jpg” was given in the ATTACHMENT. Unfortunately, both of these attachments were deleted on the site “mindat.org…”.

Now we return those documents directly.

On the basis of our documentation given, we believe that CNMMN members could understand the they were manipulated and that they will abolish their irregular decision from September 30 2003, on behalf of the name SRBIANITE or SERBIANITE.

With best regards,

Associates of the author Stojanovic
MAGNOHROM Induistry, Kraljevo, Serbia

June, 14th 2002.


Application for Revision of Voting about the name of Srbianite, or Serbianite, IMA No. 95 - 020

Commission on New Minerals and Mineral names IMA has approved of the new boron mineral from Serbia, but the name srbianite, or serbianite have not been approved. The author explained that the name had already been accepted on the occasion of I and II voting, when "YES" votes are added with suggestions for the name serbianite:

5 3 - 1* 5 - 3* * suggestions for
9 2 2 serbianite
Result 9:4 (69.2% : 30.8%) is more than 2/3, so the name is accepted (see: picatpaulite, L. Barić, 1974).

10 6 - 1* 5 - 2* * suggestions for
13 5 3 serbianite
Result 13:8 (62% : 38%) is nearly 2/3 and, according to the IMA rules, this represents "the majority
needed for acception" (L. Barić, 1974).
If the Chairman has the right to use these results and to declare the name as verified, the new voting might be avoided.” ( From Application, Dec. 26th l996)

As the Chairman previously hadn't had a conference with the author about the disputable letter "e" (serbianite), the votes of some members of the Commission about the name of serbianite were understood as "NO" and "ABST", and the proposal was rejected.

Simultaneously, however, the Chairman respected the opinions that the name srbianite = serbianite, as the alleged name "serbian" had already been used as a synonym for miloschite. The author proved that the name "serbian" was not the synonym for miloschite ( ZAPISNICI SGD for 1992 - 1997, Beograd, 1998), but the synonyms did not represent an obstacle for the names of new minerals:

"We do not believe that the use of the name in a varietal sense has any bearing on its future possible use as a species name. There are many examples... demonstrated to be a synonym."
(A college at the Natural History Museum, London, pers. comm., 1996)

Prior to third voting the Chairman informed the author that the name srbianite, or serbianite, has taken a political character.

Now, it can be emphasized with great pleasure that the representatives of Yugoslavia take part in the functions of UN as well as in all other international institutions (1), and the members of CNMMN IMA are the national representatives from 30 countries, the members of UN (2). These facts annul "political reasons" which were previously supported by some members of the Commission as well as the Chairman of IMA. The present state of reality is enabling the members of the Commission to adopt the name srbianite, or serbianite, and the Chairman to verify the new boron mineral which is around 20% rate present in the deposit, for the time being only in Serbia.

With best regards Dobrica Stojanović
Str. Zelena Gora 39/42
36000 Kraljevo, Serbia

Dr. Joel D. Grice, Chairman IMA
c/o Research Division FAX: 99-1-613-364-4027
Canadian Museum of Nature
P.O. Box 3443, Station D
Ottawa, Ontario

September 05, 1997

Dear Dr. Grice,

For two years some geologists from Belgrade, as well as professors of the Faculty of Mining and Geology University of Belgrade have been talking that IMA approved the new Ca-borate to Russian authors and their Belgrade collaborators. I do believe everything you mentioned in your letters including the voting results of CNMMN members concerning the name serbianite (95-020). Yesterday I received the work:

Геол. ан. Балк. пол
Ann. Geol. Penins. Balk. 60 1 449-459 Београд, децембар 1996
Belgrade, Decembre 1996
УДК 553.061.12/.17:553.637(497.11) Оригинални научни рад

GENETIC TYPE OF BORATE DEPOSITS IN JARANDOL MIOCENE BASIN, SERBIA by prof. Dr. Čedomir Mudrinić and Stojan Aničić, - Annales geologiques penisule Balkanique, Belgrade, 1996, pp. 449-459.

In this work new born minerals RASHITE and STUDENICITE are mentioned.

This is only the information for you since I, in fact, expect the results of the third voting concerning our proposition for the name serbianite.

Sincerely yours, “MAGNOHROM”
Dobrica Stojanović Kraljevo
Uwe Kolitsch September 22, 2005 12:15PM
Didn't you get it? The discussion is OVER OVER OVER.

Cheers, Uwe Kolitsch
Alfredo September 22, 2005 03:39PM
Yes, Uwe, it's over, but I have to admit these guys got what we call in english a "raw deal". Unfortunately, there is no higher court, no mechanism for review and redress, no neutral body to reconsider cases of dispute - Perhaps something to consider for the future.
Miss Dragana Romcevic November 22, 2005 11:02AM
Dear Sirs,

I am a young mineralogist and the first woman that participates in this forum after one year from its formation. I would like to present you some of my views.

I. I am very happy to be a part of the XRD-Laboratory of Mr. Stojanovic, the author of SRBIANITE. Now he is our esteemed consultant and we are always glad to see him in the Laboratory. I am going to accept some of his procedures of mineral testing by XRD and thermal methods. Some of his procedures of testing by thermal metods will maybe
ensure even one new classification of minerals.
2. Dr Alfredo, thank you very much! - I am very happy because of your attitude in favour of SRBIANITE. It would be useful to hear the attitudes of the rest of participants in the forum after one year of its existence.
3. Owing to SRBIANITE and the forum on the internet, a German collector of minerals got in contact with Mr. Stojanovic, asking him for the samples of minerals from Serbia. He soon came to Kraljevo and got about 40 kg of minerals from about 45 localities as a gift. The visit of the German collector to Kraljevo was for the anniversary of 170 years from the visit of Baron Von Herder from Freiberg in 1835. Therefore the collection of minerals was given to him under the motto:


V on Herder gave the collection of minerals as a gift to Serbia and he named the first new mineral from Serbia - MILOSCHITE (blue var. ofhalloysite, with chrome).
The collector was given the minerals of copper from the copper mine "Bor", crystals from the mine "Stari Trg" - "Trepca Complex", Kosovo, Serbia as well as some new minerals _ tuzlaite, studenicite. However, SRBIANITE was not given to him because of its still debatable status.

At Mr. Stojanovic's proposal, the Museum of Mineralogy in Skoplje, Macedonia was visited, and besides the other localities, the unique mine As-Sb in the mine "Alshar" (neutrino) at the Greek boundary was visited as well.

Thank you very much!

Best regards,

Dragana Romcevic MAGNOHROM Kraljevo
Mrs. Olgica, Secretary April 14, 2006 06:29PM
Dear Sirs,

The Author of Srbianite, Mr. Dobrica Stojanovic, wrote two letters to the
Esteemed personality of Russian Federation, the first one on November 30th
2005, and the second one on March 28th 2006.

< The said letters were handed in tom the Representative Department of Russian
Federation in Belgrade >

Date: November 30, 2005.

Your Excellency,

I present my compliments to you and have the honour to ask for your help in a matter of great importance to me, regarding the inappropriate behavior of the Russian Academy of Science in the process of recognition of the name SRBIANITE – a new mineral from Serbia by the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (CNMMN) of International Mineralogical Association (IMA). I am of the opinion that the Russian Academy of Science should revoke its proposal of the name for our mineral in favor of the team of Serbian mineralogists.

The reasons for this are the following ones:

(1) On this new boron mineral from the region of Baljevac, 35 km south of Kraljevo, Serbia, I gave a statement at the First Conference of the Serbian Crystallography Society in Belgrade on October 30, 1992, thirteen years ago, and I gained the priority "at the national level".

(2) The Commission of IMA approved the new mineral in 1995 with the appraisal: "Good work!" and thus I gained the priority "at the international level", i.e. the priority according to the regulations of IMA.

(3) By wrong classification of voting results of the CNMMN members, the chairman of IMA made the decision that "the name was not approved" without any reasonable explanation and arguments. I emphasize an important fact that when the votes in favour of SRBIANITE and SERBIANITE, during I and II voting, are added (i.e.SRBIANITE + SERBIANITE), 70 % of the total number of votes are "YES". The result is significantly higher than a half of the majority votes that is necessary for the approval.

(4) It was at the time of very bad political circumstances for Serbia and a remark was made that the "NAME HAD A POLITICAL CHARACTER".

(5) The author received some other remarks as well, but the Russian team of the researchers had the same errors. Their errors were not cited to them. It was obvious that the chairman had two criteria and double standards.

(6) In 2002, the author requested the REVISION OF VOTES (Application 2002 - in the appendix), which was not accepted by the chairman of IMA. In 2003, the chairman demands the name to be changed or otherwise, under the pressure of the Russian Academy of Science, he would accept the Russian proposal and our mineral would be named "after a late Russian scientist (a woman), in memory of her".

As they were reminded that the Russian were not entitled to nominate our mineral, according to the agreement in Serbian Chamber of Economy in Belgrade in 1996, they resorted to the proposal "jarandolite", from a Turkish word "jaran" - meaning "dear", and which was accepted by the chairman of IMA. At the same time, there was the unilateral cancelation of the new mineral acknowledgement from the year 1995 by the chairman.
(7) I wrote the report on the dispute arising on August 25, 2004: "THE SAD PAGES OF SERBIAN MINERALOGY HISTORY", which have some new additions all the time, and maybe one day, a monograph will be made out of them.

(8) Soon afterwards, on November 17, 2004, as a result of the discussion about the name SRBIANITE lasting for many years, the chairman of IMA started the website-forum on the internet:

That is how the subject became internationalized and available to everyone in the world in this modern way. You could also see it. Thus the current writing became much easier for me. The polemics actually showed that the chairmen of IMA made a series of mistakes: from making the first proposal for voting to the illegal adoption of the Russian proposal.
I will cite one of the participants from the forum on the internet and some of our titles:

- Mr. Marcelo Marchado Brum from Brazil writes: "Sorry but I am not convinced about the motives for the rejection of the names 'srbianite' or 'serbianite'.... Stojanovic is the true ethical father of the imposed 'jarandolite'. I do not agree with Mr. Burke. The acts of the Russian team are opportunistic and non-ethical.... JARANDOLITE: The first mineral in the modern times with the name imposed for motives which are not clear and the first mineral which is officially usurped by another team of mineralogists...."

- WELCOME TO THE TEXT OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE (in attachment: Application 2002, which was deleted by "mindat.org" later);



1. Without the approval of CNMMN IMA, the name was published twice;
2. The Russian do not have a right to nominate this boron mineral from Serbia (in attachment: Appendix 10, which was also deleted later);
3. The proposal of the representative of the Russian Academy of Science to name the mineral after the late Mrs. Malinko;
4. "IMA 95-020c published!"
5. The remarks of the IMA representatives and the attitude of the author are shown in the table;
6. Conclusion.

(9) The deposits of boron minerals are located in central Serbia and they are the property of the Republic of Serbia. Serbia has invested Canadian dollars 2,700.000, or nearly EUR 2,000.000 in the researches of long-hole-drillings.
During his struggle for the name SRBIANITE for many years, the author had huge difficulties and suffered a lot. He spent both physical and intellectual strength as well as the financial means. His ten-year-work (effort) is estimated to EUR 60.000.

(10) "The Mineralogical Association of Serbia an Montenegro, Faculty of Mining and Geology and Serbian Geological Society, as well as all the individuals interested in this matter have supported your letter to the Congress" - wrote the secretary of the 14th CONGRESS OF GEOLOGISTS OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO to Mr. Dobrica Stojanovic on November 21, 2005.


I The author of SRBIANITE defined the first boron mineral - howlite from the basin Baljevac in 1965. X-Ray data for howlite and other borates were published in POWDER DIFFRACTION FILE (PDF), JOINT COMMITTEE ON POWDER DIFFRACTION STANDARDS (JCPDS) - INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DIFFRACTION DATA (ICDD) USA: 18-618 (howlite from Baljevac), 18-281 (used by the Russian in 1978). JCPDS published ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS for Mr. Stojanovic (1974).

II From the same basin, the author Stojanovic tested three new boron minerals in 1992:

- Tuzlaite......approved by IMA 93-022….acknowledged to the Croatian,
- Studenicite...approved by IMA 94-026….acknowledged to the Russian,
- Srbianite ...approved by IMA 95-020….acknowledged to D. Stojanovic in 1995,
and to the Russian ("jarandolite") in 2003

Your Excellency,

We do not want this dispute to be continued and to exert some bad influences on our bilateral relations in the scope of scientific cooperation. Our country is small and it does not have a representative in CNMMN. On the other hand, Russia has its representative there. We are aware of the fact that minerals mean the strength of the nation of a country and that the country is proud of them. Our great poet and a member of the Academy of Arts and Science, Matija Beckovic who has been following this struggle for SRBIANITE, said that the rights of the country which created it in its earth womb, could not be neglected. I said that if our mineral was given to the Russian, it would mean "a shot at my whole life devoted to mineralogy!"

I am personally convinced that, with the authority of a statesman, you will do anything to correct this error, and make the Russian Academy of Science revoke its proposal of the name for our mineral with IMA in favor of SRBIANITE, Serbian team of mineralogists, Serbian science and Serbian country. Your reply will also demonstrate the attitude of Russian Government toward Serbia and therefore it will be respected. I will be glad to receive your esteemed reply by the end of this year.


Sincerely Yours,

Dobrica Stojanovic
Ul. Zelena Gora 39/42
E-mail: dobrica_kv@ptt.yu
36000 Kraljevo, SERBIA & MONTENEGRO MAGNOHROM, fax:+381-36-334-906

Enclosed: Application for Revision 2002

Letter II
March 28, 2006.

Your Excellency,

It is my pleasure to present my compliments again to you and I have the honour to ask for your help in a matter of great importance to me, regarding the inappropriate behavior of the Russian Academy of Science in the process of recognition of the name SRBIANITE, a new mineral from Serbia. Four months have passed, and it is a period of time within which the voting in CNMMN IMA is usually carried out.

I would like to supplement the previous letter dated from November 30. 2005, which gave the chance to the Russian side to make the only correct decision and cancel its proposal with IMA on behalf of the state of Serbia.

The representative of the Russian Academy of Science who made the IMA Chairman accept the Russian proposal for our mineral is dr Nikita V. Chukanov, e-mail: chukanov@icp.ac.ru .
Dr Chukanov did not give an answer to the letter of the president of Regional Chamber of Economy from Kraljevo dated from June 24 2003, in which he warned him that the Russian are not entitled to nominate this mineral.

We have significant statements made by your collaborationists at our disposal. However, any comment by the Russian side would be useful for further steps. We would appreciate your esteemated reply by April 12 2006.

We inform you that SRBIANITE has a new web-site –
http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,14,24370,24954#msg-24954 – from the beginning of
December 2005.

Thank you very much!

Sincerely yours,

Dobrica Stojanovic
Ul. Zelena Gora 39/42
36000 Kraljevo
Enclosed is the letter dated from November 30 2005.

PS: We ask the … … of the Russian Federation to help us to receive the reply to these letters, perhaps by dr Chukanov.

Thank you!
Andrew G. Christy April 15, 2006 03:34AM
When will this team stop being such self-aggrandising, self-appointed victims and learn to respect the international rules and decisions of international regulating bodies?

Given that over-the-top nationalism is probably one of reasons for rejection of their names, can they really not see that they are creating a wedge between the Serbian scientific community and the rest of the world that need not be there?
Marco E. Ciriotti April 15, 2006 10:25AM
Well said, Andy.
Jolyon & Katya Ralph April 15, 2006 11:56AM
Please note, that this thread is now CLOSED.

The decision of the IMA is final, the name for IMA 95-020c is JARANDOLITE. The use of any other names should be discouraged.

We will continue to use the correct name, Jarandolite, in mindat.org.

The reasons why the original name were rejected should be immediately clear to anyone reading the emails from the Serbian researchers, which is why I will leave them in here, as they are the best evidence to prove why it was necessary for the IMA to reject their name.

Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.

Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Public Relations by Blytheweigh.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2019, except where stated. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: March 23, 2019 04:32:48
Go to top of page