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

GeneralBasal Pinacoid Termination

30th Aug 2010 16:15 UTCJohn Betts

Is the term "Basal Pinacoid" redundant? What is the correct terminology for the C-face of a quartz crystal?

In the past I have described them as having "basal pinacoid termination faces." But wouldn't "pinacoid face" suffice?

30th Aug 2010 16:44 UTCPeter Andresen Expert

I must admit my crystalographical knowledge is getting rusty, and I'm to lazy to get the textbooks, but my first thought was is it possible for quartz to have basal pinacoides? Isn't the (001) the basal pinacoide?

Guess it's time to blow some dust of those books...

30th Aug 2010 19:27 UTCJohan Kjellman Expert

you are right, in reference to minerals belonging to crystal systems with a pronounced central axis, e.g. hexagonal and tetragonal, basal is redundant as this is the only pinacoid possible. I am also a bit rusty, but these questions are good as rust-removers, so let's walk out on the thin ice...I am sure that the pinacoid situation is more complex in the orthorombic, monoclinic and triclinic systems and there it would be ok to refer to the basal pinacoid as one out of several possible pinacoids.

cheers

30th Aug 2010 22:37 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Turning the xl upside down, the pinacoid becomes basal!!!

31st Aug 2010 17:16 UTCJohn Betts

Here are some images of the pinacoid (0001) face on quartz.

31st Aug 2010 18:07 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Sweet! The first is the least pitted I've seen.B)

31st Aug 2010 18:57 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

I didn't know crystals had an up or down!? Probably best to stick to Miller indices.

31st Aug 2010 18:59 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

{0001} is a pinacoid, {000-1} is the basal pinacoid.X(

31st Aug 2010 19:50 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Rob,

How can you tell if you only have one?

31st Aug 2010 20:11 UTCPeter Andresen Expert

So if the crystal is growing from the roof of the vug it's got a basal pinacoid, if it got one, and if it's growing from the bottom of the vug it's got a pinacoid... (:P)

31st Aug 2010 20:20 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Thanks guys. Perhaps we could introduve "Lateral Pinacoid" when the xl grows sideways and of course modified by the adjectives "left" or "right" if it is doubly terminated.B)-

31st Aug 2010 20:25 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

If the quartz crystal is left or right handed would the pinacoid be left or right handed as well, or can you have a right handed pinacoid on a left handed crystal?

31st Aug 2010 21:02 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

This is getting complicated. The 3 fold screw axis in handed quartz prevents the pinacoids from being related by an inversion or a mirror plane. They are related by the two fold axis. So yes a right handed quartz would have right handed pinacoids, etc. So our nomenclature needs revision. Either we could Levinsonise the pinacoid as in "right pinacoid-(l)" for a sideways pinacoid on a left handed quartz, etc. or use an adjectival modifier such as "right levulopinacoid" for the previous example. Perhaps the IMA could rule on this.B)-

Seriously though, this reminds me of something I don't understand about Tourmaline which apparantly has no inversion centre or horizontal mirror plane. Thus it is hemihedral and one often sees Elbaites with a pinacoid at one end and a rhombohedral termination at the other end, i.e. a flat end and a pointy end. However I've seen Yinnietharra Dravite and Brumado Uvite with an apparently obvious inversion centre relating the two rhombohedral terminations!!! What's going on??? Is there some twinning??? Or does it just not show the full symmetry as with a perfect pyrite cube that shows no pyritohedral modifications?:S

31st Aug 2010 21:25 UTCGerhard Niklasch Expert

> ...and one often sees Elbaites with a pinacoid at one end...

That would be a rare thing indeed! Tourmalines don't have basal pinacoids. Pedion is the word you're looking for here. :)

> However I've seen Yinnietharra Dravite and Brumado Uvite with an apparently obvious inversion centre relating the two rhombohedral terminations!!!

The polar axis does not rule out inequivalent trigonal pyramids being formed at each end which nonetheless happen to be related by an apparent inversion (without being related by a real symmetry of the crystal lattice). Both are possible forms for the given hemimorphic symmetry.

Quite often you'll find differences in the details though - different modifications by other forms at the two ends, different striations or growth/etching patterns, etc.

Or, indeed, a small pedion at one termination (stereo pair):

but not at the other (same individual, different orientation and lighting):

Fluor-uvite-Uvite Series

Pedra Preta pit, Serra das Éguas, Brumado, Bahia, Brazil

Cheers, Gerhard

31st Aug 2010 21:38 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Thanks so much Gerhard. Yes pedion it is !!!

"The polar axis does not rule out inequivalent trigonal pyramids being formed at each end which nonetheless happen to be related by an apparent inversion (without being related by a real symmetry of the crystal lattice). Both are possible forms for the given hemimorphic symmetry. "

So it is like the pyrite example. Thanks again.

I've seen equant octohedra of sphalerite which are positive and negative tetrahedra in equal development from Naica and Mandan. So sometimes there is more apparent symmetry than the lattice has!!!

31st Aug 2010 22:00 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

It is a good thing we have Gerhard watching over us and keeping us all on the "straight and narrow". Thanks Gerhard! Your input is always welcome and much appreciated.

31st Aug 2010 22:31 UTCGerhard Niklasch Expert

Returning to John's original question:

As soon as you have a 3-fold or 4-fold rotational symmetry, anything that isn't at right angles to the axis will give you more than a pinacoid- you'll get prism and pyramid forms of more than two equivalent faces. If the axis is <001>, and if it's the only such and isn't polar, then the {001} form will be the only one that consists of merely a pinacoid. It's commonly called the basal pinacoid (and that refers to the pair of faces, even if only one of them is present and the other is missing e.g. due to a contact), and in this case the adjective is indeed somewhat redundant. But the usage appears well entrenched.

In the orthorhombic, monoclinic, and triclinic systems you can have pinacoids in many different orientations, and if the habit singles out an axis as the most natural one to regard as "across" the "base", then it makes sense to single out the corresponding pinacoid (parallel to the other two axes) by calling it the basal pinacoid. By convention, one would usually call this axis c or <001> again, so that {001} will again be the basal pinacoid.

See the online well-illustrated Introduction to Crystallography and Mineral Crystal Systems by Mike and Darcy Howard (recently mentioned by DVB in another thread) for an excellent discussion, especially of the conventions in assigning axes, a topic which other sources rarely treat with such care. You'll also find a choice of adjectives to refer to some other pinacoids if the need arises!

Enjoy,

Gerhard

31st Aug 2010 23:00 UTCGerhard Niklasch Expert

Many thanks, Reiner and Rob, for your kind words, and for your many contributions (and pointed question, too!) from which I've learnt and keep learning a lot.

I don't think this stuff is supposed to be easy. :S It took our forefathers the best part of a century to figure out the geometry of crystals and come up with the now-traditional terminology which surely isn't the simplest and most natural that one could imagine. It's taken me several decades to get enough of the lot into my head to figure out the easier of my own specimens, and as recently as a couple of years ago, I was blundering along thinking that baryte obviously had to be monoclinic...

Fortunately there are a great many helpful people here and a vast pool of knowledge and experience!

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: April 25, 2024 00:20:08

Go to top of page