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

GeneralType Localities

9th Nov 2017 17:56 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Many minerals don't have a type locality associated with them. Rightly so, as per the definition: "The type locality of a mineral is the locality where the original material came from for the formal definition of the mineral species." Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has done a count of how many minerals don't have a type locality.

9th Nov 2017 18:07 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

"Type locality" is often a rather fuzzy concept for pre-1959 (pre-IMA) species. Often a mineral was "described" with varying degrees of precision (hopefully getting better over time) from many different localities. The point at which the description developed sufficiently to be considered adequate for "formal definition of the mineral species" is often debatable, as witness our previous discussions here on the type localities of minerals like azurite.

So, after 1959, all newly described minerals should have a type locality, except in a few cases when the description was done on museum material of dubious heritage, or when scientists labored under secretive regimes which refused to allow them to divulge an accurate TL. Pre-IMA, it's a lot more fuzzy, and any attempt to compile a list of type localities, or no type localities, will be rife with debatable entries.

9th Nov 2017 22:56 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

IMA Approved minerals with no type locality

Allanite-(Y)

Calcioancylite-(Ce)

Chambersite

Clinoenstatite

Cummingtonite

Ferro-actinolite

Ferro-gedrite

Ferro-hornblende

Ferro-pargasite

Ferro-richterite

Ferrosilite

Fluorapophyllite-(K)

Fluornatroroméite

Fluorstrontiopyrochlore

Gersdorffite-P213

Gersdorffite-Pa3

Gersdorffite-Pca21

Gismondine-Ca

Hydromicrolite

Iridium

Maghagendorfite

Magnesio-hornblende

Merrillite

Oxycalciomicrolite

Oxyplumbopyrochlore

Phlogopite

Potassic-chloro-pargasite

Potassicmendeleevite-(Ce)

Stilbite-Ca

Trilithionite

Yttrocolumbite-(Y)

End of report

IMA grandfathered minerals with no type locality

Actinolite

Åkermanite

Alum-(K)

Alum-(Na)

Alunogen

Andorite VI

Ankerite

Arsenic

Arsenopyrite

Asbolane

Augite

Baryte

Beryl

Bismuthinite

Calcite

Calclacite

Cassiterite

Chalcocite

Chalcophyllite

Chalcopyrite

Chrysocolla

Cinnabar

Cobaltite

Columbite-(Mn)

Copper

Corundum

Cuprite

Diamond

Diopside

Dolomite

Domeykite-β

Enstatite

Galena

Gold

Graphite

Gypsum

Halite

Halotrichite

Hematite

Hydroxylapatite

Hydroxylherderite

Ice

Kalinite

Kyanite

Lead

Magnetite

Malachite

Marcasite

Melanterite

Mercury

Mesolite

Minium

Mirabilite

Molybdenite

Natron

Nickeline

Niter

Nováčekite-II

Opal

Orpiment

Orthoclase

Osmium

Polybasite

Proustite

Pyrargyrite

Pyrite

Pyrolusite

Pyroxmangite

Pyrrhotite

Quartz

Realgar

Salammoniac

Schorl

Scolecite

Selenium

Siderite

Silver

Smithsonite

Spangolite

Sphalerite

Spinel

Staurolite

Stibnite

Sulphur

Talc

Thermonatrite

Topaz

Trona

Turquoise

Vaterite

Whewellite

Winchite

Wollastonite

9th Nov 2017 23:07 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

The type locality of magnesio-hornblende is the Sand dunes of Lüderitz, Karas Region, Namibia. See: https://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,14,421910,421910#msg-421910

IMA No. 2017-059

Magnesio-hornblende

□Ca2(Mg4Al)(Si7Al)O22(OH)2

Sand dunes of Lüderitz, Karas Region, Namibia (26°38′52″S, 15°09′28″E)

Roberta Oberti*, Massimo Boiocchi, Frank C. Hawthorne and Marco E. Ciriotti

*E-mail: oberti@crystal.unipv.it

Amphibole supergroup

Monoclinic: C2/m; structure determined

a = 9.8308(7), b = 18.0659(11), c = 5.2968(4) Å, β = 104.771(6)°

8.412(74), 3.386(48), 3.121(72), 2.709(100), 2.596(45), 2.541(57), 2.338(41), 2.164(39)

Type material is deposited in the collections of the Museo di Mineralogia, Sistema Museale di Ateneo, University of Pavia, Italy, catalogue number 2017-01

How to cite: Oberti, R., Boiocchi, M., Hawthorne, F.C. and Ciriotti, M.E. (2017) Magnesio-hornblende, IMA 2017-059. CNMNC Newsletter No. 39, October 2017, page 1284; Mineralogical Magazine, 81, 1279–1286.

9th Nov 2017 23:33 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Thanks Added

10th Nov 2017 01:22 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Thank you David!

10th Nov 2017 03:17 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Why is chambersite on the list? It has a TL: Barber Hill saltdome in Chambers Co., TX

10th Nov 2017 14:08 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Someone added a "mine" as a sublocality and deleted the minerals from the general location (along with it being a type locality). The added locality didn't have the chambersite changed to type locality.

If one would read the original article, you would find out that it was from the returns from a solution mined petroleum storage facility.

I added the only well in which chambersite was found for the initial description.

10th Nov 2017 16:29 UTCTony Albini

Speaking of fuzzy TL, if you look up the TL for chrysoberyl, you get "Brazil" where some alluvial material was first found. Six months later in 1820 if I recall correctly, on Walkley Hill in Haddam, Connecticut, Chrysoberyl was found in situ. Which site makes the best TL in this case, an exact locality or a whole country?

10th Nov 2017 16:59 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

If the material used in the first complete description of the material was simply Brazil, then Brazil would be the type locality.

10th Nov 2017 17:12 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Let's keep in mind that "type locality" is a concept more important to collectors than to mineralogists. For mineralogists it's the "type specimen" that's important, and the locality it came from is somewhat incidental. And there has never really been a proper definition of what "type locality" means.

How large is a type locality? Unfortunately, collectors very unscientifically link the TL to a "locality name", which might be a 3cm wide veinlet (in the case of the El Dragon selenium minerals), or a 3km wide open pit (in the case of Chuquicamata), or a whole country. So if I find a rare selenium mineral whose type locality is the "El Dragon mine" in another veinlet on an adjoining prospect a couple hundred meters away, is that from the type locality? Collectors say no, because the locality name is different. We even have cases where a mineral whose TL is the Animas mine is not considered a TL specimen if it came from the same vein extending over the boundary into an adjacent mine. But if a rare mineral came from "Chuquicamata" type locality, and I find more of it in a veinlet at the other end of the pit, kilometers away, that is a type locality piece, because the locality name is the same! Absurd. It's basing the concept of type locality on political boundaries rather than geological/paragenetic boundaries. But what do scientists say about this? Well, they don't say much of anything about it, because the whole concept of TL is of little importantance to mineralogy, only the type specimen is important. Basically it's only collectors who want to quibble about this. If it were up to me, I'd define TL according to the geological Formation the type specimen was found in.

10th Nov 2017 18:01 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

the whole concept of TL is of little importantance to mineralogy, only the type specimen is important.

Exactly this. It gives absolutely zero extra value for a mineral specimen if it comes from the type locality. Unless that is you have part of the type specimen itself.

11th Nov 2017 11:52 UTCJohan Kjellman Expert

Alfredo Petrov Wrote:

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

> Let's keep in mind that "type locality" is a

> concept more important to collectors than to

> mineralogists. For mineralogists it's the "type

> specimen" that's important, and the locality it

> came from is somewhat incidental. And there has

> never really been a proper definition of what

> "type locality" means.

Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

> Exactly this. It gives absolutely zero extra value for a mineral specimen if it comes from the type locality. Unless that is you have part of the type specimen itself.

value to whom ?

I think mineralogy as a science and the mineral collecting community would booth benefit a lot more if they were taking into consideration the whole tracking history of minerals and their localities, be it types, type localities, original localities, misnomers, discreditations, mistakes...

I wonder why yttrocolumbite is on the A-list here at mindat? It has a Q in the IMA-CMNMC list.

cheers

11th Nov 2017 16:33 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Yttrocolumbite status changed to questionable.

13th Nov 2017 15:12 UTCTony Albini

I understand what Jolyon and Alfredo said about the type specimen being important but at every show I see specimens emphasizing that the specimen is from the type locality. Good marketing I guess. I do note on my labels that the specimen is from the type locality in the few times that this arises because I do not believe some people know the type locality of many species. All of us learn something every day, that is what makes Mindat.org great.

13th Nov 2017 16:36 UTCGeorg Graf

Hi All,

type specimens are more important than specimens from the type locality. Because in a big mineral deposit a mineral can look on the 2nd level very different from the same mineral on the 10th level. (Crystal form, colour, paragenesis, ...) - In my humble opinion, a mineral specimen is not more worth, if it is from the type locality, but if it is looking like the type specimen.

Good luck, Gg

17th Nov 2017 20:09 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Many collectors certainly value type locality specimens highly, but I agree with Alfredo that the type locality is not nearly as important as the specific geological occurrence and mineral association, not always well defined even in modern descriptions of new minerals.

17th Nov 2017 22:05 UTCPeter Keller

I don't know if I can add anything of a technical nature to the discussion, but maybe I could summarise what people are saying and add my own thoughts. If the concept of a 'type locality' is simply to state where the original material came from then it is simply of historical interest. Its value is relative and determined by the individual. If collectors want to assign some value to a type locality specimen, then so be it. Owning a specimen from the place where it was first found and described can be satisfying for some but of just academic interest for others. Type specimens are of scientific value because they are the point of reference for the species. I think it is important that collectors don't become too hung up on type locality thing but use it in a way that makes mineral collecting even more interesting !

9th Jan 2018 19:01 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

I was just looking at the muscovite page and noticed that there are 3 co-type localities, one in Wales and two in the US. Is this right? It may be but it just seems odd to me that such a common mineral wouldn't have been grandfathered with perhaps no TL. Then again, maybe this is one of those debatable things that Alfredo mentioned in his first reply.

9th Jan 2018 19:31 UTCIlkka Mikkola

Hi Kevin

Look at IMA master list: Muskovite was approved in 1998 with s.p. and no TL.

(s.p., special procedure): it refers to the year in which a specific action (redefinition and/or renaming) took place, and was approved by IMA).

Ilkka

9th Jan 2018 19:39 UTCKnut Edvard Larsen 🌟 Manager

Kevin: I think the cotypelocalities listed for muscovite on the muscovite page is an error (probably due to a bug?), the localities listed refers to some varieties of muscovite first described from these localities (brammallite, mariposite, illite)

9th Jan 2018 21:44 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Ilkka and Knut, thank you for your replies. It makes sense that muscovite doesn't have a TL and the varieties have an FRL. I'll post a note on the Maintenance board about this.

9th Jan 2018 22:25 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

When Jolyon added the species name to the locality entries, he copied across the type locality info. These should not have propagated to the species name. I went in and deleted the type designation for the species name so it should now be OK for muscovite.

10th Jan 2018 01:26 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

The name muscovite is etymologically related to Moscow (via the old state of Muscovy), from where western Europeans first acquired the stuff. Of course it wasn't mined in Moscow; probably from some pegmatite in Finland, Karelia or the Ural Mountains? Some Russian historian might be able to define a type locality there? (although that would only be a historical curiosity and have no mineralogical meaning, as there is no type specimen).

Wikipedia: "The name muscovite comes from Muscovy-glass, a name given to the mineral in Elizabethan England due to its use in medieval Russia as a cheaper alternative to glass in windows. This usage became widely known in England during the sixteenth century with its first mention appearing in letters by George Turberville, the secretary of England's ambassador to the Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible, in 1568."

10th Jan 2018 08:25 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

The "approval" of muscovite by the IMA in 1998 was part of the global redefinition of the mica group.

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 18, 2024 10:12:22

Go to top of page