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 ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
Techniques for CollectorsMisidentification (Is that a word?)
17th Jun 2017 17:53 UTCDonald B Peck Expert
I know, when one looks at the list of minerals reported from the location and the chemistry of the different species, a lot of the "looks likes" disappear. But when the list is long, there are often a goodly number of species that I have no idea what they look like. Did I look at the species page and photos of all of them? Maybe. With a long list it is also, maybe not.
There was a time when I was able to resort to chemical tests, but my living conditions have made that impossible. A reaction to HCl is now about the best I can do. Occasionally, I will get out the polarizing scope and try some optical observations.
I guess, though, that at my stage in life (I am a really old codger) that I will happily live with my "misidentifications", hope they are few, and enjoy the huge diversity and beautiful, colorful display of Mother Nature's micro crystals. Whomever gets my collection next can worry about my mistakes.
17th Jun 2017 18:15 UTCDon Saathoff Expert
Don
17th Jun 2017 22:07 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert
One major problem is with material from a previously unremarked location - best guesses and moistened fingers in the air have to be backed up with, at least, a bit of geochemical knowledge and a large amount of head scratching (mind out for the splinters!).
When looking at sites well known for a few minerals, I seem to be forever finding odd crusts and patches of "stuff" that defies easy recognition - and bears no relation to the minerals the site is well known for. Best guess, I suppose, gets it.
18th Jun 2017 00:33 UTCAlfred L. Ostrander
Returning the favor for the times you have checked definitions, misidentification is a word. Remembering all those times way back in school when spelling tests included using the word in a sentence, I looked a bit further and came up with this usage from the Innocence Project.
Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing...
Just play a couple word games and misidentifications of minerals by eyesight may be the contributing factor to the rise of many black box technologies used for mineral ID. And who says it has to be limited to micromounts? And I am quite sure you miss the days when you could do all kinds of testing.
If good science allows for a plus or minus margin of 5%, I am quite sure nobody will have too much to worry about in regards to misidentifications in your collection.I am sure you will be well within that margin. I figure all of us hard core collectors want to go out still pondering one more unknown that we just added to the collection!
18th Jun 2017 18:11 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager
18th Jun 2017 20:31 UTCUwe Ludwig
Anyway, I can live with few misidenitficated specimens, determined by eyes only. However, I find it is more important to have an exact documention of the finding location. Which mineral it is can also be determined by your descendents 100 years later - a misssing finding location probably never.
Rgds.
Uwe Ludwig
18th Jun 2017 20:47 UTCGregg Little 🌟
18th Jun 2017 23:43 UTCDoug Daniels
19th Jun 2017 00:09 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
19th Jun 2017 03:26 UTCDonald B Peck Expert
19th Jun 2017 19:51 UTCJoseph Taggart
19th Jun 2017 20:26 UTCDana Morong
If only the collector had put some form of locality ID on the little squares along with the number! What can one do with specimens without any locality ID? They are way too small to give to kids. Then there are the 3 trays missing, but with file cards. I suspect that someone viewed certain species (it was arranged by species) and did not put the tray back - possibly a student said "oh, I'll put it away later" and never did, or it got into the trash can. One tray was borrowed by a grad student doing a 'study' on that species (I wonder if he even checked the file cards to see whether they were all from the same locality, or just assumed they were); I know because he once told me. That tray was once of the 3 missing trays. I suspect, like some grad students, that he never cleaned his office after he left, and the stuff was not recognized and tossed. At least extra file cards are easier to store than specimens without any locality.
20th Jun 2017 00:59 UTCD Mike Reinke
If you are an old codger lumper rather than an old codger splitter you will have fewer misidentifieds (probably not a word) I'm sure. It's just a day in the life of a Micromounter.
20th Jun 2017 02:10 UTCWilliam Moats
20th Jun 2017 03:02 UTCDonald B Peck Expert
20th Jun 2017 10:10 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert
-------------------------------------------------------
> A large micromount collection (meaning lots of tiny specimens) stored for years at a college in
> New England area, lost some of its locality information because of what happened years after
> the original collector quite responsibly wrote down locality data on file cards. ... The only way
> to get the location was by the file cards.
This is one of my big nightmares. The original collector would have done well to attach a label to the underside of the cards.
I am in the process of converting my entirely electronic database to cards as well as electronic.
While my specimens are all numbered, a part of the review of my collection is to attach small, informative labels, similar to the ones I put on the underside of my micros/thumbnails boxes. I gave up looking for a non-drying self-adhesive label, and have taken to attaching an un-gummed laser printed label (just on white paper) using wood glue (it can be peeled of, at a pinch).
Of course, a lot of my early (purchased) specimens arrived without a good point of origin.
20th Jun 2017 10:21 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Perhaps it is my training in the sciences, but to me, an
> aggregation of rocks/minerals without good labeling and a
> catalog is not a collection.
I would have said a collection of curios (or a work in progress).
Labelling is, for me, a part of the accession process - though it
does begin at the point of collection. Unfortunately, my early
decisions on labels (45 years back) were based on what resources
I had available as a teenager - unintelligable handwriting
notwithstanding.
Applying retroactive labels is a long and tedious task - happily, most
of my early collection was more about aesthetic than scientific, and
is really not that high a priority for better labels (they are just numbered).
I find that I look at my early attempts at labelling, and I cringe. Thank
goodness for computers and laser printers.
20th Jun 2017 12:56 UTCJohn Collins
Re https://www.mindat.org/photo-800956.html
My massive millerite specimen obtained in 2015 from the Sudbury region had worried me early on as I had learned in my mineralogy course (thanks to Digger Gorman) of the usual acicular appearance of this sulphide. I was thinking that my big crystal chunk might actually be pentlandite. But thanks to the numerous excellent photos of millerite in mindat similar to mine, I am now confident that my specimen is correctly identified. Millerite does occur as large cleavable masses as well as in its common form. I am lucky to have the one I purchased.
Regards,
John
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: March 29, 2024 11:39:44
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: March 29, 2024 11:39:44