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


Posted by Michael Hatskel  
Michael Hatskel May 08, 2012 11:28PM
Monohydrocalcite is showing as Grandfathered, but with the Year of Discovery=1964. There are other conflicts like that -- they may be easily discovered by querying the DB.
It may be helpful to introduce a UI validation rule for the Year of Discovery, so that a year later than 1959 could not be entered for a Grandfathered mineral.
I was raising this issue some time ago,6,256021,256021#msg-256021, but received no response from the IT team. Maybe this time? ;-)
Alfredo Petrov May 09, 2012 12:05AM
Thanks, Michael, for the opportunity to rant about one of my pet peeves: If it were up to me, the word "grandfathered" would be deleted from the database entirely, as it has only legal and political significance, and is a meaningless concept in the hard sciences. Minerals described pre-IMA (pre-1959) are valid species when "generally accepted" as such by the mineralogical community because their status is obvious, like Quartz or Native Gold, and not because a lawyer declared them to be "grandfathered". Invalid species are those which are not "generally accepted", like "horsfordite" and "native iodine". In between these two groups is a grey area whose minerals were inadequately described and require further research. But in no case does a dubious mineral magically become a valid species because of some mysterious "grandfathering" process - This was a big misunderstanding among systematik collectors. :)-D
Michael Hatskel May 09, 2012 12:43AM
I agree that the concept of "grandfathering" is not quite straightforward... But I am not rebelling against the definitions here - I am actually lobbying for adhering to the definitions.
All I am saying is that if 'IMA Status' = G then 'Year of Discovery' must be equal to or lesser than 1959.
Alfredo Petrov May 09, 2012 02:57AM
You are of course right, Michael, but I needed the excuse to have my little rant. :-)
We'll have to check the date of first publication. :-S
Alfredo Petrov May 09, 2012 03:12AM
Webmineral lists it as IMA approved, with the 1964 reference but no IMA number. Mineralienatlas lists it as pre-IMA but generally accepted.

Pekov gives a complicated history: first noticed1935, chemically analysed in 1948, described in 1959 (chemistry and x-ray data), but not named until 1964. So, as is not uncommon among pre-IMA minerals, the discovery was a long drawn out process and it's hard to say exactly when the species came into being. One could tell similar stories about other now well-accepted pre-IMA minerals, like magnesioriebeckite, for example.

I'll change the year of discovery to 1948, or perhaps 1959 would be better.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2012 03:13AM by Alfredo Petrov.
Marco E. Ciriotti May 09, 2012 08:19AM
In some cases the IMA number was not assigned. Monohydrocalcite is just one of the several minerals approved without number.
So the IMA list is correct: "Approved 1964".
Alfredo Petrov May 09, 2012 08:53AM
Marco, do you have the reference for where the approval was published?
Marco E. Ciriotti May 09, 2012 09:21AM
The type-description and the best crystal strcture are the following:

- Semenov, E.I. (1964): Hydrated carbonates of sodium and calcium. Kristallografiya, 9, 109-110.

- Swainson, I.P.. (2008): The structure of monohydrocalcite and the phase composition of the beachrock deposits of Lake Butler and Lake Fellmongery, South Australia. American Mineralogist, 93, 1014-1018.

About the approval the name is just in an IMA CNMNC file without number and was not published anywhere.
Michael Hatskel May 09, 2012 01:29PM
If the Year of Approval is 1964, is it correct to show IMA Status = 'Grandfathered'? Maybe the IMA Status shall be 'Approved'?
Marco E. Ciriotti May 09, 2012 02:02PM
Michael Hatskel Wrote:
> Marco,
> If the Year of Approval is 1964, is it correct to
> show IMA Status = 'Grandfathered'? Maybe the IMA
> Status shall be 'Approved'?

Yes, the status should be "Approved".
Michael Hatskel May 09, 2012 04:32PM
Thanks, Marco.

Here are some more "Granfathered" minerals with the Year of Discovery showing later than 1959:
Cuprostibite - 1969
Zincocopiapite - 1964
Uralolite - 1964
David Von Bargen May 09, 2012 11:57PM
An analysis from 1913 from Rammelsberg mine indicated a zinc dominant copiapite. Zincocopiapite
Marco E. Ciriotti May 10, 2012 11:27AM
Michael Hatskel Wrote:
> Thanks, Marco.
> Here are some more "Granfathered" minerals with
> the Year of Discovery showing later than 1959:
> Cuprostibite - 1969
> Zincocopiapite - 1964
> Uralolite - 1964

The same case of monohydrocalcite.
Michael Hatskel May 11, 2012 05:46PM
Another one:
Franconite - 1984, although IMA1981-006. Looks like it was discovered earlier and approved in 1984, as it was published in 1984 (Jambor et al. (1984) - Can Min 22, 239–243).
Marco E. Ciriotti May 11, 2012 07:27PM
The IMA ref. is exactly 1981-006a.
Jim Ferraiolo May 15, 2012 04:39PM
Franconite is an example of the publication date being assumed to be, or regarded as the discovery date.
Michael Hatskel May 17, 2012 07:03PM
I would agree to that assumption for the pre-IMA minerals. But even then minerals were first found, then published, would you agree?
When we definitely know the year of IMA approval, the year of discovery MUST be at least the same year as the latest. But actually it shall be earlier, as it normally takes time to do all of the characterization required for IMA approval.

Another example: Franciscanite - mindat page says Approved 1985, Yr of Discovery 1986.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Mineral and/or Locality is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2018, except where stated. relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: January 21, 2018 16:29:57
Go to top of page