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
Improving Mindat.orgMinerals missing from mindat
17th Oct 2014 19:23 UTCJosh Golden
I have noticed several minerals missing from mindat.
Baumhauerite II,
The following IMA-approved minerals are listed in mindat, but are not listed at any localities:
Calclacite
Ferro-pedrizite
Fluorotetraferriphlogopite
Jusite
Kenotobermorite
Metauramphite
Potassicmendeleevite-(Ce)
Weilerite
Rathite-IV is listed as synonym of Sartorite, however, Rathite-IV and Sartorite are separate IMA approved mineral species.
Renardite is listed as a synonym of Dewindtite, however, Renardite and Dewindtite is a separate IMA approved mineral species.
There are no polytypes of Gersdorffite listed. The three polytypes are Gersdorffite-P213, Gersdorffite-Pa3, and Gersdorffite-Pca21.
Josh Golden
Research Specialist
University of Arizona
Dept. of Geosciences
17th Oct 2014 19:52 UTCFrank Keutsch Expert
Baumhauerite II and cerium are questionable species according to IMA.
Rathite IV is also listed as questionable, but the sartorite homologues etc. definitely need work.
Frank
17th Oct 2014 20:20 UTCJosh Golden
It is true some are questionable, however, there are many questionable minerals listed on mindat. Even questionable minerals are considered valid and included in the 4963 currently valid species by the CNMMN/CNMNC.
Josh
17th Oct 2014 23:25 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert
I know this does not exactly following the beginning of this thread, but I agree with Josh, who seems to be saying that still-valid minerals that have been questioned should not be handled differently than other still-valid minerals. In my opinion it would be OK to do so, however, if a unique system can be established, perhaps with a note on each locality page about the conventions we follow.
18th Oct 2014 00:58 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
Calclacite: anthropogenic, formed inside museum cases, not any "real" mineral localities. And we have a policy NOT to list museums (or rock shops) as "localities" on Mindat.
Kenotobermorite: We are still waiting for the first publication, which will (we hope) publish some specific localities.
18th Oct 2014 01:14 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
"Grandfathered" minerals are valid species if "generally accepted" by the mineralogical community (which means that well-studied materials like quartz and native gold do not have to go through the formal approval procedure but are nevertheless considered valid species). But when a grandfathered "mineral" loses its "general acceptance", or never had it, then there is no reason at all for the rest of us to consider it a valid species, regardless of whether any individual decides to keep it on a list or not. Remember that horsfordite remained on official lists for decades after we knew it was probably an artifact.
18th Oct 2014 10:55 UTCOlav Revheim Manager
Thank you very much for preparing this list. Please see the actions taken for the list you have prepared.
Eringaite - http://www.mindat.org/loc-2759.html- Added
ferro-pedrizite- http://www.mindat.org/loc-22165.html - Added- the entry should probably be one of the Mindat sub-localities for this locality, and it may have to be moved later.
Fluorotetraferriphlogopite - http://www.mindat.org/loc-185580.html - not added as locality given in type description abstract has several sub-localities in Mindat, and I have no access to the full article
Jusite - Not added, the type locality, Jus in the Schwabian Alb, Wuirttemberg is not listed in Mindat, and I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in German political division to feel comfortable adding a new locality
Kenotobermorite - Not added. newly defined mineral in the Tobermorite group. The nomenclature paper is not yet published on the CNMNC home page and IMA list only lists South Africa as the type locality, which is a country, not a locality.
Metauramphite- Not added, questionable mineral- I have no access to the Russian type description that may include the locality
Oxystibiomicrolite -Added, A.G. Christy and D. Atencio (2013), set the type specimen of former species stibiomicrolite transferred to new name- changed name of stibiomicrolite entry
Potassicmendeleevite-(Ce) - contains no reference in the IMA list
Weilerite - http://www.mindat.org/loc-16142.html is the type locality, I have not added it, as there might be a good reason for it not to be added
Olav
18th Oct 2014 11:40 UTCPeter Haas
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jusite - Not added, the type locality, Jus in the
> Schwabian Alb, Wuirttemberg is not listed in
> Mindat, and I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in
> German political division to feel comfortable
> adding a new locality
There is no settlement of the name "Jus" in Baden-Württemberg. If it is the name of a brook, or an obscure topographic place name, it will be difficult to locate without a look at the original paper. The only place I could find with a remotely similar name is "Jusiberg", a hill on the border between Kohlberg and Neuffen.
> Weilerite - http://www.mindat.org/loc-16142.html
> is the type locality, I have not added it, as
> there might be a good reason for it not to be
> added.
There is a good reason. What was originally described as "weilerite" from Weiler turned out to be something else. Weilerite was re-approved in 2010, presumably from a different locality. Uwe should know more on this.
18th Oct 2014 11:55 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
The texte of the "type description" remarks that iodine was only a gas production.
18th Oct 2014 12:12 UTCOlav Revheim Manager
There might not be any localities for weilerite if the weilerite of Walenta (1961) is discredited. The other reference, Scott (1987) listed in the IMA list of approved minerals have no data on weilerite, weilerite is just listed without any data, references or localities. The alunite nomenclature report refers to Scott (1987) for weilerite. Hopefully, Uwe can clarify as you say.
Olav
20th Oct 2014 20:47 UTCJosh Golden
The IMA master list provided by Marco Pasero lists currently 4963 VALID species, this number INCLUDES "questionable" species as VALID.
Mindat currently lists at the top of the homepage as including 44,501 mineral names. So only about 10% of the names are even listed in the IMA list. I don't think it is unreasonable to add the mineral names that are in the IMA list and listed as questionable that are not listed in mindat. Just because a mineral is not "approved" does not mean it is not VALID. I am quite aware that there are questionable minerals in the IMA list, they are still considered valid species. The "grandfathered" minerals have since been vetted and approved or discredited and are not the result of inaction.
13th Jan 2015 21:55 UTCReynaldo Contreira Expert
What about Domeykite-β?
It still does not appear in the database.
Thanks
Reynaldo
13th Jan 2015 23:02 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager
13th Jan 2015 23:30 UTCReynaldo Contreira Expert
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 26, 2024 12:12:06
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 26, 2024 12:12:06