IMPORTANT MESSAGE. We need your support now to keep mindat.org running. Click here to find out why.
Log InRegister
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 Articles
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsThe ElementsUsersBooks & MagazinesMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery
bannerbannerbannerbannerbannerbanner

Minerals missing from mindat

Posted by Josh Golden  
avatar
Josh Golden October 17, 2014 06:23PM
Greetings,

I have noticed several minerals missing from mindat.

Baumhauerite II, Cerium, and Domeykite-β are IMA-approved minerals not listed in mindat.

The following IMA-approved minerals are listed in mindat, but are not listed at any localities:

Calclacite
Eringaite
Ferro-pedrizite
Fluorotetraferriphlogopite
Iodine
Jusite
Kenotobermorite
Metauramphite
Oxystibiomicrolite
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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2014 07:33PM by Josh Golden.
avatar
Frank Keutsch October 17, 2014 06:52PM
Not sure, but perhaps because some are questionable:

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
avatar
Josh Golden October 17, 2014 07:20PM
Thanks for the reply Frank,

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2014 07:26PM by Josh Golden.
avatar
Norman King October 17, 2014 10:25PM
I noticed that questioned minerals, such as stibiconite, are listed on Mindat locality pages (not on the mineral data pages) in single quotes (e.g., ‘stibiconite’). At first glance that might seem to be satisfactory, but those names have not been discredited, so I don’t think they should be listed as if they are informal names. You can also see that names that were never intended to be formal mineral names such as ‘clay’ and ‘chert’ are also in single quotes. Also, mineral names that were once accepted but now have, in fact, been discredited are listed in single quotes as well, such as 'limonite.' All of these examples can be found on the Lookout Pass Thallium Prospect locality page, for example. Nomenclatorial conventions on Mindat thus seem to have been conflated in these cases, and this undoubtedly leads to confusion over what the single quotes mean in the mineral lists on locality pages.

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.
avatar
Alfredo Petrov October 17, 2014 11:58PM
For questionable things like native iodine and native cerium, I'd like to see at least a little bit of evidence for their existence, or at least one single alleged specimen. Iodine was reported as a fumarolic mineral from Italy (Vesuvius?), but I wonder whether there's enough evidence for that to add it to Mindat's locality list. Recently we've been getting more picky here about standards of evidence required for adding species to locality lists.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2014 01:41AM by Alfredo Petrov.
avatar
Alfredo Petrov October 18, 2014 12:14AM
There is a very common misconception that anything on the IMA list is "approved". Strictly speaking, that is not the case. IMA approval is a formal procedure with a strict protocol, which has only existed since 1959. A lot of the older minerals are just considered "grandfathered", which is not quite the same thing as "approval". Approval is an action taken, whereas in "grandfathering" no action was taken; grandfathering is a lack of action.

"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.
avatar
Olav Revheim October 18, 2014 09:55AM
Dear Josh,

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
avatar
Peter Haas October 18, 2014 10:40AM
Olav Revheim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
avatar
Marco E. Ciriotti October 18, 2014 10:55AM
Iodine is not a valid mineral species.
The texte of the "type description" remarks that iodine was only a gas production.
avatar
Olav Revheim October 18, 2014 11:12AM
Thanks Peter,

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
avatar
Josh Golden October 20, 2014 07:47PM
Thank you all for the responses.

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.
avatar
Reynaldo Contreira January 13, 2015 09:55PM
Hi everyone,

What about Domeykite-β?
It still does not appear in the database.
Thanks

Reynaldo
avatar
Rob Woodside January 13, 2015 11:02PM
Added, but little info available. Please check it http://www.mindat.org/min-46462.html At the IMA site there's a number IMA2008-B, so maybe some research is going on?
avatar
Reynaldo Contreira January 13, 2015 11:30PM
Thank you!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



bannerbannerbannerbannerbannerbanner
Mineral and/or Locality  
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 1993-2018, except where stated. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: November 18, 2018 16:22:10
Go to top of page