http://www.mindat.org/photo-50842.html and you know this is sabugalite because? 
It does have the classic habit for sabugalite, though I have no idea if that's definitive all all. Curiously I went through a whole lot of sabulatite occurrences, they all look similar where there are photos but I couldn't find one with any analytical confirmation, even the Type Location is listed as " believed valid"! There must be some analyses, but also there is lots of guesswork I suspect! 
"the classic habit for sabugalite," ? classic in what way? Classic in that any image or description I found gives an elongate bladed habit in contrast to the usual square plates or blocks of autunite. But this could be a figment of our collective imaginations, some more analyses would be nice! There is definitely a lack of data and analysis and a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions being thrown around. Not just in this case!
We appreciate your role in finding these issues, just wish they were easier to fix, we certainly need to get more analytical data in here, linking to locations as well as the main mineral pages. Hello Ralph,
"even the Type Location is listed as " believed valid"! There must be some analyses," not sure why it says believed valid as opposed to valid? The reference gives an analysis: http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM36/AM36_671.pdf
Interesting thing is that subsequent to this study everyone simply ignores what it says, for example "Air dried sabugalite fluoresces a bright lemon yellow in both long-wave and short-wave ultraviolet radiation although somewhat more intensely in the long wave-lengths. Slightly dehydrated material obtained by heating fresh sabugalite to temperatures of 44o or 68o also fluoresces lemon yellow but somewhat less intensely, and the meta-Il hydrate obtained by heating to 135o is very weakly fluorescentl in both cases the fluorescence is slightly stronger in long-wave than in short-wave radiation."
Well every example in mindat fluoresces green?? yet there is no study refuting the first or proving that it fluoresces green?
Jean-Marc cites: Chervet, J (1960) Les minéraux secondaires. in Les Minéraux uranifères français (1), Bibliothèque des sciences techniques et nucléaire, Saclay, 322p. one could read about the sabugalite fluorescence that it is the same than the autunite one.
One photo with crystals orientated perpendicularly one to the other is shown fig 139 on page 192.
But Chervet provides no primary data to confirm this. And remember optical methods are not reliable because of dehydration and in 1960 microprobes were not in common use ( the first commercial one was not available until 1956). 
For what it's worth, I have a specimen given me as sabugalite at the Margnac II mine in 1968 or 9 that fluoresces a mixture of (to my eyes) lemon yellow with green patches admixed. Both colours are stronger un LW than SW. The yellow-fluorescing material (A) seems to be formed of paler yellow laths of somewhat elongated laths whereas the green-fluorescing material (B) is stouter and 'squarer' and fits with (meta)autunite. 'A' seems sometimes to form grids of cris-cross crystals as described by Chervet in 'Les Minéraux Uranifères Français' p 193.
I should add that I do have a defect of colour vision and my appreciation of shades of colour is not always reliable!
I agree that secondary references are a problem in scientific publication in many (?all?) fields, and are often unreliable...
Cheers
Tim 
G. Henkel (1989): The Henkel Glossary of Fluorescent Minerals. J. of the Fluorescent Mineral Society, Special issue, Vol. 15, Fluorescent Mineral Society, Sepulveda, California, 91 pp.
gives for sabugalite:
Lemon yellow, yellowish green (both stronger in LW than in SW)
In our collection we have one sabugalite specimen from the Margnac II Mine; it was obtained from the Ecole des Mines, Paris.
According to the description the sabugalite forms yellow-green plates, associated with autunite, on a reddish rock. That description of sabugalite from Margnac II fits my specimen nicely.
Tim So what about all the specimens pictured on Mindat that fluoresce green, just like autunite? Sorry Reiner, No data
Tim That is correct no data and therefore I would suggest removing these photos and placing them in their private galleries until such time as they can produce data to support their ID. As it stands now the photos are misleading and will result in more people thinking they have sabugalite because their specimens look like the pictures in mindat and fluoresce green. What I can't understand is why this has become such a problem since as far as I can tell yellow fluorescence is distinctive. A lot of wishfull thinking maybe? If green fluorescence is not distinctive then I would like to see a green fluorescing sample with analysis that proves it is sabugalite. If fluorescence is not diagnostic then the only way to reliably distinguish autunite from sabugalite is chemical analysis. Mercy JL, very instructive. 
Thanks JL. Could you please upload that photo to the galleries?
Reiner, could you please send messages to all those green fluorescing 'sabugalites'? 
Rob, when I'll be less busy I'll try to take a better photo (without the finger in it!) and also a second photo under UV light. Hello Rob,
"Reiner, could you please send messages to all those green fluorescing 'sabugalites'?" Sorry I can't do that I only have a "Complain" button for Canadian minerals. I would have to PM everyone, is that what you want me to do? Well somebody has to. Have you a list of links to the offending photos? OK I will do the best I can. Thanks Reiner. I appreciate your efforts. I only contacted those with specimens that displayed green fluorescence (two people, three photos). However I am just as doubtful of those that show twinning but make no mention of fluorescence. Whether or not they fluoresce yellow I don't know. It would be nice to see a twinned crystal that fluoresces yellow to confirm that such twinning exists with sabugalite. Can anyone confirm twins of sabugalite that fluoresce yellow? I would like to see more definitive analyses, eg EDS, before we try to get too excited about what all these specimens are, there are many other similar looking and fluorescing members of the autunite and meta-autunite groups. Two years ago, one of our members (Mineralogical Society of Antwerp) asked me to take a look at a specimen from Margnac with ambiguous label. There was doubt about it being sabugalite or plain autunite. I measured its emission specrum under UV. Such a spectrum tells us a lot about the nature of te specimens and often you can use it to identify the mineral species.
It is clear that two autunite specimens wil have identical spectral peaks with comparable relative intesities.
Different uranyl minerals have different spectra. Even very similar minerals like andersonite and liebigite have slightly different spectra. Usually the delta-k (dk) can be used as means of identification. This dk is the distance in cm-1 between the equidistant peaks (best just next to the Franck-Condon peak) of the vibronic emission of the UO22- fluorescence emission.. The comparing the spectrum of autunite/andersonite clarifies this.
The specimen in question was certainly not autunite, although it was determinerd as such by means of RAMAN-spectroscopy. The spectrum under UV shows something clearly different from autunite.
The difference between the dk of autunite and that of sabugalite is a mere 25 cm-1! This is to small to be measured with any confidence with a steady state USB fluorescence spectrometer. It is of the order of magnitude of 0.8 nm, whereas the instrument resolving power was 1.8 nm. Since I reached the maximum allowed number of attachments, I will discuss this further in a separate message. The spectrum of the "unknown" from Margnac is such that it shows several shoulders and a clearly visible skewness. I used MagicPlot Pro software to resolve the spectrum into its Gaussians. Upon doing that I noticed that these Gaussian can be grouped in two groups of roughly equidistant peaks. Each group, on its own, resembles an uranyl spectrum. The peaks of each group are shifted relative to the other group's peaks. The method is not sophisticated enough to separate the peaks with enough precision to allow identificaion by means of the dk, but still it shows the presence of two distinctly different uranyl minerals.
One of those may very well be autunite.
The sum of the Gaussians that were found in this deconvolution agrees for 99.95% with the spectrum of the "unknown of Margnac", which is very solid.
It goes to show that even in evenly green fluorescing uranyl minerals you can actually not trust your eyes and, as it turns out, not even RAMAN analysis to make a complete identification when it comes to possible intergrowths.
Best regards
Axel Emmermann
MKA - Mineralogical Society of Antwerp
http://www.minerant.org/MKA/
Werkgroep Fluorescerende Mineralen
http://fluo.mineralogie.be/Home_Nederlands.html
#15513
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=15513&orb=1 Nice work however it seems to me a lot easier do just do EDS. The hydration state of the uranyl mica will also have an influence on the shift and the intensities.
In addition, the beam might induce dehydration. If you happen to have an EDS lying around, Reiner ;-)
This was measured DURING our mineral show in 2014.
Also: these specimens are rather pricy!
Most collectors don't fancy having their specimen ground up... (However, I wonder how the RAMAN was performed? That is also an orientation-sensitive measurement...)
Uwe: have you any idea about how large the impact of dehydration would be on the parameters you mentionend? No idea, but probably not very large because there will be not much change within the uranyl-tetrahedral layers (the uranyl group is pretty stiff due to its strong bonds). With EDS you can often put a whole micro mount specimen in, and the damage is insignificant. I'm always wary of spectral analyses, can be too many variables. All you need is a tiny speck <0.1mm) to do EDS. Not likely you would notice a piece that small missing. 
Hi everybody.
I'm late answering, as I had no time to check the samples.
Well, there's an issue with the photo. a kind of digital "ageratum effect" ! the fluorescence is lemon yellow, but turns green on the photo.
I notices other color changes on photos with different minerals.
Very recently I took pictures of a significant one :
Bariopharmacosiderite, Les Montmins (France) - L=2,9mm
This is lighted with daylight type LED lamps
With tungsten halogen lighting, the green color is less intense, but remains green while direct observation. But what a surprise when photographying the sample !
The same one lighted with tungsten optic fiber source. The color remained green in the viewfinder, but not on the sensor !
So I can confirm that the real fluorescence is lemon yellow, and not green. I will add a comment in the photo caption.
Pascal Comment added to sabugalite page.
