Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Mineralogical ClassificationKutnahorite versus Kutnohorite

25th Jul 2003 23:24 UTCThomas

Hello from Germany

I just stumbled about the mineral name Kutnohorite ( = Kutnahorite) and wonder, why the "a" was changed to an "o" in the mineral name. From my knowledge the type locality of Kutnahorite is Kutna Hora (= Kuttenberg in german), about some 70 km east of Prague in Bohemia. So the proper name should read Kutnahorite and not Kutnohorite

Any explanation for the misleading "o" ?

Glück Auf

Thomas

26th Jul 2003 06:04 UTCMarco

Hi, Thomas

For me too Kutnahorite should be the right term

Ciao

Marco

26th Jul 2003 08:33 UTCRob Woodside

As usual Thomas makes perfect sense. I have not a lot of carbonate literature, but Fleischer lists it with an "o" and the first edition of the encyclopedia lists it with an "a", as does Dana 7 vol 2. I'll bet the IMA lists it with an "a" and eagle eye Thomas has found a Fleischer error that has crept in here.

26th Jul 2003 14:59 UTCDavid Von Bargen

The Handbook of Mineralogy, Dana 8, Encyclopedia of Minerals 2, and Hey 3 all list it with an "o". From Hey: it appears as if it was with an "o" from the abstract in Neues Jahrbuch Min. in 1903 (kutnohorit). It appears as if the original description was by A. Bukovsky (1901) in Anz. III Congr. bohm. Naturf Aerzte.

26th Jul 2003 15:10 UTCUwe

I had also wondered about this for years but never bothered to check why the spelling is apparently wrong since a long time.

Thanks to all for shedding some light on this issue!

Uwe

26th Jul 2003 19:47 UTCRob Woodside

Thanks David. Good thing I didn't change it and no one took my bet

26th Jul 2003 21:23 UTCMarco

I must cover my head with ash..

Rob, David and Uwe are right.

Usually here we use to say "Kutnahorite", it sounds right for its original locality... but also in the reference of our localities in Valdarno it is used the term Kutnohorite! Bini B., Menichetti S.(1985): Kutnohorite from Levane, Upper Valdarno, (Italy) . Periodico di Mineralogia, n. 54 (pp. 61-66)

cheers,

Marco

27th Jul 2003 01:35 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Fleischer's 1966 Index of New Mineral Names, Discredited Minerals and Changes in Mineralogical Nomenclature in Volumes 1-50 of the American Mineralogist", sort of an early Glossary, spells is "kutnahorite".

Mike's 1971 Glossary spells it "kutnahorite",

but the 1975 edition has: Kutnahorite = Kutnohorite.

The1980 edition has: Kutnohorite (in bold), Kutnahorite, then the composition.

1983 edition has Kutnohorite (bold), the composition, Kutnohorite

1985 edition has Kutnohorite (bold), (Kutnahorite), then the composition

1991 is the same as 1985

1999 edition only lists Kutnohorite, but Joe Mandarino eliminated all the synonyms to reduce the size of the volume.

I also checked the Ford-Fleischer file (published by USGS years ago). In it Mike has a 1970 reference with the "kutnahorite", but a 1973 Min.Record, p62-66 listed as "kutnohorite" on the reference line. I don't have that reference to check Cook's spelling.

Hey 2 (1962) lists "Kutnohorite" as the preferred spelling, with "Kutnahorite" as a "Variant of Kutnohorite".

It appears the preferred, though incorrect spelling, is Kutnohorite. Of course a quick search of GeoRef (through 2000) show both spelling being used.

Regards,

Jim

27th Jul 2003 15:42 UTCChet Lemanski

Kutnohorite seems to dominate and that is all that I have ever used. I have also wondered where it went wrong.

Chet

28th Jul 2003 08:17 UTCKrister

One more for the a-team!

The IMA catalogue site lists it as "kutnahorite". The original reference is:

Bukovsky A: Anz. III Congr.Böhm.Naturforsch. und Aerzte, Prag (1901) p. 338

http://www.smmp.net/IMA-CM/ctms_k.pdf

28th Jul 2003 10:39 UTCmarco

Other with "a"

http://www.musee.ensmp.fr/gm/mineralKUTNAHORITE.html

Peacor, D. R., Essene, E. J., and Gaines A. M. 1987a

Petrologic and crystal-chemical implications of cation order-disorder in kutnahorite

. American Mineralogist, 72, 319-328. *

http://simplethinking.com/dunn/biblio/bibp.stm

Cancian G., Princivalle F. - Kutnahorite from Caverna Pocala soil (Trieste Karst, Italy). pp. 15-20. Periodico di Mineralogia, vol. 60, 1991 - Roma pp. 15-20

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC SESSION JUBILEE FOR

50 years UNIVERSITY OF MINING AND GEOLOGY “St. Ivan Rilski”

14 - 15 May, 2003

14 May, Wednesday, 15.00 – 15.45 Poster session

Vassileva M., S. Dobrev, Zh. Damyanov

COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ENDOGENIC KUTNAHORITE FROM RIBNITSA DEPOSIT AND EXOGENIC KUTNAHORITE FROM KREMIKOVTSI DEPOSIT

http://www.mgu.bg/nis/downloads/prog-gpf-En.doc

ATHENA MINERALOGY. Mineral: KUTNAHORITE = KUTNOHORITE.

http://un2sg4.unige.ch/athena/cgi-bin/minfich?s=KUTNAHORITE

31st Jul 2003 11:05 UTCBill Shelton

It seems so annoying - but one is correct, with an "a" while the other is an incorrect synonym that is perhaps based on the sound of this word. We ought to try and use correct terminology for all of our labels and publications. Bill

31st Jul 2003 12:23 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Nickel & Nichols' MINERAL database lists Kutnohorite(with an "o") as the preferred spelling, and kutnahorite (with an "a") as a variant spelling. This is an IMA recommended database, so coupled with the kutnohorite use in the Glossary, this might be considered the preferred IMA spelling. However, based on use in articles mentioned here and others referenced, either spelling is acceptable. Except maybe in competitions where the Glossary spelling is used for labels

3rd Aug 2003 17:11 UTCLaszlo

It does not matter who screwed up with the name, the IMA should be petitioned to change it to kutnahorite. In most languages it is kutnahorite as it should be. A locality name like Kutna Hora should be respected. Can you imagine if somebody changed franklinite to frenklinite?

Laszlo

7th Aug 2003 12:56 UTCJim Ferraiolo

At Lazlo's suggestion, I e-mailed Dr Ernie Nickel, former Vice-Chair of the IMA-CNMNMN, about this question.

Here is his response, which he has also forwarded to Dr Ferraris, present vice-Chair of the IMA-CNMNMN >>>>

"There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to the question of kutnahorite vs kutnohorite. To my knowledge, the IMA has not taken up this question, so it's every man for himself.

As you say, the name should be kutnahorite, after the type locality, and, in Dana's System, 7th edition, it is given that way. However, in the third edition of Hey's Mineral Index (1993) it is given as kutnohorite. As Max Hey was the vice-chairman of the CNMMN for some years, it seems that the apparent preference of the CNMMN for this variation probably stems from him.

According to the recently-published Volume 5 (2003) of the Handbook of Mineralogy, the original label was translated (I would say mistranslated) as kutnohorite. However, it doesn't say who this perpetrator was, but I suspect that it was the person who wrote the abstract in Neues. Jb. Min. (1903). Strictly speaking, one should go back to the original Czech publication, Anz. III Congr. bohm. Naturf. Aerzte (1901), p. 293 to see how the name was given there.

In the meantime, it seems that you can take your choice." <<<<<

I also checked back a little further in my references, and Hey in the 1962 edition also used kutnohorite. It is also kutnohorite in Dana 6, Appendix II (1909), probably picked up from the 1903 abstract.

When I e-mailed him for permission to post his response, Ernie stated that "I certainly agree with the suggestion that the CNMMN of the IMA should look into this matter, and resolve it once and for all." Hopefully, the inclusion of Dr Ferraris on Ernie's e-mail response will prompt the Commission to look at the spelling.

If anyone can turn up a copy of the 1901 Czech publication and can send a photcopy of it to me, that would be extremely helpful.

So, in the meantime, as Marco and others have shown, both spellings are being used throughout the literature, so "you can take your choice".

Jim

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 25, 2024 12:07:23

Go to top of page