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
Mineralogical ClassificationPyrochlore supergroup new nomenclature
28th Jul 2010 21:18 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
• Atencio, D., Andrade, M.B., Christy, A.G., Gieré, R., Kartashov, P.M. (2010): The pyrochlore supergroup of minerals: nomenclature. Canadian Mineralogist, 48, 673-698.
Abstract:
A new scheme of nomenclature for the pyrochlore supergroup, approved by the CNMNC–IMA, is based on the ions at the A, B and Y sites. What has been referred to until now as the pyrochlore group should be referred to as the pyrochlore supergroup, and the subgroups should be changed to groups. Five groups are recommended, based on the atomic proportions of the B atoms Nb, Ta, Sb, Ti, and W. The recommended groups are pyrochlore, microlite, roméite, betafite, and elsmoreite, respectively. The new names are composed of two prefixes and one root name (identical to the name of the group). The first prefix refers to the dominant anion (or cation) of the dominant valence at the Y site. The second prefix refers to the dominant cation of the dominant valence at the A site. The prefix "keno-" represents "vacancy". Where the first and second prefixes are equal, then only one prefix is applied. Complete descriptions are missing for the majority of the pyrochlore-supergroup species. Only seven names refer to valid species on the grounds of their complete descriptions: oxycalciopyrochlore, hydropyrochlore, hydroxykenomicrolite, oxystannomicrolite, oxystibiomicrolite, hydroxycalcioroméite, and hydrokenoelsmoreite. Fluornatromicrolite is an IMA-approved mineral, but the complete description has not yet been published. The following 20 names refer to minerals that need to be completely described in order to be approved as valid species: hydroxycalciopyrochlore, fluornatropyrochlore, fluorcalciopyrochlore, fluorstrontiopyrochlore, fluorkenopyrochlore, oxynatropyrochlore, oxyplumbopyrochlore, oxyyttropyrochlore-(Y), kenoplumbopyrochlore, fluorcalciomicrolite, oxycalciomicrolite, kenoplumbomicrolite, hydromicrolite, hydrokenomicrolite, oxycalciobetafite, oxyuranobetafite, fluornatroroméite, fluorcalcioroméite, oxycalcioroméite, and oxyplumboroméite. For these, there are only chemical or crystal-structure data. Type specimens need to be defined. Potential candidates for several other species exist, but are not sufficiently well characterized to grant them any official status. Ancient chemical data refer to wet-chemical analyses and commonly represent a mixture of minerals. These data were not used here. All data used represent results of electron-microprobe analyses or were obtained by crystal-structure refinement. We also verified the scarcity of crystal-chemical data in the literature. There are crystal-structure determinations published for only nine pyrochlore-supergroup minerals: hydropyrochlore, hydroxykenomicrolite, hydroxycalcioroméite, hydrokenoelsmoreite, hydroxycalciopyrochlore, fluorcalciopyrochlore, kenoplumbomicrolite, oxycalciobetafite, and fluornatroroméite. The following mineral names are now discarded: alumotungstite, bariomicrolite, bariopyrochlore, bindheimite, bismutomicrolite, bismutopyrochlore, bismutostibiconite, calciobetafite, ceriopyrochlore-(Ce), cesstibtantite, ferritungstite, jixianite, kalipyrochlore, monimolite, natrobistantite, partzite, plumbobetafite, plumbomicrolite, plumbopyrochlore, stannomicrolite, stetefeldtite, stibiconite, stibiobetafite, stibiomicrolite, strontiopyrochlore, uranmicrolite, uranpyrochlore, yttrobetafite-(Y), and yttropyrochlore-(Y).
4th Aug 2010 19:22 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
4th Aug 2010 19:34 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
4th Aug 2010 21:47 UTCDonald Doell Expert
4th Aug 2010 22:15 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what has uranpyrochlore become? Not to mention
> all the others?
Textual from the paper:
"For all recorded cases of uranpyrochlore, U is not the dominant cation of the dominant valence at A, except for sample 9 from Khibina studied by Chakhmouradian & Mitchell (2002). Nevertheless, it is not possible to know the dominant
anion of the dominant valence at the Y site of this mineral. It should be referred as “uranopyrochlore”. Uranpyrochlore of Hogarth & Horne (1989) is “natropyrochlore”.
> Would stibiconite now be hydroxyroméite?
"Original material described by Beudant (1837). Probably “stibioroméite”. No electron-microprobe data are available. This material needs to be examined chemically and structurally."
4th Aug 2010 23:00 UTCAndrew G. Christy Manager
It's all relative, Don. It could be argued that the previous situation was a mess, with many nearly-identical minerals given different names, many given the wrong names due to assumptions that they were the same composition as some wet analysis on another sample from 150 years ago, and many so complex that it was impossible to name them unambiguously under the scheme then operative. Even without the name changes, most reported pyrochlores needed re-examination (mainly just good-quality analysis, not structure determination). What we were aiming for was a more straightforward and logical system of pigeonholes to put them in, once that is done.
4th Aug 2010 23:18 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
This to me sounds like a positive step fowards to cleaning up some of the mess.
We can just switch items to the group names, it's not hard.
Jolyon
5th Aug 2010 09:41 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
A little number of minerals of the pyrochlore supergroup, with relative deposited type-specimens, remain valid and change their names as in the abstract. All the others (see list in the abstract, plus betafite, elsmoreite, microlite, pyrochlore, and roméite - now only group names - and the questionable and/or non valid hydroroméite and lewisite names) are now discredited and new proposals must be presented (and approved by IMA CNMNC) to have them included in the database.
If someone needs the PDF, I can send it.
5th Aug 2010 19:31 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
Could you please send me a copy. My email address is reinermis@yahoo.ca
5th Aug 2010 20:20 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
Enjoy!
5th Aug 2010 22:01 UTCGerald Allen Peters
Would you please send me a .pdf of the article. My email address is gpeters@cox.net
Thanks.
5th Aug 2010 23:02 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
Ciao.
PS: Starting from tomorrow I will be in holiday for 20 days. I am sure that Jim Ferraiolo or other can send the paper in my place.
6th Aug 2010 10:17 UTCBela Feher Expert
6th Aug 2010 12:09 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
Ciao. Marco
6th Aug 2010 17:43 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
anion of the dominant valence at the Y site of this mineral. It should be referred as “uranopyrochlore”. Uranpyrochlore of Hogarth & Horne (1989) is “natropyrochlore”.
In Ellsworth's Paper 1971, GSC. Open file report 0077, Rare Element Minerals of Canada, he gives two analysis for "ellsworthite" otherwise known as uranpyrochlore. In that analysis Uranium would seem to be dominant in the A site : UO2&UO5 18.50-19.10%,CaO 11.73-13.63%, Fe2O3 3.8-4.1%, MnO 0.22-0.43%, SnO2 0.10-0.25%, PbO 0.24-0.41%, Of course I haven't calculated the atomic proportions so it could work out that Ca is dominant assuming the classification is based on that rather than wt.%.
7th Aug 2010 00:39 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
7th Aug 2010 00:51 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
you'll be more correct, if you'll change the label of your ellsworthite to "zero valent dominant pyrochlore". ;)
Look here http://www.mindat.org/photo-230522.html for U dominance... :)
7th Aug 2010 00:54 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
7th Aug 2010 13:38 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
8th Aug 2010 03:08 UTCRock Currier Expert
9th Aug 2010 00:44 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
again the same error. Most of U-bearing betafites aren't calciopyrochlores but "zero valent dominant pyrochlores". See composition of Madagascar betafite groundmass - http://www.mindat.org/photo-230522.html
Besides that you aren't correct in the your statement about exclusively Lunar nature of real betafites, I have specimen of hydroxylnatrobetafite from syenite-pegmatite of Kovdor Mica Mine with composition (Na0.98Ca0.34(Ce0.14La0.10Nd0.01)0.25Th0.14Sr0.07)1.78(Ti1.16Nb0.82Ta0.02)2O4.45(OH)2.55 - former "thorian betafite of Kovdor". So finds of real betafites are possible on the Earth. We only should to find them.
By the way, even being the coauthor of the article, I am not happy with its results. With this nomenclature mineralogy lost too many, but obtain very little and in far undetermined future. :(
9th Aug 2010 16:35 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
Do you know what the pyrochlore species are at the Enisie Range locality?
9th Aug 2010 17:48 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
you had means Tatarka pyrochlores from Enisei Range http://www.mindat.org/photo-284496.html? I think they are fluorcalciopyrochlores.
9th Aug 2010 19:31 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
17th Aug 2010 15:10 UTCLefteris Rantos Expert
What about the "plumbomicrolites" from Ploskaya Mt, like http://www.mindat.org/photo-1175.html and http://www.mindat.org/photo-213233.html ?
And the classic "pyrochlores" form Vishnevye Mts, like http://www.mindat.org/photo-71869.html ?
Lefteris.
18th Aug 2010 07:59 UTCJohan Kjellman Expert
cheers
24th Oct 2010 05:07 UTCPeter Haas
Pyro-gore, so to say ?
25th Jul 2011 00:53 UTCEdgars Endzelins
I don't see any Fluorceriopyrochlore.
25th Jul 2011 06:36 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
25th Jul 2011 08:50 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
14th Oct 2012 11:56 UTCHarald Oskar Folvik
Can you please send me the paper?
my adress is h-o-f@online.no
Harald F.
14th Oct 2012 14:30 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager
Cheers.
14th Oct 2012 15:50 UTCAlexandr E. Zadov
Считаю новую номенклатуру суппер-группы пирохлоров грубой ошибкой IMA и вредной для Геологии в целом. Считаю необходимым вернуться к старой версии. При всех её недостатках она более соответствует Геологии. Лично я в коллекции никакие этикетки у этих минералов менять не буду.
Минералогия - не должна быть консервной банкой, привязанной на хвосте кристаллохимии
Минералогия и Кристаллохимия решают разные задачи. Поэтому систематики
объектов их изучения и должны быть разными. Например: Кристаллохимии нет смысла делить плагиоклазы на много частей. Им хватит альбит-анортит, а Минералогии надо делить этот ряд на несколько частей.
А.Е.
I apologize for the machine translation
Hi!
I think the new nomenclature of supergroup pyrochlores mistake IMA and harmful to the geology in general. I believe we must go back to the old version. For all its shortcomings, it corresponds more closely to Geology.
Personally, I am in no collection boxes around these minerals will not change.
Mineralogy - should not be tin can tied to the tail of the crystal
Mineralogy and crystallochemistry solve different problems. Therefore, systematics objects of their study and should be different. For example, a crystallochemistry does not make sense to divide into many parts plagioclase. They have enough of albite-anorthite, and Mineralogy of the series should be divided into several parts.
A.E.
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 18, 2024 11:33:25
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 18, 2024 11:33:25