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

Generallist of minerals by number of localities

19th Oct 2017 12:09 UTCHerwig Pelckmans

Dear all,

I was hoping to find on Mindat a list of minerals arranged by the (descending) number of localities they had been found at.

Hoping such a list would give us a good idea about say the "100 most common minerals that can be found by regular mineral collectors".

But it looks like there is no such list for the moment.

Is it possible to make it (and add it to the More Search Options webpage under Mineral Search)?

A list of minerals that are only known from 1 locality would also be of interest to many, I assume.

Many thanks,

Cheers, Herwig

MKA (Belgium)

19th Oct 2017 14:31 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Top 100

100 Corundum 1857

99 Shale 1858

98 Prehnite 1886

97 Amethyst 1896

96 Spinel 1912

95 Quartzite 1927

94 Psilomelane 1948

93 Columbite-(Fe)-Columbite-(Mn) Series 1949

92 Bismuth 1951

91 Bismuthinite 1958

90 Schist 1967

89 Augite 2020

88 Sulphur 2048

87 Pegmatite 2148

86 Anatase 2186

85 Monazite 2204

84 Phlogopite 2220

83 Wolframite 2228

82 Jarosite 2239

81 Serpentine Subgroup 2337

80 Smoky Quartz 2347

79 Sandstone 2397

78 Orthoclase 2443

77 Almandine 2469

76 Tremolite 2572

75 Smithsonite 2583

74 Cinnabar 2606

73 Chert 2614

72 Olivine 2648

71 Fayalite-Forsterite Series 2684

70 Anglesite 2777

69 Fluorapatite 2782

68 Graphite 2788

67 Uraninite 2805

66 Acanthite 2838

65 Schorl 2917

64 Cuprite 3049

63 Opal 3101

62 Ankerite 3107

61 Hornblende 3163

60 Pyrolusite 3202

59 Stibnite 3296

58 Aragonite 3313

57 Talc 3353

56 Actinolite 3423

55 Chrysocolla 3582

54 Albite-Anorthite Series 3670

53 Copper 3859

52 Limestone 3935

51 Chromite 3947

50 Covellite 4072

49 Feldspar Group 4110

48 Diopside 4163

47 K Feldspar 4288

46 Chalcedony 4351

45 Beryl 4404

44 Titanite 4859

43 Scheelite 4878

42 Microcline 4883

41 Cerussite 5084

40 Zircon 5120

39 Cassiterite 5249

38 Silver 5305

37 Ilmenite 5312

36 Kaolinite 5399

35 Tetrahedrite 5411

34 Bornite 5494

33 Tourmaline 5494

32 Rutile 5542

31 Azurite 5557

30 Marcasite 5621

29 Chalcocite 5736

28 Molybdenite 5837

27 Garnet 6335

26 Siderite 6456

25 Apatite 6620

24 Sericite 6731

23 Gypsum 6896

22 Goethite 7310

21 Epidote 8101

20 Albite 8619

19 Biotite 8707

18 Arsenopyrite 8899

17 Pyrrhotite 8934

16 Dolomite 9803

15 Fluorite 9827

14 Chlorite Group 11638

13 Baryte 11656

12 Limonite 12317

11 Malachite 12342

10 Hematite 14581

9 Magnetite 14741

8 Muscovite 17121

7 Sphalerite 21540

6 Galena 24358

5 Chalcopyrite 27101

4 Calcite 27736

3 Gold 30002

2 Pyrite 38983

1 Quartz 60714

19th Oct 2017 15:42 UTCHerwig Pelckmans

Dear David,

Great for a start, no doubt. Thanks.

However, if possible, I would like to see that list for valid mineral species only (so no rocks like "pegmatite" or "limestone", and no varietal names like "Smoky Quartz" or Amethyst or so).

Sorry to be such a pain in the * . :-))

Cheers, Herwig

MKA (Belgium)

19th Oct 2017 15:51 UTCDonald B Peck Expert

David,

Interesting. How did you come up with that list? I notice that it also includes several types of rock . . . is there a way to eliminate those? I think I remember a statement from Bob Hazen that more than half the known minerals have been found at only five, or fewer, sites in the world. A search button that would enumerate and list sites (perhaps with a "more than . . ." cut off) would be interesting for research purposes.

Don

19th Oct 2017 18:36 UTCTed Hadley

Lists of this sort are misleading. They only mention whether a mineral is known (not even known, but recorded) from a particular locality and not how large or abundant the samples are. Micron sized zircons are known from nearly all granitic rocks worldwide, but you will never see them. Also, many common minerals like quartz, calcite, and pyrite are often ignored when mineral occurance lists are prepared for localities.

Despite all that, it is still quite interesting to see such a list as above.

19th Oct 2017 18:56 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

What Ted said. There is a strong bias in favor of economically interesting minerals, so native gold ends up being reported from more localities than calcite, and about 7 times as many localities as chalcedony! Does anyone think scheelite is really twice as common as almandine? Such lists are of not much usefulness, which is probably why Mindat hasn't published one before.

19th Oct 2017 20:30 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

And I notice that the most common mineral on the Earth's surface is not in the list: ice.

19th Oct 2017 20:36 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

This is why we haven't really published that list. It's not really that useful.

What is *marginally* more useful is the list of most reported minerals per element which you can get at the bottom of each element page (click on the element banner on the home page).

Now, for those who haven't already seen this...

what's the number 1 most common HYDROGEN mineral according to mindat? Have a think about it, then go check out our hydrogen page and see if you were right!

Jolyon

19th Oct 2017 22:32 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

A more useful number is probably the number of photos for each mineral which may give a better representation as to what can be found:

25 - Mimetite

24 - Topaz

23 - Vanadinite

22 - Epidote

21 - Silver

20 - Gold

19 - Anatase

18 - Smithsonite

17 - Hematite

16 - Cerussite

15 - Rhodochrosite

14 - Fluorapatite

13 - Copper

12 - Galena

11 - Pyromorphite

10 - Sphalerite

9 - Elbaite

8 - Malachite

7 - Wulfenite

6 - Azurite

5 - Pyrite

4 - Baryte

3 - Quartz

2 - Fluorite

1 - Calcite

19th Oct 2017 23:17 UTCHerwig Pelckmans

Jolyon,

That is another approach I did not even think of.

Could you expand the above list to the top 100, please?

Cheers, Herwig

MKA (Belgium)

19th Oct 2017 23:56 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

A photo list is heavily biased towards "collector desirability". No one would consider wulfenite to be so much more common than hematite, so perhaps collectors just enjoy photographing their wulfenites more often than their hematites ;)

20th Oct 2017 00:01 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

That's the difference between "what can be found" and "what is worth finding" :)

20th Oct 2017 00:05 UTCDoug Schonewald

I agree with Alfredo. Much of mineral popularity has to do with aesthetics, both as a collectable and as a photographic subject. Most people would much rather have a very nicely crystallized specimen of something than a piece of say, siderite (unless the siderite is exceptional). Of course, there are collectors who are the exception as well. Just off the top of my head Dale Foster and Martin Slama come immediately to mind.

20th Oct 2017 00:41 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

A list of the truly most common mineral species on the planet would have a lot of things close to the top that no one pays much attention to, and hardly ever bothers to photograph or even put on locality lists. Stuff like:
allophane, antigorite, halloysite, hisingerite, hollandite, jarosite, lizardite, maghemite, methane hydrates, montmorillonite, romanechite, saponite, vermiculite...

But for those collectors who aren't interested in impalpable earthy crud and only like well-crystallized cabinet specimens... which species is the most common? No, it's not quartz, calcite, pyrite, nor any of the feldspars, it's halite! The Salar de Uyuni alone, if we conservatively estimate 5 cabinet specimens per square meter, at 30 cm under the crust, over 10,000 square km, yields about 50 billion cabinet specimens, enough for 7 specimens for each man, woman and child on the planet. and then there are all the other many Salars in the Andes and elsewhere. Each man, woman and baby on the planet could have a pink halite from California too ;))

20th Oct 2017 02:05 UTCMartin Rich Expert

Ok Alfredo, I want to swap a halite from Salar de Uyuni for a pink halite from California! :)

20th Oct 2017 06:40 UTCDale Foster Manager

Douglas Schonewald Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Alfredo. Much of mineral popularity has to do with aesthetics, both as a collectable and as a photographic subject. Most people would

much rather have a very nicely crystallized specimen of something than a piece of say, siderite (unless the siderite is exceptional). Of course, there are collectors who are the exception as well. Just off the top of my head Dale Foster and Martin Slama come immediately to mind.

Douglas,

Thank you for the mention.

Just to clarify, I don't reject having very nicely crystallised specimens, but the nature of my collecting interest means that more 'mundane' looking material is also desirable to me, perhaps this part of the blurb on my home page explains it better:

Not all of the specimens shown are of stunning beauty, however, my objective is to show examples of Cassiterite and Wolframite (and some other minerals as well) from a number of Cornish localities and, in the instances where the specimens are self collected, illustrate to the newer generation of collectors the sort of specimens they can realistically expect to collect currently in Cornwall.

Of course the occasional truly excellent specimen will turn up, but for the most part the material is representative of locality, but no less interesting for that.

20th Oct 2017 16:19 UTCDoug Schonewald

Dale,

I find ALL of your specimens interesting and valuable. The same can be said for all collectors on Mindat. I marvel at some of the gorgeous crystals and very rare minerals (which are not always aesthetic). On a personal level my goal is to collect and document as many minerals as possible in a tiny geographic area of central Washington state. The region has been extensively explored geologically and should be on everyone's list of Great Geological Places to Visit. The area has not been extensively explored mineralogically, probably due to the dearth of fine crystals and lack of commercially viable deposits, but contains a healthy variety of minerals. When I find something new, and undocumented, I get pretty excited.

20th Oct 2017 17:25 UTCThomas Lühr Expert

Douglas,

I fully agree with your statement, this is also exactly what i'm doing, in an other part of the world.

The Harz mts./Germany is an old and famous mining area, most sites are well explored. Also the TL of many minerals are located in that area. Even that all mines closed now, the discovery of still undescribed (and unexcpected) minerals -for a certain site- is possible this days, nevertheless.

Happy collecting

Thomas

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 18:25:06

Go to top of page