ALMOST THERE!. Help us with a final push needed to keep mindat.org running. Click here to help.
Catawiki are hosting a mindat.org benefit auction. All proceeds to mindat.org! BID NOW
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

A challenge for rare mineral collectors

Posted by Kevin Conroy  
avatar
Kevin Conroy September 26, 2018 05:11PM
I recently ran across a list of all of the minerals on Mindat that don't have photos. I wonder how many of these minerals are in the possession of folks who use this site. Let's see how many of these we can get at least one photo of by the end of this year! Please post a reply note when you add a photo so we can all see it. Here's the list: https://www.mindat.org/nophoto.php



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2018 05:13PM by Kevin Conroy.
avatar
Branko Rieck September 26, 2018 06:18PM
Colinowensite added!

Branko
avatar
W. Richard Gunter September 26, 2018 06:21PM
Hi Kevin:

Bobdownsite no longer exists as a separate phase so it should not have photos. They will be posted under whitlockite. Most of these are very rare minerals and often require both high magnification and extensive testing. Some will be noted as accessory minerals to other phases, so will be posted but not as a head phase. I don't know if Mindat can sort these out.
avatar
W. Richard Gunter September 26, 2018 06:33PM
An example of my last point is wopmayite. It has been posted as an accessory to one of my Tanco apatite samples. The phase meets the physical properties of wopmayite, but it has not been XRD confirmed as wopmayite, so I did not enter it as the primary phase on the sample.
avatar
Pavel Kartashov September 26, 2018 07:20PM
Iridarsenite added.

Richard, Colinowensite and Bobdownsite are different matters. ;)
avatar
Paul Brandes September 26, 2018 07:49PM
Splendid idea, Kevin!
The current count stands at 852 species without a photo.....
avatar
Jolyon & Katya Ralph September 26, 2018 10:26PM
I've fixed the page so that it better reports only valid species!
avatar
Kevin Conroy September 27, 2018 12:27AM
Paul and Jolyon, thanks!

Branko and Pavel, congratulations on being the first to add photos of Colinowensite and Iridarsenite!

I know that photos of many of the species are going to be problematic due to a number of factors including their extreme rarity, but think of the fun and knowledge spread with each new entry. Challenge on!
avatar
Jeff Weissman September 27, 2018 12:30AM
I may have some in my archives, but the quality may be poor, as they would be in slide film. Some of these have been for sale on e-rocks, maybe they can help.
avatar
Ronnie Van Dommelen September 27, 2018 01:35AM
For those that are more recently described, one path is to write the author(s) of the paper describing the mineral. If there is a photo in the paper, they should know the photographer, and that person may be willing to allow it to be used on MinDat. It's not a lot or work to write a nice email.

Jolyon, would it be possible to add the status to that list (approved or pending). I would expect getting a photo of a pending mineral will usually be pretty difficult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2018 01:42AM by Ronnie Van Dommelen.
avatar
Branko Rieck September 27, 2018 06:37AM
By the way:

could somebody add:

Rieck B., Pristacz H. and Giester G. (2015): Colinowensite, BaCuSi2O6, a new mineral from the Kalahari Manganese Field, South Africa and new data on wesselsite, SrCuSi4O10. Mineral. Mag., 79(7), 1769-1778.

to the colinowensite and wesselsite pages.

Thanks,

Branko
avatar
Jolyon & Katya Ralph September 27, 2018 08:34AM
It might be fun to do another ranking chart to see who has uploaded the most first photos of mineral species.

Simply done by taking every photo for a species and seeing which has the lowest photo ID.
avatar
Alysson Rowan September 27, 2018 09:27AM
Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It might be fun to do another ranking chart to see
> who has uploaded the most first photos of mineral
> species.
>
> Simply done by taking every photo for a species
> and seeing which has the lowest photo ID.

That would be uncommonly interesting - especially for the photographic buffs out there.
avatar
Ronnie Van Dommelen September 27, 2018 10:05AM
Branko,
Added, thanks.
avatar
Tomas Husdal September 27, 2018 11:29AM
Cayalsite-(Y) has two photos but is on the list. Both photos are uploaded as the 1O polytype - could that be the reason?
avatar
Chris Stanley September 28, 2018 01:43PM
There is a problem in that only the first named mineral (if there is more than one as is often the case) makes it and the other associated minerals don't appoear in the photos list.

Hence, some time ago I uploaded some images of palladseite and arsenopalladinite with palladinite rims but the images appear under the first named mineral only. Likewise for garutiite and zaccariniite

Cheers

Chris
avatar
W. Richard Gunter September 28, 2018 02:27PM
Chris's comments are the same as what I said earlier. Is there a way of referencing a second or third mineral in a string?
avatar
Erik Vercammen September 29, 2018 03:13PM
I've uploaded digital photos of a polished and mounted specimen of mertieite-1 and of the page that came with it (SEM-photo, X-ray picture): is this an acceptable way to handle the microscopic rare species?
avatar
Jolyon & Katya Ralph October 01, 2018 08:30AM
> Is there a way of referencing a second or third mineral in a string?

Not at the moment. The main reason is for performance - it would slow the queries down significantly to do this and we don't currently have the resources to manage that.

Additionally, those more common minerals (quartz, etc) would suddenly have thousands more photos added where it may just be a matrix component.
avatar
Keith Compton October 01, 2018 08:59AM
Chris

I'm not sure if it works but as a work around can a child photo be uploaded with the minerals in reverse order so as to enable both to be listed ?
I haven't tried it, but I think it would work?
avatar
Jolyon & Katya Ralph October 01, 2018 11:25AM
`There isn't a really good way to deal with it currently.

Scratch that thought, I've figured out how to do it, and I'm working on it now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2018 12:06PM by Jolyon & Katya Ralph.
avatar
Jolyon & Katya Ralph October 01, 2018 12:32PM
Ok.

I have fixed it with a compromise that works pretty well.


If there are no primary photos of a mineral (where it is the first mineral listed), it then, and only then, checks the additional fields.

So, if we have a species like Hongshiite that has three photos at secondary level but no primary, it will now show all three photos.

The only caveat on this is that as soon as a single photo is added as a primary photo for this species, those three secondary photos again become hidden, so it would then list only a single photo.

It's not perfect but it's a lot better than it was before today.


If your favourite mineral species is still showing no photos when there are secondary photos available it may just need the cache clearing - let me know if you find any.
avatar
W. Richard Gunter October 01, 2018 02:32PM
Wopmayite is noted as a photo on the mineral page but does not occur on the header. It may be an example of the need for a cache cleaning.
avatar
David Von Bargen October 01, 2018 03:53PM
Clearing the cache took care of the problem on the mineral page.
avatar
Jolyon & Katya Ralph October 01, 2018 04:03PM
Oh also, when the minerals are not the primary species in the photo they are NOT shown as header photos on the mineral page (and these pages will have no header photos).

This is deliberate as it may be misleading.
avatar
W. Richard Gunter October 01, 2018 04:32PM
Sounds good to me. That way a photo of a rare mineral, may be without detailed analyses, can be used as an example.
avatar
Ronnie Van Dommelen October 04, 2018 01:44AM
Added meridianiite. It is not a closeup view, but an in situ photo.
avatar
Kevin Conroy October 04, 2018 02:35AM
Cool!...
avatar
Pavel Kartashov October 08, 2018 11:53PM
Langisite is added. Who will add Modderite?
avatar
Ronnie Van Dommelen October 09, 2018 08:39AM
Added a photo of synthetic ringwoodite, but it will not be shown on the mineral page. Should a line be added in the general description with a link to it? There is another, similar, synthetic ringwoodite photo on Wikipedia.

Synthetic ringwoodite
avatar
David Von Bargen October 09, 2018 09:37AM
Added it (via the head photo override on mineral edit page).
avatar
Ronnie Van Dommelen October 09, 2018 11:19PM
Thanks David.

Srilankite, melcherite, decagonite, delhuyarite-(Ce), imayoshiite, gratianite, hitachiite added.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2018 02:28PM by Ronnie Van Dommelen.
avatar
Pavel Kartashov October 11, 2018 05:11PM
Kihlmanite-(Ce) is added.
avatar
Frank K. Mazdab October 13, 2018 07:06AM
vanadium is added... three photos: (1) thin section reflected light image, (2) same view in PPL, (3) same view in XP.

However, note the locality of this particular vanadium-bearing "rock" is under debate as to whether it's a natural occurrence or a smelter product. I suspect it may actually be a lab-made material:

https://www.mindat.org/loc-220664.html
avatar
Paul De Bondt October 13, 2018 08:57AM
Thank you Frank.
But there was an error in the measurements on the upload.
You marked 1000 mm as it must be 1000µm.
What is weird, I edited the picture and changed that but can't find the images again, even after clearing the cache.
David, do you have an explanation, please.
avatar
David Von Bargen October 13, 2018 09:41AM
If you are talking about https://www.mindat.org/photo-914222.html
It looks like it was only approved for user only (checkbox for display site wide was not checked).

If you go to Frank's page and look at the photo gallery (with the show "All images" selected) the photo showed up.
avatar
Frank K. Mazdab October 13, 2018 10:12AM
Hi guys,

I'll fix the measurement (unless that's already been fixed... thanks if so), and I'll go back and check any missing boxes for wider display. Guess I must have just missed that.

Frank

edit: measurement was fixed (thanks... I got it correct on the the parent image and then forgot to change it on the child images); the parent image is set to public galleries... I didn't see where one checks that for the child images. But anyone with authorization, please feel free to make them public if they're not currently set that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2018 10:20AM by Frank K. Mazdab.
avatar
David Von Bargen October 13, 2018 02:10PM
Public and user only are set by the photo reviewers.
avatar
Kevin Conroy October 29, 2018 02:44PM
Bump. Did anyone pick up an ultra-rarity at the Munich show?
avatar
Andreas Schloth October 29, 2018 04:19PM
Not literally an ultra-rarity, but a rarity for sure. Managed to get a really good sample of the new mineral Rhabdoborite-W, though I had another one before. I'will be trying to get some good macro-shots tonight (german time) and upload.
avatar
Alfredo Petrov October 29, 2018 04:38PM
Don't know whether it qualifies as an "ultra"-rarity, but I got a currierite.
avatar
Andreas Schloth October 29, 2018 10:07PM
Here are the pictures:

https://www.mindat.org/photo-917195.html
avatar
Kevin Conroy October 29, 2018 11:47PM
Andreas, very nice, thank you!
avatar
Pavel Kartashov November 12, 2018 06:56PM
Batievaite-(Y) photo was added.
avatar
Pavel Kartashov November 15, 2018 06:10PM
Ruthenian Iridium photo was added.
avatar
Frank K. Mazdab November 15, 2018 08:10PM
Hi Pavel,

Isn't "ruthenian iridium" just iridium? :-)

Said in light-hearted jest referencing your:

Very strange question for me. Strontianite is strontianite, calcite is calcite (even strontian)


comment from the "strontianite or strontian calcite" thread.
avatar
Pavel Kartashov November 15, 2018 08:39PM
Hi Frank,
I'm afraid in this case, you do not understand about what I'm saying. I would advise you to look at Fig.4 in the article http://rruff.info/uploads/CM12_104.pdf if you don't remember names of minerals in the Os-Ir-Ru system by memory.
avatar
Frank K. Mazdab November 15, 2018 10:10PM
Hi Pavel,

Thanks for the link. Yes, I did look at Figure 4. I also looked at section h) on page 110. "Ruthenian" is an adjectival modifier, per Schaller 1930; it is not part of the mineral name. There is iridium; there is no "ruthenian iridium". Even mindat notes that "ruthenian iridium" is just a variety of iridium. So in case you don't remember the names of the minerals in the Os-Ir-Ru system by memory, here's the list of IMA-approved minerals, current as of November 2018:

http://nrmima.nrm.se//IMA_Master_List_%282018-11%29.pdf

;-)

I will concede, however, that adjectival modifiers seem to be formalized for the platinum-group elements and alloys, whereas they certainly are not for something like the "strontian" in "strontian calcite". However, it appears even that formalization may be depreciated. Bayliss et al., 2005 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532.1379&rep=rep1&type=pdf) write:

Chemical-element adjectival modifiers are not part of the name of a mineral species. Schaller-type adjectival modifiers, which have the endings -oan or -ian, formerly recommended [my emphasis] by the CNMMN of the IMA, in many cases give erroneous information about the valence of an ion, and are therefore inappropriate [my emphasis, again].


So in 2018, it seems that there really isn't much semantic difference between "strontian calcite" and "ruthenian iridium". The former is just calcite and the latter is just iridium, and neither adjectival modifier appears appropriate or recommended (though the value of the added information each conveys is certainly not questioned). In any case, I've used the modifiers myself and I have no genuine objection to them; I was just having a bit of fun with an inconsistency, and I don't want to hijack this thread further. I support non-discrimination for ruthenian iridium... :-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2018 10:18PM by Frank K. Mazdab.
avatar
Ronnie Van Dommelen November 18, 2018 07:17PM
Added zoltaiite and greenwoodite.
avatar
Pavel Kartashov November 19, 2018 12:49AM
Added rinkite-(Y).
avatar
Kevin Conroy December 03, 2018 08:05PM
Bump. Thanks to everyone who has posted photos! Does anyone have any others to add? As a reminder, here's the list: https://www.mindat.org/nophoto.php
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: December 18, 2018 21:29:03
View slideshow - Go to top of page