登录注册
Quick Links : Mindat手册The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryMindat Newsletter [Free Download]
主页关于 MindatMindat手册Mindat的历史版权Who We Are联系我们于 Mindat.org刊登广告
捐赠给 MindatCorporate Sponsorship赞助板页已赞助的板页在 Mindat刊登 广告的广告商于 Mindat.org刊登广告
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
搜索矿物的性质搜索矿物的化学Advanced Locality Search随意显示任何一 种矿物Random Locality使用minID搜索邻近产地Search Articles搜索词汇表更多搜索选项
搜索:
矿物名称:
地区产地名称:
关键字:
 
Mindat手册添加新照片Rate Photos产区编辑报告Coordinate Completion Report添加词汇表项目
Mining Companies统计会员列表Mineral MuseumsClubs & Organizations矿物展及活动The Mindat目录表设备设置The Mineral Quiz
照片搜索Photo GalleriesSearch by Color今天最新的照片昨天最新的照片用户照片相集过去每日精选照片相集Photography

Mineralogical ClassificationApproved mineral species without finding in the nature?

13th Oct 2008 10:54 UTCBela Feher Expert

Sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferro-anthophyllite, sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite, sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite. All these amphiboles have A (approved) IMA status according to the IMA/CNMNC list of mineral species (http://pubsites.uws.edu.au/ima-cnmnc/MINERALlist.pdf) and MINDAT (although sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite are missing in MINDAT). I could not find any mineralogical descriptions or at least chemical analyses of these amphiboles in the literature. Can anybody help me?

Thanks, Bela

13th Oct 2008 11:53 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Hi Bela,

there are some mineral names that are approved (only name approved). They are amphiboles and they was approved by the previous Amphibole Subcommittee, 1997.

If all data in my database are correct also the following "minerals" are only semi-approved (in my database status S for "semi-approved"):


S Aluminobarroisite

S Alumino-ferrobarroisite

S Alumino-ferrotschermakite

S Aluminokatophorite

S Aluminotschermakite

S Cannilloite

S Clinoferriholmquistite

S Clinoferroholmquistite

S Ferribarroisite

S Ferri-ferrotschermakite

S Ferritschermakite

S Ferro-eckermannite

S Ferroleakeite

S Ferronybøite

S Ferrowinchite

S Ottoliniite

S Pedrizite

S Permanganogrunerite

S Potassic-aluminosadanagaite

S Potassichastingsite

S Sodic-ferropedrizite

S Sodicpedrizite


Probably the present Amphibole Subcommittee sort out the problem.

Ciao. Marco

13th Oct 2008 12:00 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I can't see how these can be regarded as valid mineral species. There are plenty of other theoretical end members that have not yet been found in nature which don't have valid species status.


Maybe there needs to be a distinction between an approved NAME and an approved mineral species.


The name could be approved when talking about amphibole compositions (if that's really necessary, why not just talk about them in terms of chemical composition), but NOT as a valid species.


No specimen = no species in my mind.

13th Oct 2008 14:29 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

I have pictures of three of these

Aluminotschermakite - http://www.mindat.org/min-450.html

Ferri-ferrotschermakite = Ferro-ferritschermakte - http://www.mindat.org/min-1460.html

Ferro-eckermannite - http://www.mindat.org/min-1465.html


I would be appreciative if someone can straighten out this mess - the problem is more general, in that species get redefined, and garner an 'approved' status, without ever having a formal description

13th Oct 2008 16:03 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Type descriptions are inexistent, but a part of the "minerals" listed were found in nature (EPMA results). I sent some specimens to Giancarlo Della Ventura and/or Roberta Oberti that are members of the new Amphibole Subcommittee.

13th Oct 2008 21:43 UTCChristof Schäfer Manager

Bela,


you can find analytical data on sodicgedrite and sodic-ferrigedrite and other Amphiboles in:


Deer, Howie, Zussmann (1997): Rock-forming minerals, Volume 2B, Double-chain Silicates, second edition, Geological Society, London.


Christof

14th Oct 2008 07:38 UTCErnest H. Nickel

Following is my information about the six amphiboles queried by Bela:


Sodicanthophyllite: Name approved by the IMA (Can. Mineral. 35 (1997), 219, but no description published yet.


Sodic-ferro-anthophyllite: ditto


Sodic-ferrogedrite: Name also approved in 1997. A description of a mineral that corresponds to the definition of this species can be found in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), Table 2, analysis 17.


Sodic gedrite: Name also approved in 1997. A description of a mineral that corresponds to the definition of this species can be found in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), Table 2, analyses 13, 14 and 16.


Sodic-ferropedrizite: Name approved by IMA as IMA 1998-061. Full description published in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578.


Sodicpedrizite: Name approved by IMA (Can. Mineral. 41 (2003), 1355, but no description published yet.


Cheers, Ernie...

14th Oct 2008 07:54 UTCHans Kloster

From the Marco list I have Ferroeckermannite, Ferronyböite, Ferrowinchite and Potassichastingsite from 4 different dealers and one expert. Are they all false specimens?

14th Oct 2008 09:25 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Hans Kloster Wrote:

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

> From the Marco list I have Ferroeckermannite,

> Ferronyböite, Ferrowinchite and

> Potassichastingsite from 4 different dealers and

> one expert. Are they all false specimens?


Probably not. Perhaps that they are valid... but it is not so easy correctly characterize and normalize the amphiboles.

14th Oct 2008 09:45 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Oh, these amphiboles and their names!

Ernie, the amphibole with IMA no. 98-061 published in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578-585 is NOT sodic-ferropedrizite, BUT sodic-ferripedrizite.

All six sodic amphiboles mentioned by Bela (sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferroanthophyllite, sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite, sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite) are theoretical end members which were given a name in amphibole nomenclature reports.

The qualification "semi-approved" as used by Marco is a bit misleading, only a name has been given in case of their appearance some day; "theoretical" would be a better qualification until that time.

14th Oct 2008 11:11 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Ernst A.J. Burke Wrote:

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

> Oh, these amphiboles and their names!

> Ernie, the amphibole with IMA no. 98-061 published

> in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578-585 is NOT

> sodic-ferropedrizite, BUT sodic-ferripedrizite.

> All six sodic amphiboles mentioned by Bela

> (sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferroanthophyllite,

> sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite,

> sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite) are

> theoretical end members which were given a name in

> amphibole nomenclature reports.

> The qualification "semi-approved" as used by Marco

> is a bit misleading, only a name has been given in

> case of their appearance some day; "theoretical"

> would be a better qualification until that time.



OK, I agree with "theoretical end member". Thanks Ernst.

14th Oct 2008 13:17 UTCBela Feher Expert

Thank you for the answers. I totally agree with Jolyon that there needs to be a distinction between an approved name (if only the name is approved!) and an approved mineral species. I will check Ernie's data in DHZ.

14th Oct 2008 14:14 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

We do have a mindat IMA classification of "hypothetical" which should be used for these types of approved names where natural material has not been found.

14th Oct 2008 21:29 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Yes Dave I think that it is a good solution: the unique difference is that the name, in these cases, was regularly approved.

15th Oct 2008 01:45 UTCErnest H. Nickel

I agree with David that the status "H" (for "hypothetical") should be applied to mineral names that have been approved but for which no descriptions have been published, and I will do this in my working database. Eventually this will show up in the IMA list and in the version of MINERAL distributed by MDI. In the meantime I will compile a list of such mineral names and send them to Jim Ferraiolo in the expectation that he will make the necessary status changes in Mindat.


Thanks for the correction, Ernst. Sodic-ferropedrizite is another of the approved names without a published description, hereafter with "H" status.


Cheers, Ernie...

15th Oct 2008 02:04 UTCErnest H. Nickel

Hans:


I can give you a bit of information about the 4 amphiboles in your message:


Ferronyböite: Description not yet published; status "H".


Ferro-eckermanite: Description in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), vol. 2B, Table 31, analysis 6.


Ferrowinchite: Description in DHZ, 1st ed., vol. 2 (1963), p. 352.


Potassichastingsite: Description in DHZ, 2nd ed. (1997), vol. 2B, Table 15



Cheers, Ernie...

15th Oct 2008 02:24 UTCErnest H. Nickel

With regard to my previous message, I must point out that the name nybøite and its various derivatives should be written with the alphabetical symbol "ø", not "ö", as reported in the recent paper by Ernst Burke in Min. Rec. 39 (2008), 131-135.


Ernie...

15th Oct 2008 12:26 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Ernie's list has been added or corrected.

17th Oct 2008 19:46 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Note that Mindat has the option to choose "hypothetical" as IMA approval status.

18th Oct 2008 20:55 UTCandy tindle

Aluminotschermakite is one of Uwe's "semi-approved" amphiboles. It is also IMA-approved and you might expect it to therefore be a "hypothetical" species. However, amphibole with the composition of aluminotschermakite is reported in Zenk & Schultz 2004 Zoned Ca-amphiboles and related P-T evolution in metabasites from the classic Barrovian metamorphic zones of Scotland. Min. Mag. 68, 769-786.

As far as I know this "species" has never been formally described - so what is it? - "semi-approved", "hypothetical", "confirmed species" or something else?

With the amphibole group also host to "named species" (Burke & Leake 2005 Amer Mineral. 90, 516-517), perhaps it should have this status?


I'm also aware of published data for aluminokatophorite and ferrowinchite.


In my mind "hypothetical" means "not found in nature" - so how can "species" like "potassichastingsite" (data reported in DH&Z) be given H status?

18th Oct 2008 21:49 UTCStuart Mills Manager

All,


There is also a amphibole subcommittee working at the moment and allot of this might be cleared up.


Stu

18th Oct 2008 21:56 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

This is probably a text book example why the CNMNC discourages the publication of a mineral name before there is a published description of the mineral from a type locality.

21st Oct 2008 06:37 UTCErnest H. Nickel

Hi, Andy:


Hopefully Stu is right, and some of amphibole nomenclature might get cleared up by the current Amphibole Subcommittee. However, my take on aluminotschermakite is that the name was approved by the IMA, and an analysis corresponding to the definition can be found in DH&Z, 2nd ed., vol. 2B (1997), Table 12, analysis 10. Therefore I think that the status "A" (Approved) is probably appropriate.


Regarding potassichastingsite, several descriptions have been published under various names, including potassium hastingsite, magnesian postassium-hastingsite and magnesian potassic hastingsite. In my database, which forms the basis of the IMA Mineral List, the mineral has Rn (Revised Name) status because the name potassichastingsite was formally approved by the IMA.


Aluminokatophorite presents a different problem. The name was included in the 1978 Amphibole Report, but missing from the 1997 report. Does that mean that approval has been rescinded? It's hard to say, so I have given it "Q" (Questionable) status in my database.


As you can see, it is not always easy to provide adequate information by the use of a simple status symbol. Perhaps we will get some guidance in the next report of the Amphibole Subcommittee.


Cheers, Ernie...

21st Oct 2008 08:53 UTCandy tindle

Ernie,


I'm playing devil's advocate here so bear with me!

How do you (or the IMA) justify giving aluminotschermakite an approved "full species" status when it has not been formally described?

Where is its type locality?

Where is the type specimen?


Wouldn't it be better to tag it as a (N) "named amphibole" until it is formally described? It could go in with aluminowinchite, aluminosadanagaite, alumino-ferropargasite and alumino-ferro-edenite (I know of data corresponding to all of these).


One comment for those on the amphibole subcommittee - please could you publish a computer program (ideally an excel spreadsheet) to calculate amphibole names when the nomenclature is revised. With most amphibole data collected using an electron microprobe, naming amphiboles is a nightmare - especially as Fe3+ has to be taken into account.

22nd Oct 2008 04:54 UTCErnest H. Nickel

Andy:


I am certainly not going to defend the practice of giving species names to hypothetical minerals for which there are no known occurrences, as has been done by the Amphibole Subcommittee. Such names present a problem when it comes to assigning a status designation and, under these circumstances, I was obliged to make the least bad choice. I queried Prof. Leake, the former chairman of the Subcommittee, about such minerals, and, in the case of aluminotschermakite, he pointed me to a reference in DH&Z as representing a mineral the composition of which corresponds to the definition of aluminotschermakite. The locality given for this mineral is Warsak in northwest Pakistan, so this could, perhaps be regarded as the type locality. So this gives us a name approved by the IMA, an occurrence, and the chemical composition of a naturally occurring mineral. This information, of course, falls far short of the normal requirements for establishing a mineral species, and it is difficult to decide what the formal status of such a mineral should be. Your suggestion of "N" (not approved) is not really correct because the name WAS approved. "H" is not appropriate, either, because there is natural occurrence of the mineral. "A" is also not entirely appropriate because a detailed description is lacking. So I had to make a choice from among several unsatisfactory alternatives, and "A" seemed to be closest to the mark. Perhaps a different status designation could be invented. Any ideas?


Ernie...

22nd Oct 2008 05:22 UTCStuart Mills Manager

Andy and others,


I passed your comments onto the current amphibole subcommittee.


Stu

22nd Oct 2008 10:41 UTCAntonio Borrelli Expert

Perhaps status "K" = Known occurence in nature but lacking in detailed description ?


Antonio

22nd Oct 2008 10:45 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Isn't 'K' the same, effectively, as 'G'?


Even though it seems a little silly to be adding NEW grandfathered names, the logic behind them is the same - something believed to be a valid mineral but hasn't had a formal approval process based on a thorough analysis of type material?


Jolyon

22nd Oct 2008 12:46 UTCSteve Sorrell Expert

How about 'P' for 'problematic' or 'pain in the ****'?

22nd Oct 2008 14:14 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

How about a two-lettter system to avoid confusion


AP - Approved pending further clarification and publication.

AT - Approved with a published type description

AG - Accepted due to grandfather status

AN - Approved name for an end-member not yet proven in nature


PP - Not valid, published without approval

PR - Not valid, needs further research, eg lack of type material

PO - Not valid due to anthropogenic/organic origin


NR - Not valid, rejected

ND - Not valid, discredited


etc.


We could then have a distinction between minerals that are approved and not yet published with those that are published, and the status would change from AP to AT once the description is published, so IMA2008-0xx entries would be AP status.


AN could also change to AT after further research and publication if a valid sample that satisfies tfhe 50% rule is found.


We also have an easy way of then saying if it starts with A it's a valid mineral, if it starts with P then it's probably not, but might be (depending on future research) and if it starts with N then it isn't. The distinction for P and N is important to list those things that need further research, and everythting in P should be shifted to an A or an N over time, with luck (and enough material or better test equipment in the future).


Jolyon

22nd Oct 2008 14:41 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Also, things could be rejected as NR or PR depending on how 'final' the decision is!


Jolyon

22nd Oct 2008 17:50 UTCJim Ferraiolo

You also have the 'named amphiboles' where a name, based on chemical analysis and crystal system, that agrees with the system of amphibole nomenclature can be published without IMA apporval. They are not considered new species of amphibole (see the article CM 42,1881) until they are submitted to the Commission and are approved.

IMA 'H' status or 'N' status.

22nd Oct 2008 20:31 UTCandy tindle

Ernie,


"............Your suggestion of "N" (not approved) is not really correct because the name WAS approved."

I was not suggesting this - I suggested "N" to represent "named amphiboles". I was in effect suggesting lumping together the IMA approved amphibole species that do not have formal descriptions (like aluminotschermakite) together with those that are not IMA approved (the named amphiboles) - such as aluminowinchite. This would combine all those amphiboles lacking formal descriptions. All the names I listed in my previous email have published compositional data confirming their existence and so you could argue they have type localities (but not carefully curated type specimens).


Just checking - "named amphiboles" can be defined on the basis of a partial chemical analysis? Is that right? I'd guess most published amphibole data does not have supporting XRD data or analyses of Li, Fe2+ or Fe3+


I find Jolyon's two letter coding attractive. I'd give the "named amphiboles" an NM designation (named mineral). I wouldn't want them called NA as that is too restrictive. I know of two "named tourmalines" - fluor-elbaite and fluor-schorl. Both with data reported in the literature, but not IMA approved. Perhaps Jolyon would like "named minerals" designated with a P - so PN is another possible abbreviation for them.


Andy

23rd Oct 2008 08:37 UTCErnest H. Nickel

Thanks for the suggestions. Jolyon's 2-letter coding certainly has merit, as it has the potential of removing the ambiguity in status designation that has been revealed by this exchange. As the status codings are included in the IMA Mineral List, I think that authorization for major changes, such as those suggested, should be obtained from the CNMNC. Stu, do you think that this is a project that could be taken on, possibly by the vice-chairman on classification?


Ernie

23rd Oct 2008 10:38 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Obviously my particular example two letter codes may or may not be appropriate - they were quick five minute examples to show the concept, but I think the general concept will work well and obviously we'd support the new coding system in mindat as soon as they are announced by the IMA.


Jolyon

23rd Oct 2008 13:10 UTCJohan Kjellman Expert

Hi all,

I haven't gone deeper in to this discussion but it certainly must touch upon something I brought up and discussed with (at least) Ernie more than 2 years ago:

The issue was grandfathered (G marked) minerals that erroneously had become approved (A marked) with reference to appendix table 2 in an 1987 article (Am Min 72, 1031). It concerned several mineral names affected by the Levinson rule, for example the minerals yttrotantalite and yttrocolumbite. I see in the latest IMA/CNMNC list that the problem "has been taken care of" by not giving this reference any longer. The minerals are still erroneously Approved but now using other references, e.g. Handbook of Mineralogy 1997.

The fact remains that these minerals were and are only grandfathered and their names were and are only revised, i.e. RENAMED, to yttrotantalite-(Y) and yttrocolumbite-(Y), NO scientific rework had been done on the minerals and consequently no decisions have been taken on their species status.

Yttrotantalite-(Y) and yttrocolumbite-(Y) are only given as examples. I am not reflecting on their possible validity/non-validity as minerals, but only referring to their present publicly known status. According to the present shorthand for status they ought to be marked G, Rn or equivalent - nothing else.


all best

23rd Oct 2008 16:46 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Ok, if someone wants to run with the two-letter idea and put together a formal proposal, please consider this:


Do not choose two letter combinations that are easily inverted, eg:


AP - Approved, Published


PA - Pending Approval


because it will happen that one will get mistyped as the other.


You also might want to think about proximity of keys on keyboard and also how these things are spoken phonetically so if someone gives AS as a code over the phone it isn't mistaken for AF, or vice versa.


If you're going to think up a new system, do it right :)


Jolyon

24th Oct 2008 00:18 UTCStuart Mills Manager

Ernie, it is possible, but it will have to go behind the 2 major projects we aree working on now.

24th Oct 2008 06:44 UTCErnest H. Nickel

Hi, Johan:


You are right about yttrotantalite and yttrocolumbite. I will change their status from A to Rn (renamed), as the IMA decision was simply a renaming exercise. I will see if a similar treatment should be applied to any other minerals.


Cheers, Ernie

2nd Nov 2008 12:18 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Reference:

• Robinson, P., Solli, A., Engvik, A., Erambert, M., Bingen, B., Schiellerup, H., Njange, F. (2008): Solid solution between potassic-obertiite and potassic-fluoro-magnesio-arfvedsonite in a silica-rich lamproite from northeastern Mozambique. European Journal of Mineralogy, 20, (in press).


I think that they are other two Named Minerals.

13th Nov 2008 09:36 UTCBela Feher Expert

A new reference for sodicgedrite:


Kanazawa, T., Tsunogae, T., Sato, K. & Santosh, M. (2009): The stability and origin of sodicgedrite in ultrahigh-temperature Mg-Al granulites: a case study from the Gondwana suture in southern India. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 157, 95-110.


Abstract:

Mg-Al-rich rocks from the Palghat-Cauvery Shear Zone System (PCSZ) within the Gondwana suture zone in southern India contain sodicgedrite as one of the prograde to peak phases, stable during T = 900–990°C ultrahigh-temperature metamorphism. Gedrite in these samples is Mg-rich (Mg/ = X Mg = 0.69–0.80) and shows wide variation in Na2O content (1.4–2.3 wt.%, NaA = 0.33–0.61 pfu). Gedrite adjacent to kyanite pseudomorph is in part mantled by garnet and cordierite. The gedrite proximal to garnet shows an increase in NaA and AlIV from the core (NaA = 0.40–0.51 pfu, AlIV = 1.6–1.9 pfu) to the rim (NaA = 0.49–0.61 pfu, AlIV = 2.0–2.2 pfu), suggesting the progress of the following dehydration reaction: Ged + Ky → Na-Ged + Grt + Crd + H2O. This reaction suggests that, as the reactants broke down during the prograde stage, the remaining gedrite became enriched in Na to form sodicgedrite, which is regarded as a unique feature of high-grade rocks with Mg-Al-rich and K–Si-poor bulk chemistry. We carried out high-P-T experimental studies on natural sodicgedrite and the results indicate that gedrite and melt are stable phases at 12 kbar and 1,000°C. However, the product gedrite is Na-poor with only <0.13 wt.% Na2O (NaA = 0.015–0.034 pfu). In contrast, the matrix glass contains up to 8.5 wt.% Na2O, suggesting that, with the progressive melting of the starting material, Na was partitioned into the melt rather than gedrite. The results therefore imply that the occurrence of sodicgedrite in the UHT rocks of the PCSZ is probably due to the low H2O activity during peak P-T conditions that restricted extensive partial melting in these rocks, leaving Na partitioned into the solid phase (gedrite). The occurrence of abundant primary CO2-rich fluid inclusions in this rock, which possibly infiltrated along the collisional suture during the final amalgamation of the Gondwana supercontinent, strengthens the inference of low water activity.

18th Nov 2008 18:38 UTCChristof Schäfer Manager

Reference added.

Publication Date is 07/2008.
 
矿物 and/or 产地  
Mindat Discussions Facebook Logo Instagram Logo Discord Logo
版权所有© mindat.org1993年至2024年,除了规定的地方。 Mindat.org全赖于全球数千个以上成员和支持者们的参与。
隐私政策 - 条款和条款细则 - 联络我们 - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: 2024.3.28 12:32:36
Go to top of page