Quick Links : Mindat手册 The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Mindat Newsletter [Free Download]

主页关于 Mindat Mindat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 Mindat Corporate 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 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

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

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 Museums Clubs & Organizations 矿物展及活动 The Mindat目录表设备设置 The Mineral Quiz

照片搜索 Photo Galleries Search 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

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Improving Mindat.orgMonohydrocalcite

9th May 2012 00:28 UTCMichael Hatskel

Monohydrocalcite http://www.mindat.org/min-2758.html is showing as Grandfathered, but with the Year of Discovery=1964. There are other conflicts like that -- they may be easily discovered by querying the DB.

It may be helpful to introduce a UI validation rule for the Year of Discovery, so that a year later than 1959 could not be entered for a Grandfathered mineral.

I was raising this issue some time ago http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,6,256021,256021#msg-256021, but received no response from the IT team. Maybe this time? ;-)

9th May 2012 01:05 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Thanks, Michael, for the opportunity to rant about one of my pet peeves: If it were up to me, the word "grandfathered" would be deleted from the database entirely, as it has only legal and political significance, and is a meaningless concept in the hard sciences. Minerals described pre-IMA (pre-1959) are valid species when "generally accepted" as such by the mineralogical community because their status is obvious, like Quartz or Native Gold, and not because a lawyer declared them to be "grandfathered". Invalid species are those which are not "generally accepted", like "horsfordite" and "native iodine". In between these two groups is a grey area whose minerals were inadequately described and require further research. But in no case does a dubious mineral magically become a valid species because of some mysterious "grandfathering" process - This was a big misunderstanding among systematik collectors. :)-D

9th May 2012 01:43 UTCMichael Hatskel

Alfredo,

I agree that the concept of "grandfathering" is not quite straightforward... But I am not rebelling against the definitions here - I am actually lobbying for adhering to the definitions.

All I am saying is that if 'IMA Status' = G then 'Year of Discovery' must be equal to or lesser than 1959.

9th May 2012 03:57 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

You are of course right, Michael, but I needed the excuse to have my little rant. :-)

We'll have to check the date of first publication. :-S

9th May 2012 04:12 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Webmineral lists it as IMA approved, with the 1964 reference but no IMA number. Mineralienatlas lists it as pre-IMA but generally accepted.

Pekov gives a complicated history: first noticed1935, chemically analysed in 1948, described in 1959 (chemistry and x-ray data), but not named until 1964. So, as is not uncommon among pre-IMA minerals, the discovery was a long drawn out process and it's hard to say exactly when the species came into being. One could tell similar stories about other now well-accepted pre-IMA minerals, like magnesioriebeckite, for example.

I'll change the year of discovery to 1948, or perhaps 1959 would be better.

9th May 2012 09:19 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

In some cases the IMA number was not assigned. Monohydrocalcite is just one of the several minerals approved without number.

So the IMA list is correct: "Approved 1964".

9th May 2012 09:53 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Marco, do you have the reference for where the approval was published?

9th May 2012 10:21 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

The type-description and the best crystal strcture are the following:

- Semenov, E.I. (1964): Hydrated carbonates of sodium and calcium. Kristallografiya, 9, 109-110.

- Swainson, I.P.. (2008): The structure of monohydrocalcite and the phase composition of the beachrock deposits of Lake Butler and Lake Fellmongery, South Australia. American Mineralogist, 93, 1014-1018.

About the approval the name is just in an IMA CNMNC file without number and was not published anywhere.

9th May 2012 14:29 UTCMichael Hatskel

Marco,

If the Year of Approval is 1964, is it correct to show IMA Status = 'Grandfathered'? Maybe the IMA Status shall be 'Approved'?

9th May 2012 15:02 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Michael Hatskel Wrote:

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

> Marco,

> If the Year of Approval is 1964, is it correct to

> show IMA Status = 'Grandfathered'? Maybe the IMA

> Status shall be 'Approved'?

Yes, the status should be "Approved".

Done!

9th May 2012 17:32 UTCMichael Hatskel

Thanks, Marco.

Here are some more "Granfathered" minerals with the Year of Discovery showing later than 1959:

Cuprostibite - 1969

Zincocopiapite - 1964

Uralolite - 1964

10th May 2012 00:57 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

An analysis from 1913 from Rammelsberg mine indicated a zinc dominant copiapite. Zincocopiapite

10th May 2012 12:27 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Michael Hatskel Wrote:

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

> Thanks, Marco.

>

> Here are some more "Granfathered" minerals with

> the Year of Discovery showing later than 1959:

> Cuprostibite - 1969

> Zincocopiapite - 1964

> Uralolite - 1964

The same case of monohydrocalcite.

11th May 2012 18:46 UTCMichael Hatskel

Another one:

Franconite - 1984, although IMA1981-006. Looks like it was discovered earlier and approved in 1984, as it was published in 1984 (Jambor et al. (1984) - Can Min 22, 239–243).

11th May 2012 20:27 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

The IMA ref. is exactly 1981-006a.

15th May 2012 17:39 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Franconite is an example of the publication date being assumed to be, or regarded as the discovery date.

17th May 2012 20:03 UTCMichael Hatskel

Jim,

I would agree to that assumption for the pre-IMA minerals. But even then minerals were first found, then published, would you agree?

When we definitely know the year of IMA approval, the year of discovery MUST be at least the same year as the latest. But actually it shall be earlier, as it normally takes time to do all of the characterization required for IMA approval.

Another example: Franciscanite - mindat page says Approved 1985, Yr of Discovery 1986.

Go to top of page