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.org"Mangan-apatite"

17th Sep 2006 17:54 UTCAlan Plante

I came across a picture caption that reads: "Fluorapatite v. mangan-apatite."

To begin with, the prefix "mangan" in this case is an abbreviated form of the corrct word: "manganoan."

Next, "mangan-apatite" is NOT a varietal name, but rather a nickname.

On top of that, it should not be applied to fluoraptite as a qualifier. Fluorapatite that is rich in Mn is "Fluorapatite v. manganoan." To add "-apatite" is almost an oxymoronic addition - going backwards in the classification heirarchy from the species to the group level...

I would suggest that "mangan-apatite" be changed to a nickname/synonym for Flourapatite v. manganoan

And I would suggest that "Fluorapatite v. mangan-apatite" be deleted from the database. It is an abomination - not a mineralogical phrase...

:~}

Alan

17th Sep 2006 18:58 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Manganapatite is now a variety of fluorapatite. Hey3 gave a reference ( added) and shows TL as San Roque, Cordoba, Argentina. It's not in Mindat. Does anyone have any information about the locality?

17th Sep 2006 21:09 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Dear Alan!

Mangan-apatite is old name, and it is rather German than English.

By the way, as I had learn in university, manganapatite is blue Mn-bearing variety of apatite. It can be of two types. When Mn" replace Ca" we have bright blue manganapatite typical for later stages of mineralformation in phosphate type of raremetal granitic pegmatites. For example, it often form blue rims around orange lithiophilite grains at Rb-Ta Elash deposit. When Mn"""' replace P""' we have pinkish or wiolet manganapatite typical for some alkaline pegmatites of Lovozero massif.

Following to your recomendations, we must to name the first variety - manganoan apatite and the second - permanganoan apatite.

From this point of view, most of photos from manganapatite gallery showing us green apatites with orange UV luminescention, but not real fluorapatite variety manganapatite. Here in Russia nobody name green or yellow apatite, even with yellow or orange UV luminescention and Mn content 0.00n-0.000n %, manganapatite. Only blue apatites with Mn content n-0.n % are named manganapatites.

Dear Jim!

It seems to me, that San Roque locality in Cordoba is granitic pegmatite with primary Mn-phosphate mineralization (beusite, triplite, lithiophyllite or some similar).

17th Sep 2006 22:39 UTCAlan Plante

Hi Jim: Where did you add the reference?

I still maintain that "mangan-apatite" is nothing but a slang term used in place of the correct form: "Flourapatite v. manganoan." The latter has been around for a looong time (as Pavel notes) and was well-established before rockhounds corrupted it into the slang.

If "manganapatite" has been given some sort of imprimature as a varietal name for Flourapatite v. manganoan, I have to wonder why? It wasn't necessary and - to me - is a backwards step... :~{

Pavel: Flourapatite v. manganoan is typically a dark blue in color due to the Mn content. I don't know about any other color for Mn-rich fluorapatites.

Alan

17th Sep 2006 23:43 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Dear Alan,

you are quite correct, but see this page head photo http://www.mindat.org/photo-21252.html, or http://www.mindat.org/photo-53588.html, or 5 other in this gallery...

Apparently authors of these photos know about any other colours for manganapatite.:)

It is pretty mistake and also error.

It seems to me, it would be better to move all these 7 photos to fluorapatite gallery.

Kind regards,

Pavel

18th Sep 2006 00:15 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Jim and Pavel,

Thanks for the info to get this straight (I hope). I added the Manganoan Fluorapatite and put in a definition which I believe is what you explained Jim. Could you please look at it? I also linked it to "manganapatite" and changed over the photos of the non-blue, pink or violet apatites to the new variety entry.

Pavel, your photos of the blue manganapatite remain under that file name. They are fine photos. I also used your explanation in the file for manganapatite. Could you please look at it to insure that it is acceptable?

Chet

One more error set corrected.

18th Sep 2006 00:20 UTCPeter Cristofono

Chet, after your correction - all the localities are linked to Manganapatite and none to Manganoan Fluorapatite, but many of them are in reality Manganoan Fluorapatite localities. How can this be fixed?

18th Sep 2006 00:21 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Peter,

I'll fix them.

18th Sep 2006 00:27 UTCPeter Cristofono

OK Chet, thanks.

18th Sep 2006 00:28 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Fixed!! Peter - appreciate the reminder, I forgot to change them.

18th Sep 2006 01:34 UTCBruce Osborne

Chester, change the Ray Mine site in Yancy Co. North Carolina , USA to Manganoan Fluorapatite for it is a green color and does have a yellow luminescention in S.W U.V light . Bruce Osborne

18th Sep 2006 02:14 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Dear Chester!

Here are two analyses of blue (Kuivchorr Mt.) and violet (Nepkha Mt) manganapatites (both are from Lovozero massif): P2O5 41.03/39.55, Mn2O7 -/0.94, Mn2O3 0.80/-, Al2O3 0.46/-, REE2O3 0.46/0.20, CaO 54.58/54.20, MgO -/1.26, Na2O 0.24/1.50, H2O 0.32/-, F 3.10/-, insoluble -/2.07, -O=F 1.30/-, Sum 99.69/99.72 % (E.I. Semenov Mineralogy of Lovozero alkaline massif, - Nauka, Moscow,1972, p. 101-102). As I stated before, in manganoan apatite Mn oxides contents are at level below 0.0n % - them aren't enough for colouring but enough for UV fluorescention. In manganapatite Mn oxides content is too high for UV luminescention, so it fluorescent only under laser.

Also it would be good to make reference to manganapatite on fluorapatite page in varieties list.

I'll try to make and upload to the database photo of blue manganapatite from Elash pegmatites soon.

Thank you.

Pavel

18th Sep 2006 05:25 UTCJuan Carlos Lodovichi

I have a sample found in San Luis province, Argentina (nearbly Cordoba province). The color is deep green. In the chemical analyse I found Mn.

18th Sep 2006 06:13 UTCAlan Plante

Pavel & All

Mn 2+ = manganoan

Mn 3+ or 4+ = manganian

The blue fluorapatite due to Mn 3 + is "fluorapatite v. manganoan"

The pink fluorapatite due to Mn 3+ should be "fluorapatite v. manganian."

They can't both be called "manganoan" or "manganapatite." There has to be a way to distinguish between the structural sites involved.

As for Mn-bearing fluorapatites that are green, I think we need to remember that most fluorapatites do not have end-member compositions and are likely to have other cations aboard. The mere existence of another cation does not necessarily mean that the specimen qualifies as - in this case - "manganoan." It requires quatatative analysis to determine whether or not the specimen contains a sufficient amount of Mn to qualify as "manganoan." A green flourapatite may well test positive for Mn - but qualify as "Fluorapatite v. manganoan." (I'm not sure what the percentage is that is required. Maybe Pavel knows off the top of his head? But I do know that if the specimen is blue it has enough Mn in it to qualify.

Cheers!

Alan

18th Sep 2006 15:04 UTCAlan Plante

"...quantitative..."

"...but NOT qualify as..."

(That's what I get for posting late at night when my head is nodding...)

:~{

Alan

18th Sep 2006 15:16 UTCAlan Plante

I just read the following in Dana 8th:

"Manganoan varieties are dark green and blue-green." (I would debate the 'blue-green' - seems to me the dark blue manganoan ones I've seen have definetely been dark blue - not 'blue-green.' But, then again, I have not seen every manganoan flourapatite that's been ever analyzed... :~} )

So apparently some dark green flourapatites can have enough Mn in them to qualify as being manganoan. I guess that while you can count on dark blue (to blue-green(?)) fluorapatites being manganoan, you can't count on dark green ones to NOT be manganoan - it would require quantitative chemical analysis to know for sure...

Cheers!

Alan

18th Sep 2006 17:08 UTCPeter Cristofono

Alan, the usage of these terms seems to have been a bit more complicated, historically.

According to Dana 7th:

p.879: "Mangan-fluorapatite Mason (Geol For.Forch., 63, 279 ,1941). Manganapatite pt., some authors."

p.884: "Manganoan. Mangan-fluorapatite. Manganapatite pt. Fluormanganapatite Laubmann and Steinmetz (1920). Contains Mn in substitution for Ca at least up to Mn:Ca = 1:5.7. Color often dark blue-green, with the increased indices of refraction and G."

-Peter

21st Sep 2006 13:36 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Pavel: is the second analysis that of an Mn-bearing hydroxyl-apatite?

21st Sep 2006 18:10 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Uwe, it is possible, though H2O content isn't given.

In these times strict division on fluor-, chlor and hydroxil- wasn't abundant.

For example, Malinko described turneaureite from Solongo as svabite. In the middle of 60th she really hadn't see any difference.

Alan, after some thoughts, it seems to me, that white, greenish and bluish apatites with orange/yellow luminescention can't be named 'manganoan apatite'. They can be named only 'Mn-bearing apatite'. Is sphalerite containing 0.004 % Mn manganoan? No, of course!

So blue and dark blue with greenish tint minerals containing 0.5-5% Mn can be named 'manganoan apatite' = 'manganapatite' or 'manganoapatite' (old term).

Tomorrow I'll analyse and photo one such apatite.

21st Sep 2006 20:31 UTCPeter Cristofono

Pavel, I agree with you and I have changed the 5 photos of mine that were originally labeled "manganapatite", then "manganoan fluorapatite", to simply "fluorapatite." In some of the descriptions I have noted that they are manganese-bearing and fluorescent.

There are still two photos from other contributers in the "Manganoan fluorapatite" gallery.

-Peter

21st Sep 2006 22:16 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Coming to this discussion late, I think we may have taken the wrong route on this.

My view is this:

All those entries currently listed as 'Manganoan Fluorapatite' - ie determined by UV response only - should be moved to the Fluorapatite page. I don't even think, unless anyone really thinks it's that important, that we need to list the fact that they have traces of Mn in them.

We don't list Weardale fluorites as Europian Fluorite - tiny amounts of UV activators do not make a variety.

Then, once the Manganoan Apatite page (for the UV variety) is deleted we should rename the Manganapatite page to Manganoan Apatite (or is it Manganian? Too tired to think), as that apatite with up to 5% Mn is worthy of being listed as a true variety.

Then re-add Manganaptite as a synonym of Manganoan Apatite.

And all will be right with the universe again.

Jolyon

21st Sep 2006 22:21 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Oh... and if you haven't noticed, that's exactly what Alan suggested in the very first message!

Jolyon

21st Sep 2006 22:22 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

caveat.

There should be a note added to the Manganoan Apatite page that states that sometimes the phrase has been used (incorrectly) to describe Apatites that have slight Mn traces that trigger a UV response - but not enough Mn to constitute a true variety of Fluorapatite.

Jolyon

22nd Sep 2006 04:28 UTCAlan Plante

Actually, Jolyon, I suggested it be called "manganoan fluorapatite" - not "manganoan apatite." Then any references to "manganapatite," "mangano-apatite," "manganoan apatite," etc. should be given as a synonym of "manganoan fluorapatite."

The issue is - in my opinion - the mis-use of the Group name ("Apatite") in reference to the specific species - which is "fluorapatite."

I can hear it now: "But what about an Mn-rich hydroxylapatite? Or a similar Mn-rich carbonate-apatite? - Ascribing the Mn varietal descriptor specifically to flourapatite doesn't cover cases such as that." No - and it shouldn't! If there is, in fact, a hydroxylapatite rich enough in Mn to qualify as "manganoan" then the varietal name would be "manganoan hydroxylapatite."

A varietal descriptor can only apply to a single species!!!! - NOT to two or more of them...

Cheers!

Alan

22nd Sep 2006 04:33 UTCAlan Plante

I just noticed that I said:

"The blue fluorapatite due to Mn 3 + is 'fluorapatite v. manganoan'"

I meant, of course, for it to read:

"The blue fluorapatite due to Mn 2 + is 'fluorapatite v. manganoan."

(More late-night fumbling fingers... :~{ )

Alan

22nd Sep 2006 05:51 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Sorry Alan, I was a bit tired too...

You're 100% Right, Manganoan Fluorapatite is what I should have said.

Jolyon

22nd Sep 2006 06:08 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Ok, took an exectuive decision and switched it around the way I thought it should be. We now have one entry for Manganoan Fluorapatite which is a variety of Fluorapatite - this only includes the stuff with significant % of Mn in it - everything else (the UV response stuff) gets thrown back into Fluorapatite. A mention about the misuse of the name added to the new page.

Jolyon

22nd Sep 2006 15:18 UTCPeter Cristofono

Jolyon, the localities listed on the Manganoan Fluorapatite page still include many that should probably not be there. These listings were often added based on older literature, where "manganapatite" sometimes referred to fluorescent Mn-bearing apatite, not true manganoan fluorapatite, as you've defined above.

22nd Sep 2006 15:24 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Yes, this is the problem that Chet was trying to solve with his suggestion above - now, we have entries in the wrong place.

I think the solution though left the mineral names very confusing - and I would rather we tried to do it properly. We also help kill off the unwanted use of the name for the UV fluorescent variety, which is good.

Without checking all the references, I am not sure really the best way to proceed - I am tempted to move all but those clearly defined as a true Manganoan Fluorapatite back to the Fluorapatite page as well.

We need some way to tag potential "problem" species, where if it is added to a locality warning bells go off for management and they can check and validate entries - this is a case where we do not want anyone adding "Manganoapatite" or other similar names - without any verification as to whether it truly is or not.

In the meantime, if anyone sees Manganoapatite (or similar) on a locality list, please use extreme care before adding it. It may be better to send it to the Fluorapatite page.

Jolyon

22nd Sep 2006 15:31 UTCAlan Plante

The application of the term "manganapatite" to the pink, Mn 3+ rich, fluorapatite that Pavel mentioned is a misnomer. As I noted above, fluorapatite that is rich in Mn 3+ should be called "manganian fluorapatite." A different variety. Also, "manganapatite" is STILL a step backwards in the nomencalture because it refers to the Group level rather than the species level.

I would suggest that the note under "manganoan fluorapatite" be changed to read something like: "The term "manganapatite" has also been erroneously used to describe pink to violet fluorapatites which are rich in Mn 3+ rather than Mn 2+. See "manganian fluorapatite," which is the correct varietal name for these.

Also, I think you do need to include both "manganapatite" and "mangan-apatite" in the database - as synonyms for manganoan fluorapatite. Else you will have people either complaining it isn't there or adding it back in. - There are way too many people who think they are valid terms - we see them used on a lot of labels, and even in books and papers...

In their descriptions, I would note that they refer 1) in large part to "manganoan fluorapatite", 2) in some measure to green fluorapatites that fluoresce due to minor Mn 2+, but not sufficient to qualify the materials as "manganoan", and 3) in small part to Mn 3+ rich fluorapatites, which are more correctly termend "manganian fluorapatite." In any event, the term is a slang or shorthand of the correct term, which is "manganoan fluorapatite" - the preferred and scientifically correct term to use.

Give those modifications a try?

Cheers!

Alan

23rd Sep 2006 18:14 UTCAlan Plante

I went on a book mining expedition this morning and dug out my copy of Dana 7th - burried under and behind boxes of rocks on the work table down in the rock room. - No mean feat! :~} (I also *mined* my copies of older volumes of Dana - got them all out into a pile on the floor!)

Dana 7th has the following to say about "Fluorapatite v. manganoan"

- Mn" can substitute for Ca up to at least Mn:Ca = 1:5.7 (approx. 10 weight percent MnO), especially in the fluorapatite of granite pegmatites.

They give analytical data for one Fluorapatite v. manganoan specimen as follows:

- MnO = 5.32 wt. pct. (for a specimen from Varutrask, Sweden).

They also give data for a Hydroxylapatite v. manganoan:

- MnO = 7.50 wt. pct. (same locality).

Interestingly, they do not say anything about a lower limit - under which the material should not be considered "manganoan." While I have long been under the impression that lower limits are typically set at 2-2.5% I don't know if that is a fact. If not - and if, in fact, no lower limit has been established - then those green fluorapatites that fluoresce due to Mn" content may just be qualified to be called "manganoan"...

I included the Hydroxylapatite data above to point out that not only Fluorapatite has been shown to be Mn"-rich in some cases. There is "Hydroxylapatite v. manganoan" as well. I would hazzard the guess that - while much rarer - there is probably "Chlorapatite v. manganoan" as well. - "Hydroxylapatite v. manganoan," at the least, should be entered into the database as a varietal name for Mn"-rich hydroxylapatite. (I wouldn't do the same for chlorapatite until it is known if any Mn"-rich specimens have been found and analized.)

Also, in looking through my older copies of Dana - System, Textbook, and Manual - I see that "manganapatite" was given as a varietal name to Mn"-rich apatites. BUT this was back when "Apatite" was considered to be a species, while the fluor-, chlor- and hydroxyl- variants were considered to be varieties. In that old context, "manganapatite" was a valid varietal name. - It was not until the time of Dana 7th that fluor-, -chlor, and hydroxyl- became recognized as the species and "manganapatite" was replaced with "Fluorapatite v. manganoan."

So I was wrong about "manganapatite" being a slang term: It wasn't!

Today, though, it IS an *out-moded* term. An antiquated synonym (for the most part...) for "Fluorapatite v. manganoan" - which has rightly replaced the older usage as the sceince has progressed.

But the question remains: How little Mn" can a specimen have and be qualified to be called "manganoan"?

Cheers!

Alan

26th Sep 2006 09:10 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

In my mind a minimum for such a % should be in the 1-2% range, certainly not parts-per-million or other such similar amounts that you would expect for UV activators.

Jolyon

26th Sep 2006 11:37 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Elemental substitutions are SO common in minerals that, if we start using them for amounts less than 5% or so, and if we are consistent about it, then the majority of our entries will require modifying elemental adjectives. Do we really want to do that?

26th Sep 2006 16:07 UTCAlan Plante

I agree, Jolyon - and, quite frankly, I'm of the same mind as Alfredo (generically speaking - not necessarily about the case at hand): It ought to be 5% or better, maybe even 10% in some cases. Enough so that the substitution causes some sort of noticable change in the mineral - color, habit, whatever. I personally wouldn't label an Mn-rich fluorapatite as being "v. manganoan" unless it was the deep blue I was taught is a sure indicator that it's Mn-rich. But the literature doesn't seem to support that notion.

Of course, it is also true that some chemical varieties can be very rich in the substituting ion and show no appreciable difference - you only know it is "X"-rich when you analyze it... So I guess the dividing line has to be drawn on a case-by-case basis.

I would certainly agree, though, that UV observations are not definitive - that the percentage of an activator ion can be so minute that it would be absurd to call the mineral by the varietal name based on that alone - the ion probably wouldn't even show up in chemical testing in a great many cases. It would be an indicator that the sample might be worth analyzing to see if it carries enough of the ion to justify using the varietal name - at least you know its present - but not sufficient in itself to tell you that the specimen is the variety in question.

I don't imagine we are going to get an answer to the lower limit question in this case. Maybe the thing to do in the case at hand is is set the definition here at Mindat to 2% and see how long it takes for people to start screaming that its wrong? - People tend to jump on bad data faster than they come forward with good data in cases like this! :~}

KOR!

Alan

26th Sep 2006 16:09 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Dear friends!

I'd upload manganoan fluorapatite from Elash deposit photo - http://www.mindat.org/photo-74488.html

Its grains megascopicaly are dark greenish-blue colour, but microscopicaly its particles ~1 mm size are transparent and blue without greenish tint. MnO content in this apatite vary from 1.78 to 5.10 wt.%. So most manganoan zones have composition (Ca4.64Mn.36)5.003(F.86OH.14).

Unfortunately I can't to find specimen with blue manganoan fluorapatite rims around orange lithiophilite grains from this locality. So I unable to upload its photo right now.

Kind regards,

Pavel

26th Sep 2006 16:26 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

All this discussion should tell us that varietal names are very often useless and superfluous. Why not just have a "Mn-bearing fluorapatite"...?

26th Sep 2006 17:41 UTCRobert Knox

I could't agree with Uwe more! I think that varietal names should only be used if lab tests have been done, or unique and scientifically agreed upon properties are present that define the varietal composition. Correctness is the goal!

This discussion reminded me of an artical I read by Bob Jones in this months Rock and Gem magazine. In it he discusses axinites and suggests that varietal names should be used (for competitive displays) based on the majority of collected specimens for each location. For example axinite from Bourg d'Oisans, France should be labled ferroaxinite and those from Dal'Negorsk, Siberia, Russia, manganaxite. This is based on the curent majority of specimens coming from each site even though both varietals are to found at both locations! His suggestion is seemingly based on frustration in labeling for "fussy" judges at competitive shows. No offence to the esteemed Mr. Jones, but this thinking bothers me. Why have a percentage of incorrect labels just to use a varietal name when if one uses "axinite group" on all specimens not tested, no lable would be incorrect. The same thing should apply to the apatite group.

Bob

26th Sep 2006 18:59 UTCErnst A.J. Burke

Ferro-axinite (with a hyphen!) and manganaxinite, and also magnesioaxinite (without a hyphen!) are not varietal names, but valid mineral names.

26th Sep 2006 19:29 UTCLászló Horváth Manager

Hi,

The recent recommendation on the use of adjectival modifiers in mineral nomenclature (Bayliss et al. 2005 Can.Min. 43, 1429-1433.) states that the old (Schaller) modifiers like manganoan, manganian etc. should no longer be used. Instead it recommends Mn-bearing, Mn-rich, Mn2+-rich etc. adjectival modifiers. This recommendation has the blessing of the IMA and to my knowledge, these are the current rules and editors will expect compliance with these for new papers.

Laszlo

26th Sep 2006 20:14 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Mindat will switch over to using names such as "Mn-Bearing Fluorapatite" shortly.

Currently, it would be shown as

Fluorapatite (var: Mn-Bearing Fluorapatite)

which is probably a bit of a mouthful, so I'm seeing what is the best way to automate this change.

Jolyon

26th Sep 2006 20:16 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Also -

The comment about "Apatite Group", "Axinite Group", "Tourmaline" etc on labels is a good one.

I personally agree 100% - such names are valid on mineral labels (at least for collectors) if one does not know with any degree of certainty what end-member composition your specimen is closest to.

It is far better than just guessing "Elbaite" for example. You might be right 95% of the time... but that's not good enough.

Jolyon

26th Sep 2006 22:58 UTCAlan Plante

Er, Jolyon...

What they are saying is that varietal names should be totally dumped - not perpetuated in any way, shape or form. Saying that ayou have an Mn-bearing fluorapatite is NOT saying that "Mn-bearing" is a varietal name. It is recommended as a *replacement* for the term "manganoan" in an effort to do away with varietal names.

So if you change over to "Fluorapatite v. Mn-bearing" what you have done is given "Mn-bearing" the imprimature of being a varietal name - which is not what they want to happen. You will have upset a whole bunch of people who want the entire concept of "varietal names" to disappear.

I think the recommendation would be to describe ALL varietal names as being antiquated synonyms for the species they are applied to. So someone using Mindat wouldn't see as "Fluorapatite var. manganoan" or "Manganoan Fluorapatite" is being a currently valid term. According to the IMA, it isn't... So the descriuption for "Manganoan Fluorapatite" would become: "An old, out-moded, term for Mn2+-rich flourapatite. It should no longer be used. All fluorapatite specimens should simply be labeled 'Fluorapatite.' If any qualifier is needed, use 'Mn2+-rich.'"

I'm of mixed emotions about doing away with varietal names entirely. On the one hand, they do confuse the hell out of people that don't understand that - say - "Manganoan Fluorapatite" isn't a valid species name. After all, "Carbonate Fluorapatite" is... (Which is why I prefer to use "Fluorapatite var. manganoan", which leaves no question about the species being fluorapatite and the variety being manganoan - it isn't ambiguous.) Yet on the other hand there needs to be some way to distinguish variations within a species - chemical, morphological, optical/color. Imagine what happens if all the varietal and subvarietal names for various quartz purmutations were to disappear? "I've got a neat lavender quartz specimen." "Do you mean what used to be called 'amethyst'?" "No - the cryptocrystalline form that used to be called 'chalcedony.' - It's a very pale lavender, not a deep amethyst." Or even two mineralogists talking: "I'm working on the atomic level structure of some pale rose colored quartz." "You mean rose quartz crystals? - That's known, it's a framework structure." "No, no, I mean a precipitation material composed of SiO4 fibers. - You know, what they used to call 'chalcedony'?"

Basically, I think it is a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left... :~}

Alan

27th Sep 2006 00:17 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I certainly would be the last person to kill off varietal names altogether - however all I was suggesting was that to complete the process we have already started -

Originally we had

Calcite (Var: Manganocalcite)

This changed to

Calcite (Var: Manganoan Calcite)

This could now change to

Calcite (Var: Mn2+ rich Calcite)

That way, we keep the varietal page - we keep the synonyms of that variety, so if someone adds 'manganocalcite' it gets added to the Mn2+ rich Calcite page, everything is as it is now except we use, by preference, a name format that is closer to that which the IMA are advising.

Jolyon

27th Sep 2006 04:28 UTCAlan Plante

Except that you are preserving the "variety" level of the hierarchy - which is what the IMA currently is trying to do away with. On top of that, you are doing it by "co-opting' the method they are trying to invoke to do away with "varieties" - taking their 'Mn2+-bearing' adjective (which is all it is - it's not meant to be a 'varietal' name) and calling it a varietal name by virtue of the fact that you are putting the "v." in front of it.

I think they would be much happier if you didn't use their "variety-killing" nomenclature attempt to perpetuate the very thing they are trying to kill! :~}

You would probably incur less wrath if you stick to "manganoan fluorapatite" - which at least once enjoyed the IMA's CNMMN blessing as a way to denote chemical variations in minerals: Nickel & Mandarino, 1987, Procedures involving the IMA CNMMN, and guidelines on mineral nomenclature, Can Min., v.25, p.353. (Which is the paper I consulted regarding "manganoan" vs. "manganian" for one of my posts above in this thread.) But be advised that that paper was an attempt to straighten out the use of adjectival modifers, not to sanction their use as varietal names. Even then the IMA was trying to eliminate varietal names. I suspect that it was because it created ambiguity - difficult in distinguishing between valid species names and those in which the modifier was only that, not part of a species' name - that the newer approach ('Mn2+-rich') was adopted. Probably also because many people - like me - continue to use the adjectival modifiers as variety names.

At any rate, you invoke "fluorapatite (v. Mn2+-bearing fluorapatite)" at your own peril: *THEY* will not be happy... :~}

Alan

27th Sep 2006 04:52 UTCKarl Volkman Expert

I know nothing of the total situation so i am probably asking for whatever comes of this but here it goes....

Even though they are not using the word "variety" when they recommend the use of any descriptor (Mn2+-rich, Mn3+-rich) they are still condoning the idea of a variety because that is what they are acknowledging with these descriptors. If they wanted to remove the use of "variety" completely they would not use any descriptor as Uwe suggested. I looks like they are attempting to make the variety descriptors more scientifically accurate by incorporating unambiguous nomenclature.

Karl

P.S.

I'm now waiting in my fallout shelter for the results ;)

27th Sep 2006 10:18 UTCPete Nancarrow

Very mixed feelings on this one; not only mangan-apatite, but also some more general observations relating to 'variety'.

Part of the problem is that the term 'variety' itself means different things to different people, and varietal names include many very vague, uninformative and obscure local names, and in the worst cases, at the 'loony fringe' of pseudoscience, deliberately misleading 'mystical' names, which are not helpful to anyone except those trying to hype the marketing of rubbish and take more money from the gullible. They should not just be discouraged, but prosecuted for fraud.

However, in the sane world, apart from those varietal names related to distinct compositional variations, at whatever nomenclature and % ranges are accepted/regulated/defined (mangan/manganoan/Mn2+ - bearing apatite, Cr-diopside, yttrian fluorite etc.), there are also many very long-standing, widely used and well-understood (and dare I say it?) - useful, varietal names, shorthand indicators of some remarkably distinct peculiarities ... character variations? ... distinctive oddities? ... ah, yes, here's a good concise term - 'varieties', of certain minerals, which are well-established in the scientific literature and whose use extends far beyond the mineralogical world, through all grades of textbooks and general reference works and into the vocabulary of the layman (e.g. selenite, satin-spar, rock crystal, flos ferri, amethyst, emerald, ruby, tiger-eye, aventurine etc, etc.). Such names are used to describe particularly distinctive habits, limpid character or distinctive colour related to characteristic inclusions, trace elements or structural effects (colour centres, schiller) etc. I see nothing wrong with the use of these varietal names, so long as the terms are meaningful and universally understood, and most of the above are well-defined in comprehensive standard texts such as Dana 7th ed. Attempts to do away with the use of varietal names such as these, and to change chemical varietal usage from terms such as manganoan or ferrian to Mn2+ or Fe3+ - bearing may seem scientifically correct (SC?) but whatever the IMA may do, it cannot rewrite the existing literature and delete all references to all such names, and the changes could end up being more confusing than useful.

Pete N.

27th Sep 2006 10:40 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

I certainly agree that a small no. of varietal names are very helpful, for various reasons.

I deliberately wrote "very often useless and superfluous" (not "always...").

27th Sep 2006 11:14 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Alan,

We're not going to change the use of varietal names in mindat in a hurry - all I'm doing is making them more palletable to the "professionals" by trying to get naming to match closer to modern approved usage.

27th Sep 2006 16:44 UTCAlan Plante

Then you need a new field: "Adjectival modifiers" Because turning them into "varietal names" does not move Mindat closer to being palletable, it moves it further away.

I think I recommended to you a number of years ago now that you need more fields to deal with nomenclature issues - that cramming everything into "Species", "Variety", "Mixture," and the general-purpose "Synonym" fields would lead to problems - particularly ambiguity ones, but also incorrect usages when something is stuffed into a field it doesn't really belong in - such as "Mn2+-bearing fluorapatite" being added as a "variety".

Also, there needs to be a better way of noting whether or not terms are in current usage or are antiquated/out-moded. As it stands, the only way someone would know that - from the IMA perspective - "manganoan fluorapatite" is an out-moded term would be if whoever enters it or edits it later notes the fact in the description field. I see very, very, few cases of this in Mindat - much more often than not someone using the database comes away with the impression that it is perfectly fine to use a term that really hasn't been used in decades - or since the early 1800s...

I think you know that, on the whole, I think varietal names are needed - I do not advocate eliminating them from Mindat (anymore than I would advocate deleteing all old locality names - and for similar reasons). But I also think that someone, somewhere, needs to get a handle on them - make some sort of sense of the whole mess. Far too many nicknames and slang terms (which are really just another form of nicknames...) are being used as varietal names, when they shouldn't. And far too many collectors - even some with a fairly advanced understanding of mineralogy - do not know how to descriminate between varietal names, adjectival terms, and species names.

When I first discovered Mindat in the mid-90s one of the things that struck me was its potential for educating the collecting community about these things: That this is an excellent tool for giving people access to clear and unambiguous information about what is - and what isn't - a varietal name, or a species name, or a nickname, etc.; and about what is - and isn't - in current usage. I still feel that way. But Mindat has a ways to go before it will be able to achieve that goal - and it has to start with setting up a more carefully reasoned way of inputting and presenting information.

As to the current issue, I'll say it again: "Mn2+-bearing" is NOT a varietal name and should NOT be presented as being one in Mindat by using it in association with "v." or "var." or "variety."

As Eddie Murphy says: "Trust me!" :~}

Alan

PS: If this thread is to continue as a more generic discussion of how to deal with nomenclature issues I would suggest we start a new thread for that purpose. It's starting to take too much time to scroll down to the current posts...

8th Feb 2009 22:37 UTCPhilip Bluemner Expert

Hello,

I read this thread with great enthusiasm.

What I'd like to know is, if the German name "Fluor-manganapatit" is the official one? Manganapatit(e) is indeed irritating and shouldn't be used. Shouldn't it rather be called Mangan-Fluorapatit (or similar) in Geman? I mean, Fluor-manganapatit is pretty near to the justified bedeviled manganapatite. Is there any reference where the official German name is defined?

Why is the name as a whole called Mn...fluorapatite and not ...Apatite-(CaF)? Was the name selected before Fluorapatite was changed to Apatite-(CaF)?

And where does the name Rhodophosphite come from?

Best regards

Philip

8th Feb 2009 23:52 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Philip, You can't say that "Fluor-manganapatit" is the official German name, because there is no institution making decisions about "official" names for varieties! Best not to use varietal names at all but, if you insist on using them, be prepared for much ambiguity and variation in the definitions.

Cheers,

Alfredo

9th Feb 2009 13:53 UTCJim Ferraiolo

Rhodophosphite was described in 1895 by Igelstrom from Horrsjoberg, Wermland (Zeit.Kryst.Min. 25,433-436(1895) along with 'tetragophosphite' ( = lazulite).

Both were discredited by A. Henriques <(Arkiv. Mineral. Geol. 2,371-371(1958)>.

Go to top of page