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.orgCerium IMA status incorrect?

22nd Apr 2024 13:06 UTCVik Vanrusselt Expert

Hello all,

the IMA status of Cerium (https://www.mindat.org/min-46643.html) is currently set to "approved, questionable".

However, according to Mr Ernst A.J. Burke, in his recent article (Burke, E.A.J. (2024) Van een terril via een vulkaan naar de maan. Geonieuws: 49(5): 117-128. (in Dutch)),

1) Bogatikov et al. (2002) never submitted Cerium to the IMA for examination and/or approval.

2) Moreover, Bogatikov et al. only had a chemical spectrum of their supposed cerium grain, which is simply not enough info to submit it to the IMA for approval.

3) Mokhov et al. (2015) examined the same material as Bogatikov et al. (2002) with better equipment. They found an elongated particle of 2.5 μm (their figure 4) which was enriched in Ce, but they remained in doubt whether it was an oxide or a carbide.

4) Therefore, the 'approved' IMA status of cerium should be changed, and its occurrence/existence at the TL should be considered "doubtful".

References used in Mr Burke's article:

Bogatikov, 0. A., Gorshkov, A. I., Mokhov, A. V. Kartashov, P.M., Ashikhmina, N. A. and Magazina, L. 0. (2002): New Finds of Native Metals in a Lunar Regolith from the Crises Sea. Transactions (Doklady) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Earth Science Section 382 (2002), 83.

Mokhov, A. V., Gornostaeva, T. A., Kartashov, P. M., Bogatikov, O. A. (2015) Selective europium and cerium phases in the regolith of mare crisium. Doklady Earth Sciences, 465 (1) 1143-1146 doi:10.1134/s1028334x15110069

Vik

22nd Apr 2024 14:12 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Therefore, the 'approved' IMA status of cerium should be changed, and its occurrence/existence at the TL should be considered "doubtful".

Done, as well as addding missing refs. and updating description.

22nd Apr 2024 14:45 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

The status of Cerium on the IMA list http://cnmnc.units.it/master_list/IMA_Master_List_%282024-03%29.pdf

and the RRUFF website https://rruff.info/ima/#

both list cerium as "Questionable Mineral Species" (along with another 96 species) so the IMA does recognize some named minerals as questionable. Neither the IMA or Mindat count these as IMA approved minerals.

22nd Apr 2024 14:53 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Isn't everything that is not IMA approved questionable?

22nd Apr 2024 15:51 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

We need an urgent clarification as to whether the minerals listed with a Q status on the IMA master list are regarded as IMA species or not. If they are not then we have 76 other entries that need the IMA approval flag removed from them on mindat.

22nd Apr 2024 16:36 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Q = questionable (it applies to poorly characterized minerals, whose validity could be doubtful).

Most of these are pre 1959.

22nd Apr 2024 16:54 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

David Von Bargen Manager ✉️

Q = questionable (it applies to poorly characterized minerals, whose validity could be doubtful).

Most of these are pre 1959.

A pre-1959 questionable species should not be considered valid. Because the IMA decided to keep on the approved list all those pre-1959 species that were "generally accepted as valid", so, if it has been questioned it is ipso facto not generally accepted and therefore does not fulfil the requirements for being "grandfathered".

22nd Apr 2024 18:15 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I think the problem is a terminology difference between "IMA accepted/recognised" species and "IMA approved". The IMA list contains a large number of things that are not approved

22nd Apr 2024 19:56 UTCEddy Vervloet Manager

I just returned home from a trip, so I have to double check later, but I recently had a talk with Ernst Burke about this. It gets a bit semantical, but if I remember well, ALL species on the IMA list are 'valid'. All valid species from before 1959 were 'grandfathered'. Species that were questionable at that time were removed from the list. After 1959 new species were 'approved'. That means the commission has voted in favor of the species. So a 'valid' species is either grandfathered OR approved. After that a species can get discredited, renamed or redefined. I believe the IMA can 'accept' a proposal, but does not 'accept' a species... it is all terminology, indeed... I will check tomorrow, but this is how I remember it.

22nd Apr 2024 19:57 UTCEddy Vervloet Manager

The IMA list contains a large number of things that are not approved

Not sure what you mean by this, but indeed, grandfathered species were not approved...

Go to top of page