What bothers me is how we got here. It's one thing to have a mineral ID incorrect... we see that a lot. It's also not unheard of to have a locality incorrect, although that seems a bit less common because while the original collector might not know what he's found, he better know where he is. But locality labels do get lost, or aren't recorded, or fail to follow their specimen from owner to owner.

But this was a case of a wrong locality listing wrong rare minerals but nonetheless consistent with the locality. It's as if two correct complete labels (minerals+locality) were switched and attached to their wrong specimens. I suppose that happens sometimes too, but I'd like to know that was the issue rather than the disquieting possibility that rare minerals are being guessed or wished for guessed localities. One of the instructions on the photo upload explicitly says "If rare species are shown, you must explain how they were identified." The bolding is not mine! That check was not done here.