Epidote, epidote-(Sr) and hancockite have all been reported from here. So clearly "epidote group" is valid. I added this to the list because for some specimens, the dominant specis can not be determined without WDS.
| Reference Type | - plain text - | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Original Entry | Epidote, epidote-(Sr) and hancockite have all been reported from here. So clearly "epidote group" is valid. I added this to the list because for some specimens, the dominant specis can not be determined without WDS. | ||
| Mindat Ref. ID | 16090299 | Long-form Identifier | mindat:1:5:16090299:6 |
| GUID | 0 | ||
| Full Reference | Epidote, epidote-(Sr) and hancockite have all been reported from here. So clearly "epidote group" is valid. I added this to the list because for some specimens, the dominant specis can not be determined without WDS. | ||
| Plain Text | Epidote, epidote-(Sr) and hancockite have all been reported from here. So clearly "epidote group" is valid. I added this to the list because for some specimens, the dominant specis can not be determined without WDS. | ||
Map of Localities
Mineral Occurrences
| Locality | Mineral(s) |
|---|---|
| Franklin Mine, Franklin, Sussex County, New Jersey, USA | ⓘ Epidote Group |
See Also
These are possibly similar items as determined by title/reference text matching only.



