John S. White
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1295
Location: Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, USA
|
 Posted: Jun 08, 2007 09:32 Post subject: The Nomenclature Debacle |
|
|
In response to Lluis' suggestion I am happy to supply the text of my article that appeared in Rocks & Minerals. Included is a reply from the secretary of the New Minerals and Minerals Names Commission of the IMA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE: The Nomenclature Debacle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Mineralogical Association’s Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names(CNMMN) has been actively tinkering around with mineral names for the last forty or so years. It has been unfairly, I believe, criticized for officially favoring one name over another where ambiguities have existed, such as titanite over sphene, vesuvianite over idocrase and spessartine over spessartite, grossular over grossularite and celestine over celestite, but there are very few examples where this has occurred and, for the most part, this has not been too much of an inconvenience. However other, often more recent, changes threaten to make most introductory mineral textbooks largely obsolete because familiar common names that appear in most of them are no longer found in references such as Fleischer’s Glossary of Mineral Species. You want examples? How about apatite, apophyllite, axinite, chlorite, hypersthene, scapolite, serpentine, tantalite, and wolframite? Much of this is because of the failure of the mineralogical community to develop an hierarchical system, a system wherein there exist categories or classes of names that can be used depending upon how much is known about the composition and structure of a particular mineral specimen.
The apophyllite series represents a fine example of how the CNMMN has dropped the ball. When hydroxyapophyllite was introduced (Dunn, Rouse and Norberg, 1978), how much more sensible it would have been if the CNMMN had insisted that the authors reconsider and name their OH-rich end-member apophyllite-(OH) or apophyllite-OH. At the time the description was submitted I argued strenuously with one of the authors for this change, but to no avail. After all, this has been done effectively with many other minerals, such as florencite-(Ce), florencite-(La) and florencite-(Nd) as well as many members of the monazite group. To compound the sin, the same paper also proposed naming the other end of the series fluorapophyllite rather than apophyllite-(F) or apophyllite-F. What this means now is that if one attempts to search for apophyllite in Fleischer, it can’t be found, leaving the uninformed to wonder what happened to apophyllite. Alternatively, if OH and F had been applied as suffixes instead of hydroxyl and fluor as prefixes, not only would the two appear next to each other in an alphabetical listing, but it would be immediately clear that these are likely end members of a solid solution series. Natroapophyllite, described later, would also be grouped with its related species if it’s name were changed to apophyllite-(Na) or apophyllite-Na.
The worst imaginable nightmare was introduced when the CNMMN agreed to adopt the amphibole classification of Bernard E. Leake, et al (1997). This unfortunate “contribution” to mineral nomenclature, a radically new classification of perhaps the major group of mineral species has created a quagmire of complexity that none but those equipped with the most sophisticated analytical instrumentation can utilize in attempting to organize their amphibole species in an orderly fashion; indeed, in even attempting to assign meaningful names to them. Gone from the listing is hornblende, it has simply disappeared.
We now have such delightful and user-friendly names as sodic-ferro-anthophyllite, potassic-magnesiosadanagaite, or ferri-clinoferroholmquistite. In order to assign the first of these names to a particular amphibole we not only have to establish that there is sodium present above, but not exceeding, a certain amount, but we also have to do the same with iron and we also have to establish the oxidation state of the bulk of the iron. Piece of cake, right?
Even more radical, the Leake, et al., classification has ventured into new territory. They have proposed mineral names for species that haven’t even been discovered yet, and these fantasy names have been included in some editions of Fleischer’s Glossary of Mineral Species. Mandarino (1998) writes “we now have a wonderfully constructed set of pigeonholes, but we are not sure that there are pigeons in each of these.” In fact, of the 82 names included in the list (Mandarino says that there are 75), there are 21 fictitious ones, some 25(+) percent! So, while we now have the apparently legitimate species fluorocannilloite, the name cannilloite has now been reserved for the hydroxyl-dominant analogue IF it should ever be found. Of course, in any alphabetical listing, the two are not adjacent because the CNMMN, in its infinite wisdom, prefers using prefixes instead of suffixes with all of the amphiboles.
Consistency, by the way, is not part of the CNMMN picture, at least with the use of the hyphen. You will note that fluoro-ferroleakeite (with hyphen) is sandwiched in between fluorocannilloite and fluororichterite (no hyphen). The CNMMN is also inconsistent with respect to the use of parentheses when modifiers appear as suffixes. While we have allanite-(Ce) and allanite-(Y), we also have chabazite-Ca, chabazite-K and chabazite-Na. Wouldn’t it be simpler if all were enclosed in parentheses or all were not? I prefer not; it is two less characters per name.
The columbite group does not exist anymore, it too has just gone away. In older Fleischer Glossaries there were listings following both columbite and tantalite, referring the reader to ferrocolumbite, magnocolumbite, manganocolumbite, etc. Not any more! If you look for columbite in today’s Glossary you find nothing. How extraordinarily useful that is!
What can be done? Sadly, I see no hope to reverse this relegation of old familiar nomenclature to the status of trivia. One might argue that the number of species names that have been discarded or altered so that they are difficult to find is relatively small when compared to the 3,000 or so species names that currently exist. True, but names like apatite, apophyllite, chlorite, serpentine, and tantalite are very common names that appear frequently in the world of a beginning collector so their absence from references can only lead to frustration.
There are at least a couple of books that have been published to lead the dedicated collector through this maze, but I don’t see relatively new collectors or moderately casual collectors acquiring copies of either de Fourestier’s Glossary of Mineral Synonyms or Bayliss’s Glossary of Obsolete Mineral Names in order to sort through this mess. One thing that the CNMMN could very easily do that would help immeasurably is to drop all of the modifying prefixes and make suffixes of them. Then, at least, apophyllite-(OH) or apophyllite-OH and apophyllite-(F) or apophyllite-F (take your pick!) would become neighbors once again in an alphabetical listing. And they could strive for more consistency.
-----
Dunn, P. J., Rouse, R. C. and Norberg, J. A. 1978. Hydroxyapophyllite, a new mineral, and a redefinition of the apophyllite group. The American Mineralogist, vol. 63, pp. 196-202.
Leake, B. E., et al. (21 co-authors) 1997. Nomenclature of amphiboles: Report of the subcommittee on amphiboles of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. The American Mineralogist, vol. 82, pp. 1019-1037.
Mandarino, J. A. 1998. The second list of additions and corrections to the Glossary of Mineral Species (1995). Mineralogical Record, vol. 29, pp. 169-174.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE: Let’s Get It Right: The Nomenclature Debacle, A Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My recent column “The Nomenclature Debacle” generated a remarkable volume of letters, all of them supportive except for the following from Dr. William (Bill) D. Birch, senior curator of geosciences at the Museum in Victoria, Australia. His thoughtful and well-reasoned letter is being presented here as a substitute for this issue’s column. It is reassuring that he hasn’t beaten up too bad on me, and in many instances it would appear that we are much in agreement.
Mineral nomenclature — is it really that bad?
John White’s article (Rocks & Minerals, volume 79, pages 192–3) on the ‘nomenclature debacle’, as he puts it, which affects mineralogy, deserves a response. As I’m currently Secretary of the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (CNMMN) and have been involved with the Commission’s work since 1984, it’s appropriate that I have a go at explaining how some of these problems have arisen. Firstly, a little background on the CNMMN! At present, there are 30 countries represented and each member is expected to vote monthly on a batch of anywhere between 4 and 10 new mineral proposals. The data and the name for each mineral must be approved by a two thirds majority of the members who vote. From time to time members are also asked to comment and vote on proposals to discredit or redefine existing minerals based on new data. As well, the Commission regularly establishes expert subcommittees to investigate the nomenclature for particular mineral groups (pyroxene, zeolite, eudialyte, etc.) and to recommend changes.
One thing the Commission doesn’t do in its own right is publish glossaries or encyclopaedia. It has negotiated an agreement with a private company to publish a list, available on the Commission’s website, of all CNMMN-approved species. But what may not be clear from John’s article is that Fleischer’s Glossary of Mineral Species is not published on behalf of or sanctioned by the Commission. Obviously there is a link through Joe Mandarino, who edits the glossary and is also a Chairman Emeritus of the CNMMN. He makes every endeavour to ensure that all relevant entries are an accurate record of CNMMN decisions. However, the exclusion from the glossary of such common names such as apatite, apophyllite, axinite, chlorite, etc. has nothing to do with the Commission. There is no reason at all why these names couldn’t be included if the editor thought it was appropriate to do so in some way.
This leads me to make a point about the role of Fleischer’s Glossary in mineralogy today! There is no doubt that it makes a great contribution to our science, through its completeness and accuracy, not to mention its convenience. But it’s basically still a list, albeit a detailed one, and no one seriously interested in mineralogy, be they collector or dealer, should rely solely on it for all their mineralogical information. Sure, the “relatively new collector or the moderately casual collector” might have a few problems tracing names, but why should we pitch the nomenclature of our science at this level, as John implies we do? Surely there are very few novice collectors who want to stay that way! Trawling back through glossaries and encyclopaedia to trace the origin and subsequent history of mineral names is one of the great attractions of our science, even more so because it is possible to follow such trails relatively easily using the wonderful historical literature available. I include the modern glossaries of Jeffrey de Fourestier and Peter Bayliss (see references in original column) amongst this literature and they are ideal companions to Fleischer, Dana, Strunz, etc. Many of the common names John yearns for are not buried very deeply in the literature, so I find it hard to picture even a novice collector getting too frustrated at not finding these names in Fleischer.
A major point of John’s article is aimed at the inconsistent approach by the Commission to the use of prefixes and suffixes in mineral names. It’s difficult to defend this situation, so I won’t try too hard. But it should be remembered, and emphasized, that decisions on mineral names have been under the CNMMN’s auspices for only about 40 years— just 20% of the period in which minerals have been named and described. Changing a mineral name, even by removing a hyphen or by ‘anglicising’, can be a complex and emotive process, as individual and in some cases national loyalties can be involved and there are often ramifications for other mineral names. Achieving the necessary 2/3 majority of members to effect a change can be very difficult. The Commission cannot insist that a proposer makes a change to a name unless it is armed with this majority as a weapon. In cases where suggested names are queried by members of the Commission, the proposers may be asked to reconsider, but that’s just about all we can do. I say ‘just about’ because the Commission has taken a stand against mineral names with political overtones, such as where countries are reflected in the name.
It would be great to be able to act unilaterally and make some of the changes John suggests. For example, the consistent use of hyphens, the removal or retention of diacritical marks and use of standard suffixes and prefixes are all matters that the Commission has debated. However, when that majority agreement to bring about change has not eventuated, we’ve had to move on. On several occasions the Commission has endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to gain majority approval to extend to other groups the so-called Levinson system, which adds the symbol of the major rare earth element in parentheses as a suffix to the root or trivial name, as in allanite-(Ce) for example. There was a real battle to have it accepted for minerals of the whiteite group and a modified version, without the parentheses, was adopted for the zeolite group nomenclature scheme. With the benefit of hindsight, the Commission probably should have insisted that the zeolite subcommittee adopted exactly the same format as the Levinson system, i.e. with the parentheses, but I don’t think that particular inconsistency is a major problem.
John uses some names from the amphibole group to highlight his concerns. It’s true that some of these names present a soft target, but they have to be seen in the context of a very complicated group of minerals in which there are several structural sites and numerous exchangeable cations. Because we now have the techniques to accurately determine the nature of these sites and the cations that go in them, the ‘good old days’ of hornblende and actinolite are long gone. I do have a confession to make here though, because the current nomenclature scheme was introduced early in my time as Secretary and my name is attached to it because I pushed Bernard Leake and his colleagues very hard to complete their report. The amphibole subcommittee had been working for over 10 years on updating the original scheme and it was time to get something ruled off. Of course naming them might have been made a bit easier if a Levinson-style scheme had been adopted. It wasn’t, for some of the reasons I outlined above. Even if it had though, it would have had its own complications, because in some cases the root or trivial name would have been followed by a string of cations (such as Na, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Al) in a very precise order enclosed in the parentheses. And this system would not have assisted mineralogists, be they professional or amateur, in identifying any particular amphibole mineral shoved under their noses or their microscopes! X-ray diffraction, electron microprobes and single crystal studies would still be needed in most cases. Perhaps as a comfort to John, I suspect that, eventually, some form of the Levinson scheme will be applied to amphiboles, but whether it’s in his or my lifetime I’m not willing to bet!
Although it wasn’t covered by John’s critique, there is one aspect of mineral naming for which I am prepared to gently chastise the CNMMN over its acquiescence. This concerns the approval of double names of the form ‘billybloggsite’. I acknowledge that the people these names honour are all very worthy and have made notable contributions but, to me, names like this do nothing to raise the status of our science and I always voted against them. Please forgive me if I’ve offended any readers!
Above all else though, it should not be forgotten that the global approval system administered by the members of the CNMMN ensures that mineralogy is one of the most regulated and disciplined of the ‘taxonomy-based’ natural sciences. Its work allows both professionals and amateurs to place great confidence in the veracity of the modern mineralogical literature. Problems over inconsistencies in some areas of nomenclature are minor when viewed in this context. The Commission is very mindful of the need for its decisions to be transparent, hence its annual published updates of new minerals approved and its informative website (www.geo.vu.nl/users/ima-cnmmn/).
In conclusion, John’s insistence on the need for consistency in mineral nomenclature is important and, over time, I suspect that many of the problems he identifies will be sorted out. In the meantime, I encourage all mineral-lovers, from the wide-eyed novice to the crustiest of curators, to regularly bury themselves in the rich literature of our science. After all, what’s in a name?
William (Bill) D. Birch
Senior Curator (Geosciences)
Museum Victoria
1 June 2004
Counter response
It is very tempting to try to respond to all points made by Dr. Birch, but that would extend this to excessive lengths. Some rebuttal, however, is in order. His comment “why should we pitch the nomenclature of our science at this level” (the relatively new collector or the moderately casual collector) implies that I favour a “dumbing-down of the nomenclature. This is far from the case. Rather, I favour a tightening-up of the nomenclature so that it is rational, consistent and convenient. Also, in writing “decisions on mineral names have been under the CNMMN’s auspices for only about 40 years— just 20% of the period in which minerals have been named and described” is a bit of a red herring. It implies that there were lots of hypens in mineral names prior to the CNMMN’s involvement in the naming process, and that these names have been grandfathered into today’s nomenclature. I ran a quick survey of the minerals in Fleischer’s Glossary (2004) beginning with a, b or c and found only one with a hyphen that predated the CNMMN, while 60 (sixty) with hyphens were introduced after the CNMMN began its deliberations, one of which even had a double hyphen!
Yes, it may indeed be difficult to get the CNMMN to endorse more consistency in mineral names, but I firmly believe that important changes could be effected if the effort were pushed more aggressively. Thank you, Bill, for a fine letter.
_________________
John S. White
aka Rondinaire |
|
FAQ 
Register
Log in
Forgotten your password?
