FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Pete Richards]

[John S. White]

[rweaver]

John

Not to pick a point but that was on the orgnial label from the Ray Thompson collection when iI got from Havey Gorden back in 1989. Over the last 40+ years of collecting you and I both know names change for no other reason then just because someone can. Look at Celestine vs Celestite. Tourmaline, what is the correct name for all of them? You go with what you are given at the time and live with it, In this case pick one they are both from the same family anyway.

[John S. White]

Bob:

I know that, and my comment may seem trivial, but I have been waging a personal campaign against the improper use of the term selenite for years, and I have even written a column for Rocks & Minerals about it. Just because it was on the original label does not mean that it has to be perpetuated, I am old-fashioned enough to believe that terms should mean something. What is the point of selenite being synonymous with gypsum? If there is no difference, the term selenite should be abandoned altogether.

The difference between celestite and celestine is but spelling. There is no other implied distinction.

Not sure what you mean about tourmaline. That is a group name and any member of that group can be properly labelled tourmaline. If one knows the species, then the species name is preferred, but knowing the species and calling it tourmaline is not incorrect.

[Jordi Fabre]

I strongly recomend this topic: "Using mineral names" -> https://www.mineral-forum.com/message-board/viewtopic.php?t=576 I believe most aspects of this discussion were already discussed there.

BTW, I splitted this posts from the Nebraska's thread ( https://www.mineral-forum.com/message-board/viewtopic.php?t=1602 ) creating this new topic: "Right names for minerals"

Bob, according IMA ( https://pubsites.uws.edu.au/ima-cnmnc/MINERALlist.pdf ) the "official" name (today;-) for "Selenite" is Gypsum.
Crosstimber, I agree with Pete about the "Pyrite after Marcasite", in my oppinion too it could be Pyrite.

Bob, Crosstimber, If you agree, I can change both names in your posts, please let me know. Thank you so much!

[Peter Megaw]

Talk about apples and oranges! There are a lot of crossed threads here. At the risk of being pedantic...something I have been accused of before...here goes

As John points out, Tourmaline is a GROUP name encompasing a large number of species like elbaite, dravite, buergerite etc. (See Barb Dutrow et al's recent reorganization/clarification of the tourmaline group nomenclature for the full list). The conventional scientific level of discussion/focus is at the species level not the group level, but popular use of Tourmaline and Garnet instead of elbaite and grossular tends to lead to them being incorrectly thought of as varieties instead of species. The basic message is that it is important not to confuse the formal group-species heirarchy with the informal species-variety heirarchy.

Celestine (formerly Celestite) is a SPECIES that underwent a spelling change because the IMA found/decided that the "ine" ending had precedence and we always honor the first published=original name if the species was correctly described. Publication in a recognized scientific journal is the critical point. A more radical example of this might be the abandonment of idocrase in favor of vesuvianite. Titanite vs sphene also comes to mind.

Selenite is a VARIETY of gypsum. Varieties are informal names with no "official" standing. Think of them as nicknames and John as the grade school teacher who disliked calling a student by anything but their given name. They can however convey useful information...selenite implying transparency...but must be correctly applied or they become meaningless. When all horses are called bays, bay loses meaning.

My personal pet example of this whole thing is the abominable perpetuation of the name "endlichite". Originally defined as a species back when selected intervals across a continuum of compositional variations could qualify as species, endlichite was defined as the midpoint between vanadinite and mimetite. Although the type material for endlichite (Macy Mine in New Mexico) was light yellow stubby crystals, somehow the name got applied to elongate brown material from Los Lamentos & Aurora in Mexico and some US localities...most all of which we now kinnow are only slightly arsenian vanadinite. Although endlichte was discredited as a species, the name still lingers in some minds to these distinctive crystals as a "variety" of vanadinite even though these never qualified as endlichite in the first place.

Sorry, I'm on the road and can't post a picture of "endlichite"

[John S. White]

Here is one that I observed this past Tucson. What next?

[rweaver]

All being said and done all we can do is say "It is what it is" and "agree to disagree". I for one do not belive in change for change just because we can. We lose to much history of what was. What was right 20 years ago changes but does that make it right today. I have Red Cloud Wulfentites in my collection that are still label Yuma Co., because that is the correct location for the time period they where collected. I have this Endlichite in my collection that matches the label. Will I change to label to Vanadinite no, since it will know longer be what it was. I have been a quite collector for over 40 years and this has always been going on. I collect for me and believe history should be persevered.

[Michael Shaw]

[Carles Millan]

[lluis]

Good evening, Carles, Mr. Sampson-White, group

Well, the green amethysts always get me rising an eyebrown...
But sad fact is that in jewelry, name is accepted.
And I am not sure, but I would swear that are treated quartz (if natural...)
Lapis adverted two years ago about those mistifications...

But....

Sad times for collectors (and I collect also coins....Minerals is a clean field...The other, a mine field)

Lluís

[lluis]

Hi, Rweaver, group

I have also endlichites. Fom Ahumada and from other sites.
Just that my file places : vanadinite, var. endlichite. And explains a little, just for the wellness of my heirs.... :-)

I am not a fan of IMA (being polite, I abhore of them...) but if we try to stick to a common nomenclature, that would make things easier....

And a label explaining all we know, is a great help for the heirs (we are not immortal... :-); just temporary custodians of a collection. More is explained, more is preserved.)

With best wishes

Lluís

[Carles Millan]

If someone googles "green amethyst" (with quotes) more than 800,000 finds will be shown at this moment. And searching "pink amethyst" will produce near 400,000. Not to mention "red amethyst" and "yellow amethyst". So it is indeed a rather common mistake, mostly made in the jewelry sector.

[lluis]

I have only one answer

Ughhhhhh!

I like jewelry.
But, could we stick to accepted names? Or that people be true enough to say that are treated /artificial/man made stones...
Just to make life easier to all

And beleive me, I am a fan of Bakunin and Kropotkin. But some "decorum" is always usefull

With best wishes

Lluís

[Peter Megaw]

rweaver...I would certainly never advocate trashing your old labels, but adding one that is correct with respect to modern understanding is always appropriate. This is not an example of change for changes sake, but recognition that our systems of classification and nomenclature must evolve as we understand more about how things work. Once we learn the difference between granite and limestone, simply calling them rocks is no longer an accurate or useful reflection of our state of knowledge.

Lluis: My point was that the vanadinites from Lamentos NEVER satisfied the intended compositional definition of endlichite and that perpetuating the name by applying it to a morphological habit of something that is compositionally wrong is piling misconception on error.

Words and concepts that have been superceded or proven wrong should simply be dropped from the vocabulary. Phlogiston anyone???

To the others: rockhound and lapidary names are marketing tools plain and simple applied to ensnare the unwary...amusing, but hardly worthy of our attention

To some others...looks like it was octahedral pyrite to me...interesting to know if there's elevated arsenic here as many of the world's octahedral pyrites come from arsenic-rich environments.