FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Joan R.]

In the March-April (2008) issue of Mineralogical Record there is an article by Ernst Burke on variations in the nomenclature of certain minerals that had approved by the CNMNC.
From my collector point of view, names like the Apatite have passed from simply Apatite (understood Fluorapatite) to Fluorapatite and now Apatite-(CaF). In this case collectors always had the most widespread common as Apatite and then, when necessary, we said Hydroxylapatite (ie.).

How we must call the Hydroxylapatite when we will buy or talk about it? As Apatite-CaOH? Why some groups have changed the nomenclature and others have preserved prefixes? It would be fairer to write Alluaudite-(Fe) or Ferroallauadite?
In the forum we have good specialists on nomenclature which could give us a little guidance on the subject and probably explain more clearly why these changes. Please help us.

[alfredo]

Joan, You can continue to use "fluorapatite" and "hydroxylapatite", if you like. In my view, names are not an end in themselves, they merely facilitate communication when we talk about other things, and "fluorapatite" and "hydroxylapatite" are perfectly clear terms; we all understand exactly what they mean.

The IMA really made a mess of the new apatite nomenclature, and the IMA itself has conceded that these names will soon need to be changed again (again!), so this "-(CaOH)" monstrosity is only temporary. The reason for adding "Ca", instead of just apatite-F or apatite-OH was just because of the existence of the very rare "strontium apatite", but we now know that "strontium apatite" might be two different species, and might perhaps not be an apatite at all - Redefinition coming, probably, after which the apatite names will be redefined again. So... better keep the old names for the time being, at least we all know what they mean!

[Les Presmyk]

I appreciate Alfredo's observation that nomenclature is a tool to allow us to communicate. I totally agree. There is a problem with these on-going changes as I see it in the real world of competitive exhibits. Collectors are spending real money to produce the nicest labels possible and what is acceptable this year changes next year. In the meantime, it takes constant vigilance to keep track of what is considered proper and what is not.

I realize the emminent scientists who are debating these issues probably do not care about the collector who has to deal with these issues. I am still trying to get my hands around the idea that they make distinctions between apatite that is either fluoro or hydroxyl and yet endlichite is not a separate species from vanadinite.

[Carles Curto]

And I do a new beat on the anvil... Flurorapatite as species (and the other changed names) are not disappeared because the change of name. They will remain in bibliography and in a lot of other supports. They will exist for a long time.

[lluis]

Good afternoon.

I agree completely with Les

With best wishes

Lluís

[John S. White]

Les raises an interesting question about endlichite. I had never given it much thought before but it does appear that by all accounts endlichite should be considered a legitimate species. Genth and vom Rath published analysis of "vanadinites" from Lake Valley, New Mexico (US) back in 1885 in which the arsenic content exceeded the vanadium content, so that should have been enough to establish endlichite as a distinct species. Today, any mineralogist who cares to can redescribe this New Mexican material or samples from other localities and it should be easy to argue that endlichite is a species. One can't simply "grandfather" in a name based upon old analyses.

Of course the current IMA may insist that the mineral be called apatite (PbAsCl) instead.

[alfredo]

If As-dominant, wouldn't that just be a V-rich mimetite? (assuming we continue to split series in the middle)

[lluis]

Good point, Alfredo

And, what about the "new"wiluite? Before it was vesuvianite. And I see no reason to be a different member (analysis in hand, I mean)
Or wendwilsonite, that only could be determined by wet analysis. And, even worse, being zonal, perhaps you have analyzed the only wendwilsonite in the roselite jungle...
Or .......

Split hairs is nice in oratoria.
Not so much in science

For zeolites new nomenclature, I felt always as what would happen if we ask for redefinition of snow to a esquimo group..A big headache for us....

With best wishes

Lluís

[John S. White]

Alfredo is absolutely correct, and I am embarrassed. I didn't do my homework before writing that last bit. Yes, if arsenic is dominant, the mineral is mimetite and there appears to be be complete solid solution between vanadinite and mimetite, leaving no room in the middle for something like endlichite, since the mineral community is disinclined to allow for three members in a single series. My mistake.

[Pete Modreski]

Glad that we all got straight about what "endlichite" is!

F.M. Endlich was such a prominent mineralogist of the late 19th century--his many publications about Colorado mineralogy and his work with the F.V. Hayden Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories--that it's too bad that it wasn't a "real" mineral species named after him. Nonetheless, the varietal term endlichite is well embedded in the literature and is much used and known to mineralogists and collectors, so his name does live on in that way, as well as through his many mineralogic publications.

I was quite surprised when I read Lluis' comment about wiluite; I had to immediately look this up in the Glossary of Minerals and on Mindat--I had always seen specimens of "wiluite" for sale by Russian dealers, but had always assumed that this was just a local variety name for vesuvianite, found at that locality by the Wilui River in Yakutia. Its authentification as a distinct separate mineral species had escaped me--what do you know! And evidently this has actually been around for quite a few years as a valid species (since 1997). It's always nice to clear up a blank or a misconception in one's knowledge.

I also feel that "fluorapatite" and the like will continue to be widely used as mineral names that are clearly understood by all and cause no confusion, and I likewise look forward to some future wise decisions by the I.M.A. nomenclature committee to recognize and legitimatize these names. So I would also not counsel any collectors or curators to run about, refabricating the labels in their mineral displays.

Cheers to all, Pete Modreski

[Les Presmyk]

I appreciate Pete's comments and agree. There is still the issue of what the American Federation of Mineral Societies (AFMS), dealers and collectors do with the information. I have lived through the transition from when everything was just apatite to the various distinct species including fluorapatite. The difficulty again becomes what is acceptable not just to the collecting fraternity but some accommodation needs to be made for the exhibitors who are trying to keep up with what is acceptable to the Federation judging powers. I am not defending the Federation's position but I am concerned about the frustrations that exhibitors experience when trying to make sure their labels are accurate. I don't expect a solution from this discussion just trying to keep up the awareness. Obviously, there is no one from the AFMS who reads this.

Also, I think there is a credibility issue with the entity who claims responsibility for naming minerals. This should be scientific but it seems more artistic or politicially driven. Other areas of science have their naming structures, are they constantly changing names as well?

[Jordi Fabre]

This is a chaos. Just to give an example: according the last edition of the Fleischer's Glossary of Mineral Species (2008) the Carbonate-fluorapatite is a "not valid" mineral species, but if you use the official IMA list:

https://www.geo.vu.nl/users/ima-cnmmn/MINERALlist.pdf

the Carbonate-fluorapatite is there, as a mineral species.

Too much!

Jordi