[Rockhounds] Re: What Is A Mineral? + ... Jade

[Al Balmer]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:11:57 -0400, pmodreski at aol.com wrote:

>Well, when someone is studying or writing/talking about some earth materials, it sure does help if the terminology they are using means the same to everyone!? We do get problems as to exactly what different people are referring to, when they start talking about such things as sunstone or moonstone or semi-opal (some of those confusions have appeared on this listserv).

As often happens, I didn't make myself clear. I understand the need
for precise identification of minerals, but is there really a need to
define the boundaries of the science so sharply? It seems to me that
the fuzzy edges we're discussing here are always going to exist, no
matter how we try to refine the definitions.
>
>Along the lines of which, this reminds me that I recently read in a discussion (not on Rockhounds I don't think, somewhere else) about semantics problems about what is "jade".? I have always used the terminology that there are two different minerals which can be called "jade", nephrite jade (nephrite being a variety of tremolite-actinolite amphibole) and jadeite (it being a separate mineral in the pyroxene family, NaAlSi2O6).? I was surprised to recently read that some gemological "purists" are now taking the position that only jadeite is TRUE jade, and that they would like to refer to the other always as "nephrite jade".? (Personally, I still think they are both "jade"!)
>
>Pete
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Al Balmer <albalmer at att.net>
>To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
>Sent: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:53 pm
>Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Re: Organic/Inorganic: What Is A Mineral? + Marsminerals
>
>
>
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:53:47 -0400, "Earl R. Verbeek"
><everbeek at sterlinghillminingmuseum.org> wrote:
>
>>I realize that these things conform neither to the scientific nor
>>(sometimes) the legal definition of "mineral", but that's how I think about
>>them.  It's just a practical consideration that influences what I collect
>>and what I don't.
>
>You bring up another question. What's in a name? Obviously, you can
>study whatever subset of the universe you like. It may be convenient
>to have an accepted label to discuss it with other people, but how
>important is it that the boundaries of that label be precisely
>defined?
>

-- 
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ