[Rockhounds] Columbite

[Earl R. Verbeek]

Don Halterman wrote:
 
I'm just curious regarding what is the original reference for using 
Levinson modifiers to designate the primary transition metal cation in a

mineral.  I must say it does make good sense if used properly, but I 
don't know if anyone has ever written up and standardized this type of 
usage.
 
Don
 
Hi Don (and list),
 
Here's the reference:
 
Levinson, A.A., 1966, A system of nomenclature for rare-earth minerals:
The American Mineralogist, vol. 51, pp. 152-158.
 
This is the original paper that introduced Levinson modifiers to
rare-earth minerals to reduce the proliferation of new mineral names.
Levinson modifiers have been adopted by the IMA and are now in standard
use.
 
As explained on p. 155 of this paper, “Whenever the rare-earth element
distribution has been determined for a rare-earth mineral, the chemical
symbol for the predominant rare-earth element is appended (by means of a
hyphen), in parentheses, to the group name; this results in a species
name.  Examples:  monazite-(Ce); monazite-(La); gadolinite-(Ce).”
 
As Pete Modreski wrote, there has been a push in recent years, an
increasingly vigorous one, to apply Levinson-type modifiers to other
groups of minerals.  Witness our beloved hancockite being renamed
epidote-(Pb).  You can imagine the chorus of groans over that one in the
Franklin-Sterling Hill area.  Here's the reference:
 
Armbruster, T., Bonazzi, P., Akasaka, M., Bermanec, V., Chopin, C.,
Gieré, R., Heuss-Assbichler, S., Liebscher, A., Menchetti, S., Pan, Y.,
and Pasero, M., 2006, Recommended nomenclature of epidote-group
minerals:  European Journal of Mineralogy, vol. 18, pp. 551-567.

Since we're also having a discussion about diacritical marks (umlauts,
tildes, etc.) in mineral names, here are some more references:
 
Nickel, E.H. and Grice, J.D., The IMA Commission on New Minerals and
Mineral Names:  Procedures and guidelines on mineral nomenclature, 1998:
The Canadian Mineralogist, vol. 36, p. 3-16.
 
Mandarino, J.A., 2007, Diacritical marks in mineral names:
Mineralogical Record, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 193-194.
 
On page 9 of the Nickel and Grice paper appears this statement:
“Diacritical marks should be retained wherever possible . . .”  The
authors go on to state that such marks may be omitted if printing
establishments lack the capability of printing them, but the clear
preference of the IMA is that they be used wherever it is possible to do
so.  Mandarino echoes this (p. 193) by noting that “the official names
for minerals are those approved by the IMA, and diacritical marks abound
among these.  Such marks are . . . essential parts of the root names on
which the mineral names are based.  The IMA does not approve alternate
spellings . . .”  Mandarino also states that because of modern
word-processing systems “there is no longer any excuse for avoiding the
use of them” (diacritical marks).
 
Without diacritical marks we'd be likely to mispronounce roméite,
wouldn't we?  However, in the recent effort to simplify mineral names
I’ve also heard that the question of diacritical marks is being
revisited, and they may yet be abandoned.
 
            Cheers-    Earl Verbeek
 


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---