[Rockhounds] Columbite

[Kreigh Tomaszewski]

The mineral name should be just that, a name. 

If the splitters in the lab discover Leaverite is really two minerals,
one with Ca and one with Na, leave the name Leaverite with one of them,
and give the other a new name. Leaverite and Righttherite.

Or be kind to the lumpers, and make a Leaverite group out of them, and
give both minerals new names. Whereite and Foundite.

But don't get confused and try to make a hybrid name with the chemical
formula. Leaverite-(Ca) and Leaverite-(Na) are just an admission you
don't know the difference between a name and a formula, or that you are
not smart enough to think up a good name or two. Names and formulas are
two different attributes and should not be confused.

It may have started with the rare earths, but we've already reached
apatite-(CaF), and we're on our way to Mica-(KMgOHFAlSiO). It is a
slippery slope. Lets just not go there. At least that is my opinion.

Kreigh

P.S., Mica-(KMgOHFAlSiO) = Phlogopite, a member of the Biotite Group,
and a good example.





Pmodreski at aol.com wrote:
> 
> It was standardized (the original paper was by Levinson himself, back
> several decades ago--but only for the rare-earth minerals.
> 
> Using this system for other minerals was the subject of quite a bit of
> discussion in Tucson; apparently, the authors of the Glossary of Minerals
> unilaterally decided to adopt this system for the mineral names therein, for  many
> mineral groups--apatite, apophyllite, columbite--I haven't checked through  the
> whole Glossary to see how many names they thus altered.  People seemed  to feel
> that it was premature for them to have done this, because there has not  been
> any formal IMA--sanctioned journal article published, stating that "this is
> the agreed-upon way this shall be done".  The sentiment expressed was that
> "the way mineral names are thus written, in the Glossary, has no "official"
> status; it is just one pair of authors' personal opinion as to how they would
> like to see these names used.
> 
> Whereas as I said, this convention has the virtue of the minerals being
> grouped together alphabetically, it has the down sides of dropping some
> long-accepted mineral names, and also, of some of these names becoming quite
> cumbersome--becoming not just a name, but a shorteneed version of the chemical
> formula, which in some cases leads to the question--how the heck do you  pronounce
> this name verbally, without explaining where all the parentheses go  and so
> forth?  For example, the common mineral of the apatite group, which  of course in
> the old days used to be just called "apatite" and we have now  finally just
> about convinved and informed everyone, is properly known as  fluorapatite, is
> now listed in the Glossary as, "apatite-(CaF)".  I'm  really not sure how one is
> supposed to say that when speaking.
> 
> I took a picture of one specimen label in a case at the Tucson Show, which
> did display a specimen of apatite, labeled this way; Apatite-(CaF), from the
> Pea  Ridge mine, Missouri.  It was, of course, in a case of specimens from the
> Royal Ontario Museum (home of both authors of the present edition of the
> Glossary).
> 
> My personal feeling is that this is NOT the most desirable system for
> mineral names, and that there is a good chance that it may not really be adopted
> widely, or that it may be simply ignored.  I kind of hope that this is the
> first and last time I will have seen "apatite-(CaF)" printed on a mineral  label!
> As I say, just my personal opinion on this.  So I would advise  collectors
> and museum NOT to rush out and re-do all their labels.
> 
> Pete Modreski
>