[Rockhounds] fossils[ history of luminescent identification?]

[jb]

Kreigh Tomaszewski wrote:
> Earl,
>
> The problem is that none of the (common) databases or field guides I 
> know of include fluorescence information (except in a few rare cases).
>
> I appreciate its use in localities like Franklin, but it has not 
> generally reached the literature. I've got a paper somewhere in my 
> bookshelf that identifies the 32 most common minerals at Franklin by 
> fluorescence, but it is pretty unusual.
>


That probably would be Wilkerson (The Minerals of Franklin and Sterling 
Hill, New Jersey by Albert S Wilkerson, New Jersey Geological Survey, 
Bulletin 65, 1962) who cites Felix Mutsche' s list (Mutsche, Felix E., 
Rocks and Minerals, Sept-Oct, No. 242, pp. 482-485, 1954).

The earliest citation I can find from Palache (The Minerals of Franklin 
and Sterling Hill Sussex County, New Jersey by Charles Palache, 
Geological Survey Professional Paper 180, United States Government 
Printing Office, 1934?, Reprinted 1960) is his paper of 1928 in the 
American Mineralogist, vol. 13, pp 330-333, "The phosphorescence and 
fluorescence of Franklin minerals").  Interestingly, he makes no mention 
of the properties in the main text  of the paper.  Apparently it was 
thought by him to be more of a curiosity than anything else.

The interesting thing about these studies is the use of the iron arc to 
identify luminescent minerals. Does anyone know when this was first 
noticed? I would speculate that something must have been noticed early 
by the chemists of the New Jersey Zinc Company, if for no other reason 
than the use of electric arc furnaces for reduction of ore (?).

So when and where did this idea of mineral identification by 
luminescence come about?
What minerals, if any, are known to have been discovered exclusively by 
their fluorescence?

Is fluorescence so common as to be confusing, rather than systematic, a 
la Dana and others?
Or is it so rare as to be little more than a curiosity to the casual 
user of field guides, most of whom are out and about in the daytime anyway?

Granted that it can be a useful prospecting tool is some cases, is it 
really too specialized to be of real "general" use?

These are some of the questions I would be asking myself if I were 
contemplating editing a field guide.

Incidentally those of us old enough to remember when Frederick Pough's 
"A Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals" was not only one of the few but 
one of the best guides around can note that he used fluorescence as a 
useful tool as early as the Third Edition in 1960.  However he added a 
"special" section in the Second Edition (1955) for uranium, which used 
the Geiger Counter as the main tool,  completely ignoring fluorescence.


john


> I appreciate experience. The more specimens you have seen of a 
> mineral, the more likely you will be able to identify a new specimen. 
> I can recognize a few glowing colors and can connect them to specific 
> activators.
>
> The experts with a lifetime of experience need to to do more sharing. 
> It is not yet trickling down to amateurs like me.
>
> If fluorescence is that useful, why isn't it in all the field guides?
>
> Kreigh
>