Abstract

To univocally identify mineral species on the basis of their formula, the IMA-CNMNC recommends the use of the dominant-valency rule and/or the site-total-charge approach, which can be considered two procedures complementary to each other for mineral identification. In this regard, several worked examples are provided in this study along with some simple suggestions for a more consistent terminology and a straightforward use of mineral formulae. IMA-CNMNC guidelines subordinate the mineral structure to the mineral chemistry in the hierarchical scheme adopted for classification. Indeed, a contradiction appears when we first classify mineral species to form classes (based on their chemistry) and subsequently we group together them to form supergroups (based on their structure topology): To date, more than half of recognized mineral supergroups include species with different anions or anionic complexes. This observation is in contrast to the current use of chemical composition as the distinguishing factor at the highest level of mineral classification.

Highlights

  • IntroductionIn order to have a rational and robust scheme for mineral systematics, a ranking of criteria has to be established

  • Systematic MineralogyIn order to have a rational and robust scheme for mineral systematics, a ranking of criteria has to be established

  • The mineral species is the basic element for any classification scheme we would adopt, and it is defined by a series of rules recommended by the Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC) of the International Mineralogical Association (IMA)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In order to have a rational and robust scheme for mineral systematics, a ranking of criteria has to be established. A hierarchical contradiction appears if we first classify mineral species at the highest level to form classes (native elements; sulfides and sulfosalts; halides; oxides; carbonates and nitrates; borates; sulfates; phosphates, arsenates and vanadates; silicates; organic compounds; [7]) and if we subsequently group them to form supergroups based essentially on the structural similarities. The latter, by definition, can include different classes [6], e.g., the spinel supergroup includes sulfides such as greigite (FeFe2 S4 ) and oxides such as magnetite (FeFe2 O4 ) [4]. The aim of this study is to define the meaning of mineral formulae, and to suggest a coherent procedure to identify mineral species based on their formula, while pointing out a contradiction in the current mineral classification scheme

Mineral Formulae
Structural Formula
Chemical Formula
End-Member Formula
Simplified Formula
Historical Roots of the Dominant-Valency Rule
The Site-Total-Charge Approach and the Dominant-Valency Rule
Tourmaline
Site-Total-Charge Approach Versus Charge-Constraint
Understanding the End-Members Involved in the Substitution
Atom Disorder
Site-Total-Charge Approach and Valency-Imposed Double Site Occupancy
Pyrochlore
Garnet
Findings
One Note on the Mineral Classification Scheme
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.