Mineral Nomenclature Research Articles

Deanthroponymic Names of Ural Minerals: Word-Formation Patterns

The study investigates the nomenclature of Ural minerals derived from anthroponyms. The data was sourced from printed and electronic publications on geology and mineralogy. The aim of the research is to analyze the primary word-formation patterns evident in the lexemes of the compiled corpus, discern deviations from traditional word-formation patterns, and ascertain their underlying causes. The deanthroponymic model emerges as the predominant one for mineral nomenclature, constituting 38% of the total number of names analyzed. The second most prevalent model is based on toponyms (22%). Models wherein mineral names are derived from indications of their geochemical composition or properties exhibit significantly lower frequency compared to the two aforementioned models. The most prevalent method of forming deanthroponymic mineral names (mineralonyms) entails incorporating the surname of a notable figure associated with mineralogy, followed by the addition of the formant -it (less frequently, -lit) or -in. Departures from this model manifest in two ways. Firstly, atypical formants such as -an, -zit, -oit, and -anit are utilized, which may be categorized as phonetic-graphic variants or instances of contamination of productive formants. Secondly, deviations occur in the base of the mineralonym, whereby the generating unit is not solely the surname but rather its constituent parts (in cases where the surname is multi-component), as well as the inclusion of the first name, first name and surname, or the root part of the surname translated into Latin. It can be posited that in the use of formally atypical models and approaches to mineralonym creation, the subjective aesthetic considerations of the nominator play a pivotal role, driven by the desire to craft a harmonious and user-friendly term. Additionally, the evident intention is to mitigate homonymy and other instances of ambiguity that are incompatible with a coherent terminological system and hinder the unequivocal association of the name with the denoted object.

MINERAL NOMENCLATURE AND THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL NAMES

Mineral nomenclature, which has often trivial in nature, is gradually being improved in a rational. Terminology is proposed under the auspices of the International Mineralogical Association through nomenclature changes relating to large groups and supergroups of minerals, for example, amphiboles, tourmalines, and pyrochlore. To create a name of a new species, a historically trivial name of a mineral in a group is used and a suffix with a symbol or a prefix of a chemical element is added to it. As a consequence of these changes, the nomenclature of minerals has become rational-trivial. The Commission on Terminology of the Ukrainian Mineralogical Society was formed in 2017 to consider mineral nomenclature. One of the key challenges is to preserve the historical Ukrainian mineral name and its spelling. The Commission decided to consider the names of minerals given in the 1975 "Mineralogical Dictionary" as historical, and to keep the spelling of mineral names discovered before 1991. Minerals names approved after the changes in Ukrainian orthography should be written with the letters of the Ukrainian alphabet according to the rules of transcription from the original language and in accordance with 2019 Ukrainian orthography. The changes also affected two-word terms and the use of a hyphen. The name of a mineral should be taken as a symbol corresponding to a natural compound of a certain chemical composition and a defined crystal structure. To promote mutual understanding between scientists, a mineral name and its spelling should be the same. The recommendations of the Commission on Terminology are taken into account in preparation of the "Ukrainian Nomenclature of Minerals" (2022).

On the application of the IMA−CNMNC dominant-valency rule to complex mineral compositions

AbstractMineral species should be identified by an end-member formula and by using the dominant-valency rule as recommended by the IMA–CNMNC. However, the dominant-end-member approach has also been used in the literature. These two approaches generally converge, but for some intermediate compositions, significant differences between the dominant-valency rule and the dominant end-member approach can be observed. As demonstrated for garnet-supergroup minerals, for example, the end-member approach is ambiguous, as end-member proportions strongly depend on the calculation sequence. For this reason, the IMA–CNMNC strongly recommends the use of the dominant-valency rule for mineral nomenclature, because it alone may lead to unambiguous mineral identification. Although the simple application of the dominant-valency rule is successful for the identification of many mineral compositions, sometimes it leads to unbalanced end-member formulae, due to the occurrence of a coupled heterovalent substitution at two sites along with a heterovalent substitution at a single site. In these cases, it may be useful to use the site-total-charge approach to identify the dominant root-charge arrangement on which to apply the dominant-constituent rule. The dominant-valency rule and the site-total-charge approach may be considered two procedures complementary to each other for mineral identification. Their critical point is to find the most appropriate root-charge and atomic arrangements consistent with the overriding condition dictated by the end-member formula. These procedures were approved by the IMA−CNMNC in May 2019.

Mineral identification by elemental composition: a new tool within PDF-4 databases

The ICDD has developed a microanalysis tool to help scientists identify minerals from their elemental analyses, most typically micro-XRF or a microprobe analysis. Many minerals have characteristic elemental profiles that can often distinguish the mineral from others by their composition differences. In Release 2016 ICDD® PDF-4 databases 20 670 unique compositions have been identified out of 45 497 mineral and mineral-related entries. The application utilizes several common features of PDF® databases to enhance correct identification, most notably those formulas are expressed in weight and atomic percent, data sets are classified by mineral nomenclature and structural classifications, and most minerals have associated atomic and molecular structures. These crystal structures are very useful in determining compositional variants and solid solutions. The ICDD has developed algorithms that are analogous to the search/match processes used for powder diffraction identification. Data can be input as either the element or common oxide. To test the algorithm and graphics interfaces we compared results from the microanalysis module to published data from the Smithsonian Microbeam reference mineral collection. The software correctly identified 24/28 minerals by the highest merit score in the algorithm. In two cases, an isoelemental mineral was identified and in two other cases, the specimens had more elements than the reference standards hindering positive phase identification.

Redefinition of thérèsemagnanite, NaCo4(SO4)(OH)6Cl·6H2O: new data and relationship to ‘cobaltogordaite’

ABSTRACTThérèsemagnanite was originally described from the Cap Garonne mine, Var, France. Its ideal formula was reported as (Co,Zn,Ni)6(SO4)(OH,Cl)10·8H2O; without crystal structure data, only the powder X-ray diffraction pattern was given. Revision of the holotype material revealed that thérèsemagnanite is identical to ‘cobaltogordaite’ (IMA2014-043), recently described from the Blue Lizard mine, Utah, USA. Thérèsemagnanite is thus redefined in accordance with the new data obtained for the neotype specimen from Blue Lizard (formerly the holotype specimen of ‘cobaltogordaite’) and ‘cobaltogordaite’ has been discredited by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Mineral Nomenclature and Classification (IMA CNMNC). Thérèsemagnanite has the ideal, end-member formula NaCo4(SO4)(OH)6Cl·6H2O. The empirical formulae of the holotype (Cap Garonne) and the neotype (Blue Lizard), both based on microprobe analyses and calculated on the basis of 17 O + Cl atoms per formula unit (with fixed 6 OH groups and 6 H2O molecules; H content is calculated by stoichiometry) are (Na0.64K0.09)Σ0.73(Co2.35Zn1.22Ni0.50)Σ4.07S1.02O3.98(OH)6Cl1.02·6H2O and Na1.01(Co1.90Zn1.37Ni0.48Cu0.15Mn0.05)Σ3.95S1.03O4.09(OH)6Cl0.91·6H2O, respectively. Thérèsemagnanite is trigonal,P$\overline 3 $,a= 8.349(3),c= 13.031(2) Å,V= 786.6(4) Å3and Z = 2 (neotype). The strongest powder X-ray diffraction lines are [dobsin Å (hkl) (Irel)]: 13.10 (001)(100), 6.53 (002)(8), 4.173 (110)(4), 3.517 (112)(5), 2.975 (104, 10$\overline 4 $)(4), 2.676 (211)(5) and 2.520 (12$\bar 2$)(5) (neotype). Thérèsemagnanite is a cobalt analogue of gordaite, NaZn4(SO4)(OH)6Cl·6H2O. These minerals represent the gordaite group, accepted by the IMA CNMNC.

Conniosseur's Choice: Carletonite, Mont Saint-Hilaire, La Vallée-du-Richelieu RCM, Montérégie, Québec, Canada

If you have trouble keeping up with the changes in mineral nomenclature, you will be able to commiserate with the petrographer. (Petrography is the branch of petrology that concerns the detailed st...

Connoisseur's Choice: Willemite, Tsumeb Mine, Tsumeb, Otjikoto, Namibia

Mineral nomenclature is usually pretty straightforward. Traditionally, minerals have been named for their chemistry, discoverer, or for a famous scientist. There are some, however, that make one wo...

Amber from México: Coahuilite, Simojovelite and Bacalite

ABSTRACTCoahuilite, a new variety of amber is described from the Late Cretaceous Olmos Formation (ca. 73 Ma.), Coahuila, north of México. This amber is totally distinct chemically and stratigraphically from the Miocene Chiapas amber (ca. 23-13 Ma.), Southern México, which according to mineral nomenclature is currently known as Simojovelite var. nov. Additionally, an emended description of Bacalite is proposed, based on the physicochemical analysis and geological record of a fossil resin recently recovery from the Late Cretaceous El Gallo Formation (ca. 73 Ma.), Baja California, northwestern México. The results are supported by characterization of such ambers using synchrotron-based Infrared (FTIR) microspectroscopy.

CNMNC guidelines for the use of suffixes and prefixes in mineral nomenclature, and for the preservation of historical names

New CNMNC guidelines are established, in order to standardize the use of prefixes and suffixes in mineral nomenclature, and to preserve historical names. The recommendations for the use of suffixes are: (I) chemical suffixes have to be in parentheses, except for extra-framework cations; (II) a maximum of three chemical suffixes is allowed; (III) cations and anions should never be used together in the parentheses. For the use of prefixes, the following guidelines were adopted: (I) for common names, prefix-type nomenclature is preferred to facilitate the pronunciation; (II) an unnecessary proliferation of prefixes must be avoided, and a maximum of three chemical prefixes is recommended; (III) it is allowed to use a combination of chemical, structural or other descriptive prefixes; (IV) when Levinson modifiers are used as suffix for REE, then other cations or anions have to be placed as a prefix; (V) in case of polytypes and topologically similar polymorphs, a chemical prefix-type nomenclature is preferred, since the polytype and polymorph symbols have to be suffixes. When possible, the CNMNC recommends to avoid changing names, especially for grandfathered species. Well-established mineral names or names dedicated to localities or persons have to be preserved, except if the species is shown to be not valid. Historical names cannot be changed in order to standardize the nomenclature of a group or supergroup, since mixed nomenclature systems are now accepted by the CNMNC.

Principles of identification of new mineral species and recognition of their names (some thoughts on mineral names)

The paper focuses on the problems of the large flow of new mineral names triggered by the current CNMNCM of IMA procedures and guidelines on mineral nomenclature. We believe that Russian term raznovidnost’ (variety) should be an equivalent to the English term species, and, as a rule, new minerals do not require a special proper name and can be identified by chemical and/or structural symbols. We believe also that Russian equivalent of the English system group-subgroup-speciesmust appear as gruppa-vid i podvid-raznovidnost’, i.e., group-species and subspecies-variety.

Chemical, structural, and chemical-structural varieties of minerals and once again on ways to rationalize mineralogical nomenclature

The names of minerals are mostly irrational with respect to their chemical composition and crystal structure. The division of mineral species into structural and chemical-structural subspecies or varieties is proposed to simplify and rationalize mineral nomenclature. Special modifiers could be used and written after the root name of an initial mineral. For example, the eudialyte-group minerals could be divided into eudialyte-(CaMn), -(CaFe), -(MnCa), -(CaSr), and -(CaH) and alluaivite. The format of such modifiers should be a matter of discussion and approval.

Identification and enumeration of asbestos fibers in the mining environment: Mission and modification to the Federal Asbestos Standard

Since the promulgation of the first Federal Asbestos Standard by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1972, other federal agencies have modified the standard to better carry on their own unique missions. The instruments used to identify and measure asbestos, the sampling protocol, and the criteria used to define asbestos, have been modified to some degree. The Mine Safety and Health Administration regulates and controls asbestos dust in the mining and mineral commodity industries. However, crushed stone and processed ores contain mineral fragments that are frequently difficult to distinguish from asbestos. Mineral nomenclature, instruments for particle analysis, and sampling strategy must be accommodated to some degree to make asbestos control workable and meaningful. Precedent in other agencies has made consideration of these changes possible. Newly identified amphibole asbestos minerals have further complicated the agency’s regulatory charge. Changes in its Asbestos Standard are now being considered. Crushed taconite ore in the Eastern Mesabi highlights many of these issues.

Manganese in Monoclinic Members of the Epidote Group: Piemontite and Related Minerals

According to Mayo (1932), who provided a brief historical review of the names used for piemontite, the first researcher who described this mineral has been Cronstedt in 1758 who named it “rod Magnesia.” In 1790 Chevalier Napione analyzed the sample described by Cronstedt and termed it “Manganese rouge.” On the basis of his chemical data Hauy designated the substance as “Manganese oxide violet silicifere” in 1801. Later, in his Traite de Mineralogie, Hauy (1822) adopted the name proposed by Cordier (1803) who first recognized the mineral as an “Epidote manganesifere.” The name piedmontite was proposed in 1853 by Kenngott the basis of the type locality and more recently transformed into piemontite. According to the standard guidelines for mineral nomenclature, the name piemontite should be reserved to members of the ternary solid solution Ca2Al2(Mn,Fe,Al)(Si2O7)(SiO4)O(OH) that basically contains Mn3+ dominant at one site. Nonetheless, the use of this name for any monoclinic manganiferous epidote-group members showing the characteristic strong red-yellow-violet pleochroism is very common and probably convenient with special regard to petrographic purposes. Indeed, the color of manganian (i.e., Mn3+ bearing) epidote or clinozoisite ranges to red to pinkish, while manganoan (i.e., Mn2+ bearing) members do not exhibit the characteristic reddish hue. The discredited name “withamite” was used to describe poorly manganiferous piemontite (Hutton 1938; Yoshimura and Momoi 1964) but corresponds, on the basis of the current nomenclature, to a manganian clinozoisite. The name “thulite,” sometimes erroneously used for pinkish clinozoisite, should be reserved to Mn3+ bearing orthorhombic members. In this chapter we focus on piemontite sensu stricto with the ideal formula Ca2Al2Mn3+(Si2O7)(SiO4)O(OH), but also include for the reasons explained above those members of the clinozoisite-epidote-piemontite …

Mineral nomenclature in the mica group: the promise and the reality

Pitfalls encountered when dealing the mica crystal chemistry on the basis of routine chemical analyses are reviewed.

Barite–Celestine Geochemistry and Environments of Formation

Minerals in the barite (BaSO4)–celestine (SrSO4) solid solution series, (Ba,Sr)SO4, occur in a remarkably diverse range of sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous geological environments which span geological time from the Early Archean (~3.5 Ga) to the present. The purpose of this chapter is to review: (1) the controls on the chemical and isotopic composition of barite and celestine and (2) the geological environments in which these minerals form. Some health risks are associated with barite, and these are discussed near the end of this chapter. Although complete solid solution exists between BaSO4 and SrSO4 most representatives of the series are either distinctly Ba-rich or Sr-rich. Hence, it is convenient to use the term barite to refer to not only the stochiometric BaSO4 endmember but also to those (Ba,Sr)SO4 solid solutions dominated by Ba. Similarly, the term celestine will refer here not only to the stoichiometric SrSO4 endmember but to solid solutions dominated by Sr. Such usage is in accord with standard mineral nomenclature. The Committee on Mineral Names and Nomenclature of the International Mineralogical Association recognizes “celestine” as the official name for SrSO4. However, the name “celestite” is still commonly used in the literature. ### Geological significance of barite and celestine Most of the barite which exists in the Earth’s crust has formed through the mixing of fluids, one containing Ba leached from silicate minerals, and the other an oxidized shallow fluid, such as seawater, which contains sulfate. Large deposits of barite represent areas of focused fluid flow and mineral precipitation and thus aid in the reconstruction of the hydrogeologic history of the Earth’s crust. The stability of barite is redox sensitive, and the presence or absence of this mineral helps to constrain interpretation of paleoredox conditions. Pelagic barite, the precipitation of which is biologically mediated, may …

The IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names: procedures and guidelines on mineral nomenclature, 1998

An author wishing to introduce a new mineral name into the literature, or to redefine, discredit or rename an existing mineral, must obtain prior approval of the IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. This paper outlines the procedure to be followed in the preparation and submission of a proposal for approval, and describes how such proposals are handled by the Commission. The paper also gives general guidelines on mineral nomenclature and provides a list of nomenclature changes approved since 1987.

Mineral names applied to synthetic substances

Guidelines on mineral nomenclature published by the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (CNMMN) of the International Mineralogical Association (Nickel and Mandarino, 1988) include the following statement: "If an artificial substance has been given a name, and a mineral corresponding to that substance is subsequently discovered, the name given to the artificial substance does not necessarily have to be applied to the mineral".

Mineral names applied to synthetic substances

GUIDELINES on mineral nomenclature published by the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (CNMMN) of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Mineralogical Association (Nickel and Mandarino, 1988) include the following statement: "If an artificial substance has been given a name, and a mineral corresponding to that substance is subsequently discovered, the name given to the artificial substance does not necessarily have to be applied to the mineral". However, when the artificial substance corresponds to an exisiting mineral, it is commonly referred to by the name of its mineralogical analogue. Ideally, mineral names should be given only to naturally-occurring substances formed by geological processes, yet it is recognized that a mineral name is a convenient short-hand way of referring to a synthetic substance that corresponds to a particular mineral. Following requests from editors of several major mineralogical journals for guidance in the editorial treatment of manuscripts containing such names, members of the CNMMN have discussed this question with a view to making recommendations acceptable to the mineralogical community.

Procedures involving the IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names, and guidelines on mineral nomenclature

The Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (hereafter abbreviated as CNMMN) of the International Mineralogical Association was established in 1959 for the purpose of controlling mineral nomenclature, All proposals for introducing new minerals, changing mineralogical nomenclature, and discrediting or redefining existing minerals and mineral names should be submitted to the CNMMN for approval before publication. If approval is withheld, the proposal should not be published. This report incorporates material from previous reports on mineral nomenclature and procedures of the CNMMN (Fleischer, 1970; Donnay and Fleischer, 1970; Embrey and Hey, 1970; Hey and Gottardi, 1980; and Mandarino et al., 1984), and represents an attempt to consolidate this information and to present a there are differences between this report and the earlier ones, this versionis to be regarded as the correct one.

Procedures involving the I.M.A. Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names, and guidelines on mineral nomenclature

An author wishing to introduce a new mineral name into the literature, or to redefine, discredit or rename an existing mineral, must obtain prior approval of the I.M.A. Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. This paper outlines the procedure to be followed in the preparation and submission of a proposal for approval, and describes how such proposals are handled by the Commission. The paper also reports decisions on nomenclature made by the Commission, and gives general guidelines on mineral nomenclature. Lists of mineral names discredited by the Commission, and of recently-approved rare-earth mineral names are appended.