Hello Everyone

Might an approach/usage something like the following work?

• Mineral – an inorganic (meaning “non-living”, not meaning “does not contain carbon”) crystalline solid that is naturally occurring.  The mineralogy texts that I have seen read as if this is intended to mean geogenic (and later including cosmogenic) and not man-made.
• Anthropomineral – as above except generated (intentionally or unintentionally) by human activity.
• Biomineral – as above except generated by non-human biological activity.

Regards,

Jon

Jon S. Fox, P.G. (NY, PA)

Owner/Principal Geologist

Fox Professional Geology, PLLC

310 Cherry Road

Syracuse, New York 13219  USA

E-Mail:  mailto:jon.fox@jonfoxpg.com jon.fox@jonfoxpg.com

Website:  http://www.jonfoxpg.com/ www.jonfoxpg.com

Visiting Scholar

Department of Atmospheric and Geological Sciences

State University of New York at Oswego

394 Shineman Hall

Oswego, New York  13126  USA

E-Mail:  jon.fox@oswego.edu

From: John Slack via MSA-talk msa-talk@minlists.org
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 6:16 PM
To: Glenn Waychunas gawaychunas@lbl.gov
Cc: Herwig Pelckmans herwig.pelckmans@gmail.com; MSA public List serve MSA-talk@minlists.org
Subject: [MSA-talk] Re: Should the definition of a mineral be updated?

Dear Glen,

I agree with all of all of what you say below with one exception. In undergrad school, in the late 60s, I was taught that a mineral is a naturally occurring material with a definite crystal structure, thus excluding amorphous substances. I’m ok with now including biogenic crystalline phases as minerals, but not with amorphous ones— where do we draw the line?

John Slack

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2021, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Waychunas via MSA-talk <msa-talk@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk@minlists.org > wrote:



Hi Herwig

It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I think that is a good thing.  My own prejudice is that we define a mineral by something that is

naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently characterized.  So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are materials

produced from original anthropogenic operations.  The characterization part means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are never found as finite crystals.

It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and characteristics that we can measure.  This would probably mean that many, perhaps thousands, of species

are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would

include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of hydration, alloy minerals, and so on.  Amorphous materials, if they are consistent in most ways, would

also qualify.  I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.

Glenn Waychunas

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <msa-talk@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk@minlists.org > wrote:

Dear all,

The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has been widely accepted by all.

However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to speak.

Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago (because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that line?

Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines ...

I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral. Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the definition of a mineral be updated?

Cheers, Herwig

Recreational mineralogist, Belgium

MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk-leave@minlists.org

--

Glenn Waychunas

Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory  MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road  Berkeley CA 94720

Visiting Associate

Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences

California Institute of Technology  MC 170-25

1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125

GAWaychunas@lbl.gov mailto:GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595

MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org mailto:msa-talk-leave@minlists.org

And then we have silica, often being labeled "opal" in mineral
collections. It shows the full continuum from being amorphous to
crystalline, based on an XRD definition.
But as we know, even amorphous silica creates crystals - photonic crystals
based on diffraction of visible light. And again, the material made up of
miniscule silica spheres shows the full continuum from being a photonic
crystal to being photonically amorphous, based on a visible light
definition.

There's no escape.

I like this suggestion, but this discussion needs to involve the CNMMN as they set the ground rules, as far as is my understanding.
Cheers
Louis

From: Jon Fox via MSA-talk msa-talk@minlists.org
Sent: July 27, 2021 11:04 AM
To: msa-talk@minlists.org
Subject: [MSA-talk] Re: Should the definition of a mineral be updated?

Hello Everyone

Might an approach/usage something like the following work?

• Mineral – an inorganic (meaning “non-living”, not meaning “does not contain carbon”) crystalline solid that is naturally occurring.  The mineralogy texts that I have seen read as if this is intended to mean geogenic (and later including cosmogenic) and not man-made.
• Anthropomineral – as above except generated (intentionally or unintentionally) by human activity.
• Biomineral – as above except generated by non-human biological activity.

Regards,
Jon

Jon S. Fox, P.G. (NY, PA)
Owner/Principal Geologist
Fox Professional Geology, PLLC
310 Cherry Road
Syracuse, New York 13219  USA
E-Mail:  jon.fox@jonfoxpg.commailto:jon.fox@jonfoxpg.com
Website:  www.jonfoxpg.comhttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jonfoxpg.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C2fb3480597674ee7bcc808d951362c7e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637630115587678198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=V3VSPzQNjKBgHUwINMprnBPpFU%2FUQ9q%2B6katsGkikf8%3D&reserved=0

Visiting Scholar
Department of Atmospheric and Geological Sciences
State University of New York at Oswego
394 Shineman Hall
Oswego, New York  13126  USA
E-Mail:  jon.fox@oswego.edumailto:jon.fox@oswego.edu

From: John Slack via MSA-talk <msa-talk@minlists.orgmailto:msa-talk@minlists.org>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 6:16 PM
To: Glenn Waychunas <gawaychunas@lbl.govmailto:gawaychunas@lbl.gov>
Cc: Herwig Pelckmans <herwig.pelckmans@gmail.commailto:herwig.pelckmans@gmail.com>; MSA public List serve <MSA-talk@minlists.orgmailto:MSA-talk@minlists.org>
Subject: [MSA-talk] Re: Should the definition of a mineral be updated?

Dear Glen,

I agree with all of all of what you say below with one exception. In undergrad school, in the late 60s, I was taught that a mineral is a naturally occurring material with a definite crystal structure, thus excluding amorphous substances. I’m ok with now including biogenic crystalline phases as minerals, but not with amorphous ones— where do we draw the line?

John Slack
Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2021, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Waychunas via MSA-talk <msa-talk@minlists.orgmailto:msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:

Hi Herwig
It seems like this sort of discussion perks up every few years, and I think that is a good thing.  My own prejudice is that we define a mineral by something that is
naturally produced (by any means in nature) and can be consistently characterized.  So biologically produced materials are minerals, and so are materials
produced from original anthropogenic operations.  The characterization part means that even nano-scale materials can be minerals, even if they are never found as finite crystals.
It is only necessary that they have consistent composition and characteristics that we can measure.  This would probably mean that many, perhaps thousands, of species
are sitting around undiscovered until we use modern technology to examine them, e.g. electron microscopes and electron diffraction. This would
include all sorts of complex metal salts with different degrees of hydration, alloy minerals, and so on.  Amorphous materials, if they are consistent in most ways, would
also qualify.  I will enjoy hearing the response to these notions.

Glenn Waychunas

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 4:50 AM Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk <msa-talk@minlists.orgmailto:msa-talk@minlists.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has been widely accepted by all.
However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to speak.

Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind (sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago (because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that line?
Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines ...

I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral. Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the definition of a mineral be updated?

Cheers, Herwig
Recreational mineralogist, Belgium

MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.orgmailto:msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.orgmailto:msa-talk-leave@minlists.org

--
Glenn Waychunas

Scientific Affiliate/Retired Senior Scientist
Energy Geosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory  MS 74-316C
One Cyclotron Road  Berkeley CA 94720

Visiting Associate
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology  MC 170-25
1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125

GAWaychunas@lbl.govmailto:GAWaychunas@lbl.gov
Cell 650-400-3595

MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.orgmailto:msa-talk@minlists.org
To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.orgmailto:msa-talk-leave@minlists.org

Hi all,

As always, lots of interesting ideas in this discussion. With respect to crystallinity, I've no idea what to do -- but it's certainly a prescient reminder that nature cares nothing for the categories and labels concocted by us humans. When our definition depends on "periodicity" that can occur with a continuum of different degrees of order, and at a continuum of different length scales, where do we draw the line??

But I'll take the opportunity to weigh in on a somewhat more clear-cut issue -- I'm an advocate of dropping any requirement of being inorganic (if it hasn't already been done... I was unable to find clear guidance in the most recent IMA publications on the matter). But there are already 67 IMA-approved mineral species that are based in whole or in part on organic molecules. These substances meet every other criteria, occur with both biotic and abiotic paragenetic modes, have clear associations with other mineral species, interact with their inorganic counterparts, and are an integral part of the geochemistry of their respective formation environments. At this point, if we continued to insist that minerals species meet a specific compositional requirement, who are we kidding? Seems best to just refer to them as "organic minerals" just as we refer to "sulfide minerals" or "silicate minerals".

Best,
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralf Milke via MSA-talk [mailto:msa-talk@minlists.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 1:21 PM
To: msa-talk@minlists.org
Subject: [MSA-talk] Should the definition of a mineral be updated?

[EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT]: Verify sender before opening links or attachments.

And then we have silica, often being labeled "opal" in mineral collections. It shows the full continuum from being amorphous to crystalline, based on an XRD definition.
But as we know, even amorphous silica creates crystals - photonic crystals based on diffraction of visible light. And again, the material made up of miniscule silica spheres shows the full continuum from being a photonic crystal to being photonically amorphous, based on a visible light definition.

There's no escape.

MSA-talk mailing list -- msa-talk@minlists.org To unsubscribe send an email to msa-talk-leave@minlists.org

A few points relevant to the previously raised issues:

(1) There is a small number of organic compounds out there that are valid minerals (crystalline, occurring naturally, etc.) - all in all, less than 1% of the IMA-approved species.
(2) Not all organic compounds are based on covalently bonded C+H. For example, about one-half of the 45 or so organic minerals are oxalates (natroxalate, Na2C2O4, etc.) - no C-H bonds there and the only hydrogen present in some of them (weddellite, whewellite, etc.) is in water molecules.
(3) Although the majority of organic minerals can indeed be tied in with some form of bio-activity or a bio-precursor (coal, seafloor ooze, etc.), some are completely "geological" in origin. Natroxalate, for example, formed hydrothermally in an alkali-rich pegmatite.
(4) Over the years, the Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC, formerly CNMMN) of the IMA has changed its policies re. minerals whose origin can be unquestionably tied in with human activities. Prior to the 1990s, they used to approve minerals produced by the burning of coal mine dumps, bog peat, etc. For example, the Ca polysulfide-hydroxide bazhenovite from burning coal dumps at Korkino (Urals) was approved by the Commission in 1987, whereas steklite KAl(SO4)2, submitted by the same team in 1991, was not. It took 20 years and the finding of sufficiently large crystals of volcanogenic KAl(SO4)2 in Kamchatka to have steklite formally approved by the Commission (Murashko et al., 2011, Geol. Ore Dep., 55, 594). This approach changed last year (Parafiniuk and Hatert, 2020, EJM, 32, 215) and now they "recommend treating the minerals formed by the combustion of the dumps of the collieries as the newly formed minerals found in the dumps and galleries of active or abandoned mines ... the crystalline phases found in burning coal dumps can be the subjects of proposals to be presented to IMA CNMNC for approval. ... It has to be proven that the burning (the combustion) took place naturally and was not due to human intervention, even accidentally or inadvertently."
I, for one, do not follow the logic of this recommendation because the mentioned "dumps and galleries" were put there by us, humans, in the first place.
(6) Many "technogenic minerals" also occur in the geological environment, commonly in pyrometamorphic rocks (e.g., srebrodolskite) or around fumaroles (steklite).
(7) Until the origin of minerals is decreed to be limited to GEOlogical processes (admittedly, a very unlikely event), I teach my students that there are biologically produced minerals (biominerals) that are every bit as "legit" as hydrothermal quartz and are scrutinized by researchers for a lot of good practical reasons: whewellite in kidney stones, hydroxylapatite in the dentin, calcite eyes of trilobites, etc.

Anton

Dr. Anton R. Chakhmouradian

Professor, University of Manitoba

Communication Officer, International Mineralogical Association

Associate Editor, Economic Geology, Mineralogy and Petrology

From: Christine Clark via MSA-talk msa-talk@minlists.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 9:12 AM
To: John Slack jfslack7@gmail.com
Cc: Herwig Pelckmans herwig.pelckmans@gmail.com; MSA public List serve MSA-talk@minlists.org
Subject: [MSA-talk] Re: Should the definition of a mineral be updated?

Caution: This message was sent from outside the University of Manitoba.
I've always used "inorganic", not "non-biologic". Organic and biologic mean two different things when it comes to chemicals. An organic compound is one based on C-H chains, and inorganic one is not. Therefore a mineral can be produced by biologic means but still be an inorganic compound.

-Christine

The definition of a mineral currently used by the CNMNC (Nickel, 1995;
Can.Min. 33, 689-690) is “In general terms, a mineral is an element or
chemical compound that is normally crystalline and that has been formed as
a result of geological processes.” It was recognized when that was written
that exceptions, qualifications and explanations were necessary. Some were
provided in that paper and others have been provided in subsequent CNMNC
approved publications. This very general approach to a definition, with
qualifications and explanations added as deemed appropriate, still seems to
work. From this perspective, I’d like to address some of the points brought
up in the current discussion.

1. Burning coal mines and dumps:
   Until recently, the CNMNC official position was that phases formed by
   combustion, regardless or the cause of the combustion, could not be
   approved as minerals. Even so, some minerals formed by combustion were
   being approved. The official CNMNC position now is that, if it can be
   established that the combustion was not of human origin, the phase can be
   approved as a mineral. Clearly, this is not always straightforward and the
   cause of the combustion can be ambiguous.
2. Post-mining phases found on mine walls or on mine dumps:
   While it can be argued that such phases would not have formed without
   man’s intervention, these phases have a long tradition of being accepted as
   minerals. Bear in mind that this pertains to phases formed on natural rock
   surfaces purely as the result of exposure to the atmosphere or natural
   groundwater. For example, phases formed on smelter slags are not accepted
   as minerals because the slags are not naturally occurring. A notable
   exception has been made for phases formed on the historic slags of Laurium,
   Greece.
3. Biogenic/organic phases:
   To my knowledge, there has never been a prohibition of organic phases
   being valid minerals and there are a significant number of organic
   minerals, even some that are hydrocarbons. Biogenic phases, those formed by
   organisms, are a different issue. We are all very aware now that organisms
   are integral to the formation of many minerals, so one certainly cannot
   rule out phases for which biogenesis as played a role. It is particularly
   intriguing to consider phases occurring in guano deposits. As for
   post-mining phases, secondary crystalline phases formed in guano deposits
   have a long tradition of being accepted as minerals. An important
   qualification for a biogenically formed phase to be considered for
   induction into the mineral world, is that a geological process must be
   involved in its formation. So, if a crystalline phase were to be formed
   entirely within an organism, it could not be approved as a mineral;
   however, if an organism were to excrete a liquid that then crystallized on
   a natural rock surface, even without chemical interaction with the rock, it
   could be approved as a mineral. The geologic process involved in that case
   is evaporation. All of that said, I think it would be better to simply
   allow crystalline phases formed naturally entirely within organisms to
   qualify as minerals.
4. Synthetic phases:
   Even though it is true that human beings are part of Nature, including
   everything man-made (even limiting it to crystalline phases) would clearly
   not be practical. I think that we would all agree that it is useful to
   separate man-made from natural (meaning not man-made). I could go on and
   on, but enough said.
5. Crystalline vs amorphous phases:
   I think it is best to keep the requirement that a mineral be crystalline
   and I very much like the way the IUCr defines crystallinity. At the same
   time, it should be noted that phases for which a structure cannot be
   provided, either by direct determination or by analogy with other minerals
   or synthetics, are more difficult to get approved as minerals, in part
   because their definitive compositions are more difficult to establish.

Tony

Anthony R. Kampf, Ph.D.

Curator Emeritus, Mineral Sciences

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007

Phone: 213-763-3328; Email: akampf@nhm.org

From: Herwig Pelckmans via MSA-talk msa-talk@minlists.org
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 8:06 PM
To: msa-talk@minlists.org
Subject: [MSA-talk] Should the definition of a mineral be updated?

Dear all,

The definition of what a mineral is, has been around for a while and has
been widely accepted by all.

However, I feel that definition is no longer "covering the charge", so to
speak.

Many new minerals are being described and accepted by the IMA, yet they do
not fully comply with all criteria of "a mineral". Hazenite comes to mind
(sorry, Bob). That mineral would never have made it say 40 years ago
(because of its biogenic origin). Minerals formed on a burning coal mine
dump are considered anthropogenic, but if an untouched coal deposit starts
burning because of natural causes, then the minerals produced are fully
acceptable. Isn't that a very thin line? Is it a necessity to have that
line?

Same thing for all those minerals found on the walls of old uranium mines
...

I'm not saying all those should not be minerals! I'm just saying that our
science has evolved, and consequently, our definitions should too. Mineral
evolution was unheard of when they coined the definition of a mineral.
Nobody really thought about the fact there would not be as many minerals if
it was not for the great oxidation event (in other words, if it was not for
biological life on our planet). Now that it is obvious, should not the
definition of a mineral be updated?

Cheers, Herwig

Recreational mineralogist, Belgium