Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:32:04.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discreditation of tombarthite-(Y)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2018

Henrik Friis
Henrik Friis*
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, PO 1172 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tombarthite-(Y) is discredited as a mineral species. No type material was available, but material used for the original description has been located and neotype material defined. The main reason for the erroneous description of tombarthite-(Y) is the result of chemical analyses being carried out on heated material, which removed elements such as C and F. New semi-quantitative chemical analyses show that at least F is present in the fresh material, but absent after a heating scheme identical to that of the original description. Modern powder X-ray diffraction methods (XRD) confirm that the material identified as tombarthite-(Y) is a mixture of metamict and crystalline phases. Consequently, what was known as tombarthite-(Y) is not a mixture of the same minerals in equal amounts in different samples, but mixtures of various minerals depending on the sample. The main minerals identified are thalénite-(Y), xenotime-(Y) and kainosite-(Y). The discreditation of tombarthite-(Y) relies on new analyses of a large number of samples from the collection of the Natural History Museum (NHM) in Oslo and has been approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (proposal 16-K).

Keywords

tombarthite-(Y)discreditationHøgetveit farmEvje and HornnesAust-AgderNorwaypowder X-ray diffraction
Type
Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 1131 - 1139
Copyright
Copyright © Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Stuart Mills

References

Dunn, P.J. (1990) The discreditation of mineral species. American Mineralogist, 75, 928–930.Google Scholar
Griffin, W.L., Nilssen, B. and Jensen, B.B. (1979) Britholite-(Y) and its alteration: Reiarsdal, Vest-Agder, south Norway. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 59, 265–271.Google Scholar
Neumann, H. and Nilssen, B. (1968) Tombarthite, a new mineral from Høgetveit, Evje, South Norway. Lithos, 1, 113–123.Google Scholar
Nickel, E.H. and Grice, J.D. (1998) The IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names: Procedures and guidelines on mineral nomenclature, 1998. The Canadian Mineralogist, 36, 913–926.Google Scholar
Nilssen, B. (1971) Yttrialite from Ivedal, Iveland, South Norway. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 51, 1–8.Google Scholar
Raade, G. (1996) Minerals originally described from Norway. Including notes on type material. Norsk Bergverksmuseums Skriftserie, 11, 1–119.Google Scholar
Rolland, Y., Cox, S., Boullier, A-M, Pennacchioni, G. and Mancktelow, N. (2003) Rare earth and trace element mobility in mid-crustal shear zones: insights from the Mont Blanc Massif (Western Alps). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 214, 203–219.Google Scholar