Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:04:13.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minasgeraisite-(Y) discredited as an ordered intermediate between datolite and hingganite-(Y)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2023

Daniel Atencio Open the ORCID record for Daniel Atencio [Opens in a new window]
Daniel Atencio*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Geociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Daniel Atencio; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Minasgeraisite-(Y) is discredited on the basis of it being an ordered intermediate between datolite and hingganite-(Y) (IMA-CNMNC Proposal 23-F). An idealised formula is (Ca2Y2)□2(Be2B2)Si4O16(OH)4, which corresponds to Ca2□B2Si2O8(OH)2 (datolite) + Y2□Be2Si2O8(OH)2 (hingganite-(Y)). The type material is rich in Bi, the Bi-richest portion yet discovered from the type locality is shown to be an intermediate member between datolite, hingganite-(Y) and a hypothetical end-member phase yet to be found of composition Bi2□Be2Si2O8(OH)2. Minasgeraisite-(Y) has a different space group to datolite and hingganite-(Y). This lowering of symmetry to an acentric triclinic system is caused by different element occupancies on the A site of the gadolinite supergroup structure, which for minasgeraisite-(Y) becomes four individual sites. Such an order–disorder of elements is not considered as species-defining criteria despite the change in space group. Therefore, minasgeraisite-(Y) is discredited.

Keywords

minasgeraisite-(Y)datolitehingganite-(Y)gadolinite supergrouporder–disorderdiscreditation
Type
Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 87 , Issue 5 , October 2023 , pp. 738 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Mineralogical Society of the United Kingdom and Ireland

Introduction

Foord et al. (Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986) described minasgeraisite [changed to minasgeraisite-(Y) to conform to the International Mineralogical Association (IMA) rules of nomenclature for rare-earth minerals (Bayliss and Levinson Reference Bayliss and Levinson1988)] as a new member of the gadolinite group, from the zoned complex of the Jaguaraçu granitic pegmatite, in the Mr. José Pinto quarry, Jaguaraçu, Minas Gerais, Brazil (IMA1983-90a). Using Inductive Coupled Plasma – Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) and electron microprobe analyses, the empirical formula was given as:

$$\eqalign{& ( {{\rm Ca}_{0.45}{\rm Mn}^{2 + }_{0.20} {\rm Mg}_{0.08}{\rm Fe}_{0.05} {\rm Zn}_{0.02} {\rm Cu}_{0.01}\squ_{0.19}} ) _{\Sigma 1.00}\cr & ( {{\rm Be}_{1.55}{\rm B}_{0.21}{\rm Si}_{0.24}} ) _{\Sigma 2.00} ( {{\rm Y}_{0.72}{\it Ln}_{0.41} {\rm Ca}_{0.56}{\rm Bi}_{0.31}} ) _{\Sigma 2.00}\cr & ( {\rm Si_{1.95}{\rm P}_{0.08}} ) _{\Sigma 2.03}{\rm O}_{10}, \;} $$

where Ln expresses lanthanoids, La–Lu.

Their presented end-member formula was CaBe2Y2Si2O10 and their data suggested monoclinic symmetry. Since this time, a gadolinite-group mineral with this formula has been regarded as unlikely (Demartin et al., Reference Demartin, Minaglia and Gramaccioli2001, Bačík et al., Reference Bačík, Fridrichová, Uher, Pršek and Ondrejka2014, Reference Bačík, Miyawaki, Atencio, Cámara and Fridrichová2017). The gadolinite supergroup (Bačík et al., Reference Bačík, Miyawaki, Atencio, Cámara and Fridrichová2017) includes mineral species with the general chemical formula A 2MQ 2T 2O8Φ2, they can be silicates, phosphates or arsenates. They have monoclinic symmetry, space group P21/c. The currently recognised gadolinite-supergroup minerals are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Gadolinite-supergroup minerals.

The structure of gadolinite-supergroup minerals can be described as composed of two different layers parallel to (100) and alternating along the [100] direction (in the P21/c space group). One layer consists of TO4 and QO4 tetrahedra, and the other of AO6Φ2 polyhedra and MO4Φ2 octahedra.

At that time, the crystal structure of minasgeraisite-(Y) had not been determined, but to many, it seemed unlikely that the [6]-coordinated M-site would be dominantly occupied by Ca, which is assigned to the larger [8]-coordinated A-site in all other members of the supergroup.

A complicating factor in the ongoing discussion on the validity of minasgeraisite-(Y) as a mineral species, were several analyses performed in the original paper that indicated a high Bi content (Foord et al., Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986).

Crystal structure data

On the basis of an observation that minasgeraisite-(Y) might be a calcium rich hingganite-(Y) (Cooper and Hawthorne, Reference Cooper and Hawthorne2018), Cooper et al. (Reference Cooper, Hawthorne, Miyawaki and Kristiansen2019) determined the crystal structure of a ‘Ca-hingganite-(Y)’ sample from the Heftetjern granitic pegmatite, located in southern Norway. They obtained a triclinic P1 unit cell with a = 9.863(4), b = 7.602(3), c = 4.762(2) Å, α = 90.002(15), β = 90.073(7), γ = 90.020(5)°, V = 357.1(5) Å3 and Z = 1, and expanded the general formula of gadolinite to 20 anions to show A-site cation ordering, with Ca and Y(Ln) ordered over four A sites (Fig. 1). The dominant constituent at the M site was determined as a vacancy (□), and no Ca was assigned to the M site. The structural formula presented was:

$$[ {( {{\rm Y}, Ln} ) {\rm Ca}{( {{\rm Y}, {\rm Ca}, Ln} ) }_2} ] ( {\squ , {\rm F}{\rm e}^{2 + }} ) _2( {{\rm Be}, {\rm B}, {\rm Si}} ) _4{\rm S}{\rm i}_4{\rm O}_{16}[ {( {{\rm OH}} ) , {\rm O}} ] _4.$$

Figure 1. Views of the two types of space groups. (a) Gadolinite-(Y) from the White Cloud pegmatite, Colorado, USA (Allaz et al., Reference Allaz, Smyth, Henry, Stern, Persson, Ma and Raschke2020). (b) Minasgeraisite-(Y) from Heftetjern granitic pegmatite, southern Norway (Cooper et al., Reference Cooper, Hawthorne, Miyawaki and Kristiansen2019). Drawn using VESTA 3 (Momma and Izumi, Reference Momma and Izumi2011).

The refined formula was:

$$\eqalign{& ( {{\rm C}{\rm a}_{1.992}{\rm Y}_{1.873}Er_{0.135} } ) _{\Sigma 4.000}( {\squ_{1.216}{\rm F}{\rm e}^{2 + }_{0.784} } ) _{\Sigma 2.000} \vskip-6pt \cr & ( {{\rm B}{\rm e}_{2.24}{\rm B}_{1.58}{\rm S}{\rm i}_{0.18}} ) _{\Sigma 4.00} {\rm S}{\rm i}_4{\rm O}_{16}[ {{( {{\rm OH}} ) }_{2.382}} {\rm O}_{1.618} ] _{\Sigma 4.000}, \;} $$

where Er is not erbium, but an average based on all the lanthanides (57–71)

The simplified ideal formula reduces best to:

$$( {{\rm C}{\rm a}_2{\rm Y}_2} ) \squ ( {{\rm B}{\rm e}_2{\rm B}_2} ) {\rm S}{\rm i}_4{\rm O}_{16}[ {{( {{\rm OH}} ) }_4} ] $$

Cooper et al. (Reference Cooper, Hawthorne, Miyawaki and Kristiansen2019) did not address the discussion of defining a species name, but the ‘Ca-hingganite-(Y)’ studied corresponded to what would have been a minasgeraisite-(Y) at the time, and therefore could be regarded as the second occurrence of the mineral.

The chemical formula of Brazilian minasgeraisite-(Y) as reported by Foord et al. (Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986) based on the structural data obtained by Cooper et al. (Reference Cooper, Hawthorne, Miyawaki and Kristiansen2019) becomes:

$$\matrix{ {{( {{\rm C}{\rm a}_{1.79}{\rm B}{\rm i}_{0.37}} ) }_{\Sigma 2.16}( {\rm Y}_{1.27}{\rm Y}{\rm b}_{0.35}{\rm E}{\rm r}_{0.09}{\rm L}{\rm u}_{0.08}{\rm D}{\rm y}_{0.06}{\rm T}{\rm m}_{0.03}}\hfill \cr {{\rm N}{\rm d}_{0.03}{\rm H}{\rm o}_{0.02}{\rm G}{\rm d}_{0.02}} {\rm L}{\rm a}_{0.01}{\rm C}{\rm e}_{0.01}{\rm P}{\rm r}_{0.01}{\rm S}{\rm m}_{0.01}{\rm T}{\rm b}_{0.01}) _{} {_{\Sigma 2.00}} \hfill \cr{( {\squ_{1.38}{\rm M}{\rm n}^{2 + }_{\;\;\;\;0.35} {\rm M}{\rm g}_{0.13}{\rm F}{\rm e}^{2 + }_{\;\;\;\;0.08} {\rm Z}{\rm n}_{0.04}{\rm C}{\rm u}_{0.02}} ) }_{\Sigma 2.00} \hfill \cr {{( {{\rm B}{\rm e}_{2.74}\squ_{0.89}{\rm B}_{0.37}} ) }_{\Sigma 4.00}} {{( {{\rm S}{\rm i}_{3.85}{\rm P}_{0.11}} ) }_{\Sigma 4.00}}\hfill \cr {[ {{\rm O}_{15.20}{( {{\rm OH}} ) }_{0.80}} ] }_{\Sigma 16.00}{( {{\rm OH}} ) }_{4.00}.\hfill}$$

The significant visual difference between the Brazilian and Norwegian minasgeraisite-(Y) is the colour, the lilac colouration of the Brazilian samples probably being due to Mn2+ and the brown–orange of the Norwegian due to the presence of Fe2+ at the M site.

Before the work on ‘Ca-hingganite-(Y)’, Cooper and Hawthorne (Reference Cooper and Hawthorne2018) had already determined the crystal structure of a ‘minasgeraisite-(Y)’ sample from the type locality. They used the name in single quotes because it was not the type specimen and, unfortunately, they were unable to chemically analyse it, choosing to apply the chemical data from Foord et al. (Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986) instead.

They obtained a triclinic P1 unit cell (their figure 5) with a = 9.994(4), b = 7.705(3), c = 4.764(2) Å, α = 90.042(9), β = 90.218(14), γ = 90.034(9)°, V = 366.8(5) Å3 and Z = 1, and again expanded the general formula of gadolinite to 20 anions. They showed that Bi, Ca and REE were ordered over four different A sites, the dominant constituent at the M sites was a vacancy and Ca did not occur at the M sites. The structural formula given was:

$${\rm BiCa}( {{\rm Y}, Ln} ) _2( {\squ , {\rm M}{\rm n}^{2 + }} ) _2( {{\rm Be, B, Si}} ) _4{\rm S}{\rm i}_4{\rm O}_{16}[ {( {{\rm OH}} ) , {\rm O}} ] _4.$$

Appling this to the bulk sample chemical data presented in Foord et al. (Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986), they acquired the empirical formula:

$$\matrix{ {{( {{\rm Y}_{1.42}{\rm C}{\rm a}_{1.19}{\rm B}{\rm i}_{0.81}Er_{0.58}} ) }_{\Sigma{4.00}} {( \squ _{1.37}{\rm M}{\rm n}^{2 + }_{0.63} ) }_{\Sigma {2.00}} {( {{\rm B}{\rm e}_{3.32}{\rm B}_{0.40}{\rm S}{\rm i}_{0.28}} ) }_{\Sigma{4.00}} } \hfill \cr {{\rm S}{\rm i}_4{\rm O}_{16}{[ {{( {{\rm OH}} ) }_{2.74}{\rm O}_{1.26}} ] }_{\Sigma {4.00}} .} \hfill \cr } $$

Applying the same methodology to the most Bi-rich analysis presented in Foord et al. (Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986) gives:

$$\matrix{ {{( {\rm C}{\rm a}_{1.36}{\rm B}{\rm i}_{1.15}{\rm Y}_{0.94}{\rm Y}{\rm b}_{0.28}{\rm D}{\rm y}_{0.07}{\rm L}{\rm u}_{0.07}{\rm E}{\rm r}_{0.06}{\rm T}{\rm m}_{0.03}{\rm L}{\rm a}_{0.01}{\rm P}{\rm r}_{0.01}}{\rm N}{\rm d}_{0.01}}\hfill \cr {{\rm S}{\rm m}_{0.01}{\rm G}{\rm d}_{0.01}{\rm T}{\rm b}_{0.01}{\rm H}{\rm o}_{0.01}) }_{\Sigma 4.03} {( \squ _{1.26}{\rm M}{\rm n}^{2 + }_{0.47} {\rm M}{\rm g}_{0.14}{\rm F}{\rm e}^{2 + }_{0.09}} \hfill \cr {{{\rm Z}{\rm n}_{0.03}{\rm C}{\rm u}_{0.01}) }_{\Sigma 2}{( {\rm B}{\rm e}_{2.94}\squ _{0.67}{\rm B}_{0.41}) }_{\Sigma 4}{( {\rm S}{\rm i}_{3.84}{\rm P}_{0.16}) }_{\Sigma 4}} \hfill \cr {{[ {{\rm O}_{15.50}{( {{\rm OH}} ) }_{0.50}} ] }_{\Sigma 16}{( {{\rm OH}} ) }_4.} \hfill \cr } $$

A recent further study, the first which has studied both chemically and structurally a ‘minasgeraisite-(Y)’ sample from the type occurrence was published during review by the Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC) of the IMA of the proposal relevant to deciding if minasgeraisite-(Y) required mineral species status. That study (Vereshchagin et al., Reference Vereshchagin, Gorelova, Shagova, Kasatkin, Škoda, Bocharov and Galiová2023) confirmed much of the data of Cooper and Hawthorne (Reference Cooper and Hawthorne2018), but was unable to determine the lower symmetry due to lack of sample material. Their conclusion was that their sample, which was linked to the original description, but not confirmed as the type specimen was equivalent to a monoclinic Bi- and Mn-bearing hingganite-(Y). There was no additional discussion on the structural position of Ca other than noting excess Ca on the M site.

Conclusions

On the basis of the crystal structure and structural formula determined by Cooper et al. (Reference Cooper, Hawthorne, Miyawaki and Kristiansen2019) for ‘Ca-hingganite-(Y)’ and the chemical analysis determined by Foord et al. (Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986) for the type specimen, the simplified ideal formula of minasgeraisite-(Y) is (Ca2Y2)□2(Be2B2)Si4O16(OH)4, which corresponds to Ca2□B2Si2O8(OH)2 (datolite) + Y2□Be2Si2O8(OH)2 (hingganite-(Y)).

On the basis of the crystal structure determined by Cooper and Hawthorne (Reference Cooper and Hawthorne2018) for a ‘minasgeraisite-(Y)’ sample from the type occurrence and the chemical analysis determined by Foord et al. (Reference Foord, Gaines, Crock, Simmons and Barbosa1986) on their ‘Bi-richest portion’, the simplified ideal formula for the richest Bi composition thus far reported of minasgeraisite-(Y) is (Y2CaBi)□2(Be3B)Si4O16(OH)4, which corresponds to Y2□Be2Si2O8(OH)2 (hingganite-(Y)) + 0.5 Ca2□B2Si2O8(OH)2 (datolite) + 0.5 Bi2□Be2Si2O8(OH)2 (unknown phase).

Both minasgeraisite-(Y) and the Bi-richest minasgeraisite-(Y) are gadolinite-supergroup minerals with non-end-member compositions. The solid solution of more than two elements in the A sites causes a lowering of their symmetry to acentric triclinic resulted from cation ordering of Ca, REE (and Bi) at the A site, which become non-equivalent sites A1–A4 (Cooper et al., Reference Cooper, Hawthorne, Miyawaki and Kristiansen2019). However, topologically similar polymorphs where such order–disorder relationships affect the symmetry of a mineral (different space group), without modifying the global topology do not define a new species (Nickel and Grice, Reference Nickel and Grice1998).

It is likely that, if the crystal structures of many gadolinite-supergroup minerals with non-end-member compositions were analysed accurately, P1 symmetry would be identified in the strictest sense, yet they would have P21/c average structures. As a consequence, minasgeraisite-(Y) should not be separately created based on its space group nor the presence of Bi. Should a Bi-dominant analysis overall on the A site(s), with ideal formula Bi2□Be2Si2O8(OH)2, be discovered it would classify as a new species.

In summary, minasgeraisite-(Y) is discredited as an ordered intermediate between datolite and hingganite-(Y) (IMA-CNMNC Proposal 23-F, Atencio, Reference Atencio2023). The Bi-richest portion is an intermediate member between datolite, hingganite-(Y), and a hypothetical phase yet to be found.

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge Mike Rumsey, Peter Bačík, two anonymous reviewers, and all members of the IMA Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification for their helpful suggestions and comments, and FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) for financial support (process 2019/23498-0) and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for a research productivity scholarship (process 303431/2019-9).

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Michael Rumsey

References

Allaz, J.M., Smyth, J.R., Henry, R.E., Stern, C.R., Persson, P., Ma, J.J. and Raschke, M.B. (2020) Beryllium-silicon disorder and rare earth crystal chemistry in gadolinite from the White Cloud pegmatite, Colorado, USA. The Canadian Mineralogist, 58, 829–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atencio, D. (2023) 23-F: Discreditation of minasgeraisite-(Y), Newsletter 73. Mineralogical Magazine, 87, 639–643, https://doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2023.44Google Scholar
Bačík, P., Fridrichová, J., Uher, P., Pršek, J. and Ondrejka, M. (2014) Crystal chemistry of gadolinite-datolite group silicates. The Canadian Mineralogist, 51, 625–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bačík, P., Miyawaki, R., Atencio, D., Cámara, F. and Fridrichová, J. (2017) Nomenclature of the gadolinite supergroup. European Journal of Mineralogy, 29, 1067–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, P. and Levinson, A.A. (1988) A system of nomenclature for rare-earth mineral species: Revision and extension. American Mineralogist, 73, 422–423.Google Scholar
Cooper, M.A. and Hawthorne, F.C. (2018) Cation order in the crystal structure of ‘minasgeraisite-(Y)’. Mineralogical Magazine, 82, 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M.A., Hawthorne, F.C., Miyawaki, R. and Kristiansen, R. (2019) Cation order in the crystal structure of ‘Ca-Hingganite-(Y)’. The Canadian Mineralogist, 57, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demartin, F., Minaglia, A. and Gramaccioli, C.M. (2001) Characterization of gadolinite-group minerals using crystallographic data only: the case of hingganite-(Y) from Cuasso al Monte, Italy. The Canadian Mineralogist, 39, 1105–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foord, E.E., Gaines, R.V., Crock, J.G., Simmons, W.B. Jr. and Barbosa, C.P. (1986) Minasgeraisite, a new member of the gadolinite group from Minas Gerais, Brazil. American Mineralogist, 71, 603–607.Google Scholar
Momma, K. and Izumi, F. (2011) VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data. Journal of Applied Crystallography, 44, 1272–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, E. H. and Grice, J. D. (1998) The IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names: Procedure and guideline on mineral nomenclature, 1998. The Canadian Mineralogist, 36, 913–926.Google Scholar
Vereshchagin, O., Gorelova, L., Shagova, A., Kasatkin, A., Škoda, R., Bocharov, V. and Galiová, M. (2023) Re-investigation of ‘minasgeraisite-(Y)’ from the Jaguaraçu pegmatite, Brazil and high-temperature crystal chemistry of gadolinite supergroup minerals. Mineralogical Magazine, 87, 470–479, https://doi:10.1180/mgm.2023.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Gadolinite-supergroup minerals.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Views of the two types of space groups. (a) Gadolinite-(Y) from the White Cloud pegmatite, Colorado, USA (Allaz et al., 2020). (b) Minasgeraisite-(Y) from Heftetjern granitic pegmatite, southern Norway (Cooper et al., 2019). Drawn using VESTA 3 (Momma and Izumi, 2011).