Talk:Ixiolite

	Earth sciences portal Ixiolite is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Formula/crystal system[edit]

Seems the references disagree re: the crystal system. The Handbook of Mineralogy and Webmin state it as monoclinic whereas Mindat says orthorhombic citing a 1998 Canadian Mineralogy article by Wise, et al. (Wise, M.A., Černý, P., Falster, A.U. (1998): Scandium substitution in columbite-group minerals and ixiolite. Canadian Mineralogist 36, 673-680. ) ... I don't have access to the Wise paper. The Mindat ref also give a different formula (Ta,Nb,Sn,Mn,Fe)₄O₈ rather than the (Ta,Nb,Sn,Mn,Fe)O₂ of HBM and Webmin. Not sure how to include this ... and would like to see the Wise paper. Thinking ... Vsmith (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now have the Wise paper, thanks Tobias, and will attempt to find order in the chaos. Seems, like other Ta-Nb minerals the composition gets messy. Still reading. Vsmith (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old mineral (1857). I think that the formula should come from IMA Database of Mineral Properties and IMA/ CNMNC Master List (November 2012). References. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I went with the Handbook and Mindat on the formula. According to the Wise paper the structure gets complicated with the high Sc, Ti and Sn varieties are orthorhombic, but they don't address "normal" ixiolites. Therefore went with the Handbook and Webmin on the structure. Mindat disagrees, but their reference to Wise seems perhaps confusing as Wise is not discussing "normal" ixiolites. Confusing? Yes. :) The IMA rruff info search says "discredited" 1941 ref and "redefined" w/ 1963 ref ... So what is it? Vsmith (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Ercit et al 1992: The wodginite group. I. structural crystallography? The paper explains a lot about the structure of Ixiolite. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some minerals that got discredited, and later redefined and revalidated. The IMA_Master_List_(2012-11) matters, only. If somebody publishes a peer review paper discrediting it, it gets discredited. The CNMNC just administrates the citations in the literature (more or less so). Normally the vice-chairman administrates the discreditations and the revalidations at the CNMNC meetings.

Apparently, loranskite-(Y)'s type material from 1899 is a "joke", but nobody bothers. If nobody publishes about it, it stays valid. It was in the 'B' list (valid names), somehow it ended in the 'A' list (grandfathered species).

Åmark K (1941) discredited ixiolite, but Nickel E H, Rowland J F and McAdam R C (1963) redefined ixiolite. Ernest Henry Nickel was the top expert at his time. Analytics gets better. Ixiolite, ishikawaite, samarskite-(Y), srilankite, yttrocolumbite-(Y) and samarskite-(Yb) have the same Strunz ID: 04.DB.25. I guess nobody could sort these minerals out in 1941.

Remember: IMA (founded 1958) and Victor Moritz Goldschmidt (1888–1947)

"The wodginite group; I, Structural crystallography". The Canadian Mineralogist. 30 (3): 597–611. 1992. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC) and --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]