Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

American Mineralogist

Journal of Earth and Planetary Materials

Ed. by Baker, Don / Xu, Hongwu / Swainson, Ian


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 2.631

CiteScore 2018: 2.55

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.355
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.103

Online
ISSN
1945-3027
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 104, Issue 5

Issues

Trends in the discovery of new minerals over the last century

Isabel F. Barton
  • Corresponding author
  • Lowell Institute for Mineral Resources, University of Arizona, 1235 James E. Rogers Way, Tucson, Arizona 85721, U.S.A.
  • Present address: Department of Mining and Geological Engineering, University of Arizona, 1235 James E. Rogers Way, Tucson, Arizona 85721, U.S.A.
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-04-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2138/am-2019-6844

Abstract

Patterns in the discovery and description of new minerals over the last century emerge from a new database of 4046 mineral discovery reports (roughly ¾ of all known minerals). The number of new minerals discovered per year was steady over time from 1917 to the early 1950s, when it began a rapid increase punctuated by spikes in 1962–1969, 1978–1982, and 2008–2016, the last of which is probably still ongoing. A detailed breakdown of the technological, geographic, institutional, and other characteristics of mineral discovery in this data set elucidates factors leading to increases in mineral discovery. (1) The availability of instrumentation for a particular analytical technique has a far larger impact on the rate of its uptake in mineral discovery than the technique’s invention or computer automation. (2) Samples from mines, quarries, and resource exploration have produced around 2⁄3 of all new mineral discoveries due to geochemical peculiarity and good exposure; lunar and meteoritic samples have contributed relatively few new minerals. (3) Peralkaline intrusions and volcanic fumaroles are the next most productive sites of new mineral discovery. (4) Which countries host mineralogists who discover large numbers of new minerals have varied over time but is always a relatively small number (<20), and mineral discovery is highly concentrated in specific laboratories or workgroups. (5) Involvement of governmental organizations in new mineral discovery peaked in the aftermath of World War II and has since declined to almost nil, with new mineral discoveries now coming primarily from universities and similar academic institutions (75%) and from museums (25%). (6) The average number of authors on mineral discovery papers has risen from <1.5 in 1950 to >6 now and follows an exponential trend. (7) The average number of methods used to characterize new minerals has not changed significantly since 1960, and about half of new mineral descriptions are made using roughly the minimum of analyses required for a new mineral to be recognized. (8) A partial study of discredited or redefined minerals identified changes to nomenclature and classification as the primary causes for discreditation; failure to replicate analytical results is a distant second. Only five cases of fraudulent mineral discovery are known. This article presents the data underlying these analyses and discusses some possible reasons for the observed trends in the rate of new mineral discovery, as well as the implications for the history (and future) of mineralogy.

Keywords: Analytical mineralogy; history of mineralogy; new mineral; mineral discovery; X‑ray diffractometry; electron microprobe

References cited

  • Angel, R., and Nestola, F. (2016) A century of mineral structures: How well do we know them? American Mineralogist, 101, 1036–1045.Google Scholar

  • Atencio, D. (2015) The discovery of new mineral species and type minerals from Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Geology, 45, 143–158.Google Scholar

  • Atencio, D., Andrade, M., Christy, A., Giere, R., and Kartashov, P. (2010) The pyrochlore supergroup of minerals: Nomenclature. Canadian Mineralogist, 48, 673–698.Google Scholar

  • Barton, M., Kieft, C., Burke, E., and Oen, I. (1978) Uytenbogaardtite, a new silver-gold sulfide. Canadian Mineralogist, 16, 651–657.Google Scholar

  • Bernal, J. (1962) British and Commonwealth schools of crystallography. In P. Ewald, Ed., Fifty Years of X-ray Diffraction, chapter 17, 373–429. Springer.Google Scholar

  • Bulakh, A., Zolotarev, A., and Britvin, S. (2003) A retrospect of discovery of minerals (1775-2000) and a look into the future. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie-Monatshefte, 2003, 10, 446–460.Google Scholar

  • Burke, E. (2006) A mass discreditation of GQN minerals. Canadian Mineralogist, 44, 1557–1560.Google Scholar

  • Ciriotti, M. (2015) Discreditation of the mineral species churchite-(Nd) and iodine. European Journal of Mineralogy, 27, 813–819.Google Scholar

  • Dana, E.D. (1892) The System of Mineralogy of James Dwight Dana, 6th ed., 1421 p. Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Fersman, A.E. (1938) On the number of mineral species. Comptes Rendus (Doklady) de l’Academie des Sciences de l’URSS, 19, 4, 269–272.Google Scholar

  • Fleischer, M. (1969) How many minerals? American Mineralogist, 54, 960–961.Google Scholar

  • Grew, E., Hystad, G., Hazen, R., Krivovichev, S., and Gorelova, L. (2017) How many boron minerals occur in Earth’s upper crust? American Mineralogist, 102, 1573–1587.Google Scholar

  • Hawthorne, F. (1993) Minerals, mineralogy and mineralogists: Past, present and future. Canadian Mineralogist, 31, 253–296.Google Scholar

  • Hawthorne, F., Oberti, R., Harlow, G., Maresch, W., Martin, R., Schumacher, J., and Welch, M. (2012) Nomenclature of the amphibole supergroup. American Mineralogist, 97, 2031–2048.Google Scholar

  • Hazen, R., Papineau, D., Bleeker, W., Downs, R., McCoy, T., Sverjensky, D., and Yang, H. (2008) Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist, 93, 1693–1720.Google Scholar

  • Hazen, R., Hystad, G., Downs, R., Golden, J., Pires, A., and Grew, E. (2015a) Earth’s “missing” minerals. American Mineralogist, 100, 2344–2347.Google Scholar

  • Hazen, R., Grew, E., Downs, R., Golden, J., and Hystad, G. (2015b) Mineral ecology: Chance and necessity in the mineral diversity of terrestrial planets. Canadian Mineralogist, 53, 295–324.Google Scholar

  • Heaney, P. (2016) Time’s arrow in the trees of life and minerals. American Mineralogist, 101, 1027–1035.Google Scholar

  • Khomyakov, A. (2011) The current system of natural minerals and prospects for its expansion. Russian Journal of General Chemistry, 81, 1360–1365.Google Scholar

  • Ma, C., and Rossman, G. (2008) Barioperovskite, BaTiO3 a new mineral from the Benitoite mine, California. American Mineralogist, 93, 154–157.Google Scholar

  • Moore, P. (1965) A structural classification of Fe-Mn orthophosphate hydrates. American Mineralogist, 50, 2052–2062.Google Scholar

  • Peacor, D., Simmons, W., Essene, E., and Heinrich, E. (1982) New data on and discreditation of “texasite,” “albrittonite,” “cuproartinite,” “cuprohydromagnesite,” and “yttromicrolite,” with corrected data on nickelbischofite, rowlandite, and yttrocrasite. American Mineralogist, 67, 156–169.Google Scholar

  • Putirka, K. (2015) The American Mineralogist at 100 years, and a mineralogy renaissance. American Mineralogist, 100, 1–2.Google Scholar

  • Rinaldi, R., and Llovet, X. (2015) Electron probe microanalysis: a review of the past, present, and future. Microscopy and Microanalysis, 21, 1053–1069.Google Scholar

  • Sheldrick, G. (2008) A short history of SHELX. Acta Crystallographica, A64, 112–122.Google Scholar

  • Skinner, B., and Skinner, H. (1980) Is there a limit to the number of minerals? Mineralogical Record, 11, 333–335.Google Scholar

  • Urusov, V. (2010) Natural selection of mineral species. Geology of Ore Deposits, 52, 852–871.Google Scholar

  • Wyckoff, R. (1962) The development of X‑ray diffraction in U.S.A. In P. Ewald, Ed., Fifty Years of X-ray Diffraction, chapter 18, 430–445. Springer.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-10-10

Accepted: 2019-01-09

Published Online: 2019-04-26

Published in Print: 2019-05-27


Citation Information: American Mineralogist, Volume 104, Issue 5, Pages 641–651, ISSN (Online) 1945-3027, ISSN (Print) 0003-004X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2138/am-2019-6844.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in