Authors’ Response to Comments in Reviews

The format of only one page per mineral is too limiting.

There is about the same amount of information required for the characterization of any mineral species. A major difference between species then is the number of localities at which they occur. We thus limit locality data to the most important occurrences for relatively common minerals, and all we can confirm for the less-common species. These books are seen as only as the outline for a larger work which, being computer resident, may eventually grow to be of any size, as the interest of users warrants.

Insufficient data is presented to uniquely characterize each species.

The data abstracted and presented is essentially identical to that required for description of a new mineral by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. We present data sufficient to let the reader judge the current status of each species, the critical data that supports the presently accepted definition of the species.

The chemical analyses quoted do not show the range of substituting elements in the minerals, especially not down to the 3% level.

We supply chemical analyses that confirm the simplified chemical formulae, typically as stated in the Fleischer-Mandarino Glossary of Mineral Species (FMG) which is the standard for the American Mineralogist. Michael Fleischer generally required about 10% atomic percent of an element in any one structural position before it would enter into the simplified formula; we follow about that same definition.

Sources of data on many of the properties are not explicitly stated.

All numerical data given can be found in one or another of our references.

References are not linked to properties.

Users can rely on the accuracy of our extraction of the data from the references cited. If the user intends to significantly investigate a mineral’s description, or redefine the species, it will probably be necessary to obtain all the references we quote. Secondary references (ones which further document the development of the current species definition) can be obtained from the reference lists in our cited sources.

References for some minerals are old and perhaps out of date.

For very common minerals, there may have been no advance in the information required to adequately identify and characterize them in recent decades. Also, for older species, full wet chemical analyses from the last century are as good, or better than, any modern analyses, including microprobe analyses, if material was pure and abundant and if element valences are characteristic.

Although we include recent references, we tie our descriptions back to Dana’s System of Mineralogy, 6th and 7th editions, when the species appears in these books. In this way we also document the early literature on which the current species definitions depend.

International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD) X-ray powder pattern numbers are not given for all species.

If the X-ray powder pattern is from the open literature, we quote the primary source as one of our references. We have permission from the ICDD to quote partial patterns that are unique to their files, so long as they are credited. The ICDD is tending towards synthetic materials and calculated patterns, while we continue to prefer patterns of natural materials, preferably type materials.

Both decimal degrees and degrees and minutes are used for different minerals.

We quote the measurements as published in our references. Also, we give the relative intensities of X-ray powder diffraction lines as published, which in many cases are to less precision than quoted by the ICDD. In some cases we give the non-numerical relative intensities as originally reported.

Data is not all from the same specimen. Information varies in quality and quantity.

Yes – this is the nature of mineralogical investigations and literature. We must work within the bounds of what is available. We report only, and do not attempt to redefine species through our own efforts, as was done for Dana’s System of Mineralogy, 7th edition (one of the reasons why their third silicate volume never appeared). All of our cited data is drawn from peer-reviewed sources, confirmed by professional mineralogists.

Older synonyms and variety names are not given.

Obsolete names are the province of Hey’s Mineral Index, which keeps track of the totality of mineral names and synonymy. We use only mineral names approved by the International Mineralogical Association at the time of publication of each volume.

Groups are not given and handling of series is weak.

We give groups as established in the Fleischer-Mandarino Glossary of Mineral Species (FMG) for volumes after volume I (the groups for elements and sulfide minerals are not particularly instructive in placing like minerals together). We give mineral series as they are given in the FMG.

Type localities are not given and locality data in general is not referenced.

For volume I the type locality is in fact given, but it is not marked as such. For volumes II and following, the type locality, if it is known, is the first locality given, but again it is not explicitly marked. No comprehensive systematic mineralogy fully references localities information.

There is no chemical or other index.

Rather than provide a partial comprehensive index with each volume, we choose to face this task after all five volumes are completed. On page ii of each volume we offer a computer program, SEARCH, with its own data base extracted from the Handbook files, which performs multi-element searches on the essential elements for all valid mineral species. This program is kept current for species treated, even those published since earlier volumes.

The Handbook cannot be updated.

We considered alternate formats, including file cards and updateable loose-leaf notebooks. In our experience, while seemingly a good concept, updateable volumes are very difficult for the publisher and user to implement in practice.

The format is typographically poor and the content is arid.

We do our own typesetting and prepare the plates for the printer. Therefore any errors are our own, not introduced by a later stage of typesetting, important for maintaining accuracy. We engaged the services of a typographical designer, and also worked with Donald Knuth, Stanford University, the author of the TeX typesetting system which we use (and which is used at thousands of computer installations, and for dozens of books). If the result seems inelegant to some eyes, that is a small price to pay for the accuracy attained.

Chemical analyses are printed in split columns, making them harder to follow.

Chemical analyses longer than about 14 rows look typographically awkward printed vertically in any case. Shorter splits are useful in fitting the data onto one page. Dana’s System of Mineralogy, 6th and 7th editions, occasionally uses a horizontal format. Dana’s New Mineralogy, 8th edition, dispenses with chemical analyses almost entirely.

The Handbook of Mineralogy series is rather expensive to purchase.

In an absolute sense, the Handbook is in fact intermediate in price compared to other comprehensive reference books in mineralogy and related fields.

No information on classification appears in the Handbook of Mineralogy.

Classifications are left to others at this time, as not being essential to identification of species. The Fleischer-Mandarino Glossary of Mineral Species or equivalent is however necessary to fully use the Handbook series.