The classification of the tetrahedrite group minerals in keeping with the current IMA-accepted nomenclature rules is discussed. Tetrahedrite isotypes are cubic, with space group symmetry I43m. The general structural formula of minerals belonging to this group can be written as M(2)A6M(1)(B4C2)X(3) D4S(1)Y12S(2)Z, where A = Cu+, Ag+, ☐ (vacancy), and (Ag6)4+ clusters; B = Cu+, and Ag+; C = Zn2+, Fe2+, Hg2+, Cd2+, Mn2+, Cu2+, Cu+, and Fe3+; D = Sb3+, As3+, Bi3+, and Te4+; Y = S2– and Se2–; and Z = S 2–, Se2–, and ☐. The occurrence of both Me+ and Me2+ cations at the M(1) site, in a 4:2 atomic ratio, is a case of valency-imposed double site-occupancy. Consequently, different combinations of B and C constituents should be regarded as separate mineral species. The tetrahedrite group is divided into five different series on the basis of the A, B, D, and Y constituents, i.e., the tetrahedrite, tennantite, freibergite, hakite, and giraudite series. The nature of the dominant C constituent (the so-called “charge-compensating constituent”) is made explicit using a hyphenated suffix between parentheses. Rozhdestvenskayaite, arsenofreibergite, and goldfieldite could be the names of three other series. Eleven minerals belonging to the tetrahedrite group are considered as valid species: argentotennantite-(Zn), argentotetrahedrite-(Fe), kenoargentotetrahedrite-(Fe), giraudite-(Zn), goldfieldite, hakite-(Hg), rozhdestvenskayaite-(Zn), tennantite-(Fe), tennantite-(Zn), tetrahedrite-(Fe), and tetrahedrite-(Zn). Furthermore, annivite is formally discredited. Minerals corresponding to different end-member compositions should be approved as new mineral species by the IMA-CNMNC following the submission of regular proposals. The nomenclature and classification system of the tetrahedrite group, approved by the IMA-CNMNC, allows the full description of the chemical variability of the tetrahedrite minerals and it is able to convey important chemical information not only to mineralogists but also to ore geologists and industry professionals.

A new, IMA-approved classification scheme for the spinel-supergroup minerals is here reported. To belong to the spinel supergroup, a mineral must meet two criteria: (i) the ratio of cation to anion sites must be equal to 3:4, typically represented by the general formula AB 2 X 4 where A and B represent cations (including vacancy) and X represents anions; (ii) its structure must comprise a heteropolyhedral framework of four-fold coordination polyhedra (TX 4) isolated from each other and sharing corners with the neighboring six-fold coordination polyhedra (MX 6), which, in turn, share six of their twelve X-X edges with nearestneighbor MX 6. Regardless of space group, the X anions form a cubic close-packing and each X anion is bonded to three M-cations and one T-cation. The fifty-six minerals of the spinel supergroup are divided into three groups on the basis of dominant X anion: O 2-(oxyspinel), S 2-(thiospinel), and Se 2-(selenospinel). Each group is composed of subgroups identified according to the dominant valence and then the dominant constituent (or heterovalent pair of constituents) represented by the letter B in the formula AB 2 X 4. The oxyspinel group (33 species) can be divided into the spinel subgroup 2-3 ðA 2þ B 3þ 2 O 4 Þ and the ulvöspinel subgroup 4-2 ðA 4þ B 2þ 2 O 4 Þ, the thiospinel group (20 species) into the carrollite subgroup 1-3.5 ðA 1þ B 3:5þ 2 S 4 Þ and the linnaeite subgroup 2-3 ðA 2þ B 3þ 2 S 4 Þ, finally, the selenospinel group (3 species) into the bornhardtite subgroup 2-3 (A 2+ B 3+ 2 Se 4) and the potential ''tyrrellite subgroup'' (A 1þ B 3:5þ 2 S 4 , currently composed by only one species). Once the subgroup is established based on the valence of B, then the mineral species is identified by the combination of the dominant A-and B-cations. Moreover, the present nomenclature redefines the ideal formulae of titanomaghemite, cuprorhodsite, malanite, maghemite, filipstadite, tegengrenite, rhodostannite, toyohaite and xingzhongite as well as discredits ''iwakiite'', ''hydrohetaerolite'' and ''ferrorhodsite''.

The name ‘tobermorites’ includes a number of calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) phases differing in their hydration state and sub-cell symmetry. Based on their basal spacing, closely related to the degree of hydration, 14, 11 and 9 Å compounds have been described. In this paper a new nomenclature scheme for these mineral species is reported. The tobermorite supergroup is defined. It is formed by the tobermorite group and the unclassified minerals plombièrite, clinotobermorite and riversideite. Plombièrite (‘14 Å tobermorite’) is redefined as a crystalline mineral having chemical composition Ca5Si6O16(OH)2·7H2O. Its type locality is Crestmore, Riverside County, California, USA. The tobermorite group consists of species having a basal spacing of ~11 Å and an orthorhombic sub-cell symmetry. Its general formula is Ca4+x(AlySi6–y)O15+2x–y·5H2O. Its endmember compositions correspond to tobermorite Ca5Si6O17·5H2O (x = 1 and y = 0) and the new species kenotobermorite, Ca4Si6O15(OH)2·5H2O (x = 0 and y = 0). The type locality of kenotobermorite is the N'Chwaning II mine, Kalahari Manganese Field, South Africa. Within the tobermorite group, tobermorite and kenotobermorite form a complete solid solution. Al-rich samples do not warrant a new name, because Al can only achieve a maximum content of 1/6 of the tetrahedral sites (y = 1). Clinotobermorite, Ca5Si6O17·5H2O, is a dimorph of tobermorite having a monoclinic sub-cell symmetry. Finally, the compound with a ~9 Å basal spacing is known as riversideite. Its natural occurrence is not demonstrated unequivocally and its status should be considered as “questionable”. The chemical composition of its synthetic counterpart, obtained through partial dehydration of tobermorite, is Ca5Si6O16(OH)2. All these mineral species present an order-disorder character and several polytypes are known. This report has been approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification

Having thrived in Eurasia for 350,000 years Neandertals disappeared from the record around 40,000–37,000 years ago, after modern humans entered Europe. It was a complex process of population interactions that included cultural exchanges and admixture between Neandertals and dispersing groups of modern humans. In Europe Neandertals are always associated with the Mousterian while the Aurignacian is associated with modern humans only. The onset of the Aurignacian is preceded by “transitional” industries which show some similarities with the Mousterian but also contain modern tool forms. Information on these industries is often incomplete or disputed and this is true of the Uluzzian. We present the results of taphonomic, typological and technological analyses of two Uluzzian sites, Grotta La Fabbrica (Tuscany) and the newly discovered site of Colle Rotondo (Latium). Comparisons with Castelcivita and Grotta del Cavallo show that the Uluzzian is a coherent cultural unit lasting about five millennia, replaced by the Protoaurignacian before the eruption of the Campanian Ignimbrite. The lack of skeletal remains at our two sites and the controversy surrounding the stratigraphic position of modern human teeth at Cavallo makes it difficult to reach agreement about authorship of the Uluzzian, for which alternative hypotheses have been proposed. Pending the discovery of DNA or further human remains, these hypotheses can only be evaluated by archaeological arguments, i.e. evidence of continuities and discontinuities between the Uluzzian and the preceding and succeeding culture units in Italy. However, in the context of “transitional” industries with disputed dates for the arrival of modern humans in Europe, and considering the case of the Châtelperronian, an Upper Paleolithic industry made by Neandertals, typo-technology used as an indicator of hominin authorship has limited predictive value. We corroborate previous suggestions that the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition occurred as steps of rapid changes and geographically uneven rates of spread.

Compounds with a spinel-type structure include mineral species with the general formula AB 2 φ 4 , where φ can be O 2-, S 2-, or Se 2-. Space group symmetry is Fd3m, even if lower symmetries are reported owing to the off-center displacement of metal ions. In oxide spinels (φ = O 2-), A and B cations can be divalent and trivalent ("2-3 spinels") or, more rarely, tetravalent and divalent ("4-2 spinels"). From a chemical point of view, oxide spinels belong to the chemical classes of oxides, germanates, and silicates. Up to now, 24 mineral species have been approved: ahrensite, brunogeierite, chromite, cochromite, coulsonite, cuprospinel, filipstadite, franklinite, gahnite, galaxite, hercynite, jacobsite, magnesiochromite, magnesiocoulsonite, magnesioferrite, magnetite, manganochromite, qandilite, ringwoodite, spinel, trevorite, ülvospinel, vuorelainenite, and zincochromite. Sulfospinels (φ = S 2-) and selenospinels (φ = Se 2-) are isostructural with oxide spinels. Twenty-one different mineral species have been approved so far; of them, three are selenospinels (bornhardtite, trüstedtite, and tyrrellite), whereas 18 are sulfospinels: cadmoindite, carrollite, cuproiridsite, cuprokalininite, cuprorhodsite, daubréelite, ferrorhodsite, fletcherite, florensovite, greigite, indite, kalininite, linnaeite, malanite, polydymite, siegenite, violarite, and xingzhongite. The known mineral species with spinel-type structure are briefly reviewed, indicating for each of them the type locality, the origin of the name, and a few more miscellaneous data. This review aims at giving the state-of-the-art about the currently valid mineral species, considering the outstanding importance that these compounds cover in a wide range of scientific disciplines.

To univocally identify mineral species on the basis of their formula, the IMA-CNMNC recommends the use of the dominant-valency rule and/or the site-total-charge approach, which can be considered two procedures complementary to each other for mineral identification. In this regard, several worked examples are provided in this study along with some simple suggestions for a more consistent terminology and a straightforward use of mineral formulae. IMA-CNMNC guidelines subordinate the mineral structure to the mineral chemistry in the hierarchical scheme adopted for classification. Indeed, a contradiction appears when we first classify mineral species to form classes (based on their chemistry) and subsequently we group together them to form supergroups (based on their structure topology): To date, more than half of recognized mineral supergroups include species with different anions or anionic complexes. This observation is in contrast to the current use of chemical composition as the distinguishing factor at the highest level of mineral classification.

No abstract

No abstract