There are several scientific classification systems used for geological collections, each serving different purposes and emphasizing different aspects of the specimens. Here are some of the commonly used systems in geology:
- Rock Classification: Rocks are classified based on their composition, texture, and formation processes. The most widely used rock classification system is the “Rock Cycle” classification, which categorizes rocks into three major groups: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. Each group is further divided into various subcategories based on specific characteristics.
- Mineral Classification: Minerals are classified based on their chemical composition and crystal structure. The most widely accepted mineral classification system is the “Dana Classification,” which organizes minerals into different groups based on their chemical composition and structural characteristics. Another commonly used system is the “Strunz Classification,” which is based on both chemical composition and crystal structure.
- Fossil Classification: Fossils are classified based on their taxonomic relationships and evolutionary history. The Linnaean system of classification, which is also used for living organisms, is often employed to classify fossils. Fossils are grouped into various taxonomic categories such as species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. Additionally, fossils can be classified based on their mode of preservation or the type of organism they represent (e.g., plant fossils, invertebrate fossils, vertebrate fossils).
- Stratigraphic Classification: Stratigraphy involves the study and classification of rock layers (strata) and their arrangement in geological formations. The stratigraphic classification system organizes rock units into a hierarchical framework based on their relative ages and lithological characteristics. The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) has established the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, which divides Earth’s history into units of time (e.g., eons, eras, periods, epochs) and corresponds to specific rock layers and fossil assemblages.
These classification systems are used in geological collections to organize and categorize specimens based on their properties, enabling scientists to identify, compare, and study different geological materials. They provide a standardized framework for communication and facilitate the understanding of Earth’s history, processes, and resources.
Limitations of the scientific classification systems
Scientific classification systems for geological collections, while valuable for organizing and categorizing specimens, have limitations when it comes to incorporating indigenous or alternative knowledge. Here are some of those limitations:
- Eurocentric Bias: Traditional scientific classification systems have primarily been developed within a Eurocentric context, based on Western scientific paradigms and taxonomic frameworks. These systems may not adequately reflect the diverse knowledge systems and classifications used by indigenous cultures and alternative communities around the world.
- Cultural Context: Indigenous knowledge often incorporates holistic perspectives, spiritual connections, and intergenerational wisdom that may not align with the reductionist and strictly objective approach of scientific classification systems. Indigenous knowledge systems view the relationships between geology, ecology, culture, and spirituality as interconnected, while scientific classification tends to focus on discrete categories.
- Knowledge Hierarchy: Scientific classification systems often prioritize hierarchical structures and authoritative categorization, with experts making determinations on classification and nomenclature. This can overlook the decentralized and collective nature of indigenous knowledge, where multiple individuals or communities contribute to the understanding and classification of geological materials.
- Language and Terminology: Scientific classification systems predominantly use standardized scientific terminology, which may not align with indigenous languages or cultural concepts. There can be challenges in translating indigenous knowledge into the existing scientific classification systems, potentially leading to loss of meaning and nuance.
- Lack of Representation: Indigenous knowledge and alternative classifications may not be adequately represented in scientific databases, literature, or collections. This can result in underrepresentation or marginalization of alternative perspectives and valuable contributions from indigenous communities.
Efforts are being made to address these limitations and incorporate indigenous and alternative knowledge into geological collections. Collaborative research projects, participatory approaches, and the integration of indigenous perspectives into scientific frameworks aim to promote inclusivity, respect cultural diversity, and enhance our understanding of the Earth from different perspectives.
Grouping and naming our mineral collection
Scientists group minerals based on their chemical compositions. The Dana Classification System originally listed nine main mineral classes: Native Elements, Sulfides, Sulfates, Halides, Oxides, Carbonates, Phosphates, Silicates, and Organic Minerals. Other popular ways to classify and describe minerals are: hardness, colour, lustre, specific gravity and crystal system/
- The Dana System was created by American geologist, mineralogist and zoologist James Dwight Dana and published in 1937. He arranged the 352 mineral species known at the time first by their chemistry (elements, halides, sulfides, silicates, etc.), and then by their atomic structure or symmetry of the atomic arrangement. He published his list in 1837 in A System of Mineralogy. It
- The Moh’s hardness scale was introduced in 1812 by the German geologist and mineralogist Friedrich Mohs, in his book “Versuch einer Elementar-Methode zur naturhistorischen Bestimmung und Erkennung der Fossilien” (1 soft and 10 hard).
Below we list the information usually held in our collection catalogue about the minerals from Myanmar (Burma), Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and India. There are no fields in our catalogue that are dedicated to, or at least encourage the recording of, other relevant information linked to a particular mineral sample.
Diamond
Name: From Greek “adamas”, ‘invincible’. First known use by Manlius (A.D. 16) and Pliny (A.D. 100).
https://www.mindat.org/min-1282.html
Gold
Formula: AuName: Gold is one of the first minerals used by prehistoric cultures. The Latin name for this mineral was “aurum” and Jöns Jakob Berzelius used Au to represent the element when he established the current system of chemical symbols. The Old English word “gold” first appeared in written form about 725 and may further have been derived from “gehl” or “jehl”. May be derived from Anglo-Saxon “gold” = yellow. (Known to alchemists as Sol.)
Kyanite
Sillimanite
Formula: Al2(SiO4)OColour: Colorless, white, yellow, brown, green, blue, gray.
Z = Al, Fe(III), Cr(III), V(III) etc.
Trace amounts of Sn may replace Fe(III).
Name: Renamed in 1783 by Abraham Gottlob Werner from the Arabic (and, in turn, from the Persian “azargun”) “zar”, gold, plus “gun”, coloured, referring to one of the many colours that the mineral may display. Originally named λυγκύριον “lyncurion” in ~300 BCE by Theophrastus. A mineral that may have been today’s zircon was called chrysolithos by Pliny in 37. Called jacinth by Georgius Agricola in 1555. Mentioned as jargon by Axel Cronstedt in 1758. Called hyacinte by Barthelemy Faujas de Saint-Fond in 1772. Numerous later synonyms have been advanced.
Name: The name nephrite is derived from lapis nephriticus, which in turn is derived from Greek λίθος νεφριτικός; νεφρός λίθος, which means ‘kidney stone’ and is the Latin and Greek version of the Spanish piedra de ijada (the origin of jade and jadeite). Accordingly, nephrite jade was once believed to be a cure for kidney stones.
Series Formula:
A highly weathered, generally indurated, red subsoil nearly devoid of primary silicates, rich in hydrous iron oxides, +/- kaolinite +/- quartz +/- gibbsite.
Red residual soil developed in humid, tropical, and subtropical regions of good drainage. It is leached of silica and contains concentrations particularly of iron oxides and hydroxides and aluminum hydroxides. It may be an ore of iron, aluminum, manganese, or nickel. Adj. lateritic.
Synonym of: latosol
Name: After Wilhelm von Braun (* 1. October 1790 in Thal (Ruhla); † 6. February 1872 in Gotha), official and minister in Gotha, Germany, supporter of geology and mineralogy. He supplied the original material for the description of braunite.
Name: Named after the (then) type locality of Tirodi, India.
Note: Material described as “tirodite” from the International Talc Company mine, Talcville, New York, USA (Segeler, 1961), has been shown to be manganocummingtonite by electron microprobe analyses (by Mike Hawkins, curator at the NY State Museum mineral collection). See further discussions in http://www.mindat.org/mesg-7-206424.html and Ghose & Yang (1989).
X0-1(Mg,Fe,Li)2(Al,Si,Be)9O18 (X = H2O, CO2, Ar, Xe, Na, K); (Mg,Fe)2Al3(AlSi5O18).[Ch]X
C2+ position: Mg dominant
C3+ position: Al dominant
W position: (OH) dominant.
A green gem variety of beryl, highly sought after as a precious gemstone. The majority of the world’s gem-quality emeralds come from the Muzo area of Colombia. The colour of emerald is caused by trace amounts of a chromophore such as trivalent chromium or trivalent vanadium.
Name: Named in 1546 by Georgius Agricola [Georg Bauer] for Alabanda in Turkey, an ancient gem cutting center, presumably where almandine was fashioned into gemstones.