Discussions

╳Discussions

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

PhotosEhrigite?

26th Apr 2024 20:32 UTCRichard Gunter Expert

In a case such as this sample that is the proper paragenesis for Ehrigite but has not been analyzed by polished section, should Ehrigite be included? It is listed from the type locality of the Goodhope Mine but not from the other related deposits in the Hedley District.

As far as I know Ciobanu et al. (2021) is the only published description of what became Ehrigite (prior to its characterization in 2024). They indicate that the Bi-Te phase occurred in a hedenbergite skarn in the Hedley District without naming a mine as the type locality. The hedenbergite skarn containing the Hedleyite paragenesis is not confined to the Goodhope Mine and occurs in the neighboring Nickle Plate and Oregon Mines.

27th Apr 2024 12:14 UTCFranz Bernhard Expert

Richard Gunter Expert ✉️

In a case such as this sample that is the proper paragenesis for Ehrigite but has not been analyzed by polished section, should Ehrigite be included?

No.

It could be mentioned in the description of the specimen, though.

27th Apr 2024 19:39 UTCRichard Gunter Expert

Hi Franz:

I have not seen the complete description of Ehrigite so I do not know how they describe the type locality. It will come eventually. Meanwhile the mention in the description of the sample is the best way.

27th Apr 2024 20:01 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

The only species that should be listed in the photo title are those that can be seen and identified in the photo. Any others present, but not visible in the photo, or others that might be present, can just be described in the caption.

28th Apr 2024 20:01 UTCRichard Gunter Expert

Hi Alfredo:

Sound like a good idea. With these Bi-Te minerals there is often not enough information visually for individual samples but analyses for the localities narrows down the possible phases. The Hedley area mines are the exception in having several Bi-Te phases co-existing.