[QUOTE]11KBP wrote:
Agreed, but you will be hard pressed to get the collecting community to change their terminology, lol.
And when its all said and done there really is no harm in using the terms jasper and chert interchangeably.
That’s for sure. It’s too ingrained now. In the overall scheme of things it matters not. What’s more important is that a material (whatever it might be incorrectly called from a geological standpoint) can be tracked to its source.
America also wears the pants in the mineralogical community these days. The guys on the naming committee have this endearing habit of forcing names onto everyone else. They find a shiny new rock down a mine shaft near Pittsburgh, say and decide they’re gonna call it “Pittsburghite”. Then some geologist in Uzbekistan points out that they’ve had specimens of it for years and they know it as “Chlorobundum” or whatever. The naming committee then forces the name “Pittsburghite (of Uzbekistan)” onto them. Happens all the time. :laugh:
Originally posted by painshill post=53141
And when its all said and done there really is no harm in using the terms jasper and chert interchangeably.
That’s for sure. It’s too ingrained now. In the overall scheme of things it matters not. What’s more important is that a material (whatever it might be incorrectly called from a geological standpoint) can be tracked to its source.
America also wears the pants in the mineralogical community these days. The guys on the naming committee have this endearing habit of forcing names onto everyone else. They find a shiny new rock down a mine shaft near Pittsburgh, say and decide they’re gonna call it “Pittsburghite”. Then some geologist in Uzbekistan points out that they’ve had specimens of it for years and they know it as “Chlorobundum” or whatever. The naming committee then forces the name “Pittsburghite (of Uzbekistan)” onto them. Happens all the time. :laugh:
Comment