Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T21:22:55.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Note on ‘Feather-ore’ : identity of ‘Domingite’ (=‘Warrenite’) with Jamesonite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

L. J. Spencer
L. J. Spencer*
Affiliation:
Mineral Department of the British Museum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The formula 2PbS. Sb2S3, given for jamesonite in all the textbooks, does not belong to jamesonite at all, but to the ‘Federerz’ (‘feather-ore’) from Wolfsherg in the Harz analysed by H. Rose in 1829, and for which the mineralogical names wolfsberglte (Huot, 1841) and plumosite (Haidinger, 1845) have been proposed. Rose's formula for the cleavable jamesonite from Cornwall was 3PbS. 2Sb2S3. In 1860 Rammelsberg united these, together with heteromorphite, under the name jamesonite and with the formula 2PbS. Sb2S3 a : this has since been followed in the textbooks, but, as will be pointed out below, it is very probable that there are here three distinct mineral species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 14 , Issue 66 , February 1907 , pp. 207 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1907

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 207 note 1 For fuller historical details see Min. Mag., 1899, vol. xii, p. 58.

Page 207 note 2 Eakins, L. G., ‘Two sulphantimonites from Colorado.’ Proc. Colorado Sci. Soc. 1888, vol. iii, pp. 73–76 Google Scholar; Amer. Journ. Sci., 1888, ser. 3, vol. xxxvi, pp. 450-453. The second of these minerals, which was described as freieslebenite, has since been shown to be boulangerite.

Page 207 note 3 ‘Tabell. Uebersieht d. Minerallen.’ Braunschweig, 1889, 3rd edit., p. 30.

Page 207 note 4 Amer. Journ. Sci., 1890, ser. 3, vol. xxxix, p. 74; Bull. United States Geol. Survey, 1890, no. 60, p. 117.

Page 208 note 1 An account of this will be given in the next number of this Magazine.

Page 208 note 1 Kaiser, E., ‘Haarförmaiger Antimonglanz aus Rheinland und Westfaleu.’ Zeits. Kryst. Min. 1896, vol. xxvii, pp. 49–51 Google Scholar. I have also found several specimens of capillary stibnite amongst the jamesonites in the British Museum collection.

Page 209 note 1 Three analyses of ‘Federerz’ agreeing very closely with the above formula are also given by Guillemain, C., Inaug.-Diss., Breslau, 1898, pp. 21, 24Google Scholar.

Page 210 note 1 Bořický also analysed a massive, fibrous ‘jamesonite’ from Przihum, which gave results agreeing with this formula (loc. cit., p. 32).

Page 210 note 2 ‘Plagionite, heteromorphite and semseyite as members of a natural group of minerals.’ Min. Mag., 1899, vol. xii, pp. 55-68.

Page 210 note 3 ‘Schulzite’ (5PbS. Sb2S3) and ‘plumbostibite’ (10PbS. 3Sb2S3) may possibly also belong to this group, but not geocronite (= kilbrickenite) since this appears to be a double salt, 5PbS. Sb2S3 + 5PbS. As2S3 (Min. Mag., 1902, vol. xii, p. 188).

Page 210 note 4 This formula is deduced from the analysis, quoted above, of crystallized jamesonite from Bolivia.