On a somewhat different tangent: While journal editors insist on adhering to IMA nomenclature and other kinds of formalisms, justified or not, I am puzzled by the apparent acceptance of the increasingly sloppy use of clearly defined terms such as “mineralogy”, not only in verbal communication, but in journal articles and textbooks.

Mineralogy has become a shorthand term for "mineralogical composition" or mineral content. Mineralogy is quite clearly defined as the "science of minerals", and this is the literal translation of the term. I am not aware of a second meaning.

I was under the impression that we should teach students to use precise scientific terms, as this is fundamental to scientific communication. Unfortunately, such efforts become null and void if the publications they read do exactly what we tell them not to do. I have never heard a palaeontologist talking about the “palaeontology of rock X”, referring to its fossil content.

It is apparent that short terms are preferred to long ones, but can that be an excuse? If yes, I suggest we write “xtal” instead of crystal in our publications.

Cheers,

Juergen

J. Reinhardt

School of Geological Sciences

University of KwaZulu-Natal

Durban, South Africa

Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer