Welcome to FrOg On-Line #2001-05, Tuesday, June 05, 2001 Contents ======== 1. Introduction 2. Charlesite 3. "Subscriber" List 1. Introduction =============== Greetings. This body of this issue consists solely of a discussion between Gary Grenier, John Cianciulli, and Bruce Cairncross regarding charlesite and the list of minerals unique to Franklin/Ogdensburg maintained by John. I had a difficult time deciding whether or not to publish this discussion because (1) I am concerned some parts could offend, and (2) I am uncertain that this discussion would be of any real benefit to the FrOg community. I decided to go for it, with a little editing. Parts were deleted for any one or more of the following reasons: they were off-topic; there was significant risk of them being perceived as "getting personal"; they made no real contribution to the FrOg community; and the author explicitly marked them private. Why did I decide to go for it? Because (1) I hope this gives the community some sense of all that is involved in maintaining the FrOg mineral lists; (2) this indirectly gives some sense of the authority (or lack thereof) of museum displays and books; and (3) gives some sense how members of the FrOg community can be of help in maintaining the FrOg mineral lists. In early May, Gary Grenier e-mailed me three articles regarding the Franklin/ Ogdensburg mineral list. Due to the length of this FrOg On-Line issue, I'm holding those for the next issue. Other articles (such as a collecting report from Mark Boyer) will be held for the issue after the next. These will take some time; I'm seriously swamped these days, and probably for the remainder of this month. As far as I know, there are no new activities or events to be added to what was in FrOg On-Line #2001-03, so see that issue for the schedule of events. All past FrOg On-Line issues may be viewed in the FrOg On-Line Archive at url "http://www.njminerals.org/FOINDEX.HTM". Here goes...... 2. Charlesite ============= Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:45:06 -0400 From: Gary Grenier <ggrenier@mincat.com> To: "(William Mattison)" <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov>, Peter Chin <Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV> Subject: Re: The Unique Mineral List Bill; NOT FOR PUBLICATION; [...] FOR PUBLICATION: Bill: Frog On-line 2001-03 presented the problems of species recognition in the "Unique to Franklin list" of minerals maintained by JC very well. Have you made any progress in getting JC to identify for us what "document officially describing the second occurrence" that he mentioned in the replies published in Frog On-Line 2001-03? Is he referring to a particular professional mineralogical publication such as the American Mineralogist? Or, must we purchase specimens, sacrifice them to Excalibur for testing, and then submit the analysis and write-up to him for publication in the Picking Table before the species can be added or subtracted from a list? What are his recognized "official" written documents? I understand that the Smithsonian may be mistaken in putting out a species for the US public to view when that species has not been written up and studied in an acceptable document that "officially" describes their occurrence, but the Smithsonian has on hand Dr. Dunn and a whole battery of analytical equipment that they use to assure species identification of what they put on display. The Smithsonian is also the repository for many halo-type species specimens and first time discoveries of new species thanks to their research. After all, the collections maintained by the Smithsonian are a physical reference for many scientific communities including the USGS. As you may recall Dr. Dunn worked on the Kalahari minerals with Dr. Peacor 11 or 12 years ago and was first to announce the occurrence of Charlesite from the Wessels and N'Chwaning mines. Then there is a body of work in two separate volumes from Dr. Cairncross, Mineralogist, of the Johannesburg Museum, South Africa that describe charlesite coming from the manganese mines. The Manganese Adventure and The Minerals of South Africa are both excellent references and written by professional mineralogists. So, it should be a foregone conclusion that charlesite is no longer unique to Franklin as the evidence mounts, but for some reason it is not. So what does the curator of the Franklin Mineral Museum read or subscribe to that directs him to include charlesite on the unique to Franklin list? Does JC have information that disproves charlesite from South Africa? In the absence of information that contests or disproves the professional findings (in print) of peer mineralogists there can be no argument. That leads us back to the question of form versus substance. JC must only be able to take information in a particular form, content, and from a particular source to be able to adjust species lists. Perhaps one day we will have a clear explanation from JC of what is acceptable, but until that time the List will be out of sync with the rest of the world. Gary Grenier ggrenier@mincat.com FOR PUBLICATION: Bill: I have been communicating with Dr. Cairncross for some time and have a growing collection of Kalahari manganese field South African minerals. I have collected many sturmanites, ettringites, and particularly important Dr. Cairncross's charlesite specimen (from his personal collection). In recent communication with Dr. Cairncross he predicted that the flow of specimens from the manganese mines would continue for many years to come. He reported that the more porous specimen producing zones have been mined out for now, but should be hit again in a couple of months. The fields stretch under the desert for over 100 miles and represent a past under sea formation of horizontally bedded minerallization. So, we can expect more mineral specimens in the future. Lately, I have written to Dr. Cairncross requesting assistance in finding the published analysis of the charlesite from the Wessels and N'Chwaning South African mines. When I have received his reply I will relay his information to you. It would not be the first time that the publication of scientific results important to Franklin species lists occurred in an obscure publication. It is possible that formal recognition of charlesite was written in German and published in Lapis or a European professional mineralogical journal not normally translated and made available to the US. Of course, Dr. Dunn's original work, Smithsonian sponsored, was US published. And, Dr. Dunn has made mistakes in the past that have later been retracted such as Baumite. In this case, there was a conflicting report or two after Dr. Dunn announced charlesite from South Africa that they were really ettringite or sturmanite. However, Dr. Cairncross's work on the species post dates Dr. Dunn's and should supercede the earlier work and should eliminate the confusion caused by Dr. Dunn. While large museums and national collections have resources to track hundreds of professional publications and staff like the USGS to confirm findings the FMM and FOMS does not. I do not expect JC to have to learn German, Swedish, or French to follow professional findings in Europe, or to subscribe to Lanny Ream's Mineral News newsletter, or go online to one of several species locator services to maintain the list, but when arm chair collector books are written about a mining area by professional mineralogists who have worked with the mines and minerals, in English, it should be pursued with greater zeal. Gary Laurel, Maryland ggrenier@mincat.com --------------- Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 18:13:00 -0400 From: ("GARY WGG WILLIAM G GRENIER JR ") <William.Grenier@mercantile.net> Subject: The Unique Mineral List To: (William Mattison) <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov> Bill: The "List", Unique to Franklin and Sterling Hill List, and the Fluorescent Species List have an interesting and long history. Many lists of Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals have appeared in print over the past 200 years. More recently the Palache list was the collectors' guide, then Frondel with his "Check List", then Kushner, and The Picking Table, and then Dr. Dunn/Baum. What is interesting is what has caused the over cautious to constrictive behavior of the "Keepers of the List" over the past 30 or so years. I have been interested in the Species List for over 18 years and not just because I was a species collector. My issue has been how to present 320+ species with more than name information so that it is useful as a collector reference. The presentation of the Species List by chemical groups, or crystal forms, or Dana simply confuses the average collector. The most useful way to present the species is alphabetically even though that method imparts the least amount of useful information. Adding chemical formulas and mineral groups to the alphabetized list was tried, but editing and finding "valid" formulas stopped that effort in its tracks as many collectors contested the "correctness" of the formulas. Oh, I have done it and maintain that kind of list, but in the absence of good updates of chemical information it is almost always out of date. For example, changes in nomenclature, changes in formula characterizations +2 or 2+, and now it is a species and now it is not - tirodite versus manganocummingtonite or stilpnomelane versus ferro or ferristilpnomelane with new and subtlety variant formulas are enough to drive any list keeper to wish for a simpler list method. But, that was not the problem that our predecessors had to wrestle with. No, they had to figure out what was bogus and what was real from the many accounts such as John Albanese had written 10 years earlier and many collectors believed was gospel. This "system" of misinformation was perpetuated by the dealers and of all things The Picking Table. JC is correct to be wary of dealers trading species since he to is a dealer and must hold his identifications to a high standard, which many (most?) dealers do not. Unfortunately, many dealers just pass on the information presented to them or go willy-nilly slapping labels on specimens to move them out. Here again, in Franklin the problem was not the dealers since they often relied on the FMM and Jack Baum for sight identification services. The problem was The Picking Table. The accounts of unverified finds and new species to the area and subsequently quickly adding the species on the List occurred without method or apparent verification. If you have the time to study mineral names and those attributed to Franklin species you should notice that virtually every species has a series of colloquial names that at one time or another the collecting community took as valid species names. In fact these names are still with us like troostite for willemite or calamine for hemimorphite. All of this added to the lore of Franklin and further confused the collector. So, it was bad that everyone outside of the Franklin area called both mines Franklin and ascensioned their collections as having specimens from only one mine - Franklin, but then we added to the problem and confusion by using bogus species names when specimens were displayed or traded. So, to the rescue came Dr. Dunn who took over the List and created a method for adding species, which was and is based in the presentation of scientific facts. For example, the new species to the deposit synchesite was found on the Buckwheat dump, specimens provided to the FMM, x-ray defraction and optical verification tests performed, data analyzed and presented, story written, accepted, and the species added to the list. This is a good and sound method and one of Dr. Dunn's legacies. In fact, Dr. Dunn did a lot to advance the science of mineralogy in Franklin and Sterling Hill, aside from writing the landmark multi-volume set of mineral reference books on Franklin and Sterling Hill in 1995. By creating the Friends of Franklin in the late 70's he tapped into the collector network for new and emerging specimen materials on which to study. In the 10 years that followed his studies produced a number of published new minerals and the need to advance The Picking Table to the Professional Journal status it now enjoys. However, with that came the serious responsibility to be accurate and the old reporting of "I think I found some whachamacallit over in the Buckwheat a couple years ago and now I am sure it is whachamacallit" story of a new mineral found at Franklin just does not cut it. So, while we are frustrated by what we take to be obvious and see the "Keeper of the List" slow to react to that obvious seemingly incontrovertible fact, like charlesite from South Africa, bear with him as he has 4-decades of predecessor methodology weighing on his every move. I like to see the list of species grow and change with the times and events in the mineral world. I too am embarrassed by the mistakes of the past and believe that we must use sound scientific methods to back up our assertions and expect no less of JC. If anything, over time we have become used to the speed by which we can find and retrieve information and have become somewhat intolerant of systems that do not move as quickly. Furthermore, I can not explain JC's methods or requirements for adding or subtracting a species from the list, even though I knew what to expect when Dr. Dunn was maintaining the List. Perhaps JC can be persuaded to do an article in The Picking Table that details his methods as "The Keeper of the List"? Gary Grenier Associate Editor and Staff Photographer The Picking Table ggrenier@mincat.com and YES you can publish this...gg --------------- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:55:04 +0000 From: William Mattison <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov> To: John Ciancuilli <rockman@warwick.net> CC: Gary Grenier <william.grenier@mercantile.net> Subject: request. Hi John, In separate messages, I am forwarding to you messages I received from Gary Grenier reagrding the "list". I understand you have much else to do, but I would much appreciate your reply to Gary's messages. His messages will be included in the next FrOg On-Line. Pleaase write your comments such that I can publish them, too, in FrOg On-Line. I think Gary is right: a clear practical policy on both lists - the list of all FrOg minerals and the list of minerals unique to FrOg - needs to be communicated to the FrOg community. My objectives here are (1) constructive discussion of FrOg list policies in FrOg On-Line, leading to (2) refinements in the policies, published in FrOg On-Line, followed by additional iterations of (1) and (2) until we have the best practical policies we can realistically hope for, then (3) the policy being published in the PT. Thank-you in advance for your participation. *** private *** [...] Bill. --------------- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:17:16 -0400 From: Gary Grenier <ggrenier@mincat.com> To: Peter Chin <Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV>, michin@erols.com, "(William Mattison)" <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov> Subject: Dr. Cairncross & Charlesite Bill: OKAY TO PUBLISH ALL>>> I have written Dr. Cairncross (correspondence follows) regarding the issue published analysis of charlesite from South Africa. It appears, as you will read, that JC is correct in his assertion that published data from South Africa is not available. Please relay my findings to JC. However, this still begs the question - On what analysis is the Smithsonian basing their display of South African charlesite? And, can we get a copy for JC? I will ask Peter Chin to pursue his Smithsonian contacts including writing Dr. Dunn for additional assistance in clearing up this analysis documentation issue. Gary Grenier Associate Editor and Staff Photographer The Picking Table GARY WROTE TO DR. CAIRNCROSS, SOUTH AFRICA>>> Hi Dr. Cairncross: I hope you are well. I have another South African mineral topic that causes me write to you. Allow me to provide some background information for you. I have been a Franklin and Sterling Hill, New Jersey collector and miner at Sterling Hill for many years. Many species have been found at these mines not found elsewhere, charlesite being one. The report by Dr. Dunn that charlesite had been found at the Wessels and N'Chwaning mines caused a stir some 11 or 12 years ago. Your books reference charlesite and dealers have sold many specimens labeled charlesite. Most collectors now presume that charlesite comes from the South African manganese fields. The curator of the Franklin Mineral Museum maintains the Franklin and Sterling Hill species list and continues to assert (perhaps correctly?) that charlesite should be maintained on the "Unique to Franklin" list. Given that John Ciancuilli, FMM Curator may require analysis results and other confirming literature to document the new occurrence for a "Unique to Franklin" mineral list removal, where would he find that information? That is, do you know in which professional mineralogical journal the occurrence and subsequent x-ray defraction, optical, SEM, refractive index, light absorption, hardness and color or any analytical data and images were published? It was recently reported that the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History here in Washington, DC is displaying a large white charlesite from the N'Chwaning mine South Africa. There have been reports that sturmanite and ettringite crystals often have charlesite cores or white charlesite overgrowths. The mystery of what is and is not charlesite continues to perplex me. Can you direct me to professional literature resources that provide analysis results on South African charlesite specimens? While I would enjoy reading more descriptive mineralogy and morphology, I would like to see and compare analysis results to those of Franklin charlesite. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Gary Grenier Laurel, Maryland, USA ggrenier@mincat.com DR. CAIRNCROSS REPLY TO GARY GRENIER>>> Dear Gary, Thanks for your request on the charlesite, but my reply is not going to satisfy you, I'm afraid. To my knowledge, and that of my colleague, Dr Jens Gutzmer, there is no published data on Kalahari charlesite in any of the professional literature. That is why we are always very careful to place a "disclaimer" when we write about the ettringite/charlesite/sturmanite from the Kalahari manganese field. Apparently, Roger Dixon, my co-author on the "MInerals of South Africa" book identified charlesite (but did not publish anything) and was planning to do a PhD on this mineral suite, but he never did undertake this project. The identification is further compounded by the fact that ettringite and sturmanite and gypsum are often found intergrown and zoned in the same crystal! I would seriously question the validity of any species identified as charlesite unless the specimen has accompanying analytical data. I wonder who the Smithsonian acquired their specimen from and whether they have analyzed it to see if it is indeed charlesite. Some mineral dealers perpetuate this problem by selling "charlesite" when the mineral is most probably ettringite. So I would say that Franklin and Sterling Hill still have the claim to having charlesite as a unique species, unless someone somewhere can produce data for the South African material and once and for all lay this issue to rest. Regards, Bruce ********************************************************************** Prof B. Cairncross Dept. Geology, RAU P.O. Box 524 Internet :bc@na.rau.ac.za Auckland Park 2006 tel:27 11 489-2313 South Africa fax: 27 11 489-2309 ********************************************************************** --------------- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:49:45 -0400 From: John Cianciulli <u1008042@warwick.net> To: William Mattison <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov> CC: michin <michin@erols.com> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Dr. Cairncross & Charlesite] Dear Bill, I am not trying to frustrate people. I hope to maintain a clean list as to not negate the many years of "clean-up" diligently performed by Dunn & Baum. I have received a paper published in 1995 that mentions charlesite. I have yet to review it and discuss it with colleagues. So far it looks good. I will let you folks know as soon as I do. The IMA has redefined the nomenclature for micas, amphiboles, and zeolites. Some of the changes are pretty straight forward. Others are awaiting re-discovery in laboratories. The end result may be new specie names for members of these groups. We are trying to work through these changes responsibly. This is not a case of misidentification, rather of reinterpretation. [...] The protocol for listing minerals on the FrOg species list was published a few P/T's ago in an article titled "changing of the guard." I welcome information concerning new FrOg finds and would appreciate input from the collector community. Scientific papers are welcome. Collector musings are entertaining but not helpful for keeping the local mineral lists clean. Recent Buckwheat finds show how you guys can help add knowledge to the area. The Franklin-Sterling mineral species list is now at 352. 353, 354, and 355 are in the hopper. I am also revisiting reported finds such as "smythite" and others. Be patient!........JC [ The article John refers to is "The List: Changing of the Guard" by John ] [ Cianciulli. It was published on pages 21-23 of the 1999 combined issue ] [ (volume 40) of "The Picking Table". - moderator. ] --------------- Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:45:15 -0400 From: John Cianciulli <u1008042@warwick.net> To: "William C. Mattison" <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov>, michin <michin@erols.com> Subject: charlesite ? Dear Bill, [...] Paul Shizume brought the charlesite question to me a couple of months ago followed by Pete Chin. I researched our resources at the museum to find Mineralogical Record briefly mentioned the possibility of charlesite/ettringite being in zones in the cores of sturmannite xls found at the Kalahari manganese fields. No data was published and the only reference was Peacor and Dunn's original sturmannite description in the Canadian Mineralogist. The museum does not have a set of CM's so I called Dr. Dunn for further information. The sturmannite paper does not describe charlesite as being present (Dunn). I also asked Dr. Dunn about the charleite crystal specimen on display at the NHM. He said the specimen was purchased as such but has not been verified. The dealer offered the specimen as a charlesite and it was purchased as such. About three weeks ago I received a paper from Dr. Dunn titled" Minerals of South Africa" written by Bruce Caincross and Roger Dixon published in the Geological Survey of South Africa (1995). I mailed a copy of this paper to Pete Chin a couple of weeks ago. This is what the paper had to say: "Charlesite has been identified as a colourless core in various sturmannite crystals from the Wessels and N'Chwaning II mines. Many specimens which have been labelled as sturmannite, are most probably iron or manganese-rich charlesite." No data was given. [...] --------------- Subject: Charlesite Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:35:04 -0400 From: (Gary Grenier) ggrenier@mincat.com To: (Professor Bruce Cairncross) <bc@na.rau.ac.za> Dear Dr. Cairncross: Thank you for the clear accounting of the lack of published analysis on charlesite. I presume that the reason that charlesite is still discussed is due to the original Dunn and Peacor studies. My next stop is to ask the Smithsonian Institution for their help in retrieving analytical results that they must have produced with their equipment to have put a South African Charlesite on public display. I know that I am perhaps making an assumption again, but at least it will resolve and clarify the issue for us here. If and when I have a reply from the Smithsonian or Dr. Dunn I will share my findings with you. If the Smithsonian reply is that they to are relying on the Dunn and Peacor originally publish work is it possible to acquire specimens for a new study that you "think" or "feel" have the high potential to contain charlesite? I will undertake this effort personally and have the assistance of Prof. Lance Kearns or Excalibur Minerals analytical services at my disposal. Whatever information that is developed from this study will be shared with you. Please let me know of specimen availability when you get the chance. Once again thank you for your help. All the best, Gary --------------- (Professor Bruce Cairncross wrote to Gary Grenier:) Dear Gary, I think your efforts to resolve the charlesite saga are going to rest with the Smithsonian specimen. I don't have any suspected charlesite crystals in my collection. The only one that I know of that is assumed to be one, is in the Desmond Sacco collection - a euhedral crystal several cm across, and he will definitely not allow it to be sampled. So specimen availability is very limited. Regards, Bruce ********************************************************************** Prof B. Cairncross Dept. Geology, RAU P.O. Box 524 Internet :bc@na.rau.ac.za Auckland Park 2006 tel:27 11 489-2313 South Africa fax: 27 11 489-2309 ********************************************************************** --------------- Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:05:26 -0400 From: Gary Grenier <ggrenier@mincat.com> To: William Mattison <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov> Subject: Charlesite Bill: Your copy... FOR PUBLICATION Dr. Cairncross: Thanks again for the speedy reply. I will seek help in resolving the charlesite issue at the Smithsonian with Dr. Dunn. In a separate correspondence from John Cianciulli, Curator Franklin Mineral Museum, he reports having recently received a 1995 paper in which charlesite is mentioned. I have no other details at this time, but will share the information as it is made available to me. When he has time to research the paper and report on the findings I will have more information to share, but unfortunately we must now wait. I have asked for a copy of the paper to send you. If the paper has merit I am sure it will be shared. I really appreciate your attention to my requests for assistance and look forward to reading your next book... All the Best, Gary Grenier Associate Editor and Staff Photographer The Picking Table --------------- (John Cainciulli wrote to Gary Granier:) Gary, The charlesite issue has been on my desk for about three months. Paul Shizume was the first to bring this matter to my attention when he found charlesite from Kalahari being offered for sale. I tried to order a sample but they were fresh out of specimens when I told them who I was. I researched all resources cited on various websites and all pointed back to Dunn's paper on charlseite. Having been unsuccessful at finding literature comfirming The Kalahari find I called Dr. Dunn about references he may have known about. I researched the original charlesite paper thinking I may have missed something. Pete pulled the sturmannite paper by Peacor and Dunn and reviewed it with me over the phone. No data on a second occurrence of charlesite was found. Min Record ran three separate articles on Kalahari Manganese field mineral discoveries that mentioned charlesite may be, along with ettringite found as cores in large yellow stutmannite xls. I called a friend at the Geological Survey of Canada and asked if he would kindly research any CM paper that mentions a second occurrence of charlesite. April 9, 2001 Dr. Dunn sent me a copy of a South African Geological Survey 1995 by Cairncross and Dixon. This paper is not an official paper on a second occurrence of charlesite though in his cover letter Dr. Dunn says the authors are reputable. I am taking the advice of Dr. Cairncross and leaving charlesite on the Franklin unique list until it has been properly described. There is no doubt in my mind charlesite exists but given the many reports over the last ten years, the answer remains ambiguous at the least. Dr. Dunn has also looked into the so-called charlesite specimen that is on display at the Smithsonian. His Quote: "Paul Powat tells me we have a big one from S.A. on exhibit, but it was not verified here; it is labelled as we got it; we know nothing." Pete Chin has been aware of my efforts to get to the root of this matter. I sent him a copy of Dunn's response, a copy of S.A. Geological Survey 1995 and have shared all developments with him since we started researching this matter. Call Pete maybe he will share some of this information with you. I wanted to work this probl3em to a conclusion and not perpetuate the rumors. You might be interested to know that I am pursuing others as well............JC --------------- Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:09:24 -0400 From: Gary Grenier <ggrenier@mincat.com> To: u1008042@warwick.net CC: Peter Chin <Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV>, William Mattison <mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov>, michin@erols.com Subject: Re: Charlesite John: Thank you for the explanation of the research papers and lack thereof regarding South African charlesite. I have been looking for Kalahari labeled charlesite for about four years and have landed several specimens of ettringite-sturmanite-charlesite. I agree that the labeling seemed to be predicated on who labeled the specimen first although the specimen from Dr. Cairncross's personal collection came to me directly from the Mineralogical Research Company, Sharon Cisnaros, through which Dr. Cairncross released the specimen. A big thank you for clearing up the Smithsonian mystery regarding the display charlesite and the authentication work done on it, that is - NONE. I am surprised by that news. I am seeing Peter later tonight and will raise the issue of information sharing and how best to be part of the R&D team. It is obvious that we need to get on the same page when it comes to effort. We are always required to push back the information barriers in search of the truth about what has been studied and where the results are... I will continue to endeavor to support those efforts and appreciate being kept in the loop. I especially agree that the perpetuation of rumors is the last thing I want to do. Unfortunately, the charlesite issue has been laying around for so long it was easy to become comfortable with it still on the unique list and yet on display at the Smithsonian. Your difficulty in finding verifiable data and research on the Kalahari charlesite was the same I experienced. I was hoping that you of all people would have an inroad at the Smithsonian and resolve this one quickly. It does not look that way though. Perhaps I should send my specimens out to be tested? Food for thought. As it stands I continue to agree with you and Dr. Cairncross... Franklin still has the only know verified occurrence of charlesite. I appreciate your reply. Regards, Gary --------------- Bill: I have compiled my email correspondence, which follows, regarding the issue of charlesite remaining on the Franklin Unique list. As you can see from the correspondence some assumptions regarding both the apparent published facts and Smithsonian display material are incorrect. In fact, the 1995 publication that "mentions Charlesite" as referenced by John Cianciulli in his last email is none other than excerpts from the Cairncross and Dixon book "The Manganese Adventure". Additionally, you will notice in the John's response he has been in contact with Dr. Dunn and discovered that the specimen of Charlesite on display at the Smithsonian was not tested or received with analysis results that undeniably proves charlesite from South Africa. Even Dr. Cairncross states that the research that was done to permit publishing charlesite in "The Manganese Adventure" was never published and therefore should permit the Franklin Mineral Museum to maintain charlesite on the Unique to Franklin List. In conclusion, John does a good job of providing details of research not ordinarily shared with the collecting community and correctly asserts that for the time being the only known occurrence of charlesite is Franklin. The challenge now is to stay on the look out for new data, research, or publications that provide new information on charlesite from South Africa. John has freely stated that he welcomes the assistance in locating and receiving research and data on Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals. So, does anyone have a verified charlesite from South Africa WITH analysis results that support your assertion and would you like to publish those results? If so, let John or I know. Thanks, Gary 3. "Subscriber" List ==================== NJ Larry Berger lberger1@mindspring.com NC Alan Borg aborg@brinet.com NY Dick Bostwick rbostwick@worldnet.att.net NJ Mark Boyer mboyer@pace2001.com CA Kevin Brady ktbrady@temvalley.com PA Bob Carnein ccarnein@eagle.lhup.edu VA Peter Chin Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV NJ John Cianciulli rockman@warwick.net NJ John Corsello corsello@bellatlantic.net CT Denis De Angelis rockden@mindspring.com CA Fred Devito devito@sierratel.com FL Sandra Downs SdownsFLA@aol.com VA Steve Gordon ssdtgordon@aol.com NY Howie Green Royal53@worldnet.att.net MD Gary Grenier william.grenier@mercantile.net MN Tim Hanson tim@ens.net NY Tema Hecht thecht@worldnet.att.net CA Andy Honig andym@lightspeed.net CA Mark Isaacs isaacsmark@hotmail.com MI John Jaszczak jaszczak@mtu.edu NY Carl Kanoff MCDKan@clarityconnect.com NJ Steve Kuitems skuitems@eclipse.net FL Roy Lambert rlambert@ufl.edu NY Donald Lapham donald_lapham@fmc.com NY Greg Lesinski Gslrocks@aol.com PA Jay Lininger matrix@redrose.net PA Mike Logan mikelogan@sprintmail.com Gavin Malcolm GavinMalcolm@netscape.net England CO Peter Marikle peter.a.marikle@lmco.com MD Bill Mattison mattison@thunder.nws.noaa.gov CA Dan McHugh dmchugh@eee.org NJ Dan McHugh Sr. dansart1@aol.com VA Curt Michanczyk CurtMich@aol.com CA Doug Mitchell DMitchell@compuserve.com CO Pete Modreski pmodresk@usgs.gov WA Don Newsome uvsystems@aol.com NJ Jeff Osowski jvotmo@blast.net AZ George Polman polmans@compuserve.com NJ Nathan Schachtman nschacht@voicenet.com NY Paul Shizume s1153fam@aol.com MD Steve Shramko steven@cyberocks.com NJ Dave Slaymaker dh10000@yahoo.com CT Charles Sloan csloan@snet.net CA Jane Grover-Smith ANGLESEA@webtv.net CA Kent Smith kentnorwood@email.msn.com NJ Chris Thorsten chris@atomic-pc.com NJ Jim Tozour jtozour@home.com NJ Earl Verbeek everbeek@nac.net PA John Vidumsky john.e.vidumsky@usa.dupont.com PA Eric Weis weis@pnpa.net NM Dru Wilbur dwilbur@nmt.edu VA David Woolley DAVEWOOL@webtv.net FL Herb Yeates herb@simplethinking.com CA Wayne Young Wayney@us.ibm.com