Storing and Organizing a micromount collection

I'll have more to say about storage at some future time. The issues of storage and organization are linked. Doing this right makes it possible to quickly and easily find material that you want to look at. In no particular order, here are some possibilities, followed by my own opinions about the merits and liabilities of each.

Each system will have its own strengths and weaknesses, and no perfect system exists.

Alphabetical by Species

Mounts are stored alphabetically by dominant species. This method is simple and unambiguous, no special knowledge is required to find a given mineral. All specimens of a given species are grouped together, which makes study of a mineral of interest extremely convenient. This scheme emphasizes a desire to learn the minerals themselves. The person I know who uses this system is one of the most skilled individuals there is at sight identification of minerals. Minerals may need to pulled for the purpose of special studies. It can be a bit of work to find a given mount of a species with many representatives in a large collection.

By Location

Mounts are grouped by location, and generally stored by some hierarchical organization of localities. Typically all minerals from Arizona are together, and within Arizona are grouped by individual mines. All minerals from the United Kingdom might be kept together. This kind of system tends to be somewhat ad-hoc and it is not always unambiguous where to place a given mount. The strength of this system is in grouping a large number of pieces from a given location together.

Dana Order

In this scheme, the elements come first, followed by Sulfides, and so on through the silicates, which themselves are divided into sorosilicates, inosilicates, and so forth. This scheme derives itself from Danas System of Mineralogy, and practitioners of this method usually place their collection in strict "Dana Order", and assign "Dana Numbers" to each species.

Although this system flaunts scientific airs, it has many liabilities. It can be all but impossible to find a given species without refering to a reference book. There is not that much virtue to having galena next to pyrite, and barite next to gypsum. It might in fact make more sense to organize such a collection by cation rather than anion and to have all lead minerals together, all uranium minerals together, and so on.

Practitioners of this method are typically extremely zealous in defense of their choice. In actual fact, the "Dana Numbers" are based on stochiometry and ratios of elements, which have little meaning at the more detailed levels.

Cronological

Each mount is given an access number in the order they are made and entered into a catalog and are stored so that they can be retrieved via their access number. I don't know anyone who does this, except for temporarily for recently made mounts. However, in this modern age of computer databases, this might do quite well, although I think that the alphabetical by species scheme is more sensible.

So which is best?

Which ever you like the best is the best! It is your collection after all, and you should organize it in whatever way suits you and makes you happy. I will however advocate for a scheme that I have come to like.

Storing mounts alphabetical by species is simple, unambiguous, and facilitates the honing of mineral idenfication skills. If a given study is in progress (such as an article on a given location is in progress), the specimens for that study can be pulled and stored together for the duration of the study.

Every one of these schemes is aided and abetted (not to mention greatly facilitated) by a computer database. This allows a person using the alphabetical scheme to quickly produce a list of all mounts from a given location (just as it would aid the Dana scheme). It allows a person who has organized things by location to make a list of all mounts of a given species (though laying hands on those mounts would not be so simple as for the person using the alphabetical scheme).

A few more derogatory comments ought to be made about the "Dana" organization. Storing a collection and producing a classification of minerals are and ought to be entirely independent enterprises. The main goal in storing a collection is simplicity and above all the ability to quickly lay your hands on a specimen of interest. A classification of minerals could serve many purposes, and frankly a good database is a better way to manage this. The purpose of a good database is to answer questions. Questions like:


Feedback? Questions? Drop me a line!

Tom's Mineralogy Info / tom@mmto.org