﻿420 
  Scientific 
  Intelligence. 
  

  

  1. 
  Note 
  on 
  Goyazite 
  ; 
  by 
  Oliver 
  C. 
  Farrington 
  (communi- 
  

   cated). 
  — 
  The 
  writer 
  desires 
  to 
  express 
  his 
  thanks 
  to 
  Dr. 
  W. 
  T. 
  

   Schaller 
  for 
  his 
  kindness 
  in 
  pointing 
  out 
  an 
  error 
  in 
  the 
  writer's 
  

   quotation 
  of 
  the 
  percentage 
  of 
  P 
  2 
  5 
  in 
  hamlinite.* 
  It 
  is 
  worth, 
  

   noting, 
  however, 
  that 
  the 
  corrected 
  figure 
  makes 
  the 
  difference 
  

   in 
  the 
  percentage 
  of 
  P 
  2 
  5 
  in 
  goyazite 
  and 
  hamlinite 
  much 
  greater 
  

   than 
  the 
  value 
  which 
  the 
  writer 
  used. 
  Corrected, 
  the 
  relation 
  

   between 
  goyazite 
  and 
  hamlinite 
  is 
  : 
  

  

  Goyazite 
  Hamlinite 
  , 
  

  

  Percent 
  P 
  2 
  5 
  _-_ 
  14*87 
  28'92 
  

  

  This 
  discrepancy 
  seems 
  too 
  great 
  to 
  allow 
  the 
  two 
  to 
  be 
  consid- 
  

   ered 
  the 
  same 
  mineral, 
  especially 
  as 
  no 
  inaccuracy 
  in 
  Damour's 
  

   determination 
  has 
  been 
  proved. 
  Moreover 
  the 
  statement 
  of 
  

   Damour 
  iu 
  regard 
  to 
  goyazite 
  that 
  "it 
  fuses 
  with 
  difficulty 
  on 
  the 
  

   edges 
  of 
  the 
  smallest 
  fragments 
  " 
  does 
  not 
  describe 
  a 
  fusibility 
  

   of 
  4. 
  Again, 
  Hussakf 
  does 
  not 
  assert 
  from 
  his 
  examination 
  of 
  

   Damour's 
  goyazite 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  calcium 
  present, 
  but 
  simply 
  

   that 
  it 
  possessed 
  a 
  " 
  very 
  strong 
  " 
  strontium 
  content 
  in 
  compari- 
  

   son 
  to 
  that 
  of 
  calcium, 
  (" 
  einen 
  im 
  Vergleich 
  zum 
  Kalkgehalt 
  sehr 
  

   starken 
  Strontiumgehalt 
  besitzt"). 
  The 
  entire 
  absence 
  of 
  cal- 
  

   cium 
  is 
  especially 
  noted 
  by 
  PenfieldJ 
  as 
  a 
  feature 
  of 
  hamlinite, 
  

   and 
  Bowman 
  found 
  no 
  calcium 
  in 
  the 
  hamlinite 
  which 
  he 
  

   analyzed. 
  § 
  In 
  view 
  of 
  these 
  differences 
  the 
  identity 
  of 
  goyazite 
  

   and 
  hamlinite 
  cannot 
  be 
  said 
  to 
  be 
  yet 
  proved. 
  

  

  8. 
  Elements 
  of 
  Mineralogy, 
  Crystallography 
  and 
  Blowpipe 
  

   Analysis 
  ; 
  by 
  A. 
  J. 
  Moses 
  and 
  C. 
  L. 
  Paksons. 
  5th 
  edition. 
  

   Pp. 
  631, 
  515 
  figs. 
  New 
  York, 
  1916 
  (Van 
  Nostrand 
  Co.).— 
  This 
  

   is 
  a 
  new 
  edition 
  of 
  a 
  well 
  known 
  text-book. 
  The 
  changes 
  in 
  this 
  

   edition, 
  which 
  have 
  involved 
  the 
  addition 
  of 
  almost 
  two 
  hundred 
  

   pages, 
  have 
  been 
  chiefly 
  as 
  follows 
  : 
  The 
  description 
  of 
  new 
  

   species 
  and 
  economic 
  groups, 
  a 
  more 
  detailed 
  discussion 
  of 
  the 
  

   occurrence 
  and 
  genesis 
  of 
  minerals, 
  an 
  enlarged 
  chapter 
  on 
  the 
  

   optical 
  properties 
  of 
  minerals 
  and 
  new 
  determinative 
  tables. 
  An 
  

   interesting 
  addition 
  to 
  the 
  latter 
  is 
  the 
  inclusion 
  of 
  optical 
  tests 
  

   on 
  fragments 
  of 
  the 
  crushed 
  mineral. 
  These 
  are 
  given 
  in 
  addi- 
  

   tion 
  to 
  the 
  ordinary 
  chemical 
  and 
  physical 
  tests. 
  The 
  book 
  

   covers 
  a 
  very 
  wide 
  field 
  and 
  its 
  method 
  of 
  treatment 
  is 
  necessarily 
  

   very 
  concise. 
  At 
  times 
  one 
  is 
  inclined 
  to 
  w 
  T 
  onder 
  if 
  this 
  condensa- 
  

   tion, 
  admirably 
  as 
  it 
  is 
  done, 
  does 
  not 
  make 
  some 
  portions 
  of 
  the 
  

   subject 
  too 
  difficult 
  for 
  the 
  ordinary 
  student. 
  The 
  book 
  is 
  excel- 
  

   lently 
  printed 
  and 
  illustrated. 
  w. 
  e. 
  f. 
  

  

  9. 
  The 
  Optical 
  Character 
  of 
  /Sulphatic 
  Cancrinite 
  ; 
  a 
  Correc- 
  

   tion 
  ; 
  by 
  E. 
  S. 
  Larsejst 
  (communicated). 
  — 
  In 
  the 
  table 
  in 
  the 
  

   middle 
  of 
  page 
  333 
  of 
  volume 
  xlii 
  of 
  this 
  Journal 
  (October, 
  1916), 
  

   the 
  optical 
  characters 
  of 
  sulphatic 
  cancrinite, 
  cancrinite, 
  and 
  

   natrodavyne 
  were 
  inadvertently 
  stated 
  incorrectly 
  but 
  are 
  stated 
  

   correctly 
  in 
  the 
  text. 
  Sulphatic 
  cancrinite 
  and 
  cancrinite 
  are 
  

   optically 
  negative 
  while 
  natrodavyne 
  is 
  optically 
  positive. 
  

  

  *This 
  Journal 
  (4) 
  xliii, 
  p. 
  163, 
  1916. 
  fTsch. 
  Mitth., 
  xxv, 
  p. 
  340, 
  1906. 
  

  

  % 
  This 
  Journal 
  (4) 
  iv, 
  p. 
  314, 
  1897. 
  § 
  Min. 
  Mag., 
  xiv, 
  p. 
  392, 
  1907. 
  

  

  