Search for: All records

Abstract Minerals are the fundamental constituents of Earth, and mineral names appear in scientific literature for disciplines including geology, chemistry, materials science, biology, and medicine, among others. Choosing a name is the full responsibility of the authors of new mineral proposals submitted to the International Mineralogical Association (IMA). Scientific nomenclature and its traditions have evolved over time, and consequently, mineral names track changes in the landscape of mineralogy with respect to language, technology, and culture. To evaluate these changes, the namesake information for all 5896 minerals approved by the IMA or “grandfathered” into use as of December 2022 was recorded and categorized within a workable database. The compiled information yields diverse insights into the intersection of science and culture and could also be used to project future trends. In this study, we used the name database to investigate gender diversity among mineral eponyms. More than half (ca. 54%) of all mineral species are named after people, the identities of whom are largely a reflection of the people that have historically been involved, in one way or another, in the geosciences and the mining industry. Of the 2738 people with minerals named for them, ∼6.1% are (interpreted to be) women. Nearly all minerals named for women were named during the last 60 years, although the growth rate in the year-on-year percentage of women among new mineral namesakes has slowed since about 1985. If current and historical trends hold, our model predicts that women will not comprise more than about 10.35% of newly established mineral namesakes in future years. The representation of women among mineral namesakes also differs starkly among countries. For example, Russians comprise 43.11% of women with minerals named for them but account for only 15.12% of all eponyms. However, there are additional disparities beyond the proportions of namesakes. For scientists who were alive when a mineral was named for them, women averaged 3.74 years older than men when evaluated over the same timespan (1954–2022). These results demonstrate that gender-based disparities are imprinted into current mineral nomenclature and indicate that gender parity among new mineral namesakes is impossible without unprecedented changes in the upstream demographics that are most likely to affect naming trends. 

Abstract The geochemistry of tropical coral skeletons is widely used in paleoclimate reconstructions. However, sub‐aerially exposed corals may be affected by diagenesis, altering the aragonite skeleton through partial dissolution, or infilling of secondary minerals like calcite. We analyzed the impact of intra‐skeletal calcite on the geochemistry (δ¹⁸O, Sr/Ca, Mg/Ca, Li/Mg, Li/Ca, U/Ca, B/Ca, Ba/Ca, and Mn/Ca) of a sub‐aerially exposedPoritessp. coral. Each micro‐milled coral sample was split into two aliquots for geochemistry and X‐ray diffraction (XRD) analysis to quantify the direct impact of calcite on geochemistry. We modified the sample loading technique for XRD to detect low calcite levels (1%–2%; total uncertainty = 0.33%, 2σ) in small samples (∼7.5 mg). Calcite content ranged from 0% to 12.5%, with higher percentages coinciding with larger geochemical offsets. Sr/Ca, Li/Mg, Li/Ca, and δ¹⁸O‐derived sea‐surface temperature (SST) anomalies per 1% calcite were +0.43°C, +0.24°C, +0.11°C, and +0.008°C, respectively. A 3.6% calcite produces a Sr/Ca‐SST signal commensurate with local SST seasonality (∼1.5°C), which we propose as the cut‐off level for screening calcite diagenesis in paleo‐temperature reconstructions. Inclusion of intra‐skeletal calcite decreases B/Ca, Ba/Ca, and U/Ca values, and increases Mg/Ca values, and can therefore impact reconstructions of paleoclimate and the carbonate chemistry of the semi‐isolated calcifying fluid in corals. This study emphasizes the importance of quantifying fine‐scale calcite diagenesis to identify coral preservation levels and assure robust paleoclimate reconstructions. 

Abstract Corals nucleate and grow aragonite crystals, organizing them into intricate skeletal structures that ultimately build the world’s coral reefs. Crystallography and chemistry have profound influence on the material properties of these skeletal building blocks, yet gaps remain in our knowledge about coral aragonite on the atomic scale. Across a broad diversity of shallow-water and deep-sea scleractinian corals from vastly different environments, coral aragonites are remarkably similar to one another, confirming that corals exert control on the carbonate chemistry of the calcifying space relative to the surrounding seawater. Nuances in coral aragonite structures relate most closely to trace element chemistry and aragonite saturation state, suggesting the primary controls on aragonite structure are ionic strength and trace element chemistry, with growth rate playing a secondary role. We also show how coral aragonites are crystallographically indistinguishable from synthetic abiogenic aragonite analogs precipitated from seawater under conditions mimicking coral calcifying fluid. In contrast, coral aragonites are distinct from geologically formed aragonites, a synthetic aragonite precipitated from a freshwater solution, and mollusk aragonites. Crystallographic signatures have future applications in understanding the material properties of coral aragonite and predicting the persistence of coral reefs in a rapidly changing ocean.