The illustrations are of high quality buthave little visual impact, partly because thespecimens themselves are not particularlygood, but more importantly because they donot fill the frame, producing a rather oddeffect. The Guide is not a success becausethe authors do not seem to know what they aretrying to achieve. The result is a glossybooklet containing information which would bemore at home as a number of photocopiedsheets. The reasons for producing such apublication as this are unclear.Andrew NewmanThe Hancock MuseumNewcastle upon Tyne NE2 4PT12 May 1986King, R.J. (ed.). 1982-1985. Journal of theRussell Society, vol.1, nos.1-3.Amateur collectors and museum curators havemuch in common in their quest to preserve andexpand their mineral collections, so it ishardly surprising to find that the Journal ofthe Russell Society contains much of interestto the mineral curator. The Russell Societv. -.founded in 1972, has a national membership ofmainly amateur, but dedicated and highlyrespectedmineralogists. Its objects ire-topromote education and interest in mineralogy,to preserve mineralogical sites and material,and to develop mineral sites for scientificresearch.T<strong>here</strong> has been a long-standing need for ajournal to publish papers on topographicmineralogv which are now so rarelv . given -space in existing academic periodicals. TheJournal promises to fulfill this need. Itattemots to match in academic standard the~inerilogical Record, a beautifully producedand lavishly illustrated American journal,containing a wealth of species and localityinformation for the serious collector. T<strong>here</strong>are no lavish colour photographs in theJournal yet, and illustrations often lack anindication of scale. Publication is somewhaterratic (no.1 in 1982, no.2 in 1983, no.3 in1985). Early teething problems have hit theformat too. Nos.1 and 2 have a clear singlecolumn layout. The double column format inno.3 has a tiny typeface, enormous marginsand lots of empty page between articles.The papers published in the first threeissues of the Journal are informative,concise and very readable. They span twomain subject areas, topographic mineralogy,and the identification and curation ofmineral specimens.Reports of new discoveries of mineralsdominate the topographic papers. They givethe precise location, historical andgeological details of the site, and describethe mineral association with comments onparagenesis. Some compare new localitieswith existing British or foreignoccurrences. A second group of topographypapers are historical reviews; for example,of the occurrence of galena in Leicestershire,and phosgenite and matlockite inDerbyshire. These well-researched reports,based on literature and specimen searches,coupled with the authors' personal knowledgeof the localities, are particularlyenlightening for those of us with old andsometimes mislabelled specimens!T<strong>here</strong> are only three locality reports forsites not notable for new mineraldiscoveries, the Isle of Sheppey in Kent,Fall Hill Quarry in Derbyshire and DyliffeMine in Powys. These are particularlywelcome for collectors and curators alike.With so much knowledge about minerallocalities shared among Society members, itseems a shame they wait until a new mineralis discovered (often in a small and uniqueoccurrence) before publishing anything of theother minerals found at that site. Perhaps aless formal 'notes and news' approach mightencourage more contributions of this kind?Papers on the identification and curation ofmineral specimens include the description ofa computerised mineral identificationpackage, notes on the storage of radioactiveminerals, and the first three parts of aseries by Bob Icing (who, incidentally, editsthe Journal) on the cleaning and care ofminerals. Part 1 covers the initial cleaning(i.e. washing) of newly collected specimens;it contains helpful lists of species easilydamaged by water, with advice on alternativecleaning methods for these. Part 3 givessome excellent advice to those of a lesscuratorial disposition, on how to recordfield data, transport specimens and care forpotentially metastahle material. Again t<strong>here</strong>are invaluable lists of species prone todeliquescence, efflorescence, heat and lightdamage, and other forms of instability, alongwith suggestions for preventative measures.Part 2 of this series, devoted to the'development' of minerals, fills me withconsiderahle alarm. Some methods may bejustified as the only means of exposingotherwise obscured minerals. For example,Californian henitoite can onlv be seen whenthe surrounding natrolite is removed.Techniques which endanger the existence ofassociated minerals by removal of coatingsand encrustations - all to increase theaesthetic appeal of the specimen - arerightly condemned by the author. Indeed, hepoints out that these techniques maypermanently damage the long-term chemicalstability of the specimen, or leave it withan artificially etched appearance. Why,then, does he quote all manner of recipes toreach ends which he himself deems unethical?He says, for example, t<strong>here</strong> can 'be no casefor development of any kind' (no.2, p.63) forthe removal of the typical associatedsecondary minerals coating native copper -and then gives a choice of four differentrecipes to-remove the secondaries! These usesodium hydroxidelsodium tartrate, potassiumcvanide. . glacial acetic acid. and elacialacetic acidlconcentrated sulphuricacidlsodium bichromate, respectively. Otherreci~es mentioned in oassins usehydrofluoric acid! ~urthermore, t<strong>here</strong> islittle tradition among amateur mineralogists,and certainly none among mineral dealers, for-531-
ecording the details of developmentprocesses as an essential part of specimendocumentation. Surely it is irresponsible togive tacit approval to techniques which mayboth destroy the scientific value of themineral specimen, and be very hazardous to anoften ill-equipped amateur collector.Still, perhaps this will not be a problem formost of us. If the advice given in theEditorial of no.3 is followed, our provincialand university museums are unlikely toreceive the benefits of new mineraldiscoveries, or perhaps entire collections.They are attacked for their lack of aconservation tradition, for theirvulnerability to the whims of directors andheads of departments, and for their all toohuman curators who cannot be trusted to holdand safely divulge the contents of mineralsite records. Such records are, according tothe editor, already held, and should only beheld by the Nature Conservancy Council.This attack (by a staff member of awell-respected national museum) should not goundefended. A 'letters to the Editor' columnw<strong>here</strong> inter alia such a defence could bemounted, would be a useful addition to avaluable and long overdue publication.The Journal of the Russell Society isavailable free of charge to Society members,or for a non-member subscription of E5 perannum from: Dr R.J. King (Editor), NationalMuseum of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF13NP. Prices of back issues available onrequest.The Mineralogical Record is published by:Mineralogical Record Inc., 7413 N. MowryPlace, Tucson, Arizona 85741, USA. Price $27per annum (6 issues).Monica T. PriceMineral CollectionsUniversity MuseumOxford OX1 3PR16 May 1986Impey, 0. and MacGregor, A. (eds.). 1985.This stately and impressive volume containsthirty-three chapters, all except one beingbased on papers presented to a symposium heldat the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in July1983. The symposium was part of thecelebrations which marked the tercentenary ofthe opening of the Ashmolean Museum to thepublic in May 1683.Chapters in the book, like the papers in thesymposium are arranged in three groups.Chs.1-20 deal with individual collections orwith groups of collections in the principalcities of Europe; Chs. 21-26 consider thedifferent categories of material which wereincluded in the collections such as classicalantiquities, scientific equipment, shells andskins; and Chs. 27-33 deal geographicallywith the materials from Africa, China, Indiaand other exotic localities which found theirway to Europe. The only major omission fromthe volume, which is noted in the Preface, isthat t<strong>here</strong> is no essay on any of the earlycollections in France.T<strong>here</strong> is much to interest geological curatorsin this volume. Most of the collectionsdescribed in the first twenty chapterscontained some geological materials amongtheir natural wonders. A number of them arealready familiar to geologists throughreferences to their great contemporarycatalogues in the classic histories ofZittel, Adams and Geikie. Writers in thisvolume give us a new and refreshingly broadperspective on the collections ofAldrovandus, the Vatican, Olaus Worm andothers, by considering each collection as awhole and in its historical and geographicalcontext. However, many of the geologicalreferences are quite new, at least to me.Ch.12, on the museum of the HessianLandgraves in ICassel, for example, gives afascinating account of a collection with animportant geological element in its lateryears. Any mineral curator who is thinkingof mounting a new display should read Ch.10,on the Munich Cabinet, w<strong>here</strong> stones, mineralsand corals were set out in elaborate'arrangements' under tall glass domes.In the one purely geological chapter, HughTorrens gives a pioneering account of earlycollecting in the field of geology. Hebegins his story with Georgius Agricola'sNatura Fossilium (15461, and shows howgeological collections were established andalso made use of in Germany, France, Italy,and Switzerland by the year 1600. <strong>Geological</strong>collecting in Britain did not get under wayuntil about 1650, but t<strong>here</strong>after progress wasrapid, and a number of 17th century museumsare described. Tucked in at the end of thepaper are some comments on the development ofcuratorial techniques which are mostwelcome. The most telling comment on earlycuratorial techniques (or lack of them) comesin Michael Hunter's paper on the early RoyalSociety collections. He quotes from thejournal of Von Uffenbach, a Dutchmantravelling in England in 1710, on the subjectof James Petiver's collection: 'Everythinghe had was kept in true English fashion inprodigious confusion in one wretched cabinetand in boxes.' Would that things weredifferent today! It is a pity that Hugh wasnot given a little more space to develop histhemes, but I expect all thirty-three authorscould have written more with ease.Quite apart from its actual geologicalcontent, the volume is full of historicalpoints which are of interest and relevance toanyone working in museums today. Ch.6, forinstance, touches on the various purposesbehind early collections; Ch.8 on theemergence of publicly owned museums, Ch.14 onthe social aspects of collections, and Ch.15on the influence of political disturbance onmuseums. To counteract Von Uffenbach's'English fashion', t<strong>here</strong> is the account of
- Page 3 and 4:
EDITORIALAt last! After almost a ye
- Page 5 and 6:
designed in cooperation with Derbys
- Page 7 and 8: Anon. 1975b. Workshop on geological
- Page 10 and 11: curation of geological materials. m
- Page 12 and 13: GCG INFORMATION SERIES: COLLECTORID
- Page 14 and 15: Geological Curator, Vo1.4, No.8, 19
- Page 16 and 17: L. floriformis (Martin)'Michelinia
- Page 18 and 19: Goldring, R. 1967. Cvclus martinens
- Page 20 and 21: Geological Curator, Vo1.4, No.8, 19
- Page 22 and 23: purchases in Monmouthshire. He borr
- Page 24 and 25: Other insights into Daniel's geolog
- Page 26 and 27: Fig.3. Architect's final design for
- Page 28 and 29: -----Desmond, R. 1977. Dictionary o
- Page 30 and 31: LETTERS TO THE EDITORDear Editor,TH
- Page 32 and 33: LOST AND FOUNDCOMPILED BY DONALD I.
- Page 34 and 35: Coal Fossils in the Denstone Colleg
- Page 36 and 37: Fig. 4. 'Missing' crinoids, figured
- Page 38 and 39: Fig.5. tlolotype of Goliathiceras r
- Page 40 and 41: Fia.6.Specimen figured bv Murchison
- Page 42 and 43: Fig.9. Specimens figured by Murchis
- Page 44 and 45: Fig.14.Specimens figured by Murchis
- Page 46 and 47: (see Burke 1891, p.1315) whobequeat
- Page 48 and 49: written request and appoint~nent on
- Page 50 and 51: Fig.2. The elongate skull and jaw o
- Page 52 and 53: Collecting on this scale and for co
- Page 54 and 55: also provided many of the photograp
- Page 56 and 57: Price Institute, Johannesburg, and
- Page 60 and 61: early North American artifacts in S
- Page 62 and 63: Peninsula, North Wales; Pentelikon