From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I have made a few minor changes to the article on dolomite. Mainly tightening it up and making a few additions. My purpose was to broaden the initial paragraph to cover dolomite (rock) as well as the mineral. It is clear from what follows the initial paragraph that the article covers both the rock and mineral. It is my intention to later make a substantial revision to add considerable material covering the various processes of dolomitization.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the term "Dolomite Problem" although it is widely used in introductory texts. The "problem" in the past was that there apparently were large volumes of ancient strata that was dolomitized and only rare occurrences of dolomite in Recent sediments. This really is no problem today. During the past 30 years dolomite has been found forming at the surface of the Earth, in the marine environment and in the subsurface all over the world. There are apparently a number of mechanisms by which dolomite forms. I intend to cover these later.

I am also uncomfortable with citing "gray literature" and "internet sources" for compiling an article of this kind. The source article by van Lith et al. (2000) is legitimate but it is only an abstract. I believe that there are more recent publications by this group that can be cited. I am very skeptical about using the self published on line article (book) by Deelman as a source. There likely are some very good reasons why this work has failed to survive peer review and is not published in the formal scientific literature. I would like to rewrite the section on the kinetics of dolomitization. Possibly, it would be best to be less technical here. Even well educated science students usually do not understand concepts like “breaking Ostwald’s rule”. Actually, what is described in that section of the text is “Ostwald’s step rule” so whoever initially wrote it did not understand it either. In any event, more later. Jay Gregg 17:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • How about "Dolomite Question". "Problem" seems like it needs to be "fixed" but "questions" can be "answered" ... in many ways. This leaves the issue open to discovery of new deposits, new theories, and anything else that might shed some light in the future. --Emana 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


This should be a letter to the author (s)? of the dolomite text.

I would ask You to to correct the word sulubility and point out the reaction speed as main difference. Dolomite is completely soluble in HCl, no matter if concentrated or dilute, the same as calcite. The difference between both is only the reaction speed, which differs by a factor of 1000 or so. Dolomite is also completely suluble in vinegar, You just have to wait long enough, pulverize it fine enough and heat the acetic acid long enough.

Manfred Weigend, Geologist, from Muenchen, Germany

Slang Use[edit]

I think there should be some mention of the term dolomite as it is used in slang, so that searchers can make the connection between the term and popular culture. For more information, see:

Put it on the disabig page - see link at the top. Vsmith 12:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Use in fiction[edit]

I added information regarding the mineral's use on the TV series Futurama, but another editor quickly removed it as "trivia". What do others think? Should this sort of thing be included in this entry? Is no use of dolomite in fictional works to be included here, or only those deemed "trivial"? Alvis 04:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A lying robot's claims about dolomite do not seem either encyclopedic nor as coming from a trusted source. I think not trusting Bender is appropriate for Futurama. Maybe he'll provide citations in the credits for the movies. (SEWilco 05:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
It's not that I TRUST a fictional character (how is that even possible?), but that the mineral is mentioned as a central point to the climax of the episode. I even wrote "claims to be made of" rather than IS made of, as that's all the citation supports. Alvis 04:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't need the trivial drivel here - put it in the Futurama article or make a link on the disambig page if you feel it to be notable. Vsmith 12:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Wiki writers are sometimes lacking in knowledge. It was PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH who noted that Seymour was encased in Dolomite, NOT Bender! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to propose that we include construction as one of the uses of dolomite. I don't know about current practice, since most residential consuction is now sticks, but dolomite was used extensively in rock construction as well as in foundations. Perhaps not the best rock to use, but in the midwest, especially near the mississippi river near the Driftless area, dolomite was used heavily in foundation and building construction. In fact I live in a house in Le Claire, IA with a dolomite foundation and 1st floor walls. There is an actively mined dolomite quarry less than a mile away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Dolostone correct?--Kevmin (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
ya ummm Kevmin Dolostone and Dolomite are the same thing. (Emily Rossii)-- (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Should the mineral and rock sections of this article be separated in to their respective parts? It seems a decent amount of information would apply to only the mineral, or only to the rock. Davo499 (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Contribution to Geology by France[edit]

"... it was described as a rock by the French ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

First mention[edit]

This discussion was moved here from User talk:JeffDellbart.


After noticing the sudden inclusion of work by Balthasar Hacquet in the Wiki on dolomite, I have taken the trouble to check his books before taking any action. Early August 2013 I was able to read "Oryctographia Carniola, oder physikalische Erdbeschreibung des Herzogthums Krain, Istrien und zum Theil der benachbarten Laender" (1778) in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich. On p.155 of that book Hacquet stated to have found various limestone-like formations in the region of Laubach (Lublanza) near the Mokriss mountain. Most of these limestones had been changed into "Stinksteine and fossils could be found in these rocks. Among these rocks was a LAPIDE SUILLO, or as Hacquet stated: "Unter diesen ist eines merkwuerdig, welches in einem LAPIDE SUILLO, oder Stinksteine von grauer und schwarzer Farbe bricht" (p.155). This particular rock contained many fossils described as "... olivenfoermige Koerper ohne Stiel". However, I could not find any data on the chemistry of the Lapide Suillo, nor anything about a possible reaction with acid. The acid reaction is the fundamental means to distinguish dolomite from limestone in the field. The second book I consulted was volume two of the same "Oryctographia Carniolica oder physikalische Erdbeschreibung etc." published in 1781 by J. G. I. Breikopf, Leipzig, 186 p. (BSB 4 Lith 125 a-2). In this book Hacquet wrote on p.5 to have found, in the area of Rubnik near the village of Vorle ("unterm Teil der Oberkrain") a fine, homogeneous powder that would not react with acid. The powder had formed as a result of the weathering of a limestone. This rock reminded Hacquet of the "MARMOR TARDUM" described by Linnaeus, because the unweathered rock was much harder than limestone would normally be. Because Balthasar Hacquet himself mentions the "MARMOR TARDUM" of Linnaeus, there can be no claim whatever of Hacquet's concept of LAPIDE SUILLO taking the historical priority. Please do remember, and do try check this, that the remarks on Marmor Tardum appeared in Tomus 3 of the "Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species cum characteribus & differentiis" (Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae, 236 p.), which appeared in the year 1768. In other words, clearly the remarks by Linnaeus take precedence over those by Hacquet (1781). My somewhat hesitating wording of "Most probably ..." find their origin in the fact, that as a scientist you never know for certain what already exists in print. Maybe some Medieval book from 1432 will soon be discovered, where the mineral dolomite was described in minute detail. In other words: it is quite certain, that the description of dolomite by Linnaeus is older than that by Hacquet, but it is not certain whether descriptions taking priority over that by Linnaeus, do exist.

     On the basis of the above verifiable arguments, I do urge you to restore the Wiki on dolomite to the state it was in on 25 September 2013.
     With kind regards,    JeffDellbart (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is a valuable information that should be published somewhere. However, it is also an original synthesis. Per WP:SECONDARY, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This unfortunately means that unless you can provide a reliable secondary source to back the claim Linnaeus was the first to describe the dolomite, this claim can't be included in the article. --Eleassar my talk 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eleassar, It is a well-known fact, that De Saussure (1792), in his paper on the analysis of the new mineral "Dolomie" (full reference = Analyse de la Dolomie, Journal de Physique, vol.40, pp.161-173), made a very clear reference to the publication of Linnaeus (1768), where MARMOR TARDUM (the limestone-like rock that did not react with acid) was mentioned. As stated by De Saussure (1792) on p.161 of the Journal de Physique (1792)the description of "dolomite" by Linnaeus (1768) takes precedence even over that by De Dolomieu (1791): "M. de Dolomieu a reconnu cette pierre dans quelques monumens de l'ancienne Rome & dans les lits des torrens qui prennent leur origine dans les Alpes; il l'a vue en place dans les montangnes du Tyrol. Linnaeus qui connoissoit la dolomie, nous apprend qu'elle se trouve à Roedberg en Norwege; il lui donne le nom expressit de MARMOR TARDUM, en la definissant ainsi: Marmor particulis subimpalpalibus album diaphanum. Hoc simile quartzo, durum, distinctum quod com aqua forti non, nisi posit aliquot minima & fero, effervecsens." In other words, pointing out that the mineral dolomite was described first by Linnaeus is certainly not my "original research". In combination with the reference made by Balthasar Hacquet in his own book (vol.2 of his "Oryctographia Carniolica", p.5)to the description of MARMOR TARDUM by Linnaeus, no one can ever claim again that Hacquet was the first to describe the mineral dolomite. Therefore, I do implore you to change back the WIKI on the mineral dolomite to the situation of Wednesday 25 September 2013, because all those who claim the historical priority for Hacquet are so evidently in the wrong. At the same time I would like to suggest to include most of our discussion, with all the facts mentioned, in the WIKI on Belsazar Hacquet. If you like the idea, I promise to help you with the text, translation of the Latin, French and German texts, the materials and the references. With kind regards, JeffDellbart (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored the version that you've cited. I've tagged it with {{primary-inline}}, because the primary source that you have cited there needs to be replaced with a secondary source. --Eleassar my talk 05:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision of this Article is Needed[edit]

After a rather long hiatus I am again in a position to do some editorial work for Wikipedia. I would like to start with this article on “dolomite” which is in bad need of revision by someone who actually knows something about the petrology and mineralogy of carbonate rocks.

Among the problems with this article are: 1) There is no clear distinction between the mineral dolomite and the rock dolomite. I suggest that the mineral should have a separate article. 2) Some of the references that are cited are out dated and/or incorrect. 3) The section titled “History”, though interesting, is of little scientific value and certainly should not be the first heading in the article. (It also seems to be one person’s opinion as it differs greatly with most other published accounts of the discovery of the rock). 4) The section on “Formation” is totally incorrect. Dolomite, displaying unambiguous cation ordering, has never been synthesized at ambient temperatures in the laboratory. There is no mention at all of the several mechanisms of dolomitization of limestone that are thought to be important. 5) The section on uses barely mentions the importance of dolomite as a petroleum reservoir. Possibly as much as 30% of all petroleum reserves are hosted by dolomite reservoirs! The impression is given that this is secondary to other rather trivial uses, such as motorcycle tracks in Australia!

If there are no objections, I will undertake to revise this article later this year. I humbly submit that I am qualified to do this as I have worked on dolomite as a geologist for many years and recently co-presented a short course on Dolomite for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Would there be any objections to splitting the article into one for the mineral dolomite and the other for the rock dolomite. Jay Gregg (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back.
The two articles (mineral and rock) already exist. This one is supposed to be the mineral article - hence the mineral infobox. Dolostone was started for the "rock" content. And I'm aware that you dislike the term dolostone as used to differentiate the two. The rock article could be moved/renemed to Dolomite (rock). Both articles could be improved.
Indeed the use of dolomite formations as hydrocarbon reservoirs needs to be included and the uses listed currently are indeed rather trivial. The dolomite rock/dolostone article is a stub needing improvement and would be the place for discussing the stratigraphic importance. Vsmith (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Dolomite-Magnésite- Navarre.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dolomite-Magnésite- Navarre.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 27, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Dolomite (shown here with magnesite) is an anhydrous carbonate mineral composed of calcium magnesium carbonate. It forms white, tan, gray, or pink crystals, which do not react with dilute hydrochloric acid. Termed "stinking stone" by naturalist Belsazar Hacquet, the mineral gives the smell of petroleum when rubbed. It has multiple uses, including as a radiation buffer and a catalyst for destruction of tar.

Photograph: Didier Descouens
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Etymology of "stink stone"[edit]

The POTD above contains an etymology for the name "stink stone". It might be good to put this in the substantive article.ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)