English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Original  parajamesonite  samples  of  Zsivny  &  Náray-Szabó  (1947)  and  other authentic  museum  specimens  containing  the  same  material  were  studied  by ore microscopy, electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) and X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD). The "parajamesonite crystals" proved to be pseudomorphs built of polycrystalline  aggregates  of  euhedral  jamesonite,  sometimes  intergrown with argentian tetrahedrite (freibergite) and/or ramdohrite. Other associated  minerals  are  "plumosite",  i.e.  fibrous  jamesonite  (rarely  with  boulangerite),  iron-rich  sphalerite,  siderite,  pyrrhotite,  semseyite,  a  fizélyite-related mineral,  and  galena.  All  XRPD  patterns  correspond  to  jamesonite,  without any similarity to the original pattern of parajamesonite. All these data prove that parajamesonite is actually jamesonite, permitting to discredit definitively parajamesonite as a mineral species

Parajamesonite revisited: background of the discreditation of an enigmatic mineral species