The classification of minerals has changed throughout the ages, the criterion of classification following the development of the mineralogical science. In ancient times, the classification of minerals was mainly based on their practical purposes. According to Theophrastus (372-287 B.C.), and Plinius (77 A.D.), minerals were classified as gemstones, ores, pigments, etc. In the Middle Ages, Geber (Jabir Ibn Hayyi'm, 721-c.803), proposed a classification based on the external characteristics and some physical properties of minerals such as hardness, fusibility, malleability and fracture; this physical classification was developed later by  Avicenna (Ibn Simi, 980-1037), and Agricola (1546). With Werner (1774) the physical classification attained its maturity and was generally adopted at the end of the XVIII century. <...>

The classification tables are complemented by the new mineral species, that were discoveried at 2007-2016 years [4], [50].The formulae of some mineral species were corrected and some mineral species were transfered to another taxons on account of the appearance of new data about the chemical composition or the crystal structures. Structural-chemical systematic of minerals is representative of recent data on connection between chemical composition and crystal structures and properties of minerals,conditions of mineral formations, paragenesis. The chemical signs are the basis of structural-chemical systematic. The crystal structures of mineral consider on the middle and low-level taxons, but not on the high-level taxons, because the mineral structure is depend on chemical composition and physical-chemical parameters of mineralforming systems.

The classification tables are given, which include near by 5000 mineral species. This enables to use developed classification for scientific and practical purposes.

This book designed for the wide circle of mineralogists, petrographers, geochemists, students of geolodical institutions and colleges.

Through, long-lived structural–kinematic parageneses were established in the southeastern marginal part of the Baltic Shield on the basis of structural studies. These parageneses were formed and periodically rejuvenated from at least the Paleoproterozoic until the neotectonic stage of the evolution of this territory. A series of consecutive tectonic events related to the vertical and horizontal mobility of rocks of the crystalline basement and sedimentary cover had important implications for the formation of present-day structure of the southeastern margin of the Baltic Shield. These tectonic displacements developed for an extremely long time with retention of the main kinematic tendencies. At the end of the Paleoproterozoic, the volcanic and sedimentary rocks of the Vetreny Belt underwent tectonic stacking as a result of the countermotion of the crystalline masses of the Vodlozero Massif and the Belomorian–Lapland Belt. The clockwise rotation and lateral displacement of the Vodlozero Massif to the northeast provided the left-lateral transpression of the Vetreny Belt. Under these conditions, the Paleoproterozoic sequences experienced squeezing in the southeastern direction. This kinematic tendency was retained at the subsequent evolutional stages and eventually was recorded in the structure of the present-day boundary between the Baltic Shield and the Russian Platform.

Obituary: Dr Ken Thomson 1966–2007 

PETFORD, N. Structure and emplacement of high-level magmatic systems: introduction 

ABLAY, G. J., CLEMENS, J. D. & PETFORD, N. Large-scale mechanics of fracture-mediated felsic magma intrusion driven by hydraulic inflation and buoyancy pumping

THOMSON, K. & SCHOFIELD, N. Lithological and structural controls on the emplacement and morphology of sills in sedimentary basins

LEAT, P. T. On the long-distance transport of Ferrar magmas