Of course, I haven't counted up all of that data yet so there's every chance that the collection won't fit neatly into that scheme I'm mostly just hoping that ConcernedApe had foresight to match the museum displays to the collection somehow. No, I don't have my vertical = columns and horizontal = rows back-to-front, it's confusing to explain and an image would make more sense but, basically, each row will share one trait (how the mineral was formed), and each colum will share one trait (what's in it). whether it's mainly composed of silica, calcium, other metal oxides, and so on). To wit: the mineral collection will be sorted into three rows "vertically" by how the specimens are formed (sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous, in that order so that the taller crystals are at the back) and then the columns will progress horizontally through the main component elements (e.g. ![]() However, since the collection also includes mudstone and other sedimentary rocks that don't fit into the calcite theme, I'll probably end up with a 2-axis sorting pattern. Above the calcium minerals will go the metamorphic minerals, continuing on a theme of "least time underground to most time underground/exposed to high pressure". I'll have to check again whether some of the metamorphic minerals start out as calcium-rich sediments) layed out along the first "vertical" stand, although I'm planning to put the bones there and make the calcium minerals the bottom row of that large display. So far, I have calcium-based minerals (Limestone, sandstone, marble, and the quartz varieties. but it will look convincing and make for a nice picture :P) I have a separate category for bones, and I'm planning to lay them out in such a way that they resemble an incomplete skeleton (I know that's a terrible terrible thing to do from an archaeological sense, since it promotes the assumption that they're from the same species when there's no evidence of that. Like both of you, I immediately divided artifacts into Dolls, Dwarven and what I loosely term "Historical". Anything I don't recognise is sorted according to whether it ranks as a gem or mineral, and placed in the spaces in the appropriate section. I went with a pragmatic approach: anything I recognise gets the full taxonomy treatment, organised into separate sections where possible. So there's every chance that some of the more fantastical minerals such as Star Shards, Frozen Tear and so on actually have real-world counterparts, and that those names are colloquial or regional.īut, since I could spend a lifetime trying to figure that out and never be certain, I decided not to bother. that's the last chemistry pun I'll make, I promise) entirely to the naming issue - people give lots of different names to the same rocks/minerals/whatever (it's not just minerals, the same happens with all forms of classification birds and plants and book genres and anything which people put into a taxonomy). And fire quartz is actually the one I'd think most likely to have a real-world counterpart the more fantastical ones like the Prismatic Shard, Frozen Tear, Star Shards, Fairy Crystal and so on seem like they're made up to fit a story or to give a more magical feel. I mean, I'm far from an expert but quartz-based minerals are the cheapest and easiest for a young collector to get their hands on, so I had a -lot- of different quartz varieties including rose quartz and others with distinct red tones but I'd never seen anything about fire quartz in any of that. That was about as far as my knowledge stretched but then the game started throwing in some which I'm pretty sure are made-up, such as fire quartz. mainly if they were sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic formations). I started trying to organise the Stardew minerals based on their formation mode/geological characteristics (i.e. ![]() As a young kid I dabbled in mineral collecting, so when it came to filling the museum there was no way I was going to pass up the opportunity to actually complete and organise the whole collection.
2 Comments
|