As Strother Martin said, "What we have here is FAILURE to communicate."
 
 
If this is a voting thing I vote that we do have discussions about appropriate
terminology.  I also must agree with those who suggest we keep these things
on a "higher plane" of etiquette.  Cyber-nose-pulling is not very entertaining
and rarely informative.
 
What I'd like to know is how we make identifications of Kaoline (which
I remember also being called "China Clay") from other clays.  If I remember
right the kaolines develop from the weathering of feldspars but how does
one go about being able to distinguish this from another sources of clay?
 If it takes scanning electron microscopy to be able to make the cut maybe
calling the generic group Kaoline is no big deal.  In many respects this
 is reminiscent of the discussion of what is chert (some geologist call
chert and impure flint  while others say flint is an impure chert).
 
Walk in Beauty.   Terry