Negative Positive
Title: Avoid confusion!
Review: I agree with the reviewer from Fairbanks: this book should not be confused with the Mackenzie and Guilford atlas. The Atlas of *Rocks* and Minerals tries to be too comprehensive (by including both rocks and minerals) and in doing so has lost all of the information about less common and accessory minerals that was in the Mackenzie and Guilford text. Of course, much of what's in both books is now available on the Web, but it's still hard to find large format color photos like the ones in Mackenzie and Guilford.Another (less expensive) alternative is A.R. Philpotts' "Petrography of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks." In my experience as a student and then a TA in a mineralogy course, Philpotts' book does a better job of pointing out the distinctive characteristics of minerals than do the photographic atlases.
Is the review positive or negative? 