Tremolite mixed with anthopyllite and/or clino-suenoite from the International Talc Company Mine, Talcville, New York, USA. 10x6x2cm, 145 g.
Under long wave UV light the tremolite fluoresces yellow/orange while the antophyllite/clino-suenoite fluoresces red/violet. Under shortwave UV light or 405nm laser the red/violet essentially disappears and the whole specimen fluoresces yellow/orange. Clino-suenoite changed name quite often (tirodite, manganocummingtonite, …); see UV Waves v50, n3 (2020). As far as I know it is not possible to distinguish the anthopyllite from the clino-suenoite without elemental analysis. Let’s call the red fluorescent mineral(s) “red amphibole” (as the UV Waves article suggested).
I acquired four fluorescence spectra: two for the tremolite and two for the red amphibole, under 365nm LED and 405nm blue laser. Both tremolite spectra have the same peak at about about 580nm. This should be due to Mn2+ substituting Ca2+. The spectrum of the red amphibole under 365nm led shows a peak at about 650nm (Mn2+ substituting Mg2+ ?), with a shoulder at about 580nm. With the 405nm blue laser the spectrum of the red amphibole shows two clear peaks: one at 580nm and one at 650nm. My guess is that the red amphibole spectrum is a mix of the emission of the two minerals: tremolite emitting at 580nm and the red amphibole at 650nm. The red amphibole fluoresces weaker under shortwave UV light or 405nm blue laser, leaving only the tremolite visible. The intensities in the spectra are normalized and cannot be compared. The sharp peak 535nm is leaking (?) from the blue laser.