Nope. You didn't understand all of what I said. The first part is right: we don't care if there was a meteor or whether the body doing the accreting had no atmosphere. Once the impactor survives landing, it becomes a meteorite. If it becomes incorporated into a rock as a xenolith, it is still a meteorite (e.g., Brunflo and the Osterplana "fossil" meteorites found in earth rocks, and). BUT, if the rock containing the clast itself becomes a meteorite by being ejected from its parent body and landing somewhere else, then the clast is no longer a meteorite... it's just a clast in a meteorite.
We had to adopt this complex rule because otherwise we'd have to give a meteorite name to every asteroidal xenolith found in an asteroidal meteorite.
The second part of your question should have been phrased:
"On another note, I was wondering what, if any, differences might be expected
in the fusion crusts on meteorites found on Mars as compared to meteorites found on Earth?" (remember, the former are NOT martian meteorites). My answer is, I don't know.
jeff
At 04:32 PM 1/15/2003, you wrote:
Hi Jeff and all, In other words, if I correctly understand this, on another moon, asteroid or airless planet, the part of a meteoroid that survives impact on another body becomes a meteorite without an intervening "meteor" stage; (unless of course, it may have previously grazed an atmosphere ala the Gran Teton fireball of the 1960's). And once it becomes a lithified part of the impacted body, it becomes only a "xenolithic" clast. Easy to understand ;-)On another note, I was wondering what, if any, differences might be expected in the fusion crusts on Martian meteorites (those found on Mars) as compared to meteorites found on Earth? Any one have any ideas? Thanks, Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Grossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Appropriate terminology? > Alan Rubin and I advocated calling all of these things "meteorites" no > matter what body they were found on. Our definition was as follows, quoting > from the article: > > "A meteorite is a natural solid object that was transported by natural > means from the body on which it formed to a region outside the dominant > gravitational influence of that body and was later accreted by a natural > body larger than itself." > > Our exception to this rule is: "Meteorites accreting to a body lose their > status as individual meteorites if the rocks into which they are > incorporated subsequently become meteorites themselves." > > This means that a CM clast in an H chondrite that fell in Africa is not > itself a meteorite... only the H chondrite is. Hadley Rille and Bench > Crater ARE meteorites; however, had they been found as clasts in lunar > meteorites, they would not be meteorites, and would not be given their own > names by the nomenclature committee. Everybody follow this? I thought not. > > All of these statements are the opinion of just Alan and myself. There are > no widely accepted definitions of "meteorite." But since nobody else has > ever tried to define the word like we did, I guess we get the last word for > now. > > -jeff >
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
