It is important, and we really needed to get the name announced in order
not to impede science (e.g., the MetSoc abstracts are due in a matter of
days) and to end the controversy around what to call it.
If you read Zolensky's description in the bulletin, it's clear that he
thinks the meteorite is CM like. But it is not your normal CM2 from
this description. This could ultimately go a number of ways in the
final analysis... anything from a CM to an ungrouped C chondrite, or
maybe something else. There is no reason to jump to conclusions. I'm
betting that the MetSoc abstracts will tell us much more.
Jeff
On 5/22/2012 8:02 PM, Michael Gilmer wrote:
Hi Jeff and List,
I think the speedy approval and publication is a great service to the
meteorite community as a whole (science and laypeople alike), because
it provides authoritative data during an event that is still
unfolding, and this might help prevent some misunderstandings or
misinformation that could have resulted without a published
classification. Great job on getting it done quick. :)
On the other hand, I am a bit puzzled by the temporary "place-holder"
type of "C - Carbonaceous". I understand what it means and why it was
selected. However, this seems unusual for an approval that is
published in the database. We don't see this very often. In the
past, the release of an approved classification was usually withheld
until a more definitive conclusion was reached on the petrologic type.
In other words, we don't see too many of these "placeholder"
classification types. Am I wrong, or did Sutter's Mill merit this
because of it's important and unusual nature?
Best regards,
MikeG
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
