Hi Bernd Yes I saw both of those abstracts. Unfortunately abstracts carry almost no weight as they are not peer reviewed. So the most correct classification based on the original work would be a Eucrite. Though ultimately I would strongly suspect they are correct and in the future it will be Eucrite anom. In any case it is not a achondrite anom.
-- Mike -- Mike Jensen Jensen Meteorites 16730 E Ada PL Aurora, CO 80017-3137 303-337-4361 IMCA 4264 website: www.jensenmeteorites.com On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:17 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Fabrice, Mike and List, > > > Mike wrote: "The text list this stone as a ACHANOM or achondrite anomalous. > But if you look it up in the MB database it is listed as a Eucrite ... So you > could > have Eucrite anom ..." > > > YAMAGUCHI A. et al. (2003) An anomalous eucrite, Dhofar 007, and a possible > genetic > relationship with mesosiderites (Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIV (2003) > 1377.pdf). > > YAMAGUCHI A. et al. (2006) An anomalous eucrite, Dhofar 007, and a possible > genetic relationship with mesosiderites (MAPS 41-6, 2006, 863-874). > > Best, > > Bernd > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > ______________________________________________ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list