Hello Bob, All,
We were thorough. The type specimen consisted of a slice and end-cut
from 1) the first stone, and 2) the largest fragment from the second
cluster. We took samples of each. The two cut stones looked
~identical, inside and out (-- and unlike your stone). All of the
smaller fragmen
Apparently, you’re not the only one confused. I’ve been discussing this topic
with some
other people and they find this confusing, as well, and all have the same
question:
Why did the NomCom give you 1 name, instead of numbering each of the stones
that Bob Perkins, Gary Crabtree,
and Fre
My apologies to all on the List,
I neglected to send my reply in "plain text", so you don't have the benefit of
knowing what Jason is replying to.
Here is reprint of that missing post:
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:48 AM, Robert Verish
wrote:
I started to write a reply but then I reali
Hello Bob,
I'm confused. I addressed that. You're saying that, because they're
L5's, they are paired, despite the fact that they look different?
Over 1/10 meteorites found is "L5." Seriously. Almost 5,000 approved
meteorites are L5s, out of ~48,000 total approved meteorites. If you
find a met
Helo Bob, All,
>I agree, they definitely look different.
'Nuff said. You could assume "microclimates," but I wouldn't start
putting forth a hypothesis like that without something substantial
like argon data to tie the two stones together. The Meteoritical
Bulletin is clear on pairing:
http://m
5 matches
Mail list logo
