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almost no weight as they are not peer reviewed.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 Eucrit
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
2 matches
Mail list logo