[meteorite-list] Missing Ureilite.

From: LabNEMS <staff_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:08:33 2004
Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20020930085902.00a95700_at_popmail.xensei.com>

Steve:

This one is right out of the Meteorite X-Files. The "truth"
is out there but I doubt you'll see it in print. Allan T. did the
work on it and is correct in that it was originally reported as Nuevo
Mercurio (b).
The confusion arose from conflicting reports of where it was found.

We have some in our Reference Collection. Nova 001 is a real
ureilite, I saw the 350 gram mass back in 1992 although I think a
few grams had already been taken off.

The issue over Nova 001 is not is it real, or does any exist. It's
the reported locality.

Perhaps others will comment here.

Russ K.,

At 08:50 AM 09/30/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I have a question for the list, maybe this has come up before, maybe some
>of you know this as common knowledge. I was reading an old article from
>Meteoritics - "Igneous petrology of the new ureilites Nova 001 and
>Nullarbor 010" by Treiman and Berkley, v. 29, p843.
>
>In there is a statement "The Nullarbor 010 ureilite was found in 1991 as
>a 350-g stone; the location of only ~1-g is known."
>
>Where are the other 349-g of it? Could it be that the finder truly wanted
>to remain anonymous? But then why put in this statement? Is there really
>349 g of missing ureilite? Everyone empty your pockets at the door......
>
>
>Thanks,
>Steven
>
>
>Steven Singletary
>54-1224
>Dept. Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
>M.I.T.
>Cambridge, MA 02139
>Tel - 617.253.6398
>Fax - 617.253.7102
>
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 30 Sep 2002 09:20:15 AM PDT