[meteorite-list] Meteorite finder list: Puente-Ladron

From: bernd.pauli_at_paulinet.de <bernd.pauli_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun Dec 18 11:42:18 2005
Message-ID: <DIIE.00000031000040D8_at_paulinet.de>

Charlie wrote:

"Now if I could just find my copy, I could read about it."


Hi Charlie and List,

.. and just in case you don't :-)


MARVIN U.B. (1993) The Puente-Ladron chondrite (Meteoritics 28-3, 1993, 269-270):

In the October, 1944, issue of the Contributions, Nininger announced his discovery of a
tiny 7.7-g chondrite he found near a spot where he stopped by the road to eat his lunch
on a windswept sandy-clay flat in Socorro County, New Mexico. He named it the Puente-
Ladron meteorite and marked the site with a pile of stones. Nininger reasoned that this
small stone was probably part of a shower and encouraged everyone interested in doing
so to search the area for more pieces. He requested that accurate notes be kept of find-
sites and that any additional specimens be sent to him for comparison with his own, after
which they would promptly be returned.

In the February, 1946, issue of CSRM, LaPaz remarked that artifacts were common in that
part of New Mexico and that unless it could be shown that the Puente-Ladron stone had not
been transported to the area by an Indian who discarded or lost it there, a search would not
be justified (LaPaz, 1946a). The April issue carried an article by Claude H. Smith (1946),
of Geneva, New York, who reminded readers that the discovery of a new stony meteorite by a
student of meteorites was well-nigh unique in the annals of meteoritics. He doubted that the
little stone, which was originally described as strongly resembling the dark pebbles liberally
strewn about the area, was sufficiently distinctive to attract the attention of an Indian unless
he saw it fall. Furthermore, if it had lain where it was found since Indians in any great numbers
occupied the area, it should have been much more weathered than it was. Smith argued that the
main facts were against the possibility that it had been carried to the area by an Indian and
that searches for more stones should be made in the area.

In August, LaPaz (1946b) responded that certain remarks published under the name of Claude H.
Smith could not pass unchallenged. Indians were known to have carried meteorites about with
them. Indeed, Nininger himself had reported finding four stony meteorites at Indian campsites
in Kansas and eastern Colorado. That Indians were very sharp-eyed observers who could distin-
guish between materials that looked similar was shown by the presence in the Puente-Ladron
area of arrowheads and other points made from very small pebbles and spalls of obsidian.

LaPaz described the high winds and sandstorms, which could quickly cover or uncover the surface
of the area, making invalid all assumptions about the weathering of any one specimen. He reported
that a University of New Mexico anthropologist, knowledgeable about meteorites, had looked for them
there without success during field surveys in the region. LaPaz found the area to be unpropitious
for meteorite hunting and advised all who were interested in such a pursuit to go to the plains
around the Barringer Crater. Finally, LaPaz pointed out that Dr. H.H. Nininger himself must lack
faith in his own advice, because he had failed to include the Puente-Ladron area on a list he sent
to LaPaz in April, 1946, of New Mexico localities in which he planned to continue field programs.
His tone suggests that LaPaz may have suspected "Claude H. Smith" to be a pseudonym for Nininger
himself; however, Claude H. Smith of Geneva, New York, joined the Society in 1955.

Nininger (1947a) delivered a rejoinder at the 1946 meeting of the Society. He observed that
his attempt to give a "break" to would-be meteorite finders had developed into an argument
about how his specimen got where he found it. He customarily searched his findsites for
evidence of human occupation and had found none nearby. The specimen showed no effects
of handling nor of sandblasting. He commented that meteorite hunting requires a lot of
patience, but the least fruitful occupation is that of figuring out why none can be found.
Nininger suggested that amateurs have spent more searching time between finds at the Barringer
Crater than had been spent by all concerned at Puente-Ladron.

Following Nininger's paper, Lincoln LaPaz (1947) published what he announced as the final remarks
on Puente-Ladron. He said that as a member of the Society's Committee on Publications he had been
given the opportunity to read the preceding paper prior to its publication. The manuscript was
listed as "N," and so, throughout his own paper, he referred to Nininger as "the author of N." He
restated his position, argued against N's statement regarding hunting for specimens of Canyon
Diablo, and, in conclusion, pointed out that Puente-Ladron had long enjoyed the dubious distinction
of being the least examined of meteorites of uncertain identity. With the appearance of N and the
present critique Puente-Ladron now achieved a second questionable distinction: that of being the
meteorite with the most published words per gram. LaPaz concluded that publication on this subject
should now cease until more finds would permit exhaustive study and identification of the meteorite.
Editor Leonard agreed and announced that these were the last papers to be published on whether the
Puente-Ladron stone fell where it was found or had been transported thither by man.


No need to tell anyone these two meteoriticists were
not the very best of friends and/or colleagues ;-)


Best Xmas wishes,

Bernd
Received on Sun 18 Dec 2005 11:42:16 AM PST