[meteorite-list] Meteorite smugglers anger scientists

From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:49:01 -0400
Message-ID: <OF676E52DB.06DBD397-ON852572C0.0009FF94_at_usgs.gov>

My counts ignore unreviewed work like abstracts and the Meteoritical
Bulletin, which is also composed of abstracts plus tables. ALH 84001
is not a hot research topic these days... I don't remember
encountering it in the 2006 papers.

Jeff

At 09:28 PM 4/16/2007, MexicoDoug wrote:
>Hello Jeff, List,
>
>That does appear to deserve a second serious look for the concerned, and I
>assume the Bulletin Supplement isn't included (which basically ignores the
>classification work, coordinate recording and compositional publication as
>science that counts). Of course these are for classified meteorites and
>nothing much can be formally done for those unclassified or questionably
>classified where the true problem exists.
>
>Just to clarify this obvious discrepancy, if we subtract Alan Hills 84001
>can you say what the Antarctic totals recounted come out to?
>
>Thanks for stepping up and your viewpoint is respected and welcomed.
>Best Health and Kind Wishes,
>Doug
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeff Grossman" <jgrossman at usgs.gov>
>To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 7:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite smugglers anger scientists
>
>
> > At 06:29 PM 4/16/2007, ensoramanda wrote:
> > >So if science is "losing important material for study" to
> > >dealers/hunters/collectors of NWA's, why dont we hear much about all
> > >the amazing research that must be coming out of the thousands of
> > >meteorites from Antarctica? !!! Science has exclusive use of these
> > >but I never seem to hear much exciting news about them...or am I
> > >just not looking in the right place?
> > >
> > >Graham Ensor, nr Barwell UK
> >
> > You are looking in the wrong place. Far more important research
> > results have been coming from the Antarctic meteorites than from hot
> > desert meteorites.
> >
> > I did a quick count of meteorites used in studies published in both
> > major meteoritics and cosmochemistry journals in 2006. Each tally
> > means one meteorite mentioned in one paper (if the same meteorite is
> > mentioned in 6 papers, it counts for 6). Here are the results:
> >
> > Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta:
> >
> > Saharan+Oman meteorites: 22
> > Antarctic meteorites: 62
> > Non-Antarctic/non-saharan meteorites: 109 plus one paper with 50.
> >
> > In Meteoritics and Planetary Science:
> >
> > Saharan+Oman meteorites: 10
> > Antarctic meteorites: 80 plus one paper with many.
> > Non-Antarctic/non-saharan meteorites: 106 plus one paper with many.
> >
> > The real question is, why are hot desert meteorites so miserably
> > UNDER-represented in the literature. I think there are several
> > answers, and there are probably many more:
> >
> > 1) Falls are often the most valuable samples for research due to lack
> > of weathering.
> > 2) Research specimens of hot desert meteorites tend to be very small.
> > 3) Hot desert meteorite are not well distributed in the research
> > collections of the world (especially in the US), and are much harder
> > for scientists to obtain.
> > 4) All of the major Antarctic collections are well curated and have
> > formal procedures in place for obtaining samples.
> > 5) Hot desert meteorite collections are useless for the study of irons.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA
Received on Mon 16 Apr 2007 09:49:01 PM PDT