[meteorite-list] Another eBay Correction - "Fossil" NWA 2828

From: Greg Hupe <gmhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 23:39:17 -0500
Message-ID: <0c2a01c73215$cabd63e0$cc135c18_at_Gregor>

Hi David, Mark and List,

I think the general thought and consensus for "Fossil" on NWA 2828 and
pairings was due to the information that some of this material (mostly blue
coloring) was dug up from under a layer of other differently altered
material (mostly brown material). I am not a scientist, nor have I ever
proclaimed to be, but this makes sense and does open the door for other
classified meteorites prior to the term "Fossil-Meteorite" being used.

I do not think "Relic-Meteorite" applies because it confuses the thought of
"Relic Chondrules/Ghost Chondrules" or lack of chondrules in existing,
classified meteorites. Considering terrestrial influences did not change the
chondrule/non-chondrule structure of these meteorites, I feel it confuses
things. Relict chondrules is an approved term that, I understand, does not
apply to the overall classification "name" of any said meteorite.
Terrestrial alteration determined the overall current naming status of these
(NWA 2828, etc.), not what happened during their extraterrestrial birth,
life, bombardment from other "bodies" and eventual voyage here, which made
for such a complicated classification process of this meteorite.

As I write this, I can see how quickly it becomes confusing to determine
what to say, think about and write what should be determined.

Pretty fun to chew through all of these thoughts and possibilities. Blame it
on science, it changes all the time with new discoveries and comparison to
existing classifications. I believe new "Groups" and Sub-Groups" will be
happening more often with the discovery of new meteorites and future space
exploration of planets such as Mars and beyond. A lot of the "Ungrouped",
"Anomalous" and other "Pigeon-Holed" meteorites will have a correct and
proper classification sooner than we think. Very cool in my book! Just
think, a few decades ago we used to have to rely on new meteorite falls to
set a new Group or Sub-Groups, but now, we have the technology to send
rovers and spacecraft to sniff out the soil, gases and other scientific
means to make these discoveries to compare to man's meteorite finds, whether
it be by a fall or find.

Best regards,
Greg

====================
Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
gmhupe at tampabay.rr.com
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163
====================


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Weir" <dgweir at earthlink.net>
To: "Greg Hupe" <gmhupe at tampabay.rr.com>
Cc: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Another eBay Correction - "Fossil" NWA 2828


> Greg Hupe wrote:
>> Hi Mark, Dean and List,
>>
>> Boy, I should have started from scratch when I re-loaded my previously
>> unsold eBay auctions of NWA 2828 "Fossil" EL3 meteorite. I've already
>> corrected the TKW of 2828 and referenced "pairings". Now I notice I
>> overlooked changing "Paleo" to "Fossil".
>>
>> Back to the revise button...
>
> Yea, "fossil" may be accurate or maybe not, but why not use the broader
> terminology as designated by NomCom in their latest revision in which this
> new category is proposed?
>
> Read it here in section 1.2(c) Relict meteorites:
>
> http://www.meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/nc-guidelines.htm#s12c
>
> This section is copied here for your convenience:
>
> c) Special provisions are made in these Guidelines for highly altered
> materials that may have a meteoritic origin, designated relict meteorites,
> which are dominantly (>95%) composed of secondary minerals formed on the
> body on which the object was found. Examples of such material may include
> some types of "meteorite shale," "fossil meteorites," and fusion crust.
>
> David
>
Received on Sat 06 Jan 2007 11:39:17 PM PST