[meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:25:05 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac890711301325n7775255fve620bdeab079d8e_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Adam, All,

Adam said:
> It is obvious that this meteorite contains chondrules
> therefore calling it anything but a chondrite doesn't
> make any sense to me.

Wold Cottage, as well as several Acapulcoites and Winonaites contain
chondrule remains, though the official definitions of such meteorites
(Aubrite, Acap., Awin.) clearly state that chondrules should not be
present, these being classes of achondrites.

The mere thought that a few unequilibrated chondrules found after
inspecting vast amounts of material by microscope should dictate the
meteorite's class is repulsive to me, especially when the majority of
the stone is clearly devoid of such features in general.

If one found an unaltered type three chondrule in a section of Gao,
would that make the fall a type three chondrite? I daresay not, and I
see no reason for this to be the case with whatever names by which
this material (maybe it's an anomalous enstatite chondrite/achondrite
- but it's certainly not a type three chondrite) is known.

To be perfectly frank, classing such an oddity as a type three is
contrary to scientific principles as a whole. With regards to
science, new information should not be changed to fit existing
categorical systems, but rather systems should change to fit new
information.

So -

Clearly there are a few chondrules in this meteorite, but the vast
majority of the stone appears Aubritic.

Thus, to call it one or the other is simply wrong.

If anything, call it anomalous, call it a primitive achondrite, or
make up a new name, but for the sake of meteoritics, call it something
that fits the rock itself; don't call it an Aubrite or a type three
chondrite because it is *neither* of these, at least as these terms
are currently defined by science.

Regards,
Jason

On Nov 30, 2007 11:02 AM, Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> I just thought I would throw my opiniion into the
> discussion.
>
> It is obvious that this meteorite contains chondrules
> therefore calling it anything but a chondrite doesn't
> make any sense to me. These round objects cannot be
> mistaken for anything else. Radial pyroxene and
> barred olivine clasts, I don't think so, these are
> obvious chondrules.
>
> This material is heterogeneous so this is a case where
> more than the 20 gram type sample is required in order
> to interpret this meteorite properly. If pieces that
> contain round objects are omitted from study, I can
> see why it could be interpreted as an Aubrite.
> Another thing working against it is that it does not
> look anything like other known Aubrites. To me, this
> is an EL Chondrite, nothing more, nothing less, still
> a cool find.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Fri 30 Nov 2007 04:25:05 PM PST