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

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <531447.33427.qm_at_web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Jason and List,

Jason, you are talking about primitive achondrites
containing relic chondrules not evolved and brecciated
Aubrites. These are well defined chondrules and can be
found in most of this material. As far as I know, not
a single chondrule, let alone a relic has ever been
found in a single Aubrite.

Best Regards,

Adam



--- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> ______________________________________________
> 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 04:35:46 PM PST