[meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?

From: Rob McCafferty <rob_mccafferty_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <688745.88768.qm_at_web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Many people have put a lot of thought into this question.
I can't promise to provide 10 but I do have a few suggestions

Ensischeim must top the list as being the first undisputed from outer space.

Canyon Diablo for it's influence in the acceptance that cataclysmic impacts can occur on earth

Murchison and Allende arrived, by serendipity, just as the facilities to study them came on line and helped advance the study of meteorites and how it's done tremendously, I believe.

ALH81005, being the first confirmed lunar meteorite demonstrated that rocks can make their way to earth from another major body.

EETA79001 and ALH77005 the study of which provided the evidence leading to the belief that SNC meteorites came from Mars (Bogard and Johnson 1983).

That's only 8 but as far as science goes, I think they're important.

As for our understanding of how the solar system formed...well, I'm pretty sure they add something. Other meteorites will be considered to contribute more but at this time, the 30,000+ samples collected must be considered as a whole. The distribution of their types tells us a lot but it must also be remembered that our meteorite record is heavily skewed to recent events and current orbital dynamics.
We must consider that the balance of meteorite types may have been different in the past and may also be different in the future. We simply do not know enough to be able to tell exactly how the solar system formed from the samples we have now but we do have enough to hazard an educated guess.

Rob McC

Then of course, there's ALH84001. Whatever your opinion of this meteorite, its contribution to the drive behind solving the "are we alone?" question cannot be denied.


--- On Sat, 2/14/09, Jeff Kuyken <info at meteorites.com.au> wrote:

> From: Jeff Kuyken <info at meteorites.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?
> To: "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com>, "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Date: Saturday, February 14, 2009, 11:57 PM
> I would have to agree with where you're coming from
> Jason. I think you would need to make a number of Top 10
> lists for different reasons. Along with "the top 10
> most scientifically important meteorites" you might
> also have "the top 10 meteorites which have advanced
> meteoritical science". You could actually argue they
> are the same thing or you could look at one as a purely data
> relating one with the other as a more generalised one
> encompassing everything like Martin's very good argument
> for including L'Aigle.
>
> For me the most "scientifically important
> meteorites" would include things like Murchison,
> Allende, Tagish Lake, Krymka, Zagami and Chassigny? (how do
> you choose between the Planetaries?), D'Orbigny and the
> other Angrites, Karoonda, Ibitira and other ungrouped
> achondrites like NWA 011 and pairings. And then other
> personal biases like NWA 2892 with it's "plastic
> chondrules" throwing chondrule formation/accretion
> theories into disarray. Basically anything that further
> enhances our understanding of the processes behind the
> formation of our solar system.
>
> The other list "the top 10 meteorites which have
> advanced meteoritical science" might include the
> meteorites like L'Aigle, Sikhote, Canyon Diablo,
> Carancas, any meteorites with their orbits calculated,
> Ensisheim, the first meteorites to peak Harvey
> Nininger's interest, etc, etc. It would be a long list.
>
> That's just my way of looking at it and I'm sure
> everyone has their own opinion. Very interesting thread
> though... gets you thinking!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Utas"
> <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
> To: "Meteorite-list"
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most
> scientificallyimportant meteorites?
>
>
> Hola All,
> I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post
> my Graham
> asked for a list of ten of "the most important
> meteorites with regard
> to science," and he then went on to ask: "Which
> ones have been the
> most significant in increasing our understanding of the
> evolution of
> our solar system, and what they have taught us?"
> I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask
> for a list
> of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of
> meteoritics as
> a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most
> scientifically
> interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if
> L'Aigle had
> been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of
> the
> situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while
> it did help
> to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did
> little to
> tell us of the history of the formation of the solar
> system.
> And Michael's list is more of a list of the most
> beautiful/interesting
> meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's
> just a
> different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute
> to our
> knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly,
> but they
> are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for
> non-scientific
> reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as
> a
> crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand
> impact
> dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding
> of the
> evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really.
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood
> <mlblood at cox.net> wrote:
> > Hi Jason and all,
> > First of all, I think it should be mentioned
> that any such
> > List is inevitably biased.
> > Next, that said list cannot possibly
> "nail" a specific 10
> > meteorites.
> > Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here
> are 10
> > Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit
> full
> > Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least
> one "why"
> > Per each:
> >
> > 1) Canyon Diablo:
> > prototypical and stable iron from what was
> > recognized as the "only" impact crater for a
> very long time. It
> > Can be added that it was also the original site of the
> Nininger
> > Museum
> >
> > 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more
> than
> > Doubled the total weight of known CR material
> available.
> > It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer
> stones
> > Striking homes and patios
> >
> > 3) Esquel: "The queen of the Pallasites"
> with fantastic color,
> > Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities
> large enough
> > To allow any collector to have one of the few stable
> Pallasites.
> >
> > 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that
> comprise the
> > "building blocks" of life, perhaps the most
> "studied" of any meteorite
> > Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm
> hypothesis. Again,
> > a witnessed fall and a hammer.
> >
> > 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists,
> this specimen has
> > A unique physiology. Also a hammer.
> >
> > 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized
> meteorite in "the new world."
> > Also a hammer.
> >
> > 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a
> forthcoming article on the
> > Status of L'Aigle as a hammer).
> >
> > 8) Ensischeim: "The meteorite from hell."
> (also a hammer if you care to
> > consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This
> is one of the richest
> > events ever in the "lore" of meteorites.
> >
> > 9) Sikhote-Aline: producing thousands of what are
> pretty much agreed to be
> > the world's most visually impressive iron
> individuals. Also a rare Iron
> > witnessed fall.
> >
> > 10) Sylacauga: the only fully documented human
> striking meteorite.
> >
> > I could easily add several more, but these are
> just my 2 cents
> > worth, anyway. I am likely wrong, as my wife
> repeatedly assures me
> > I am.
> > Best wishes, Michael
> >
> >
> > On 2/14/09 4:59 AM, "Martin Altmann"
> <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jason,
> >>
> >> Even though we're living in a fast world and
> the "modernism" of our days may
> >> give the impression, that new scientific
> recoveries are drawn out of the
> >> nothing.
> >> But science and ideas are always integrated in
> traditions and contexts and
> >> are built on earlier steps.
> >> Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the
> stones may stem from outside.
> >> He connected the idea that they come from space
> with the fireballs, the
> >> existing stones and reports about the falls and
> postulated additionally,
> >> that they could survive the atmospheric travel.
> >> That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary
> scientists.
> >> After the period of "enlightment" it was
> impossible that chunks fall from
> >> sky, Newton required empty spaces between the
> planets or at it best, cause
> >> they were Aristotelians, they had to be
> atmospheric products.
> >> (Although Tycho had measured long before the
> parallaxes of comets, to find
> >> out that they move indeed in space).
> >>
> >> So Chladni's weird theory never would have
> been accepted, if there wouldn't
> >> have happened that proof, the mighty shower of
> L'Aigle, conveniently close
> >> to the Acad?mie de sciences.
> >>
> >> Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark.
> Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no
> >> Schreibers, no Daubr?e...no modern meteoritics.
> (At least not to the
> >> advanced stage we have today).
> >>
> >> Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much
> known as Father of meteoritics,
> >> but for his "Acoustics", he certainly is
> partially responsible for the gig
> >> tootling out from your speakers, while you're
> writing to the list :-)
> >>
> >> Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you
> don't meet the meaning of this
> >> milestone, if you look with today's eyes on
> it.
> >>
> >>> It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there
> are thousands
> >>
> >> Which gives in fact to that class an especially
> high scientific importance,
> >> doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most
> original information about the
> >> origin of our solar system, the processes who lead
> to the formation of
> >> planets and they resemble much more the stuff we
> are all made from, than any
> >> differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather
> the history and development
> >> of his individual parent body. And ready we
> aren't yet with the chondrites.
> >> Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at
> present? Eleven?
> >> Look the recent decade, the discovery of
> protoplanetary discs around other
> >> stars..... and so on.
> >> Only because they are so readily available to the
> collectors and despite the
> >> antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes
> Mrs.Caroline Smith. Fletcher,
> >> Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay
> much more than you),
> >> they shouldn't be disregarded.
> >>
> >> Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something
> like that
> >> http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg
> >> doesn't it made your mouth water?
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is
> better than that, which
> >> Galilei pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what
> for an importance it had!
> >> Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now,
> without that use of the lousy
> >> lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe
> Galileo's or Copernicus' role is maybe
> >> sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars...
> Copernicus' system was in
> >> practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and
> antique antecessors - I'm a
> >> fan of Tycho, which was much more important for
> modern astronomy and our
> >> view of the world, as he was the first, who
> trumped the Islamic astronomy.
> >> Without the results of his large-scale
> instruments, no Kepler, no Newton, no
> >> Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the
> pieces in the Chladni Boxes
> >> really originated from the red planet...).
> >> Of course it's never a continuously direct and
> mono-causal development...
> >> Chance and accident are also factors.
> >> Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the
> importance among the
> >> first places, if they hadn't such large tkws
> or if they had fallen in the
> >> oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just
> ready, when they felt.
> >>
> >> But in general L'Aigle was the proof.
> >> Scientifically important, because with that fall,
> the concept of meteorites
> >> had to be accepted and the branch of this science
> was born at all.
> >>
> >> So it's my number one - only in my personal
> opinion of course.
> >>
> >> If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but
> the very new had to be
> >> ruled out and most probably we would have to make
> a ranking of the so far
> >> unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where
> we don't have fully the
> >> clues, what exactly it could be.
> >>
> >> Off now, have to jump into my carriage without
> horses.
> >> (Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable
> junk...
> >> http://kuerzer.de/unimport
> >> and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-)
> >>
> >> Best!
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> >>
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im
> Auftrag von Jason
> >> Utas
> >> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21
> >> An: Meteorite-list
> >> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10
> most
> >> scientificallyimportantmeteorites?
> >>
> >> Hola Martin,
> >> I would have to disagree - when you go that far
> back, you wind up
> >> dealing with meteorites that are of historic,
> rather than scientific
> >> interest. L'Aigle may be something of an
> exception because it did
> >> lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites,
> but, from today's
> >> scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it
> very important, never mind
> >> giving it a place in the top ten. It's an
> ordinary chondrite, of
> >> which there are thousands - it's no more
> special than, say, Tenham or
> >> Gao - from a purely scientific point of view.
> >> One might as well call the earliest fossils found
> the most important,
> >> simply because they were found back in the day and
> led to our
> >> recognition of what they really
> represented...while they may be
> >> important, I would hesitate to call them extremely
> important from a
> >> scientific point of view.
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann
> >> <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> >>> I choose L'Aigle as N?1.
> >>>
> >>> Cause else they wouldn't have recognized,
> that Chladni was right and that
> >>> they are from space.
> >>>
> >>> Best!
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von:
> meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> >>>
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im
> Auftrag von
> >>> ensoramanda at ntlworld.com
> >>> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55
> >>> An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >>> Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10
> most scientifically
> >>> importantmeteorites?
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Just thought it might be interesting to
> discover list members opinions on
> >>> what they would choose as the most important
> meteorites with regard to
> >>> science? Which ones have been the most
> significant in increasing our
> >>> understanding of the evolution of our solar
> system, and what they have
> >>> taught us?
> >>>
> >>> Graham Ensor, UK.
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


      
Received on Sat 14 Feb 2009 08:41:49 PM PST