[meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
From: Ted Bunch <tbear1_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:54:23 -0700 Message-ID: <C77B23BF.1054A%tbear1_at_cableone.net> Jeff - your statement from below " Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites" is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But, the number of samples doesn't really matter. The number of scientific publications "> 10X" means little in terms of scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if you consider the following: 1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.). 2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose support for future Expeditions. 3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are extremely biased against "dirty desert meteorites" and will not let them in the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study - a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind. 4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites, not Desert specimens. 5) More and more research papers deal with both Desert and Antarctic samples and that tact is becoming more prevalent with time as bias diminishes and the reality of "desert significance" enters the mind set. I don't know how you factor that into the "numbers game". 6) A shot at "more valuable scientifically" - if not for the valuable lunar samples collected from the deserts, we would know much less about the Moon - see the Korotev web site on Lunars. And, and we know a Hell of a lot more about Mars from Desert Martians - See Irving web site on Martians. Bottom line - geography has little to do with a meteorite's significance. As a colleague of mine said "A meteorite doesn't care where it lands". Regards, Ted On 1/19/10 5:46 AM, "Jeff Grossman" <jgrossman at usgs.gov> wrote: >> Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from >> Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of >> USD? 7000. > This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There > are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus > a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, > Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic > meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in > the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this > figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its > 20,000 meteorites come from? > > Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be > vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably > occur as subjects of scientific publications at >10x the frequency as > NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't > locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. > > Jeff Received on Tue 19 Jan 2010 10:54:23 AM PST |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |