[meteorite-list] question about olivine diogenites

From: Kieron Heard <kieron.heard_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:55:53 +0100
Message-ID: <NDEIIIDBJLODKDEGFPMIMEHMCOAA.kieron.heard_at_ukonline.co.uk>

Thanks Greg (and MikeG and GregS),

That's much clearer now


All the best, Kieron


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hupe [mailto:gmhupe at htn.net]
Sent: 11 June 2010 18:47
To: Kieron Heard; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] question about olivine diogenites


Hi Kieron,

I made a mistake in my first reply regarding the order as the Olivine
Diogenites (OD's) were found. There were two Antarctic OD's found first and
then NWA 1459. Since there were only two OD's at first, and then a third,
the term "Olivine Diogenite" was adopted. Since NWA 1459 was discovered,
scientists and collectors were openly referring to these type of meteorites
as "Olivine Diogenite". From what I understand, a name of a group is not
officially recognized until after some time has passed where wide usage of a
name is used in abstracts, general discussion and the like and that at least
three meteorites of the same type are known. The HED group (Howardite,
Eucrite, Diogenite) is an accepted and official group for those meteorites.
After a third meteorite of the "OD" type was discovered (NWA 1459), this
made three in that group and HEDO was adopted by some scientists to include
OD's with the previous HED group. After NWA 1877 and NWA 5480 were
discovered, HEDO is an even more widely used name for that group of four
meteorite types and may be official at this point with its five OD members,
I am not sure on the 'official' status but was or would need to be, voted on
by the committee. You had asked why NWA 1459 is still listed in the
Meteoritical Bulletin as "Diogenite". The answer to this is that with all of
the meteorites and types that have come out of NWA over the recent years,
there are lots of meteorites that need to be revised, info corrected and
updated after newer scientific information was found after the initial
classification was submitted by the scientists.

I hope this explains OD's a little better. There are scientists and
committee members who can explain this much better than I can if I was
unclear.

Hope everyone has a great weekend!
Greg

====================
Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
gmhupe at htn.net
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163
====================
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kieron Heard" <kieron.heard at ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Greg Hupe" <gmhupe at htn.net>; "Greg Stanley" <stanleygregr at hotmail.com>;
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:51 PM
Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] question about olivine diogenites


> Thanks for your replies chaps but I am still mystified. I accept that NWA
> 1459 is another example of an olivine diogenite, but why then is its
> recommended classification in the MetBull Database simply 'diogenite' and
> not 'diogenite-olivine'?
>
>
> Regards, Kieron
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Hupe [mailto:gmhupe at htn.net]
> Sent: 11 June 2010 17:30
> To: Greg Stanley; kieron.heard at ukonline.co.uk;
> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] question about olivine diogenites
>
>
> Hello Kieron, GregS and List,
>
> The first recognized Olivine Diogenite was NWA 1459, then came along NWA
> 1877(w/ pairing 5603, and others), then NWA 5480 (and pairings). I am not
> familiar with GRA 98108.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best regards,
> Greg
>
> ====================
> Greg Hupe
> The Hupe Collection
> NaturesVault (eBay)
> gmhupe at htn.net
> www.LunarRock.com
> IMCA 3163
> ====================
> Click here for my current eBay auctions:
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Stanley" <stanleygregr at hotmail.com>
> To: <kieron.heard at ukonline.co.uk>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] question about olivine diogenites
>
>
>>
>> List:
>>
>> Is not NWA 5480 an olivine diogenite too?
>>
>> Greg S.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> From: kieron.heard at ukonline.co.uk
>>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:13:49 +0100
>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] question about olivine diogenites
>>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone can offer some advice? I am pleased to have obtained
>>> a
>>> sample of NWA 6149 (prov) - an olivine diogenite. This prompted me to do
>>> some research on the MetBull Database, and I see that there are only
>>> three
>>> meteorites that are classified there as 'olivine diogenites' (MIL 07001,
>>> NWA
>>> 5603 and NWA 6157). Other stones that have in the past been described as
>>> olivine diogenites (such as GRA 98108 and NWA 1459) have recommended
>>> classifications of 'diogenite', despite seeming to have a significant
>>> olivine content.
>>>
>>> So my question is, What is the requirement for a meteorite to be
>>> recorded
>>> in
>>> the database as as 'olivine diogenite'?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for any information.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards, Kieron
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at
>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from
>> your
>> inbox.
>>
>
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W
> L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
> ----
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2931 - Release Date: 06/11/10
> 02:35:00
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2931 - Release Date: 06/11/10
02:35:00

Received on Fri 11 Jun 2010 01:55:53 PM PDT