[meteorite-list] AD(?) - Sikhote-Alin in tree

From: Richard Montgomery <rickmont_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:56:21 -0800
Message-ID: <564287C8A99A4F6EBC25ED01C7FDC776_at_bosoheadPC>

Hi Anne and Listoids...I don't and won't doubt Anne's integrity, as she and
her reputation stand tall. I'm curious, though, and Anne you will have the
most insight on this: how is it that the shrap specimen isn't
original-rusty?

Richard Montgomery


----- Original Message -----
From: <Impactika at aol.com>
To: <drvann at sas.upenn.edu>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] AD(?) - Sikhote-Alin in tree


> WOW!
>
> Thank you Dr. Vann, Dr. Ted, Dolores, everybody, for all the great posts!
> I have learned a lot about trees today! ;-)
>
> Dr Vann, if I was a little closer to Philadelphia, I would be driving
> right
> over to show it to you. Your analysis and interpretation is amazing, and
> very helpful. If more pictures could help in any way just say so, I would
> be
> delighted to send you some close-ups. And just in case, I posted this one
> to
> my site:
> _http://www.impactika.com/images/satree2.jpg_
> (http://www.impactika.com/images/satree2.jpg)
> Please do let me know what you see there.
> Thank you very much.
>
> And for everybody else, and since some did ask, here is a picture of the
> two Sikhote-Alins from the Vernadsky Institute:
> _http://www.impactika.com/images/satree2.jpg_
> (http://www.impactika.com/images/satree2.jpg)
> Enjoy.
> And again, Thanks everybody!
>
> Anne M. Black
> _http://www.impactika.com/_ (http://www.impactika.com/)
> _IMPACTIKA at aol.com_ (mailto:IMPACTIKA at aol.com)
> President, I.M.C.A. Inc.
> _http://www.imca.cc/_ (http://www.imca.cc/)
>
>
> In a message dated 1/12/2011 2:09:16 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> drvann at sas.upenn.edu writes:
> I would like to add that the picture, as I interpret it, is a tree
> *stump*.
> It
> is upside-down in Anne's picture. The 'branches' are departing the trunk
> in
> the
> pattern typical of roots. The age of the tree would be determined based on
> the
> rings in the piece laying on the table. It appears to me that the tree
> grew
> around the SA piece as it lay buried, consequently an age less than or
> near
> to
> the SA would be expected. There seems to be very little to no disruption
> (shattering) of the wood that I can see -only bending as one might see in
> a
> root
> growing around a rock. Thus, this may have been a fragment that hit soil,
> followed by enclosure in the growing tree. If you invert the photo (it
> will
> look
> more like a tree trunk), the placement of the fragment is below the main
> trunk.
> A moving piece would have come in on a very low angle to penetrate the
> tree
> in
> the *apparent* manner. Additionally, I would expect the oxidation patterns
> for
> meteorites that imbedded in wood to be different from that in soil (not
> possible
> to evaluate in a photo). At least, there should be iron staining or
> increased
> iron in the wood after impact due to natural organic acids in the tree sap
> as it
> repaired the wound. Conversely, a piece in the soil would be enclosed by
> roots
> similar to way they would enclose rock, and the root would have bark
> covering
> the wood at the interface with the fragment at all times, so there would
> be
> no
> iron staining.
> Interpretation is complicated by the fact that a second tree (probably a
> second
> trunk of the main tree) has grown roots that are interlaced with those of
> the
> larger trunk. If you invert the photo, the pear-shaped form on the right
> (with a
> circle in the center) is the remnants of the second trunk, which died and
> fell
> away from the tree years ago. The two yellowish ovals are two roots that
> were
> cut to fell the tree or after felling to better show the fragment. The
> pinkish
> area around the fragment is a larger root (that was plunging into the
> soil)
> that
> was split when the tree was uprooted. This split revealed the fragment.
> The
> split root shows a rotted, hollow area toward the right, which when
> combined
> with the cluster of three smaller roots (under the yellow ovals), provided
> a
> weak point for the split to begin. There is a crescent-shaped area of bark
> departing the fragment; this is the fusion/grafting line between the two
> large
> roots that are in the lower left of the (inverted) photo. This provides
> another
> point of weakness.
> I would love to see this in life, for a better evaluation, but am afraid
> that I
> cannot make the Tucson show. Someday perhaps.
>
>
> David R. Vann, Ph.D.
> Forest Biogeochemistry and Physiology
> Department of Earth and Environmental Science
> THE UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
> 240 S. 33rd St.
> Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316
> drvann at sas.upenn.edu
> office: 215-898-4906
> FAX: 215-898-0964
>
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> | [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On
> | Behalf Of Dolores Hill
> | Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:54 PM
> | To: John Birdsell
> | Cc: Impactika at aol.com; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> | Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] AD(?) - Sikhote-Alin in tree
> |
> |
> | Dear meteorite-list,
> |
> | I cannot resist commenting on this issue. I have studied
> | dendrochronology and I am very familiar with the UA Tree-Ring Lab
> | (LTRR). It is much more complicated than one might realize. In
> | addition to "number of tree-rings/years," the growth _/pattern/_ is
> | extremely important in cross-dating a tree sample according to a
> | particular regional "chronology." Depending on the species and/or
> | environmental conditions, there may even be "missing rings or double
> | rings." The number of rings also depends on when the tree
> | first started
> | growing and when it died (naturally or was cut down) or was
> | sampled by
> | increment core.
> |
> | I have seen fascinating photos of supposed Sikhote-Alin
> | meteorites stuck
> | in trees and invited the owners to allow LTRR experts to
> | examine them.
> | So far the owners seem to get cold feet. LTRR has scientists and
> | visiting researchers who have first-hand experience with
> | Russian trees
> | and forests. They are happy to provide assistance:
> | http://ltrr.arizona.edu/ If authentic, the samples might aid
> | studies of biological effects of meteorite impacts. It would
> | be best if
> | the original location of the tree is known; another case for careful
> | documentation.
> |
> | Regards,
> | Dolores Hill
> | Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
> | University of Arizona
> |
> |
> | John Birdsell wrote:
> | > Hi Ted....good point. If a tree branch was collected many,
> | many years
> | > ago, it
> | > could have fewer growth rings, and might also be expected
> | to show some signs of
> | > its age.
> | >
> | >
> | > -J
> | >
> | > I have seen three specimens that exceed 80 years and
> | several that are
> | > too
> | > young, so be careful. A Russian dealer friend of mine says
> | that all of the
> | > genuine specimens were gathered years ago, but some may
> | have been kept for
> | > future sale as we know the Arab dealers do with meteorites.
> | >
> | > Be careful out there.
> | >
> | > Ted Bunch
> | >
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
>
Received on Wed 12 Jan 2011 09:56:21 PM PST