[meteorite-list] Currently used classification scheme - Divisions

From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:06:30 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimu09BcCjpkLAWMUwv94KZx_aY3kg_at_mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for this, Shawn. My references were from the work Rose did
in the 1860's and forward. I think the current schema follows this
somewhat as Weisberg points out.


I think maybe not enough is known to classify at the higher division
levels, thus the disagreements and the lack of unity at these levels
and unwillingness to change??? It appears at lower levels, documents
all around tend to speak the same language and have commonality. In
part of my working life, commonality and correct terminology could
have meant the difference between life and death in a matter of a few
seconds....which has made me very critical when I do not see it.

Classification must remain fluid and not get stuck on the journey.
The work on the IAB-complex meteorites, it's groups and grouplets,
etc., for example, need to be represented in new systematic diagrams
that I have yet to see in any documentation, not that I've read them
all, I am sure. I'd sure love to see one I could hang on my wall! I
find this sort of diagram a value added asset while I study
meteorites.

I hope Dawn is the being of a new era in classification. And it is
becoming to be very exciting to watch what happens as Dawn approaches!
 Simply awesome.
Wouldn't it be nice to land, drill and retrieve a deep core sample!

Back to honey-do's

Kind Regards,

Jim Wooddell


On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Shawn Alan <photophlow at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Jim and Listers
>
> While we are on the topic of meteorite classification here is some historical information about classification of meteorites.
>
>
> De Dr?e, 1803: The First Meteorite Classification
>
> De Dr?e took a great interest in meteorites and
> immediately began to work out a classification of them based
> chiefly on their materials, as reported by Howard and
> Vauquelin, and the circumstances of their falls. He
> distinguished the following four classes (de Dr?e 1803b:410):
> ? Class I: Stones consisting of similar materials that fell in
> serene weather without thunderstorms: Salles, Ensisheim,
> Barbotan, Benares, Wold Cottage.
> ? Class II: Stones of the same materials as class I but which
> fell from enflamed clouds with lightning flashes with or
> without detonations: Siena, Tabor.
> ? Class III: Masses mainly of malleable iron, of which the
> only observed fall occurred at Agram in Croatia after a
> fireball and an explosion followed by rumbling sounds.
> ? Class IV: All masses for which the circumstances of fall
> are not verified and their compositions fall outside those of
> the first three classes or are uncertain: his list of about 20
> included the irons found in Siberia, Argentina, and Senegal;
> stones from observed falls including Luc?, Eichst?dt, and
> Portugal, and about a dozen historical accounts taken mainly
> from Chladni.
>
> De Dr?e?s attempt illustrates the importance given at that
> early time to the circumstances of falls as though they might
> have genetic significance. It also shows the immensity of the
> labors that lay ahead in efforts to understand meteorites and
> construct meaningful classifications of them.
>
> Source: Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni (1756?1827) and the origins
> of modern meteorite research by Ursula B. MARVIN
>
> I wondering if the Dawn project will shed new light on classification of meteorites from Vesta or in general?
>
>
> Shawn Alan
> IMCA 1633
> eBaystore
> http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html
>
>
>
> [meteorite-list] Currently used classification scheme - DivisionsJim Wooddell jimwooddell at gmail.com
> Mon Jun 20 20:39:50 EDT 2011
>
>
> Previous message: [meteorite-list] Cassini Captures Ice Queen Helene
> Next message: [meteorite-list] Currently used classification scheme - Divisions
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am looking for some information in regards to the Division of
> Meteorites in the currently used classification scheme.
>
> It is my understanding that there are currently 3 divisions that all
> meteorites fall under....or at least at one time there were three.
> Chondrites, Primitive Achondrites and Achondrites.
>
> 1. Referencing Weisberg et al: Systematics and Evaluation of
> Meteorite Classification, has there been any divisions added since
> this document was printed? Are there still only 3 divisions?
>
> 2. Is there a more up to date schema or diagram which supersedes the
> document above? I know there are changes in the IAB complex groups
> and grouplets, referencing a document by Wasson accepted in 2002, are
> there other changes?
>
> Thank you for any info on this.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Jim Wooddell
>
>
>
>
>
> Previous message: [meteorite-list] Cassini Captures Ice Queen Helene
> Next message: [meteorite-list] Currently used classification scheme - Divisions
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
> More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list
>
>
Received on Tue 21 Jun 2011 12:06:30 PM PDT