[meteorite-list] SUTTER'S MILL in MetBull

From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 21:03:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4FBC3757.9030008_at_gmail.com>

It is important, and we really needed to get the name announced in order
not to impede science (e.g., the MetSoc abstracts are due in a matter of
days) and to end the controversy around what to call it.

If you read Zolensky's description in the bulletin, it's clear that he
thinks the meteorite is CM like. But it is not your normal CM2 from
this description. This could ultimately go a number of ways in the
final analysis... anything from a CM to an ungrouped C chondrite, or
maybe something else. There is no reason to jump to conclusions. I'm
betting that the MetSoc abstracts will tell us much more.

Jeff

On 5/22/2012 8:02 PM, Michael Gilmer wrote:
> Hi Jeff and List,
>
> I think the speedy approval and publication is a great service to the
> meteorite community as a whole (science and laypeople alike), because
> it provides authoritative data during an event that is still
> unfolding, and this might help prevent some misunderstandings or
> misinformation that could have resulted without a published
> classification. Great job on getting it done quick. :)
>
> On the other hand, I am a bit puzzled by the temporary "place-holder"
> type of "C - Carbonaceous". I understand what it means and why it was
> selected. However, this seems unusual for an approval that is
> published in the database. We don't see this very often. In the
> past, the release of an approved classification was usually withheld
> until a more definitive conclusion was reached on the petrologic type.
> In other words, we don't see too many of these "placeholder"
> classification types. Am I wrong, or did Sutter's Mill merit this
> because of it's important and unusual nature?
>
> Best regards,
>
> MikeG
Received on Tue 22 May 2012 09:03:19 PM PDT