[meteorite-list] Exploring the Solar System in Antarctica (NWA vs Antarctica)
From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:03:45 -0400
50% is not even close. I counted the peer-reviewed papers in the 2012
volume of MAPS. In the 58 non-review papers that reported analyses of
physical samples of meteorites, 52% used falls, 12% used non-desert
finds, 24% used hot desert meteorites, and 28% used Antarctic
meteorites. (this sums to >100% because some papers reported data in
So, if 2012 in MAPS is representative (I'm done counting, so I can't
answer that), when it comes to the question of what are the most
important meteorites for Science these days, it isn't hot OR cold desert
meteorites... it's observed falls. Papers on hot and cold desert
meteorites are subequal, which is the trend we all see.
On 10/10/2013 12:27 AM, Adam Hupe wrote:
> I will not debate the legacy of Antarctic meteorites. They have had a wonderful history and their contribution to science has been invaluable. Most researchers are sample oriented and are not biased by find location but there are still a few that cling to legacy. Antarctica had a a two decade plus head start in the abstract/paper queue so naturally there are more documents. Ten years ago, maybe one in ten papers were on hot desert finds. Now, I estimate about 50%. At this rate, as very important samples from NWA and other deserts enter the queue, it will not be long before these finds handily overtake Antarctica by a wide margin in the business of science.
> In other words; There is not enough material coming out of Antarctica anymore to reverse the current trend which favors the hot desert meteorites for research material in the future.
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Received on Thu 10 Oct 2013 09:03:45 AM PDT