Alan, Carl, Jeff, Ted, Bernd, Martin, Adam, Greg, MikeG, List, All due respect to all view points here but, there are certain terms that were a good idea that never really caught on such as "RALEWITE". I think this was first brought to our attention by Martin back in May of 2009 if you look in the list archives. This best describes a phenomena that so far has only been seen in one "fall" that I know of but as a hunter is an extremely important discovery made by and named in honor of Stefan Ralew. Because after all hunters are the first in the discovery process. This observation was made in recognition of a very unusual " rubble" mixture of fusion crustal material and tiny rocks found on the exterior which penetrated well into the interior of the Tamedaght meteorite fall. This mixture of bits and pieces of the main mass itself mixed in with melted fusion crust material is a sight to see because it is a very thick layer. Too thick to be a normal fusion crust. If we did not know it was from an observed fall, most people would not even have acknowledged that it was part of a real meteorite. I have been actively around meteorites since 1989 and attend the Tucson show every year to look at rocks and I have only seen this TAMEDAGHT PHENOMENA once. This "fusion crust type" is so rare it deserves it's own name in order that it does not get overlooked by future hunters as a "meteorwrong". (sorry I don't have any of my own pictures to post) Carl, Another potentially good reason for NWA 7034 having it's own name is because it may open a flood gate that has previously been locked shut. I mean had I shown a water rich breccia "Meteorite prospect" to an accredited meteoriticist before now they would have sent me on my way and not given it a second look. This fact alone deserves a huge high five to Dr. Carl Agee. Thank you so much for not sending this amazing discovery to the pigeon hole of meteorwrongs. Another new Mars rock that deserves acknowledgement (once one is found) is the rover's recent discovery of a rock with Earth -like chemistry, a type which lacks Mg and Fe and is rich in feldspar-like minerals. see link below;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-space-mars-idUSBRE89B02Q20121012 Kind Regards, Carl meteoritemax -- Cheers ---- Alan Rubin <[email protected]> wrote: > The bottom line in all of this is that meteorite group names will last only > as long as they're useful. The literature of the past is littered with > group names such as grahamites and others I've forgotten because they fell > out of use. Similarly, the term SNC is not used much these days although > the individual group names survive. If scientisits no longer find it useful > to use the term shergottite, then it will gradually fall out of use. If > folks invent new names and no one uses them, then it doesn't really matter. > An interesting analogy is that there are some unpopular models for chondrule > formation, for example, (say gamma-ray bursts) that no one uses and thus > don't pollute the literature. > Alan > > > Alan Rubin > Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics > University of California > 3845 Slichter Hall > 603 Charles Young Dr. E > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567 > phone: 310-825-3202 > e-mail: [email protected] > website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carl Agee" <[email protected]> > To: "meteoritelist meteoritelist" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:20 AM > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Nwa 7034 > > > Hi Jeff, > > Of course the comparison between chondrite groups and martian types is > not perfect. The different martian types are not from different parent > bodies, but we still don't know where they come from on Mars, and > won't for a long time, not until we know the geology of Mars better. > So for a large body like a planet, and given our fragmentary knowledge > of Mars, different regions are more or less equivalent to different > parent bodies. Describing martians with generic lithologic names that > were developed for Earth geology is useful, but for example we don't > hesitate to use the term mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORB) for Earth's > most abundant rock type, which will never be found on Mars. The same > is true for Mars because of a different planetary evolution. We are > already doing this based on rover data, the term "Gusev basalt" is one > example. SNC's plus ALH 84001 and NWA 7034 are, each type, glimpses of > diversity of Mars' unique geology. > > Carl Agee > > -- > Carl B. Agee > Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics > Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences > MSC03 2050 > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque NM 87131-1126 > > Tel: (505) 750-7172 > Fax: (505) 277-3577 > Email: [email protected] > http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/ > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jeff Grossman <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:06:22 -0500 > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Nwa 7034 > There are two reasons why we can't get rid of carbonaceous chondrite > group names. First, unlike Martian meteorites, we don't know where C > chondrites came from. We can't point to a single asteroid as the > source for any of them, let alone all of them. So the group names are > still serving their basic purpose of ordering the chaos. Second, the > only language we have to describe the rocks known as chondrites is by > their group names. They can't be described with standard rock > nomenclature. So this is not a fair comparison. > > I didn't say Martian meteorite names were not useful. I said they > were archaic, historical artifacts. > > Jeff > > On 1/26/2013 11:38 PM, Carl Agee wrote: > > Hi Jeff and all you Nomenclature Enthusiasts out there: > > I think the martian meteorite names do serve a useful purpose, they > are a sort of short-hand, so that you don’t have to be an igneous > petrologist to know that one type of martian is different from > another. So when we say a martian meteorite is a “NWA7034-ite”, or > “blackbeauty-ite”, or a “saharite” or whatever name you want to pick, > we are implicitly talking about a breccia, that is water-rich, alkali > basalt, with higher-than-SNC oxygen isotope values, ~ 2 byo, etc. For > example, like it or not, when we say “Allan Hills” the first thing > comes that comes to mind is ALH 84001. When you say orthopyroxenite > maybe not so much. If it’s such a great idea to do away with martian > types, why don’t we go ahead and do away with all the carbonaceous > chondrite groups like CI, CM, CV, etc. and just call them all > carbonaceous chondrites, that of course have a wide range of > compositions, textures, mineralogies etc.? Meteoritics isn’t the only > science that has colorful nomenclature. Mineralogists still like to > name new minerals after famous mineralogists, instead of just naming > them by their chemical composition or crystal structure. > > Carl Agee > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
