J�rn kindly wrote: > Most important meteorite: ALH 84001 or NWA 3133? > > I think it is difficult to say and is always biased by the personal > preferences of the collector or scientist, > but there is a fairly objective measure (at least for scientific > importance): the number of publications on a specific meteorite.
Hi J�rn and All, I struggled with this same question in my lastest column in Meteorite Magazine. I reviewed meteorite books counting the number of times particular meteorites were referenced in their historical or scientific context. My focus was on those meteorites that were instrumental in changing our collective understanding of meteorites. I narrowed the pool further based upon significant contributions compared to supporting contributions. Sure, the list of suspects could be longer, but I doubt it could be any shorter. As for ALH84001, I believe the most important contributions it has made are that ALH84001: 1) was the focus of a US Presidential p ress conference, 2) forced us to (yet again) adjust our collective understanding of evidence of life, and 3) definded a period of meteorite studies that involved widespread popular discussion that (my poetic license here) had not been seen since L'Aigle. I did not mention the particular specimens in the article here. Sorry about that, but that is what purchasing a subscription is all about Meteorite Magazine subscription info @: http://www.meteor.co.nz/ Cheers, Martin H ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
