Hello Satn, whoops make that Stan,
I'd like to refer you to the original abstract in which the term
metachondrite was proposed.
<http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5218.pdf>
I have also understood the deficiency in the use of the term "primitive
achondrite", so I have gladly adopted the new term "metachondrite" on my
website. It is a meaningful substitute I think, and resolves ambiguities
in the previous terminology.
On the other note which you are discussing, that of NWA 1058, I believe
the evidence is now leaning greatly in favor of this being a member of
the winonaites, so its sale as an acapulcoite doesn't seem responsible
to me anyway. See this abstract to view the new diagram comparing 17O to
olivine Fa content, which has been found to resolve these two groups
when mineralogical data couldn't. NWA 1058 plots clearly within the WIN
field and not the ACA/LOD field:
<http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2005/pdf/5138.pdf
David
stan . wrote:
it's not written in the work of the met soc because the term
metachonderite DIDNT EXIST when nwa 725 was classified... you previously
reffered me to David Weir's web site - take a look - ALL of the sub
types of acapulcoites and winonaites fall under the heading of
metachonderites - it's a broad term that applies to each and every
meteorite of that classification - not only specific ones.
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
