Adam H. writes: << I heard about the two "planetary" pieces while enjoying myself .... I wasted time and gasoline to come over and check out what was obviously a Diogenite and a Eucrite. >>
The difference between these classifications may be as obvious as the difference between Adam and Greg, which hopefully ET can tackle in the next Planetary Superbowl next January. With hindsight I don't know how I could ever could have fumbled that one for a year!!!) Diogenites and eucrites may not be as much to your fancy but they are to mine. Beauty and desireability are the eye of the beholder we all know. Pretty please, not to drag such unintentional biases into the real lowly commercial point here which none of you have taken the bull by the horns to address though Mike came close, if I were entitled to an opinion which I am definitely not. But: To claim a Lunar or Martian is a better piece than the mysterious world of Vesta, that Diogenites, Eucrites and by extension Howardites are not on par with "planetary" specimens than those more common ones from the Moon which isn't a planet by definition, that maybe they do not offer equally or more clues to the genesis of the Solar system...Finally, quality examples of those classes are probably more rare on Earth, and further away to get - over 400 kg of moon rocks are available to study. Comments from the peanut gallery, where chopped liver, popcorn, howardites, diogenites and eucrites abound, but not as much as we wished, and personally suscribing to the belief that all meteorites are equally endowed in the eyes of their creator. Doug ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
