Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
Thank you to all who answered. Your replies were very helpful.
-- Michael
Michael Doran
Fort Worth, TX
On Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 11:06:19 PM CDT, Michael Doran
wrote:
As a newbie, I've come to rely pretty heavily on the Meteoritical Bulletin
database for information about particular meteorites as well as to look at
aggregate data for different types.
I've been somewhat surprised to discover that it is not unusual for meteorites
to get reclassified and I was wondering if anybody could tell me how and under
what circumstances a Met Bull entry gets updated to reflect new classification
information.
Ningqiang is a good example of reclassification updates. The Meteoritical
Bulletin database entry shows that Ningqiang was originally classified as a
CV3, per Meteoritical Bulletin #65 (1987) [1]. Then (if I'm interpreting the
entry correctly) it looks like it was reclassed as a CK3, per the Natural
History Museum's Catalogue of Meteorites, 5th edition (2000). And a subsequent
reclassification as C3-ung came per the 7th edition of MetBase (2006).
The particular example I had questions about is the entry for Hart, a Texas
meteorite found in 2010 and that was initially classified as a CK3 [2]. CK3 is
a pretty rare carbonaceous chondrite type and Hart was apparently the only
meteorite in the U.S. to get that classification. However, I recently came
across a scientific paper ("Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa 6047:
Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites" [3]) that appears to
make a persuasive case for Hart being reclassified as a CV3. This paper was
published in 2017, but there is no update yet in the Met Bull entry.
So my questions are:
1) Will the Meteoritical Bulletin database entry for Hart eventually get
updated to reflect a change in classification?
2) What mechanisms (if any) are in place to keep track of these types of
reclassifications and make updates? (From what I've seen, there is a mechanism
for Antarctic meteorites via the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter. See, for
example AMN item on reclassifications [4] and subsequent Met Bull database
entry update [5].)
3) Is there some body that mediates between competing classification claims?
E.g. what if the original classifier disagrees with a reclassification?
-- Michael
[1] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=16981
[2] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56555
[3] Dunn, TL, Gross, J. 2017 Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa
6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science 52(11):2412–2423
[4] https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnfeb10/reclassifications.htm
[5] E.g. for EET 96010 https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=9604
Michael Doran
Fort Worth, TX
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
Quick answer. If you go look at NWA 7034 in the Met Bulletin, you can get an
idea of how the Met. Society, and mostly the Nomenclature Committee work and
refine a classification as more studies are done. Goodnight. Anne
blackimpactika.comimpact...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Michael Doran via Meteorite-list
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 10:07 pm
Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
As a newbie, I've come to rely pretty heavily on the Meteoritical Bulletin
database for information about particular meteorites as well as to look at
aggregate data for different types.
I've been somewhat surprised to discover that it is not unusual for meteorites
to get reclassified and I was wondering if anybody could tell me how and under
what circumstances a Met Bull entry gets updated to reflect new classification
information.
Ningqiang is a good example of reclassification updates. The Meteoritical
Bulletin database entry shows that Ningqiang was originally classified as a
CV3, per Meteoritical Bulletin #65 (1987) [1]. Then (if I'm interpreting the
entry correctly) it looks like it was reclassed as a CK3, per the Natural
History Museum's Catalogue of Meteorites, 5th edition (2000). And a subsequent
reclassification as C3-ung came per the 7th edition of MetBase (2006).
The particular example I had questions about is the entry for Hart, a Texas
meteorite found in 2010 and that was initially classified as a CK3 [2]. CK3 is
a pretty rare carbonaceous chondrite type and Hart was apparently the only
meteorite in the U.S. to get that classification. However, I recently came
across a scientific paper ("Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa 6047:
Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites" [3]) that appears to
make a persuasive case for Hart being reclassified as a CV3. This paper was
published in 2017, but there is no update yet in the Met Bull entry.
So my questions are:
1) Will the Meteoritical Bulletin database entry for Hart eventually get
updated to reflect a change in classification?
2) What mechanisms (if any) are in place to keep track of these types of
reclassifications and make updates? (From what I've seen, there is a mechanism
for Antarctic meteorites via the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter. See, for
example AMN item on reclassifications [4] and subsequent Met Bull database
entry update [5].)
3) Is there some body that mediates between competing classification claims?
E.g. what if the original classifier disagrees with a reclassification?
-- Michael
[1] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=16981
[2] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56555
[3] Dunn, TL, Gross, J. 2017 Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa
6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science 52(11):2412–2423
[4] https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnfeb10/reclassifications.htm
[5] E.g. for EET 96010 https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=9604
Michael Doran
Fort Worth, TX
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
When I initially classified Ningqiang, there were no known CKs. We
classified it as CV3 because that was the closest group, but we noted that
its refractory lithophile element abundances didn't match CV that well.
Later, when we defined the CK group, it became obvious that Ningqiang was
more like CK than CV. Later, upon additional reflection and analyses, we
thought it most likely that Ningqiang was sufficiently different from
normal CKs, that it was probably an ungrouped carbonaceous chondrite that
was closely related to CK and CV.
If you want a meteorite to be reclassified int the Bulletin, you need to
let the folks know (i.e., through Jeff Grossman) that this is warranted and
explain the reasons. Sometimes, the rock will indeed be reclassified and
sometimes it won't. It can be frustrating. I'm not familiar with Hart or
NWA 6047. You could email Tasha Dunn and ask her.
Alan Rubin
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:07 PM Michael Doran via Meteorite-list <
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
> As a newbie, I've come to rely pretty heavily on the Meteoritical
> Bulletin database for information about particular meteorites as well as to
> look at aggregate data for different types.
>
> I've been somewhat surprised to discover that it is not unusual for
> meteorites to get reclassified and I was wondering if anybody could tell me
> how and under what circumstances a Met Bull entry gets updated to reflect
> new classification information.
>
> Ningqiang is a good example of reclassification updates. The Meteoritical
> Bulletin database entry shows that Ningqiang was originally classified as a
> CV3, per Meteoritical Bulletin #65 (1987) [1]. Then (if I'm interpreting
> the entry correctly) it looks like it was reclassed as a CK3, per the
> Natural History Museum's Catalogue of Meteorites, 5th edition (2000). And
> a subsequent reclassification as C3-ung came per the 7th edition of MetBase
> (2006).
>
> The particular example I had questions about is the entry for Hart, a
> Texas meteorite found in 2010 and that was initially classified as a CK3
> [2]. CK3 is a pretty rare carbonaceous chondrite type and Hart was
> apparently the only meteorite in the U.S. to get that classification.
> However, I recently came across a scientific paper ("Reclassification of
> Hart and Northwest Africa 6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and
> CK3 chondrites" [3]) that appears to make a persuasive case for Hart being
> reclassified as a CV3. This paper was published in 2017, but there is no
> update yet in the Met Bull entry.
>
> So my questions are:
>
> 1) Will the Meteoritical Bulletin database entry for Hart eventually get
> updated to reflect a change in classification?
>
> 2) What mechanisms (if any) are in place to keep track of these types of
> reclassifications and make updates? (From what I've seen, there is a
> mechanism for Antarctic meteorites via the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter.
> See, for example AMN item on reclassifications [4] and subsequent Met Bull
> database entry update [5].)
>
> 3) Is there some body that mediates between competing classification
> claims? E.g. what if the original classifier disagrees with a
> reclassification?
>
> -- Michael
>
> [1] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=16981
>
> [2] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56555
>
> [3] Dunn, TL, Gross, J. 2017 Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa
> 6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites.
> Meteoritics & Planetary Science 52(11):2412–2423
>
> [4] https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnfeb10/reclassifications.htm
>
> [5] E.g. for EET 96010
> https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=9604
>
> Michael Doran
> Fort Worth, TX
> __
>
> Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
> Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
--
Alan Rubin
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics
Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences
University of California
3845 Slichter Hall
603 Charles Young Dr. E
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567
USA
office phone: 310-825-3202
fax: 310-206-3051
e-mail: aeru...@ucla.edu
website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
Hi Michael,
I am sure someone with more expertise will chime in, but I can think
of two different things that lead to a meteorite being "reclassified".
By "reclassified", I assume you mean being published in the Met
Bulletin. This can happen when there is a change in nomenclature or an
error was found in the original classification write-up.
At one point, all CK meteorites were considered to be part of the CV
clan. This later changed and subsequently many entries in the Met Bull
needed to updated to reflect this fact.
Another example that comes to mind is the infamous Al-Haggounia 001
case. It is officially classified as an aubrite, yet is has been shown
to be an EL3 chondrite. Despite this, the erroneous entry in the Met
Bull remains unchanged - again, maybe someone who has direct
experience with maintaining the Met Bull can chime in on this stuff.
The answer to your third question is likely the Nomenclature Committee.
Best regards,
MikeG
--
---
Galactic Stone & Ironworks : www.galactic-stone.com
Instagram : www.instagram.com/galacticstone
Twitter : www.twitter.com/galacticstone
---
On 3/14/19, Michael Doran via Meteorite-list
wrote:
> As a newbie, I've come to rely pretty heavily on the Meteoritical Bulletin
> database for information about particular meteorites as well as to look at
> aggregate data for different types.
>
> I've been somewhat surprised to discover that it is not unusual for
> meteorites to get reclassified and I was wondering if anybody could tell me
> how and under what circumstances a Met Bull entry gets updated to reflect
> new classification information.
>
> Ningqiang is a good example of reclassification updates. The Meteoritical
> Bulletin database entry shows that Ningqiang was originally classified as a
> CV3, per Meteoritical Bulletin #65 (1987) [1]. Then (if I'm interpreting the
> entry correctly) it looks like it was reclassed as a CK3, per the Natural
> History Museum's Catalogue of Meteorites, 5th edition (2000). And a
> subsequent reclassification as C3-ung came per the 7th edition of MetBase
> (2006).
>
> The particular example I had questions about is the entry for Hart, a Texas
> meteorite found in 2010 and that was initially classified as a CK3 [2]. CK3
> is a pretty rare carbonaceous chondrite type and Hart was apparently the
> only meteorite in the U.S. to get that classification. However, I recently
> came across a scientific paper ("Reclassification of Hart and Northwest
> Africa 6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites" [3])
> that appears to make a persuasive case for Hart being reclassified as a CV3.
> This paper was published in 2017, but there is no update yet in the Met Bull
> entry.
>
> So my questions are:
>
> 1) Will the Meteoritical Bulletin database entry for Hart eventually get
> updated to reflect a change in classification?
>
> 2) What mechanisms (if any) are in place to keep track of these types of
> reclassifications and make updates? (From what I've seen, there is a
> mechanism for Antarctic meteorites via the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter.
> See, for example AMN item on reclassifications [4] and subsequent Met Bull
> database entry update [5].)
>
> 3) Is there some body that mediates between competing classification
> claims? E.g. what if the original classifier disagrees with a
> reclassification?
>
> -- Michael
>
> [1] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=16981
>
> [2] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56555
>
> [3] Dunn, TL, Gross, J. 2017 Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa
> 6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites. Meteoritics
> & Planetary Science 52(11):2412–2423
>
> [4] https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnfeb10/reclassifications.htm
>
> [5] E.g. for EET 96010 https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=9604
>
> Michael Doran
> Fort Worth, TX
> __
>
> Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
> Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
(oops, forgot about plain text)
Quick answer.
If you go look at NWA 7034 in the Met Bulletin, you can get an idea of how the
Met. Society, and mostly the Nomenclature Committee work and refine a
classification as more studies are done.
Goodnight.
Anne Black
IMPACTIKA.com
impact...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Michael Doran via Meteorite-list
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 10:07 pm
Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
As a newbie, I've come to rely pretty heavily on the Meteoritical Bulletin
database for information about particular meteorites as well as to look at
aggregate data for different types.
I've been somewhat surprised to discover that it is not unusual for meteorites
to get reclassified and I was wondering if anybody could tell me how and under
what circumstances a Met Bull entry gets updated to reflect new classification
information.
Ningqiang is a good example of reclassification updates. The Meteoritical
Bulletin database entry shows that Ningqiang was originally classified as a
CV3, per Meteoritical Bulletin #65 (1987) [1]. Then (if I'm interpreting the
entry correctly) it looks like it was reclassed as a CK3, per the Natural
History Museum's Catalogue of Meteorites, 5th edition (2000). And a subsequent
reclassification as C3-ung came per the 7th edition of MetBase (2006).
The particular example I had questions about is the entry for Hart, a Texas
meteorite found in 2010 and that was initially classified as a CK3 [2]. CK3 is
a pretty rare carbonaceous chondrite type and Hart was apparently the only
meteorite in the U.S. to get that classification. However, I recently came
across a scientific paper ("Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa 6047:
Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites" [3]) that appears to
make a persuasive case for Hart being reclassified as a CV3. This paper was
published in 2017, but there is no update yet in the Met Bull entry.
So my questions are:
1) Will the Meteoritical Bulletin database entry for Hart eventually get
updated to reflect a change in classification?
2) What mechanisms (if any) are in place to keep track of these types of
reclassifications and make updates? (From what I've seen, there is a mechanism
for Antarctic meteorites via the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter. See, for
example AMN item on reclassifications [4] and subsequent Met Bull database
entry update [5].)
3) Is there some body that mediates between competing classification claims?
E.g. what if the original classifier disagrees with a reclassification?
-- Michael
[1] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=16981
[2] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56555
[3] Dunn, TL, Gross, J. 2017 Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa
6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science 52(11):2412–2423
[4] https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnfeb10/reclassifications.htm
[5] E.g. for EET 96010 https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=9604
Michael Doran
Fort Worth, TX
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite reclassification questions
As a newbie, I've come to rely pretty heavily on the Meteoritical Bulletin
database for information about particular meteorites as well as to look at
aggregate data for different types.
I've been somewhat surprised to discover that it is not unusual for meteorites
to get reclassified and I was wondering if anybody could tell me how and under
what circumstances a Met Bull entry gets updated to reflect new classification
information.
Ningqiang is a good example of reclassification updates. The Meteoritical
Bulletin database entry shows that Ningqiang was originally classified as a
CV3, per Meteoritical Bulletin #65 (1987) [1]. Then (if I'm interpreting the
entry correctly) it looks like it was reclassed as a CK3, per the Natural
History Museum's Catalogue of Meteorites, 5th edition (2000). And a subsequent
reclassification as C3-ung came per the 7th edition of MetBase (2006).
The particular example I had questions about is the entry for Hart, a Texas
meteorite found in 2010 and that was initially classified as a CK3 [2]. CK3 is
a pretty rare carbonaceous chondrite type and Hart was apparently the only
meteorite in the U.S. to get that classification. However, I recently came
across a scientific paper ("Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa 6047:
Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites" [3]) that appears to
make a persuasive case for Hart being reclassified as a CV3. This paper was
published in 2017, but there is no update yet in the Met Bull entry.
So my questions are:
1) Will the Meteoritical Bulletin database entry for Hart eventually get
updated to reflect a change in classification?
2) What mechanisms (if any) are in place to keep track of these types of
reclassifications and make updates? (From what I've seen, there is a mechanism
for Antarctic meteorites via the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter. See, for
example AMN item on reclassifications [4] and subsequent Met Bull database
entry update [5].)
3) Is there some body that mediates between competing classification claims?
E.g. what if the original classifier disagrees with a reclassification?
-- Michael
[1] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=16981
[2] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56555
[3] Dunn, TL, Gross, J. 2017 Reclassification of Hart and Northwest Africa
6047: Criteria for distinguishing between CV and CK3 chondrites. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science 52(11):2412–2423
[4] https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnfeb10/reclassifications.htm
[5] E.g. for EET 96010 https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=9604
Michael Doran
Fort Worth, TX
__
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
