Hello all,
I've always been intrigued but puzzled about the classification of a few
ordinary chondrites into the black hole of assigned classification
names...ungrouped and/or anomalous. Some are specified with petrologic
assignments and others without. Ebay on occasion offers us Hah 180 that
Hi John, and list,
As to the ungrouped HaH 180, and Deakin 001, it has been suggested
that both represent samples of a new and previously unsampled parent
body. If that holds to be true, they will never get a LL or L
classification. Ungrouped just means that a sample can't be
assigned to any of
Norbert,
Makes sense to me...it looks like some consistency is in order here.
I wonder how many of these does Bernd have in an ungrouped listing, or has
he gone ahead and grouped them in the LL's, etc. Are you out there Bernd???
What say?
Do we have a good handle on which ones are ungrouped
Norbert,
I didn't read your comment very closely. It looks like you are saying it
takes 5 samples to make a group. Where does that criteria come from? I know
you are involved with the Society...so maybe there are known guidelines after
all. thanx in advance.
John
Hi John, and list,
As to
Norbert stated the facts well about ungrouped and anomalous chondrites.
There are no rules or guidelines for grouping meteorites. However, a lot
of researchers subscribe to the idea, which I think originated with John
Wasson, that it takes 5 to sufficiently define the properties of a bunch of
5 matches
Mail list logo
