[meteorite-list] New Australian fall

[Michael Fowler]

> And in case you didn't check the met-bull, the Bunburra Rockhole
> meteorite has been classified as a typical Eucrite.
> He stated that said meteorite is not from Vesta, but Eucrites are
> widely accepted to have come from Vesta.
> I suppose we don't have solid proof of that yet, but it is generally
> accepted to be true, based on reflected light analyses.
> Go figure.
> Jason

Hi Jason,

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers earlier.

I did check the met bulletin, and it is described as:  " meteorite is  
a basaltic eucrite monomict breccia "

http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/index.php?code=48653

However I note that many meteorites are not correctly classified on  
their first appearance in the Met Bul,  including of course Ibitria,  
which is still listed as a Eucrite Monomict, even though we know it is  
not from Vesta,

http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/index.php?sea=ibitira&sfor=names&ants=&falls=&valids=&stype=contains&lrec=50&map=ge&browse=&country=All&srt=name&categ=All&mblist=All&rect=&phot=&snew=0&pnt=no&code=11993

However back to, Bunburra Rockhole,  can someone comment or whether  
the mineral composition as stated in the met bul is consistent, or  
anomalous for a eucrite?

Mineral compositions: Pyroxene, Fs62.5Wo3.6 (Fe/Mn-31.1) with augite  
(Fs27.7Wo43.0) lamellae; plagioclase, An84.1 to An88.2.

Of course, the final word is probably the O isotope work, which Dr  
Bland says has already been done, although I couldn't find any  
additional reference.

Thanks,

Mike