[meteorite-list] Quick Question about Sahara xxxxx finds

Sun Dec 19 11:34:44 EST 2010

Thanks for the info Jeff. I have a couple questions...

> Algeria, Niger, and Libya were all possible collection
> areas, and these are not in the NWA area, which is defined
> as "Morocco and adjacent parts of the surrounding
> countries."

If this is the case, how do recent Lunars like NWA 2996, 4483 and 5151 become NWA stones when they were found in Algeria? 
Given export laws (however foolish they are) shouldnt these require export permits to own like Canadian and Argentina falls since Algeria does not allow export?

Greg Catterton
www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
IMCA member 4682
On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites

--- On Sun, 12/19/10, Jeff Grossman <jgrossman at usgs.gov> wrote:

> From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman at usgs.gov>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Quick Question about Sahara xxxxx finds
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 7:44 AM
> There are several issues and a
> misconception here.
> 
> Misconception: The Nomenclature Committee (NomCom) does not
> change the names of meteorites once they are accepted,
> except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., the Gao/Guenie
> nomenclatural nightmare).  To do so would cause endless
> confusion.  All of the Nova meteorites were named that
> way when they were initially published in the Bulletin.
> 
> The "Sahara" series, which were collected and so-named by
> the Labenne family, predates the "NWA" series by several
> years.  In the late 1997, the Sahara meteorites were
> being sold under this name, several groups of scientists
> wanted to publish on them, and the NomCom had to figure out
> what to do about their names.  The choices were to
> accept these names, convince the Labennes to rename them, or
> to rename them ourselves for the official
> announcement.  For several reasons, Sahara was
> accepted.  First, the names were already coming into
> widespread use, and renaming them would cause a mess. 
> Second, it was understood that the coordinates would be
> released, perhaps in five years, once the area was hunted
> out (this never happened, but I still hope it will).
> 
> The vote to establish the NWA series came in 2000, when it
> became clear that the Saharan nomenclature problem was
> growing in magnitude.  It seems possible that, had the
> Labenne meteorites appeared after this date, NomCom would
> have insisted that they all be called NWA.  But
> probably not:  we thought that Tunisia, eastern
> Algeria, Niger, and Libya were all possible collection
> areas, and these are not in the NWA area, which is defined
> as "Morocco and adjacent parts of the surrounding
> countries."
> 
> Given all of this, probably the ideal names for the Labenne
> meteorites would have been Sahara 001 - Sahara xxx, but what
> was done was done.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On 12/18/2010 2:25 PM, Greg Catterton wrote:
> > Many will provide false information or not any at all
> to keep the location secret. There is a discussion elsewhere
> currently about a finder lying about the location to secure
> the material available.
> > 
> > Algeria has laws preventing the export of meteorites,
> yet there are new ones coming out everyday. Even recent
> Lunars from there are accepted and sold. All one has to do
> is simply say NWA.
> > 
> > Berduc was the same way, many were transported outside
> the country and claimed to have been found elsewhere.
> > 
> > I have seen many others questioned about locations and
> even know of one person who has outright lied about where a
> stone was recovered to keep from paying the land owner the
> share agreed on and created a laughable story of the find
> that has been published with so many flaws, it looks like a
> scam ad on ebay. I bet some of you have a piece of it in
> your collection and dont even know the whole story behind
> it!
> > 
> > I think it happens more then we would really want to
> know.
> > 
> > Greg Catterton
> > www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
> > IMCA member 4682
> > On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
> > On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Michael Gilmer<meteoritemike at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Michael Gilmer<meteoritemike at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: [meteorite-list] Quick Question about
> Sahara xxxxx finds
> >> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >> Date: Saturday, December 18, 2010, 1:51 PM
> >> Hi Listees,
> >> 
> >> I have a quick question for the group and maybe
> someone
> >> here can shed
> >> some light on this subject....
> >> 
> >> Meteorites that do not have find coordinates or
> have
> >> falsified find
> >> coordinates are typically given the "Nova"
> designation by
> >> NonCom or if
> >> they are from Northwest Africa, they are given the
> "NWA"
> >> designation.
> >> In a handful of cases, a named meteorite was later
> changed
> >> to a "Nova"
> >> because it was discovered that the find
> coordinates were
> >> incorrect or
> >> dubious.
> >> 
> >> So, why after all of these years does the Sahara
> xxxxx
> >> finds (mostly
> >> Labenne finds) are not referred to as "NWA" or
> >> "Nova"?  It is
> >> well-known that the find coordinates on the many
> of these
> >> Labenne
> >> Sahara finds are falsified, which has hurt science
> and the
> >> provenance
> >> of the specimens.  To this day, over a decade
> later,
> >> the true find
> >> coordinates of these specimens have not been
> revealed and
> >> probably
> >> will never be revealed.
> >> 
> >> Can someone explain the double-standard at work
> here? Is it because
> >> of the pioneering work and otherwise-respectable
> work that
> >> the
> >> Labennes have done - despite the falsification of
> the find
> >> locations?
> >> Why do these Sahara finds get special treatment,
> while
> >> other finds
> >> with dubious locations are lumped under "NWA" or
> "Nova" ?
> >> 
> >> I realize the NWA designation did not exist when
> the Sahara
> >> finds were
> >> accepted by NonCom, but shouldn't they now receive
> the
> >> Nova
> >> designation?  In fact, the NWA designation
> was
> >> created, in part, due
> >> to the confusion created by the Sahara
> finds.  So why
> >> do they still
> >> get a special place in nomenclature after all of
> this
> >> time?
> >> 
> >> Best regards,
> >> 
> >> MikeG
> >> 
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Mike Gilmer - Galactic Stone&  Ironworks
> Meteorites
> >> 
> >> Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com
> >> Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
> >> News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
> >> Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone
> >> Meteorite Top List - http://meteorite.gotop100.com
> >> EOM - http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=1564
> >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > ______________________________________________
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 