[meteorite-list] Met List updating was Mbale TKW

[Mendy Ouzillou]

Elton,

Timely question because this specific issue came to mind regarding Almahata Sitta.  AMH has many unique classifications depending on the stone that is/was being analyzed. I think the word used has been "rubble pile", but keeping track of the weights and unique classifications would be of great use.



Mendy Ouzillou


>________________________________
> From: MEM <mstreman53 at yahoo.com>
>To: "Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu," <zelimir.gabelica at uha.fr>; Mendy Ouzillou <ouzillou at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: "meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com> 
>Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:34 AM
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list]Met List updating  was Mbale TKW
> 
>
>
>This is probably for Jeff Grossman but I am curious as to the process for updating details of a meteorite in the bulletin.  A TKW is one that is commonly encountered.  In the case where a follow on researcher reclassifies  the meteorite based on a different mineralogy in a second specimen after the first approval is published. Following that line of thought just how do we catalog duel lithology where the lithologies are from entirely different classes?  Examples could be eucrite vs howardite or an EL 5 which we later find is mainly an and Enstatite achondrite in other studied samples. Do you go back and change the classification? Do you catalog both classifications?  Do you stick with the original?
>
>
>Elton
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> FM
>>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mbale TKW
>> 
>>Hi Mendy,
>>
>>You are perfectly right, this is not an exact weight (200-250 kg is indeed just a range). I don't have that paper but this is part of the summary I got. But it is clear that this figure is just deriving from a (here "breakup") model.
>>
>>I am sorry for my misleading word "update". By this, I meant this should perhaps be added as a side remark to the writeup for Mbale, which I did in my own catalog, understanding that I maintained the official tkw and the number of pieces really collected (or at least reported).
>>
>>Sorry for the confusion. Excellent remark though.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Zelimir
>>
>
>
>