[meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official

[Jim Wooddell]

Hello Jeff and Graham,

Exactly.....but a step further.  I would suggest going further than just 
saying what the lithology is.
That was done in this case in the write up.
Okay, so we have as an example  Katol #4(?).  If you say it has a metal 
rich lithology....what is it?
Everything past that is guess work and opinion if not studied.

It's like calling all the lunars by one name....after all it's only one 
moon....as a gross example!


Jim


On 1/2/2014 7:49 AM, Graham Ensor wrote:
> Great discussion...Jeff, you preempted exactly what I was thinking...I
> would think such data added to classifications showing details of
> unusual lithologies and individuals within the general classification
> would be greatly appreciated by all. The variations within falls and
> finds always fascinate me.
>
> Graham
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Two things:
>>
>> Many meteorites are heterogeneous.  When we say Katol is L6 or NWA 869 is
>> L3-6 or Almahata Sitta is an anomalous urelite, these are collective terms.
>> "Katol" refers to everything that fell that day in India.  It has been
>> classified as L6.  However, it is possible (and for Almahata Sitta,
>> probable) that a given specimen does not representatively sample the
>> incoming meteoroid.  There is nothing wrong with saying that Almahata Sitta
>> #25 is dominated by an H5 lithology or that Katol #4(?) is a metal rich
>> lithology.  Good practice would be to assign some kind of specimen number to
>> each object and publish a catalog, so the world will always know what you
>> are talking about.  I would gladly publish such specimen tables in the
>> MetBull database, especially if done systematically.
>>
>> As for the name question, NomCom would only give a separate name if there
>> was significant doubt that a specimen was part of the Katol fall.  This has
>> happened before, as with Galim (b) and Zag (b), but it didn't happen with
>> Almahata Sitta and I don't think there is much doubt in this case either.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6967 - Release Date: 01/01/14
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Jim Wooddell
jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net
http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/