Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:49:03.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the South African meteorites Mount Ayliff and Simondium, and the chemical composition of the meteorites Adare and Ensisheim (with Plate IV)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

G.T. Prior
G.T. Prior*
Affiliation:
Mineral Department of the British Museum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the year 1919 specimens of some of the meteorites preserved in the Public Museum of King Willlam's Town, South Africa, were kindly placed by the Curator, the late Yr. F. A. O. Pyre, at the disposal of the writer for investigation. One of these specimens was a meteoric iron labelled Mount Ayliff, another a mass of oxidized material labelled Western Cape Province, and a third a small piece of iron labelled ‘found on Elandsburg at an altitude of 6,000 ft. in 1888’ Unfortunately Mr. Pyre was not in a position to supply very much more information about the specimens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 19 , Issue 93 , June 1921 , pp. 163 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1921

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Communicated by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.

References

page 165 note 1 Prior, G. T., Mineralogical Magazine, 1910, vol. 15, p. 812; 1918, vol. 18, p. 161Google Scholar.

page 165 note 1 Prior, G. T.; ibid., 1919, vol. 18, p. 849 Google Scholar.

page 166 note 1 An analysis of this iron is desirable, but mffortunately the amount available for investigation of this meteorite in any collection is small.

page 166 note 2 In a brecciated stone the rule would necessarily apply only to the individual fragments, e.g., in the recently described Cumberland Falls stone, to those of the dark chondrite on the one hand, and to those of the white aubrite on the other.

page 166 note 3 Prior, G. T., Mineralogical Magazine, 1916, vol. 18, pp. 26–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 167 note 1 Prior, G. T., Mineralogical Magazine, 1919, vol. 18, p. 353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 168 note 1 By calculation to form FeS with the S.

page 168 note 2 These determinations were made on a separate portion of the total unattracted.

page 168 note 3 This somewhat high number, eQmbined with the high summation of the analysis~ suggests that possibly some at least of the water was absorbed during the interval of more than a year which elapsed between the preparation of the material and the determination of the water.

page 168 note 4 Apjohn, R., Journ. Chem. Soc., 1874, vol. 12, p. 104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 170 note 1 By calculation to form FeS with th6 S.

page 170 note 2 These determinations were made on separate portions of the total unattracted.

page 170 note 3 F. Crook, Inaug.-Diss., Göttingen, 1868.

page 171 note 1 That such a relationship should be mathematically exact for slight differences in chemical composition is hardly to be claimed in view of our tgnoranee as to the mode of origin of chondritic stones.

page 172 note 1 See Merrill, G. P., Mere. Nat. Acad. Sci. Washington, 1919, vol. 14, Mere. 4, p. 9Google Scholar.

page 172 note 2 See Prior, G. T., Mineralogical Magazine, 1920, vol. 19, p. 56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.