Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:05:26.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Meteoric Stones of Baroti, Punjab, India, and Wittekrantz, South Africa1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

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

Extract

In 1912 Mr. N. B. Kinnear, Curator of the Bombay Natural History Society's Museum, brought to me at the British Museum, for identification, a specimen of a supposed meteorite which had been sent to the Bombay Natural History Society by the late General W. Osborn.

General Osborn stated that, in November, 1910, on arrival at his usual winter quarters in the hill station of Kotheir in the Punjab, he visited his friend, the Rajah of Bilaspur, who presented him with a fragment, weighing about a quarter of a pound, of a meteorite which had fallen in daylight at the village of Baroti, in the Bilaspur (Simla) district, one day during the month of September, 1910.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 17 , Issue 78 , December 1913 , pp. 22 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1913

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 22 note 1 According to a brief account of the meteorite of Baroti by G. Cotter in Rec. Geol. Surv. India, 1912, vol. xlii, p. 273, the stone fell at about 10 a.m. on September 15, 1910.

page 25 note 1 In the analyses of the Baroti and Wittekrantz stones this was not done, and the bulk-analyses were calculated on the assumption that the material adhering to the nickel-iron had the same composition as the main mass of the unattracted portion. The relative amounts of sulphur obtained in the analyses of the attracted and unattracted portions suggest the approximate correctness of this assumption ; but any variations would have only a slight effect upon the individual numbers in the bulk-analysis, since the total weight of the unattracted material is more than twenty times as great as that of the adhering material.

page 26 note 1 As determined from the analysis of the soluble part of the unattracted material.

page 27 note 1 The phosphorus has been attributed to apatite rather than to sehreibersite since it was found only in the unattracted material.

page 28 note 1 Report of the South African Museum for 1900, Cape Town, 1901, p. 10.

page 32 note 1 See footnote, p. 97.

page 32 note 2 L. H. Borgstrom, Bull. Comm. Gdol. Finlande, 1912, No. 34.