THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESENTED BY PROF. CHARLES A. KOFOID AND MRS. PRUDENCE W. KOFOID MEMOIRS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES "Volume XIII •WASHINGTON 1915 E NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. Volume XIII. CATALOGUE OF THE METEORITES OF NORTH AMERICA, TO JANUARY 1, 1909. BY OLIVER COIMIXGS FARRIXGTON. EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS USED ON MAPS. The terms are those of the Rose-Tschermak-Brezina classification. The capital of each State is shown. Cc Stone, Spherulitic chondrite. Cca Stone, Veined spherulitic chondrite. Ccb Stone, Breccia-like spherulitic chondrite. Ceo Stone, Ornans spherulitic chondrite. Cck Stone, Crystalline spherulitic chondrite. Cg Stone, Gray chondrite. Cga Stone, Veined gray chondrite. Cgb Stone, Breccia-like gray chondrite. Chla Stone, Veined chladnite. Cho Stone, Howarditic chondrite. Ci Stone, Intermediate chondrite. Cia Stone, Veined intermediate chondrite. Cib Stone, Breccia-like intermediate chondrite. Ck Stone, Crystalline chondrite. Cka Stone, Veined crystalline chondrite. Ckb Stone, Breccia-like crystalline chondrite. Cs Stone, Black chondrite. Csa Stone, Veined black chondrite. Csb Stone, Breccia-like black chondrite. Cw Stone, White chondrite. Cwa Stone, Veined white chondrite. Cwb Stone, Breccia-like white chondrite. D Iron, Ataxite. Db Iron, Babb's Mill ataxite. DC Iron, Cape ataxite. 4 Dl Iron, Linville ataxite. Dn Iron, Nedagolla ataxite. Dr Iron, Rafruti ataxite. Ds Iron, Siratik ataxite. Dsh Iron, Shingle Springs ataxite. Dt Iron, Tucson ataxite. H Iron, Hexahedrite. Ha Iron, Granular hexahedrite. Hb Iron, Breccia-like hexahedrite. Ho Stone, Howardite. Kc Stone, Carbonaceous, spherulitic chondrite. M Iron-stone, Mesosiderite. Mg Iron-stone, Grahamite. 0 Iron, Octahedrite. Of Iron, Fine octahedrite. Off Iron, Finest octahedrite. Offbp Iron, Breccia-like finest octahedrite. Og Iron, Coarse octahedrite. Ogg Iron, Coarsest octahedrite. Oh Iron, Hammond octahedrite. Om Iron, Medium octahedrite. P Iron-stone, Pallasite. Pi Iron-stone, Imilac pallasite. Pk Iron-stone, Krasnojarsk pallasite. Pr Iron-stone, Rokicky pallasite. CONTEXTS. BIOLOGY LIBRARY Introduction 7 list of meteorites .' 16 Description of falls -21 5 LIST OF MAPS. New England States New York. Pennsylvania New Jersey Maryland and Delaware Virginia and West Virginia North Carolina and South Carolina. Georgia Alabama Kentucky and Tennessee Ohio.. Indiana. . . Michigan. . Wisconsin. Minnesota. Iowa Missouri. . . Arkansas. . Plate. 1 North Dakota. . . . 2 South Dakota. 3 Nebraska 4 Kansas 5 Texas. 6 Montana 7 Idaho g Wvomin"'. . g Colorado 10 New Mexico 11 Utah 12 Arizona 13 California 14 Oregon 15 Alaska and western Canada 16 Ontario. . . 17 Mexico 18 flontral Amprirajin i West Indies. . Plate. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CATALOGUE OF THE METEORITES OF NORTH AMERICA, TO JANUARY 1, 1909. By OLIVER CCMMENGS FABBINGTOI!. INTRODUCTION. Individual meteorite falls have an importance more or less comparable to that of individual species. The phenomena of fall, shape, size, chemical composition, and structure are largely peculiar to each fall and for purposes of exact knowledge should be fully recorded. The pursuit of the study of meteorites since they first began to attract attention has, however, been very irregular. The phenomena of fall and the more obvious features of shape and size have usually attracted sufficient attention to be described at the time, but the more intimate details of struc- ture and composition, if described at all, have usually been recorded in stray, scattered studies often published without regard to the earlier history of the meteorite. Moreover, the advance of knowledge regarding meteorites has led to the observation of many features which were overlooked by earlier investigators. This is especially true with regard to structure, the inti- mate details of which have received great amplification under modern methods. On the other hand, classification has permitted grouping of features which were once described independently. Thus iron meteorites once regarded as peculiar on account of the lack of Widmannstatten figures are now readily grouped as hexahedrites or ataxites. Unless, however, we have a careful con- tinuous record of the knowledge regarding each fall the details are liable to be hopelessly lost and the fall becomes more or less mythical in character. Publications undertaking the preservation of such records have not been wanting hitherto. As early as 1803 Chladni prepared a chronological list of known meteorites l and issued sup- plementary lists up to 1826. The first general catalogue which was at the same time descriptive, however, was published by Buchner 2 in 1863. This catalogue gave a brief description of each fall, its bibliography, and a statement of the distribution of its specimens. The order of treat- ment was chronological, and there was a subgrouping into stone and iron meteorites, also of those seen to fall as distinguished from those found. Up to 1869 Buchner continued this work by means of appendixes, but at that time ceased his labors. Subsequent to this various lists of all meteorites were made, some of the most useful being those by Brezina, Meunier, Wadsworth, and Huntington, but none of them gave comprehensive accounts .of all meteorites. The largest comprehensive work following Buchner's was that of Wulfing, published in 1897.s This included all known meteorites, but the number of these had so largely increased since Buchner's time that his plan of giving an account of each meteorite was not followed. Wulfing confined his catalogue to a bibliography of each fall and a statement of the distribution of the specimens. Wulfing's work was performed with excellent judgment and thoroughness, and his catalogue has been of the greatest service in systematizing and advancing the study of meteorites. Although the plan of giving an account of each meteorite, its bibliography and distribution, would seem impracticable when, as is now the case, the number of known meteorites exceeds 600, yet the task was undertaken by Cohen. Volumes III, IV, and V of his Meteoritenkunde were intended to be made up in this way. Of these, only Volume III was completed at the time of his death. This described in full 96 iron meteorites, comprising the classes of ataxites, » Gflb. Ann. Bd. 15, p. 307-S. « Die Meteoriten in Sammlungeu. Leipzig, 1883. » Die Meteoriten in Sammlongen. Tubingen, 1897. 7 8 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. hexahedrites, and firm octahedrites. Had Cohen lived to complete his task, little more could be asked for in the way of a systematic account of meteorites, but unfortunately this was not to be. Cohen's bibliography differed from "Wulfing's in giving only the works which recorded new facts, whereas Wulfing listed every mention of the meteorite. In his statement of their distribution Cohen also mentioned only the most important. Both of these practices of Cohen seem to the present writer more nearly ideal than those of Wulfing. Neither of the catalogues mentioned undertook any mapping of falls. In all these catalogues there is a confusing difference in the methods adopted for the grouping of those' falls which have often been regarded as distinct. Thus Wulfing, to speak of American falls alone, grouped together Jewell Hill and Duel Hill, Lime Creek and Walker County, Coahuila, Sancha Estate and Fort Duncan, Brenham and Anderson, and Chupaderos, Adargas and Morito. In earlier times the Red River meteorite of Texas and the Santa Rosa meteorite of the United States of Colombia were regarded by Shepard * as belonging to a single fall. Jackson 2 thought that the Port Orford, Oregon, meteorite should be considered of the same fall as the Pallas iron. More recently Huntington3 placed together, as originating from one fall, Fort Duncan, Holland's Store, and Scottsville, although found hundreds of miles from each other; and Cocke County, Sevier County, Wayne County, Greenbrier County, Waldron's Ridge, and Tazewell, although scattered over three States. Preston 4 concluded that the meteorites of western Kansas — Kansada, Jerome, Long Island, and Prairie Dog Creek — came from a single shower. It seems obvious that such practices would in time produce great confusion and that the chances of lessening such a confusion would decrease as time passed. The history and geography of a fall must be the important factors in determining its right to be regarded individual. Of these two factors the history must be determined from all available literature, while the geography can readily be shown by mapping. To undertake this task for the meteorites of a single large geographic province such as North America seemed to the writer desirable, not only for the intrinsic value of the record, but to throw light on the question of the extent to which individual falls may be naturally or artificially distributed. Funds for assistance having been generously provided through a grant from the J. Lawrence Smith Fund of the National Academy of Sciences, such a catalogue was undertaken and is here presented. Prof. W. C. MacNaul, of Chicago, rendered valuable assistance in the bibliographic work and translating. In the preparation of the text of this catalogue the endeavor of the writer has been to collect all published facts of importance regarding the different falls. Several methods of grouping these facts were considered, but it was finally concluded that an essentially chrono- logical treatment would be the most satisfactory. Such a grouping shows in historical order the growth of knowledge regarding each fall and enables one to appreciate the difficulties of the earlier investigators and the manner in which features overlooked or not understood by them were later made clear. For example, Cambria was early described as showing nodules composed of two kinds of iron sulphide, one decomposable and regarded as troilite, the other unattacked by acids and regarded as pyrrhotite. It remained for later investigation to show that the unde- composable constituent was schreibersite. In this catalogue original articles are generally given in full. This plan was not adopted without thorough consideration, especially as the practice of previous compilers had been to present only abstracts. By such a method desirable data may be omitted, however, since abstracts are necessarily affected by the ability of the abstractor to choose that which is im- portant. The ideal to be attained seems to the mind of the writer to be the preservation of all known data regarding the meteorites. This does not mean that data shall be repeated, and the writer has omitted from later reports observations already recorded by earlier investigators. This was deemed desirable, not only in order to reduce the bulk of the catalogue, but also to give due credit to the first observer, and while it may seem to some to involve too great ver- ' Amer. Journ. Sci., 1st ser., vol. 16, 1829, p. 219. » Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci., vol. 24, 1889, pp. 30-35. « Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, 1860, p. 161. « Amer. Joum. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 9, 1900, p. 412. METEORITES OF NORTH AMERICA. 9 bosity the writer is confident that in the long run it will be found the most satisfactory. The absence of repetition affords a proper perspective of the work already done on each fall and should result in a clear appreciation of the lines along which further study should be carried out; in fact, the writer hopes that this may be one of the chief values of the catalogue. In the bibliography given with each fall, only works which have treated in some detail of the meteorite have been recorded. The apparent plan of Wulfing to record every mention of the meteorite, while having its uses, has not been deemed practicable or necessary for this cata- logue. Undoubtedly, some of the references recorded by Wulfing and omitted by the writer would at times be useful, but on the whole they are more of a burden than an addition. Thus, mention of a meteorite in various catalogues seems hardly worth perpetuating, and the plan of Buchner and Wulfing of recording in detail the distribution of the different specimens of each meteorite among different collections has not been deemed by the present writer worthy of continuance. The distribution of meteoritic material has now become so extensive and its subsequent exchange so general that such a record can have little permanent value. Accord- ingly, the only record of the distribution of each fall given in the present catalogue is that of the larger or more important pieces or, if the fall has been widely distributed, a statement to that effect. In determining what falls to admit to the catalogue it was decided to include only those known to be meteoric. All false or doubtful meteorites were thus set aside, together with occurrences like that of Oktibbeha, which, though usually regarded as meteoric, are so anomalous in composition that their meteoric origin is uncertain. The Abert iron is also omitted because of its lack of locality and the possibility of its belonging to Toluca. The extent to which different falls have been studied is, as shown by the catalogue, very unequal. Thus, the meteorites of the great showers, such as Brenham, Canyon Diablo, Esther- ville, Forest City, Homestead, New Concord, Toluca, and Weston have, as a rule, been exten- sively studied. This may be due either to the striking character of the phenomena of the fall or to the large quantity of material available for distribution to investigators. Conversely, of those meteorites represented by only a small amount of material little investigation has been made, although in no case can the amount of material be said to be too small for adequate study. North American meteorites of which our knowledge is still quite unsatisfactory, are the following: Bethlehem, Cosina, Deal, Emmetsburg, La Charca, Ottawa, Oroville, Price- town, Rushville, and San Pedro Springs. Several of the Mexican meteorites, in addition, are little more than names, their only record being that of preservation in one of the Mexican museums. Of the following North American meteorites the major portion seems to be lost, at least its present whereabouts are unknown: Botetourt, Danville, Forsyth, Greenbrier County, Har- rison County, Hopper, Kokomo, Little Piney, Nobleboro, Petersburg, Pittsburg, Ponca Creek, Port Orford, Shingle Springs, Warrenton, and Wooster. The preparation of the present cata- logue has served the purpose of locating a number of masses, the disposition of which was not recorded in Wulfing's catalogue. These are as follows: Name of meteorite. WTtere chiefly preserved. Auburn Amheret. Bald Eagle Lewisbuig. Bear Creek Amherst. Bethlehem Albany. • Coetilla Peak Ward Collection. Dalton Philadelphia. Deep Springs Raleigh. Denton County Austin. Descubridora City of Mexico. Grand Rapids Distributed. Iron Creek Toronto. ^ Ivanpah San Francisco. Ken ton County Chicago. 10 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. Name of meteorite. Where chiefly preserved. LaCharca Guanajuato. La Grange Amherst. Losttown Amherst. Madoc Ottawa. Marshall County Amherst. Marion Amherst. Morristown Ward Collection. Nelson County Vienna. Putnam County Amherst. Rancho de la Pila London. Ruffs Mountain Amherst. Russel Gulch New York. Searsmont Amherst. Smithville > Distributed. Staunton Distributed. Tazewell Amherst. Tonganoxie Distributed. Trenton Distributed. Tucson Washington and San Francisco. Union County Amherst. Wichita Austin. Zacatecas City of Mexico. The mapping of the exact location of each fall or find has often proved, as might be expected, difficult. In addition to a frequent lack of definite statement in the description of a meteorite as to where it was obtained, it is probable that full credence can not always be given to the state- ments of a finder who may wish to conceal the exact location of the specimens, either in the hope of obtaining more or to avoid all question as to their ownership. The artificial distribu- tion of iron meteorites from their original point of fall for purposes of artisanship is also likely to occur. Decision in each case as to how far the reported point of fall may have been affected by such considerations must obviously depend on individual judgment. In almost no instance, however, among the many investigated and mapped by the writer has there been proof of deliberate misrepresentation as to the point of discovery. The greatest hindrance to exact knowledge has arisen, apparently, from lack of careful inquiry as to its place of fall on the part of those to whom has been given the privilege of describ- ing the meteorite. By earlier writers it was deemed sufficient to characterize the locality of the meteorite by the name of the State in which it was found. As this practice soon became obvi- ously faulty, due to the finding of several meteorites in the same State, the next plan largely adopted was that of naming the meteorites from the counties in which they fell. This practice was soon, of course, also found open to the objection of covering too much territory and was superseded by the modern method of naming the meteorite from a place of importance nearest its place of fall, a practice the establishment of which is largely due to Brezina. This method seems to be all that can be desired, and it is hoped that no other will in the future be used. One very desirable end attained is that the name of the meteorite gives at once its locality. The choice of the name should, if possible, be that of a' town of sufficient size to be locatable in a good atlas, but where this would place the name of the meteorite too far from its place of fall the name of a smaller place may be used. Where meteorites are known only by the State or county in which they fell it has often been impossible to show their exact location on the accompanying maps. If the only designation of the locality of a meteorite has been that of a county, the writer has indicated the counfy seat as the locality, although this is obviously a purely arbitrary assumption. The class to which a meteorite belongs has been indicated on the maps by an abbreviation of the term in the German classification. This is a most concise and practicable way of determining at a glance the character of contiguous meteorites. If meteorites of the same type appear close together there appears to be strong presumption for inferring that they belong to a smgle fall, but such associations are rare. Where they do occur, as in the case of Madoc and Thvfrlow, METEORITES OF NORTH AMERICA. 11 study of the individuals is necessary to determine whether or not they belong together. In all such cases here studied, except possibly that of Cleveland and Dalton, the individuals have shown characters so different that one would not be warranted in placing them together. The placing of type symbols upon the maps also affords an opportunity of determining whether related types have a tendency to fall in the same region, but a study of the maps betrays little evidence of such a grouping. The total number of meteorites recognized by the writer in North America up to January 1, 1909, is 247, a number which will obviously increase with the occurrence of new falls and finds. Of the 247 recognized meteorites, 161 are iron meteorites, 10 are iron-stone, and 76 are stone — a notable excess of irons. Of the irons, 3 (Cabin Creek, Charlotte, and Mazapil) have been seen to fall, of the iron-stones, 1 (Estherville), and of the stones, 56. Only meteorites actually observed are here regarded as having been seen to fall. When a meteorite has been found it has customarily been referred to some meteor which some one remembers to have seen in the neighborhood at some previous tune. This practice does not seem to the writer a sound one, since there are few meteorites to which such a tune of fall could not be ascribed without a possibility of verifying the connection. Considering the province of North America as a whole, the distribution of known meteorites is most abundant in the eastern United States and in Mexico. Few meteorites are known in British North America and the western United States. There can be little doubt that the apparent scarcity in the localities indicated is largely due to lack of observers, as the writer has elsewhere urged.1 It is not safe, however, to ascribe too much to this cause, since areas equally populated show great discrepancies in the number of their meteorites. One of the best illustrations of this is the State of Illinois. This is an area of 56,000 square miles in which there are no known meteorites. The greatest massing of meteorites in the whole province of North America occurs in the region of the southern Appalachians, where the States of Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama adjoin. A circle with a radius of 300 miles drawn about Mt. Mitchell, North Carolina, as a center, will include nearly half of the known meteorites of North America. Twenty-five of these, or nearly hah* of the known falls of the continent, are observed falls, and it would seem possible at first thought that many of the meteorites in this area might have come from a single shower. This would reduce the number, but the writer has made a careful study of the history of each meteorite and its geo- graphic relation to those of similar character without finding any support for such a view. Not only does the area contain a large number of observed falls, but the finds embrace a variety of types larger than any known to be produced by a single sho'wer. Meteorites of a single type are, as a rule, much more widely scattered than those of any single observed shower. As regards population in the area, conditions are only moderately favorable, since the area is not very thickly settled. The climate of the region is moist, the average yearly rainfall being 50-60 inches, so that a relatively rapid disintegration of iron meteorites might be expected. Yet in spite of so many conditions unfavorable to their occurrence in large numbers, meteorites are superabundant in this area. This seems to leave little doubt that some force tends to bring about their concentration here. It is noteworthy that this region includes the highest summits of the Appalachians, and this suggests either the presence of an extra-gravitational force or that a purely obstructive effect has been exerted by the high peaks. Studies of the gravitational effects of mountain masses indicate no force seemingly sufficient to affect the fall of a meteorite, though some such force may exist. Magnetic influences may also be suggested. Next to the massing of meteorites about the southern Appalachians, the most striking grouping seems to be within the borders of Kansas. Within the area of this State, about 82,000 square miles, 15 meteorites occur. Of these, four are observed falls. Those of the western part of the State are all stones, and an effort has been made2 to show that they may have been the result of a single shower, but the history and characters of the meteorites, to the writer's mind, negative this view. The soil of the western part of Kansas is especially favorable to the finding 1 Pop. Sci. Mon., 1904, pp. 351-354. » Preston, Amer. Joum. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 9, 1900, p. 412. 12 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. of meteorites, as it contains few terrestrial rocks, but this advantage is perhaps neutralized by the scantiness of the population. The climate is dry, thus tending to the preservation of meteorites. The region is not itself mountainous, but is elevated and within a few hundred miles of the mountain masses which culminate in Pike's Peak. Another grouping of meteorites in the province of North America appears to be that of the large iron masses along the Cordilleras. Such is the distribution of the two Chupaderos masses, weighing 20,881 kgs.; Morito, 11,000 kgs.; Bacubirito, 27,000 kgs.; Port Orford, possibly 10,000 kgs.; and Willamette, 13,000 kgs. In addition several smaller iron masses and the showers of Toluca and Canyon Diablo are included in this zone. Here again, gravitational or obstructive influences are suggested. The three greatest meteorite showers of North America have all occurred within the State of Iowa, two of them within 65 miles of each other, the third 130 miles distant from either. The localities were Estherville, Forest City, and Homestead. Other great showers must have occurred when the iron meteorites of Canyon Diablo and Toluca fell, but the fall was unobserved. The boundaries of States can have no influence on the distribution of meteorites, as they include areas of very different extent, yet some interest and convenience attaches to a record of the falls in the United States by States. Arranged from the highest to the lowest they are as follows: Name of State. Number of meteorites. North Carolina 20 Tennessee 16 Texas 15 Kansas 15 Kentucky 14 Alabama 11 Georgia 9 Missouri 9 Virginia. 6 Indiana 6 Ohio 6 Nebraska 6 New Mexico 6 California 6 New York 5 South Carolina : 5 Maine 4 Iowa 4 Wisconsin 4 Colorado 4 Maryland 3 Pennsylvania 3 Michigan 3 Arizona 3 West Virginia 2 Arkansas 2 Minnesota 2 North Dakota 2 South Dakota 2 Oregon 2 Connecticut 1 New Jersey 1 Wyoming 1 Utah . i Montana 1 Idaho 1 It is evident that the distribution of the localities from which meteorites are known, or what may be in short known as the distribution of meteorites, will be affected by at least four METEORITES OF NORTH AMERICA. 13 terrestrial factors: (1) density of population, (2) character of population, (3) climate, and (4) character of soil. Density of population will increase the number of meteorites known from a region, because the greater the population the greater the number of observers and the more numerous the chances both that the meteorite will be observed when it falls and that it will be found after it has fallen. As regards character of population, a high order of intelligence is favorable not only to the observation but to the preservation of meteorites. The writer has elsewhere called attention * to the fact that the distribution of meteorites on a map of the world is almost exactly that of the Caucasian race. This seems to prove quite conclusively that the distribution of meteorites is largely dependent on the degree of civilization attained in a region. That this factor is more important than density of population is shown by the fact that no meteorites are known from China in spite of its immense numbers of people. In the province of North America it is hardly likely that the different degrees of intelligence existing in different regions would exert any discernible influence on the number of meteorites known. As regard climate, aridity may be doubtless considered favorable and humidity unfavorable to the preser- vation of meteorites. In a humid climate the iron meteorites disintegrate much more rapidly than in an arid climate, and to a certain extent the same is true of stone meteorites. As regards character of soil, it is obvious that soils free of rocks would be most favorable to the finding of meteorites. The existence of such soils in Kansas and Texas has led to the discovery in those regions of meteorites that would probably have been overlooked in stony localities. An iron meteorite is, of course, more likely to attract attention in any soil than a stony meteorite, but the latter is quite likely to be overlooked in stony soils. From the above it appears that the most favorable terrestrial conditions for the finding of meteorites are those of a dense, intelligent population living in an arid climate and upon a pebbleless soil. Such conditions are not likely to exist together, but now one and now another will predominate in any given region. To a certain degree the absence of one is likely to offset the presence of another, but where several of these conditions are lacking and a preponderance of meteorites occurs other reasons must be sought. The eastern States of the United States as compared with the western States possess a relatively dense population, but a moist climate and rocky soil. Canada has a scanty population, a moist climate, and rocky soil. Mexico has the advantage of an arid climate but the disadvantage of a scanty and an illiterate population, and a more or less rocky soil. No evidence has been obtained in the preparation of the catalogue which proves to the writer that the individual meteorites of a single shower may be scattered over wide areas. No observed shower has ever been known to distribute individuals over an 'area greater than 16 miles in length. Only complete similarity between more widely separated meteorites should warrant belief in more extended showers, and such similarity has never been established. A considerable likeness exists, it is true, among the medium octahedrites of the southern Appa- lachians, but a careful study of the history and structure of each discloses differences too great to warrant their being classed together. Another group of North American meteorites showing strong similarity is that of Coahuila. These are hexahedrites and are reported from localities the most extreme of which are nearly 300 miles apart. As hexahedrites are relatively rare among meteorites, it hardly seems probable that several would fall within a hundred miles of each other, although this is by no means impossible. It is of course true that there may have been artificial distribution, but of this there seems to be no positive evidence. A considerable uncertainty, however, attaches to the statements of the localities where the specimens were found, and until the localities can be more definitely established, either by new finds or by reliable evidence regarding the old finds, the question as to whether they represent parts of a widely distributed shower must remain an open one. Important meteorite collections are possessed, at the present time, by seven institutions in North America: The American Museum of Natural History, Amherst College, Field Museum of Natural History, Harvard University, Mexican National Museum, United States National Museum, and Yale University. Of these, the Yale University collection is probably the oldest. i Pop. Sd. Hon., 1904, p. 352. 14 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. Professors Silliman and Kingsley, as early as 1807, collected specimens of the Weston meteorite for the college, and the Red River meteorite, at that time the largest meteorite known, was presented to it in 1835. The growth of the Yale collection since that time has been steady and the latest catalogue (1897) gives a total of 201 falls, having a weight of 1,374 kgs. Besides the Weston and the Red River meteorites, important North American specimens in this collection are those of Cape Girardeau, Castine, Estherville, Forest, Hammond, Jerome, and Salt Lake City. The Amherst collection began with the deposit there in 1861 of Shepard's meteorites, numbering 151 falls, several of which, however, later proved to be pseudometeorites. The chief additions to the collection were made by Shepard and the latest manuscript catalogue gives 300 falls, having a weight of 660 kgs. Important North American specimens in this collection are those of Bear Creek, La Grange, Losttown, Marshall County, Putnam County, Richmond, Ruff's Mountain, Tazewell, and Union County. The Harvard collection, according to Huntington, had its nucleus in a collection of about 50 falls made by Prof. J. P. Cooke, but obtained its chief importance through the purchase in 1883 of the collection of J. Lawrence Smith. In 1897, according to Wulfing, the collection numbered 244 falls and had a weight of 1,754 kgs. Important North American specimens are those of Butler, Charlotte, Coahuila, Cynthiana, Estherville, Frankfort, New Concord, Vernon County, and Warrenton. The collection of the United States National Museum is the gradual result of gift, exchange, and purchase. It has maintained a steady growth by this means and in addition includes a series of chiefly small specimens deposited by Shepard. The latest catalogue of the collection (1902) gives a total of 348 falls, weight not stated. Important North American specimens are: Allegan, Arispe, Bishopville, Canyon Diablo, Casas Grandes, Felix, Gargantillo, Hender- sonville, Lexington County, Mount Vernon, Persimmon Creek, Travis County, and Tucson. The meteorite collection of the Field Museum of Natural History originated in the purchase, at the time of founding the museum in 1894, of collections made by Kunz and Ward. One hundred and eighty falls were then acquired, having a weight of 2,099 kgs. The collection has gradually been increased so that it now numbers 300 falls and has a weight of 2,310 kgs. The most important North American specimens are Brenham, Canyon Diablo, Farmington, Indian Valley, Kenton County, Leighton, Long Island, Modoc, Saline, Shelburne, and South Bend. The American Museum of Natural History possessed no important meteorite collection until the purchase of the Bement collection in 1898. This contained over 400 falls, mostly in small specimens, but many of them rare, and included Ottawa, Plymouth, Pricetown, Rushville, and San Pedro Springs. Subsequent to the acquisition of the Bement collection the Museum acquired the great Cape York and Willamette meteorites and Selma. In addition the private collection of Ward is at present on deposit at this museum. The meteorite collection of the Mexican. National Museum and School of Mines is chiefly notable for containing a number of the great Mexican iron meteorites. These include Adargas, Chupaderos, Descubridora, Morito, and Zacatecas, together with several smaller stones and irons which have never been described. Other institutions in North America which contain meteorite collections of some size are Adelbert College, reputed to possess 143. falls (Wulfing); the California State Mining Bureau, containing among others Chilcat, Oroville, and the Carleton mass of Tucson; the Public Museum of Milwaukee, containing several masses of Trenton and other meteorites; the University of Minnesota, containing 54 falls; the Academy of Sciences of Philadelphia, containing Cleveland and about 50 other falls; and the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, containing Fort Pierre and about 40 other falls. Private collections of meteorites have not been wanting in North America, but they have for the most part been acquired by institutions. The earliest collections were those of Troost, Shepard, and Smith. The disposal of the collections of the two latter collectors has already been stated ; the collection of Troost was probably in part acquired by Smith and in part scat- METEORITES OF NORTH AFRICA. 15 tered. Later, Bailey, Bement, Knnz, and Ward formed important collections, all of which were placed in institutions, with the exception of that of Bailey, whose last catalogue recorded 309 falls weighing about 50 kgs. The last collection formed by Ward was the largest private col- lection of meteorites ever made and excelled all others in number of falls. In 1904 this collection numbered 603 falls and had a weight of 2,495 kgs. Several foreign institutions possess important specimens of North American meteorites, those chiefly rich in this material being the British Museum of Natural History, the Museum of Natural History of Paris, and the Vienna Natural History Museum. Important North American specimens in the British Museum are those of Cosby Creek, Greenbrier County, and Mesquital; in the Paris Museum that of Charcas; and La the Vienna Museum, those of Babb's Mill, Bridge- water, Cabin Creek, Castalia, Chulafinnee, De Cewsville, Eagle Station, Joe Wright, Kendall County, Lick Creek, Mazapil, Mincy, Mount Joy. Nelson County, Prairie Dog Creek, Silver Crown, and Summit. Among the authors who have been especially active in the investigation and description of North America meteorites, probably the foremost place should be given to Prof. J. Lawrence Smith, the founder of the J. Lawrence Smith Fund of the National Academy of Sciences. Pro- fessor Smith's contributions to the subject of meteorites cover a period of about 30 years, from 1854 to 1883, and number about 40 titles descriptive of meteorites, chiefly American. This work of Professor Smith is characterized by his customary accuracy and insight and is of enduring value. Its chief importance lies in careful description and correct recognition of chemical and mineralogical characters many of which had been badly confused by other investi- gators. Thus, he was the first to establish the fact that the chief constituent of the Bishopville meteorite was enstatite, after other able investigators, such as Waltershausen, Rammelsberg, and Rose had failed properly to determine its composition. Smith's establishment of the fact that copper is a constant ingredient of iron meteorites was another important discovery. Charles Upham Shepard was also an active investigator of North American meteorites, his investigations covering a period much longer even than those of J. Lawrence Smith. Shep- ard's first paper (on the Richmond meteorite) was published in 1829 and his last in 1885. The intervening years were rarely without a description by him of some American meteorite. In addition to his descriptive work, Shepard was very active as a collector, and the preservation of much valuable meteoritic material is due to him. The collection now possessed by Amherst College is chiefly the result of his labors. While Shepard was thus an important contributor, from the historical and material side, to the study of meteorites, some of his observations failed to be confirmed by later investigators. Several new species of minerals which he reported in meteorites and several classifications which he outlined have not been generally accepted. Other early American investigators who described more than one fall were Jackson, who gave several excellent descriptions and analyses, Troost, and the elder and junior Silliman. In later years those connected with the collections at Harvard, Yale, and the National Museum have been chiefly instrumental in advancing our knowledge of American meteorites. They have included at Harvard, Wadsworth and Huntington; at Yale, Brush, E. S. Dana, Penfield, Newton, and Wright; at Washington, Merrill, Eakins, Whitfield, and Tassin; and in New York, Hovey and Davidson. Other investigators who may be mentioned are Genth, N. H. Winchell, and Snow. Among private collectors who were also investigators, G. F. Kunz and H. A. Ward have been especially active, Kunz having collected and described many falls, and Ward having rescued from oblivion many little-known meteorites and given accurate information in regard to them. Other collectors who have furnished both excellent material and descriptions are Howell, Hidden, A. E. and W. M. Foote, Preston, H. L. Ward, and S. C. H. Bailey, while the collection of C. S. Bement contained several meteorites not otherwise preserved. On the astronomical side should be mentioned the important work of Newton, Kirkwood, and Bowditch. In spite of the large number of meteorites of Mexican origin, and the fact that many of them have been known for centuries, little investigation has been made of North American meteorites by Mexican authorities. In fact, the catalogue of Castillo may be said to be the only 16 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. important paper of Mexican origin on meteorites, and this catalogue is very brief. This lack of local investigation of Mexican meteorites has compelled obtaining accounts of these mete- orites chiefly from foreign travelers and their reports are often incomplete and conflicting. Accordingly, our knowledge of Mexican meteorites is far from satisfactory. From the Dominion of Canada few meteorites are known, but these have been quite satisfactorily described. To foreign students North American meteorites have furnished material for valuable contributions to meteorite knowledge. Chladni's early studies were in part based on North American material and Partsch, Rose, Reichenbach, Haidinger, and Rammelsberg later classified and analyzed many of these bodies. Succeeding or in part contemporaneous with the above investigators were Daubrfie and Meunier in France, and Maskelyne and Flight in England. Original investigations of single American falls by these authors were, however, not numerous, and the publications relating to American meteorites in foreign works previous to the Vienna catalogue were largely copies of descriptions made by American students. In later years the foreign investigation of American meteorites has been carried on chiefly by Tschermak, Brezina, Cohen, and Berwerth, and to some extent by Weinschenk and others. The completeness of the collection at Vienna enabled Brezina in 1885 and 1895 to make much needed careful comparisons of different meteorites, to determine to what falls they belonged and to clear up much of the confusion resulting from a previous lack of such opportunity. Thus he was able to show the distinctness of Misteca and Yanhuitlan, although they had been assigned to one fall, and of Chupaderos, Morito, and Adargas, also generally grouped as one. In addition, Brezina gave careful descriptions of the structural characters of a large number of iron meteor- ites. A somewhat similar work, though under a different classification, was performed by Meunier. An admirable work was performed by Cohen in his extensive studies of a large number of iron meteorites, many of them North American in origin. These studies were historical, chemical, and structural, and thoroughly gave the characters of the meteorites investigated. Some of Cohen's results which directly affect the identity of American meteorites, were his distinction of Duel Hill and Jewell Hill and of Lime Creek and Walker County and his detection of the pseudometeoric character of Scriba and Long Creek. List of meteorites by States or countries. I County. Classi- fica- tion. Latitude north. Longi- tude west. Remarks. ALABAMA: Auburn Lee H 32° 37' 85° 32' Found 1867. Chulafinnee Clebume . ......... Om. . . 33° 35' 85° 42' Found 1873. Danville Morgan Cea 34° 24' 87° 5' Fell 1868, Nov. 27. Desotoville Choc taw IT 32° 13' 88° KK Found 1859 Felix Perry Kc. 32° 33' 87° 12' Fell 1900, May 15. Frankfort Franklin Ho 34° 307 87° 52' Fell 1868, Dec. 5. Leighton Colbert Cgb . 34° 43' 87° 33' Fell 1907, Jan. 1. Limestone Creek . Monroe DC 31° 34' 87°30/ Found 1834. Selma ... . Dallas Cc 32° 25' 87° I' Found 1906. Summit Blount Ha . 34° 13' 86°3(X Found 1890. Walker County H 33° 5-th Monroe Cwa 33° 3' 83°56/ Fell 1829, May 8. Holland's Store Chattooga Ha 34° 22' 85° 26^ Found 1887. Locust Grove Henrv Ds 33° 2V 84° V Found 1857. Loettown Creek Cherokee Om 34° 107 84° 32' Found 1868. Lumpkin Stewart Cck 31° 54' 84° 57' Fell 1869, Oct. 6. Putnam County Of 33° 167 83° 2? Found 1839. Union County 1 i<~> 34° 53' 83° 58' Found 1853. IDAHO: Havden Creek Lemhi Om 45° V 113° 4S7 Found 1895. INDIANA: Harrison County Cho 38° 12' 86° 8' Fell 1859, Mar. 28. Kokomo . . . ......... Howard DC 40° 34' 86° V Found 1862. Plymouth Marshall Om 41°20/ 86° 18' Found 1893. Rochester , ........ Fulton Cc 4i° y 86° 13' Fell 1876, Dec. 21. Rush ville - Rush c« 39°22/ 85° 3' Found 1866. South Bend St Joseph Pi 41° 40' 86° iy Found 1893. IOWA: Estherville Emmet M 43° 24' 94° 507 Fell 1879, May 10. Foreet City Winnebago ............. Ccb 43° 17' 93° 38' Fell 1890, May 2. Homestead Iowa Ceb . 41° zy 91° 3^ Fell 1875, Feb. 12. Marion Linn . ................... Cwa 41° 57' 91° 34' Fell 1847, Feb. 25. KANSAS: Admire Lvon. . Pr .. 33° V 96° y Found 1891. Brenham Kiowa Pk 37° 38' 99° 13' Found 1885. Elm Creek Lyon Ceo 38°37. , Om. 34° 0' 107° 0' Found 1896. Oscuro Mountains Socorro Og 33° 45' 107° 20' Found 1895. Sacramento Mountains. . . . Otero Om. . 32° 32' 105° 20' Found 1896. NEW YORK: Bethlehem Albany Cck. . . 42° 6' 73° 47' Fell 1859, Aug. 11. Burlington Otsego. . Om. . . 42° 40' 75° 8' Found 1819. Cambria Of 43° 13' 78° 45' Found 1818. Seneca Falls Seneca Om. . . 42° 57' 76° 58' Found 1850. Tomhannock Creek .... Cgb. 42° 52' 73° 36' Found 1863. NORTH CAROLINA: Asheville Buncombe ... - Om. . 35° 36' 82° 31' Found 1839. Black Mountain Buncombe Og 35° 53' 80° 3' Found 1839. Bridgewater Burke Of.. 35° 45' 81° 53' Found 1890. Castalia Nash Cgb. 36° 4' 78° 4' Fell 1874, May 14. Colfax Rutherford Om. . 35° 18' 81° 45' Found 1880. Cross Roads Wilson Cg... 35° 38' 78° 7' Fell 1892, May 24. Deep Springs Rockingham Dl S6° 20' 79° 35' Found 1846. Duel Hill Madison Og 35° 51' 82° 44' Found 1873. Ferguson Haywood ....... Stone.. 35° 36' 83° 0' Fell 1889, July 18. Flows Cabarrus Cca 35° 18' 80° 33' Fell 1849, Oct. 31. Forsy th County Dn 36° 8' 80° 20' Found 1895. Guilford County Om.. . 36° 4' 79° 48' Des. 1822. Henderson ville Henderson Stone 35° 19' 82° 28' Found 1901. Jewell Hill Madison Of... 35° 49' 82° 45' Found 1854. Lick Creek Davidson H 35° 40' 80° 12' Found 1879. Linville Burke Hch 35° 48' 81° 55' Found 1882. Murphy Cherokee H 35° 6' 84° 2' Found 1899. Persimmon f>eok Cherokee Offbp.. 35° 3' 84° 4' Found 1893. Rich Mountain Jackson Cia .. 35° 19' 83° 8' Fell 1903, June 20. Smith 's Mountain Rockingham Of.. 36° 32' 79° 58' Found 1863. NORTH DAKOTA: Jamestown Stutsman Of.. 46° 42' 98° 34' Found 1885. Niagara.. Grand Forks... Oe... 47° 58' 97° 52' Found 1879. i Central portion of State. » About. METEORITES OF NORTH AMERICA. List of meteorites by States or countries — Continued. 19 County. Classi- fica- tion. Latitude north. Longi- tude west. Remarks. OHIO: Anderson Township Hamilton. . , P... 39° KK 34° 18' Des 1884 Hamilton . , Ds.... 39° V 84° W Des 1898 Hopewell Mounds Ross Om 39° W 83° 20/ Des 1902 Guernsev. ... Cia 39° 58' 81° 44" Fell 1860 May 1 Highland Cw 33° 11' 83° 44' Fell 1893* Feb '13 Wayne I Om 40° 48' 81° 58' Found 1858 OREGON: Port Orford Curry P 42° 47' 124° 28' Found 1859 Willamette Clackamas Om 45° 22' 122° 35' Found 1902 PENNSYLVANIA: Bald Eagle Lvcomine. . . Om 41° 12' 77° 5' Found 1891 \dams.. . Ore 39°44/ 77° 20/ Found 1887 Pittsburgh Allegheny... Oee 40° 27' 79° 57' Found 1850 SOUTH CAROLINA: Sumter Chla 34° 12' 80° 18' Fell 1843 Mar 25 Chesterville Chester Dn.. 34° 42' 81° 15' Found 1847 Laureng County ..... Off 34° W 82° 14' Found 1857 Lexington County O" 33° 57' 81° 18' Found 1880 Ruff 's Mountain ... .... Newberry Om 34° IS7 81° 21' Found 1844 SOUTH DAKOTA: Bath Brown Ccb... 45° 27' 98° iy Fell 1892, Aug. 29. Fort Pierre. . Stanley Om 44° 23' 100° 46' Found 1856 TENNESSEE: Babb'sMill Greene Db 36° 18' 82° 54' Found 1842 Carthage Smith Om 36° 207 85° 56' Found 1844. Charlotte Dickson Of.. 36° 13' 87° W Fell 1835.Aug. 1 Cleveland Bradlev Om 35° 8' 84° 53' Found 1860. Coopertown Robertson Om 36° 25' 87° (X Found 1860. Cosby Creek Cooke 35° 48' 83° 15' Found 1837 Crab Orchard Cumberland Me 35° 53' 84° 48' Found 1887 Drake Creek. . Snmner , . Cwa 36° 18' 86° 34' Fell 1827 May 9 Jackson County Om 36° 25' 85° 37' Found 1846. Jonesboro .. ......... Washington Of 36° 16' 82° 30/ Found 1891 Morristown Hamblen MR 36° 9/ 83° 24' Found 1887. Murfreesboro. . Rutherford Om 35° 50/ 86° 2CK Found 1847 Petersburg Lincoln Ho ' 35° 2(K 86° 38' Fell 1865, Aug. 5. Smithville Dekalb 35° 55' 85° 46' Found 1840 Tazewell . . Claiborne Off 36° 27' 83° 48' Found 1853 Wallens Ridge Claiborne Oe 36° yy 83° SO' Found 1887 TEXAS: Bluff Fayette Ckb 29° 52' 96° 48' Found 1878 Carl ton Hamilton Off 31° 50' 98° KX Found 1887. Denton County •Om 33° 14' 97° 8' Found 1856 Estacado Crosby Cka 33° 35' 101° 25' Found 1902. Fort Duncan Maverick H 28° 35' 100° 24' Found 1852 Iredell Bosque H 31° 53' 97° 52' Found 1898. Kendall Countv Hb 29° 24' 98° 3(X Found 1887. MacKinnev Collin Cs 33° y 96° 45' Fell 1870. Mart ". McLennan Off 31° W 96° 45' Found 1898 Pipe Creek Bandera Cka 29° 43' 98° 56' Found 1887 Red River Om 32° 7' 95° 10' Found 1808. San Angelo Tom Green Om 31° 2