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. Where chiefly preserved. 



Auburn Amherst. 



Bald Eagle Lewisburg. 



Bear Creek Amherst. 



Bethlehem Albany. 



Costilla Peak Ward Collection. 



Dal ton Philadelphia. 



Deep Springs Raleigh. 



Denton County Austin. 



Descubridora City of Mexico. 



Grand Rapids Distributed. 



Iron Creek Toronto. 



Ivanpah San Francisco. 



Kenton County Chicago. 



