10 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. 



Name of meteorite. Where chiefly preserved. 



La Charca Guanajuato. 



La Grange Amherst. 



Losttown Amherst. 



Madoc Ottawa. 



Marshall County Amherst. 



Marion Amhersl. 



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 aach 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 

 dehberate 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 superseded by the modern method of naming the meteorite from a place of importance nearest 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 county 

 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 single 

 fall, but such associations are rare. Where they do occur, as in the case of Madoc and Thurlow, 



