70 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. 



scope the substance appears uniformly white, with an occasional tiny black speck, which is nothing else than magnetite, 

 only of much greater fineness than that which occurs in the ground mass. These lumps and crumbs appear throughout 

 the entire stone as separate formations, as individuals, whose aggregation is effected by the ground mass. 



The ground mass is distinguished from the inclusions first of all in this, that it is not lumpy but is like a cement 

 which envelops the inclusions, embraces and holds them together. Further, it has no crystalline structure in general, 

 but a granular, sometimes scaly, fracture, and finally it is by no means pure white, but is interspersed with black 

 grains and intersected by lines of the same, so that at first sight it appears gray. It is accordingly without any com- 

 parison more mixed than the lumps or inclusions. 



On p. 364 of the same study, Reichenbach confirms Shepard's report of the presence of free 

 sulphur as follows : 



A similar rarity occurs in Bishopville, namely, scattered, flat lumps of pure sulphur, of the size of half a lentil, 

 beautiful pale sulphur yellow, not difficult to perceive, and first noted by Mr. Shepard. 



On p. 375, he says: 



The black bodies in the inclusions, which I have generally regarded as magnetite, judging by the color, which 

 shows through the thin edges as brownish black, the luster, and other outward aspects, may consist of augite, horn- 

 blende, or a similar body. Under the microscope, they are everywhere much alike in appearance, always sharply 

 distinguished from the white ground mass, always having the same play of colors and the same luster, and are always 

 small and only occur in noticeable size where several individuals run together. This appears very distinctly in Bishop- 

 ville, since in this white stone there is nothing of any account other than the black bodies, sometimes isolated, some- 

 times grouped, and sometimes arranged in layers. The analysis which Sartorius von Waltershausen published, how- 

 ever, left nothing but colorless earth and protoxide of iron. It follows directly from this that the black particles 

 can be nothing else than magnetite. 



Rammelsberg 9 made a study of the analysis of Bishopville as follows: 



This meteorite, which fell on the 25th of March, 1843, at Bishopville, in South Carolina, is distinguished by its 

 bright gray to white color, indistinctly crystalline character, and isolated white grains in the soft mass, which is cleav- 

 able in one direction. 



Shepard, into whose possession the stone came, described and examined it, and there is a very careful description 

 of its exterior aspect by G. Rose. 



According to the former (Shepard) the frequently very large, snow white crystals, which form the ground mass of 

 the stone, have a feldspathic form, but according to Rose they are not sufficiently well formed to establish this opinion, 

 to which also their structure fails to answer. Their specific gravity is, according to Shepard, 3.116, and according to 

 Sartorius, who compared their form to that of the wollastonite, 3.039. 



From the chemical characteristic of this silicate, which, according to Shepard, comprises more than two-thirds 

 of the stone (or as he says elsewhere, nine-tenths), the same authority states that it fuses before the blow pipe only 

 on the edges, and is attacked only slightly by hydrochloric acid, even when heated. 



According to Shepard's statement, this mineral, named by him "chladnite," consists of 70.41 silicic acid, 28.25 

 magnesia, and 1.39 soda, and is accordingly a tricilicate. 



Later Sartorius gave as the composition of the white mineral: Silicic acid, 67.140; magnesia, 27.115; calcareous 

 earth, 1.82; alumina, 1.478; iron oxide, 1.706; water, 0.671. Sartorius considered this as magnesia trisilicate and a cal- 

 careous aluminum silicate. The former he compared with wollastonite, which he took for a calcareous trisilicate. 

 This is evidently wrong, it being a bisilicate. 



These analytical results are, however, evidently entirely wrong. I did not analyze the crystals separately, owing 

 to lack of material but only the total mass of the stone, but such different results were obtained that it is clear that 

 those crystals which form almost the entire mass, can not have the composition given them by Sartorius and Shepard. 



Following is my analysis of the mass of the stone (a) and the same (b) after deducting iron oxide and loss on 

 heating; also the mean of Smith's two analyses (a) and the same (b) without iron oxide. 



Rammelsberg. Smith, 



a b a b 



Silicicacid 57.52 58.84 59.97 60.21 



Alumina 2.72 2.78 



Magnesia 34.80 35.60 39.33 39.49 



Lime(Kalk) 0.66 0.67 



Soda 1.14 1.16 0.74 0.74 



Potash 0.70 0.71 



Iron oxide (Mn) 1.45 0.40 



Loss by heating 0. 80 



99.79 99.76 100.44 100.44 



