METEOKITES OF NORTH AMERICA. 337 



The nickeliferoua particles separated by a magnet from the crushed stone, and well washed, presented the fol- 

 lowing constituents in 100 parts: 



Iron 87. Oil 



Nickel 12. 360 



Cobalt 421 



Copper, minute quantity, not estimated. 



Phosphorus 012 



Sulphur 1. 080 



100. 884 

 The sulphur comes from the magnetic pyrites that the meteorite contains, and is not easy to separate mechanically 

 from the small particles of nickeliferous iron. 



The earthy part, when freed as thoroughly as possible from nickeliferous iron (which can be done pretty effect- 

 ually by the magnet), was treated with warm dilute muriatic acid, thrown on a filter first washed thoroughly with 

 water, then with a solution of potash to dissolve the last portion of the silica of the decomposed portion of the mineral. 

 The result was, in 100 parts: 



Soluble portion 63. 7 



Insoluble 36. 3 



100.0 

 The earthy mineral analyzed as a whole was found to contain : 



Silica 47. 30 



Oxide of iron 28. 03 



Alumina 31 



Magnesia 24. 53 



Lime 02 



Soda 1 



Potash } 104 



Manganese trace 



101. 23 

 From these results it is very clear that the mineralogical constitution of these meteoric stones is about as follows, 

 in 100 parts: 



Nickeliferous iron 10. 690 



Schreibersite 005 



Magnetic pyrites 005 



Olivine 56. 884 



Pyroxene 32. 416 



100. 000 

 This sums up the history of this meteoric shower, with as full an account as possible of the stones that fell at that 



time. In the first part of this paper it was stated that this fall was quite as remarkable as that near L'Aigle, in France, 



in 1803. Although it does not equal this latter in the number of stones that were collected, it exceeds it in size of the 



stones that fell. The largest of the L'Aigle stones weighed 17£ pounds, while the largest in the present case was 103 



pounds. 



There are many points of coincidence in the phenomena and circumstances attending the two falls. Were I to 



copy Biot's description of the phenomena of the fall at L'Aigle, as detailed to the Academy of Science nearly 60 yeara 



ago, it would be but a repetition of what has been written in the first part of this paper. 



The date of the fall at L'Aigle was the 26th of April; the date of the Guernsey fall May 1. Time of the day of 



the former, one o'clock; of the latter twenty minutes of one; the direction of both falls, from southeast to northwest. 



The extent of surface covered by the first, 7 J miles long by 2J Tbroad; by the latter, 10 miles long by 3 wide; and both 



were seen by a large number of persons. • 



Evans 5 gave a further account of the meteor and in part replied to the criticisms of Smith 

 as follows: 



In a brief account of this meteor published in the American Journal of Science, July, 1860, I gave the most reli- 

 able and definite observations which I had been able to collect, bearing on the question of the meteor's path and 

 velocity; I also gave such conclusions as the data seemed to me to warrant. I propose now to review the subject more 

 at length, in the light of all the facts now in my possession; partly in order to state, in a more careful manner, both 

 my conclusions and the arguments by which they seem to me to be established; and partly in order to correct some 

 serious errors in regard to the data, which appear in former communications on this subject. 



Prof. J. L. Smith, of the University of Louisville, in an article published in the January number of the American 

 Journal of Science begins by summing up "all the observations" which he considers "worthy of note respecting the 

 fall of this meteorite." In this summary, the statement is repeatedly made, that the village of New Concord, near 

 716°— 15 — -22 



