METEORITES OF NORTH AMERICA. 453 



quia de Vibraye, upon which hatching and etch-pitting are entirely absent. The two latter pieces I was, through the 

 kindness of Dr. Berwerth, enabled to compare with the Naumann section. In the Vibrayan section the bands are 

 short, swollen, not bunched, and granular; one portion is spotted, another shows a distinctly fine-grained structure. 

 The gray, finely-grained spaces are without combs, but frequently contain fine bright spangles in the central aggregate. 



The Hacienda Mani specimen shows a composition mainly of long bands, often bunched together and accom- 

 panied, in smaller measure, by short, swollen bands; the bright fields of considerable size abound in combs evidently 

 produced by tsenite. The kamacite is more or less abundantly granulated, occasionally spotted and throughout rich 

 in etched pittings, while hatching is entirely wanting. The kamacite is not like that of Carthage, with which Brezina 

 compares it. In my specimen of Carthage the kamacite is fine-grained, resembling that of La Caille, Misteca, Mar- 

 shall County, and Fort Pierre, and is not divided by coarse furrows into larger grains. 



The divergence of this section from normal Toluca iron is thus quite considerable; but the doubt concerning the 

 correctness of the place of discovery has been materially diminished by the piece obtained from Dr. Naumann, as 

 the latter furnishes an intermediate link. 



My investigation of the Forsyth County meteorite showed that no inconsiderable difference in structure may be 

 found in one and the same mass, and it is not always confined to small areas as is the case in Floyd Mountain, Linn- 

 ville, Hollands Store, Carlton, etc. Toluca is an example of similar differences in different portions of the same fall. 



Cohen 40 gave the following analysis of cliftonite from Toluca, the occurrence of which was 

 mentioned by him in 1S91. 35 



The carefully separated fragments chosen for analysis had a specific gravity between 1.994 and 2.196, the material 

 not admitting of a more definite determination. It does not deflagrate with potassium nitrate. The analysis by Dr. 

 J. Fahrenhorst gave : 



Substance taken 0. 1297 0. 1093 



C 94. 48 94. 44 



H 40 .33 



Si0 2 5. 12 5. 01 



100. 00 99. 78 



In the first analysis the determination of carbon failed owing to the incomplete burning of the graphite. The 

 whole unburned residue was regarded as silica. In the second analysis this residue being of pure white color was also 

 regarded as silica but not further determined. Owing to the minute dimensions of the cubes and octahedrons which 

 predominate in the compact cliftonite (the cubes as a rule measuring only 0.04-0.05 mm. on an edge) crystals could not 

 be selected for the analysis. It is undetermined therefore, whether they are of purer graphite than the compact 

 groundmass. 



The Toluca meteorites are widely distributed among collections. The Vienna Museum 

 possesses 120 kgs., the British Museum 106 kgs., Hamburg 114 kgs.. and the Field Museum 

 177 kgs. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



1. 1784: Gazetas de Mexico, No. 25, Dec. 15, 1784, p. 201. (Clark says: Vol. 1, pp. 146, 200; and vol. 5, p. 59.) 



2. 1804: Del Rio. Tablas mineralogicas, p. 57. 



3. 1811: von Humboldt. Essai politique sur le royaume de la Nouvelle Espagne, Bd. 2, p. 582. 



4. 1819: Chladni. Feuermeteore, pp. 339, 434. 



5. 1826: Noggerath. Ueber Meteoreisen aus Mexico. Allgem. Journ. Chem., Schweigger-Seidel, Bd. 47, pp. 74-76. 



6. 1827: Berthier. Analyse du fer m^teorique de Toluca au Mexique. Ann. Mines, 2d ser., vol.l, pp. 337-338. 



7. 1831: Ramirez. Gazetas de Literatura de Mexico. Puebla, Bd. 2, p. 381. 



8. 1843: Partsch. Meteoriten, pp. 99-100. 



9. 1853: Noggerath. Meteoriteisenmassen mit Widmannstadt'schen Figuren. Neues Jahrb., p. 174. 



10. 1854: Uricoechea. Analyse der Meteoreisen von Toluca und vom Cap der guten Hoffnung. I: Eisen von 



Toluca. Ann. Chem. Pharm., Bd. 91, pp. 249-252. 



11. 1856: Pugh. Analyse von Meteoreisen aus Mexico. Ann. Chem. Pharm., Bd. 98, pp. 383-386 



12. 1856: Taylor. Examination of the meteoric iron from Xiquipilco, Mexico. Amer. Journ. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 22, 



pp. 374-376 (analyses). From Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 128-130. 



13. 1856: Jordan. Ueber ein mexicanisches Meteoreisen. Ann. Chem. Pharm., Bd. 101, pp. 356-358 (analysis by 



Nason). 



14. 1856: Burkart. Fundorte I. Neues Jahrb., pp. 297-305 (Xiquipilco, Istlahuaca, Tejupilco; new analyses by 



Boecking). 



15. 1856: Wohler. Ueber das Meteoreisen von Toluca in Mexico. Sitzber. AVien. Akad., Bd. 20, pp. 217-224. 



16. 1856: von Babo. Analyse eines Meteorsteins. Verh. Freiburg. Naturforsch. Gesellsch., Bd. 1, Hft. 2, pp. 



256-257 (analysis). 



17. 1S57: Krantz. Ueber Meteoreisen vom Toluccathal in Mexico. Ann. Phys. und Chem., Poggendorff, Bd. 101, 



pp. 152-153. 



