May, 1902. Meteorite Studies, I — Farrington. 309 



that name] and now preserved in the National Museum of Mexico. " 

 If it is correct thus to group the Ameca-Ameca meteorite (and hence 

 Los Reyes) with Toluca, a distribution of fifty or sixty miles at least 

 must be conceded to this fall, Ixtlahuaca and Xiquipilco, the two local- 

 ities in the Valley of Toluca where many of the Toluca meteorites are 

 found, being ten miles farther from Ameca-Ameca than Toluca itself. 

 It will be remembered that Fletcher, after a careful study of Mexican 

 meteorites with especial regard to the supposed occurrence of wide- 

 spread meteoritic showers,* reached a negative conclusion as regards 

 the wide extent of such showers, this opinion being similar to one in 

 d to such showers in general which he had expressed in an earlier 

 paper. f According to Fletcher the distribution of the Toluca meteor- 

 ites as they have been reported from J localities distant from Toluca 

 was probably due to human agency. With reference to the Ameca- 

 Ameca meteorite he states that "Ameca-Ameca is a town where there 

 arc now iron foundries, and where ploughs, castings, smoothing irons, 

 mill wheels and other articles are manufactured," to show that Toluca 

 iron might have been carried there for manufacturing purposes. 

 With regard to this report of the state of manufacturing enterprises 

 in Ameca-Ameca I fear that the distinguished authority of the British 

 Museum has been misinformed, for I have spent weary days in the 

 town without having learned of the existence of such industry. 



The fact brought out by Fletcher to the effect that no known 

 meteorite shower has a greater distribution than sixteen miles is a 

 more important one in the study of this case, and the evidence at hand 

 in this instance is hardly sufficient to enable us to assert that the 

 Toluca shower had a wider extent. 



The meteorite may of course have reached Los Reyes by the 

 agency of man, but on the whole the indications are that it fell where 

 it was found. The statements of the finders were plain and simple, 

 the meteorite bears no marks showing any attempt to use it for eco- 

 nomic purposes, and the price at which it was purchased was lower 

 than any one who had brought it from Toluca would probably have sold 

 it for. If the iron fell where it was found it is important to determine 

 whether it was an independent fall or whether its resemblance to 

 known Toluca irons is sufficient to make it probable that it fell at the 

 time of the Toluca shower. Here again no positive evidence is at 

 hand, but the chances are, in my opinion, in favor of the latter con- 

 clusion. The meteorite certainly does not differ sufficiently from 

 known Toluca irons so that its independent origin can be asserted, 



*Mineralogical Magazine, vol. IX, No. 42, pp. 91-179. 

 T Mineralogical Magazine, vol. VIII, p. 225. 



