Feb., 1906. The Shelburne Meteorite. 9 



allow it to clear the shed, if it came from the northwest. If its 

 movement was in the opposite direction, i. e. toward the north- 

 west, it must have fallen nearly vertically to have avoided striking 

 the roof of the porch. This fact, together with the noticeable 

 throw of mud to the southeast, indicates that the path of the 

 meteor was toward the southeast. If this view be correct, the 

 larger stone fell first, which is contrary to the usual rule, and, con- 

 trary to what would be expected, since the greater momentum of 

 larger stones usually carries them farther. It is possible in this 

 case that the bursting of the meteor caused a deviation of motion 

 which brought the larger stone to the ground first. The accounts 

 of those who saw the meteor pass seem to be of no value for deter- 

 mining the direction of motion. In the reports quoted by Borg- 

 strom four observers assert that the meteor was traveling north- 

 west and three that it was traveling southeast. A similar conflict 

 of opinion was found by the writer to exist among those at Shel- 

 burne who saw the meteor. A point on which all witnesses 

 agreed, however, was that several reports were heard, at least 

 as many as three. This would indicate that the meteorite broke 

 into more pieces than were found. 



The stone found by Mr. Shields, and now in the possession of 

 the Museum, has a shape resembling that of a flat-iron. Its length 

 is 10 inches (25 cm.), its width 5^2 inches (14 cm.) and its thickness 

 3 inches (8 cm.). The several surfaces show differences of crust 

 and rugosity, which indicate the orientation of the meteorite. Thus, 

 of the broad surfaces, one, that shown in Plate VI, is smooth, and 

 has only broad, shallow pits. This was the surface found upper- 

 most when the meteorite was dug up, and is plainly the rear side 

 of the meteorite. The opposite surface, shown in Plate V, is for 

 the most part peppered with small, irregular pits and the crust is 

 thinner. It is not as smooth as the side previously described. It 

 seems evident from the character of the crust and the pittings 

 that not only was this the front side of the meteorite in falling, 

 but that a piece corresponding in outline to the rough portion was 

 split off during the fall. On the lower side of the surface in 

 the position in which the meteorite stands in Plate V, the in- 

 terior of the meteorite is seen, over two areas, each covering about 

 a square inch. Of these areas the one at the right was pro- 

 duced by a piece having been chipped off for examination when 

 the meteorite was first found. The one at the left, triangular in 

 shape, is a natural scaling which, since it is not encrusted, must 



