Claus et al.: "Organized Elements" in Chondrites 597 



pie, for any length of time, has yet (at the time of this writing) positively 

 identified the organized elements as known terrestrial species. Certain com- 

 ments, that to us seem to be somewhat vague, such as Deflandre's (1962) 

 statement: "Positive identifications in this case are unnecessary and super- 

 fluous" cannot be taken too seriously. Deflandre, to our knowledge, has 

 never examined a carbonaceous meteorite. Similarly, the criticisms of Gregory 

 and Pearson cannot be accepted as strong evidence against the extraterrestrial 

 nature of the organized elements because these authors made their identi- 

 fications from a set of photographs and sketches that were reproduced rather 

 poorly in a scientific journal. (Ciregory saw some of the microscopical prep- 

 arations after he submitted his paper to the press.) Gregory and Pearson 

 identified the same organized element as 2 different terrestrial contaminants. 

 On one occasion a single organized element, when it was briefly shown in a 

 microscope to 18 microbiologists, was "identified" as 18 different species of 

 protobionta or organic artifacts. 



Fitch and Anders (1963) claim that only a few of their particles, which ac- 

 cording to them are mere terrestrial contaminants, survive the combined HF, 

 HCl treatment. We found that these particles, when we examined their 

 preparations under the microscope, showed morphological features that were 

 dissimilar to common airborne contaminants (Wodehouse, 1942, 1945; Gregory, 

 1961). They appeared to us identical to some of the forms that we found in 

 our preparations. As a matter of fact, we found one of these forms ourselves 

 in Fitch and Anders' preparations, in their presence, during their visit to our 

 laboratories. 



Fitch and Anders claim that some of these particles are ragweed pollen. 

 However, accorchng to their own measurements, given in their report, some of 

 those particles seem to be too small to be Ambrosia pollen. It is clear that one 

 must both critically evaluate the fine morphology and make accurate measure- 

 ments of size to establish a particle as a known terrestrial contaminant. Fur- 

 thermore, Fitch's and Anders' contention that some of the organized elements 

 in our preparation are ragweed pollen is also untenable because it is based upon 

 the comparison of photographs of rather low resolution which do not permit 

 the evaluation of fine morphological criteria. In figure 8g are shown some 

 ragweed pollen grains, to demonstrate the solid spines of theexo-exine. Figure 

 M is an optical cross-section of the same. In figure 86 is shown the type 2 

 organized element (note the hollow protrusions). In figure 8c is .shown a 

 similar object embedded in minerals. The identification of another organized 

 element (figure lb) as either a starch grain or a recent Juniperus pollen is also 

 in error because the structure of starch grains shows concentrical layering. 

 Juniper pollens are much larger than the object in question, they do not have 

 papillae and have rugate exo-exines (Erdtman, 1957). 



Additional sources of possible terrestrial contaminations have been exam- 

 ined recently. Soil samples and outcrop samples have been collected in the 

 vicinity of the villages of Orgueil and Nohic in Southern France near the lo- 

 cation where the meteorite fell. It has been suggested (Bourrelly, 1962) that 

 soil and rock samples from the impact area be examined to evaluate the degree 

 of contamination from the local environment. Bourrelly noted that the culti- 



