NO. 2157. WHITFIELD COUNTY METEORIC IRONS— MERRILL. 449 



Notwithstanding tliis close chemical resemblance, which is not at 

 all miusual for irons of this class, I am, on the grounds of structure 

 and etching peculiarities, convinced that the kons represent two dis- 

 tinct faUs, and would suggest that the Hidden iron be known, as 

 fu-st described, under the name WJiitfield County, and that described 

 by Shepard as Dalton. They will be so Usted in the future in the 

 United States National Museum catalogue. 



As to the suggested identity of the Shepard iron with that of Cleve- 

 land, as made by Kunz, while there is some resemblance between the 

 two, I can not agree with his statement that the figures on the Cleve- 

 land and Shepard irons are identical. (See pi. 78.) Further than 

 this, the Shepard (Dalton) iron shows nowhere on the five cut sur- 

 faces now available any of the Reichenbach figures, which are so 

 pronounced on that of Cleveland, and which Cohen has further noted 

 on that described by Hidden (the Whitfield County iron) . A further 

 difference is noted in the composition of the Cleveland iron, as deter- 

 mined by Genth, the results given in Kunz's paper being as follows: 



Per cent. 



Iron (Fe) 89. 93 



Copper (Cu) 06 



Nickel (Ni) 8.06 



Cobalt (Co) 56 



Phosphorus (P) 66 



Sulphur (S) Not determined 



99.27 



It is my present opinion that the three irons represent three dis- 

 tinct falls. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE 78. 



(All figures natural size.) 



Fig. 1. Etched siorface of the Dalton iron described by Shepard. Cat. No. 90, 

 (Shep. Coll.) 



2. Etched surface of the "Whitfield County iron described by Hidden. Cat. 



No. 520. 



3. Etched surface of the Cleveland, East Tennessee, iron described by G. F. 



Kunz. Cat. No. 58. 



-Proc.N.M.vol.51— 16 29 



