216 METEORIC STONES. 



France during the year 1768, was precisely the same. But 

 Messrs. Lavoisier, &c., the committee appointed to examine 

 them, performed the chemical analysis with much greater 

 accuracy and fulness than M. De la Lande, who was no 

 chemist, had done. That which fell in the Maine, and was 

 presented by the Abbe Bachelay, underwent the most careful 

 process. It was found to contain, of sulphur, 8J per cent. ; 

 iron, 36 ; and vitrifiable earth, 55^. It must be remarked, 

 however, that this decomposition was effected by means of 

 experiments performed upon an integral part of the whole 

 stone, considered as a homogeneous substance ; whereas, it is 

 in fact a congeries of substances which ought to have been 

 separately analyzed. This consideration will, in part at least, 

 enable us to account for the apparent discrepancy between the 

 results obtained by the academicians and those of later 

 experimentalists. Messrs. Lavoisier, &c., also examined par- 

 ticularly another stone, said to have fallen in a different 

 part of France, and obtained very nearly the same results. 

 The only difference was, that it did not give out sulphurated 

 hydrogenous gas when acted upon by the muriatic acid ; a 

 peculiarity distinctly observable in the other substance. 



The description which Professor Barthold gives of the 

 external character of the stone which fell near Ensisheim, in 

 the fifteenth centuiy, corresponds exactly with the descrip- 

 tions given of these stones, and of the ores examined by 

 M. De la Lande. The results of this analysis are somewhat 

 different; but he examined the whole heterogeneous com- 

 pound, and not the parts separately. He concluded, that this 

 mass contained 2 per cent, of sulphur, 20 of iron, 14 magnesia, 

 17 alumina, 2 lime, 42 silica. Mr. Howard has very justly 

 remarked, that the Professor's own account of his experiments 

 is at variance with the idea of lime being contained in the 

 substance ; and that he has given no sufficient proof of the 

 existence of alumina. It is also to be observed, that from the 

 exceptionable method of analysis pursued both by Barthold 

 and the academicians, the metallic particles were not ex- 

 amined with sufficient precision. The specific gravity of the 



