8 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. 



hexahedrites, and firm octahedrites. Had Cohen lived to complete his task, little more could 

 be asked for in the way of a systematic account of meteorites, but unfortunately this was not 

 to be. Cohen's bibliography differed from "Wulfing's in giving only the works which recorded 

 new facts, whereas Wulfing listed every mention of the meteorite. In his statement of their 

 distribution Cohen also mentioned only the most important. Both of these practices of Cohen 

 seem to the present writer more nearly ideal than those of Wulfing. Neither of the catalogues 

 mentioned undertook any mapping of falls. 



In all these catalogues there is a confusing difference in the methods adopted for the grouping 

 of those' falls which have often been regarded as distinct. Thus Wulfing, to speak of American 

 falls alone, grouped together Jewell Hill and Duel Hill, Lime Creek and Walker County, Coahuila, 

 Sancha Estate and Fort Duncan, Brenham and Anderson, and Chupaderos, Adargas and 

 Morito. 



In earlier times the Red River meteorite of Texas and the Santa Rosa meteorite of the 

 United States of Colombia were regarded by Shepard * as belonging to a single fall. Jackson 2 

 thought that the Port Orford, Oregon, meteorite should be considered of the same fall as the 

 Pallas iron. More recently Huntington 3 placed together, as originating from one fall, Fort 

 Duncan, Holland's Store, and Scottsville, although found hundreds of miles from each other; 

 and Cocke County, Sevier County, Wayne County, Greenbrier County, Waldron's Ridge, and 

 Tazewell, although scattered over three States. Preston 4 concluded that the meteorites of 

 western Kansas Kansada, Jerome, Long Island, and Prairie Dog Creek came from a single 

 shower. 



It seems obvious that such practices would in time produce great confusion and that the 

 chances of lessening such a confusion would decrease as time passed. The history and geography 

 of a fall must be the important factors in determining its right to be regarded individual. Of 

 these two factors the history must be determined from all available literature, while the geography 

 can readily be shown by mapping. To undertake this task for the meteorites of a single large 

 geographic province such as North America seemed to the writer desirable, not only for the 

 intrinsic value of the record, but to throw light on the question of the extent to which individual 

 falls may be naturally or artificially distributed. Funds for assistance having been generously 

 provided through a grant from the J. Lawrence Smith Fund of the National Academy of Sciences, 

 such a catalogue was undertaken and is here presented. 



Prof. W. C. MacNaul, of Chicago, rendered valuable assistance in the bibliographic work and 

 translating. In the preparation of the text of this catalogue the endeavor of the writer has 

 been to collect all published facts of importance regarding the different falls. Several methods 

 of grouping these facts were considered, but it was finally concluded that an essentially chrono- 

 logical treatment would be the most satisfactory. Such a grouping shows in historical order 

 the growth of knowledge regarding each fall and enables one to appreciate the difficulties of 

 the earlier investigators and the manner in which features overlooked or not understood by them 

 were later made clear. For example, Cambria was early described as showing nodules composed 

 of two kinds of iron sulphide, one decomposable and regarded as troilite, the other unattacked 

 by acids and regarded as pyrrhotite. It remained for later investigation to show that the unde- 

 composable constituent was schreibersite. 



In this catalogue original articles are generally given in full. This plan was not adopted 

 without thorough consideration, especially as the practice of previous compilers had been to 

 present only abstracts. By such a method desirable data may be omitted, however, since 

 abstracts are necessarily affected by the ability of the abstractor to choose that which is im- 

 portant. The ideal to be attained seems to the mind of the writer to be the preservation of all 

 known data regarding the meteorites. This does not mean that data shall be repeated, and 

 the writer has omitted from later reports observations already recorded by earlier investigators. 

 This was deemed desirable, not only in order to reduce the bulk of the catalogue, but also to 

 give due credit to the first observer, and while it may seem to some to involve too great ver- 



' Amer. Journ. Sci., 1st ser., vol. 16, 1829, p. 219. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci., vol. 24, 1889, pp. 30-35. 



Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, 1860, p. 161. Amer. Joum. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 9, 1900, p. 412. 



