110 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. 



up of the large mass, giving a rounded appearance to the edges. On a polished surface, cut nearly parallel to the 

 largest octahedral face, the figures produced by etching appear very strikingly. They are perfectly distinct and 

 regular, being typical Widmanstattian figures; but when they come to the cracked portion of the iron, they appear 

 as separate plates, some having been broken by the rupture, others separated, while the greater number appear bent 

 and strained, but still coherent, and binding the mass firmly together. The whole appearance of the etched surface 

 gives at once the idea of a forcible explosion, and yet all the cracks, even the most ragged, follow directions parallel to 

 the octahedral faces. 



Meunier 18 gives the following account: 



The Carthage iron presents in great perfection the typical structure of the type. The kamacite is finely grained 

 and the plessite has a shagreened appearance. Small masses of pyrrhotine may be seen in some interstices of the alloys. 



This iron has suffered confusion of names with that known as Smithville. This is 

 because it has been sometimes known by the name of Coney Fork, which has been mispelled 

 Caney Fork, and this in turn has been confounded with Caryfort, another name of Smithville. 

 The two irons are, however, different in character and the localities are many miles apart. 

 The name Carthage has also been mispelled in foreign catalogues so as to become Carthago, 

 which is Wulfing's and Brezina's name. Berwerth has made this worse by calling it Karthago. 

 The name originally given by Troost, however, Carthage, is correct and accords with the best 

 usage. 



The iron is distributed, the largest pieces being possessed by the British Museum (24 kg.), 

 Tubingen (64 kg.), and Harvard (18 kg.). 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



1. 1846: TROOST. Description of three varieties of meteoric iron. 1. Meteoric iron from Carthage, Smith County, 



Tennessee. Amer. Journ. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 2, pp. 356-357. 



2. 1847: SHEPAED. Report on meteorites. Idem, vol. 4, p. 79. 



3. 1852: CLARK. Dissert. Gottingen, pp. 60-61. 



4. 1854: VON BOQUSLAWSKI. Zehnter Nachtrag. Ann. Phys. und Chem., Poggendorff, Ergz.-Bd. 4, p. 404. 



5. 1859: HARRIS. Dissert. Gottingen, p. 115. 



6. 1863: BUCHNER. Meteoriten, pp. 174-175. 



7. 1863: ROSE. Meteoriten, pp. 26, 64, 139, and 152. 



8. 1858-1865: VON REICHENBACH. No. 4, p. 638; No. 6, p. 448; No. 7, p. 551; No. 9, p. 163, 174, 181; No. 12, p. 457; 



No. 14, p. 393; No. 15, pp. 100, 110, 111, 114, 124, 128; No. 16, pp. 250, 251, 261, 262; No. 17, pp. 265, 266, 272; 

 No. 18, p. 484; No. 19, p. 154; No. 20, p. 622; No. 21, p. 578; No. 25, pp. 436, 600. 



9. 1866: BORICKY. Unter kleineren Mitteilungen, auch Angaben iiber das Eisen des bShmischen Museums in 



Prag. Neues Jahrb., 1866, pp. 808-810. 



10. 1869: BUCHNER. Vierter Nachtrag. Am. Phys. und Chem., Poggendorff, Bd. 136, p. 602. 



11. 1872: QUENSTEDT. Klar und Wahr, pp. 281 and 313. (Illustrations of a large mass in the Tubingen collection, 



and an etching.) 



12. 1875: VOM RATH. Meteoriten. Verh. naturhist, Verein Bonn, Bd. 32, p. 362. 



13. 1881: BREZINA. Bericht III. Sitzber. Wien. Akad., Bd. 84 I, p. 282. 



14. 1884: MEUNIEH. Meteorites, pp. 99 and 116. 



15. 1885: BREZINA. Wiener Sammlung, pp. 213 and 234. 



16. 1886: HUNTINGTON. Crystalline structure. Amer. Journ. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 32, p. 287. 



17. 1887: HUNTINGTON. Catalogue of all recorded meteorites, pp. 62-64. 



18. 1893: MEUNIER. Revision des fers m6t6oriques, pp. 52 and 55. 



19. 1895: BREZINA. Wiener Sammlung, p. 276. 



Carthago. See Carthage. 

 Caryfort. See Smithville. 



