474 MEMOIRS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, VOL. XIII. 



This corresponds quite well with the weight of the portion brought to Europe, if we consider that Reichenbach gave 

 a portion of his specimen to other collections, for example 157 grams to Berlin. In 1843, only Claiborne (Lime 

 Creek) was known in the literature as coming from Alabama (Troost's work on Walker County first appeared in 1845), 

 and it is easily explained from this fact that both pieces were originally referred to Claiborne and that they were cata- 

 logued as such. Although Heuland gave the correct locality as early as 1845, the name was first changed in the 

 catalogue of the British Museum in 1863, while Reichenbach apparently overlooked this fact. Wherever in other 

 collections specimens are found with the label "Claiborne," which were obtained from Reichenbach, they likewise 

 belong to Walker County. This is certainly the case with regard to the 231-gram section, designated as Claiborne, 

 in the Vienna Museum. 



The first mention of the locality "Morgan County" is found in Buchner, who adds that he could find no printed 

 notice concerning it. He refers to a 70-gram section in Vienna, which resembles Braunau. 11 Brezina says of this 

 section, that it is a hexahedrite probably found in 1849, which Shepard sent with the remark, "I send the new 

 Morgan County iron (formerly called Walker County)." Brezina adds that "Fletcher assumes that the locality, Mor- 

 gan County, is to be extended to include our hexahedral specimen designated as Walker County, 1832." 18 (This 

 65-gram section, very imperfectly etched, also belongs without doubt to the herein described Walker County speci- 

 men.) Shepard probably made a mistake from the fact that a hunter living in Morgan County found the Walker 

 County iron and kept it in his house for 11 years. 



Finally, there are in many collections pseudometeorites under the name of Walker County or Morgan County. 

 This error may have been extended by Shepard, since he analyzed and described a pseudometeorite instead of the 

 supposed Walker County iron. He found 99.89 per cent iron in this specimen, and regarded Walker County accord- 

 ingly as proof that nickel-free iron can have a meteoric origin. The specific gravity, as well as the character of 

 the etched surface, as described, indicates a pseudometeorite. Here, for example, belong sections of a mass desig- 

 nated as Walker County in Berlin and Vienna, which, according to Gregory, came from the Smith collection, as well 

 as a "Morgan County" specimen at Tubingen. 



It appears, accordingly, that Claiborne (Lime Creek) in the Reichenbach collection, as well as the material 

 donated by him under this name, is in fact Walker County, and that under the name Walker County (Morgan County) 

 hexahedrites and pseudometeorites are to be found in collections. The former originate from the Troost mass, the 

 latter were probably distributed by Shepard, who supposed that the piece examined by him came from Walker County. 



The largest pieces of the meteorite as at present distributed are at Tubingen (40 kg.) and 

 London 22.5 kg. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



1. 1845: TROOST. Description of a mass of meteoric iron, which fell near Charlotte, Dickson County, Tennessee, in 



1835; of a mass of meteoric iron discovered in De Kalb County, Tennessee; of a mass discovered in Green 

 County, Tennessee; of a mass discovered in Walker County, Alabama. Amer. Journ. Sci., 1st ser., vol. 49, 

 pp. 344-346. 



2. 1846: SHEPARD. Report on meteorites. Idem, 2d ser., vol. 2, p. 382; and vol. 4, pp. 74-75. 



3. 1858: VON REICHENBACH. Uber die Rinde der meteorischen Eisenmassen. Ann. Phys. und Chem., Poggen- 



dorff, GUI, p. 638. 



4. 1858: Die Meteoriten und die Kometen nach ihren gegenseitigen Beziehungen. Idem. vol. 105, p. 448. 



5. 1859: Die meteorischen Kiigelchen des Capitain Callum. Idem, vol. 106, p. 488. 



6. 1859: Jnordnung und Eintheilung der Meteoriten. Idem, vol. 107, pp. 175-176. 



7. 1859: tiber die chemischen Beschaffenheit der Meteoriten. Idem, p. 263. 



8. 1859: Uber die Zeitfolge und die Bildungsweise der naheren Bestandtheile der Meteoriten. Idem, vol. 108, 



pp. 457-158. 



9. 1861: Tiber das innere Gefuge der naheren Bestandtheile des Meteoreisens. Idem, vol. 114, pp. 100, 119, 122, 



128, 131, 262, 479, 481-483, and 489-490; and vol. 115, pp. 150-151 and 156. 



10. 1862: Uber die naheren Bestandtheile des Meoreisens. Idem, vol. 115, pp. 621-622 and 629-630; and vol. 116, 



pp. 584-585 and 588-590. 



11. 1863: BUCHNER. Die Meteoriten in Sammlungen, p. 191. 



12. 1863: ROSE. Meteoriten, p. 49. 



13. 1885: BREZINA. Wiener Sammlung, pp. 218 and 221. 



14. 1887-1888: HUNTINGTON. Catalogue of all recorded meteorites. Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., new ser., vol. 



23, p. 56. 



15. 1893: MEUNIER. Revision des fers m6t6oriques, p. 72. 



16. 1894: COHEN. Meteoreisen-Studien III. Ann. k. k. Naturhist. Hofmus., Wien, Bd. 9, pp. 114-116. 



17. 1895: Meteoreisen-Studien IV. Idem, Bd. 10, pp. 82 and 87-89. 



18. 1895: BREZINA. Wiener Sammlung, p. 290. 



19. 1897: WULFING. Die Meteoriten in Sammlungen, pp. 204-206. 



20. 1897: COHEN, tiber ein angebliches Meteoreisen von Walker County, Alabama. M. N. V. Neu-Vorpommern 



und Rugen. XXIX. 35-39. 



21. 1898: Meteoreisen-Studien VII. Ann. k. k. Naturhist. Hofmus., Wien, Bd. 13, p. 58. 



22. 1903: Meteoritenkunde, Heft 3, pp. 166-173. 



Walker Township. See Grand Rapids. 



