N. S. Maskelyne on the fail of Butsura. 738 
of these scattered fragments enables one to build it up, is that 
- ‘ sv or the thick outer rind of one side of a considerable 
ca lithological character of the Piprassi, oo and Chi- 
reya stones is very similar to that of the Bulloah pieces. But 
crust that coats those of Bulloah; it is, however, less charac- 
teristic and less thick. They are all dull, as the crusts on highl 
olivinous meteorites generally a are, as contrasted with the shining 
enamels on the feldspathic-augitic kinds. It exhibits crystalline 
metallic-looking points, as well of iron as of meteoric pyrites 
_ and, at very rare intervals, of iron pyrites, that are disseminated 
_. among small globular projections of a pitch-black color. It is 
these black projections, on the other hand, that constitute the 
ole mass of the Bulloah ia But in the three larger 
masses the crust assumes a dirty blackish-brown hue. 
The facts above recorded appear to me to throw some light 
upon ene interesting questions. 
We may hazard a pretty safe conjecture as to the direction 
of the Batenrs fall, by observing that the lighter stones fell a 
the S.E. of the heavier ones; the Bulloah three miles 
Piprassi; the Chireya a similar distance E.S.E. of Qutahar. Te 
we suppose that the disruption of all the stones was simul- 
taneous, we might further assume that they fell with a diverg- 
Sin flight; for the Qutahar Bazar and Piprassi points are con- 
rably further asunder than those of the — and Chireya 
falls. In fact, a line passing from the E.S.E. to W.N.W. would 
represent .the direction of the flight of the seein and if we 
are to judge by the different divergences of the stones, that fight . 
_ would _ have been at a great inclination to the horizon. , 
a t been quite horizontal, the point of the divergence 
would ie been, on this view, about seven miles E.S.E. of the 
_ central point of the fall, and two miles N.W. of the Mudbuni. 
owever, it would seem to have fallen from a considerable 
elevation, it may have been much further off, though the point of 
disruption would have been somewhat nearly vertical over the 
position thus indicated. 
But this fall i is remarkable for the evidence it affords of the 
incrustation subsequently to its disruption, as 
well as of the probability of successive disruptions, of whi 
One, at least, was not followed by incrustation. In t 
some more or less evident examples, showing crusts on different 
parts of an aerolite that seem not to have been contemporaneous 
—where, in fact, the crust on one part has not the thickness and 
Am. Jour. Sct.—Szconp Szries, Vo. XXXVI, No. 106.—Juy, 1863, 
10 
