36 M. EF. Wadsworth— Waterville Meteorite. 
rock a name as a rock species, but in accordance with the prin- 
ciples of his classification he prefers to regard it as belonging to 
the gabbro variety (norite) of basalt; for he holds to the essen- 
tial unity of the universe and sees no necessity of employing 
different names according as the rock comes from above or 
elow. 
From the description of the mineral constituents of this 
meteorite it would seem that regarding the presence of the 
feldspar, Messrs. Shepard and Waltershausen were correct while 
Rammelsberg was not. This shows the inability of the ablest 
mineralogical] chemists to draw correct conclusions regarding 
the mineral constituents even of an unaltered rock. The 
trouble appears to reside with the instrument employed— 
that is, with a defect in the method. Chladnite ought no longer 
to be regarded as enstatite of the purest kind as stated in most 
mineralogies but rather as a mineral aggregate of which enstatite, 
feldspar and augite are the principal constituents. 
While these observations give an approximate solution of 
the Bishopville meteorite puzzle of twenty-seven years stand- 
ing, it would be well if some one having larger amounts of this 
meteorite at their disposal could make a chemical analysis of it 
as a whole, and also analyze the minerals by the modern micro- 
scopic—specific gravity—chemical method.* 
2. The Waterville Meteorite.+ 
At about midnight, sometime in Sept., 1826, a meteor was 
seen to pass over Waterville, Maine, by Captain Josiah Crosby 
of thattown. Itcame from the southeast and passed in a curved 
line with a regular motion towards the earth. A moment after 
* Read before the Boston Society of Natural History, April 4th, 1883; Science, — 
1883, i, 31 a 
+ Briefly mentioned in Scienge, 1883, i, 377. 
