288 J. W. Mallet—Meteorie Iron from Texas. 
orld. In ac 
Shepard, pbtitoed in 1857, in the second part of his treatise 
on mineralogy, p. 436, there is mentioned a meteoric iron from 
8.” In Ram 
“Texas (Red River ny. S. A., found in 180 mels- 
berg’s Handbuch der Mineralchemie (Leipzig, 1860) are riokieed, 
p. 917, specimens from “ Red River in Louisiana,” and from 
“Texas,” with the statement that according to Partsch these 
are probably identical; this opinion is undoubtedly correct; 
the analyses quoted show that both represent the Yale College 
specimen. In the recent (1880) catalogue of meteorites in the 
ne of the Indian Museum at Calcutta, No. 108 is Sy 
. 88, as two specimens from ‘ Red River, Texas, U.S. 
and 3 in 1814,” No. 27, on p. 81, as a specimen which « appar: 
ently has been fired, from Denton Sounty, Texas, Avs 
found in 1856,” and No. 389, on p. 32, as from “ Brazos River, 
Texas, U. S. A., found in 1856.” he may be questioned 
shether Nos. 27 and 89 refer to portions of the same or of differ- 
ent masses; the same date is given, but the shortest distance 
from any part of Denton county to the Brazos is about 40 miles, 
this county being traversed by affluents of the Trinity. The 
specific gravity of the iron now described agrees closely with 
that reported for the Gibbs meteorite of the Yale College 
collection. The results of the chemical analysis are also very 
similar to those obtained for the latter by B. Silliman, Jr. and 
unt. It is stated that this latter “ encloses a few small masses 
of magnetic pyrites;” this statement probably referring to troi- 
lite nodules like those which are ee enclosures in the 
University of Texas specimen. idmannstittian figures 
developed by etching this University of Texas iron do not closely 
resemble those of the Yale College specimen, as shown in @ 
lithographed figure published in connection with the ge 
gen) inaugural dissertation on metallic meteorites of 
Clark eit copied from one published by Professor B. “Sill 
man, Jr., the difference of appearance may be largely due 
to differsnce in the planes of section in relation to ehibie gr crys- 
tallization in the particular pieces submitted to the etching 
rocess. 
University of Virginia, August 11, 1884, 
