450 Prof. Maskelyne and Dr. Lang's Miner alogical Notes. 



certainly in favour of the a priori assumption that the stones are 

 fragments of the same fall. To these may be added the statement 

 in the Allan Catalogue, that the fall took place in the year 1825, 

 whereas the Paulograd fall is well authenticated as having occurred 

 on May 19, 1826 — that at Bachmut having occurred on February 

 3, 1814. 



Mr. Greg has, however, so effectually disposed of these rather 

 plausible objections that I will not repeat his arguments. I 

 content myself with stating the terms in which Mr. Allan 

 described his acquisition when it was fresh in his collection, and 

 with making an observation or two of my own. Mr. Allan's 

 note, in his own handwriting, is :— 



" 1828. No. 15. Fragment of a stone weighing about 85 lbs. 

 fell in 1825 in the government of Ekatharinosloff ; the principal 

 mass is deposited in the Museum at Odessa : given me by Dr. 

 Dowler ; the texture of this stone is remarkably distinct. Polish 

 Ukrain." 



The question arises, Was Dr. Dowler likely to have made a 

 blunder between the years 1814 and 1826, rather than that the 

 1826 should have been mistaken for 1825, a very probable error 

 in a copyist? He was physician to Count Woronzow, then recently 

 appointed governor of that part of Russia, and resident at Odessa. 

 As the entry is made in 1828, the present must have been given 

 by Dr. Dowler within two years of the Paulograd fall, which 

 happened within the jurisdiction of the illustrious Russian in 

 whose service he was, and which was far more likely to have 

 excited Dr. Dowler's interest than that of 1814. 



The fall of 1814 at Bachmut consisted, I believe, of two 

 masses, severally of 40 lbs. and 20 lbs. in weight, the history of 

 which is known. This mass of 85 lbs. could hardly be confounded 

 with either of them. 



Under the microscope, the stone from the Allan Collection 

 exhibits all the characters of the sparsely chondritic class of aero- 

 lites, of which Bachmut is an example. It closely resembles this 

 latter stone in the granular material that forms the ground-mass 

 of both, though perhaps that of the Paulograd stone is the finer 

 in texture, while the isolated crystals in both stones are very 

 similar in character, but the Bachmut stone seems somewhat the 

 less rich in them. 



Their specific gravities (that of Paulograd = 3'584, and that 

 of Bachmut = 3*596) present too small a difference to support 

 any argument against their identity. I have no hesitation in 

 retaining the name and date of the Paulograd stone as the true 

 designation for the Allan aerolite, as I have entire confidence in 

 its pedigree ; and I sincerely hope soon to hear that the Vienna 

 Collection has obtained a fine mass of it from the original at 



