in the British Museum, fyc. 539 



in the government of Ekatherinoslaw, 18.25, — the principal mass 

 being in the (?) Museum of Odessa. Now as no very precise 

 date is given, and there is a well-authenticated account of 

 a stone of 80 lbs. having fallen near Paulograd in Ekathe- 

 rinoslaw on the 19th of May 1826, it is very reasonable to 

 suppose, knowing how in such cases mistakes are not of un- 

 frequent occurrence, that 1825 is a mistake for 1826. Dr. 

 Homes and M. Haidinger of Vienna are of opinion, however, 

 that this specimen in the British Museum in all probability is 

 identical with the meteoric stone of Bachmut, also a city in the 

 government of Ekatherinoslaw, which fell on the 3rd of February 

 1814; or rather two stones are said to have fallen on that occa- 

 sion, one of 40 lbs., the other of 20 lbs. ; and they are of this 

 opinion from several reasons : first, that the stone in question 

 greatly resembles the Bachmut stone ; secondly, that there are 

 several collections which contain genuine specimens of Bachmut, 

 whereas undoubted specimens of the fall of May 19th, 1826, are 

 unknown at present ; thirdly, that no specimen either of Bach- 

 mut or Paulograd can now be found at Odessa. These reasons 

 are not, however, by any means conclusive. Dr. Buchner of 

 Giessen informs me that such a stone was seen by a scientific 

 traveller at Odessa in the year 1829, which was about the time 

 when Mr. Allan's MS. Catalogue was written • and it is very 

 possible, as Paulograd is on the high road to Odessa, that this 

 stone may have been sent to that city ; it is clear, however, that no 

 specimens went to St. Petersburg, whither specimens of Bachmut 

 found their way on an earlier occasion. It is far more probable 

 that 1825 was a mistake for 1826 than for 1814 ; and it is quite 

 as probable that specimens went to Odessa as that specimens of 

 the 1814 fall at Bachmut (about 100 miles distant) found their 

 way to St. Petersburg and Vienna. The physical appearance of 

 the stone in question certainly much resembles that of Bachmut; 

 but so do a considerable number of others : there appears to be 

 rather a greater tendency to oxidation of the metallic particles in 

 the Bachmut stone. I may add that the specimen in question 

 was presented to Mr. Allan by a Dr. Dowler. 



5. Lontalax. — The specimen of Lontalax in the British Mu- 

 seum is certainly incorrectly named, and is in all probability 

 Timocbin, 13th March 1807. It is an old specimen, having been 

 acquired by the late Mr. Koenig. Dr. Buchner says the true 

 spelling of Lontalax is Luotlaks, a place near Wiborg in Fin- 

 land. The genuine Luotlaks stone (13 Dec. 1813) is a very 

 peculiar one, and, from its trachytic nature, paucity of metallic 

 iron, and imbedded crystals of olivine, belongs to the group of 

 rare meteorites embracing those known in the catalogues as Bia- 

 lystock, Massing, Nobleborough, Managaon, and St. Petersburg. 



