VICTORIAN METEORITES, WITH NOTES ON OBSIDIANITES. 
Cohenite. — Owing to the fact that cohenite* was identified in 
the Beaconsfield meteorite by Cohen, and that it might easily be 
mistaken for schreibersite, a careful search was made for it. The 
colour and the comparatively large size of the crystals in which 
cohenite is said to occur usually, should have enabled it to have 
been fairly easily distinguished in the nickel-iron, but only in one 
instance, apart from determined schreibersite, was there anything 
noticed resembling cohenite. Unfortunately, the substance was lost 
during examination, and the question of its identity remained unsolved . 
Bayly undertook an investigation of the residues, consisting 
principally of schreibersite and rhabdite, left behind after solution 
of the nickel-iron in dilute hydrochloric acid, to ascertain whether 
they contained any cohenite. The residues were first freed from all 
non-magnetic material — mostly graphite — and then subjected to 
lengthy digestion with copper-ammonium-chloride, with the object 
of producing, if cohenite were present, the solid anthracite-like particles 
which result from the decomposition of cohenite, and which are 
said by Cohen (12, p. .307) to be sufficient evidence of its presence. 
There were, undoubtedly, a number of coaly-looking particles to be 
seen after treatment, and these deflagrated on heating to redness in 
a platinum dish, and appeared, as far as could be determined, to bear 
the physical characters ascribed by Cohen to the decomposition pro- 
duct of cohenite. It seems, therefore, extremely probable that a small 
amount of cohenite was included in the nickel-iron residues. 
Lawrencite — In marked contrast to the other meteorites from 
the same neighbourhood, the Cranbourne No. 2 appears to hive 
exuded comparatively little chloride of iron, and, as previously 
stated, practically no scaling has been observed since the specimen 
has been under observation. 1 
The presence of this iron salt was noticed when the meteorite 
i:r xa nl m f tU ; lt 1S f en to be most Pitiful on what have 
been called the fracture surfaces. The preservation of a part of 
ne original surface, on which no indication whatever of the 
action of chloride of iron could be detected, shows that that 
constituent w not evenly distributed through the specimen 
consequently its absence or comparative scarcity in one meteorite’ 
s^niLnce * ^ ^ n0t n ~ily bear any speck! 
It is evident from this that any attempt to estimate the amount 
of lawrencite present would be misleading, for the results would 
vary indefinitely, according to the part of the meteorite from which 
the samples for the test were taken. From a uioro i i 
conning of graphite, troilite, schreibersite, &e. drops of ton 
chloride exuded, after standing all night It 0 , V1 <• ! UU 1 
another place that some of the tro ilite nodules had^widentU 
* Cohenite was first described by Prof. C WeinsehenL- f — cl Cnt U 
Magura, Arva, Hungary (Ann. K.K. Hofmus., Wein, 1889, IV. j!p <M T g < 3. t ) e0rlte disc °vered at 
[ 28 ] 
