FEB., 1906. THE SHELBURNE METEORITE. 9 
allow it to clear the shed, if it came from the northwest. If its 
movement was in the opposite direction, 7. e. toward the north- 
west, it must have fallen nearly vertically to have avoided striking 
the roof of the porch. This fact, together with the noticeable 
throw of mud to the southeast, indicates that the path of the 
meteor was toward the southeast. If this view be correct, the 
larger stone fell first, which is contrary to the usual rule, and, con- 
trary to what would be expected, since the greater momentum of 
larger stones usually carries them farther. It is possible in this 
case that the bursting of the meteor caused a deviation of motion 
which brought the larger stone to the ground first. The accounts 
of those who saw the meteor pass seem to be of no value for deter- 
mining the direction of motion. In the reports quoted by Borg- 
strom four observers assert that the meteor was traveling north- 
west and three that it was traveling southeast. <A similar conflict 
of opinion was found by the writer to exist among those at Shel- 
burne who saw the meteor. A point on which all witnesses 
agreed, however, was that several reports were heard, at least 
as many as three. This would indicate that the meteorite broke 
into more pieces than were found. 
The stone found by Mr. Shields, and now in the possession of 
the Museum, has a shape resembling that of a flat-iron. Its length 
is Io inches (25 cm.), its width 5% inches (14 cm.) and its thickness 
3 inches (8 cm.). The several surfaces show differences of crust 
and rugosity, which indicate the orientation of the meteorite. Thus, 
of the broad surfaces, one, that shown in Plate VI, is smooth, and 
has only broad, shallow pits. This was the surface found upper- 
most when the meteorite was dug up, and is plainly the rear side 
of the meteorite. The opposite surface, shown in Plate V, is for 
the most part peppered with small, irregular pits and the crust is 
thinner. Itisnot as smooth as the side previously described. It 
seems evident from the character of the crust and the pittings 
that not only was this the front side of the meteorite in falling, 
but that a piece corresponding in outline to the rough portion was 
split off during the fall. On the lower side of the surface in 
the position in which the meteorite stands in Plate V, the in- 
terior of the meteorite is seen, over two areas, each covering about 
a square inch. Of these areas the one at the right was pro- 
duced by a piece having been chipped off for examination when 
the meteorite was first found. The one at the left, triangular in 
shape, is a natural scaling which, since it is not encrusted, must 
