MEMOIR ON METEORITES. 
A DESCRIPTION 
El YE NEW METEORIC IRONS, 
WITH SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ORIGIN 
OF METEORITES, BASED ON THEIR PHYSICAL AND 
CHEMICAL CHARACTERS. 
By J. LAWRENCE SMIT^H,M.D., 
Professor of Chemistry in the Medical Department of the University of Louisville. 
EXTRACTED FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND ARTS, VOLUME XIX, SECOND 
NEW HAVEN: 
PRINTED BY B. L. HAMLEN, 
Printer to Yale College. 
1855. MEMOIR ON METEORITES. 
A DESCRIPTION OF FIVE NEW METEORIC IRONS, 
WITH SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ORIGIN 
OF METEORITES, BASED ON THEIR PHYSICAL AND 
CHEMICAL CHARACTERS. 
By J. LAWRENCE SMITH, M.D., 
Professor of Chemistry in the Medical Department of the University of Louisville. 
(Read before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, April, 1854.) 
1. Meteoric Iron from Tazewell County, East Tennessee.* 
This meteorite was placed in my possession through the kind- 
ness of Prof. J. B. Mitchell of Knoxville, in the month of August, 
1853. It was found by a son of Mr. Rogers living in that neigh- 
borhood, while engaged in ploughing a hill-side; his attention 
was drawn to it by its sonorous character. As it very often hap- 
pens among the less informed, it was supposed to be silver or 
to contain a large portion of that metal. With some difficulty 
the mass was procured by Prof. Mitchell, and passed over to me. 
Nothing could be ascertained as to the time of its fall; it is stated 
among the people living near where the meteorite was found, that 
a light has been often seen to emanate from and rest upon the 
hill, a belief that may have had its foundation in the observed 
fall of this body. 
The weight of this meteorite was fifty-five pounds. It is of a 
flattened shape, with numerous conchoidal indentations, and three 
annular openings passing through the thickness of the mass near 
* Notice of the discovery of this iron was given by me in 1853.—j. i. a. 2 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
the outer edge. Two or three places on the surface are flattened, 
as if other portions were attached at one time, but had been rusted 
off by a process of oxydation that has made several fissures in 
the mass so as to allow portions to be detached by the hammer; 
although when the metal is sound the smallest fragment could not 
be thus detached, it being both hard and tough. Its dimensions 
are such that it will just lie in a box 13 inches long, 11 inches 
broad and 5£ inches deep. The accompanying figure gives a 
correct idea of the appearance of this meteorite. 
The exterior is covered with oxyd of iron, in some places so 
thin as hardly to conceal the iron, in other places a quarter of an 
inch deep. Its hardness is so great that it is almost impossible to 
detach portions by means of a saw. Its color is white, owing to 
the large amount of nickel present; and a polished surface when 
acted on by hot nitric acid displays in a most beautifully regular 
manner the Widmannstattian figures. The specific gravity taken 
on three fragments,selected for their compactness and purity, is 
from 7-88 to 7-91. 
The following minerals have been found to constitute this 
meteorite : 1st. Nickeliferous iron, forming nearly the entire 
mass. 2nd. Protosulphuret of iron, found in no inconsiderable 
quantity on several parts of the exterior of the mass. 3d. Schrei- 
bersite, found more or less mixed with the pyrites and in the 
crevices of the iron, in pieces from the thickness of the blade of 
a penknife to that of the minutest particles. 4th. Olivine; two 
or three very small pieces of this mineral have been found in the 
interior of the iron. 5th. Protochlorid of iron; this mineral has 
been found in this meteorite in the solid state, which I believe 
is the first observation of this fact; it was found in a crevice J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
3 
that had been opened by a sledge hammer, and in the same crev- 
ice Schreibersite was found. Chlorid of iron is also found deli- 
quescing on the surface ; some portions of the surface are entirely 
free from it, while others again are covered with an abundance of 
rust arising from its decomposition. 
Besides the above minerals two others were found, one a sili- 
ceous mineral, the other in minute rounded black particles ; both, 
however were in too small quantity for any thing like a correct 
idea to be formed of their composition. 
The different minerals that admitted of it, were examined 
chemically, and the following are the results: 
1. Nickeliferous Iron.—The specific gravity of this iron is as 
already stated, from 7-88 to 7*91. It is not readily acted on by 
any of the acids in the cold; nitric acid, either concentrated or 
dilute, has no action on it until heated to nearly 200° Fahr., when 
the action commences, and continues with great vigor even after 
the withdrawal of heat. With reference to the action of sulphate 
of copper, it is passive; although when immersed in a solution of 
sulphate of copper, and allowed to remain for several hours.the 
latter metal deposits itself in spots on the surface of the iron. 
Thorough digestion in hot nitric acid dissolves the iron com- 
pletely. When boiled with hydrochloric acid the iron dissolves 
with the liberation of hydrogen, leaving undissolved the Schrei- 
bersite ; but by long continued action this latter is also dissolved 
with the evolution of phosphuretted hydrogen. 
The following ingredients were detected on analysis of two 
specimens: 
1. 
2. 
Iron, 
82-39 
83-02 
Nickel, 
. 15-02 
14-62 
Cobalt, 
•43 
•60 
Copper, 
•09 
•06 
Phosphorus, 
•16 
•19 
Chlorine, 
. 
•02 
Sulphur, 
. 
•08 
Silica, 
•46 
•84 
Magnesia, 
• 
•24 
98-55 
99-51 
Till and arsenic were looked for, but neither of those sub- 
stances detected. The magnesia and silica are doubtless com- 
bined, probably in the form of olivine, and disseminated in mi- 
nute particles through the iron. The phosphorus is in combina- 
tion with a given portion of iron and nickel, forming Schreibersite; 
the *16 per cent, of phosphorus corresponds to 1-15 of Schreiber- 
site: so the metal mass may be looked on as composed of 
Nickeliferous iron 98 97, Schreibersite 103=100 00. 
The composition of the nickeliferous iron corresponds to five 
atoms of iron and 1 of nickel. 
Iron, 5 atoms, . . . . 82'59 
Nickel, 1 “ .... mi=100-00 4 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
2. Protosulphuret of Iron.—This variety of sulphuret of iron 
found with meteorites is usually designated as magnetic pyrites, 
leaving it to be inferred that its composition is the same 
terrestrial variety. Without alluding to the doubt among some 
mineralogists as to the true composition of the terrestrial magnetic 
pyrites, I have only to say that most careful examination of the 
sulphuret detached from the meteorite in question proves it to 
be a protosulphuret; a conclusion to which Rammelsberg had 
already come, with reference to the pyrites of the Seelasgen iron, 
which latter pyrites I have also examined, confirming the results 
of Rammelsberg. 
This pyrites encrusts some portion of the iron, and in places is 
mixed with a little Schreibersite. It presents no distinct crystal- 
line structure, has a grey metallic lustre, and a specific gravity of 
4-75. The Seelasgen pyrites gave me for specific gravity 46S1. 
The specimen of pyrites in question gave, on analysis: 
Iron 62-38, sulphur 35-67, nickel 0*32, copper trace, silica 0-56, 
lime 0 08=98-91. 
The formula Fe S requires sulphur 36-36, iron 63-64. 
The magnetic property of this mineral is far inferior to that 
possessed by Schreibersite. 
3. Schreibersite.—It is found disseminated in small particles 
through the mass of the iron, and is made evident by the action 
of hydrochloric acid; it is also found in flakes of little size, in- 
serted as it were into the iron,* and owing to the fact that in many 
parts where it occurs chlorid of iron also exists, this last has 
caused the iron to rust in crevices, and on opening these, Schrei- 
bersite was detached mechanically. This mineral as it exists in 
the meteorite in question, so closely resembles magnetic pyrites 
that it can be readily mistaken for this latter substance; and I feel 
confident in asserting that a great deal of the so-called magnetic 
pyrites associated with various masses of meteoric iron, will upon 
examination, be found not to contain a trace of sulphur, and will 
on the contrary prove to be Schreibersite that can be easily re- 
cognised by the characters to be fully detailed a little farther on. 
Its color is yellow or yellowish-white, sometimes with a green- 
ish tinge ; lustre metallic ; hardness 6 ; specific gravity 7 017. 
No regular crystalline form was detected; its fracture in one direc- 
tion is conchoidal. It is attracted very readily by the magnet, 
even more so than magnetic oxyd of iron; it acquires polarity 
and retains it. I have a piece T\ of an inch long, T\ of an inch 
broad, and XV of an inch thick, which has retained its polarity 
over six months ; unfortunately the polarity was not tested imme- 
diately when it was detached from the iron, and not until it had 
come in contact with a magnet, so that it cannot be pronounced 
as originally polar. J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
5 
Before the blowpipe it melts readily, little blisters forming on 
the surface from the escape of chlorine, and blackens. The mag- 
net is a most ready means of distinguishing the Schreibersite from 
the pyrites commonly found in meteoric irons; for although the 
pyrites is attracted by the magnet, it is necessary that the latter 
should be brought quite near to it for the effect to be produced; 
whereas if the particles exposed to the magnet be Schreibersite, 
they will be attracted with almost the readiness of iron filings. 
Hydrochloric acid acts exceedingly slowly on this mineral when 
pulverized, with the formation of phosphuretted hydrogen. Nitric 
acid acts more vigorously,and readily dissolves it when finely 
pulverized. The composition of this substance has,in all cases 
but one, been made out from the residue of meteoric iron, after 
having been acted on by hydrochloric acid, which accounts for 
the great variation in the statements of the proportion of its con- 
stituents. 
Mr. Fisher examined pieces of Schreibersite detached from the 
Braunau iron, with the following results: Iron 55-430, nickel 
25 015, phosphorus 11-722, chrome 2-850, carbon 1-156, silex 
0-985 = 98-158. 
The results of my analyses do not differ very materially from 
this; they are as follows : 
1. 
2. 
3. 
Iron, 
57-22 
5604 
56-53 
Nickel, 
. 25-82 
26-43 
2802 
Cobalt, 
0-32 
0-41 
0-28 
Copper, 
. trace 
not estimated. 
Phosphorus, . 
1392 
14-86 
Silica, 
1-62 
Alumina, 
1'63 
Zinc, 
. trace 
not estimated. 
Chlorine, 
0-13 
100-66 
99-69 
Nos. 1 and 2 were separated mechanically from the iron. No. 
3 chemically. The silica, alumina and lime were almost entirely 
absent from No. 3, and in the other specimen they are due to a sili- 
ceous mineral that I have found attached in small particles to the 
Schreibersite. There is no essential difference in my results, yet 
in neither instance do I suppose the mineral was obtained per- 
fectly pure ; although enough so, it is believed, to furnish the 
correct chemical formula; and, as from what has been previously 
said, Schreibersite will be found to exist in larger quantities than 
it was suspected, it will not be long before the question of the 
uniformity of its composition will be settled, a point of interest 
bearing upon the theoretical consideration of meteoric stones. 
The formula of Schreibersite, I consider to be Ni2Fe4P. 
Phosphorus, 
. 1 atom 
Per cent. 
15-47 
Nickel, 
2 “ 
29-17 
Iron, . 
4 “ 
55-36 6 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
This mineral, although not usually much dwelt upon when 
speaking of meteorites, is decidedly the most interesting one asso- 
ciated with this class of bodies, even more so than the nickelifer- 
ous iron. It has no representative in genus or species among ter- 
restrial minerals, and is one possessed of highly interesting prop- 
erties. Although among terrestrial minerals phosphates are found, 
not a single phosphuret is known to exist ; so true is 
with our present anyone thing could convince me 
more strongly than another of the non-terrestrial origin of any 
natural body, it would be the presence of this or some similar 
phosphuret. It is commonly alluded to as a residue from the ac- 
tion of hydrochloric acid upon meteoric iron: when in fact it ex- 
ists in plates and fragments of some size in almost all meteoric 
iron; and there is reason to believe that it is never absent from 
any of them in some form or other: what is meant by “ some 
size” is, that it is in pieces large enough to be seen by the naked 
eye, and to be detached mechanically. 
In an examination of the meteoric specimens in the Yale Col- 
lege Cabinet, more than half of them have been discovered to 
contain Schreibersite visible to the eye, that had been considered 
pyrites. Among them, the large Texas meteorite was examined, 
and although none was visible on the surface, a small fragment 
of the same mass given me by Prof. Silliman, contains a piece of 
Schreibersite of over a grain weight. 
The reason why it has not attracted more attention, arises from 
its resemblance to pyrites; I will therefore state a ready manner 
of telling whether it be such or not. 
Detach a small fragment, and hold a magnet capable of sustain- 
ing five or six ounces or more, within half an inch or an inch 
of the fragment, if it be Schreibersite it will be attracted with 
great readiness; the magnetic pyrites requiring a very close ap- 
proximation of the magnet before attracted. This, with some 
little experience, becomes a ready method of separating the two. 
It is not, however, to be expected that this method alone, is to 
satisfy us, when other means can be appealed to for distinguishing 
this mineral; the following is one which is readily accomplished 
with the smallest fragment (half a milligramme). Melt in a small 
loop of platinum wire, a little carbonate of soda, add the small- 
est fragment of nitrate of soda and the piece of mineral, hold the 
mixture in the flame of a lamp for two or three minutes; place 
the bead of soda in a watch glass, add a little water and filter; 
to the filtrate add a drop or two of acid to neutralize the excess 
of carbonate of soda; evaporate nearly to dryness ; add a drop of 
ammonia, and then a drop of ammoniacal sulphate of magnesia, 
when the double phosphate of magnesia and ammonia will show 
itself, and the crystalline form will be recognised under the micro- 
scope. If the piece examined be several milligrammes in weight, J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
7 
the operation can be carried on in a small platinum capsule. This 
reaction can also be had by acting on the mineral, however small 
the piece, by aqua-regia, evaporate until only a little of the liquid 
is left, add a little tartaric acid, then a drop or two of ammonia 
to supersaturate the acid, and lastly a little ammoniacal sulphate 
of magnesia, when the crystals of the double phosphate of mag- 
nesia and ammonia will appear. 
4. Protochlorid of Iron.—In breaking open one of the fissures 
of this meteoric iron, a small amount of a green substance was 
obtained, that was easily soluble in water, and although not 
analyzed quantitatively, it left no doubt upon my mind as to its 
being protochlorid of iron ; and the manner of its Occurrence gave 
strong evidence of its being an original constituent of the mass, 
and not formed since the fall of the mass. Chlorid of iron was 
apparent on various parts of the iron by its deliquescence on the 
surface. 
2. Meteoric Iron from Campbell County, Tenn. 
This meteorite was discovered in July, 1853, in Campbell 
County, Tennessee, in Stinking Creek, which flows down one 
of the narrow valleys of the Cumberland mountains. It was 
found by a Mr. Arnold in the channel of this stream, and having 
been obtained by Prof. Mitchell of Knoxville, he kindly pre- 
sented it to me. It is a small oval mass 2|- inches long, If broad, 
and f thick, with an irregular surface and several cavities perfo- 
rating the mass. It was covered with a thin coat of oxyd ; and 
on one half of it chlorid of iron was deliquescing from the sur- 
face, while on another portion there was a thin siliceous coating. 
The iron composing the mass was quite tough, highly crys- 
talline, and exhibited small cavities on being broken, resembling 
very much in this respect, as welt as in many other points, the 
Hommony Creek iron; a polished surface,when etched, exhib- 
ited distinct irregular Widmannstattian figures. 
The weight is 4£ ounces. Specific gravity, 7-05. The low- 
ness of the specific gravity is accounted for by its porous nature. 
Composition— 
Iron, ...... 9P54 
Nickel, ...... 025 
Cobalt, ...... 06 
Copper, too small to be estimated. 
Carbon, ...... 1-50 
Phosphorus, , . . . . O'12 
Silica, ...... T05 
100-52 
Chlorine exists in some parts in minute proportion. The 
amount of nickel, it will be seen is quite small, but its composi- 
tion is nevertheless perfectly characteristic of its origin. 8 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
3. Meteoric Iron from Coahuila, Mexico. 
This meteorite was brought to this country by Lieut. Gouch, 
of the U. S. Army, he having obtained 'it at Saltillo. It was 
said to have come from the Sancha estate, some fifty or sixty 
miles from Santa Rosa in the north of Coahuila; various ac- 
counts were given of the precise locality, but none seemed very 
satisfactory. When first seen by Lieut. Gouch, it was used as 
an anvil, and had been originally intended for the Society of Ge- 
ography and Statistics in the city of Mexico. It is stated that 
where this mass was found, there are many others of enormous 
size ; these stones, however, it is well known, are to be received 
with many allowances. Mr. Weidner, of the mines of Freiberg, 
states that near the southwestern edge of the Balson de Mapimi, 
on the route to the mines of Parral, there is a meteorite near the 
road of not less than a ton weight. Lieut. Gouch also states 
that the intelligent but almost unknown Dr. Berlandier, writes in 
his journal of the commission of limits, that at the Hacienda of 
Yenagas there was (1827) a piece of iron that would make a cyl- 
inder one yard in length with a diameter of ten inches. It was 
said to have been brought from the mountains near the Hacienda. 
It presented no crystalline structure, and was quite ductile. 
The meteoric mass in question, which is at the Smithsonian 
Institution, is of the form represented in the figure, and one Avell 
adapted for an anvil. Its weight is 252 lbs., and from several 
flattened places, I am led to suppose that pieces have become de- 
tached. The surface, although irregular in some places, is rather 
smooth, with only here and there thin coatings of rust, and, as 
might be expected, but very feeble evidence of chlorine, and that 
only on one or two spots on the surface. Specific gravity 7-81. 
It is highly crystalline, quite malleable, and not difficult to cut 
with the saw. Its surface etched with nitric acid, presents the 
Widmannstattian figures, with a finely specked surface between J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
9 
the lines, resembling the representation we have of the etched 
surface of Hauptmannsdorf iron. Schreibersite is visible in the 
iron, but so inserted in the mass, that it cannot be readily detected 
by mechanical means. Hydrochloric acid leaves a residue of 
beautifully brilliant patches of this mineral. 
Subjected to analysis, it was found to contain 
Iron, 95*82 
Cobalt, -35 
Nickel, 3" 18 
Copper, minute quantity not estimated. 
Phosphorus, 0*24 
99*59 
Which* corresponds to 
Nickeliferous Iron, 98-45 
Schreibersite, 155 
lOO'OO 
The iron is remarkably free from other constituents. It is es- 
pecially interesting as the largest mass of meteoric iron in this 
country next to the Texas meteorite at Yale College. 
4. Meteoric Iron from Tucson, Mexico. 
We have had several accounts of meteoric masses which exist 
at Tucson; Dr. J. L. LeConte having made them known some few 
years ago. Since that time Mr. Bartlett, of the Boundary Com- 
mission, has seen them and made a drawing of one which he has 
kindly allowed me the use of, as well as the manuscript* notice 
of them, which is however, quite brief. This mass is used for 
an anvil, resembles native iron, and weighs about six hundred 
pounds. Its greatest length is five feet. Its exterior is quite 
smooth, while the lower part which projects from the larger leg 
is very jagged aud rough. It was found about twenty miles dis- 
tant towards Tubac. and about eight miles from the road where 
we are told are many larger masses. The following figure (3) 
represents the appearance of that meteorite. 
Since my communication last April, I have obtained fragments 
of the meteorite from Lieut. Jno. G. Parke, of the U. S. Topo- 
graphical Engineers, who cut them from the mass at Tucson, 
and to whose kindness I feel much indebted. 
Some of the fragments were entirely covered with rust, and 
in some parts, little blisters existed, arising from chlorid of iron. 
Portions of the broken surface retain their metallic lustre untar- 
nished. The Widmannstattian figures are very imperfectly de- 
veloped, owing to the porous nature of the iron, the pores of 
which are filled with a stony mineral. The specific gravity 
taken on three specimens were 6*52—6-91—713. The last was 
the most compact and free from stony particles that could be 
found, and upon that the chemical examination was made. 
* Since this was communicated to the American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science, Mr. Bartlett’s valuable and instructive work, entitled “ Personal 
Narrative of Explorations in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua,” 
has been published in two handsome octavo volumes, by the Messrs. Appleton’s, 
New York: and we are indebted to the publishers for the use of Mr. Bartlett’s fine 
cuts on the following pages.—j. l. s. 10 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
On examination it is seen to consist of two distinct parts, me- 
tallic and stony; the latter was only in minute particles, yet it 
was impossible, among the specimens at my disposal, to find a 
piece that was without it. On analysis, the following ingredients 
were found: 
Iron, . . . 85-54 
Nickel, . . . 8-55 
Cobalt, . . . "61 
Copper, . . . ‘03 
Phosphorus, . . ‘12 
Chromic oxyd, . . "21 
Magnesia, . . . 2 04 
Silica, . . . 302 
Alumina. . . . trace 
100-12 
Which represent the following minerals: 
Nickeliferous iron, . 93-81 
Chrome iron, . . "41 
Schreibersite, . • '84 
Olivine, . . . 506 
100-12 
Some few particles of olivine were separated mechanically, 
and readily recognised as such under the magnifying glass in con- 
nection with the action of acids, which readily decompose it, fur- 
nishing silica and magnesia. Some of the olivine is in a pulver- 
ulent condition, resembling that of the Atacama iron. The nick- 
eliferous iron of this Tucson meteorite also resembles that of the 
Atacama iron ; calculated from the above results, it consists of 
Iron 90 91, nickel 8-46, cobalt*63, copper, trace= 10000. 
This meteorite* is one of much interest, and it is to be hoped 
that some of our enterprising U. S. Topographical Engineers 
* Since my notice of this meteorite, Prof. C. IT. Shepard has published (Am. 
Journal of Science, Nov. 1854) an account of it, not aware of my communication to 
the Am. Assoc. He seems inclined to think that the stony material might be chlad- 
nite, although he could form no definite conclusion on this head. From what has J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
11 
will yet be able to persuade the owners to part with it and bring 
it to this country. 
5. Meteoric Iron of Chihuahua, Mexico. 
For the description of this meteorite, I am indebted to the 
manuscript of Mr. Bartlett, and had hoped to have obtained a 
fragment of it for examination from Dr. Webb, who detached 
pieces from the mass; but when applied to, they were no longer 
in his possession. It exists at the Hacienda de Conception, about 
ten miles from Zapata. “ The form is irregular. Its greatest 
height is forty-six inches ; greatest breadth thirty-seven inches ; 
circumference in thickest part eight feet three inches. Its weight 
as given by Senor Urquida, is about three thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty-three pounds. It is irregular in form, as seen by the 
figure ; and one side is filled with deep cavities, generally round 
and of various dimensions. At its lower part, as it now stands, 
is a projecting leg, quite similar to the one on the meteorite at 
Tucson. The back or broadest part is less jagged than the other 
portions, and contains fewer cavities, yet, like the rest, is very 
irregular.” 
been said in the text, it will be seen to be olivine, the chladnite of the Bishopville 
stone not being attacked by acid, or only to a very feeble extent, by boiling sul- 
phuric acid. And I would here remark that from some investigations just made, 
chladnite is likely to prove a pyroxene.—j. l. s. 12 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONNECTED 
WITH METEORITES. 
Under this head no mention will be made of the phenomena 
accompanying the fall of meteorites, as their light, noise, burst- 
ing, and their black coating ; which arise after the bodies have 
entered the atmosphere, and are brought about by its agency. 
This omission will affect in no way the theoretical views under 
consideration, and the introduction of these particulars would 
uselessly increase the length of this memoir. 
The lessons to be learned from meteorites, both stony and me- 
tallic, are probably not as much appreciated as they ought to be; 
we are usually satisfied with an analysis of them and surmises as 
to their origin, without due consideration of their physical and 
chemical characters. 
The great end of science is to generalize facts that are ob- 
served. Thus terrestrial gravitation has been extended to the 
solar system, and in fact to the whole universe. The astronomer 
by his discoveries only proves the universality of this one law 
of nature operating on matter; he has found no evidence that 
any other force pertaining to terrestrial matter displays itself in a 
similar manner in other spheres. However true and self-evident 
it may appear that all matter in space is under the same laws, 
be they those of gravitation, cohesion, chemical affinity, etc., it 
is none the less interesting to have the fact proved, and meteor- 
ites when looked upon as bringing these proofs acquire addi- 
tional interest. 
Meteorites studied in the way just mentioned, lead us to the 
inference that the materials of the earth are exact representatives 
of the materials of our system; for up to the present time, no ele- 
ment has been found in a meteorite that has not its counterpart 
on the earth ; or, if we are not warranted in making such a broad 
assumption, we certainly have the proof, as far as we may ever 
expect to get it, that materials of other portions of the universe are 
identical with those of our earth. 
Meteorites also show that the laws of crystallization in bodies 
foreign to the earth, are the same as those affecting terrestrial 
matter, and in this connection we may instance pyroxene, olivine 
and chrome iron, affording, in their crystalline form.angles identical 
with those of terrestrial origin. 
But perhaps of all the interesting facts under this head developed 
by meteorites, is the universality of the laws of chemical affinity, 
or the truth, that all the laws of chemical combination and atomic J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
13 
constitution are to be equally well seen in extra-terestrial and 
terrestrial matter; so that were Dalton or Berzelius to seek for the 
atomic weights of iron, silica or magnesia they might learn them 
as well from meteoric minerals as from those taken from the bowels 
of the earth. The atomic constitution of meteoric anorthite or of 
pyroxene is the same as that which exists in our own rocks. 
Keeping in view then the physical and chemical characters of 
meteorites, I propose to offer some theoretical considerations, 
which, to be fully appreciated, must be followed step by step. 
These views are not offered, because they individually possess 
particular novelty ; it is the manner in which they are combined, 
to which especial attention is called. 
Physical Characteristics to he noted in Meteorites.—The first 
physical characteristic to be noted is their form. No masses of rock, 
however rudely detached from a quarry, or blasted from the side 
of a mountain, or ejected from the mouth of a volcano, would 
present more diversity of form than meteoric stones : they are 
rounded, cubical, oblong, jagged, flattened, and in fine they pre- 
sent a great variety of fantastic shapes. Now the fact of form 
I conceive to be a most important point for consideration in re- 
gard to the origin of these bodies; as the form alone is strong 
proof that the individual meteorites have not always been cos- 
mical bodies? for had they been, their form must have been spher- 
ical or spheroidal; as this is not so it is reasonable to suppose 
that at one time or another, they must have constituted a part 
of some larger mass. But as this subject will be taken up again, 
I pass to another point—namely the crystalline more 
especially that of the iron; and the complete separation in nod- 
ules, in the interior of the iron, of sulphuret and phosphuret of 
the metals constituting the mass. When this is properly exam- 
ined, it is seen that these bodies must have been in a plastic state 
for a great length of time; for nothing else could have determined 
such crystallization as we see in the iron, and allow such perfect 
separation of sulphur and phosphorus from the great bulk of the 
metal, combining only with a limited portion to form particular 
minerals ; and did we aim to imitate such separation by artificial 
processes, we could only hope to do it by retaining the iron in a 
plastic condition for a great length of time. Also, no other agent 
than fire can be conceived of by which this metal could be kept 
in the condition requisite for the separation. 
If these facts with reference to the crystalline structure be ad- 
mitted, the natural suggestion is that they could only have been 
thus heated while a part of some large body. 
Another physical worthy of being noticed here, is the 
manner in which the metallic iron and stony parts are often inter- 
laced and mixed; as in the Pallas and Atacama irons, where 
nickeliferous iron and olivine in nearly equal portions (by bulk) 14 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
are intimately mixed,* so that when the olivine is detached the 
iron resembles a very coarse sponge. This is an additional fact 
in proof of the great heat to which the meteorites must have been 
submitted; for with our present knowledge of physical laws, there 
is no other way in which we can conceive that such a mixture of 
iron and olivine could have been produced. 
Other physical points might be noticed, but as they are famil- 
iar to all, and would add nothing to the theoretical considerations, 
they will be passed over. 
Mineralogicnl and Chemical points to he noted in Meteorites. 
—The rocks or minerals of meteorites are not of a sedimentary 
character, not such as are produced by the action of water. This 
is obvious to any one who will examine these bodies. A mineralo- 
gist will also be struck with the thin dark-colored coating on the 
surface of the stony meteorites. The coating, in mostj if not in 
all, of atmospheric origin, being acquired after the 
meteorite enters the atmosphere, and as such, no further notice 
will be taken of it; but I will proceed at once to notice the most 
interesting peculiarities under this head. First of all, metallic 
with more or less nickel and cobalt, is of constant 
occurrence in meteorites,—with but three or four exceptions,—in 
some instances constituting the entire mass; at other times dis- 
seminated in fine particles through stony matter. The existence 
of this highly oxydizable mineral in its metallic condition is a pos- 
itive indication of a scarcity, or total absence, of oxygen (in its 
gaseous state or in the form of water) in the locality from whence 
it came. 
Another mineralogical character of significance is, that the 
stony portions of the meteorites resemble the older igneous rocks, 
and in even a more striking manner, the volcanic rocks belonging 
to various active and extinct volcanoes. It is useless to dwell on 
this fact; as it is one well known to all mineralogists who may have 
examined this matter; and none have given more especial atten- 
tion to it than Rammelsberg,who,in a paper published in 1849, 
details his examination of a great variety of lavas, and traced 
the perfect parallelism between them and stony meteorites. He 
showed that the Juvenas stone has the same constitution as the 
Thjorsa lava of Heckla, both consisting substantially of augite 
and anorthite, even in nearly the same relative proportions ; while 
the Chateau Renard and Nordhausen stones, have labradorite re- 
placing the anorthite ; and the Blansko, Chantonnay and Utrecht 
stones have oligoclase as the feldspar, and resemble the lavas of 
.iEtna, Slromboli and the newer lavas of Heckla. 
The inference to be drawn from the last character is very evi- 
dent; it is highly significative of the igneous origin of these bod- 
ies, and of ati igneous action similar to that now existing in our 
volcanoes. J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
15 
Yet another point of resemblance to certain of onr terrestrial 
igneous rocks is the presence of metallic iron; for lately Mr. An- 
drews has proved the existence of metallic iron in basaltic rocks; 
but this will not be insisted on; as the quantity of iron discovered 
in basaltic rocks is so minute as only to be. detected by the most 
delicate means of investigation. 
Ever since the labors of Howard in 1802, the chemical consti- 
tution of meteorites attracted much attention, more espe- 
cially the elements associated in the metallic portion; and although 
we find no new elements, still their association, so far as yet 
known, is peculiar to this class of bodies. Thus nickel is a con- 
stant associate of iron in meteorites, (if we except the Walke 
Co., Ala., and Oswego, N. Y., meteorites,upon whose claims to 
meteoric origin there yet remains some doubt) ; and although co- 
balt and copper are mentioned only as occasional associates in my 
examination of near thirty known meteorites (in more than 
one-half of which these constituents were not mentioned), 1 have 
found both of the last mentioned metals as constantly as the 
nickel. With our more recent method of separating cobalt from 
nickel, very accurate and precise results can be obtained as relates 
to the cobalt; the copper exists always in so minute propor- 
tion that the most careful manipulation is required to separate it. 
Another element,frequently, but not always, mentioned as asso- 
ciated with the iron, is phosphorus. Here again my testing of 
thirty specimens me to a similar generalization concerning 
phosphorus; namely, that no meteoric iron is to be expected with- 
out it; my examination has extended as well to the metallic par- 
ticles separated from the stony meteorites as to the meteoric irons 
proper. It may be even further stated that, in most instances, the 
phosphorus was traceable directly to the mineral Schreibersite. 
These four elements then, Iron, Nickel, Cobalt and Phospho- 
rus, I consider remarkably constant in the me- 
teoric irons proper, and secondly in the metallic particles of the 
stony meteorites ; there being only some three or four meteorites 
among hundreds that are known, in which they are not recog- 
nized. 
As regards the combination of these elements, it is worthy of 
remark that no one of them is associated with oxygen, although 
all four of them have strong affinity for this element, and are never 
found (except copper) in the earth uncombined with it, except 
where some similar element (as sulphur, &c.) supplies its place.* 
The inference of the absence of oxygen in a gaseous condi- 
tion, or in water, is drawn from such substances as iron and 
nickel being in their metallic state, as has been just mentioned j 
* The traces of iron found in basaltic rock already alluded to, forms too insignifi- 
cant- an exception to be insisted on.—j. l. s. 16 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
bat it mast not be inferred that oxygen is absent in all forms at 
the place of origin of the meteorites; for the silica, magnesia, pro- 
toxyd of iron, &c., contain this element. The occurrence of one 
class of oxyds and not another would indicate a limited supply 
of the element oxygen; the more oxydizable elements as silicon, 
magnesium, &c., having appropriated it in preference to the iron. 
Many other elements worthy of notice might be mentioned 
here, and some of them for aught we know may be constant in- 
gredients; but in the absence of strong presumption at least on 
this head, they will be passed over; as those already mentioned 
suffice for the support of all theoretical views to be advanced. 
I cannot, however, avoid calling attention to the presence of 
carbon in certain meteorites; for, although its existence is denied 
by some chemists, it is nevertheless a fact that can be as easily 
established as the presence of the nickel. The interest to be 
attached to it, is due to the fact that it is so commonly regarded 
in the light of an organic element. It serves to strengthen 
the notion that carbon can be of pure mineral origin; for no 
one would be likely to suppose that the carbon found its way 
into a meteorite either directly or indirectly from an organic 
source. 
Having thus noted the predominant physical, mineralogical 
and chemical characteristics of meteorites I pass on to the next 
head. 
Marked points of similarity in the Constitution of Meteoric 
Stones.—Had this class of bodies not possessed certain proper- 
ties distinguishing them from terrestrial minerals, much doubt 
would even now be entertained of their celestial origin, and va- 
rious would be the explanations, made even in those cases where 
the bodies were seen to fall and afterwards collected. Chemistry 
has entirely dissipated all doubts in the matter, and now, an ex- 
amination in the laboratory of the chemist is entitled to more 
credit than evidence from any other source in pronouncing on 
the meteoric origin of a body. No question need be asked as to 
whether it was seen to fall, or whether this or that rock or mineral 
exists in the neighborhood where it may have been collected. 
The reagents of the chemist alone are unerring indications that 
suffice to set aside all caviling in the matter. 
It is the object of this part of the paper to explain more 
prominently perhaps than has yet been done, how it is that chem- 
istry pronounces with such unerring certainty on the celestial origin 
of certain bodies; and I propose to go even a step farther, and see 
if the chemical constitution of the meteorites can indicate from 
what part of the heavens they may have come. 
When the mineralogical and chemical composition of these 
bodies are regarded, the most ordinary observer will be struck J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
17 
with the wonderful family likeness running through them all, 
however unlike at first sight. There will be seen to be three 
great divisions of meteoric bodies (omitting three or four), namely 
—metallic ; stony with small particles of metal; and a mixture of 
metallic and stony in which the former predominates, as in the 
Pallas and Atacama meteorites. 
As regards external appearances, these three classes differ 
in a very marked manner from each othery /he meteoric iron 
being ordinarily of a compact structure, more or less corroded ex- 
ternally, and when cut showing a dense structure with most of the 
peculiarities of pure iron, only a little harder in texture and whiter 
in color. The stony meteorites are usually of a grey or greenish 
grey color, granular structure, readily broken by a blow of the 
hammer, and exteriorly are-covered with a thin coating of fused 
material. The mixed meteorite presents characters of both of the 
above ; a large portion of it is constituted of the kind of iron al- 
ready mentioned, cellular in its character, and the cells filled up 
with stony materials, similar in appearance to those constituting 
the second class. 
Although there are some instances of bodies of undoubted 
meteoric origin not properly falling under either of the above 
three heads, still they will be seen upon close investigation not to 
interfere in any way with the general conclusions that are at- 
tempted to be arrived at; for these constituents are represented in 
the stony materials of the second class,from which their only es- 
sential difference consists in the absence of metallic particles. 
If we now examine chemically the three classes mentioned, 
we find them all possessed of certain common characteristics that 
link them together and at the same time separate them from every 
thing terrestrial. Take first the metallic masses : and in very 
many instances, in some fissure or cavity, exposed by sawing or 
otherwise, stony materials will frequently be found, and a stony 
crystal is sometimes exposed; now examine the composition of 
these, and then compare the results with what may be known of 
the stony meteorites; and in every instance, it will agree with some 
mineral or minerals found in this latter class, as olivine or pyrox- 
ene, most commonly the former; but in no instance is it a min- 
eral not found in the stony meteorites. If these last, in their 
turn, be examined, differing vastly in their appearance from the 
metallic meteorites, they but two or three exceptions, 
be found to contain a malleable metal identical in composition 
with the metal constituting the metallic meteorites. 
As to those mixed meteorites in which the metallic and stony 
portions seem to be equally distributed ; their two elements are 
but representatives of the two classes just described. Examined 
in this way there will be no difficulty in tracing the same signa- 18 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
ture on them all, endorsing the above as their true character, and 
almost serving to tell us whence they came. They may emphat- 
ically be said to have been linked in their origin by a chain 
of iron. 
There is one mineral which there is every reason to believe 
constantly accompanies the metallic portions, and which may be 
regarded as a most peculiar mark of difference between meteor- 
ites and terrestrial bodies. Jt is the mineral Schreibersite (see 
first part of this memoir) to which the constant presence of phos- 
phorus in meteoric iron is due. This mineral,as already re- 
marked, has no parallel on the face of the globe, whether we con- 
sider its specific or generic character,' there being no such thing 
as phosphuret of iron and nickel or any other phosphuret found 
among minerals. These facts render the consideration of Schrei- 
bersite one of much interest,* running as it probably does through 
all meteorites, and forming another point of separation between 
meteorites and terrestrial objects. 
Another striking similarity in the composition of meteorites is 
the limited action of oxygen on them. In the case of the purely 
metallic meteorites we trace an almost total absence of this ele- 
ment. In the stony meteorites, the oxygen is in combination with 
silicon, magnesium, &c., forming silica, magnesia, &c., that com- 
bine with small portions of other substances to form the predomin- 
ant earthy minerals of meteorites. When iron is found in com- 
bination with oxygen, it is found in its lowest state of oxydation 
as in the protoxyd of the olivine and chrome iron, and as mag- 
netic oxyd. 
Without going further into detail as regards the similarity of 
composition of meteorites, they will be seen to have as strongly 
marked points of resemblance as minerals coming from the same 
mountain, I might almost say from the same mine; and it is not 
asking much to admit their having a common centre of originfand 
that whatever the body from which they originate, it must con- 
tain no uncombined oxygen and I might even add none in the 
form of water. 
What is this centre of origin ? Physics does not point it out; 
and although the chemist cannot explore the elementary constitu- 
tion of any other great celestial bodies than the earth, he can 
examine those smaller celestial masses which come to the earth, 
and from his results stand on a firmer basis for theoretical con- 
clusions. 
Origin of Meteoric Stones.—In taking up the theoretical con- 
siderations of the origin of meteoric stones, it is of the utmost 
consequence, to reflect well before we confound shooting stars 
and meteoric stones as all belonging to the same class of bodies; 
a view entertained by many distinguished observers. It is doubt- 
less owing to the fact of their having been confounded that but J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
19 
little advance has been made in settling upon the origin of these 
bodies ; in fact, owing to this manner of viewing the subject, 
observers such as Arago, Bissel, Olbers and others have turned 
away from the original conception of the origin of meteoric 
stones to views of a different character based on observations of 
the shooting stars. 
It may be a broad assumption to start with, that there is not a 
single evidence of the identity of shooting stars (as exemplified 
by the periodical meteors of August and November) and 
meteors which give rise to meteoric stones, and this conclusion 
is one arrived at by as full an examination of the subject as I am 
capable of making.* Some of the prominent reasons for such a 
conclusion will be mentioned. 
Were shooting stars and meteoric stones the same class of bod- 
ies, it is natural to suppose that the fall of the latter would be 
most abundant when the former are most numerous. In other 
words these periodic occurrences of shooting stars in August and 
November and more particularly those immense showers that 
have been sometimes seen, ought to have been attended with the 
falling of one or more meteoric stones; whereas there is not a 
single instance on record where these showers have been accom- 
panied with the falling of a meteoric stone. Again, in all in- 
stances where a meteoric body has been seen tofall,and has been 
observed even from its very commencement, it has been alone and 
not accompanied by other meteors. Very little reflection will 
serve to convince any one that an objection to the identity of 
the two classes of bodies based upon the above fact is of great 
weight. 
Another strong objection to considering the bodies of the same 
nature, is based on the want of proof of their velocities being the 
same. It is a pretty well established fact that the average velo- 
city of shooting stars is 16£ miles a second, a result arrived at by 
different observers, and doubtless a close approximation to the 
truth; as from the constant occurrence of shooting stars, thou- 
sands of observations may be made with comparative ease by 
different observers noting the same stars: not so with meteoric 
stones, these occurrences being rare, sudden and unexpected, 
and no two observers being ever prepared to note the data requi- 
site for calculating their velocities; besides I am prepared to prove 
that the two or three cases of supposed determination of veloci- 
ties of meteoric stones cannot be considered even gross approxi- 
mation to the truth: in fact the difficulties in the way are so 
great that we probably never shall arrive at a knowledge of their 
* Prof. D. Olmsted jn a most interesting article on the subject of meteors, to be 
found in the 26th volume of the Am. Journal of Science, p. 132, insists upon the 
difference between shooting stars and meteorites, and the time and attention he has 
devoted to the phenomena of meteors give weight to his opinion.. 20 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
velocities.* Not even their effect on striking the earthf will furnish 
any data whereby to calculate their velocities before entering the 
atmosphere,* for this medium must offer such enormous resistance 
to bodies penetrating at great velocities, that these velocities must 
be reduced, to but a fraction of what they originally were* and it 
is a question whether a body entering our atmosphere at ten miles 
a second would penetrate the soil to a much greater depth than 
one entering it at five miles a second; for the increased velocity 
of the former would cause an increased resistance in the atmo- 
sphere»and therefore have received proportionally a greater check 
before striking the earth. 
Another fact tending to prove a dissimilarity between shooting 
stars and meteoric stones, is that the velocity of no one of the 
shooting stars has been observed to be so low as to allow of their 
being considered satellites to the earth ; their average velocity is 
16£ miles a second and it requires a reduction to less than six 
miles a second for them to assume a path around the earth. Now, 
assume what we may as to the original orbit of the meteoric 
stones, and as to their original velocity—let their orbit be around 
the sun and their velocity 16 miles a second—there is one thing 
we know, namely that these bodies do enter our atmosphere, and, 
it is but right to assume, often pass through the atmosphere with- 
out falling to the earth, sometimes passing through the very up- 
permost portion of that medium, at other times lower. What 
becomes of their original assumed velocity after this passage ? 
As it can be so checked as to be drawn to the earth’s surface, and 
thus stopped altogether in its passage, their velocities may be 
changed to any velocity from 16 miles a second to zero, accord- 
ing to the amount of resistance it meets with ; and what is equally 
true in this connection, is, that when the velocity falls below six 
miles a second (or thereabouts) they can no longer escape from 
the attraction of the earth and resume their solar orbit, but must 
revolve as a satellite around the earth until ultimately brought 
to its surface by repeated disturbances. 
The deduction from the above fact, is as follows : that as the 
most correct observations have never given a velocity of less than 
* Under this head I will merely note what is considered one of the best established 
cases of the determination of velocity of a meteoric stone—namely that of the Weston 
meteorite the velocity of which Dr. Bowditch estimated to “ exceed three miles a sec- 
ond." Mr. Herrick considers the velocity very much greater, and writes among other 
things what tollows. “ The length of its path from the observations made at Rutland, 
Vt„ and at Weston was at least 107 miles. This space being divided by the duration 
of the flight as estimated by two observers, viz., 30 seconds, we have for the mete- 
or's relative velocity about three and a half miles a second. The observations made 
at Wenham, Mass., are probably less exact in this respect and need not be men- 
tioned here. An experienced observer, however intelligent, will give the time ten 
or even twenty fold too large. One not unversed in science who saw the meteor is 
confident it could not have been in sight as long as ten seconds.” The above is given 
as a specimen of the uncertain data we are to proceed upon in estimating the ve- 
locity of meteoric stones. J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
21 
nine miles a second to a shooting star, it is reasonable to suppose 
that none have ever entered onr atmosphere,* or what is perhaps still 
more reasonable, that the matter of which they are composed is 
as subtle as that of Encke’s comet; and any contact with even 
the uppermost limit of the atmosphere/ destroys their velocity 
and disperses the matter of which they are composed. Other 
grounds might be mentioned for supposing a difference between 
shooting stars and meteoric stones; and I have dwelt on it thus 
it is conceived of prime importance in pursuing 
the correct path that is to lead to the discovery (if it can be made) 
of their origin. It is also of no small value to the beautiful and 
probable theory of shooting stars that we should separate every 
thing from it that may tend to affect its plausibility. 
Various theories have been devised to account for their origin. 
One is that they are small planetary bodies revolving around the 
sun, and that at times they become entangled in our atmosphere 
lose their orbital velocity by the resistance of the atmosphere and 
are finally attracted to the earth. They are also supposed to 
have been ejected from the volcanoes of the moon : and lastly 
they are considered as formed from particles floating in the at- 
mosphere. The exact nature of this last theory* is understood by 
reading the views of Prof. C. U. Shepard, as expressed in an in- 
teresting report on meteorites published in 1848. The author* 
says—“ The extra-terrestrial origin of meteoric stones and iron 
masses, seems likely to be more and more called in question with 
the advance of knowledge respecting such substances,and as ad- 
ditions continue to be made to the connected sciences. Great 
electrical excitation is known to accompany volcanic eruptions, 
which may reasonably be supposed to occasion some chemical 
changes in the volcanic ashes ejected ; these being wafted by the 
ascensional force of the eruption into the regions of the magneto- 
polar influence, may there undergo a species of magnetic analy- 
sis. The most highly magnetic elements, (iron, nickel, cobalt, 
chromium,. &c.,) or compounds in which these predominate, 
would thereby be separated, and become suspended in the form 
of metallic dust, forming those columnar clouds so often illumin- 
ated in auroral displays, and whose position conforms to the direc- 
tion of the dipping needle. While certain of the diamagnetic 
elements, (or combinations of them,) on the other hand, may un- 
der the control of the same force be collected into different masses, 
taking up a position at right angles to the former, (which Fara- 
day has shown to be the fact in respect to such bodies,) and thus 
produce those more or less regular arches, transverse to the mag- 
netic meridian, that are often recognized in the phenomena of the 
aurora borealis. 
* I must in justice to Prof. Shepard say that,since his paper was writtenjie has 
informed me that he no longer entertains these views ; and I would now omit the 
criticism of them did they not exist in his memoir uncontradicted and also were 
they not views still entertained by some. 22 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
“Any great disturbance of the forces maintaining these clouds 
of meteor-dust, like that produced by a magnetic storm, might 
lead to the precipitation of portions of the matter thus suspended. 
If the disturbance was confined to the magnetic dust, iron masses 
would fall; if to the diamagnetic dust, a non-ferruginous stone ; 
if it should extend to both classes simultaneously, a blending of 
the two characters would ensue in the precipitate, and a rain of 
ordinary meteoric stones would take place. 
“ The occasional raining of meteorites might therefore on such 
a theory, be as much expected, as the ordinary deposition of mois- 
ture from the atmosphere. The former would originate in a me- 
chanical elevation of volcanic ashes and in matter swept into the 
air by tornadoes, the latter from simple evaporation. In the one 
case, the matter is upheld by magneto-electric force ; in the other, 
by the law of diffusion which regulates the blending of vapors 
and gases, and by temperature. A precipitation of metallic and 
earthy matter would happen on any reduction of the magnetic 
tension ; one of rain, hail or snow, on a fall of temperature. The 
materials of both originate in our earth. In the one instance 
they are elevated but to a short distance from its surface, while in 
the other, they appear to penetrate beyond its farthest limits, and 
possibly to enter the inter-planetary space ; in both cases, how- 
ever, they are destined, through the operation of invariable laws, 
to return to their original repository.” 
This theory, coming as it does from one who is justly en- 
titled to high consideration, from the fact of the special atten- 
tion he has given to the subject of meteorites, may mislead; 
and for that reason objections will be advanced which will doubt- 
less entirely set aside this notion of terrestrial origin, and to this 
end I would consider two fundamental principles of it. First of 
all it must be proved that terrestrial volcanoes contain all the va- 
rieties of matter found in the composition of meteoric bodies ; 
there is no doubt that many of the varieties are ejected from vol- 
canoes, as olivine, &c.; but then the principal one, nickeliferous 
iron has never in a single instance been found in the lava or other 
matter coming from volcanoes although frequently sought for. 
But the physical obstacles are a still more insuperable difficulty 
in the way of adopting this theory. In the first place it is con- 
sidered a physical impossibility for tornadoes or other currents of 
air to waft matter, however impalpable, “beyond the farthest lim- 
its of the earth and possibly into interplanetary space.” Again 
if magnetic and diamagnetic forces cause the particles to coalesce 
and form solid masses, by the cessation of those forces the bodies 
would crumble into powder. Another strong physical objection 
to the theory is, that as the consolidation of these masses is ex- 
pected to take place in “ magneto-polar regions” their fall should 
only be in those portions of the earth, for like rain and hail (to J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
23 
which the consolidation of these bodies are assimilated in this 
theory) they should fall perpendicularly or nearly so, from their 
points of condensation. And lastly (under the head of physical 
objections) how can bodies so formed be precipitated in such very 
oblique directions as many are known to have, and that too from 
East to West and not from the North. 
We pass on to a concise statement of some of the chemical ob- 
jections to this theory of atmospheric origin, and if possible, 
they are more insuperable than the last mentioned. Contemplate 
for a moment the first meteorite described in this paper;—here 
is a mass of iron of about sixty pounds of a most solid structure, 
highly crystalline, composed of nickel and iron chemically united, 
containing in its centre a crystalline phosphuret of iron and nickel, 
and on its exterior surface a compound of sulphur and iron also 
in atomic proportions, and then see if the mind can be satisfied 
in supposing that the dust wafted from the crater of a volcano 
into the higher regions of the atmosphere, could in a few mo- 
ments of time be brought together by any known forces so as to 
create the body in question. However finely divided this vol- 
canic dust might be, it can never be subdivided into atoms, a 
state of things that must exist to form bodies in atomic propor- 
tions, where no agency is present to dissolve or fuse the particles 
concerned. One other objection and I am done with this theory. 
The particles of iron and nickel supposed to be ejected from 
the volcano, must pass from the heated mouth of a crater ascend 
through the oxygen of the atmosphere without undergoing the 
slightest oxydation, for if there be any one thing which marks 
the meteorites more strongly than any other it is the freedom of 
the masses of iron from oxydation except on the surface. But a 
still more remarkable abstinence from oxydation would be the 
ascent of the particles of phosphorus to form the Schreibersite 
traceable in so many meteorites. 
Having noticed the prominent objections to this theory I pass 
on to consider in as few words as possible the other two theories. 
A very commonly adopted theory of the origin of meteoric 
bodies, is that they are small planetary bodies revolving around 
the sun, one portion of their orbit approaching or crossing that of 
the earth, and from the various disturbing causes to which these 
small bodies must necessarily be subjected, their orbits are con- 
stantly undergoing more or less variation, until intersected by our 
atmosphere,when they meet with the most serious derangement 
and fall to the earth’s surface in whole or in part; this may not 
occur in their first passage through the atmosphere, but repeated 
obstructions in this medium at different times must ultimately 
bring about the result. In this theory their origin is supposed to be 
the same as that of other planetary bodies, and they are regarded as 
always having had an individual cosmical existence. Now, how- 24 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
ever reasonable the admission of this orbital motion immediately 
before and for some time previous to their contact with the earth, 
the assumption of their original cosmical origin would appear to 
have no support in the many characteristics of meteoric bodies as 
enumerated some pages back. The form alone of these bodies is 
any thing but what ought to be expected from a gradual condensa- 
tion and consolidation; all the chemical and mineralogical charac- 
ters are opposed to this supposition. If the advocates of this theory 
do not insist on the last feature of it, then the theory amounts to 
but little else than a statement that meteoric stones fall to us from 
space while having an orbital motion. In order to entitle this 
planetary theory to any weight it must be shown, how/ bodies, 
formed and constructed as these are, could be other tnan frag- 
ments of some very much larger mass. 
As to the existence of meteoric stones in space, travelling in a 
special orbit prior to their fall, there can be but little doubt when 
we consider their direction and velocity; their composition proving 
them to be of extra-terrestrial origin. This, however, only con- 
ducts in part to their origin, and those who will examine them 
chemically will feel convinced that the earth is not the first great 
mass that meteoric stones have been in contact with, and this 
conviction is strengthened when we reflect on the strong marks of 
community of origin so fully dwelt upon. 
It is then in consideration of what was the connection of these 
bodies prior to their having an independent motion of their own 
that this memoir will be concluded. 
Lunar Origin of Meteoric Stones.—It only remains to bring 
forward the facts already developed, to prove the plausibility of 
this origin of meteorites. 
It is a theory that was proposed as early as 1660 by an Italian 
philosopher, Terzago, and advanced by Olbers in 1795, without 
any knowledge of its having been before proposed; it was sustained 
by Laplace with all his mathematical skill from the time of its 
adoption to his death : it was also advocated on chemical grounds 
by Berzelius, whom I have no reason to believe ever changed his 
views in this matter; and to these we have to add the following 
distinguished mathematicians and philosophers: Biot, Brandes, 
Poisson, Qmetelet, Arago and Benzenberg who have at one time 
or another advocated the Lunar origin of meteorites. 
Some of the above astronomers abandoned the theory, among 
them Olbers and Arago; but they did not do so, from any sup- 
posed defect in it, but from adopting the assumption that shooting 
stars and meteorites were the same: and on studying the former 
and applying the phenomena attendant upon them to meteor- 
ites, the supposed lunar origin was no longer possible. 
On referring to the able researches of Sears C. Walker on the 
periodical meteors of August and November (Trans. Am. Phil. J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
25 
Soc., Jan., 1841), that astronomer makes the following remarks 
about Olbers’s change of views. “In 1836, Olbers, the original 
proposer of the theory of 1795, being firmly convinced of the cor- 
rectness of Brandes’s estimate of the relative velocity of meteors, 
renounces his selenic theory, and adopts the cosmical theory as 
the only one which is adequate to explain the established facts be- 
fore the public.” 
For reasons already stated, it appears wrong to assume the 
identity of meteorites and shooting stars,' so that whatever diffi- 
culty the phenomena of shooting stars may have interposed in 
conceiving this or that to have been the origin of meteoric stones, 
it now no longer exists,4 and we are fully authorized in forming 
our conclusions concerning them to the utter disregard of the 
phenomena of shooting stars. Had Olbers viewed the matter in 
this light, he would doubtless have retained his original convic- 
tions, to which no material objection appears to have occurred to 
him for forty years. 
It is not my object to enter upon all the points of plausibility 
of this assumed origin, or to meet all the objections which have 
been urged to it; for most of them have already been ably treated 
of. The object,now, is simply to urge such points as have been 
developed in this memoir, that appear to give strength to the 
lunar theory ; they may be summed up under the following 
heads: 
1st. That all meteoric masses have a community of origin. 
2nd. At one period they formed parts of some large body. 
3d. They have all been subject to a more or less prolonged 
igneous action corresponding to that of terrestrial volcanoes. 
4th. That their source must be deficient in oxygen. 
5th. That their average specific gravity is about that of the 
moon. 
From what has been said under the head of common charac- 
ters of meteorites, it would appear far more singular that these 
bodies should have been formed separately from each other than 
that they should have at one time or another constituted parts of 
the same body; and from the character of their formation, that 
body should have been of great dimensions. Let us suppose all 
the known meteorites assembled in one mass, and regarded by 
the philosopher, mindful of our knowledge of chemical and phys- 
ical laws. Would it be considered more rational to view them 
as the great representatives of some one body that had been bro- 
ken into fragments, or as small specks of some vast body in space 
that at one period or another has cast them forth ? The latter it 
seems to me is the only opinion that can be entertained in re- 
viewing the facts of the case. 
As regards the igneous character of the minerals composing 
meteorites, nothing remains to be added to what has already 26 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
been said; in fact no mineralogist can dispute the great resem- 
blance of these minerals to those of terrestrial volcanoes,- they 
having only sufficient difference in association, to establish that 
although igneous they are extra-terrestrial. The source must 
also be deficient in oxygen either in a gaseous condition or com- 
bined as in water: the reasons for so thinking have been clearly 
stated as dependent upon the existence of metallic iron in mete- 
orites; a metal so oxydizable, that in its terrestrial associations 
it is almost always found combined with oxygemand never in its 
metallic state. 
What then is that body which is to claim common parentage 
of these celestial messengers that visit us from time to time? 
Are we to look at them as fragments of some shattered planet 
whose great representatives are the thirty-three asteroids between 
Mars and Jupiter and that they are “ minute outriders of the as- 
teroids” (to use the language of R. P. Greg, Jr., in a late commu- 
nication to the British Association), which have been ultimately 
drawn from their path by the attraction of the earth? For more 
reasons than one this view is not tenable ; many of our most dis- 
tinguished astronomers do not regard the asteroids as fragments 
of a shattered planet; and it is hard to believe if they were, and 
the meteorites the smaller fragments, that these latter should 
resemble each other so closely in their composition ; a circum- 
stance that would not be realized if our earth was shattered into 
a million of masses large and small. 
If then we leave the asteroids and look to the other planetsywe 
find nothing in their constitution, or the circumstances attending 
them, to lead to any rational supposition as to their being the ori- 
ginal habitation of the class of bodies in question. This leaves 
us then but the moon to look to as the parent of meteorites, and 
the more I contemplate that body, the stronger does the convic- 
tion grow, that to it all these bodies originally belonged. 
It cannot be doubted from what we know of the moon that it 
is in all likelihood constituted of such matter as compose meteoric 
stones ; and that its appearances indicate volcanic action, which, 
when compared with the combined volcanic action on the face of 
the globe, is like contrasting iEtna with an ordinary forge, so 
great is the difference. The results of volcanic throws and out- 
bursts of lava are seen, for which we seek in vain any thing but 
a faint picture on the surface of our earth. Again in the support 
of the present view it is clearly established that there is neither 
atmosphere nor water on the surface of that body, and conse- 
quently no oxygen in those conditions which would preclude the 
existence of metallic iron. 
Another ground in support of this view is based on the specific 
gravity of meteorites, a circumstance that has not been insisted 
on; and although of itself possessing no great value, yet in con- 
junction with the other facts it has some weight. J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
27 
In viewing the cosmical bodies of onr system with relation to 
their densities, they are divided into two great classes—planetary 
and cometary bodies (these last embracing comets proper and 
shooting stars), the former being of dense, and the latter of very 
attenuated matter; and so far as onr knowledge extends, there is 
no reason to believe that the density of any comet approaches that 
of any of the planets : this fact gives some grounds for connect- 
ing meteorites with the planets. Among the planets there is 
also a difference, and a very marked one, in their respective den- 
sities; Saturn having a density of 077 to 0-75, water being 10; 
Jupiter 2 00-2-25; Mars 3-5-4-1; Venus 4 8-5-4; Mercury be- 
tween 7 and 36 ; Uranus 0 8-2-9 ; that of the Earth being 5-67.* 
If then from specific gravity we are to connect meteorites to 
the planets, as theijf meah density is usually considered about 
3 0,f they must come within the plahetary range of Mats, Earth 
and Venus. In the cases of the first and last we can trace no 
connection, from our ignorance of their nature and of the causes 
that could have detached them. 
This reduces us then to our own planet consisting of two parts, 
the planet proper with a density of 5 76, and the moon with a 
density of about 3-62.1; On viewing this, we are at once struck 
with the relation that these bear to the density of meteorites, a 
relation that even the planets do not bear to each other. 
As before remarked, I lay no great weight on this view of the 
density, but call attention to it as agreeing with conclusions ar- 
rived at on other grounds. 
The chemical composition is also another strong ground in fa- 
vor of their lunar origin. This has been so ably insisted on by 
Berzelius and others that it would be superfluous to attempt to 
argue the matter any further here ; but I will simply make a 
comment on the disregard that astronomers usually have for this 
argument. In the memoir on the periodic meteors by Sears C. 
Walker, already quoted from, it is stated, “ The chemical objec- 
tion is not very weighty; for we may as well suppose a uniform- 
ity of constituents in cosmical as in lunar substances.” From 
this conclusion it is reasonable to dissent; for as yet we are ac- 
quainted with the materials of but two bodies, those of the earth 
and those of meteorites, and their very dissimilarity of consti- 
tution is the strongest argument of their belonging to different 
* For these estimates of the densities of the Planets, the author is indebted to 
Prof. Peirce. 
f Although the average specific gravity of the metallic and stony meteor- 
ites is greater, yet the latter exceeding the former in quantity, the number 3'0 is 
doubtless as nearly correct as can be ascertained. 
% Although the densities of the earth and moon differ, these two bodies may con- 
sist of similar materials; for the numbers given represent the density of bodies 
as wholes; the solid crust of the earth for a mile in depth cannot average a den- 
sity of 3'0. 28 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
spheres. In further refutation of this idea it may be asked, Is it 
to be expected that a mass of matter detached from Jupiter (a 
planet but little heavier than water) or from Saturn (one nearly 
as light as cork) or from Encke’s comet (thinner than air), would 
at all accord with each other or with those of the earth. It is 
far more rational to suppose that every cosmical body, without 
necessarily possessing elements different from each other, yet are 
so constituted that they may be known by their fragments. With 
this view of the matter, our specimens of meteorites are but 
multiplied samples of the same body, and that body, with the 
light we now have, appears to have been the moon. 
This theory is not usually opposed on the ground that the 
moon is not able to supply such bodies as the meteoric iron and 
stone; it is more commonly objected to from the difficulty 
that there appears to be in the way of this body’s projecting 
masses of matter beyond the central point of attraction between 
the earth and moon. Suffice it to say, that Laplace, with all his 
mathematical acumen, saw no difficulty in the way of this taking 
place; although we know, that he gave special attention to it at 
three different times during a period of thirty years, and died 
without discovering any physical difficulty in the way. Also for 
a period of forty years, Olbers was of the same opinion, and 
changed his views as already stated for reasons of a different 
character: and to these two we add Hutton, Biot, Poisson and 
others whose names have been already mentioned. 
Laplace’s view of the matter was connected with present vol- 
canic action in the moon, but there is every reason to believe 
that all such action has long since ceased in the moon. This, 
however, does not invalidate this theory in the least, for the force 
of projection and modified attraction to which the detached 
masses were subjected, only gave them new and independent or- 
bits around the earth, that may endure for a great length of time 
before coming in contact with the earth. 
The various astronomers cited concur in the opinion, that a 
body projected from the moon with a velocity of about eight 
thousand feet per second would go beyond the mutual point of 
attraction between the earth and moon, and already having an 
orbital velocity may become a satellite of the earth with a modi- 
fied orbit. 
The important question then for consideration is, the force re- 
quisite to produce this velocity. The force exercised in terres- 
trial volcanoes varies. According to Dr. Peters, who made observa- 
tions on iEtna, the velocity of some of the stones was 1250 feet 
a second, and observations made on the peak of Teneriffe gave 
3000 feet a second. Assuming, however, the former velocity to 
be the maximum of terrestrial volcanic effects, the velocity with J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
29 
which the bodies started (stones with a specific gravity of about 
3-UO) must have exceeded 2000 feet a second to permit of an ab- 
sorbed velocity of 1250 feet through the denser portions of our 
atmosphere. Now suppose the force of the extinct volcanoes of 
the moon to have equalled that of iEtna, the force would have 
been more than sufficient to have projected masses of matter at a 
velocity exceeding 8000 feet a second ; for, the resistance to be 
overcome by the projectile force, is the attractive force of the 
moon, which is from 5 to 6 times less than that of the earth; so 
that the same projectile force in the two bodies would produce 
vastly greater velocities on the moon than on the earth, discard- 
ing of course atmospheric resistance of which there is none in 
the moon.* 
But doubtless, were the truth of the matter known, the pro- 
jectile force of lunar volcanoes far exceeded that of any terres- 
trial volcanoes extinct or recent, and this we infer from the enor- 
mous craters of elevation to be seen upon its surface, and their 
great elevation above the general surface of the moon, with their 
borders thousands of feet above their centre ; all of which, point 
to the immense internal force required to elevate the melted lava 
that must have at one time poured from their sides. 1 know that 
Prof. Dana in a learned paper on the subject of lunar volcanoes 
(Am. J. Sci., [2], ii, 375, argues that the great breadth of the cra- 
ters is no evidence of great projectile force, the pits being regarded 
as boiling craters where force for lofty projection could not accu- 
mulate. Although his hypothesis is ingeniously sustained, still, 
until stronger proof is urged, we are justified I think in asuming 
the contrary to be true; for we must not measure the convulsive 
throes of nature at all periods by what our limited experience 
has enabled us to witness. 
As regards the existence of volcanic action in the moon with- 
out air or water, I have nothing at present to do, particularly as 
those who have studied volcanic action concede that neither of 
these agents is absolutely required to produce it; moreover, the 
surface of the moon is the strongest evidence we have in favor 
of its occurring under those circumstances. 
But it may be very reasonably asked, Why consider the moon 
the source of these fragmentary masses called meteorites ? May 
not smaller bodies, either planets or satellites, as they pass by the 
earth and through our atmosphere, have portions detached by the 
mechanical and chemical action to which they are subjected? 
To this, I will assent, as soon as the existence of that body or 
those bodies is proved. Are we to suppose that each meteor- 
ite falling to the earth is thrown off from a different sphere 
* It would require at the moon the same force to produce an initial velocity of 
8000 feet a second as at the earth; and the difference of rate at the end of the first 
second would be slight (discarding from consideration the atmosphere).—Eds. 30 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
which becomes entangled in the atmosphere? If so, how great 
the wonder that the earth has never intercepted one of those 
spheres, and that all should have struck the stratum of air sur- 
rounding our globe (some fifty miles in height) and escaped the 
body of the globe 8000 miles in diameter. It is said that the 
earth has never intercepted one of these spheres; for if we collect 
together all the known meteorites, in and out of cabinets, they 
would hardly cover the surface of a good sized room; and no one 
of them could be looked upon as the maternal mass upon which 
we might suppose the others to have been grafted ; and this would 
appear equally true, if we consider the known meteorites as 
representing not more than a hundredth part of those which 
have fallen. 
If it be conceived that the same body has given rise to them, 
and is still wending its path through space, only seeming by its 
repeated shocks with our atmosphere to acquire new vigor for a 
new encounter with that medium, the wonder will be greater, 
that it has not long since encountered the solid part of the globe; 
but still more strange, that its velocity has not been long since 
destroyed by the resistance of the atmosphere, through which, it 
must have made repeated crossings of over 1000 miles in extent. 
But it may be said that facts are stronger than arguments, and 
that bodies of great dimensions (even over one mile in diameter) 
have been seen traversing the atmosphere, and have also been 
seen to project fragments and pass on. Now of the few instances 
of the supposed large bodies, I will only analyze the value of the 
data upon which the Wilton and Weston meteorites were cal- 
culated ; and they are selected, because the details connected with 
them are more accessible. The calculations concerning the latter 
were made by Dr. Bowdifch ; but his able calculations were based 
on deceptive data,—and this is stated without hesitation knowing 
the difficulty admitted by all of making correct observation as to 
size of luminous bodies passing rapidly through the atmosphere. 
Experiments, that would be considered superfluous, have been in- 
stituted to prove the perfect fallacy of making any but a most 
erroneous estimate of the size of luminous bodies, by their appa- 
rent size; even when their distance from the observer and the true 
size of the object are known; how much more fallacious then, 
any estimate of size made, where the observer does not know the 
txue size of the body, and not even his distance very accurately. 
In my experiments, three solid bodies in a state of vigorous 
incandescence were used ; 1st, charcoal points transmitting electri- 
city ; 2nd, lime heated by the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe ; 3d, steel 
in a state of incandescence in a stream of oxygen gas. They 
were observed on a clear night at different distances, and the body 
of light (without the bordering rays) compared with the disk of 
the moon, then nearly full, and 45° above the horizon. With- J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
31 
out going into details of the experiment the results will be tabu- 
lated, 
Actual diam. Apparent 
Apparent diam. Apparent diam. 
as seen at 10 in. diam. at LOO yds. 
at mile. at X mile. 
Carbon points, 
of an inch, A the diam. moon’s disk, 3 diam. do.do. diam. do.do 
Lime light, 
4 u u 1 u it 
TCT U 
i( it Q u u 2 u 44 
Incandes. steel, 
2 u ti l a u 
iff 4 
44 44 J (4 44 | 44 44 
If then the apparent diameter of a luminous meteor at a given 
distance is to be accepted as a guide for calculating the real size 
of these bodies the 
Charcoal* points would be 80 feet in diatn. instead of of an inch. 
Lime “ “ 50 “ “ “ “ 
The steel globule “ “ 25 “ “ “ “ 
It is not in place to enter into any explanation of these decep- 
tive appearances, for they are well known facts, and were tried 
in the present form only to give precision to the criticism on the 
supposed size of these bodies. Comments on them are also un- 
necessary, as they speak for themselves. But to return to the 
two meteorites under review. 
That of Wilton was estimated by Mr. Edward C. Herrick, (Am. 
Journ. of Science, vol. xxxvii, p. 130) to be about 150 feet in 
diameter. It appeared to increase gradually in size until just before 
the explosion, when it was at its largest apparent magnitude of 
the moorrs disk—exploded 25° to 30° above the horizon with 
a heavy report, that was heard about 30 seconds after the explo- 
sion was seen. One or more of the obervers saw luminous frag- 
ments descend toward the ground. When it exploded, it was three 
or four miles above the surface of the earth ; immediately after 
the explosion, it was no longer visible. The large size of the 
body is made out of the fact of its appearing one-fourth the ap- 
parent disk of the moon at about six miles distant. After the ex- 
periments just recorded, and easy of repetition, the uncertainty 
of such a conclusion must be evident ; and it is insisted on as a 
fact easy of demonstration, that a body in a state of incandes- 
cence, (as the ferruginous portions of a stony meteorite,) might 
exhibit the apparent diameter of the Wilton meteorite at six miles 
distance, and not be more than a few inches or a foot or two in 
diameter according to the intensity of the incandescence.f 
Besides, if that body was so large, where did it go to after 
throwing off the supposed small fragments? The fragments were 
seen to fall, but the great ignited mass suddenly disappeared, at 
30° above the horizon, four miles from the earth, when it could 
* Estimate made according to a table given by Prof. Olmsted (Am. Journal of 
Science, vol. xxvi, p. 155) for estimating the diameter of meteors on comparison with 
the moon. 
f It ought however to be stated, that in the paper above referred to, Mr. Herrick 
expressly mentioned this and other sources of fallacy, endeavored as far as practica- 
ble to guard against them, and gave his final careful result as necessarily open to 
some uncertainty.—Eds. 32 
J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
not have had less than six or seven hundred miles of atmosphere 
to traverse, before it reached the limit of that medium; it has 
already acquired a state of ignition in its passage through the air 
prior to the explosion, and should have retained its luminous ap- 
pearence consequent thereupon, at least while remaining in the 
atmosphere : but as this was not the case, and a sudden disappear- 
ance of the entire body took place in the very lowest portions of 
the atmosphere, and descending luminous fragments were seen, 
the natural conclusion appears to be, that the whole meteorite 
was contained in the fragments that fell. 
As to the Weston meteorite, it is stated that its direction was 
nearly parallel to the surface of the earth at an elevation of about 
18 miles; was one mile farther when it exploded ; the length of 
its path from the time it was seen until it exploded was at least 
107 miles; duration of flight estimated at about 30 seconds, and 
its relative velocity three and a half miles a second ; it exploded ; 
three heavy reports were heard; the meteorite disappeared at 
the time of the explosion. 
As to the value of the data upon which its size was estimated, 
the same objection is urged as in the case of the Wilton meteor- 
ite; and it is hazarding nothing to state that the apparent size 
may have been due to an incandescent body a foot or two in di- 
ameter. Also, with reference to its disappearance, there is the 
same inexplicable mystery. It is supposed from its enormous 
size that but minute fragments of it fell; yet it disappeared at the 
time that this took place, which it is supposed occurred 19 miles 
above the earth, (an estimate doubtless too great when we consider 
the heavy reports). Accepting this elevation, what do we have ? 
A body one mile and a half in diameter in a state of incandescence, 
passing in a curve almost parallel to the earth, and while in the 
very densest stratum of air that it reaches with a vigorous reaction 
between the atmosphere and its surface, and a dense body of air 
in front of it, is totally eclipsed ; while, if it had a direction only 
tangential to the earth, instead of nearly parallel, it would at the 
height of 19 miles have had upwards of 500 miles of air of vari- 
able density to traverse, which at the relative velocity of 3£ 
miles a second (that must have been constantly diminishing by 
the resistance) would have taken about 143 seconds. It seems 
most probable that if this body was such an enormous one, that 
it should have been seen for more than ten minutes after the ex- 
plosion, for the reasons above stated. The fact of its disappear- 
ance at the time of the explosion, is strong proof that the mass 
itself was broken to fragments, and that these fragments fell to 
the earth ;—assuring us that the meteorite was not the huge body 
represented, but simply one of those irregular stony fragments 
which, by explosion from heat and great friction against the at- 
mosphere, become shattered. I say irregular, because we have 
strong evidence of this irregularity, in its motion, which was J. Lawrence Smith on Meteorites. 
33 
“ scolloping,” a motion frequently observed in meteorites, and 
doubtless due to the resistance of the atmosphere upon the irreg- 
ular mass? for a spherical body passing through a resisting medi- 
um at great velocity would not show this. In fact, if almost any 
of the specimens of meteorites in our cabinets were discharged 
from a cannon, even in their limited flight the scolloping motion 
would be seen. 
This then will conclude what I have to say in contradiction to 
the supposition of large solid cosmical bodies passing through 
the atmosphere, and dropping small portions of their mass. The 
contradiction is seen to be based ; first, upon the fact that no me- 
teorite is known of any very great size, none larger than the 
granite balls to be found at the Dardanelles along side of the 
pieces of ordnance from which they are discharged ; secondly, on 
the fallacy of estimating the actual size of these bodies from 
their apparent size; and lastly from its being opposed to all the 
laws of chance that these bodies should have been passing 
through an atmosphere for ages and none have yet encountered 
the body of the earth. 
To sum up the theory of the lunar origin of meteorites, it 
may be stated—That the moon is the only large body in space 
of ivhicli we have any knowledge, possessing the requisite con- 
ditions demanded by the physical and chemical properties of me- 
teorites ; and that they have been thrown off from that body by 
volcanic action, (doubtless long since extinct,) and, encountering 
no gaseous medium of resistance, reached such a distance as that 
the moon exercised no longer a preponderating attraction—the 
detached fragment, possessing an orbital motion and an orbital 
velocity, which it had in common with all parts of the moon, but 
now more or less modified by the projectile force and new condi- 
tion of attraction in which it was placed with reference to the earth, 
acquired an independent orbit more or less elliptical. This orbit, 
necessarily subject to great disturbing sooner or 
later cross our atmosphere be intercepted by the body of the 
globe. 
In concluding this lengthy examination, I must say that a dis- 
cussion of the phenomena accompanying the falling of meteor- 
ites has been avoided, as well as many points connected with 
their history. This has been done from its having no immedi- 
ate connection with the object of this memoir, which is intended 
simply to present to the Association some new views, and many 
old views in a new light,- so as to awaken attention to the study 
of this most interesting class of bodies. 
I take pleasure in acknowledging my obligations to the Secre- 
tary of the Smithsonian Institution, for the ready manner in 
which he placed the Laboratory of that Institution at my disposal 
for the purpose of making the analytical investigations,contained 
in this memoir,as well as other researches yet unpublished.