| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
wriedel@ucsd.edu (Bill Wriedel) wrote: |I seem to remember that maybe twenty years ago there was a bit of a flap |about possible fossils in a meteorite, and a few people around here were |at least peripherally involved - Harold Urey, M.N. Bramlette .... Does |anyone have a clearer memory of it than I do? The whole thing seemed to |fizzle when people concluded that the structures could just as well have |been non-biogenic. Obscure stuff, but definitely relevant, particularly as a warning that one can not be too cautious when assessing the possible Mars fossils claims. Here are some citations: Staplin, F.L., 1962. Microfossils from the Orgeuil meteorite. Micropaleontology, v.8, p.343. Timofeev, B.W., 1963. Lebensspuren in meteoriten. Resultate einer microphytologischen analyse. Grana Palynologica, v.4, no.1, p.92-99. Kremp, G.O.W., 1968. Observations on fossil-like objects in the Orgueil meteorite. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, v.21, p.99-112. Nagy, L.A.; Kremp, G.O.W.; Nagy, B., 1969. Microstructures approximating hexagonal forms (and of unknown origin) in the Orgueil carbonaceous meteorite. Grana Palynologica, v.9, no.1-3, p.110-117. The one by Timofeev is particularly, uh, "interesting". :-) Five new species are proposed and assigned to terrestrial (!) acritarch genera, and one is assigned to a pre-existing terrestrial acritarch species (!!). No, I am not joking. I wonder if this means Timofeev's species names have priority over any possible Martian ones? :-) :-) :-) -Andrew macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae
Partial index: