"The meteorite fell Dec. 5th, 1868, four miles south of Frankfort, the county town of Franklin County, Alabama. The country around Frankfort is broken and hilly, being the termination of the western branch of the Cumberland Mountains. Frankfort is sixteen miles southeast of Tuscumbia.

"Mr. James W. Hooper witnessed the fall and describes it in a note to Dr. T. D. West, which I copy. About 3 o'clock, P. M., the afternoon being cloudy and cold, we heard a strange, harsh, roaring noise up in the air. Three distinct reports were heard; at first these were supposed to be cannon, but the noise immediately changed into a series of bursting sounds, like a great fire blazing and crackling through the air. It appeared to pass from the north toward the south. Immediately after the first sound or roaring had passed over, another was heard coming from the same direction, like the whizzing of a bombshell as it cuts through the air, making a loud humming noise. I gazed intently in the direction of the noise and found that something was coming downward at a rapid rate. I looked, with my hand up, standing in a dodging position, for fear of its striking me, until I saw it strike some willow sapplings about seventy or eighty yards from where I was and fall thence to the ground. Upon going to the spot I found a strange looking rock, nearly buried in the ground and still warm.'

"Major Slass, editor of "the Alabamian and Times" in this place, has taken considerable trouble to collect all the information he could on the subject. He says, 'that the noise was heard for several miles around, before the final explosion. It burst, apparently, over the heads of twenty men, who were at work felling wood, one and a quarter miles from Mr. Hooper's house. One piece appeared to go southeast, another southwest, and the third northwest. There were afterward heard the reports resembling the bursting of shells. One piece was heard to fall some distance from Mr. Hooper's, making a loud, crashing noise and frightening a lot of hogs near by.'

"The reports resembling artillery were plainly heard for twenty or twenty-five miles east and west of Frankfort, and from fifteen to twenty north. I have no information as to the south. Mr. Hooper deserves much credit for noting the particulars of the fall, and for sending the meteorite for analysis and description. He refused with scorn, money offers that must have been tempting to a person of limited income, preferring the advancement of science to dollars and cents.

"In a personal interview, he told me that he was sitting by a fire with his family when he heard the first noise. He instantly arose and walked forty or fifty yards from the house before the meteorite fell. His sister, Miss Hooper, living near,

called to her brother to run quickly, the house is on firedon't you hear it ?' Mr. H. thinks it was three or four minutes from the first noise until its fall. The place where it struck the ground is a partially decomposed conglomerate, mixed with vegetable mould. The fracture was made by striking a fragment of limestone rock.'

When received by me the meteoric stone weighed 615 grams. The crust was entire with the exception of a small corner, although the whole mass seemed to have a fresh fracture running through it. The weight of the entire meteorite could not have been over 650 grams. The accompanying cut will serve to

give some idea of its general outline; it is drawn half the actual size of the stone. The coating has a very brilliant luster, as bright as if newly varnished, strongly resembling that of the Stannern, Petersburg, Tenn., and Bishopville stones. It seems to have been in a condition of viscid fusion as shown by the ridges on the edges represented by the white lines. The crust was so thin in some parts that fragments of olivine could be distinguished through it.

On the fractured surface, as seen by the naked eye, it presented a pseudo-porphyritic structure, having a gray ground with black, green, white and dark gray spots upon it. A careful microscopic, mineralogical, and blowpipe examination of the different parts was made, with the following results: 1. The black mineral was coal-black, brightly lustrous and slightly magnetic; B.B. difficultly fusible and became more magnetic; on treating with the fluxes it reacted for chromium and iron; it proved to be chromite. 2. The white mineral fused with difficulty to a transparent glass, reacted for silica and soda or lime. I could not determine whether it was chladnite or anorthite; it seemed too difficultly fusible for labradorite. 3. A yellowish green mineral passing into yellow and also apparently

shading into dark gray; this was fusible with difficulty on the edges and became magnetic on heating; the green mineral appeared to be olivine, but the gray had also the same pyrognostic characters, while in physical characters it cannot be distinguished from Haidinger's Piddingtonite, found in the Shalka meteoric stone. 4. The lens revealed brilliant points with metallic luster, which on examination proved to be sulphid of iron (troilite). 5. One or two delicate black veins were observed with the glass which were at first supposed to be schreibersite, but I was unable to detach enough for a blowpipe test, and a careful qualitative examination showed no traces of phosphorus. 6. On pulverizing several grams of the stone I found a few flakes of niccoliferous iron, amounting in all to a few hundredths of one per cent of the mass.

The specific gravity of the stone in four determinations gave 3·35, 3·33, 3·31, 3-26, the mean being 3.31.

An attempt was made to separate the different silicates by the action of chlorhydric acid. It was found, however, that. only about 26 per cent of the mass was soluble in acids, and the bases in the acid solution and in the insoluble portion were the same, save that the insoluble contained all the chromite. A complete analysis of the meteorite was made by fusion with carbonate of soda with a small amount of nitrate of soda to effect the oxydation of the chromium and the sulphids and metallic substances presunt. The alkalies were determined by Smith's method. The results of the analysis, commenced by myself but completed by Mr. Wm. G. Mixter, were as follows:

The chromic oxyd corresponds to 0.62 per cent chromite, and the sulphur to 0·63 troilite.

From this composition it would appear that the mass is probably made up of uni- and bi-silicates. In a preliminary qualitative-quantitative analysis I found that more lime was contained in the acid solution than in the portion undecomposed by acid, while with the magnesia the larger amount re

mained in the insoluble residue. The silicate decomposed by acids containing lime is most probably either anorthite, labradorite or a lime-olivine. The large portion of magnesia and iron insoluble in acid indicates the presence of a pyroxenic mineral, Further investigation is needed to fully establish the specific character of the constituent minerals of this meteorite, although we are justified in concluding that it contains an olivine, a pyroxenic mineral and a feldspar, besides chromite, troilite and a very small amount of niccoliferous iron. I think by sacrificing a large portion of this stone that its constituent minerals could be mechanically separated from each other by careful selection with the aid of a magnifier, and their specific characters accurately determined by analysis. At present I do not feel at liberty to undertake this, but hope at some future time to return to the study of this problem.

In general physical characters this meteorite very much resembles the Petersburg, Tenn., meteoric stone anlayzed and described by Prof. J. Lawrence Smith. It has the same lustrous coating, and the constituent minerals are very much the same in character. It seems to belong to the class of meteorites that Prof. G. Roset calls Howardite, and which he describes as being granular mixtures of olivine, with a white silicate (anorthite?) and a small amount of chromite and niccoliferous iron. This class, according to Rose, includes the stones from Loutalox, Bialystok, Mässing, Nobleborough and Mallygaum.

I take pleasure in expressing my thanks to Mr. Hooper for his generosity in placing the stone at my disposal for examinanation, and to Mr. Pybas for his great interest in furnishing the data connected with its fall.

Sheffield Laboratory of Yale College, May, 1869.

ART. XXVI.-Contributions to Zoology from the Museum of Yale College. No. III.-Descriptions of some new American Phyllopod Crustacea; by A. E. VERRILL.

ARTEMIA Leach.

THIS interesting genus is remarkable for its habit of living and flourishing best in very saline and alkaline waters, such as the natural salt lakes of Egypt, Utah, etc., and the artificial brines formed by the evaporation of sea-water by exposure to the heat of the sun, as in England, France, and the West Indies.

*This Journal, II, xxxi, 264.

Beschreibung und Eintheilung der Meteoriten, p. 107.

Abstract from a paper read before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Salem, Mass., Aug., 1869.

The species first made known, A. salina Leach (Cancer salinus Linn.), was first described by Schlosser, who found it in great profusion in the brines of Lymington, England. Linné indicates it also from the salt lakes of Siberia (perhaps a distinct species) and probably the same as that observed by Pallast in great numbers in the Great Schimélée. More recently it has been described from the salterns of southern France, at Montpellier, etc. The genus has been found also in the Lakes Goumphidich, Amaruh and Bédah in Egypt, which are reported to be both very saline and alkaline, their bottoms being "covered with a layer of crystals of carbonate of soda, sulphate of soda, and common salt," while the density of the water is stated at 1-255. The Egyptian species appears not to have been described as yet.§ In the Antilles A. Guildingi Thompson occurs.|| A. Mulhausenii Edw. (Fischer sp.) is found in Lake Loak in the Crimea. A few years ago Prof. Silliman presented to the museum of Yale College a number of specimens of a new species, A. Monica V., which he collected. in Mono Lake, California, where it occurs in great abundance associated with the larvae of Ephydra.** The water of this lake is very dense, and not only very saline, but also so alkaline that it is said to be used for removing grease from clothing. I have been unable, however, to find any reliable analysis of this water. It is said to contain, also, biborate of soda. Prof. Silliman informs me that the genus also occurs in Little Salt Lake. It occurs in great abundance in Great Salt Lake, Utah, as I am informed by Prof. D. C. Eaton, who ob

* Observations périodiques sur la physique, l'histoire naturelle et les beaux-arts, par Gautier, 1756, (with figures). An extract from this is republished in Annals des Sciences nat., 2e ser., t. 13, p. 226, 1840, in an elaborate description of the anatomy, development, habits, etc., of Artemia salina by M. Joly, illustrated by two excellent plates of the female and young. M. Joly failed to observe the male among more than a thousand females, and therefore doubted whether the sexes were distinct, suggesting that the males very well described by Schlosser were only the young, although that author described them as clasping the females in the well known manner, but he did not observe the actual copulation.

See also an article by Thomas Rackett, in Trans. Linn. Soc. of London, vol. xi, p. 205, pl. 14, 1812, (figures very bad); Thompson, Zoological Researches, No. 5, p. 105 t 1 and 2; W. Baird, Nat. Hist. of the British Entomostraca, p. 61, tab. ii, figs. 2-4, (figures very good, but the specimens probably not full-grown).

Voyage en différentes provinces de l'empire de Russie, t. ii, p. 505, (t. Joly). M. Payen, Note sur des animaux qui colorent en rouge les marais salans, Ann. des Sci. nat, 2e ser., t. 6, 1836, p. 219 (contains experiments on the effects caused by altering composition and density of the water); also op. cit., t. 10, 1838, p. 315; Joly, op. cit., t. 13, p. 225, 1840 (see above); Milne Edwards, Crustacés, t. iii, p. 369, 1840.

Audouin, Ann. des Sci. nat., 2e ser., t. 6, 1836, p. 230.
Thompson, Zool. Researches, fas. 7, pl. 1, figs. 11–12.
Edwards, Crustacés, t. iii, p. 370, 1840.

** Verrill, Proceedings Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. xi, p. 3, 1866, (the larvæ were wrongly referred to Eristalis); Packard, on Insects inhabiting salt-water, Proc. Essex Inst., vol. vi, p 41, 1869.