Handbook of iron meteorites. Their history, distribution, composition and structure. Volume 2. Iron meteorites. Abakan-Mejillones / Справочник по железным метеоритам. Их история, распространение, состав и структура. Том 2. Железные метеориты.

The Descriptive Part which follows contains a designation of all iron meteorites known to the author as of January 1, 1973. They are listed alphabetically according to the name adopted by Hey (1966) or other authorities. Numerous synonyms and cross references are given to help the reader find the meteorite sought. Additional names and synonyms may be found in Appendices 2, 3 and 4. A Supplement, giving information on meteorites examined after January 1,1973, will be found at the end of Volume 3.
Each full description is headed by a summary statement that may serve as a fingerprint for the particular meteorite. In the paragraph History, the available information as to date and locality of find is critically discussed, and reasons are given for the elimination of a number of meteorites, hitherto believed to be independent falls, see Appendix 3. In some cases ‘lost masses’ could be relocated in various collections, such as Duel Hill (1854), Duel Hill (1873) and many Mexican meteorites; or entirely new meteorites could be established, such as Augusta County, Sandtown and Zerhamra. See page 37. The more important of the earlier studies are very briefly discussed. For papers printed before 1900 the reader should, in general, refer to the references and discussions found in Wiilfing (1897), Cohen (1905) and Farrington (1915).
Following the history, there is a list of Collections known to the author possessing material of the particular meteorite. This information is based upon recent catalogs and numerous personal visits to the various collections. For a list of the collections, their relative sizes and their published catalogs the reader is referred to Appendix 8.
The Chemical Analyses contain only the best available results. Such analyses which a critical comparison with the microstructure showed to be dubious have been omitted, usually without mention or discussion. It may be criticized that the omitted data are not quoted and discussed first, but it was felt that this would unnecessarily expand an already voluminous paper. The analysis quoted in the “fingerprint” heading is a weighted average of the selected analyses, often with added information on P, S and C from the author’s planimetry of large sections. <...>