by Robert Verish

Red Dry Lake 024 and 025

This month's installment of "Bob's Findings" should be entitled, "Mike Miller's Findings", for these two meteorites were found by this Kingman, Arizona resident.

Recently, the Nomenclature Committee of the Meteoritical Society has voted to approve these names (and numbers) for his two finds. This article is my way of congratulating Mike Miller on having his two Red Dry Lake finds entered into the Meteoritical Bulletin.

Here's a couple images (post-cut) of these two stones, "Red Dry Lake 025 and RdDL 024":

Mike Miller contacted me shortly after he made his finds at Red Lake in Mohave County Arizona back on the 13th and 28th of September 2003. Mike wanted to know if his stones might be paired to the other Red Dry Lake meteorites finds that I had documented in previous issues of the Meteoritical Bulletin. I had to inform Mike that there was at least 6 different classifications obtained for the 23 "known" Red Dry Lake stones.

NOTE: Some Red Dry Lake meteorites are not classified. But every stone has been assigned a "provisional number" which incidently were in chronological order up until RdDL 030. Of course, the Meteoritical Bulletin only publishes classified meteorites. That is why there appears to be gaps in the numbering sequence. But on the NomComm's list of provisional numbered finds from Red Dry Lake, there are no gaps. All the recovery data for each find is recorded on that list, even for the finds that aren't classified!
Yes! That's correct. The Nom Comm will record your recovery data and they can assign a provisional name/number for your North American meteorite find. Doesn't matter whether your find is from NWA or NorthWest Arizona!

Mike decided to send his specimens to me in order for me to get a good look at them. Even with my cursory examination, I was able to report back to Mike that both of his two finds were the most freshly fusion-crusted stones that I had ever seen from that locality. It was my opinion that these two stones were not paired to any other known find from this locality, 2) that these two stones were probably paried to each other, and 3) there was a very good chance that many more small stones from this fall could be found, if immediate action were taken. My opinion that these stones came from a relatively fresh fall was supported by the fact that the two stones were found, 1) close (but not too close) to each other, and 2) much closer to the middle of the lake (as opposed to being found on or near the shoreline, which is considered as an accumulation zone, which assumes that it would take some time to migrate to that zone).

An alternative theory was that stones were left behind as a "lag gravel" in the middle of the lake. This is supported by the observation that a large network of ditch-sized cracks were starting to develop on the lake bed over the last 3 rainy seasons. From the air this network of dessication ? cracks would make the lake bed surface appear as giant polygonal features! It is surmised the lake bed local to these cracks is being lowered as the ditches are filled in with silt and mud during rainstorms, but would leave behind pebble-sized and larger stones as a "lag gravel". I told Mike that any recovery details that he could supply regarding the immediate area where the finds were made would be very helpful in answering some of these questions.

Mike wanted his finds classified, but he didn't want his stones consumed in the process. I told him that is one of the reasons why I cut my own samples from my specimens. I offered my cutting expertise to him for his stones and offered to send the type specimens to be classified. Long story short, I got him a classification from Harper College, Illinois. I got him provisional name/numbers for his stones from Nom Comm Board member, Rhian Jones. I turned in his data to the Nomenclature Committee (see the table below). Now a year later to the day of his finding these stones, his meteorites are formally approved!

Here is the Table of Red Dry Lake finds that I submitted to the Nomenclature Committee:

Table 2. Ordinary Chondrite finds from the Mojave Desert dense collection area of North America.
Name Find site County, State Latitude Longitude Mass Found Pcs Class Shock WG Fa Fs Wo Cmt Finder Type Info* Main Mass Field/Sample ID No.
(35degN) (114degW) (g) mm/dd/yyyy Stage mol% mol% mol% (1), (2) Spec (g) holder
Red Dry Lake 001 dry lake Mohave, AZ 35 42.85' 114 3.60' 12.40 5/25/1995 1 * * * John Szabo t.s. + 4.0 UofA finder see D. Hill & D. Kring
(RdDL 001)
Red Dry Lake 024 dry lake Mohave, AZ 35 41.839' N 11401.920' W 17.90 9/13/2003 1 L5 S3 W2 24.6+/-0.3 20.9 1.07 En = 78.3 Mike Miller 6.0 Harper finder "Red Dry Lake 024"
(RdDL 024)
Red Dry Lake 025 dry lake Mohave, AZ 35 40.768' N 11402.603' W 6.55 9/28/2003 1 L5/6 S3 W3 25.7+/-0.3 21.8 0.47 En = 77.7 Mike Miller 1.3 Harper finder "Red Dry Lake 025"
(RdDL 025)
Abbreviations: RdDL = Red Dry Lake
* : Classification by University of Arizona "witheld"

For a gallery of other images for these two stones, "Click" on one of the following:

Red Dry Lake 024 (RdDL 024) - - OR - -

- - OR - - Red Dry Lake 025 (RdDL 025)

Compare this to the specimens that appear here, "Other Red Dry Lake Finds web page!

Below is a portion of text from my May 2004 article in which I unintentionally predicted future events at Red Dry Lake:
"Another factor that makes this year busier than previous years is that, apparently, more meteorites are being found! If I'm wrong about that, then for some reason there's a lot more people coming to me and informing me about their meteorite finds. And if this isn't just some transitory spike in activity, then there are either a lot more people out there looking for meteorites, or the same ol' hunters are just getting that much better at finding them!"

The topic of my next article will continue a series on the Snohomish County Bolide of June 3, 2004.

My previous articles can be found *HERE*

For for more information, please contact me by email: Bolide*chaser