(1) Since writing my first note1 I have come across a passage in meteorite literature which, I think, definitely establishes the view that the high figure usually quoted for the number of Pultusk stones was based on a reasonable estimate and was not due to a misreading of a Warsaw publication, as suggested by Dr. Stenz2. Daubrée3 mentions this very publication, and refutes energetically the low figures therein given as being “bien loin de la réalité”. He knows already (August 1868) of more than 3,000 stones actually found, and emphasizes the exceptionally unfavourable circumstances for their collection. So, evidently, it was not ignorance of the statement made by the Haute École de Varsovie, but opposition to it, based on more extended knowledge which induced French, Austrian and German authorities to adopt the high value for the total number of the stones.
NATURE, 140, 504 (1937).
Stenz, E., NATURE, 140, 113 (1937).
Daubrée, A., Compt. rend., 67, 369 (1868).
Spencer, L. J., NATURE, 140, 589 (1937).
Buchner, O., Poggendorff's Annalen, 136, 589 (1869).
About this article
Cite this article
PANETH, F. Meteorites: the Number of Pultusk Stones, and the Spelling of “Widmanstätten Figures”. Nature 140, 809 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1038/140809a0