Talk:CI chondrite

Tagish Lake ...Tagish fake
Tagish Lake is not a CI chondrite. The Meteoritical Bulletin is very specific about this, and is just a bit more definitive than WP (For the time being, there is no 6th Edition of the Catalogue of Meteorites, and TL would not have made it into the 5th. We'll have to go with MetBull then.) Short of MetBull, I do think can SEE a chondrule or two in the photo accompanying "Tagish Lake." By definition, plainly-visible chondrules, CAIs, or AOAs disqualify anything from being type 1.

Why are we here? Why has this been up for a decade? Why is it my responsibility to fix a naked error?141.161.13.104 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Section: Antarctic/CY
Antarctic specimens, plus possibly Dhofar 1988, may or may not be considered additional CIs. We'll see how that turns out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.13.104 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo not o'
The photograph accompanying the article- the only one- is not only off, but off completely. Not a single one of those specimens is a CI. Too bad, there's a real benefit in at least one representative image or diagram. 141.161.13.104 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)