The single parent body model for the CV and CK chondrites (Greenwood et al.) was challenged by Dunn et al. (), who argued that magnetite compositions could not be reconciled by a single metamorphic sequence (i.e., CV3 → CK3 → CK4–6). Cr isotopic compositions, which are distinguishable between the CV and CK chondrites, also support two different parent bodies (Yin et al.). Despite this, there are many petrographic and mineralogical similarities between the unequilibrated (petrologic type 3) CK chondrites and the CV chondrites (also type 3), which may result in misclassification of samples. Hart and Northwest Africa 6047 (NWA 6047) are an excellent example of this. In this study, we revisit the classification of Hart and NWA 6047 using magnetite compositions, petrography, and compositions of olivine, the most ubiquitous mineral in both CV and CK chondrites. Not only do our results suggest that NWA 6047 and Hart were misclassified, but our assessment of CV and CK3 chondrites has also led to the development of criteria that can be used to distinguish between CV and CK3 chondrites. These criteria include: abundances of Cr2O3, TiO2, NiO, and Al2O3 in magnetite; Fa content and NiO abundance of matrix olivine; FeO content of chondrules; and the chondrule:matrix ratio. Classification as a CV chondrite is also supported by the presence of igneous chondrule rims, calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions, and an elongated petrofabric. However, none of these petrographic characteristics can be used conclusively to distinguish between CV and CK3 chondrites.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Space and Planetary Science