Comments on the publication by Rachel S. Kirby, Penelope L. King, and Andrew G. Tomkins “A statistical investigation into relationships between the IIE irons and the ordinary, F and ‘ HH ’ chondrites.” Meteoritics & Planetary Science 60, Nr 10, 2376–2400

These comments are devoted to our observations based on recently reviewing publications regarding reduced ungrouped chondrites (F‐, HH, and others). In these publications, the authors defined a group of “F‐chondrites,” comprising previously ungrouped chondrites of petrologic types 3 and 4 that exhibit very low fayalite (Fa) content. One publication concluded that certain reduced chondrites belonged to the F‐group based solely on cluster analysis, disregarding previously published petrologic data for these meteorites. We propose that the meteorites classified as F‐chondrites in these publications actually comprise at least two distinct groups: the F‐chondrites and metal‐rich, matrix‐free chondrites of the “G” group. The average olivine composition in F‐chondrites is Fa4.06 ± 1.48 mole%, whereas in G‐group chondrites it is Fa0.70 ± 0.43 mole%. Notably, it is impossible to determine the petrologic type of G‐group chondrites due to differences in the evolution and thermal history of their parent asteroid, and reduced chondrites, also G chondrites and reduced chondrites are very different in texture and petrography.