[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Monahans

Hey people,

I just want to remind everybody NOT to assume that "Monahans (b)"
will be the name of this meteorite.  There are always options when
it comes to naming meteorites.  The finder/owner and/or the describer/
classifier will make a proposal to the Nomenclature Committee.
Together, the Committee and these individuals will settle on an
acceptable name.

On a personal note, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about giving
a well-documented observed fall a name like XXXX (b).  The only
cases that I know of like this are:
	Benares (a), an old fall that was retroactively named (a) in
           the 1980's when some metal from the same place
           showed up and was named (b).  Never sanctioned by the NomCom.
	Galim (a) and (b), which are probably part of the same 1952 fall,
           but the details are very hazy, and material is lost.
	Umm Ruaba (b), a name that came into use without NomCom approval
           in the 1980's for a stone that may have fallen near the
           earlier Umm Ruaba fall site.  It has never been described.
	Willard (b), which MAY have been an observed fall in the 1930's,
           but it's very poorly documented (the Connecticut dealer
           who bought it would not disclose the eyewitness's name).

So there are really no other cases like Monahans where letters were
used to name a fresh, new fall in a place which already had a meteorite.

We'll just have to wait and see.  With any luck, it'll be very soon.

jeff grossman (ed., meteoritical bulletin)