From: Matson, Robert <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:42:01 2004
Thank you for the P.S. in your last message:
> p.s. The "type" CH chondrite was Allan Hills 85085. The name was
> by Bischoff et al 1993 (GCA paper). I don't know why they chose "CH"
> meaning high metal over "CA" for Allan Hills or Acfer, as would be the
> traditional way of naming C chondrite groups, but it caught on
> and has never been countered.
I find inconsistency rather distasteful in scientific endeavors,
although I accept that it happens all the time. I am relatively
new to the field of meteoritics, and so the choice of the "CH"
designation was a source of confusion. It's not as if the type
specimen's initial letter was already spoken for -- "CA" would
have been perfectly acceptable (and I would happily sign a
petition for a formal name change ;-). In any event, I thank
you for bringing up the point and confirming my suspicion that
there was no compelling reason to break the naming convention.
If you have a working tradition in place, it only serves to
confuse people by introducing exceptions to the rule. The choice
of "CH" is particularly egregious in that it mixes and matches
the descriptive conventions for carbonaceous and ordinary
Received on Fri 19 Jan 2001 02:07:32 PM PST