From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:42:01 2004
At 02:07 PM 1/19/2001, Matson, Robert wrote:
>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
I am in full agreement. However it got by the reviewers and/or the
associate editor and so there we have it. As for a petition, even if
you were serious there would be nobody to send it to.
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA
Received on Fri 19 Jan 2001 08:25:11 PM PST