[meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)
From: Meteoriteshow <meteoriteshow_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 6 10:56:47 2006 Message-ID: <017e01c6711d$493ecac0$0400a8c0_at_IBM> Hi David, Rob and List, It is exactly the way I understand it since I was somehow told to do so by one of the scientists who does classifications for us, when I asked him about it. He gave me about the same arguments as the ones that you are using, David. Cheers Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Weir" <dgweir_at_earthlink.net> To: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog_at_comcast.net> Cc: "Meteoriteshow" <meteoriteshow_at_free.fr>; <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI) > Rob Wesel wrote: > > Just to briefly elaborate Frederick > > > > A new number with NomCom is considered paired not "likely paired". > > Paired is a scientific fact, likely paired is an opinion. > > > > This applies to Morocco and adjacent countries alone, other hot zones > > like Burkina Faso, Gold Basin, Dhofar and Franconia move right through > > never seen by a scientist. This is more science based than authenticity > > based, it is an attempt to piece together a record so one day a team may > > decide to try and put the NWA demographics into a scientific order. > > Rob, > > It does appear that NomCom rules permit you to have your olivine > diogenite fragments officially paired with NWA 1877 with no significant > additional material required for deposit, as long as you just register > your fragments under a different name and supply geographic references. > That said, I have my doubts that your material coming out of who knows > where, through who knows how many hands, without any GPS evidence tying > it to the find area (I'm assuming), would stand a chance of gaining > official pairing status by NomCom to any previously classified material > like NWA 1877, even though it may be the exact same stuff. This pairing > can still be established in the research literature, but will not be so > designated in the Bulletin. At least that's the way I interpret the new > rule revision of April 2005 below. Anyone else read it differently? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is to inform you that the Nomenclature Committee has > once again made changes to the Guidelines for Meteorite > Nomenclature. We have now agreed to a rule under which meteorites > from dense collection areas can be formally paired at the time of > initial characterization, and thereby be subject to relaxed type- > specimen requirements. > > Under this rule, meteorites from dense collection area may be > declared by the Committee to be paired if there is overwhelming > evidence, including geographic data, supporting the claim. When the > Committee votes to accept such evidence, each new specimen will still > get a separate name, in keeping with current practices. However, the > requirement that 20 g or 20% of the total mass, whichever is less, be > deposited in institutions that have well-curated meteorite > collections will apply to the pairing group as a whole instead of to > individual specimens. > > The Committee will only consider requests to pair newly discovered > meteorites with each other or with other formally named meteorites. > Requests to pair existing, formally named meteorites in the absence > of new specimens will not be considered. > > All pairing groups approved by the Committee will be announced in the > Meteoritical Bulletin. > > The revised Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature are online at > http://meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/nc-guidelines.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > David > Received on Sat 06 May 2006 10:56:41 AM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |