[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:57:15 -0700
Message-ID: <7C640E28081AEE4B952F008D1E913F170775DCEC_at_0461-its-exmb04.us.saic.com>

Hi Bob,

> Here is the question I am posing to the List, stated another way:

> If everyone is in agreement with the Jenniskins arrangement, then
> why can't the Committee credit UCLA?for the type specimen and move
> forward with approving at least the name "Novato" (if need be, at
> least provisionally)?? I mean, what is the difference whether the
> type specimen goes first to UCLA, then goes to NASA, or vice-versa?

I don't know the answer. This sounds like a good question for Jeff
Grossman. I can certainly ~imagine~ some possible explanations, not
the least of which is that I believe some past meteorites have gotten
Nomenclature Committee approval on the promise of an adequate type
specimen, only to have that promise never fulfilled. In the Novato
case, it would appear there is more than enough type specimen
distributed between at least two recognized institutions; it's just
that the final destination of a fraction of it has not yet occurred.
Perhaps more to the point, the actual type specimen mass is not yet
known, since it involves the balance of a 29-gram sample -- an
unknown portion of which has been used in destructive analysis.
Kind of hard for the Committee to vote on a meteorite when they
don't know the actual type specimen mass -- even if that mass is
almost surely greater than 20 grams.

None of this discussion would appear to impact the decision to
approve a provision name, however.

Best,
Rob
Received on Tue 30 Apr 2013 01:57:15 PM PDT