[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Michael Farmer <mike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 00:47:20 +0600
Message-ID: <7A2342C1-070B-499F-A8A7-C452FC75F8B3_at_meteoriteguy.com>

As should be done.
Congrats though on third California fall. Two in one year ain't half bad :)
Michael Farmer

Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2013, at 12:36 AM, "Alan Rubin" <aerubin at ucla.edu> wrote:

> I was informed by Laurence Garvie that they don't deal in promises. They will approve the name only after they are notified that an actual physical specimen of the proper mass is in the possession of a qualified institution.
> Alan
>
>
> Alan Rubin
> Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics
> University of California
> 3845 Slichter Hall
> 603 Charles Young Dr. E
> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567
> phone: 310-825-3202
> e-mail: aerubin at ucla.edu
> website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matson, Robert D." <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
> To: "Robert Verish" <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>; "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Tue 30 Apr 2013 02:47:20 PM PDT