[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1367349409.50122.YahooMailNeo_at_web122002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

I am glad to see that no compromises are being made and that the Meteoritical Society rules are being followed.? It is also good that most dealers are aware of the rules and are willing to honor them.? I am particularly impressed with the fact that a List Member(s) was willing to step up and provide additional material if needed to make this fall official.

Happy Hunting,

Adam

________________________________
From: Alan Rubin <aerubin at ucla.edu>
To: "Matson, Robert D." <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>; Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>; Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update


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 03:16:49 PM PDT