[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:46:52 -0400
Message-ID: <5180740C.8070508_at_gmail.com>

This is a long thread and I haven't read all of it. But here are the
facts about provisional names and approvals of new meteorites:

Provisional names are ONLY given to meteorites from dense collection
areas. The reason is that the geographic part of the name is already
agreed upon. The provisional part is the number. The whole system is
meant to handle places where many meteorites are being found and slowly
classified. We wanted a way to track all of these meteorites as early
in the process as possible, before they got divided up, mixed up and
sold/traded into many hands.

The type specimen requirement is really the gold standard for approval
of new meteorites. It's the one thing that the committee will not bend,
as a meteorite without an accessible type specimen may as well not
exist, as far as science is concerned. Promises don't cut it. And when
a specimen is deposited in an institution, it has to be an institution
that makes specimens available to qualified investigators, has a
long-term commitment to curation, and has permanent custody of the specimen.

Meteorites that have been delayed in getting published in the Bulletin
usually fall in to one of these categories:

1) Nobody has ever submitted it to the nomcom.
2) It was submitted, but has problems that have not been fixed by the
submitter in a revised entry.
3) It was submitted, but the type specimen was either too small or not
properly deposited in a qualified institutional collection.
4) Nomcom screwed up (regrettable, but it happens. I think it's
happening much less now that we're more automated).

I think that very few unapproved falls, including "Novato," are in
categories 2 and 4.

Jeff

On 4/30/2013 8:20 PM, Richard Montgomery wrote:
> One of the stones from this find was "lent" to the NASA team, with an
> open mind and naivte perhaps; a situation that definitely shook her by
> total surprise and dismay, when another finder of another stone
> offered a perspective. She wasn't pleased to learn that she may never
> see it again.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Verish"
> <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
> To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral"
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>
>
> Thanks Rob,
> for clearing the air and getting this thread back on track.
> And now that the dust has settled, we're back to my original concern:
>
> Why do we have to wait for just the name to be approved?
>
> 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 mean,
> for goodness sake, it's NASA we're talking about here.
>
> Why do we have to wait for the results from the consortium before we
> know the approved name of this meteorite?
> I mean, we didn't even have a consensus classification for Sutter's
> Mill, but that name still got approved! We didn't have to wait for the
> results of the consortium, then. Why now?
>
> But before I conclude, allow me to state several things
> FOR THE RECORD:
>
> Contrary to any unfounded assertions that may get printed on this
> List, there is no "problem" getting type-specimens from finders to
> researchers:
>
> There were 8 Sutter's Mill finds donated from finders & property owners.
> The name "Sutter's Mill" was approved BEFORE a classification could be
> agreed upon and long before the consortium published their results.
>
> There were 2 Battle Mountain specimens voluntarily donated by finders
> to researchers. The name "Battle Mountain" was approved 30 days after
> the fall. What delay?
>
> Other US falls with "no problems" getting type-specimens:
> Mifflin, Lorton, Whetstone Mtns, Ash Creek - no delays in name approval.
>
> Finders of the "Novato" meteorite were making arrangements to submit
> type specimens to researchers, prior to Jenniskins announcement to the
> Press that he was submitting the Webber stone as a type specimen. Days
> after his announcement is when I finally made my Novato find, and at
> that time I never dreamt we would be having this discussion in 2013.
> If it becomes necessary, I am prepared (as are other finders) to
> submit a type specimen to UCLA. But not until we all have been given a
> proper explanation.
>
> -- Bob V.
>
>
> --- On Mon, 4/29/13, Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>> To: "Pat Brown" <scientificlifestyle at hotmail.com>, "Jim Wooddell"
>> <jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net>, "Met List"
>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Date: Monday, April 29, 2013, 8:51 PM
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've been informed by one of the Novato finders that this is
>> a non-issue.
>> Dr. Jenniskens has long-since pledged to donate more
>> than adequate Novato type specimen to UCLA for it to be
>> approved by the Nomenclature Committee. That it hasn't happened
>> already is simply because Dr. Jenniskens wished to ensure that all
>> academic requests for meteoritical material were handled promptly.
>> 29 grams
>> of the first recovered stone were generously donated by Lisa
>> Webber to SETI for scientific analysis; of that, whatever is not
>> consumed
>> in destructive analyses has been promised to UCLA.
>> So there is no cause for alarm; people just need to be patient.
>> --Rob
>>
>>
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's still the "Novato" (provisional) meteorite.
>> It still is not in the Meteoritical Bulletin.
>>
>> This is the slice that Brien Cook originally cut with the intention
>> of submitting it to UCLA. But when he read that someone else was
>> going to supply the type-specimen, he then placed it on eBay.
>>
>> It would be nice if some Institute or consortium would make an offer
>> and try to repatriate this slice and make it a type-specimen so that
>> this US-fall could finally be made "official". All I'm saying is,
>> this "leaving an official-status hanging-in-mid-air" would never
>> happen in Canada. They would just simply buy the type-specimen.
>>
>> It's time for the US to catch-up with Canada. It's time for a change.
>> Bob V.
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> 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 09:46:52 PM PDT