[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Michael Farmer <mike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 07:49:23 +0600
Message-ID: <29858C1B-8052-432F-A26E-923F75DCA032_at_meteoriteguy.com>

Comayagua was sold to the university in Tegucigalpa. I guess it will never be seen again.
As far as GSI India, gone into the black hole of Calcutta. Katol needs to be done in the states.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2013, at 1:24 AM, "Galactic Stone & Ironworks" <meteoritemike at gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed, somebody needs to cough up a piece to consolidate the type
> specimen and satisfy the requirements for publication in the Met
> Bulletin. That is how it should be. Until such a specimen is
> analyzed, submitted, and approved, it is not a meteorite, it is a rock
> that is suspected to be a meteorite. Giving it any unofficial name
> does not make it a meteorite, unless that name is approved by NonCom.
>
> Everybody wins when the specimen is classified and approved via an
> open, transparent, and "official" manner.
>
> There are too many falls that are not approved yet. Going back to the
> year 2000, there are seventeen (17) falls that are not officially
> approved yet. They come from all corners of the world and some are
> very well documented, but have not been approved for various reasons.
> For example, someone earlier mentioned that Canada does not drag it's
> feet on classifications and would simply buy the type specimen. Well,
> there is the Montney fall from 2005 that is lost somewhere in the
> system. Canada is usually pretty quick, but why hasn't Montney been
> approved? Is there doubt about the fall in some way, or is it a
> problem similar to Novato where it is a bonafide fall but has not been
> approved for logistical reasons?
>
> Collectors and probably some scientists are eager for a few recent
> falls to become approved. Until these meteorites are approved, they
> cannot be published in most peer-reviewed journals. And until they
> are approved, there will always be an element of reluctance on the
> behalf of some collectors.
>
> Zunhua? No doubt there. Penetrated a house and was documented
> thoroughly. Why hasn't this one been classified yet? What are the
> Chinese waiting on? Nobody else outside China will submit it for
> classification because it is a scientific courtesy, so will it remain
> in limbo forever because .... ?
>
> Katol? It's distinctive and on the market. Again, there is no doubt
> that it is a fall. Let's hope GSI submits it so it can be published.
> Collectors want to know. It may be a meteorite that is interesting to
> science as well.
>
> Draveil? What's the hold up on this one?
>
> Oslo?
>
> The list -
>
> Jan 15, 2013 - "Planeta Rica" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite?) : Colombia
> Feb 11, 2012 - "Huangzhong/Xining" (unofficial) (L6 chondrite?) : China
> Mar 01, 2012 - "Oslo" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite?) : Norway (Hammer)
> May 03, 2012 - "Diplo" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite?) : Pakistan
> May 22, 2012 - "Katol" (unofficial) (achondrite) : India (Hammer)
> Jun 03, 2012 - "Comayagua" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite) : Honduras (Hammer)
> Jul 08, 2012 - "Jalangi" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite?) : India
> Oct 12, 2012 - "Beni Yacoub" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite?) : Morocco
> Oct 17, 2012 - "Novato" (unofficial) (L6 chondrite) : California USA(Hammer)
> Oct 30, 2012 - "Addison" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite?) : Alabama USA
> Dec 16, 2012 - "Algeria" (unofficial) (LL chondrite?) : Algeria
> Jul 11-12, 2011 - "Draveil/Essonne?" (unofficial) (H chondrite?) :
> France (Hammer)
> May 01, 2010 - "Breja/Taouz" (unofficial) (LL6 chondrite?) : Morocco/Algeria
> Mar 01, 2009 - "Cartersville" (unofficial) (ordinary chondrite) :
> Georgia USA (Hammer)
> Apr 12, 2008 - "Zunhua" (unofficial) (L4 chondrite?) : China (Hammer)
> Sep 07, 2007 - Guadalajara (L or LL3 chondrite?) : Mexico (Hammer)
> Jul 17, 2005 - "Montney" (H6 chondrite?) : Canada (Hammer)
>
> Best regards,
>
> MikeG
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
> Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
> Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
> Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
> RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On 4/30/13, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 09:49:23 PM PDT