One benefit of having two numbers is that it allows the classifier to clarify the differences between the two stones in order to show the range of variation among these paired EL stones. The difference in this case being one stone has "Alabandite present", and the second stone was "Extremely weathered showing only rare metal. Rare alabandite".
This would actually aid a subsequent classifier of another EL6 stone to be able to pair that third stone to the other two. Otherwise that subsequent classifier (not being aware of this variation) may be misled into thinking that the third stone is unpaired. When I first read Mendy's question about "assignment of NWA numbers", I thought he was making reference to assignment of provisional numbers. These are usually assigned before the stones are classified and if the stones have any appearance of outwardly looking different to each other, the prudent requester is wise to get a number for each stone. Once a requester gets two numbers "assigned", it's not likely that a classifier will get rid of one number. Where is the motivation if the classifier will get more type-specimen by having each stone numbered. If the classifier submits a classification for each numbered stone, the NomCom will accommodate that classifier by "approving" both numbers. Anything less, and the NomCom would be considered "unaccommodating". Now, in defense of the classifier for not getting rid of one of the numbers, I would say that the test lies in answering this question: "What is the added-value in discarding a number?" (Which is basically what Jeff Grossman was saying when he asked, "Why is this a problem?") Or stated another way: "Is there any added-value in approving two numbers that were assigned to two stones that were subsequently paired?" For one answer to that question as it relates to these two EL6 stones, go to the beginning of this post. Bob V. --- On Sat, 2/16/13, Mendy Ouzillou <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Mendy Ouzillou <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Update - EL's and OC's > To: "'Jeff Grossman'" <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013, 8:51 PM > > Because as I read it > the data for both specimens are the same > within the margin of error > and the two specimens > should share one number. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 7:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Met Bulletin Update - EL's and OC's > > Why is this a problem? -jeff > > On 2/16/2013 9:46 PM, Mendy Ouzillou wrote: > > Why are two consecutive numbers assigned to the same > group of stones. > EL6, two stones and same classifiers. I don't get it > ... > > > > Mendy Ouzillou > > > > On Feb 16, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "Galactic Stone & > Ironworks" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Bulletin Watchers, > > > > There are a handful of new approvals - all are NWA meteorites. > > > > Link - > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=&sfor=names&ants=&falls=&valids=&stype=contains&lrec=50&map=ge&browse=&country=All&srt=name&categ=All&mblist=All&rect=&phot=&snew=1&pnt=Normal%20table&dr=&page=0 > > > > Best regards, > > > > MikeG > > > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
