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" <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > website: http://cosmochemists.igpp.ucla.edu/Rubin.html > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matson, Robert D." > <[email protected]> > To: "Robert Verish" <[email protected]>; "Meteorite-list > Meteoritecentral" <[email protected]> > 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 > [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
