It would probably be best not to use a lithologic term in a numbering
scheme. Some specimens may defy such a descriptor, and in other cases
it may simply be hard to tell what it is at the time of numbering. And
it would really be good not to use numbers in the same format as dense
collection areas (001, 002, etc.). I would suggest using simple
numbering schemes like #1, #2, etc. Unlike "001" or "no. 1", this
symbol never occurs in meteorite names (unless as part of a tweet, I
suppose). A good example of how I think it should be done is the way
Peter Jenniskens did it for Sutter's Mill and Almahata Sitta, e.g.,
http://asima.seti.org/sm/ and http://asima.seti.org/2008TC3/
Jeff
On 1/2/2014 10:40 AM, Greg Hupé wrote:
Hi Jim,
I wouldn't call it "lazy science", but I agree with a numbering system
when possible, but when there are several people from around the world
involved in a fall collecting stones, it can be impossible to get
everyone to go along with the numbering system. Take Chelyabinsk for
instance, impossible to number each stone because of the hundreds of
people collecting.
I think the next best thing is to name/number oddities like the Katol
irons as maybe "Katol - iron 001". Almahata Sitta was a rare
occurrence since one initial scientist/museum had all of the stones
that came out and it was easy to assign numbers, same with the single
dealer who first offered the variety of stones.
Best Regards,
Greg
====================
Greg Hupé
The Hupé Collection
[email protected]
www.NaturesVault.net (Online Catalog & Reference Site)
www.LunarRock.com (Online Planetary Meteorite Site)
NaturesVault (Facebook, Pinterest & eBay)
http://www.facebook.com/NaturesVault
http://pinterest.com/NaturesVault
IMCA 3163
====================
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Wooddell
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 10:29 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official
Hi Greg and all,
I would not suggest another name nor would I suggest it's a different
fall. However I would suggest a numbering schema that maybe followed a
find sequence. Katol 001, Katol 005, etc.
I say that because if stuff is never studied...ie classified....we just
will never know what it's make up is. And, that can and does apply to
any strewn field.
So, everything becomes opinion and guesswork. Lazy science.
Jim
On 1/2/2014 7:24 AM, Greg Hupé wrote:
Since the iron was found with other fresh Katol stony pieces and some
of the stony matrix is clearly visible on the outside of the iron, I
see no reason to even consider cutting it to get a separate name.
That is one nice thing of the iron being collected within a couple
days of the fall, and well before any rains came along to oxidize
and/or discolor the portion of matric on the iron. I think the few
irons should be mentioned in the Official Katol classification,
clearly they are 'pop-outs' from the Katol mass.
...just my 2 Rupees worth...
Best Regards,
Greg
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
