[meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)

From: Meteoriteshow <meteoriteshow_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 6 10:56:47 2006
Message-ID: <017e01c6711d$493ecac0$0400a8c0_at_IBM>

Hi David, Rob and List,

It is exactly the way I understand it since I was somehow told to do so by one of the scientists who does classifications for us,
when I asked him about it. He gave me about the same arguments as the ones that you are using, David.

Cheers

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Weir" <dgweir_at_earthlink.net>
To: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog_at_comcast.net>
Cc: "Meteoriteshow" <meteoriteshow_at_free.fr>; <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)


> Rob Wesel wrote:
> > Just to briefly elaborate Frederick
> >
> > A new number with NomCom is considered paired not "likely paired".
> > Paired is a scientific fact, likely paired is an opinion.
> >
> > This applies to Morocco and adjacent countries alone, other hot zones
> > like Burkina Faso, Gold Basin, Dhofar and Franconia move right through
> > never seen by a scientist. This is more science based than authenticity
> > based, it is an attempt to piece together a record so one day a team may
> > decide to try and put the NWA demographics into a scientific order.
>
> Rob,
>
> It does appear that NomCom rules permit you to have your olivine
> diogenite fragments officially paired with NWA 1877 with no significant
> additional material required for deposit, as long as you just register
> your fragments under a different name and supply geographic references.
> That said, I have my doubts that your material coming out of who knows
> where, through who knows how many hands, without any GPS evidence tying
> it to the find area (I'm assuming), would stand a chance of gaining
> official pairing status by NomCom to any previously classified material
> like NWA 1877, even though it may be the exact same stuff. This pairing
> can still be established in the research literature, but will not be so
> designated in the Bulletin. At least that's the way I interpret the new
> rule revision of April 2005 below. Anyone else read it differently?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message is to inform you that the Nomenclature Committee has
> once again made changes to the Guidelines for Meteorite
> Nomenclature. We have now agreed to a rule under which meteorites
> from dense collection areas can be formally paired at the time of
> initial characterization, and thereby be subject to relaxed type-
> specimen requirements.
>
> Under this rule, meteorites from dense collection area may be
> declared by the Committee to be paired if there is overwhelming
> evidence, including geographic data, supporting the claim. When the
> Committee votes to accept such evidence, each new specimen will still
> get a separate name, in keeping with current practices. However, the
> requirement that 20 g or 20% of the total mass, whichever is less, be
> deposited in institutions that have well-curated meteorite
> collections will apply to the pairing group as a whole instead of to
> individual specimens.
>
> The Committee will only consider requests to pair newly discovered
> meteorites with each other or with other formally named meteorites.
> Requests to pair existing, formally named meteorites in the absence
> of new specimens will not be considered.
>
> All pairing groups approved by the Committee will be announced in the
> Meteoritical Bulletin.
>
> The revised Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature are online at
> http://meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/nc-guidelines.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> David
>
Received on Sat 06 May 2006 10:56:41 AM PDT