[meteorite-list] Re Nevada picture of the day / Reply to Ruben Garcia

From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <258119.99574.qm_at_web51704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>




4.2 Dense collection areas. In areas of dense
meteorite concentrations such as those covered under
?3.3c and ?3.4c, the following guidelines apply:

a) Level of scrutiny. Sequential names comprising a
prefix and numeric suffix will be given to new
meteorites without checking for possible pairings,
although a single (collective) name may be given in
cases where fragments fit together or similar-looking
fragments are found within a few meters of each other.

------------- Original Message ----------------

--- Ruben Garcia <meteoritemall at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Bob, Sonny, Moni and List,
> I have some questions regarding this subject.
> However, in this case it seems to me that Sonny has
> a good point. Why would we want to get a provisional
> number on every single meteorite we find. Especially
> when we find them within feet of known meteorite
> finds.
> If they are found in the same area and look the same
> shouldn't we assume that they more than likely pair?
> Do we have to classify/pair every meteorite we find?

------------- End of Original Message -------------

Hi Ruben,

Good question!
And based upon the NomComm's own "guidelines" (pasted
above) you don't need to get numbers for each
fragment. You can get a "single (collective) name".
I prefer to do it this way (group pieces under one
number, that is) and I do this every chance I get.

Probably the best example would be your "California
Strewnfield" as you described in "Meteorite" magazine.

And as you stated in that article, you discovered that
this locality already had an approved name, so that
would have allowed you to get a "single" prov. number
assigned right away. You can actually get this number
assigned BEFORE you get it classified!

I've discovered that this fact is not well understood.

And "No", you don't have to get every meteorite
classified. At least I can tell you that I certainly
don't get every one of my finds classified. That's
why there appears to be gaps in the numbering sequence
of the Red Dry Lake meteorites. That's because not
every stone that got a provisional number was

Admittedly, in this particular case, we did have to
get a provisional number for each individual find.
That's because, what with there being 4-6 different
meteorites having accumulated on this stranding
surface, "proximity" had very little to do with

So, I appreciate your asking these questions, and I
hope that this thread has been of some help.

If I have misrepresented the NomComm, or mistated any
facts, I would appreciate a reply from any one of
their representatives.

Bob V.
Received on Mon 09 Apr 2007 02:41:33 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb