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

[David Weir]

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