[meteorite-list] KATOL (L6) is official

[Jim Wooddell]

Hi Greg,

The find order is not necessarily important at all to 
science.....although I think we all would agree that would be nice.
That's a hunter thing that does not mean much to science.

Field names and numbers are often in the bulletin comments if provided 
during the submittable process.
My suggestion is that the samples studied would be assigned a number in 
the order received by the Editor.
This completely eliminates the petty BS that goes on with some playing 
numbers games.

Jim




On 1/2/2014 8:40 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
> gmhupe at centurylink.net
> 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: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Jim Wooddell
jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net
http://pages.suddenlink.net/chondrule/