Return to Home Page
[comments on "object-class specific" astrnonomical names snipped]
I agree there's is some utility in that, but it is easy to find
examples where either the object-class is uncertain or ambiguous, or
more commonly, the object belongs to several categories. An imaginary
example would be the spectroscopic binary that's also a Be star, that's
also a UV-bright and IRAS source, etc. Why not just use the good ol'
HD number and to heck with the rest?
I consider every star to be variable: that it doesn't have a GCVS
name merely means nobody has looked at it carefully yet. That a particular
star happens to be a variable is often of no particular interest (can I
say that on these lists?!), so proliferating added names when it becomes
known as variable is not really desireable---though it's done (for now)
as a bookkeeping measure, deriving from the days when variable stars
were really unusual. How will we look at things when there are hundreds
of thousands of catalogued variables in each constellation (even Equuleus)?
\Brian
Return to the Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
