Return to Home Page
To add an addendum to Brian's addendum: If your thinking is
"screwed", then I'll take it over its linear alternative! For every
entry in the Hipparcos and SAO catalogues, there is a designation(s)
that is more inclusive and more widely used. Only a few stubborn
folks (you know who you are!) resort to SAO numbers, which catalogue
does not contain data pertainent to variable stars - the HD and
Durchmusterung catalogues do and, in some cases, are the only
sources for it.
> Well, I have a different thought. My perference (at least from a
> standpoint of variable star resercher) is that "the name is better to
> refect its nature by itself". In other words, "the object('s name)
> in itself should better know how it is outstanding from other objects".
Well, this involves is a particular petty peeve of mine! I can
certainly agree that - in general! - an object's name should reflect
its nature. My peeve relates to spectroscopic binaries - there is
no designation or system of nomenclature for them, as a class (and I
hope never to see such a system for them in my lifetime!). The
"spectroscopic binarity" of a star is at least as important as its
variability. Unless an SB is also a variable star, the HD number,
the Bayer/Flamsteed designations, or the BSC (HR) numbers are
used.
Return to the Powerful Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
