Return to Home Page
I recommended long ago that people *not* use USNO-A or UCAC zone/number names, just for the reason that they were likely to change with later releases. You have seen that with USNO-SA, USNO-A1.0, USNO-A2.0 and now USNO-B1.0, for example. As long as there are astronomers, you will see multiple names for every object. As mentioned, many objects have different characteristics (such as high proper motion or radio loudness) that will result in their cataloging by different groups. Astronomers tend to want short names so that they can be easily remembered. While the original GCVS designations made that possible for variable stars, note that some constellations (such as Sgr) now have thousands of variables that are just numbered sequentially, and other stars that are listed twice. I don't see any solution to the problem. Using the RA/DEC format helps in uniquely identifying an object, as long as you copy all umpteen digits correctly (and have software that can handle long names!), but you have to do the astrometry correctly (not always possible at some wavelengths) and then what happens with time and proper motion? On the other hand, I agree that taking a legitimate variable star, such as a new nova that has a good GCVS name, and forming a Harvard Designation for that star, doesn't make good sense. I'm glad I am not someone who has potential authority to make nomenclature decisions! Arne
Return to the Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
