[vsnet-chat 4278] Re: on clarification...

[crawl@zoom.co.uk]

Taichi Kato wrote that :

------snip start------
>Some frequently requested matters and questions include:
>
>   * Why a discoverer of a variable star is not given rights to assign its
>name (as in minor planet)?
>
>   * The nova nomenclature system should be separated from the general
>variable star nomenclature system.
>
>   * There should be a center of crediting variable star discoveries.
>
>   * There is no use to record observations of already well-known objects.
>
>   * I'm not interested in following already discovered objects.
>
>   * I don't want to circulate my outburst detection until its importance
>becomes evident.  I would like to maximize the importance of my discovery.
--------snip end-------

Wow!!! It is ever worse than I imagined!!!  Things could be far _worse_
then...

...I can see it now, sponsorship, ie "this variable star was brought to you
by Fred's Light Buckets (TM), and cannot be observed or studied in anyway
without express permission from the owners" ;-) or should that be :-( 

That's interesing information, thanks for sharing it.

NB if anybody really must have a star named after them, they better take up
discovering and measuring new binary stars, then when you've submitted
enough stuff, you'll end up with catalogue objects name after you, such as
"Fredson 1", "Fredson 2" etc.  However, this has got to be meaningful work,
not just any old adjacent pair of stars, most binaries have been found, new
ones tend to be of subarcsec separation, which is not easy anywhere, and
the only people who will probably use this nomenclature [if at all] will be
other binary star folk, a somewhat diminished group nowadays!

Cheers

John

John Greaves

PS re blue flycatcher : thanks for the info Dr Kato, I've forwarded it.
I'll leave it alone there, because I now the comment >>(the other Latin
name is Erithacus Cyane)<<* is going to end up with me being accosted with
lectures on "senior homonyms and junior synonyms" and what have you from
Steve, whether I like it or not!  Of course, what many people don't know is
that formally the binomial nomenclature for species definition should also
include the surname of the first describing author and the year date of
publication.  This has in the past led to people defining or re-defining
animal species [traditional split into the "lumpers" and "splitters"
camps], sometimes merely to get their names linked to a "new" species
definition.  Doesn't happen much nowadays though, but interesting in the
light of some current threads.  Fortunately for the biological nomenclature
people they have formal rules to try and avoid problems, but it's still
confusing, and can cause name changes of well known creatures... ...that's
why "brontosaurs" are now properly known as "apatosaurs"... ...it is all a
matter of publication priority.

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp