Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
Hello Martin, All, although I'm not so rhetorically trained like you, I guess, you started (once again) in your initial email with a post hoc ergo propter hoc.. After all, if I knew you would reply anyways ; ) The greater good of . don't teach us anything new. 1st - who else is still classifying thousands of OCs aside the classifiers involved in the Antarctics? There are 3256 approved/official NWA meteorites, of which 2325 are ordinary chondrites. To say nothing of the countless Omani finds as well as those from elsewhere, yes, thousands are being analyzed. By whom? By many researchers worldwide. 2nd - why then such a legal drama in so many countries, regarding ownership, heritage, ect. if that stuff is so uninteresting? Two reasons. One is the fact that they're worth so much. The other is that no lawmakers know enough about meteorites to say no meteorites other than ordinary chondrites may leave our country. Well, even if they did, it would be a useless law, because a country that tried to do that would have to train its customs officers to recognize the difference between an achondrite and a common chondrite. And that's not going to happen. No. They're generally expected to write a papers/conduct research at a set rate Difficult to write a paper, if you don't have results from analyzes to write about. At least until meteoritics will be reckoned to the humanities. (Quiet Mathias!) I agree - but if we're to assume that scientists discard ordinary chondrites and work only on the 'interesting' meteorites, then they're still going to have new meteorites to write papers about. paid only to conduct research I think most of them understand analyses of new meteorites as research too. Many researchers' jobs depend on their writing 1-2+ research papers per year, and there's no provision about analyzing new meteorites (I've spoken with a few who analyze meteorites for whom this is the case). Analyzing a new meteorite is a task that takes up time and money that they could otherwise have put towards their research project, and there is little incentive to do it. I'm not going to ask Bill Gates to analyze all of the meteorites in the world just because he makes the most money. Right, but would you pay in a restaurant to the bill an extra for the cook, if the egg in your diner was not uncooked? It is the cook's job to cook the egg I eat at a restaurant. What you don't seem to understand is that many researchers are hired for research -- and the analysis of new meteorites isn't part of their job description. It would be a much better question to ask if you think you should tip the waited if the service was excellent, but the egg undercooked. Because it wasn't the waiter's fault that the egg was underdone. Rather, it was the chef's fault, and they almost never share tips. Furthermore, you seem to have completely missed the point I don't think so, cause that's why we personally spare the classifiers the OCs and the junk meteorites. But I'm glad to see advances in your opinion. You do? I just spent the afternoon at UCLA, and saw excel spreadsheets full of submissions of NWA ordinary chondrites - the fact that 71.4% of all approved NWA's are ordinary chondrites should tell you as much. isn't easy to decipher. Doesn't matter, was off-topic. But you seem to be equating working in a lab analyzing meteorites to the profession of finding and dealing meteorites. In no way. That would be in contrary to the above, a cum hoc ergo propter hoc from your side :-) http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html So A is true and B is true, but A doesn't cause B? There's no way that my interpretation of what you said as a comparison between two professions is a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. That just doesn't make sense. Let me quote you: Although I concede, that the modern practice to give scientists, especially the younger and in branches with an excess supply of applicants, only serial contracts of always maximum 2 years, is quite shabby, cause they are often so lousy endowed, that they reach almost the level of successful planetaries recoverers only. I hope in overseas it's better?) So it can be a pretty thankless job. Sounds like the description of a meteorite hunter, dealer, finder, who mainly have to live from their passion :-) Yes, you are comparing scientists to meteorite hunters/dealers. This has nothing to do with cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. ... Have you been reading the recent posts? Is Catterton J plenty? You seem to think that if someone disagrees with you and your idea that all meteorites should be found as quickly as possible without a care for proper documentation (at least coordinates), they must be against all meteorite dealers. I don't have a latin phrase for that kind of assumption, but rest assured, it doesn't make sense. So you're saying that these scientists should be analyzing meteorites because it's their passion. No. Where?
Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
Hi Jason, [Cue the long reply from M* about how coordinates are all overrated and irrelevant...if it happens, I'll step out of this as well. Enough of that.] Who had said in short (for you native speaker), that in weighting missing coordinates versus a stone itself, for him personally - other than for perhaps J - it never would be a question, to throw Lafayette or Paris into the dustbin or to abstain from analyzing the first Venerian meteorite, only for the reason that they came with no coordinates. Simply because he is always so curious about that, what was and is going on beyond our small backyard out there in the solar system, where - giant heap - mankind can't get to. And because he respects and appreciates also the work of ANSMET, NIPR, PRIC. In many cases, they're not getting paid anything extra to do that work for *you (and me).* ...and the *greater good of science.* The latter is what researching scientists at universities are paid for in general, aren't they? (...and at least here, if they achieve to get an appointment as a tenured German civil servant, then the payment incl. old-age plan is all in all comfortable. Although I concede, that the modern practice to give scientists, especially the younger and in branches with an excess supply of applicants, only serial contracts of always maximum 2 years, is quite shabby, cause they are often so lousy endowed, that they reach almost the level of successful planetaries recoverers only. I hope in overseas it's better?) So it can be a pretty thankless job. Sounds like the description of a meteorite hunter, dealer, finder, who mainly have to live from their passion :-) But if a scientist has a passion for meteorites, I think, it can be also a fulfilling occupation, can't it? Be thankful that they do as good a job as they do. Who would be not? And who wouldn't be thankful that the hunters and dealers do their job as good as they do? In many cases, they're not getting paid anything extra Hmm shall we collect on the list here, because of this reason, some money, for the Aussies finally starting to analyze their 500 unclassified Nullarbor finds they're sitting for 20 years now on? (Bevan, 2006) Or is that job of the state especially if you think about the legal status given to meteorites down there. ( which would lead to the debate about laws, ethics and moral, Greg seemed to have wanted to start.) Well it's simple, in NWA-countries, we simply have not the infrastructure, that coordinates could be taken, I suppose it's also partially because of the argument, Jason told below in another context. NWAs aren't paid highly enough for, that a better field documentation could be made - and additionally the crystallization of idiocy and dilettantism into certain laws encourages and advances the loss of find data first and in extremo the loss of new materials at all. Well and else, for quite all it is a matter of course, to give the coordinates and find data, if known to them. So I think, that what Greg reports or the Labennes did are exceptions. Remember e.g. the first lunar Oman finds - they were firstly also published without the location, but the coordinates were added after a while then -- leading to additional finds by others than the original finders. Neither any advantage for us, the lousy dealers pack, which as is well-known is in ooonly for the money, would come to my mind, in concealing find data, especially cause meteorites with coordinates are better paid on average than those with names. That the find coordinates are withheld for a while, is acceptable, at least for finds - for fresh falls, where as many specimens have to be secured as early as possible, it is the wrong method - the same is often common practice also in scientific work, like e.g. for newly recovered archaeological sites or fossil sites, to keep the pack away until the work is done. We collectors and dealers seem to feel *entitled* No, rather a few don't understand correctly, what MetSoc is made for, I'd think. Best, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Montag, 20. Dezember 2010 01:29 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction) Hello All, I'd like to reply to a few of the points made in the below messages; while I would prefer to stay out of the mechanics of the classification/submission part of it, several other points were made that apply to the majority of people currently getting specimens analyzed and named that should be addressed. Anne said: The lack of a proper find location is not enough to prevent a meteorite from being classified. All the SAHX meteorites, from the Labennes, lack complete coordinates and they have been classified and published. The Labennes promised to release their data. Using this as a justification for a statement
Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
for them, since they are the only ones who can go back to find more. Well, their family and Michel Franco, apparently. That the find coordinates are withheld for a while, is acceptable, at least for finds - for fresh falls, where as many specimens have to be secured as early as possible, it is the wrong method - A while? It's been over a decade, and they have not renewed their vows to divulge data. It looks like they've long since forgotten their naive promise to provide the public with the coordinates for their recoveries. the same is often common practice also in scientific work, like e.g. for newly recovered archaeological sites or fossil sites, to keep the pack away until the work is done. They found their first meteorites in 1997. You tell me how long they should have. And since you're so supportive of the advancement of science by recovery of new meteorites, how can you condone such 'selfish' behavior? Surely they should share the coordinates so that more meteorites can be found more quickly and science can move forward! You are literally contradicting yourself by suggesting that they should be able to withhold coordinates! We collectors and dealers seem to feel *entitled* No, rather a few don't understand correctly, what MetSoc is made for, I'd think. Perhaps, but they tend to be quite loud. Regards, Jason -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Montag, 20. Dezember 2010 01:29 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction) Hello All, I'd like to reply to a few of the points made in the below messages; while I would prefer to stay out of the mechanics of the classification/submission part of it, several other points were made that apply to the majority of people currently getting specimens analyzed and named that should be addressed. Anne said: The lack of a proper find location is not enough to prevent a meteorite from being classified. All the SAHX meteorites, from the Labennes, lack complete coordinates and they have been classified and published. The Labennes promised to release their data. Using this as a justification for a statement like meteorites don't need coordinates in order to become official doesn't make sense. No one knew ahead of time that the Labennes would lie. They did not keep their word. In light of that fact alone, I would suggest that the meteorites be renamed as NWA, since all we know is that they came from somewhere in North (West?) Africa. But changing the nomenclature of meteorites that have already been published in numerous papers and books is not usually done. Nowadays, everyone knows that Sahara XXxxx is just another name for a homeless African meteorite, and that's what the name has come to represent. Is it ideal? No. Is it worth changing the accepted names of hundreds of meteorites just because their names don't fit to an ideal nomenclature system? Maybe. That's not my call, though. And it's not a clear-cut issue. G. Catterton said: To use the claim that it was to keep the location secret is not a valid excuse, Jack and Whetstone clearly showed that location is not needed to get approval. We've gone over this on the list countless times. The coordinates for Whetstone Mountains are on file with the nomenclature committee. The information is there, but has not yet been made public. So the only recent case in which meteorites have been submitted and made official is with the 'Sahara XXxxx' stones, and that's because a 'reputable dealer' did not keep his word. And it's a tough issue, because I would trust the Labennes in a trade or purchase -- the name hasn't been sullied like those of...a few others on this list. And why is that? Probably because withholding promised find information isn't viewed as a transgression comparable with something like switching an NWA L3 with Zulu Queen, or something along those lines. And yet, when you look at the difference between an NWA L3 and Zulu Queen, the only differentiating factor is provenance. Where the stone came from, how much was found, etc. Kind of like the difference between a named stone in general versus a 'Sahara XXxxx' or NWA stone. But people know what they're getting when they buy 'Sahara XXxxx' stones. I don't know if the Labennes will ever release their data, but I very much doubt that they will, ever. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised in the near future, but it's probably not going to happen. -Why would they? [Cue the long reply from M* about how coordinates are all overrated and irrelevant...if it happens, I'll step out of this as well. Enough of that.] The last point I'd like to make addresses the nature of our little meteorite market and how it interacts with the scientific sphere. We collectors and dealers seem
Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
list of Figures of Speech, that figure is called: irony. They found their first meteorites in 1997 ect.pp Seems, you write faster than you read. Skol, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteorite...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Montag, 20. Dezember 2010 11:50 An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction) Alright, fine, Martin. [Cue the long reply from M* about how coordinates are all overrated and irrelevant...if it happens, I'll step out of this as well. Enough of that.] Who had said in short (for you native speaker), that in weighting missing coordinates versus a stone itself, for him personally - other than for perhaps J - it never would be a question, to throw Lafayette or Paris into the dustbin or to abstain from analyzing the first Venerian meteorite, only for the reason that they came with no coordinates. Yes, because that's what I'm suggesting. Just throw meteorites away if they don't have coordinates. You're using a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum Give it a break. Anyone with half a brain can see through that sort of talk. Simply because he is always so curious about that, what was and is going on beyond our small backyard out there in the solar system, where - giant heap - mankind can't get to. And because he respects and appreciates also the work of ANSMET, NIPR, PRIC. ... In many cases, they're not getting paid anything extra to do that work for *you (and me).* ...and the *greater good of science.* The greater good of science would be better served by their concentrating on research - not by their wasting their time meticulously analyzing thousands of ordinary chondrites for the likes of us collectors. Granted, there are rare stones mixed in, but if you're talking about maximizing scientific advancements, there's really not much of an incentive for them to petrographically grade and write up every detail necessary for the approval of most meteorites, because the vast majority of them don't teach us anything new. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but if you're talking about accelerating the 'greater good of science,' scientists should analyze stones to the point of figuring out if they're something interesting -- or not. And if they're not interesting, they should just say 'ordinary equilibrated chondrite' and not waste any more time on them. The latter is what researching scientists at universities are paid for in general, aren't they? No. They're generally expected to write a papers/conduct research at a set rate, and analyses are considered to be 'on the side.' That's why, when you read something like MAPS, most of the papers aren't analyses of new meteorites. They're usually studies performed on older meteorites. (...and at least here, if they achieve to get an appointment as a tenured German civil servant, then the payment incl. old-age plan is all in all comfortable. I don't know what the expectations of researchers are over there, but, regardless of salary, if these scientists are getting paid only to conduct research, asking them to do more is asking them for a favor. Saying that they get paid a comfortable amount and thus should analyze meteorites for us simply doesn't make any sense. I'm not going to ask Bill Gates to analyze all of the meteorites in the world just because he makes the most money. [reductio ad absurdum, but it makes a valid point - you're saying they *should* do work they're not being paid to do] Furthermore, you seem to have completely missed the point of what I was saying. It's not that the scientists themselves are paying for these analyses. They typically have set departmental or lab budgets that are limited by chancellors, department heads, etc. Analyzing meteorites means making thin sections, scheduling additional probe time, and using their own time, and usually there's a cost associated with all of that. That cost has to be paid, usually by their lab, which always has a limited budget. More analyses = less money for research. Although I concede, that the modern practice to give scientists, especially the younger and in branches with an excess supply of applicants, only serial contracts of always maximum 2 years, is quite shabby, cause they are often so lousy endowed, that they reach almost the level of successful planetaries recoverers only. I hope in overseas it's better?) Sorry, but the language of the above paragraph isn't easy to decipher. Not sure what you're saying there. So it can be a pretty thankless job. Sounds like the description of a meteorite hunter, dealer, finder, who mainly have to live from their passion :-) If that's their passion, then they have the life they want, pursuing their dream. Money = / = happiness. But you seem to be equating working in a lab analyzing meteorites to the profession of finding and dealing
Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
Ahm ... virtual silence is quite comfortable :-) Best as ever, Matthias - Original Message - From: Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction) At least until meteoritics will be reckoned to the humanities. (Quiet Mathias!) __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
Dear Greg and Eric--Your stones were classified and submitted and we have discussed this problem. Greg your stone is NWA 5511; Eric, your stones are NWA 5440 and 5441, this you already know. These are part of MIA III or missing in action. As an example of the problems classifiers have had and to some degree still have, I give below the MIA II list (names of individuals are deleted). Most of these were finally cleaned up by the present Editor, Mike Weisberg, whose efforts in this matter are greatly appreciated. With respect to the N. American classifications, those in question, in addition to at least 10 others, were sent off to the Editor in charge a long time ago. Inquires were made several times with no response. After significant time has pasted, I no longer inquire or re-submit. We do not get paid for classifications, any monies received go to the University for instrument time. You, Greg and Eric, were never charged. I do not submit an invoice until official approvals are received. The Editor, members of the NOM COM, and most classifiers that I know do not receive compensation either. We have rather thankless jobs and put up with inefficiencies and abuses. Because of these problems, we posted on our NAU web site that we do not classify any more for the general public. Many of you, make money from classifier's efforts, It costs me about $3K per year to classify meteorites. November 12, 2008 Some “missing” submissions that have occurred over the last couple of years and are still MIA and I am NOT HAPPY! I have addressed these issues several times. 1. Originally submitted in Nov. 2006, then again in Jan. 2007: NWA 2682, 2683, 2684, 2685, 2686, 2687, 2688, 2689, 2691, 2692, 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2095. Our original submission in Nov. was not put into the “proper” format that was posted on Oct. 26. 2. April 2007 submissions: NWA 4650 through NWA 4664 3. Others: NWA 4551, 4541, 4284, 4448, 4544, 4545, 4549. 4409, 4410, 4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4284, 2909. 5. Submitted in Nov. 2006, again in Jan. 2007: Dhofar 1127, 1128, 1130, 1131, 1136, 1139, 1144, 1148, 1154, 1156, 1168, 1170, 1176, 1178, 1181, 1226, 1232, 1243, 1250, 1251, 1261, 1272, 1429, 1430, 1431. 1432. Same as for #1. Now official. 6. And most amazing of all – I submitted an EXCEL sheet of those listed below, some are on Jeff’s web site (blue), others are not (red) and only some are on the tracking list (blue). Jeff’s tracking sites: NWA 4429, 4431, 4432, 4433, 4434, 4436, 4437, 4440,4443. Missing everywhere: NWA 4430, 4435, 4438, 4439, 4441, 4442, , 4445, 4446. 7. One lunar, Jiddat al Harasis (#1004) – now official as 348. 8. And, 12 submitted for N. America a couple of years ago and one NEA submitted long ago before your tenure. These were sent directly to either BLANK. BLANK or to you at the and copied to at least one other. The N. American items went to BLANK, several times. Ted Eric and Greg, if you want to continue discussion about your stones, please do it off line. I have seen enough pissing contests on the LIST and do not want to be part of one. My apology to you and others who are in a neglected position, we are not perfect and have made mistakes, but I do not apologize for issues out of my control. FYI, I have prepared another MIA list and will send it to Mike after critical classifications for LPSC abstracts have been handled by Mike and the NOM COM, i. e., after 1-10-11. These classifications have priority over the general public requests at this time and I do not want to clog up Mike any more than he already is. You might inquire to Tony Irving, Allan Rubin, Randy Korotev, among other classifiers, about problems they had/have. The system is not perfect and improvements have been made, more should and can be made. Ted Bunch On 12/19/10 10:47 AM, Greg Catterton wrote: Seeing as how this was mentioned... Ted has also lost 2 samples of mine. A very unusual black chondrite? and another LL5/6 Polymict breccia. Its been over 18 months. I was told the thin sections were lost... I know of two others who have had issues with him losing material. I too have had little or no email replies. Greg Catterton www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com IMCA member 4682 On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites --- On Sun, 12/19/10, Eric Twelkertwel...@alaska.net wrote: 551 From: Eric Twelkertwel...@alaska.net Subject: Re: [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction) To: impact...@aol.com Cc: star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com, i...@imcamail.de Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 12:41 PM Hi IMCA This reply will divert a bit from the Wilber Wash issue, but I think it is related. Lamesa, Tahoka, and Wellman (f) have all been mentioned in this thread and their lack of publication may be related to Wilbur Wash. A large number of meteorites
Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
Hello All, I'd like to reply to a few of the points made in the below messages; while I would prefer to stay out of the mechanics of the classification/submission part of it, several other points were made that apply to the majority of people currently getting specimens analyzed and named that should be addressed. Anne said: The lack of a proper find location is not enough to prevent a meteorite from being classified. All the SAHX meteorites, from the Labennes, lack complete coordinates and they have been classified and published. The Labennes promised to release their data. Using this as a justification for a statement like meteorites don't need coordinates in order to become official doesn't make sense. No one knew ahead of time that the Labennes would lie. They did not keep their word. In light of that fact alone, I would suggest that the meteorites be renamed as NWA, since all we know is that they came from somewhere in North (West?) Africa. But changing the nomenclature of meteorites that have already been published in numerous papers and books is not usually done. Nowadays, everyone knows that Sahara XXxxx is just another name for a homeless African meteorite, and that's what the name has come to represent. Is it ideal? No. Is it worth changing the accepted names of hundreds of meteorites just because their names don't fit to an ideal nomenclature system? Maybe. That's not my call, though. And it's not a clear-cut issue. G. Catterton said: To use the claim that it was to keep the location secret is not a valid excuse, Jack and Whetstone clearly showed that location is not needed to get approval. We've gone over this on the list countless times. The coordinates for Whetstone Mountains are on file with the nomenclature committee. The information is there, but has not yet been made public. So the only recent case in which meteorites have been submitted and made official is with the 'Sahara XXxxx' stones, and that's because a 'reputable dealer' did not keep his word. And it's a tough issue, because I would trust the Labennes in a trade or purchase -- the name hasn't been sullied like those of...a few others on this list. And why is that? Probably because withholding promised find information isn't viewed as a transgression comparable with something like switching an NWA L3 with Zulu Queen, or something along those lines. And yet, when you look at the difference between an NWA L3 and Zulu Queen, the only differentiating factor is provenance. Where the stone came from, how much was found, etc. Kind of like the difference between a named stone in general versus a 'Sahara XXxxx' or NWA stone. But people know what they're getting when they buy 'Sahara XXxxx' stones. I don't know if the Labennes will ever release their data, but I very much doubt that they will, ever. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised in the near future, but it's probably not going to happen. -Why would they? [Cue the long reply from M* about how coordinates are all overrated and irrelevant...if it happens, I'll step out of this as well. Enough of that.] The last point I'd like to make addresses the nature of our little meteorite market and how it interacts with the scientific sphere. We collectors and dealers seem to feel *entitled* to the services of the people working in the field of meteoritics. It's one thing to criticize someone who's being lazy and clumsy, losing samples left and right. It's another thing entirely to jump on the back of researchers who are simultaneously trying to do real scientific research -- and analyze hundreds, if not thousands, of stones for folks like us on the side. I can understand the indignation of someone who has a sample go missing -- it's happened to me as well. But what I don't do is get angry at the person who has analyzed ten or twenty or a hundred meteorites for me, and who happens to misplace a sample or two. Especially if it's a common NWA chondrite. I haven't heard of any rare material going missing, but...things rarely get truly lost. The best way to go about things is to remember that these scientists are doing you an expensive service that they are not obligated to do. Be thankful that they do as good a job as they do. The reason we have so many meteorites available and classified today is because of them, and it's because of them that many people on this list have been able to literally pay their bills. In many cases, they're not getting paid anything extra to do that work for *you (and me).* So it can be a pretty thankless job. But, if Eric Twelker is right, and there is more than meets the eye...and someone has been consistently doing a shoddy job of keeping records, samples, and submissions up to date, then it seems to me that such a person should be cut from the path to a meteorite's approval. Transparency with regards to the issue would be nice as well. Money's at stake, after all. If anyone has any more questions about Wilbur
Re: [meteorite-list] [meteorite-list?????] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
Greg, 1) I'm not a member of the IMCA by choice 2) I, in theory, cannot see IMCA emails 3) The message I responded to was, itself, posted to the list (it was part of the discussion there) I suppose there's something else you can get angry at Ted for, now. Regards, Jason On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Greg Catterton star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com wrote: Why was this IMCA email taken to the meteorite list? Was this not a private IMCA list discussion? Why did you take this to the Metlist when it was never part of discussion on there? Greg Catterton www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com IMCA member 4682 On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites --- On Sun, 12/19/10, Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jason Utas meteorite...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction) To: Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 7:28 PM Hello All, I'd like to reply to a few of the points made in the below messages; while I would prefer to stay out of the mechanics of the classification/submission part of it, several other points were made that apply to the majority of people currently getting specimens analyzed and named that should be addressed. Anne said: The lack of a proper find location is not enough to prevent a meteorite from being classified. All the SAHX meteorites, from the Labennes, lack complete coordinates and they have been classified and published. The Labennes promised to release their data. Using this as a justification for a statement like meteorites don't need coordinates in order to become official doesn't make sense. No one knew ahead of time that the Labennes would lie. They did not keep their word. In light of that fact alone, I would suggest that the meteorites be renamed as NWA, since all we know is that they came from somewhere in North (West?) Africa. But changing the nomenclature of meteorites that have already been published in numerous papers and books is not usually done. Nowadays, everyone knows that Sahara XXxxx is just another name for a homeless African meteorite, and that's what the name has come to represent. Is it ideal? No. Is it worth changing the accepted names of hundreds of meteorites just because their names don't fit to an ideal nomenclature system? Maybe. That's not my call, though. And it's not a clear-cut issue. G. Catterton said: To use the claim that it was to keep the location secret is not a valid excuse, Jack and Whetstone clearly showed that location is not needed to get approval. We've gone over this on the list countless times. The coordinates for Whetstone Mountains are on file with the nomenclature committee. The information is there, but has not yet been made public. So the only recent case in which meteorites have been submitted and made official is with the 'Sahara XXxxx' stones, and that's because a 'reputable dealer' did not keep his word. And it's a tough issue, because I would trust the Labennes in a trade or purchase -- the name hasn't been sullied like those of...a few others on this list. And why is that? Probably because withholding promised find information isn't viewed as a transgression comparable with something like switching an NWA L3 with Zulu Queen, or something along those lines. And yet, when you look at the difference between an NWA L3 and Zulu Queen, the only differentiating factor is provenance. Where the stone came from, how much was found, etc. Kind of like the difference between a named stone in general versus a 'Sahara XXxxx' or NWA stone. But people know what they're getting when they buy 'Sahara XXxxx' stones. I don't know if the Labennes will ever release their data, but I very much doubt that they will, ever. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised in the near future, but it's probably not going to happen. -Why would they? [Cue the long reply from M* about how coordinates are all overrated and irrelevant...if it happens, I'll step out of this as well. Enough of that.] The last point I'd like to make addresses the nature of our little meteorite market and how it interacts with the scientific sphere. We collectors and dealers seem to feel *entitled* to the services of the people working in the field of meteoritics. It's one thing to criticize someone who's being lazy and clumsy, losing samples left and right. It's another thing entirely to jump on the back of researchers who are simultaneously trying to do real scientific research -- and analyze hundreds, if not thousands, of stones for folks like us on the side. I can understand the indignation of someone who has a sample go missing -- it's happened to me as well. But what I don't do is get angry at the person who has analyzed ten or twenty
