IAU Minor Planet Center

MPEC 1999-C10: EDITORIAL NOTICE

Read MPEC 1999-C09 Read MPEC 1999-C11

M.P.E.C. 1999-C10                                Issued 1999 Feb. 5, 16:49 UT

     The Minor Planet Electronic Circulars contain information on unusual
         minor planets and routine data on comets.  They are published
   on behalf of Commission 20 of the International Astronomical Union by the
          Minor Planet Center, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
                          Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.

             BMARSDEN@CFA.HARVARD.EDU or GWILLIAMS@CFA.HARVARD.EDU
                   URL http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/mpc.html

                               EDITORIAL NOTICE

     A clarification is necessary with regard to the Editorial Notice on
MPEC 1999-C03.  As shown at the end of the Notice, this was reprinted
from MPC 33615-33616, which had been prepared two days earlier.  The
pressure of work to prepare the monthly batch of MPCs prevented the
preparation of a new Notice when MPEC 1999-C03 was issued.

     In the mean time, as many readers will realize, a Press Release was
issued by Johannes Andersen, the IAU General Secretary, noting very
clearly that Pluto would in no way be "demoted", a point made,
equally strongly, in the Minor Planet Center's Editorial Notice.  The
Press Release also clarified that the Small Bodies Names Committee
had, in the mean time, decided not to use the number (10000) for Pluto.

     The main purpose of our Editorial Notice, also clearly stated, was
to select an appropriate name for (10000), given that the Feb. 2 batch
of Minor Planet Circulars contains numberings through (9999).

     In this regard, other than with its decision on Pluto, the SBNC did
not complete its charge.  It expects to make an appropriate decision
on a name for (10000) by Feb. 26, now with the help of information received
as a result of the invitation to readers in our Editorial Notice.

     Some 24 hours now after MPEC 1999-C03 was issued, the messages
received are 63 percent in favor of using (10000) for Pluto, 37
percent against.  The in-favor fraction has fluctuated between 58 and
68 percent, suggesting that the vote represents a genuine
international concern, not one influenced by any campaign.  Unfortunately,
there have been few suggestions of alternatives, and no obvious
candidates have yet emerged.  The SBNC will consider all of this
information in its further deliberations, and it is to be hoped that
the outcome will be a wise decision of which the IAU can be proud.

     Although the experiment is now officially at an end, there is
obviously still a need for appropriate alternatives to Pluto.  Given
the precedents listed in the second paragraph of MPEC 1999-C03, we
should like the name of (10000) to be on a suitably grand scale.  I
thank everyone who participated.  I also apologize to any
astronomers who feel in any way slighted by my remarks on this
subject, but it is also very clear that the "Pluto issue" is a very
emotional one, separate from any scientific or historical
considerations.  I particularly apologize to my good friends Johannes
Andersen, IAU Assistant General Secretary and Commission 20 President
Hans Rickman, and Division III President Mike A'Hearn, for any
confusion caused by the timing of yesterday's statement, and I thank
them for their support during this trying time.

Brian G. Marsden             (C) Copyright 1999 MPC           M.P.E.C. 1999-C10

Read MPEC 1999-C09 Read MPEC 1999-C11

Our Web policy. Index to the CBAT/MPC/ICQ pages.