Basically, nomenclature is nomenclature, and once something is named,
it is named, and swapping that name just for the sake if it with no
good reason is meaningless, and is mostly bad because you're trying to
make the name do work based on the feelings of the day which may or
may not stand the test of time. Leningrad is nowadays called Saint
Petersbourg, which is of course what it was called before it was
called Leningrad.

Anyway, the things had names that could have stood. Names for
variables don't have much meaning really.

It doesn't matter anyway, anyone can call them what they want, most
professionals have never heard of the GCVS, although the GCVS will be
aided in this case by simbad adopting these names and making a note
that these are now proferred. The GCVS is a compilation catalogue,
supposedly collating from the literature. So if I decided I didn't
want to use any GCVS name, but use the 2MASS, GSC or UCAC2 identity
for a variable, I could publish under those names, and it'd be up to
the GCVS to find that data and use it... ...indeed, much information
on variability type and nature and periodicity and magnitude range is
not worth using anyway, being either woefully out of date and/or wrong
(I believe that now they've sorted out the accurate position issue
they may be getting around to addressing this latter point...
...apparently they are somewhat strapped for resources, especially
person power).

But then again, again, most professionals totally and completely
ignore the IAU rules on names in their publications. You'll see
papers mentioning SDSS 2023+51 and stuff like that, which is outright
forbidden as a name by IAU nomenclature rules, but they still name CVs
and stuff like that in their papers. Technically you can use that
shorthand if you have once, earlier in the paper, used the complete
full name, and there is no other confusable object (effectively,
another object that condenses to the same contracted coordinates)
mentioned in the paper. Similar to how biologists can say Homo
sapiens once then say H. sapiens thereafter in their papers. However,
you'll see SDSS CVs regularly illegally named.

In lots and lots of professional papers you'll find regular abuse and
ignore-ance of IAU nomenclature rules, let alone guidelines, and folk
call stuff whatever they want.

I doubt there'll be any change in this for decades, for despite Arne's
comments about the next IAU triennial meeting in 2009, the
nomenclatural committees have been trying for years to lay down the
law, and it's still ignored in many papers. The CDS via SIMBAD can
_recommend_ but they have no policing powers in this regard.

However, on the plus side, most catalogues and new lists of stars and
objects and major surveys do at least follow IAU rules and
recommendations nowadays, but then everyone bemoans names like BX
J012345.6+780901 as being dull and unmemorable.

On variables, I'm not sure if AAVSO's "harvard designations" obey
current rules and regulations or not, as they may be allowed a "bye"
due to being classical and traditional and of long standing (although
they're only used by aavso, no one else cares for 'em at all,
including other variable star organisations of other nations), ie
they're pre-regulations, but that's not always deemed relevant, and
they don't predate Argelander namings, at least I don't think so.

The new AAVSO VSX thing though does use names based on proper IAU
rules, I remember some bloke going on and on and on about them making
sure they did that when they set out on their endeavour, so those are
okay, and if used and published for new objects just as valid as any
GCVS name that may come along later, although I'm not sure if they've
assured such objects with new VSX identities will have appropriate
SIMBAD recognition, there's a lot of "it'll all come right in the
wash" goes on with this stuff nowadays, instead of rigorous follow up.

By the way, coordinate based names are _truncated_ not _rounded_, and
are names! So something at 01h23m45s.67 -01d23'45.6" becomes
J012345.6-012345, for instance, and not J012345.7-012346. The level
of precision used, incidentally, is basically decided by the density
of the objects on the sky. Things like SDSS and 2MASS might need to
go to two decimals in RA and one in Dec to ensure no two objects end
up having the same name. Notice two decimals in RA and one in
declination, or one in RA and none in dec, etc, &c, as RA is "grosser"
than declination by an order and a half.

And they remain as names!!!! So J012345.6-012345 is supposed to
remain named such even if high proper motion and/or precessional
effects result in its coordinates being totally different when the
coordinates are not J2000 epoch and equinox but some other different
epoch and equinox... ...we'll see how all that works out in 2050!

That is, over time, a coordinate based name under the current regs
will not have the same coordinates as the name, and in proper motion
instances, won't even have the same J2000 coordinates as the name.

And stuff like that...

...in other words, once it's _named_, leave it alone. It ruins paper
trail to mess with it, so hands off. Give name and relevant coords if
latter are of different epoch and equinox. People don't quote coords
enough, ya know.

Despite what the Russian's claim, if the objects were named once,
their names are published somewhere, and there are many lists and
knock on bulletins and reviews and the like that lift GCVS data on
mass, so one day someone is going to come along after reading some
obscure old journal or other and ask "where the hell has HK Lup gone?
I can't find it anywhere". Not scientifically important, but a weird
mystery that has been needlessly introduced, and an obfuscation
propogated.

All errors of fact in the above are my own problem, there's none I can
see on re-reading, but basically don't take it all too serious, and if
it really, really annoys you to use a name, than quote it's name from
a valid, current, high accuracy astrometric catalogue, and quote also
it's J2000 coords at least once, early on in a paper and/or email, coz
if you've got good coords, you can find the thing no matter who's
called it what, either on the sky or via online database searches such
as those in simbad.

Cheers

John

--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, "Julian Parks" <parksje@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings Group. Several members on the AAVSO discussion site have
been
> wrangling also with the issue of variable star nomenclature as well
as Guide
> users. See the AAVSO Director, Arne Henden's, e-mail below.
>
> Julian Parks
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "arne" <arne@...>
> To: "Robert J. Modic" <rjmodic@...>
> Cc: "AAVSO-Discussion" <aavso-discussion@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [AAVSO-DIS] T Leo renaming
>
>
> > Robert J. Modic wrote:
> >> Last year, a number of variables that are located close
> >> to constellation boundaries were renamed. These variables
> >> were discovered before the adoption of modern constellation
> >> boundaries and they wound up being located in adjacent
> >> constellations. The problem is that many of these stars,
> >> T Leo being a prime example, have been observed for a long
> >> time with many papers published using the original
> >> designations. The history of variable star nomenclature is
> >> complicated enough without confusing the issue further. I
> >> have heard very little discussion about this renaming.
> >> What was the justification for this decision? What is the
> >> AAVSO's position on this? Is there a way to appeal this?
> >>
> > Nicolai Samus (head of GCVS) announced the name changes in
> > Astronomy Letters (2006, vol32n4, pp263-273): "Electronic
> > Version of the Third Volume of the General Catalogue of
> > Variable Stars with Improved Coordinates." The GCVS team
> > spent a number of years, pouring over the 3rd edition, looking
> > up photos and identifications (including asking Martha Hazen
> > for a lot of the Harvard Variables, which is why she and
> > David Williams, our President, are coauthors of this paper).
> > They also relied on other sources, such as ASAS, to ensure
> > the correct variable with proper type and period was identified.
> > They were largely successful, and this was an enormous effort,
> > with about 40,000 stars being examined.
> >
> > Once they had the variables properly identified, they used UCAC
> > and 2MASS to get accurate coordinates. For a couple of hundred
> > stars, they were unable to find the star, and they can be
> > considered "lost".
> >
> > This paper is fun to read, especially the "Comments on some of
> > the problem stars of the electronic version."
> >
> > However, what is relevant to this topic is that they included
> > Table 3, a list of GCVS stars in wrong constellations. About
> > 38 stars were incorrectly assigned to a constellation; most
> > because the submitted coordinates were so poor that the GCVS
> > staff made the wrong assignment. Some are more than 10 degrees
> > from their proper position (lots of fun identifying those variables,
> > I bet!). T Leo is one of those stars with poor coordinates.
> > In fact, it is the most widely known of the list since most of the
> > rest were so badly positioned that no one observed them.
> >
> > In 1930, the IAU took the opposite approach: they changed the
> > constellation
> > boundaries so that 6 variables remained within the constellations
they
> > were
> > originally named for! It would be very hard to do that today.
> >
> > Samus' position is that, if he was going to correct 37 other stars,
> > he didn't want to make an exception for T Leo. The 78th Name-List
> > of Variable Stars (IBVS 5721, 8 August 2006) repeated this list
> > as its Table 2. In addition, Samus' powerpoint presentation makes
> > the point that, while the stars have been given new names, their
> > old names have been removed from circulation and will not be
> > reassigned. This means you are not prevented from using the old
> > name, just that the new name is preferred for all new publications.
> >
> > My position, presented to Samus in email and at the IAU meeting,
> > is that a name is just that - a name. Constellations are large,
> > and there will always be a few cases of misidentification. I'd rather
> > leave the names as-is rather than assigning a new name and creating
> > a new paper trail. Samus was unswayed, and since his group gets
> > to assign names, he wins. However, a new working group of the IAU
> > has been started to look into naming conventions and especially to
> > resolve the proliferation of classification names, so perhaps some
> > resolution of the issues will take place before the next IAU meeting
> > in 2009.
> > Arne
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Aavso-discussion mailing list
> > Aavso-discussion@...
> > http://mira.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-discussion
> >
>