Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs! It's been called V598 Pup
after all, as noted in IAUC 8898.

Cheers

John

--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, "." <larkerer@...> wrote:
>
>
> Arne Henden quotes a more exact position for this object, based on
> Shawn Dvorak's images, which can be used to update the below
> galnovae.dat entry. Note also that in the end this position places it
> slap bang on top of the ATEL 1282 proposed USNO A2.0 progenitor, which
> is also listed in 2MASS :-
>
> Henden/Dvorak Nova position : 07 05 42.51 -38 14 39.3
>
> 2MASS progenitor position : 07 05 42.50 -38 14 39.4
>
> both J2000
>
> Ref :
>
<http://ooruri.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/pipermail/vsnet-alert/2007-November/001339.html>
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
> --- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, "." <larkerer@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The following line can be inserted in RA sorted position into
> > galnovae.dat for the newest nova in Puppis.
> >
> > N Pup 2007/2 2007 07 05 42.7 -38 14 42 11.4
> > V N A.M.Read et al,
> > M.A.P.Torres et al
> >
> > It'll get wordwrapped, use the previous columns to get it lined up
> > properly.
> >
> > The references are ATEL 1282 and 1285.
> >
> > There's several points to be noted on this one.
> >
> > First, the position is preliminary. Some comment has been made re
> > association with a nearby USNO star as progenitor that lies within the
> > xray error box, but no astrometry of the nova itself has appeared as
> > yet, so there is no way to confirm this.
> >
> > The 11.4 V mag I've placed in the "discovery mag" column, but this
> > nova is apparently already well past maximum, yet the first reported
> > mag measures are neither a max nor a min.
> >
> > As it has not been released via the usual IAUC route it might not end
> > up with a GCVS identity, so might not become V598 Pup (so I haven't
> > predicted that).
> >
> > Deciding on who the discoverer is is complicated in this case. The
> > team who noted the xray transient did not know what it was, although
> > evidently they were the discoverers of the "object". The team that
> > examined it optically/spectrally and identified it as a nova
> > "discovered" the "nova". So, I've included both teams as discoverers
> > with the team leaders from both being mentioned, and with object
> > discoverers noted before object type discoverers.
> >
> > The galnovae.dat file can be readily updated by hand when actual
> > astrometry is published. The other matters may never be clarified, at
> > least not via any official publication. This can happen with novae.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > John
> >
>