Pluto's Small Moons Are Unlike Any Other

[SorellaLaBefana]

15. Yes. "Bully for Brontosaurus" and for Pluto too !

Obviously, whatever Pluto is called by some quarrelsome primates who are poisoning their own world has no impact on the astronomical body.

However, this primate's take is that (whilst if discovered today, it would not meet the definition of 'planet') it was considered a planet when it was discovered, and in the hope of building trust and understanding across the generations, a Planet it should remain.

In his book "Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History" Stephen Gould argued for retaining the name Brontosaurus (a name familiar to generations of children and adults) rather than (as it had been at the time) force replacement with the name Apatosaurus (at the time thought to have been the same dinosaur, but described earlier and thus having primacy).

Fortunately, in the case of Brontosaurus I think that it was later determined that Apatosaurus was a distinct creature and Brontosaur was again the accepted name. I may be wrong on this—not being either a paleontologist, or (any longer) a dino-infatuated ten-year old.

Gould's central argument, which also, I believe, applies to Pluto, is that since it is not uncommon for scientific names to be revised (for a variety of reasons) that such name changes applied to publicly well known (and, in the case of Brontosaurus, beloved) things only causes disruption and confusion to the public, whilst not having any recognizable adverse impact on active scientific study and understanding.

Rare exceptions to a general naming convention should be something with which scientists can cope with no more trouble than with which they deal with lumps in their porridge.

I still miss Pasteurella pestis (The Plague bacillus) as well.

Although in this case the change in nomenclature seems quite appropriate, as the organism was discovered by Dr Yersin (who worked for the Pasteur Institute). It was still called P. pestis when I was in medical school in the early 1970s—although it had been renamed Yersinia pestis in 1944.

Change is hard, yet in some situations Not changing can be unjust and make scientific study more difficult.

However, I strongly agree with Dr Gould: Public familiarity and understanding should be considered when making name changes to well known entities only because of narrow naming conventions.

Baby and Bath Water should both be considered.