[Geysers] New feature by Plume

[Mara Reed]

If I remember correctly (don’t have my book on me), you assigned numbers to “Sputnik” and “Tilt’s Baby,” despite them being fairly clear expressions of a previous geyser’s energy. I would agree that holding off on assigning official designations is important, but can we perhaps discuss a common usage name since it is a feature that is getting attention from gazers? Always writing out the phrase “new thing near Plume” seems unnecessary.

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 12:00 PM, TSBryan at aol.com wrote:
> 
> I decide to assign a number on something when it both shows signs of "permanency" and/or gets a lot of attention in what might turn out to be a short life. In this case, this geyser has been observed for many years and, although I did not previously give it a number or name, I did mention it in my book (current edition, page 55 where I note [as I have done online] that it was incorrectly identified as Borah Peak Geyser in the early 2000s. It is because of the attention it is generating plus the fact that it is, perhaps, getting larger that I feel it deserves a number along with what appears to be an acceptable name. So yes: UNNG-GHG-14 ("Fandango Geyser").
>  
> Will I assign a number to the "thing" near Plume. No, because in my opinion it is simply one more appearance of the feature(s) that in the past included the small geyser known as "Ballcap."
>  
> T. Scott Bryan
> _______________________________________________
> Geysers mailing list
> Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20160315/029eba2e/attachment.html>