<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 2/25/2006 11:02:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, jacross@lamar.colostate.edu writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>I hope not to find anyone today calling a feature "Old Geyser" or "Large Hot <BR>Spring."  These names are undescriptive, unimaginative, and unappealing.  By <BR>contrast, "The Tank" is memorable, descriptive</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Jeff and All:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree for the most part with the quality of these names, but that isn't the point. Other Bechler map names that are now official (or is that "official"?) include Deep Spring (Shoshone) and Cyclops Spring (UGB), as just two examples. Celestine Pool's name originated with Hague's map of 1904. Etc. What is the difference of these versus those? (Answer, in part: other names have sometimes been applied AND later approved in the formal sense (Gem Pool versus Great Sky Blue Hot Spring.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I suspect that Bechler meant his terms (many of them, anyhow) to be descriptive, not names. But to put this to bed for now, Old Geyser appears with capital letters next to an individual feature; I would be very certain that that is exactly how Deep Spring got its name. Old Geyser, like New Geyser, might not be a good name, but.....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scott Bryan</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Oh, yes. The Tank is NOT the name. It is Old Bath Lake.)</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>