Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Recent Trends in Planetary Surface Nomenclature RICHARD J. PIKE

Recent Trends in Planetary Surface Nomenclature RICHARD J. PIKE

l

ICARUS 27, 577-583 (1976)

Disharmony of the Spheres: Recent Trends in Planetary Surface

RICHARD J. PIKE U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025

Received September 9,1974; revised May 23,1975

Inadvisable departures from tradition in naming newly mapped features on , , and the have been implemented and proposed since 1970.Functional need for place names also has become confused with cartographic convenience. Much of the resulting new nomenclature is neither unique, efficient, nor imaginative. The long- standing classical orientation in geography needs to be firmly reasserted. The Madler scheme for designating smaller craters on the Moon should be retained and extended to the farside. Names of surface features on other bodies might best reflect the traditional connotations of and satellite names: for example, most craters on Mars would be named for mythical heroes and military personalities in ancient history, craters on Mercury might commemorate explorers or commericalluminaries, and features on would bear the names of famous women.

Introduction. The naming of surface features nomenclature was not disturbed. Appropriately, on bodies of the solar system has departed from many new names proposed earlier as replace- traditional practice along a new, and question- merits for lettered nearside craters by H. P. able, course. The most conspicuous results of the Wilkins and others (Wilkins and Moore, 1961) divergent trend are some 300 names recently have not been adopted by most lunar specialists. bestowed on small lunar and large The first changes in the nomenclature of Mars craters (Kinslor, 1975; de Vaucouleurs et al., also were quite successful. Because topographic. 1975). They are inferior to the older names in features revealed by the spacecraft both utility and aesthetics. This sudden deteri- often did not match the named albedo features oration of the nomenclature, which is serious visible from Earth, an entirely new nomen- enough to warrant major remedial decisions, clature had to be created. The framework of the arises partly from the rapid growth of planetary new system is a planet wide grid of thirty science over the last decade. In response to the 1:5,000,000 scale quadrangles (Batson, 1973). pressing need for new names to accommodate The names of these areas correspond as several planetwide mapping programs, the closely as practicable to the designations of International Astronomical Union has begun to nearby albedo features from the traditional accept additions to the nomenclature of Mars and nomenclature (MacDonald, 1971). The names .. the Moon. Most results of the LA.D. deliberations chosen subsequently for most noncrater topo- and rulings, which have appeared in various graphic features such as canyons and plains also published and provisional maps of both , come from names of neighboring albedo markings can be divided conveniently into two groups: on the classical maps of Antoniadi and Schiapar- pI·e·1971 decisions and subsequent decisions. elli, and generally are both proper and euphoni- The earlier changes in lunar and Martian ous (LA.U., 1974; de Vaucouleurs et al., 1975). geography seem to have been better than the A two-lettered locational designation has been later ones. Most of the 1961, 1964, and 1970 assigned provisionally to large craters on Mars amplifications to the Moon's nomenclature (LA.D., 1971; de Vaucouleurs et al., 1975). This (Arthur et al., 1963, 1964, 1965",1966; Menzel et system relies unduly on the 1:5,000,000grid, but ai., 1971) harmonize well with the familiar is an acceptable interim convenience pending Madler terminology that 'Was systematized in selection of permanent names and introduces no the 19:32 LA.D.-sponsored compilation (Blagg disharmony into Martian nomenclature. and Muller, 1935). Most of the new names, which Not all of the new LA.D ..approved or pro· properly commemorate deceased scientists and visional nomenclature has followed traditional philosophers, were assigned to large craters on practice as consistently, however, and the the limbs or farside, and the existing nearside resulting terminology has not been as successful. Copyright © 1976 by Academic Press, Inc. 577 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Printed in Great Britain "'i

578 RICHARD J. PIKE r

The purpose of this paper is to point out specific unnecessarily burden the memories of lunar inconsistencies in recent decisions on planetary specialists who still are trying to learn the nomenclature, to suggest possible alternative geography of the limbs and farside. The problem approaches, and to open up the problem of place is compounded by naming ridges, rilles, and names on the planets to a more general discussion small craters. than has occurred in the past. (5)Insignificant craters on the nearside have New names on the Moon, No real problem been named simply to give formal titles to maps. existed with lunar place names until after the (6) Use of nonscient.ist names needlessly 1970 LA.V. XIVth Assembly, when several disrupts a 300-year tradition and wastes nomen- new policies were introduced hastily by the cIatural categories that might better be applied Working Group on Lunar Nomenclature of to other bodies of the solar system. Commission 17: (7) Making a genetic distinction between linear and sinuous rilles through Latin terms is (1) The 1:1,000,000 scale LAC series maps unwise, and a formal designation for lunar land- were formally designated "Regions" and the slides is unnecessary. new- 1:250,000 scale LTO maps were de- signated "Provinces." All-in-all, effects of the changes on lunar (2) Small craters previously designated by nomenclature have been the reverse of those Roman capital letters would gradually be anticipated. The new system intrinsically is reassigned surnames of deceased individuals. neither "more precise" nor "more detailed" than (3) Craters could now be named after non- the Madler scheme or a potential expansion of it, scientists. but instead hampers communication of informa- (4) Each new published map would be titled tion on lunar surface features. after a named crater within it. New names on More. The state of the nomen- (5) Very small craters would be assigned the clature for craters on Mars is, if anything, worse first names of persons, and ridges and rilles than that for . The two systems that would bear surnames of deceased individuals. have been proposed to supplant provisional (6) New Latin terms would distinguish (lettered) names of Martia.n craters duplicate <. linear from sinuous rifles and also designate names used on other planets and contrast landslides. harshly with the traditional nomenclature. About 180 of the largest craters already have These decisions, which were approved by the received names of deceased astronomers and XVth LA.V. General Assembly at Sydney other individuals connected with the planet (LA.V., 1974), have forced abandonment of the (LA.V., 1974; de Vaucouleurs et al., 1975),and a universally accepted Miidler nomenclature for few craters on and have been most features on the 1:250,000 LTO maps. The similarly named (Veverka et al., 1974). These changes have proven to be controversial at the designations, which were suggested by the \'ery least (Ashbrook, 1974), and some lunar Working Group on Martian Nomenclature of specialists have chosen not to use the post.1970 Commission 16 and approved by the XVth lunar designations (Pike, 1974). LA.V. General Assembly in Sydney, were The changes instituted at Sydney in 1973have unfortunate for several reasons, some of which adversely affected lunar terminology with were belatedly acknowledged by the subsequent respect to communication, convenience, and LA.V. Working Group for Planetary System aesthetics, and the problems thus created are Nomenclature (LA.V.jWGPSN, 1974). expected to worsen as more LTO maps are First, many of the names on Mars, Phohos, and published: Deimos are borne by lunar craters. This duplica- (1) Use of "Region" and "Province" is tion defeats the very purpose of a nomenclature, incorrect and artificial; the terms denote natural a unique designation for each feature of interest; geognphic or physiographic areas, not map the uniqueness should obtain throughout the sheets. solar system, not just for individual planets. The (2) Without the Madler lettered craters, it is double use of names also creates unnecessary now much more difficult to get located on the confusion and extra work for investig'ators who .•. Moon, especially using larger scale maps such as compare craters and other topographic features the LTOs. from planet to planet. Finally, most of the (3) The need to refer to craters mentioned in Martian crater names commemorate scientists. a the existing literature now requires one to keep category that traditionally has been reserved for track of two names for a great many features. the Moon and has nothing at all to do with the (4) The many new names of small craters classical Martian place names of Schiaparelli.

• . .-__w__ ---._- •• ·_------~~

NOTES 579

The shortcomings introduced into Martian seven toponymic principles (Appendix I). The nomenclature by the new names of large craters four working tenets a, b, c, and e at the heart of are about to be multiplied by an even less this resolution evidently did not figure promin- acceptable scheme for naming the smaller ently in 19i1-1974 decisions on planetary craters, in anticipation of projected 1: 1,000,000 nomenclature. In retrospect, some of the current and 1 :250,000 series ofMartian maps. Names for problems on the Moon and Mars would have a great many craters 5 to 100km across have been avoided simply by emphasizing principle e been chosen from a list of small towns and more thanf. The results of naming craters "on an villages of the Earth (I.A.U./vVGPSN, 1974). international basis" have pro\'en to be far less Not only are the proposed names unrelated to appealing and useful than the traditional Mars ill any way, but they duplicate place names Madler nomenclature on the Moon and the on another planet. Their adoption also would quasifanciful combination of classical mythology result. in two nomenclatural categories for one and Mediterranean geography heretofore used type of feature on the same planet, a confusing on Mars. and needless inconsistency. Finally, the many Other shortcomings in recently approved and new names would severely tax the memories of pending designations of craters stem from mixing investigators working with craters. nomenclatural categories on one planet, e.g .. New names on Mercuru and Fe·n'ns. Only three scientists vs nonseientists on the Moon and features on Mercury have been officially named scientists vs towns and villages on Mars, and.from at this time (Caloris Basin and the craters using the same name class on more than one and Hun Kal ). Current proposals for future planet, e.g., scientists now on the Moon, Mars. designations on Mercury follow the excellent Mercury, and Phobos. These inconsistencies example of Mars for regional names and albedo could be avoided by faithfully observing the markings, but also include the wholly inappro- of vVGPSN principles a and c, to which priate notion of naming craters for birds and/or might be added two working guidelines: only one cities of the Earth (LA.U./WGPSN, 1974). The category of names should be used for each type latter suggestion suffers from all the short- of surface feature on a planet; and name cate- comings of the town/village class proposed for gories applied to one planet shall not be used on Martian craters, Birds and cities also would another. As a rule, modern place names on clash with the more rational categories that have Earth also should be excluded, to assure unique- been proposed for other types of features on ness in the geography of the planets. Mercury ( and Batson, 1975), and there is If the nomenclatural problems raised by the some danger that the nomenclature of Mercury maps of the Moon are any indication of what can could become an unappealing mixture of dis- be expected when other planets are systematically harmonious terms. Finally, to the late G. P. mapped, moreover, a clear distinction must be Kuiper falls the ironic distinction of becoming drawn between functional needs for place names the first individual to have been provisionally and strictly cartographic requirements. The two commemorated on no fewer than three planets, have become confused. The decision to change an excessive gesture that ignores the scrupulous the Madler lettered crater designations on the care Kuiper took in seeing that the nomenclature Moon arose from a supposed need fOl' unique of the lunar limb regions was properly revised proper-name titles for map sheets of the (Arthur et al., 1963; Ashbrook, 1974). 1 :250,000 L TO series. In fact such names are Firm decisions on the nomenclature of Venus inappropriate for these maps, and ample prece- have not yet been made by the LA.U., although dent exists in terrestrial cartography for a more categories connected with women are under functional system of designating LTO map study for such time as radar observations permit sheets. Two examples are the D.S. Department features to be named. This is an excellent of Defense 1 :1,000,000 scale Operational Navi- zat.ion Charts of the Earth and the U.S. Geo- suggestion indeed (I.A.U./WGPSN, 1974). No e serious recommendations have been made for logical Survey 1 :63,360 scale maps of Alaska. nomenclature on the remaining planets and Most of Alaska is so sparsely inhabited that satellites, save to acknowledge that many more there are very few place names compared with categories of names eventually will be required the eoriterrninous United States, and some and should be planned for well in advance of sheets of the 1 :6:3,360 series do not have a single name anywhere within the neatline. The carto- actual need. Gu.idelines for nomenclature. Among the graphers who laid out this series refrained from various resolutions recently adopted by the new arbitrarily naming natural features just to have LA.U. Working Group for Planetary System titles for their maps. Instead, the 1 :63,360 maps Nomenclature (I.A.U./\,yGPSN, 1974), is a list of are systematically lettered and numbered within • 580 RICHARD J. PIKE sheets of the 1:250,000 scale map series, all of need for more detail. Additional large craters on which are named. This scheme is conceptually the farside probably should receive proper-name identical with the geometric relation of the lunar designations so that eventually the densities of 1:250,000 LTO maps to the 1:1,000,000 LAC named and lettered craters will approach those series (LA.V., 1974; Kinsler, 1975). It is com- on the nearside. If the 1:250,000 LTO maps paratively easy to get located in Alaska 011 the simply must have formal titles, then the Madler 1:63,360 maps once one knows where most of the designations-extended to smaller craters as named 1:250,000 maps are. Similarly, users of needed-will suffice. The system is suffici.ently the lunar LTO maps would be much better flexible to resolve any ambiguities that might be served by the existing alphanumeric map sub- encountered in naming map sheets. titles, e.g. LAC 39A-2, keyed into the LAC with The question arises of what to do about the which they already are well acquainted. Ana- published LTO maps that carry the new, non- logous schemes would work equally well on Mars Madler names. The fact that a map has been and other planets. published, distributed, and its nomenclature Some procedural changes in the way that new used does not somehow annoint or hallow the nomenclature is proposed and officially adopted names on it, especially on the Moon. Many of the might prevent recurrences of the present contro- map names given to lunar craters since 1610 versy. Responsibility for new nomenclature never caught on and have since faded from should rest largely with those who are the most memory. Few of the new crater names added by likely to use it. Although previously the LA.V. Wilkins to his well known 300-inch map of the has closely overseen , Moon, for example, have passed into use increasing numbers of workers in planetary (Wilkins and Moore, 1961).Subsequent printings science are not even astronomers, let alone of the LTOs can revert to the Madler nomen- members of the LA.V. Decisions on planetary clature and necessary extensions of it. place names should be opened up to a wider One final problem remains: the 49 crater " circle of potential users than has been permitted designations formally approved at Sydney in in the recent past, so that new nornenclat.ure 1973, and the many more new names that still meets all needs. Changes in nomenclature are pending LA.V. approval but already have (, proposed by study groups such as the LA.V./ appeared on the LTO maps. The pending desig- \VGPSN need to be published and circulated for nations all should be dropped, some of the names an extended period, perhaps five years or more, perhaps being reserved for appropriate farside for comment and criticism by the wider scientific and limb craters. The 49 approved designations community. Only after due deliberation should should be mulled over by recognized authorities new nomenclature be formally submitted to the in the field of lunar nomenclature: undesirable LA.V. General Assembly for approval. designations should be eliminated and not used Planetary place names actually are sanc- again on the Moon; acceptable names should be tioned only by widespread use over many retained. The new designations for rrlles, ridges, decades. Inconvenient or unpopular designations and very small craters all should be replaced by are not likely to gain general acceptance, Madler-type terminology. regardless of official approval, or to reflect Recommendations for planets. Whereas the fa.vora.bly upon the sanctioning body. We long-standing Madler scheme precludes much needn't be stuck with poor nomenclature, toponymic innovation on the Moon, greater however. Decisions that do not serve the best liberty can be taken in naming localities on interests of communication and aesthetics can be Mars and its satellites, on Mercury, and eventu- reviewed by the LA.V., and the offending ally on Venus and the larger planets and their designations rescinded in favor of more accept- satellites. The principal task is to create con- able terminology. venient and tasteful schemes for designating the Recommendations for the Moon. The Madler abundant craters on many of these bodies. The system of crater nomenclature, which already practice initiated on the Moon, naming crate I':=; is familiar to lunar specialists through the after prominent philosophers and scientists. University of Arizona maps and catalogs as well astronomers in particular, should not be exten- as the 1:1,000,000 LAC maps, should be pre- ded beyond the Moon to avoid duplicating served intact. It works very well indeed and names and also exhausting the roster of truly should not be changed. Amplifications of the outstanding individuals in these few categories. Macllerscheme oflettered designations to include The tradition of naming craters for deceased very small craters on the lunar nearside and distinguished persons. however, can be con- small limb and farside craters generally can be tinued on other planets with little difficulty. carried out to accommodate any cartogr-aphic The need for a greatly expanded nomenclature' • ~OTES 581

for bodies of the solar system can be met by the 180 LA.U. crater designations approved at adopting designations from fields of human Sydney in 1973. Smaller Martian craters could endeavor not heretofore used. Nomenclature be named for military personalities of the categories that have been proposed by the LA.U. Medieval Period, between about 300 and 1500; include artists (painters), musicians, sculptors, if still more named craters are needed, an and writers and poets (LA.u./WGPSN, 1974). absolute cut-off should be established well before Although these groups are unobjectionable on the American Revolution and the Napoleonic general principles, there is no compelling era. Designations ..in this group might include rationale for assigning a specific category to one Saladin, Charles Martel, Alexander Nevsky, and planet 01' another. A more logical approach is to Marlborough. let the ancient connotations of the names of these Although it may not prove essential to name bodies determine, as much as possible, the very many features on the tiny satellites of Mars, categories of place names. To the classical apt designations would reflect anxious states of Greeks and Romans, Mars or Ares signified war; mind. Terms of opprobrium, evil spirits of fittingly, its satellites were dubbed Panic and mythology, and dark events in the human Terror. Mercury or Hermes represented com- experience could be assigned to craters on merce, fleetness or travel, deftness and wit, and Phobos and Deimos. The perhaps unsettling, eloquence. Venus or Aphrodite symbolized love though appropriate, result might be terrain and beauty. The rich diversity of these cate- features with names like Malevolens (malevo- gories might be exploited in expanding planetary lent), Loki, and Fames (famine). Although nomenclature on a broad cultural basis within hardly uplifting to the human spirit, such the classical tradition that evolved the lunar designations would nicely complement the terminology. For craters, a separate Madler- bellicose names on Mars and also serve as type arrangement could be set up on each planet eloquent reminders of the more painful lessons of for the less significant objects, once enough of the history. larger craters were assigned apt proper names. lVlercury and Venus. Although the varied .Mars and its satellites. Besides harmonizing as connotations of Mercury and Bermes to the much as possible with the traditional nomen- ancients would assure a rich and diverse nomen- clature of Schiaparelli, Martian place names clature for this planet, problems arise with the should reflect the martial arts. Although thus far potential mixing of place-name categories. In the LA.U. has not accepted military figures as a any case, the geography of Mercury could well nomenclatural group (LA.U./WGPSN, 1974), reflect one or more of the following categories: this well-intentioned effort to avoid possible famous explorers and travellers, prominent controversy has eliminated the most appropriate entrepreneurs and commercial figures, persons class of place names for Mars. Undeniably, if renowned for their cleverness and wit, and unfortunately, warfare is one of mankind's chief orators. Such designations might include Prince preoccupations and much of the capacity and the Navigator, Lief Eriksson, Lord Clive, ingenuity of his civilization has been given over .Jonathan , and Cicero. to it. The ancients understood this 'well, indeed Venus, which soon will be mapped by radar, they named a planet after their god of war. would feature particularly delightful place names Perhaps we should be no less venturesome. An under the guidelines advocated here. Designa- adequate supply of unique Martian place names tions based on beauty, grace, and endearment, as 'would be assured, as there are warriors in well as on historic and mythical lovers-v-El Amor mythology and recorded history to accommodate Brujo, Fairlady, Nefertiti, Leander, and Heloise every crater on the planet. and Abelard-would also commemorate a The largest craters on Mars should bear the greater number of women than have been names of mythical heroes (if the named honored by the present solar system nomen- can be ignored) and military personalities prior clature, Celebrated women not represented in to about A.D. 300, the functional end of the name categories on other planets also might be Roman Empire in the West and the close of considered for Venus. Ancient History, e.g. Achilles, Themistocles, Other bodies. 'With due attention to classical Harnesses, Hannibal. Pornpey, Vercingetorix. mythology and some imagination. a workable Emphasis should be on the older personalities to and aesthetic system of nomenclature can be assure that names of the most prominent craters developed for many of the satellites of . also reflect the same ancient Mediterranean and and other members of the outer solar cultures from which Schiaparelli derived his system as the capacity to observe and map their classical designations of Mar-t ian albedo features surfaces is achieved. Certainly difficulties will (:YlacD(mald. 1971). TI1'::'senames would replace arise. Some of the smaller bodies, especially the 582 RICHARD J. PIKE '. hundreds of named asteroids, commemorate any selection is the responsibility of the Inter- obscure mythical figures and demigods, e.g. national Astronomical Union. and , which may not inspire useful (g) vVe must look to the future in general categories of nomenclature. In such cases, place discussions of solar system nomenclature and names can be drawn from various fields of human attempt to lay the groundwork for future endeavor that are not already represented on requirements that will result from the develop, other planets and satellites, e.g., music, archi- ment of the space program. tecture, jurisprudence, literature, and medicine. Acknowledgments. 1'thank D. E. \Vilhehns, III any case, the uniqueness of planetary place D, v\-. G. Arthur, and two anonymous reviewers names and the fundamentally classical orienta- for their helpful criticisms of an earlier draft. This tion of solar system nomenclature need not be article was written partly under NASA Experi- seriously compromised. ment Ko. S-222. At the current tempo of space exploration, the present is none-too-soon a time to anticipate the requirements of sound nomenclature for features REFERENCES on bodies of the solar system. A scheme such as that outlined here would reflect the broad ARTHTR, D. \V. G., PELLICORI, R. H., V,,"OOD,C. spectrum of human experience, endeavor, A., AGNIERAY, A. PlO CHAPMAN, C. R., AND triumph, and tragedy within an overall classical VVELLER, T. (1963, 1964, 1965, 1966). The framework. Whatever solutions are adopted System of Lunar Craters, Quadrants I-IV, eventually, careful and prompt planning is Contrib. Lunar and Planetary Lab., Univ, essential, for the current unsystematic trend Arizona, No. 3, 4, 50, and 70, toward naming new features cannot continue ASH BROOK, J. (1974). New names on the Moon. much longer without breaking down altogether. Sky cL· Tel. 47, 170-171. If the planetary-surface nomenclature that we R-\.TSO~, R. M. (1973). Cartographic products and those who follow us have to work with is from the Mariner 9 mission. J. Geophys. Res. unsatisfactory, we have only our own myopia 78, 4424-44:~5. and timidity to blame. BU.GG, M. A., AND MULLER, K. (1935). Samed LUl1a1' Formations. International Astrono- mical Union, London. DE VAGCOULEURS, G., BLUNC:K,J., DAVIES, M., Appendix 1. Basic prineiptee for planetary , A., KOVAL, 1. K., KUIPER, G. P., (from 1.A.U./WGPSN system nomenclature n:L-\.SGRSKY,H., ,S., MOROZ, V. 1.. June 1974). nwmaes, SAGACoi,C., AND , B. (1975). The new (a) Nomenclature is a tool and the first Martian nomenclature of the International consideration shall be to make it simple, clear, Astronomical Union. Lcarus. 26, 85-98. and unambiguous. DAVIES, M. E., AND BATSON, R. M. (1975). (b) The number of names chosen for each Surface coordinates and cartography of Mer- body should be kept to a minimum, and gov- cury, J. Geophys. Res. 80, 2417-2430. erned by the anticipated requirements of the International Astronomical Union, Commission scientific community. 16, 1970. (1971). Physical study of planets and (c) Although there will be exceptions, satellites. Trans. Irui. Astron. Union. 14, 128. duplication of the same name on two or more International Astronomical Union, 1973. (1974). bodies should be avoided. Lunar and Martian nomenclature. Trans. (d) In general, individual names chosen Intl. Astron: Union. 15, 207-221. should be single words, and expressed in the International Astronomical U niori/W orking language of origin. Transliteration and pronun- Group for Planetary System Nomenclature. ciation for various alphabets should be given, but (1974). Minutes of the first meeting, with there will be no translation from one language to appendix. Ottawa. another. KICoiSLER.D. C. (1975). User Guide to 1 :250,000 (e) Where possible, consideration should scale Lunar Maps. Lunar Science Institute also be given to the traditional aspects of any Contrib. 206, Houston. nomenclat.ure system, provided that this does MACDoNALD, T. L. (1971). The origins of not cause confusion. Martian nomenclature. Lcarus 15, 233-240. (f) Solar system nomenclature shall be MECoiZEL, D. H., MINNAERT, M., LEVIN, Boo international in its choice of names. Recom- DOLLFrs, A., AND BELL, B. (1971). Report on mendations submitted by 1.A.U. National lunar nomenclature. Space Sci. Rev. 12, Committees will be considered. Final approval of 1:36-186.

Top View