Originally Posted by a-l-e-x

You dont see scientists trying to change the names of existing species; why did they do with extinct species?

Originally Posted by AndreasJ

Eohippus is now usually refered to Hyracotherium.

Originally Posted by a-l-e-x

Ahhh ok-- thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the terms Kestrel, Merlin and Harrier were actually the European equivalents of Sparrow Hawk, Pigeon Hawk and Marsh Hawk. Did they make the changes to create consistency?

Originally Posted by Kullat Nunu

In paleontology, if two species are found to be the same the older synonym is kept. That happened to Eohippus and Brontosaurus and many other species.

Originally Posted by laurele

As to using quotes, I still haven't figured out how to do multiple quotes in the same post. I would greatly appreciate it if you would enlighten me on how to do this.

I don't believe that an unclear or large number of planets would be unacceptable to the general public. We have billions of galaxies and billions of stars which are then divided into multiple subcategories. Why balk at doing the same for planets? People tend to be far more excited by the addition of new planets than by the "removal" of one.

So why not keep dwarf planets as a subcategory of planets that are in hydrostatic equilibrium but do not dominate their orbits? This way both the geophysical and dynamical concerns are incorporated into the definition. It is very likely that Dawn and New Horizons will reveal that these objects have geophysical properties that make them in many ways far more like the major planets than like asteroids.

The ability of an object to dominate its orbit becomes more and more difficult the further that object is from its parent star. A Mars-sized object in the Kuiper Belt would not necessarily dominate its orbit and certainly would not clear its path of other, non-round KBOs. So we still have the contradictory situation where the real Mars is a planet but an object of the same size in the Kuiper Belt, according to the current definition, very likely would not be one. This needs to be rectified because it classifies an object solely by where it is and not by what it is.

The claim that supporters of reinstating Pluto's planet status are a "small but vocal minority" is highly questionable. It is being made by supporters of the IAU decision who have a vested interest in not having the debate reopened. I don't think anyone has taken an official census, but there are many astronomers who are not happy with this decision and want to see the vote redone. Ninety-six percent of the IAU's membership could not vote because they were not in the room. I think it is highly unlikely this issue will not be reopened in future General Assemblies, especially the one in 2015, when the data from Dawn and New Horizons will be in, at which time it is quite likely a far more broad conception of the term planet will be adopted.