Names were lined up clearly in Adobe document and when I pasted. Didn't expect the reformat on posting.

I think the hundreds of planets possibilty is rather exaggerated, but I fundamentally disagree with any arbitrary limitation on numbers. Brown's own site suggests he'd be unhappy even with a much lower number. I think personally he would have liked to be a planet discoverer and have a line drawn right below Pluto, but professionally realized that was too arbitrary based on conflicting semi ambivalent statements he's made.

Not sure what you meant by the Ceres comment. Sure one European would gain recognition, but so would Brown another American and possibly for multiple planets. No one else has ever been credited with discovering more than one planet except possibly briefly back when the first asteroids discovered were considered planets.

I have no problem with Ceres being promoted back to planet status. Less wild about Charon, but think it's probably best unless it's a deal breaker for a rational definition. You could make a rational definition for a planet that included Pluto and Ceres but excluded Charon simply by not allowing any double planet classification.

Regards,
Mark