He's a KBO scientist not a planetary scientist by the way. In America grade school children have to learn the names of 50 states then 50 capitals. Asking astronomers to name 50 planets doesn't seem to be asking too much for PhD's and based on experience probably not too much for students either. Do we define stars based on there being too many for astronomers to memorize? The number arguement is the DUMBEST one I have ever heard no matter who makes it. Everyone who voted based on that should wear I can't count past 50 t-shirts. Maybe Brown just wanted to keep the naming privilege he had gotten used to. Can't say for sure, but despite an initial response he did not answer an E-mail question as to why planets should be limited in number when nothing else in physics is. I really can't understand how intelligent people can make an arguement for a definition based on the number that results. This is not an issue for anything else in astronomy and physics.

Regards,
Mark