Reply to comment

Yes, I did read Weintraub's book, and he does a good job chronicling the history of planet definitions and discoveries. He actually does discuss Eris at the end of the book but still refers to it by the term 2003 UB313, which is what it was known as at the time of his book's publication. Specifically, he states, "Rewriting history will not change the fact that no criteria based on physical or astrophysical principles are sufficient to distinguish Pluto and Ceres from Mercury and Jupiter. So our answer must also include: and so are Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Hygeia, Cybele, Varuna, Ixion, 2002AW197, Quaoar, 2002TC302, 2003EL61 (now Haumea), 2003UB313 (now Eris), Sedna, Orcus, and 2005FY9 (now Makemake)" in reference to his conclusion one paragraph earlier that "Pluto is a planet") (page 218).

I met Weintraub last summer at the Great Planet Debate, and he still maintained the same position. I welcome his writing a revised edition of his book and hope it woudn't be seen as competition with mine. Tyson is right in saying "the more, the merrier" regarding books about Pluto, and I think they can all complement one another rather than compete with one another.

I do still oppose creating an artificial reason to exclude Pluto and round KBOs from being considered planets. For any object, its composition should be fundamental to how it is classified. And I am certainly looking forward to the findings of New Horizons, which will likely provide whole new insights into this debate.