GEOGRAPHIC NAMES OF ANTARCTICA 



g. Persons who by substantial contributions of 

 funds or supplies have made possible an 

 Antarctic expedition 



h. Persons who have done outstanding work in 

 the utilization of data, identification of 

 specimens, or interpretation of the results of 

 Antarctic exploration 



3. Third-order featltres 



a. Persons who have assisted in the work of 

 organizing or conducting Antarctic explo- 

 ration, or who have assisted in analysis of 

 information gathered in the course of such 

 exploration 



b. Members of expeditions, including ship- 

 based personnel 



c. Persons whose contributions to knowledge 

 in their respective fields have facilitated the 

 discovery, recognition, identification, or re- 

 cording of Antarctic phenomena 



d. Teachers or administrators in institutions 

 of higher learning who have contributed to 

 the training of polar explorers 



e. Persons who have made material contribu- 

 tions in any form to Antarctic expeditions, 

 and who have by their words or actions dem- 

 onstrated an interest in further scientific 

 exploration rather than in seeking commer- 

 cial exploitation of such contributions 



D. The Application of Non-Personal Names 



In accord with the tradition of Antarctic explo- 

 ration, it is considered appropriate to apply non- 

 personal names to natural features. Names in the 

 following categories may be appropriately applied 

 to a feature in any order of magnitude with which 

 there is association. Examples of non-personal 

 names are: 



1. Names which commemorate events (e.g., 

 Charcot's "Point Delivrance" and Nor- 

 denskjold's "Hope Bay") 



2. Names of ships from which discoveries have 

 been made (e.g., "Cape Gronland" and "Cape 

 Norvegia") 



3. Names of organizations which have sponsored, 

 supported, or given scientific or financial as- 

 sistance to Antarctic expeditions (e.g., "Royal 

 Society Range," "Admiralty Range," "Banzare 

 Coast"), or names of institutions of higher 

 learning that have contributed to the training 

 of polar explorers 



4. Names which are peculiarly descriptive of the 

 feature name (e.g., "Deception Island," 

 "Mount Tricorn," or "Three Slice Nunatak") . 

 Descriptive names which are not unique or 

 particularly appropriate and for which there 



are likely to be duplicates are, however, un- 

 desirable 



5. Any other non-personal name which because 

 of its acknowledged importance occupies a 

 major role in Antarctic exploration or Ant- 

 arctic history 



E. Criteria of Appropriateness 



1. Newly proposed names will be considered for 

 features of the first, second, or third order, as 

 described above, in the light of their appropri- 

 ateness, as evidenced by the following factors 

 arranged in order cf weight: 



a. Chronological priority of discovery, naming, 

 or other relevant action 



b. Actual association of the person, ship, or- 

 ganization, event, etc., with the feature 



c. Association of the person, ship, organiza- 

 tion, event, etc., with Antarctic exploration 



d. Contribution of the person to the knowledge 

 of Antarctica 



e. Association of the person, ship, organization, 

 event, etc., with other polar exploration 



f. Contribution of the person to relevant fields 

 of knowledge 



g. Extent to which financial or material con- 

 tributions have contributed to the success 

 of an expedition or to the collection of valu- 

 able scientific data 



h. Previous recognition through a geographic 

 name in Antarctica. To prevent confusion, 

 it is considered advisable, in future naming 

 in Antarctica, to apply the name of one 

 person or the names of persons having the 

 same surname, to no more than one feature 

 of a kind 



i. The possibility of ambiguity or confusion 

 with names already in use 



(1) The duplication of names already in 

 current usage is undesirable and, ex- 

 cept in special cases, is to be avoided 



(2) Since descriptive names are often am- 

 biguous and easily duplicated, they 

 should be avoided, unless a descriptive 

 name is peculiarly appropriate 



(3) The duplication in Antarctica of names 

 well known in other parts of the world 

 is undesirable even though qualified by 

 adjectives such as "new," "south," and 

 "little." 



2. Names already in use will be, considered in 

 the light of: 



a. Appropriateness, as outlined above 



b. Wideness of acceptance, as evidenced by use 

 in scientific and popular map and other 

 literature. Usage which is considered suf- 



