Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:34:02 -0500 From: Geoff Gaherty To the best of my knowledge HQ doesn't assign anyone stars for any purpose > these days. In fact the only resources for suggested targets are buried in > the web pages under 'needs more observations' in the Bulletin, 'easy to > observe stars' and the targets on the campaign page. I can't think of any > others. Since I still consider myself a neophyte at variable star observing, I've largely concentrated on the "easy to observe" list, so that I can compare my results with those of others and make sure I'm not out in left field. Something that has surprised me is that quite a few of those "easy to observe" stars seem to be really sparsely observed...often it seems like I'm the only person observing them! I haven't had time yet to compare that list with your underobserved list, but my hunch is that there are some stars in common between the two lists. The other danger with the "easy to observe" list is that it may be that the vast majority of observations of these stars are being done by beginners, so the quality may not be up to AAVSO standards. It would be nice if some old timers observed some of these stars, too. > Professional astronomers don't seem to be particularly well informed or > interested in a great number of Miras. From my "AAVSO usage reports" the > same stars come up again and again as the ones professionals are interested > in, R Leo, Chi Cyg, Omicron Ceti... Yes, I've noticed that myself. I have about 60 stars on my current list, but I'd say that there are only about 6 of those that ever get used by anyone. Anyone who follows a bunch of Miras, as I do, cannot help but be struck by the varieties of the shapes of their light curves. I suspect there's a lot more going on with Miras than we know. Geoff Geoff Gaherty GHT Foxmead Observatory Coldwater, Ontario, Canada http://www.gaherty.ca _______________________________________________