A panel appointed by the International Astronomical Union thinks it has come up with a dandy compromise to the years-long struggle over whether we should continue to count Pluto as a planet. The trouble is, the new definition of a planet will include an awful mélange of icy rocks found on the outer fringes of the solar system. It would be far better to expel Pluto from the planetary ranks altogether, leaving us to bask in the comfortable presence of the eight classical planets discovered before 1900.

Pluto, discovered in 1930, never deserved to be called a planet. It is far smaller than first thought, smaller in fact than our own moon. Now a panel of astronomers and historians has come up with a new definition of the word “planet” that will keep Pluto in the club. Under the new definition, a planet would be any celestial body that orbits around a star and is large enough for its own gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.

That definition would produce an ugly porridge of 12 old and new planets, with dozens more on the way. Pluto would still count as a planet but would be shunted into a new category called “Plutons”. Many doz-ens of distant ice balls may ultimately qualify for planethood. When the astronomical union votes on the matter next week, it ought to summon the courage to scratch Pluto from the list of planets. — The New York Times