Ploonet? Please!

Astronomers studying planets that orbit other stars - called "exoplanets" -- have wondered why they've yet to see any evidence of moons around them.

Some exoplanets are not much larger than Earth, which means any moons they have would probably be pretty small. Our large moon relative to our size is outside the norm. But many are also gas giants, which might be expected to have observable moons. So far, they've been scarce.

Enter the "ploonet." It's a theorized moon that, through the gravitational shenanigans of its solar system, escaped the pull of its planet and began orbiting its star on its own. Personally, I have no problem with the theory of planets and moons enough affected by gravitation and orbit patterns to separate.

But I do have a problem with the dumb-looking, ugly-sounding word "ploonet." An amalgam of "planet" and "moon" or "moonlet," it's meant to capture the hybrid characteristics of a body that started it's life orbiting a planet but which wound up orbiting a star. I'm inclined to send them back to the drawing board for a new name. Or if more drastic measures are required, then send them over to the English department to request a new name for the newly-found class of orbiting bodies, whatever it may be.

Unless they're ready to give Pluto back it's planetary status. Do that, and maybe we can talk about this "ploonet" thing.