>>Looks like the rules change by the International Astronomical Union might redefine Sedna as a planet after all (along with keeping Pluto and adding a few more Kuiper Belt objects).
>
>I think this has to be agreed yet.
>
>In any case, Pluto et. al. would be a separate category of planets.
>
>A planet, according to the proposed definition, would be something that orbits a star (this excludes our Moon, and other moons), and with enough gravitation to keep the object in a nearly round shape.
Reading the IAU press release http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html
Pluto seems to be a planet and a pluton. This seems quite confusing to me. I think the definition should be that if its got enough gravity to be a sphere and orbits the sun then its a planet. Instead we have classic planets and plutons.

Nick