notes on nomenclature clature may he compared to the above differences. We may sct the g,ai of one and only one name for each compound & rest cmtent with more than one name as long as each leads uniouelv to a definite structure. For conversation, research reporting, and teaching, a small varietv of names not onlv is tolerable but mav even he desirable, since it permits nuances of emphasis and highlights different relationshios. However. in indexine there is need for variants in names for a single comlimitation of oound. Otherwise. multinle entries for the same compound br cross-references from bne name to another would be necessarv. In any extensive index, the cost of these multiple entries becomes intolerable. Even more important is the convenience to the user. Hence it is clear why the IUPAC recommmdations which stress systematic names are more permissive than the svstrm used in Chrmrcol Abrtror.1~which nerds only a single entry for a given compound in order to assizr the user, r u meet deadlines in production and to live a i t h ~ nits budget. Hoth kinds ~~1'nomenclature;'systematicbut-varialde" and "s~ngle-name-for-a-gi\,enmrture,' have their own areas of usefulness. Neirher should have dominance over the other.
. .
University of South Florida Tompa 33620
KURT LOENING ROY M. ADAMS
Chemicol Ab%eoosService Calumbu$. Ohio 43210
Beover FoIII,
Geneva Cdlege Pennrylvanio 1501 0
Systematic versus Index Nomenclature
Chemists, uniformly, are proud of the nomenclature of their science and point to two events as the most significant in the development of inorganic and organic nomenclature, respectively: the publication of Mdthode de Nomenclature Chimique (1787) (1-3) and the Geneva Congress (1892) (4-7). These events mark the beginning of systematic nomenclature. However, it is essential that we are certain what is meant by the term systematic. If all substances were given names indicating color or reactions or discoverer, in a limited sense the names would he systematic. However, truly systematic names nermit the construction of the structural renresentation from its name. The significance of the Guyton de Mor\,eau, et al. uuhlicntim was thnt it introduced two basic orincivles: (a) the indication of both the acidic (electronegativej and basic (electropositive) portions of a salt, and (h) the provision for different acids and bases derived from the same element. The significance of the Geneva System was relating names to structures. profound extension Both of these svstems hate undergone . . and revision. Organic nomenclature has mainrained relating names 118 structures hut has had to continually expand and modify procedures to avoid ambiguity, to keep pace with ever increasing cumplexitv, and to incorporate ever incr&sing refinements in the matter of structure. Inorganic nomenclature first pursued the goal of relatingname to stoichiometric composition and much later that of relatingnames to structures. The most important aspect of the present day movement toward common eoals for bath inoreanic and organic is relating names to structures. Chtmisti seek to d e \ , e l o theories ~ which explain the DroDerties and behaviors of matkids as observed in the laboratory and elsewhere. They are often chided by their colleagues in physics and mathematics because too frequently they are content to construct a theory which agrees with observation without making certain that i t is the only theory which does so. The physicist seeks to establish his theories by prwf which would meet the mathematician's criteria of proof. For the chemist this is not always possible hecause of the very complexity of the systems which he studies. Systems of nomen-
Literature Cited C. L.,and de Fouruoy,A. F., "MLthudedeNomenelatvreChirniqua,"Psris,1787. (21 Theehove publication w a s p r e d e d by twoothen by Guyton de Morveau. J. Phys., 19. 310,382 (1782) and Ann. Chim. ei Phys., 111 25.205 117781. (31 The nomenclature of 11) -as given wide publieily by Lavoiiierin"Trait4 Elementaire deChimie."Deterville, Paris, 1789. 141 Picset,A..Ach. Sei. Phys Not.. [iiil 27.485 (1892). 15) Tiemsnn,F.,Rer., 26,1595 11893). 161 Cornbe, A,, in Wurtz's Dictonnoirr dr chimie pure at nppiiqula. 1894. Supplement (1) Guyton de Morveau, L. B.,Lavoisior,A. L., Berthollet.
2, Partie 1, pp. 1060-76.
(71 Verkade, P.B., Buli Soc Chim. Fronco. (6). 1807
,,,,w,,
(1966):1111,4W9 (1967): (41,1358
Levels of Communication via Nomenclature Chemists seldom all amee. on matters of no- . esneciallv . menclature. There are many reasons for this, hut certainly the failure to distineuish amone" levels of communication is one of them. There are some parallels between the names by which .neonle . are identified and those used to identifv chemical substances. Within a close familv circle. names of endearment are used which, unless one knows the family intimately, have no discernible relation to the names on their birth certificates or on their teachers' rolls. Among close associates nicknames are used commonly. Only occasionally does a person acquire such a reputation as to he known generally throughout his professional circles by such nicknames as Rocky or Speed or Bergie. The system of family names prefaced by a given name and a middle initial serves satisfactorily under most circumstances to identify a specific individual. However, anyone with a name like William Smith knows that his name is shared by many others even when he adds a middle initial such as C. Within a circle of relatives William C., Sr., Jr., 11,111,etc. distinguishes the individual fairly well. However, the William C. Smith in an entirely different family group might receive mail intended for any one of the other group. Social Security recognized the necessity of distinguishing each individual person and assigned numbers for this purpose. Although we may not like t o h e known by a number, there comes a d a y when we don't ohject so strenuously because it may well insure our monthly Volume 53, Number 8. August 1976
/ 495
