# What will the new elements be called? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 2, 2001, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888 "2001-10-02T02:46:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888/21 "2001-10-02T21:06:11Z")
Ok - so why Dubnium and not Hahnium? Although I just checked the IUPAC page - looks like I was wrong. Also, though, I have a textbook listing #104 as Khurchatovium. The text is Biochemistry by Lupert Stryer, 4th edition. That apparently is officially wrong, but as for the other discrepancies, it makes me think its merely cuz they just don’t know yet. ---
**Author:** ![Kaje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f04885/32.png) [@Kaje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaje)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888/22 "2001-10-03T00:38:26Z")
Here is some info: With regard to what possible names they can be given: > [@](#): > > **quoted from [http://www.iupac.org/reports/1997/6912transfermium/index.html](http://www.iupac.org/reports/1997/6912transfermium/index.html)** > The Commission agreed, in keeping with tradition, to the use of appropriate names derived from (a) mythical concepts or characters, (b) place, area or country, © a property of the element, and (d) a scientist. Also from that page it officially lists up to 109 as the same names posted by **Sunspace** Now for \>= 110: as seen on this page: [http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7306x0959.pdf](http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7306x0959.pdf) A group of scientists (Hoffman et al) have been officially recognized as having discovered 110, but a name has not been chosen by the team yet There have been varying degrees of success for 111 and 112, but not enough to be given credit for discovery I posted some stuff that’s not necessary… basically they’re called by their weirdo pseudolatin names (ununnilium for 110, etc…) all the way up until a team is given official credit and they decide on a name (or, as was the case w/ disputed elements 104 and 105, a special committee of the iupac suggests a name based on who may have made the greatest contributions to the creation of the element, as opposed to who actually finished first) ---
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888/23 "2001-10-03T00:41:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mnemosyne \* > \*\*Ok - so why Dubnium and not Hahnium? Although I just checked the IUPAC page - looks like I was wrong. Also, though, I have a textbook listing #104 as Khurchatovium. The text is Biochemistry by Lupert Stryer, 4th edition. That apparently is officially wrong, but as for the other discrepancies, it makes me think its merely cuz they just don’t know yet. \*\* Politics, friend, politics - it took roughly 25-30 years to resolve. The Soviets wanted Dubnium, after their laboratory, and Khuchatovium, after one of their researchers. The Germans wanted Meitnerium (_q.v._) and Hassium, for the German state of Hesse, home of _their_ leading laboratory. We wanted Rutherfordium and Hahnium (the Germans may have wanted this as well, I can’t remember), and Seaborgium as a plus. The compromise was reached in 1998 or 1999, resulting in the list you saw above. Note: Seaborgium is the only element named for a person living when the element was named. ---
**Author:** ![Kaje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f04885/32.png) [@Kaje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaje)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888/24 "2001-10-03T00:44:47Z")
The reason some books may have names that no longer appear to be official is that some authors will include that name as soon as the element is reportedly discovered, not waiting for all the official iupac approval… so if a russian team claimed to have 104 and said they were gonna call it Khurchatovium, some author may put that in his book before the iupac got around to saying their data was not up to their standards…in which case the name goes back to unnilquadium until eventually a competing (presumably american) claim was verified and this second team gets to name it Rutherfordium. as far as 107, to quote from [http://www.iupac.org/reports/1997/6912transfermium/index.html](http://www.iupac.org/reports/1997/6912transfermium/index.html) again: > [@](#): > > The discoveries of elements 107 jointly by the Darmstadt and Dubna laboratories), and of 108 and 109 (by the Darmstadt laboratories) are also uncontested. The discoverers wished to call these nielsbohrium, hassium, and meitnerium, respectively, and the Commission accepted the last two. However, the proposal for 107 was the subject of vigorous debate. The name nielsbohrium is long and includes the first name of Niels Bohr as well as his family name. Such an element name is without precedent. Finally it was decided to refer the matter to the Danish NAO. Its preference for bohrium rather than nielsbohrium was ultimately accepted. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2001, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888/25 "2001-10-03T01:51:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nyrath \* > I vaguely remember a schema using the prefix _“eka-”_. > Under the schema, a new element is referred to by the element above it on the periodic table, with the eka- prefix. When Mendeleev proposed the periodic table, he used the eka- (Sanskrit for “one”) as you have described to denote the undiscovered elements in the table. Eka-silicon was discovered after Mendeleev postulated it (and predicted some major properties pretty accurately) and it was named germanium. I now realize they annoyingly mixed Latin and Greek prefixes so that the element abbreviations would all be unique. Otherwise we’d have “t” for both 3 and 4 - “tri-” for 3 (in Latin or Greek, actually) and “tetra-” for 4 in Greek. Also for 6 and 7, in Greek we’d have “h” for both (hex- and hept-), and in Latin we’d have “s” for both (sex- and sept-). Does anyone know why they didn’t use “E120ium” for the name and E120 for the abbreviation? It would be even easier to remember. It certainly wouldn’t be any kludgier. ---
**Author:** ![don\_willard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@don\_willard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_willard)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888/26 "2001-10-04T15:58:11Z")
Evidently from the previous responses, most of you have no great love for words or word play. When I first heard that there was an actual element called unununium and another one unununbium, being fascinated by words, I had to find out all about them and then discovered the nomenclatural system. I think it is too bad that someday there will be no unununbium, it will be called Dr. Smith or Mr. Jones-ium. How much easier it is to remember something about the element if its very name reveals its atomic number! un un un ium, 111, element 111, ie., 11l protons and 111 electrons. If only Latin were still taught in high schools like it used to be back in the real days of education! Even knowing a little Latin and Greek in the form of having memorized in English class the major prefixes and roots sets a student up for all other subjects; the names of every bone and vein and organ and animal and animal part and plant and plant part, for example, and that’s just a start. I issue a clarion call to come together immediately and institute real education once more in the schools. Now all they do is say, “good morning class and how do you feel today. What do you want to do. What are your thoughts. Oh, you have no thoughts, I forgot, how could you. Back to what are your feelings. Now Jason, what are you angry about today as we sit here in Biology 101? And little Melanie over there in Algebra class, how do you feel about polynomials, are you feeling any better about them than you were telling us about how you felt yesterday. And by the way how am I doing as a teacher? Be sure to fill in the form evaluating my performance and send it to the dean.” And this isn’t first grade, it is college level! Although it includes first grade too! Please shift this to Rants as I now see I have hijacked this thread! Aaaaaaaagh! ---
**Author:** ![RiverRunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/977dab/32.png) [@RiverRunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RiverRunner)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2001, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888/27 "2001-10-04T17:08:39Z")
My suggestions: Cranium Governmentgrantium Poofitsgoneium Dilithium and its relative Scottium Princewillium Gillium Anderson RR [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-the-new-elements-be-called/84888.md?page=1)