…I think they should check and see whether the name they choose already has some established significance in another area of knowledge, just to avoid confusion. The inspiration for this thread is the Clovis Point, the classic prehistoric stone spear point from the southwestern U.S. I realize that it is named after the town of Clovis, N.M. where the first examples were found; but the name Clovis has a significant place in history, i.e. Clovis, King of the Franks. I just think it’s kind of “messy” to have a prehistoric American artifact named after a Dark Age French king that it has nothing to do with. If I were in a position to name something like that, I’d try to give it a unique name that didn’t have any other associations. Anyway, that’s my humble opinion.
This is why I object to the term “begging the question,” meaning “raising the question.” “Begging the question” is already a term in Philosophy, with an entirely different meaning, and there’s no other term for that meaning. Now the original meaning is getting buried under the new one, for no reason whatsoever.
I’m wondering how teachers 50 years from now are going to explain the naming of the Sonic Hedgehog gene.
“Well, back when your grandparents were kids, there was this game…”
Gene names can be a source of fun. Many sequences are given a three letter designation, the letters coming from what parts of the organism they effect.
There’s the UFO gene. Imagine talking about UFO mutants and being serious!
I worked on a project using mice with an altered MER gene. If I had a dollar for every time I was asked, “You work with mer-mice? Do they have fish tails?” I’d be a rich woman.
It’s not just scientists.
The C++ programming language is famous in part for being “object oriented”. It contains constructs called “objects”. The “objects” it contains are not related to being “object oriented”, which means oriented towards an idea that is only called “objects” when discussing other computer languages.
Lmao!
Oh, that isn’t even the half of it.
The drosophila people always come up with the wacky names. Must be all that fly-nap that they’re breathing in…
In contrast, I’ve found that bacterial gene names tend to be a pain in the ass. Usually they’ve been named for some obscure mutant phenotype discovered fifty years ago that has little (if anything) to do with the gene’s actual function.
+1
great link.
I remember a little cartoon on the page of an OMNI magazine…
a medical researcher by the name Dr…uh, let’s call him Jeffries.
He’s looking through a microscope at a sample of tissue infected with a pathogen, and a thought dialogue bubble forms over his head:
Jeffries’ disease,
Jeffries’ disorder,
Jeffries’ syndrome,
etc.