IS IT an art or is it a science? Logotechnics 鈥� the discipline of composing new words 鈥� lies somewhere at the borderline. If they wanted to, composers of new names for cars, perfumes or other products could call themselves logotechnicians, but they would probably prefer to cloak their work in creative mystery and be known as brand consultants. 杏吧原创s, on the other hand, might be expected to behave with more rigour when naming things. And as befits that view there turns out to be only one authoritative source for the scientist who wants to practise logotechnics. That is Roland Wilbur Brown鈥檚 Composition of Scientific Words: A manual of methods and a lexicon of materials for the practice of logotechnics, first published in 1927. It has been revised and reprinted regularly but never surpassed 鈥� and it still occasionally makes its way into the lists of science reference bestsellers.
Brown was a geologist working at the US Geological Survey and a great advocate of clarity over purity. He had harsh things to say of long complex scientific words, dismissing them as 鈥渟esquipedalian jawbreakers鈥�. He believed that Greco-Roman hybrids, such as tonsillectomy and television, should be accepted if they are simpler to say.
Sound advice, for despite what might be expected, scientists often lapse into muddle and confusion over the naming of things. Sometimes it is a reflection of deeper confusion. For example, Paradoxurus hermaphroditus is the scientific name for the common palm civet (pictured), a rather cute-looking cat-sized animal and quite definitely not a hermaphrodite. But it coils its tail in captivity making it difficult to distinguish male from female.
Advertisement
Sometimes, first impressions count for too much. The first foreigners to see lemurs, now delightful fluffy animals, were frightened by their spectre-like faces, and named them after the lemures 鈥� spirits of the (sometimes) evil dead, who the Romans appeased with offerings.
Other times, namers just get carried away. The nilgai is a rather hairy antelope found in Tibet and India. Its local name mixes Hindi for blue (nil) with Persian for cow (gaw) but its scientific name, Boselaphus tragocamelus, is far worse, covering all options by mixing words for ox, a deer, a male goat and a camel.
What would Brown make of today鈥檚 scientific names? As naming genes takes over from naming species, he鈥檇 probably think there is too much whimsy. In the fruit fly, there鈥檚 cleopatra, which is lethal if it interacts with the asp gene. And ether a go-go is a mutated gene that results in a jiggling 鈥渄ance鈥� under ether anaesthesia. Strangely there鈥檚 an error in the name of the fruit fly itself. Drosophilia melanogaster is a lover of dew not fruit (drosos is Greek for dew and philos means loving). Only that 鈥渂lack belly鈥� bit would have met with Brown鈥檚 approval.