t ype of word piracy is offensive, to say the least!

Arbitrators ~ce not welcomed by opposing factions. None-.the-less, it is reasonable to point ou t that the basal b o d y of the eucary- otic undul ipodium is structurally -- and in cer- tain flagellates, is f u n c t i o n a l l y - - a centriole! It would be logical to call it a basal centriole, since its structure is known. It would then be logical to let the bacteriologists use the term "basal b o d y " for the proximal part o f the bacterial "flagellum", since that structure is not a centriole.

Another possibility is to use the already more~r-less culTent term kinetosome for the

323

basal body of the eucaryotic undulipodium. However, the e tymology of that word is f rom kinetos ( "mot ion") and soma ( "body" ) , bu t it is not motile. Neither does it necessarily activate movement , as the term may be assumed to imply, since researches have shown that a eucaryotic "flagellum" may be activated into movement by stimulus any- where along its length.

I think that basal centriole is the bet ter choice for the eucaryotic, proximal, unduli- podial unit. The bacteriologists can then "pira te" the term basal body for their own use, if they wish.

"BASAL BODY" IS BETTER LEFT AS A EUKARYOTIC TERM

JOHN O. CORLISS

Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A.

I am happy -- at the Editor 's request -- to comment very briefly on the remarks (see preceding note} on the use of the term "basal b o d y " submit ted by colleague E.C. Bovee. It seems that he and I (BioSystems 12 (1980) 109) are, once again, essentially in agreement on terminology of interest to protozoologists, cell biologists, and microbiologists in general.

Somewhat as in the case of the "unduli- pod ium" arguments (see preceding papers), however, I see no good reason for dropping usage of a perfectly understandable eukary- otic term, "basal body" , and going to the new combinat ion of "basic centriole", especially when "centr iole" is hardly appropriate func- tionally in most instances. For example, does it seem advisab:ie to speak of a small ciliated p ro tozoon as possessing "800 centrioles" over its body? Surely (unnecessarily))misleading!

I dislike taking up good journal space with etymological or orthographical "arguments" , bu t I should appreciate permission to make a strong plea for "eukaryo tes" and "eukaryot ic"

over "eucaryotes" and "eucaryot ic" here (in disagreement with Bovee), especially since these words come up so often, today, along with "prokaryotes" and "prokaryot ic" , in discussion of cell structures and their possible origins. I am aware of . the " c " spelling in the French tongue, bu t in English, German, and many other languages, we already have num- erous "parallel" words based on the Greek karyon, a nut (therefore, a nucleus), and they ' re almost universally spelled with a "k" . Here are some examples:: karyology, karyo- plasm, karyophore, karyosome, karyogamy, karyolymph, karyokinesis, karyomastigont, karyonide, synkaryon, dikaryon, akaryomasti- gont, etc. It seems to me rather unfor tunate to adopt a " c " for solely this one form {"eucaryotic") in the series! An author would then have to write, for example, "Among the eucaryotic organisms known as protists, _karyo- gamy (i.e., fusion of gametic nuclei to form a syn_karyon) is of common occurrence"!