322 "CILIUM" AND "FLAGELLUM" STILL SEEM SUFFICIENT! JOHN O. CORLISS Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A. Gratified by the positive responses to my note of a year ago in this journal (BioSystems 12 (1980) 109), on the inappropriateness and unnecessariness of "undulipodium" as a single term to replace the good old terms "cilium" and "flagellum", I am happy -- at the Editor's request -- to comment briefly on the remarks recently submitted by colleagues E.C. Bovee and D.C. Lennartz (see preceding comments). I am pleased to note that these protozoolo- gists-cell biologists have, in effect, agreed with the principal points I was trying to make. However, I (still) do not see that there is a pressing need for a single term (see my pre- vious arguments) for the eukaryotic organ- elle(s) under consideration. Furthermore, I am not enamored of the new proposals, "motofilum" and "kinetothrix", mostly because, etymologically accurate though they be, they are complicated, unfamiliar, and -- again! -- unnecessary substitutions for the well entrenched and understandable terms "cilium" and "flagellum". By suggesting two possible terms for the alleged unique "need", Bovee and Lennartz are only increasing the unlikelihood of acceptance of either. If they really felt that prompt and final action was imperative, they might better, have expanded on the virtues of just one or the other new term, showing readers how serious they are about the matter. I remain unconvinced of the direness of the need for (sigh) one more neologism in modern descriptive cell biology. ON THE USE OF THE TERM "BASAL BODY" FOR THE PROXIMAL PART OF THE "FLAGELLUM" EUGENE C. BOVEE Department of Physiology and Cell Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, U.S.A. Recently, Dr. Corliss has objected to the attempts of bacteriologists to restrict the use of the term "basal body" only to the structure at the proximal end of the so-called bacterial "flagellum" (BioSystems 12 (1980) 109). I agree with Corliss that the long history of the usage of that term for the basal unit of the structure of the eucaryotic cell's undulipodium ("cilium" or "flagellum") validates that usage. In fact, the term basal body was used for the basal unit of the eucaryotic cilia and flagella before the bacterial "basal body" was clearly identified! There is a long history of adoptions in science by certain specialists of words others have already long been using, with subsequent claims that because they (now) use a word in a certain application, all other persons should no longer be allowed to use it as they have already long been accustomed. This

“Cilium” and “flagellum” still seem sufficient!

Download PDF Report

Upload
john-o-corliss
View
216
Download
1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

322

"CILIUM" AND " F L A G E L L U M " STILL SEEM SUFFICIENT!

JOHN O. CORLISS

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

Gratified by the positive responses to my note of a year ago in this journal (BioSystems 12 (1980) 109), on the inappropriateness and unnecessariness of "undul ipodium" as a single term to replace the good old terms "cil ium" and "flagellum", I am happy -- at the Editor's request -- to comment briefly on the remarks recently submitted by colleagues E.C. Bovee and D.C. Lennartz (see preceding comments) .

I am pleased to note that these protozoolo- gists-cell biologists have, in effect, agreed with the principal points I was trying to make. However, I (still) do not see that there is a pressing need for a single term (see my pre- vious arguments) for the eukaryotic organ- elle(s) under consideration. Furthermore, I am not enamored of the new proposals,

"motof i lum" and "kinetothr ix" , most ly because, etymologically accurate though they be, they are complicated, unfamiliar, and -- again! -- unnecessary substi tutions for the well entrenched and understandable terms "ci l ium" and "flagellum". By suggesting two possible terms for the alleged unique "need" , Bovee and Lennartz are only increasing the unlikelihood of acceptance of either. If they really felt that prompt and final action was imperative, they might better, have expanded on the virtues of just one or the other new term, showing readers how serious they are abou t the matter . I remain unconvinced of the direness of the need for (sigh) one more neologism in modern descriptive cell biology.

ON THE USE OF THE TERM "BASAL BODY" FOR THE PROXIMAL PART OF THE " F L A G E L L U M "

EUGENE C. BOVEE

Department of Physiology and Cell Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, U.S.A.

Recently, Dr. Corliss has objected to the a t tempts of bacteriologists to restrict the use of the term "basal b o d y " only to the structure at the proximal end of the so-called bacterial "flagellum" (BioSystems 12 (1980) 109). I agree with Corliss that the long history of the usage of that term for the basal unit of the structure of the eucaryotic cell's undulipodium ("c i l ium" or "flagellum") validates that usage. In fact, the term basal body was

used for the basal unit of the eucaryotic cilia and flagella before the bacterial "basal b o d y " was clearly identified!

There is a long history of adoptions in science by certain specialists o f words others have already long been using, with subsequent claims that because they (now) use a word in a certain application, all o ther persons should no longer be allowed to use it as they have already long been accustomed. This