NOMENCLATURE

WORDS ABOUT WORDS

Columbium vs. Niobium It was our intention to close discussion

of this topic with the letters of Drs . Tanner and Crane (C&EN, April 13, page 1576), bu t since then a letter from Prof. Jensen has arrived. In view of his relation to the action taken by t he Commission on Inor­ganic Nomenclature, publication of state­ment seems warranted. D E A B SIR:

The letter by Dr. Tanner on t he name of element No. 41 has been aptly answered by Dr . Crane. However, as the one re­sponsible for a memorandum on unification of the names of the chemical elements, which led to the discussion at the Amster­dam meeting, I should like to present some more comments:

At the Amsterdam meeting it was unani­mously agreed tha t priority is only one factor to be considered in deciding which is the best name for general international adoption and that the acceptance of a given name of an element must not be regarded as bearing on any claim to priority of discovery. In general a chemi­cal name should not be accepted on ground of priority alone; its adequacy, applica­bility, and present usage in different lan­guages should also be considered. This decision was found necessary for the fol­lowing reasons:

° 221 North King St., Xenia, Ohio.

AUSTIN Ni. PATTERSON*

( 1 ) In some cases t h e question of priority cannot b e se t t led unambiguously.

( 2 ) The discoverer may have proposed a name which is misleading, or which does not fit in with names of similar elements, or which is not readily adaptable to other languages.

( 3 ) A name may have come into gen­eral use in spite of more meritorious claims.

By carerul consideration of all argu­ments the Commission of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry ( I UP AC) decided in favor of the name niobium, primarily because the name columbium has been used only by Ameri­can and some British authors, whereas the name niobium ( and the symbol Nb ) is used in all other languages and especially in most of the li terature pertaining to the chemistry of this element. The state­ment in C H E M . ENTG. M E W S , 27 , 2996 ( 1949) , cited by Dr. Tanner , is misleading and did not originate in t h e IUPAC Com­mission. T h e latter did not contest the priority of Hatchett for be ing the first to prove the presence of a new element in eolumbite and for naming it columbium. I should, however, like t o point out tha t Hatchett 's eolumbie acid without doubt contained some tantalie acid, and vice versa for Ekeberg's tan ta l ie acid. It took decades of meticulous work by Rose, Marignac, and others t o separate and clearly distinguish these acids. Wollaston in 1809 analyzed both eolumbite and

Nucleic acids have been shown to produce favor ­able response in certain hematological disorders. Several o f the metallic salts are said to have a d d i ­tional therapeutic value. Schwarz nucleic acid and sodium nucleate conform to the specifications o f the French Codex.

Schwarz fine chemicals satisfy the exacting require­ments of products intended fo r use in biochemical or clinical research.

Write for price list

A**w^~. LABORATORIES, INC. 230 Washington Street Mount Vernon, New York

tantalite and concluded t ha t columbiim and tantalum were identical and tha t onl] the former nanie should b e used. Berze lius was also of the opinion tha t columbiun and tantalum were identical, bu t insisted that only the name tantalum should b« used. Thus the names columbium anc tantalum were used without distinction fo both elements until Heinrich Rose in 184( definitely proved that columbium and tan talum are two different elements. He re tained Ekeberg's n a m e tantalum but pro posed a new name for the other element He could with the same right have retainec the name columbium and dropped the name tantalum. To put an end to the confusion it was, however, essential thai at least one of the names b e dropped.

Dr. Tanner should realize that or grounds of priority alone h e would imme­diately have to change tungsten to wolf­ram and lutetium to cassiopeium, and probably also beryllium to glucinium and vanadium to erythronium.

The IUPAC Commission at the Amster­dam meeting decided in favor of beryl­lium, niobium, and lutetium, because glucinium, columbium, and cassiopeium are used only in French, English, and Ger­man, respectively. It was no t intended to settle the question of priority by this de­cision. The commission further decided in favor of hafnium instead of celtium, both because the latter name is used only in French and on grounds of priority. The French accordingly made concessions in giving u p glucinium and celtium, b u t had the name lutetium, proposed by Urbain, accepted instead of cassiopeium. Although Germany is not yet a member of the IUPAC the Germans have since accepted the name lutetium [Z. anorg. allgem. Chem., 271 , 1 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , Table of Atomic Weights], thereby demonstrat ing a t rue understanding of international cooperation.

Concerning the n a m e wolfram, it is the name proposed by the discoverers of this element, the brothers de Elhuyar ( there \s no question of their pr ior i ty) , it is in accord with the international symbol W, and it is the name used in almost all languages except English and French. The name tungsten, which is the original name of t h e wolfram mineral CaWO.,, means "heavy stone" and is not an appropriate name for an element. The reasons for changing tungsten to wolfram are thus very strong and it is a p i ty that the recommendation by the IUPAC Commis­sion was disregarded. [Note: It was not disregarded, it was protested, and as a result the commission approved' both names.—A.M.P.] The American committee opposed the name wolfram because the name tungsten is well established in in­dustry. However, t he n a m e wolfram might well have been introduced as a scientific name to be used primarily for the compounds of this element ( wolframates, wolfram(V) chloride) , just as we use t he names ferrates, ferrous salts, etc., b u t the name iron for the free metal. It should also b e remembered tha t the names ben­zene, glycerol, etc., were successfully in­troduced, although benzol, glycerin, etc., were well established in the industry.

Standardization in the language of chemistry is becoming more and more im­portant, and to obtain this the IUPAC commissions will sometimes have to cut a Gordian knot. It is essential that their recommendations b e received in a truly international cooperative spirit.

K. A. J E N S E N Member of t he I U P A C Commission for Inorganic Chemical Nomencla ture

Copenhagen, Denmark

3208 C H E M I C A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G N E W S

NUCLEIC ACID and

METALLIC NUCLEATES