Dear Editor:

     Dan Wivagg's editorial "Terminology Revisited" (ABT, May 1988) identified one of the most subtle obstacles facing general biology students.  While the quantity of required technical jargon is often recognized, the cunter-intuitive meaning of many is rarely acknowledged.  One common approach to "de-mystifying" biological terminology (and reducing memorization) is to stress word origins.  But I am afraid that these benefits are sometimes at the expense of increasing the number of confusing misnomers.  Like Wivagg, I see little use in coining alternatives.  Instead, I have sought ways to use these little classroom embarrassments in a positive manner.
     If nothing else, they can be used as comic relief, speculating on the condition of the responsible person at the time.  Non-majors actually seem relieved to learn that scientists, too, are capable of logical errors.  But the situation I find most instructive is to explain , if I can, the historical basis for the term.  Often a misnomer is the result of a temporary misunderstanding or lack of information.  For example, prophase of mitosis and meiosis was, as it name implies, the first phase identifiable using the light microscope.  Today we are aware that gene duplication by DNA transcription occurs prior to chromosome condensation, and thus the first steps occur "invisibly" during interphase, the so-called "in-between" phase.  I similarly digress when explaining prokaryotes, amino acids, dipeptides and others.  Such anecdotes not only suggest reasonable origins but also allow students to perceive science as an ongoing, self-correcting process.  Our terminology, like biological organisms themselves, simply has a historical legacy.
     I find that briefly calling attention to "bloopers" increases students' attention and, therefore, their understanding and retention.  Whether or not the scenario presented is the actual historical basis for a misnomer is unimportant if you make it clear that you are just speculating.  What is important, particularly to the non-major, is that the terminology not appear arbitrary (and of course not be overemphasized at the expense of understanding the process or concept).  Otherwise, a lack of credibility may compound the problem.
     Incidentally, some apparent misnomers are actually etymologically correct.  For example, in the editorial Wivagg cites the inconsistency of using "haploid" to designate one set of chromosomes while using "diploid" to designate two.  The implication is that while di- appropriately means two, ha- refers to half instead of one.  I have even heard others attempt to explain this apparent contradiction by pointing out that haploid is half of the "normal" diploid condition.  Actually, the "haploid" is derive from the Greek haploos (simple or one-fold) and a contraction of the suffix -oeides (likeness of form - the functional equivalent of -ed in English);  hence, haploid means single.  Likewise, "diploid" is derived from diploos (twofold) and -oid and means doubled.  Even though the haploid/diploid designations may be technically correct, it is true that without explanation they remain confusing to many English speaking students, which, of course, was the point of the editorial.