Stereochemical terminology and its discontents.
Scrutiny of the purported misuse of some current stereochemical terms shows that obsolescence and faulty syntax may be less of a problem than previously assumed. Furthermore, changes in stereochemical terminology over time are not always due to obsolescence or to novel developments in chemical technology; for example, technical developments played no role whatsoever in the semantic transmutations over time of the terms "diastereomer" and "pseudoasymmetry." Finally, definitions of many stereochemical terms acquire meaning only within a given context and therefore cannot always be easily formulated. A prime example is the definition of "chirality," the concept at the heart of stereochemistry and, not coincidentally, the name of the journal in which this essay appears in print.
Mislow
Kurt
K
Department of Chemistry, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA. kmislow@princeton.edu