title: "Classical cytogenetics" is not equal to "banding cytogenetics".
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Human cytogenetics is a field suffering from the argumentation that it 'is nowadays really outdated and to be replaced by molecular high throughput approaches'. Thus, it is to be expected that non-cytogeneticists do mistakes in nomenclature of cytogenetics, which is exposed to repeated reforms, like e.g. recently the now hardly manageable and readable nomenclature for array-comparative genomic hybridization.
  
  
  RESULTS
  An unexpected nomenclature problem becomes more and more obvious in human cytogenetics - it seems to become difficult to understand how and when to use the designations "classical cytogenetics" or "banding cytogenetics". Here it is highlighted that "classical cytogenetics" stands for studies undertaken by Orcein or Giemsa staining without (!) previous trypsin-treatment. However, in human (diagnostic) cytogenetics almost exclusively "banding cytogenetics" is applied.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The terms "classical cytogenetics" and "banding cytogenetics" have to be clearly distinguished and correctly applied.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Human Genetics, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Kollegiengasse 10, D-07743 Jena, Germany.
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Liehr
keywords: Banding cytogenetics; Classical cytogenetics; Diagnostics; ISCN; Research