Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2024 September 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 8

What is the systematic name for elements Z=(<100)?

Like, is the systematic name of uranium Ennbium? Is the systematic name of fluorine Ennium? Is the systematic name of caesium Pentpentium? HAt 05:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The rules for the systematic element names, approved by IUPAC in 1978, were designed solely for the purpose of assigning temporary names to unknown or not-yet-named chemical elements. Since all such elements have an atomic number greater than 100, the system only caters for such higher numbers, up to 999 (Ennennennium). The extension to other natural numbers for elements with IUPAC-approved names, while obvious, does not carry the IUPAC stamp of approval. Note that Nilium (a potential name for proton-free muonium or neutronium) and Quadium have already been given away.  --Lambiam 08:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the IUPAC rules only cover elements 101 onward, so technically even unnilnilium for fermium would not be IUPAC-approved. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that atomic numbers are integers, "greater than 100" and "101 onward" have the same meaning here.  --Lambiam 09:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a specific name for the opposite of a virus?

This is a terminology question about organisms, not diseases. In the grand scheme of things, there are two ways nucleic acid strings propagate themselves. In one, the nucleic acid string encodes enough information to build a cell with enough machinery to copy the nucleic acid string and make enough of the machinery to allow the cell to split, each with a copy of the nucleic acid string. In the second type, the nucleic acid string encodes a simple shell designed to penetrate the first type and hijack its machinery to copy itself and the shell. We have a very specific term, Virus, for the second type. Is there an equally specific term for the first type? Something better than "ordinary cell." --agr (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would you expect there to be a word words for non-Virus, non-Archaea, non-Bacteria or non-Eukarya, meaning 'all the others except this one'? They are not really opposites. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Verbarson, I thought "eukarya" had an opposite term, "prokaryote". Is that wrong somehow? Nyttend (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit to not being an expert in this area. According to Prokaryote, cellular organisms can be divided either

• into two domains (Prokaryote/Eukaryote) - in which case they may be 'opposites', though I don't know whether viruses fit in either half, or
• into three domains (Bacteria/Archaea/Eukarya) - which again may not include viruses

I suppose if Prokaryotes include Bacteria, Archaea and viruses, then they function as the 'opposite' (in the sense of 'exclusive or') to Eukaryotes. I don't know of a term that covers Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya but excludes viruses, which is what OP is seeking. (Apologies for my sloppy nomenclature to anyone who knows the definitions of these words!) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 08:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Viruses are not considered to be cellular.  --Lambiam 12:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: "a term that covers Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya but excludes viruses": I think said term would be "life" (perhaps with the caveat "as we know it" appended). Viruses are biological entities, but do not meet the qualifications to be considered life. Though I think some, or maybe all, viruses are descended from various types of living organisms..some maybe from life during the RNA world age. 73.2.106.248 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, the classification of viruses as "non-living" has always been somewhat contentious. When pressed to commit one way or the other, the majority of subject matter experts still say they are not, but will also typically qualify that call by highlighting the fact that it requires a number of subjective assessments based on deciding what the defining qualities of life are, of which there is no one universally accepted standard. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Organism?  Card Zero  (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a name for this grouping of living things with cells: Cellularae proposed by H. P. Traub. There are also other lifelike things that are not viruses and don't have cells: viroids and Obelisk (biology) and prions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

Maybe autocatalytic genes are in there too, the transposons. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References