
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
I agree with you completely. Often the use of terminology that varies from context to context is quite confusing for those not familiar with the field. As to the confusion of the use Adrenalin and epinephrine, as well as, noradrenalin and norepinephrine, one just has to remember that each our synonymous. The major reason for this divergence in terminology comes from basically three aspects: the first is that epinephrine (Greek form) was used traditionally by the British pharmacological camp, whereas adrenalin was used by their North American colleagues. Looking back through the history of neuroscience all the big North American universities, like Harvard and Princeton, were not really that good initially. The European institutions were by far more established and more respectable. As result there was disparity early on with the terminology for description and most of the big journals of the time were still predominantly European which ended up still fueling the disparity in discourse. Actually in its early days both Princeton and Harvard were pretty dismal places. Secondly, most pharmacologists end up using epinephrine to describe the ligand and adrenergic to describe the receptor or the plural transmitter system. (just imagine the difficulty in pronouncing epinephrinergic compared to adrenergic). (or the converse, norepinephrinergic never caught on b/c of its own inherit difficulty in pronouncing). So basically it was a pronunciation issue. The last major reason that I think the disparity arose was that the word Adrenalin was appropriated by a drug company of the time (the name escapes me at the moment) as a proprietary name. Thus, difficulty both legally and technically would occurred when discussing these transmitter substances. So the use general use of epinephrine was employed in order to be more consistent. Generally most people people use the epinephrine for the transmitter substance and adrenergic for the adjectival form. I personally use the traditional British terminology for the ligand and North American form discussing the receptor complex. (or adjectival form. For example, noradrenergic terminals stemming from the locus ceruleus are involved in wakefulness and alertness). Let's also not forget that science is filled with numerous examples of discourse problems. Another example in neuroscience pertains to the incorrect translation of a word from Arabic origins to Latin. For example, the outer and inner layers of the meninges are referred to as a "mothers" (dura mater, pia mater). This was a problem from the translation of the great tenth-century Persian physician, Ali ibn Abbas, who used to the term "al umm" to refer to the meninges. Traditionally the dura was called al umm al djfiya and the inner layer al umm al rigiga. The term does literally mean "mother", however, it was also used to describe to any swaddling material, because Arabic lack a term for membrane. When the translation to Latin took place, the translator, made a literal translation. Ergo, "hard mother" and "pious mother". Instead of the more appropriate durus membrana or pious membrana terms. NMF
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |