Substantia. An International Journal of the History of Chemistry 3(2) Suppl. 4: 83-99, 2019 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/substantia ISSN 2532-3997 (online) | DOI: 10.13128/Substantia-498 Citation: A. E. Robinson (2019) Order From Confusion: International Chemi- cal Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990. Substantia 3(2) Suppl. 4: 83-99. doi: 10.13128/Substantia-498 Copyright: © 2019 A. E. Robinson. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.com/substan- tia) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 Ann E. Robinson Widener Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA E-mail: ann_robinson@harvard.edu Abstract. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is the inter- national standards making body for chemistry whose goal is to create a common lan- guage for the global chemistry community. The IUPAC governs the use and creation of names, symbols, and terminology. It also establishes criteria for the discovery of new ele- ments and assesses discovery claims, develops rules for naming new elements, and defines group numbering and collective names. This paper examines a series of episodes in which the Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC) made changes in the nomenclature of the elements and to the periodic table. They faced protests in their attempts to harmonize the names of elements, create a systematic nomenclature for ele- ments with an atomic number greater than 100, and changed the group numbering on the periodic table, dropping the use of A and B sub-group labels in favor of Arabic numbers 1 through 18. By allowing for difference while advocating for uniformity, CNIC persevered in creating order out of confusion through standardized nomenclature. Keywords. Chemical elements, periodic table, IUPAC, nomenclature. 1. INTRODUCTION The need for standardization in chemical terminology, symbols, and nomenclature was well-recognized in the nineteenth century. The first inter- national chemical conference held at Karlsruhe in 1860 made some attempt at this.1 A congress was held at Geneva in 1892 to create a standardized nomenclature for organic chemistry. This nomenclature did not cover the entirety of organic chemistry and it failed to be adopted, although it did later form the basis for today’s standardized nomenclature.2 International chemi- cal conferences in the first decades of the twentieth century made gestures towards standardization but little was accomplished. A notable exception was the International Committee on Atomic Weights (IACW), formed in 1900 after a mail ballot found overwhelming acceptance of O=16 as the basis for the determination of atomic weights, rather than H=1.3 Although it took sev- eral years for the O=16 standard to be fully accepted, the IACW continues to carry out its mandate regarding atomic weights. The International Association of Chemical Societies (IACS) was formed in 1911 with the intention of developing international chemical standards in 84 Ann E. Robinson the areas of nomenclature and notation, classification, atomic weights, and information related activities such as the indexing of chemical literature. Commissions were created to study the nomenclature of organic and inorganic chemistry and the standardization of symbols for physical constants.4 The proposed work of the IACS was “Promethean” and questions were raised regard- ing its funding and membership.5 Before these could be resolved, World War I intervened and the IACS was dis- solved in its wake. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chem- istry (IUPAC) was formed in 1919 to replace the IACS. Its purpose is to organize cooperation between scientific societies around the world, to coordinate their activi- ties, and to contribute to the advancement of chemistry as a whole.6 The IUPAC is the international standards making body for chemistry whose goal is to “create a common language for the global chemistry commu- nity.”7 The common language for chemistry is largely a standardized one. The IUPAC publishes several books of nomenclature rules, known as the color books, that cover the many subdisciplines of chemistry. These rules govern the use and creation of names, symbols, and ter- minology. Many of the IUPAC’s standardization activities are related to the elements and thus to the periodic table. The IUPAC reviews atomic weights, establishes criteria for the discovery of new elements and assesses discov- ery claims, develops rules for naming new elements and coordinates their naming, and defines group numbering and collective names. However, the IUPAC does not rec- ommend the use of a specific form of the periodic table.8 Much of the standardization work regarding the elements and the periodic table fell to two commissions within the IUPAC’s Inorganic Division.9 The Commis- sion on Atomic Weights, the continuation of the IACW, was responsible for the regular evaluation and dissemi- nation of the atomic weights of the elements. It was also responsible for officially naming new elements until after World War II when that duty was shifted to the Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC). The CNIC was responsible for the development, maintenance, and publication of rules relating to the names of inorganic substances, including the elements. The CNIC, in particular, was responsible for several major changes in the nomenclature of the elements and to the periodic table during the second half of the twen- tieth century. This paper examines several episodes associated with these changes. The first set of changes regarded the elimination of alternate names for the elements, in which the CNIC opted for the adoption of “good names” over the wishes of chemists in France, the Unit- ed States, and elsewhere (sections 2 and 3). The second set of changes occurred in the wake of new elements being synthesized in accelerators rather than being iso- lated from materials found in the earth. In their attempt to name these elements, the CNIC came up against the belief in the traditional right of discoverers to name that which they discovered (sections 4 and 5). The final set of changes examined in this paper are associated with the group numbering found on the periodic table. Although the use of A and B sub-group labels with the tradition- al Roman numeral group numbering was pedagogi- cally useful, the CNIC insisted on changing the group numbers to resolve confusion that was perceived to be important for the chemical literature (sections 6 and 7). As I will show, these episodes reveal that the CNIC walked a line between uniformity and the allowance of difference as they persisted in making changes they believed were necessary to achieve order from confusion through standardized nomenclature. 2. THE NEED FOR INTERNATIONALIZED ELEMENT NAMES The elements are the foundation of the periodic table. Their names are the cornerstone of inorganic chemical nomenclature, the basis on which the names of compounds, minerals, and other substances are derived. Standardized element names are the cornerstone of a common language for chemistry. Atherton Seidell (1878- 1961),10 a chemist with the U.S. Public Health Service, argued in 1929 that “one of the most urgently needed improvements is probably the unification of the names of the earliest recognized elements.”11 At that time, there were 80 known elements. Thirty-eight of those elements had the same names in English, French, and German, and all but five ended with the suffix -ium. Another 24 elements had names that differed only in spelling in the three languages. A further four elements were generally comparable and would be easy to modify for the sake of uniformity. The remaining 14 elements, however, had a great variety of names (Fig. 1). Chemists were required to learn all of these names in order to read the literature, particularly with regard to compounds. Seidell surveyed 150 chemists who had attended meetings of the IUPAC and who were otherwise known to be interested in nomenclature matters.12 He sent a letter outlining the advantages of having uniformity in chemical terminology, as well as a list of five questions regarding the unification of nomenclature in general and the unification of the names of the elements in particu- 85Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 lar. Among the questions Seidell asked was, “Will the advantages resulting from a unification of the names of the more common elements repay the effort to accom- plish this end?”13 More than half of the responses were opposed to the unification of the names of the elements. Among the reasons given were the belief that atomic numbers and internationalized symbols should be used rather than internationalized names, the belief that uni- versal approval of new names would not be possible, as well as concern that confusion would result if the names of the most commonly known elements were to be changed and that relations between chemists and the public would be strained. The survey, Seidell concluded, showed “that efforts to improve the nomenclature of chemistry must be confined to new names and to the harmonizing of variations in usage which do not conflict with fundamental language differences.”14 Seidell had also asked if a permanent international committee should be responsible for the formulation and promulgation of rules for chemical nomenclature. About two-thirds responded favorably to this idea and half of the survey respondents thought any standardization attempts should be handled by the IUPAC. In fact, the IUPAC Committee for the Reform of Inorganic Chemi- cal Nomenclature was already at work. Their 1926 report noted that all of the “very diverse propositions” that had been submitted to date could be divided into rough- ly ten categories, none of which included the names of elements.15 Draft rules were issued in 1940, although this draft was only published in Germany, Britain, and the United States. The aim of these rules was “the uni- fication of Inorganic Chemical Nomenclature and the removal of names which are out of date or incorrect.”16 However, the names of the elements were not consid- ered. This was because the IUPAC Committee on Atom- ic Weights was in charge of naming new elements. It was not until after World War II that the responsibility for element names was shifted to the Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC).17 A more comprehensive set of nomenclature rules for inorganic chemistry was developed in the early 1950s. Before the 1951 IUPAC meeting in New York City, a chemical nomenclature symposium was held at which several members of the CNIC presented papers. These papers reflected many of the same views that Seidell’s survey brought to the fore. Henry Bassett (1881-1965) noted that it was desirable for nomenclature to differ as little as possible as chemistry was an international pursuit. But he also allowed that some differences were inevitable, particularly in areas “where chemistry touch- es the lives of people,” as in the case of commonly used elements such as silver or lead.18 Kai A. Jensen (1908- 1992), on the other hand, saw “no fundamental reason for not introducing a much more radical unification of chemical terms.”19 Reaching a middle ground between these two perspectives would be the task of the CNIC when it came to the naming of the elements, both old and new. 3. ELEMENTS WITH MORE THAN ONE NAME The CNIC held their first post-war meeting in London in 1947 where they returned to the draft rules that had been drawn up in the late 1930s. They recog- nized that “a prerequisite of any international system of nomenclature was the acceptance, in all countries adher- ing to the Union, of the same list of names and (particu- larly) symbols for the elements themselves.”20 Towards this end, they resolved to obtain a set of symbols for the elements that was internationally acceptable. They also asked that the responsibility of naming new elements should be shared by the Commission on Atomic Weights and by the CNIC.21 This was an important step in the process of harmonizing the names of all of the elements. Much of the discussion at the CNIC’s 1949 meeting in Amsterdam revolved around the names of elements. The CNIC recommended names for eight recently dis- covered or synthesized elements (Fig. 2). They also rec- ommended names for six elements that were known by more than one name (Fig. 3).22 Little controversy was expected at the recommendation for three of the ele- ments. Element 91 was known as both protoactinium Symbol French name German name English name Early name Ag Argent Silber Silver Argentum Au Or Gold Gold Aurum C Carbone Kohlenstoff Carbon Carbon Cu Cuivre Kupfer Copper Cuprum Fe Fer Eisen Iron Ferrum H Hydrogene Wasserstoff Hydrogen Hydrogen Hg Mercure Quecksilber Mercury Hydrargyrum K Potassium Kalium Potassium Kalium N Azote Stickstoff Nitrogen Nitrogen Na Sodium Natrium Sodium Natrium O Oxygene Sauerstoff Oxygen Oxygen Pb Plomb Blei Lead Plumbum Sa Etain Zinn Tim Stannum S Soufre Schwefel Sulfur Sulfur Figure 1. The 14 elements with the greatest variety of names according to Seidell (1929). 86 Ann E. Robinson and protactinium, and it was decided that protactini- um was more convenient. Element 72 had been known as both hafnium and celtium. Although the differing names were the result of a now settled priority dispute,23 hafnium was the more generally accepted name. Element 71 also had two names stemming from a resolved prior- ity controversy,24 lutecium and cassiopium, but lutecium was more widely used. The CNIC changed the spelling from lutecium to lutetium. The CNIC anticipated that the remaining three ele- ments would be more controversial. The first of these three elements was element 4, which had been known as glucinium, glucinum, and beryllium. The conflicting names were the product of a tangled history, as well as a question of priority and a conflict in language.25 Glu- cinium fairly quickly fell out of use in favor of glucinum, which was used in both English and French. Germanic languages tended to use beryllium. The two names co- existed fairly peaceably although the question of which should be used was regularly raised at the turn of the twentieth century. The American Association on the Spelling and Pronunciation of Chemical Terms approved the use of glucinum, largely on the basis of priority, but despite the decision it was still a matter of debate in the United States and elsewhere.26 In 1949, the CNIC recom- mended the use of beryllium. By this time the name was widely accepted although glucinum continued to be used in French-language journals into the 1980s. Element 41 was the second element with multi- ple names that the CNIC felt could be controversial. It was known as both columbium and niobium. This ele- ment also had a somewhat complicated history and both names co-existed for many years.27 In 1913, the IASC, the IUPAC’s precursor, endorsed the name niobium.28 This decision did not go over well in the United States as the mineral in which the element had been discovered, columbite, was found in America. The English chem- ist who isolated the element named it columbium, after Columbia, a historic as well as poetic name for Ameri- ca (Fig. 4). The CNIC likewise recommended the use of niobium in 1949 with a similar outcry from Ameri- can chemists. Evan J. Crane (1889-1966), an American member of the CNIC, argued that cooperation was more important than selfishness and noted, “Our French col- leagues made a similar concession in giving up ‘gluci- num’ in favor of ‘beryllium.’”29 Much like their French colleagues, American chemists were reluctant to give up the name columbium and it continued to be used for many years after the 1949 recommendation. The last of the three elements that was thought to be controversial was element 74. It had been known from the late eighteenth century as both wolfram and tung- sten. Wolfram was generally preferred in Germanic and Scandinavian countries while other countries preferred to use tungsten, although here, too, there were priority issues.30 The first attempt to harmonize these names was undertaken by the CNIC in 1949. They recommended the use of wolfram, although they allowed that tung- sten could be used for commercial purposes. There were Atomic Number Name & Symbol 41 Technetium, Tc 61 Promethium, Pm 85 Astatine, At 87 Francium, Fr 93 Neptunium, Np 94 Plutonium, Pu 95 Americium, Am 96 Curium, Cm Figure 2. Newly synthesized elements named by the CNIC in 1949. Atomic Number Official Name (1949) Alternate Name 4 Beryllium Glucinum 41 Niobium Columbium 71 Lutetium Cassiopium 72 Hafnium Celtium 74 Wolfram Tungsten 91 Protactinium Prototactinium Figure 3. Elements whose names were changed by the CNIC in 1949. Figure 4. Detail from the 1947 edition of the Periodic Chart of the Atoms (Welch Scientific Company) showing element 41 with the name columbium, as well element 74 with the symbol W and the name tungsten (Photo taken by the author; table in author’s per- sonal collection). 87Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 objections to this recommendation and the matter was taken up again at the 1951 meeting. An erroneous report appeared in the press that the CNIC was abolishing the use of tungsten which “provoked a storm of protest from all over the world.”31 Although no other recommenda- tion was made, future editions of the rules for inor- ganic chemical nomenclature almost exclusively used the name tungsten, albeit with the symbol W which required a note explaining its origin.32 Protests, how- ever quiet, continued to be made. It was not until 2009 that the IUPAC’s Division on Chemical Nomenclature and Structure Representation33 declared that “the case was now closed” – tungsten was the only recommended name for element 74.34 There was a traditional belief that the person who discovered an element was the person to name it, there- fore the name chosen by the person with priority should be the one used. However, the names chosen by the CNIC did not always follow this tradition, one reason why the alternate names for elements 4, 41, and 74 con- tinued to linger after the 1949 recommendation. One of the important – and controversial – stances taken by the CNIC in 1949 was antithetical to this tradition. No importance was placed on priority, rather, as Bassett, the CNIC chair, stated at the time, “a good name was always preferable to a bad one.”35 (What constituted a “good” name was not explained.) This decision was enshrined as a part of Rule 1.12 in the official Nomenclature of Inor- ganic Chemistry: “It should be emphasized that their selection carries no implication regarding priority of discovery.”36 The CNIC would fall back on this rule fre- quently in the following decades as they struggled to prevent confusion in element names while confronted with discoverers demanding their traditional right to name their discovery. 4. THE CHALLENGES OF SYNTHETIC ELEMENTS The first official inorganic nomenclature rules, known as the Red Book, were published in 1957. At the same time, the CNIC was faced with new challenges as a result of the discovery of new synthetic elements. These elements were different in several ways. In regard to nomenclature, a new trend arose in naming elements after people rather than after characteristics, places, or mythological figures, which created new difficul- ties in standardizing names across languages. Scientifi- cally, these elements were different as they were created in accelerators. As the elements get heavier, it becomes possible to create only one or a handful of atoms at a time. They had very short half-lives. They were gener- ally detected through physical rather than chemical methods. Although there were only a handful of labora- tories in the world that synthesized new elements, they frequently criticized each other’s discoveries, leading to priority disputes. The CNIC’s stance that element names had no implication regarding priority of discovery was put to the test. With the increasing importance of physics in the detection of new elements, the IUPAC would need to cooperate with the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP). Similar to the IUPAC, the IUPAP was founded in 1922 to promote international cooperation in physics; create standards in the areas of symbols, units, and nomenclature; and prepare and publish tables of physical constants and abstracts of papers.37 The IUPAP has a Commission on Symbols, Units, Nomenclature, Atomic Masses, and Fundamen- tal Constants (SUN-AMCO), founded in 1931, who also publishes a so-called Red Book that provides authorita- tive guidance on the matters in its name.38 Despite its interest in nomenclature, the responsibility for the nam- ing of new elements resides with the IUPAC, not the IUPAP. However, due to the IUPAC’s lack of expertise in physics, a series of joint working groups was instituted to deal with the priority issues arising from the discov- ery of new synthetic elements. The first synthetic element that would highlight the IUPAC’s lack of expertise was element 102. At their 1957 meeting in Paris, the CNIC received word from the Nobel Institute in Stockholm that a new element had been synthesized. Element 102 was the result of a collaboration between Argonne National Laboratory in the United States, the Harwell Atomic Energy Research Establishment in England, and the Nobel Institute. The meeting minutes reflect a sense of excitement at the news, as well as a sense of urgency.39 If the report could be confirmed while the CNIC was meeting, the pro- posed name could be considered immediately rather than waiting until their next meeting two years hence. The Nobel Institute was contacted and news reports of the discovery were confirmed. The name, nobelium, was approved for element 102. The hasty naming of element 102 was unfortunate. When the Commission on Atomic Weights had been in charge of naming new elements, they had waited to accept an element until a measurable amount had been separated and its atomic weight determined, a process that could take years.40 The CNIC, however, did not wait for another lab to reproduce and confirm the Nobel Institute’s results. In 1963, they were informed by Glenn T. Seaborg (1912-1999) that his group at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) in the United States had 88 Ann E. Robinson been unable to reproduce the Stockholm results. How- ever, they had been able to synthesize a different isotope of element 102 and therefore objected to the use of the name nobelium. The CNIC reiterated Rule 1.12 and sug- gested that as the name nobelium was already in use, it would remain.41 They were in part concerned that a change in element names could cause confusion, par- ticularly for indexing services as Chemical Abstracts, but they also did not want to set a precedent that element names could be changed upon request. In 1968, the CNIC learned that Georgi N. Flerov (1913-1990) and his group at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, had obtained different isotopes of element 102 and called into question the results of both the original experiment in Stockholm and the LBL experiments. At their meeting in Copen- hagen that year, the CNIC “unanimously decided that it could not re-open discussion concerning the name of an element on which a definitive decision had already been taken.” They again reiterated Rule 1.12, that an ele- ment’s name had little to do with priority of discovery. The CNIC also noted that priority could be difficult to determine and, as a nomenclature committee, they “had no special competence to judge” in matters of priority. 42 In short, determination of priority was not a matter of nomenclature. Element 102 was not the only element whose dis- covery was under dispute. In 1961, LBL announced the discovery of element 103. The CNIC confirmed the sug- gested name, lawrencium, at their meeting in Brighton in 1963. But again in 1968, JINR announced that the results obtained at LBL were incorrect and that they had discov- ered element 103, for which they suggested a different name. The CNIC received this notification during their meeting in Copenhagen and their stance on the name of element 102 was also applied to the situation with ele- ment 103. The name lawrencium was reconfirmed.43 Another issue arose when the name for element 103 was proposed by LBL in 1963. The name lawrencium was derived from Ernest O. Lawrence (1901-1958), the found- er of LBL and the inventor of the cyclotron. The pro- posed symbol for lawrencium was Lw. Heinrich Remy (1890-1974), a member of the CNIC, observed that the letter w was “an uncommon letter in many languages and difficult to pronounce.” He suggested that the spell- ing of the lawrencium be changed to laurentium. After discussion, Jensen, the chair, remarked that they had “no right to modify the spelling” of a proper name but in order “to make the name more acceptable,” the symbol was changed from Lw to Lr.44 This was not the first element for which the symbol was modified. In 1955, the CNIC approved the name mendelevium for element 101 with the symbol Mv, after Dmitrii Mendeleev (1834-1907). At the 1957 meeting in Paris, however, the CNIC voted to change the symbol to Md. No reason was given in the minutes, but as later explained this was done because “it is not customary to choose one of the last letters of the name as the second letter of a two-letter symbol” and because not all trans- literations of Mendeleev’s name use the letter v.45 Anoth- er element whose proposed symbol was changed was element 99. The name einsteinium was proposed, with symbol E, after Albert Einstein (1879-1955). At their meeting in Reading in 1956, the CNIC approved the name but expressed concern at having an element with a single letter symbol. Two letter symbols were preferred so as to avoid any confusion with the symbols of physi- cal quantities.46 They suggested the symbol Es and it was officially recommended at the 1957 meeting. The challenges faced by the CNIC in regards to the names and symbols of new synthetic elements were the result of several factors. One was the desire for a truly global chemical nomenclature. Although standardiza- tion was the goal, the realities of language could put the achievement of that goal into question. The increas- ing use of personal names as the basis for element names, such as those of Lawrence and Mendeleev, pre- vented the ability of the CNIC to attain true standardi- zation for both element names and symbols. Another factor was the insistence of discoverers exercising what they perceived to be their traditional right to name the element they discovered. Competing names offered by competing laboratories was a step back from the harmonization in element names the CNIC began to achieve in 1949. Although the CNIC reiterated Rule 1.12, their insistence that names had little to do with discovery was a roadblock on the path to a standard- ized nomenclature. 5. THE TENSION BETWEEN CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS Elements on the periodic table have only one name and symbol. Even those elements that have linger- ing alternate names, such as wolfram and tungsten, are shown with only one name and symbol. The CNIC had refrained from renaming elements 102 and 103 when new claims about their discovery were reported, citing the confusion that could be caused by changing their names. In reiterating Rule 1.12, they reinforced their position that element names had little to do with priority of discovery. However, elements 104 and 105 presented a new test of their resolve as the discoverers frequently 89Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 – and increasingly publicly and vitriolically – presented their claims while denigrating the claims of others.47 The first claim for the discovery of element 104 came in 1964. Flerov’s group at JINR announced they had identified an isotope of element 104 but found it “quite desirable to conduct chemical experiments for additional identification.”48 This announcement was fol- lowed in 1966 by publication of chemical studies of ele- ment 104. Flerov then sent a letter to the IUPAC claim- ing the discovery of element 104 and suggesting a name, kurchatovium. This name was in honor of Igor V. Kur- chatov (1903-1960), who was widely regarded as the founder of the Soviet atomic bomb program and had recently passed away. The group at LBL was also attempting to synthe- size element 104. They had not been able to confirm the results of JINR’s experiments but, after running a differ- ent experiment, announced in 1969 they had synthesized two isotopes of element 104.49 A name was not proposed in the initial announcement, however in a paper given at the Welch Foundation Conference later that year, Albert Ghiorso (1915-2010) proposed the name rutherfordium in honor of Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937), “the great pioneer of nuclear science.”50 Ghiorso and the LBL group then notified the CNIC of this suggestion. Ghiorso’s let- ter also included the news that LBL had discovered ele- ment 105. They proposed the name hahnium, in honor of German chemist Otto Hahn (1879-1968).51 In much the same manner, Flerov’s group wrote to the CNIC in the summer of 1969 announcing they had discovered element 105. They proposed to name the element after Niels Bohr (1885-1962).52 Though they left the name and symbol unspecified at the time, they later suggested nielsbohrium (Fig. 5). This situation was not tolerable to the CNIC. An element having two unofficial names in use ran con- trary to the goal of a standardized international chemi- cal nomenclature. The use of multiple names for these new elements was a potential source of confusion, not only in publications but also in indexing. At their 1969 meeting in Cortina d’Ampezzo, they had discussed the matter with the Commission on Atomic Weights. The CNIC ultimately recommended that elements should not be named for a period of five years after the initial announcement of their discovery. This would allow for confirmation of the discovery to occur, preferably at another laboratory and in another country.53 The CNIC also once again reiterated their position on element names having little to do with priority of discovery. At the 1968 meeting in Copenhagen, the CNIC had raised the possibility of a systematic nomenclature for the elements. This would, they believed, end the “need- less controversy” that had arisen.58 The idea was again raised in 1969. At the 1971 meeting in Washington, D.C., it was unanimously recommended that a system- atic nomenclature be devised for elements beyond 105. (They still hoped that LBL and JINR would solve the problems regarding elements 104 and 105 themselves.) This systematic nomenclature was to be a numerically derived system based on atomic number.55 With this nomenclature in place, all elements claimed to have been discovered would have a name ready to be used until priority could be determined and a new name proposed by the discoverer (Fig. 6). In 1971, the CNIC chair W. Conard Fernelius (1905- 1986) wrote a position paper on the naming of the ele- ments. It began, “Communication among chemists and between chemists and other professionals has been greatly aided through the years by the existence of a logical, systematic, and generally agreed-upon nomen- clature practice.” However, there were still “real prob- lems that require the vigilance, vision, and persuasion of nomenclature committees and commissions to establish order in their use, to secure agreement among users and to avoid duplicate names and patterns.”56 It was by these means that a common language for chemistry would be achieved, a part of which was the recognition of a single name for each element. Figure 5. Detail from a 1985 German periodic table (VCH Ver- lagsgesellschaft) showing multiple names for elements 104 and 105 (Original courtesy of the Science History Institute, Philadelphia, PA, https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/k3569525k). Figure 6. Detail from a 1988 periodic table wallchart (Central Sci- entific Company) showing the IUPAC systematic nomenclature for elements with an atomic number greater than 100 (Photo taken by the author at Wellesley College, September 2016). 90 Ann E. Robinson A systematic nomenclature ensured that names be ready for use upon discovery, preventing the use of multiple, unofficial, names in publications as well as in indexing services such as Chemical Abstracts. It had long been acknowledged that these services were vital to chemists. The development of a standard international nomenclature was meant, in part, to facilitate their crea- tion and use. Among the responses Seidell had received to his survey in 1929 were recommendations for the use of symbols and Latin names for the elements, amid oth- er suggestions, in indexes and compendia if names could not be harmonized (see Section 2). The systematic nomenclature was a major topic of discussion at the CNIC’s meeting in Munich in 1973. They agreed that the names used should be short, relat- ed to atomic number, and end in the suffix -ium, while the symbols should be three letters rather than the usual two. The names would be derived from a standard set of numerical roots, based on a mixture of Latin and Greek on the grounds that they were easily recogniz- able by chemists.57 Thus, for example, the name of ele- ment 106 would be Unnilhexium (un + nil + hex) with the symbol Unh, and 116 would be Ununhexium (un + un + hex) with symbol Uuh. The system was able to accommodate elements up to number 999. Although this system would be in place, the CNIC did not want to deny the right of discoverers to name new ele- ments.58 Although there was no expectation that the sys- tematic names for elements 101 through 103 would be used, the CNIC’s system was expanded to begin with element 101 after a “virtually unanimous” vote by the Bureau, one of the IUPAC’s executive bodies.59 The sys- tematic nomenclature was eventually published as an official IUPAC Recommendation in 1979.60 Even then the system was not welcomed. The IUPAP’s SUN-AMCO commission expressed dismay that its proposal, as well as that of the IUPAP’s Commission on Nuclear Phys- ics, were seemingly not taken into consideration by the CNIC. Both preferred a system in which the atomic number took the place of a lettered symbol.61 In a letter regarding another controversy (see sec- tions 6 and 7), one chemical educator wrote, “I don’t really care if all the new elements are named after Sovi- ets, Germans, or Martians, so long as they are named after someone, someplace, or something.”62 Chemi- cal and physical researchers described the systematic nomenclature as “artificial and ugly” and “utterly ridic- ulous,” and one physicist commented that he doubted anyone would use it.63 This may not have been the reac- tion the CNIC was hoping for when they developed the systematic nomenclature. However, it served its intended purpose. Elements that were claimed to have been newly discovered had placeholder names that allowed them to be discussed in the literature and located in indexing services and reference works without the confusion of multiple names. The systematic names avoided the appearance of official acceptance of one discovery claim over anoth- er. In order to solve the priority disputes over the synthetic elements, a joint IUPAP-IUPAC group, the Transfermium Working Group (TWG), was formed in 1986 at the behest of the IUPAP. The TWG formulat- ed a set of criteria that needed to be satisfied in order to determine if an element had been developed and then applied those criteria to the claims for elements 101 through 109.64 Once discovery had been assigned by the TWG, discoverers were asked to suggest names and symbols to the CNIC for official approval. By way of the systematic nomenclature and the creation of the TWG, the CNIC adroitly escaped from adjudicating discovery claims and instituted a standardized chemi- cal nomenclature that furthered their goal of a com- mon language for chemistry. 6. CONFUSION IN GROUP NUMBERING The names and symbols of the elements are one of the important aspects of the periodic table. Another is the group numbers which run across the top of the table, one number for each column. Group numbers are used to refer to a set of elements which have similar charac- teristics and propertiers. These group numbers have been the subject of confusion for many years. Until the 1980s, most group numbers on periodic tables consisted of eight Roman numerals, with some of these having sub-group labels of A and B, such IIIA or IVB. These labels were considered an important pedagogical device as they made a clear distinction between main group elements and the transition elements. The main, or major, group elements comprise the s-block and p-block, referring to their electron configuration. The transi- tion elements, often called the transition metals, com- prise the d-block. Without A and B sub-group labels on a periodic table, the distinction would need to be made through the use of mnemonics or a visual cue, such as different colors as seen in Fig. 7. The periodic table developed by Horace G. Deming (1885-1970), first published in 1923 and widely adopted in the following decades, gave the main group elements the sub-group label A and the transition elements the sub-group label B. Another popular table in the Unit- ed States, the Periodic Chart of the Atoms, created by 91Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 Henry D. Hubbard (1870-1943), gave the sub-group labels in the opposite manner of Deming.65 Unlike Hub- bard ’s table, many short-form tables popular in the Soviet Bloc as well as in Europe well into the 1960s, did not use the A and B labels. When the long form table began to become popular in Europe, the A and B sub- group labels were applied somewhat arbitrarily. A sur- vey of publications found that “in more than 10% of the articles it was nearly impossible, from the wording of the text, to recognize which elements were being dis- cussed.”66 Confusion could also be caused in the class- room. British chemist Joseph Chatt (1914-1994) noted of wall charts purchased from American companies, “In England students are usually told that the chart is wrong and in some Universities I have seen sticky labels with the correct sub-group numbering stuck over the [other] numbers.”67 Early on, in 1958, the question of group names was first raised by Lamberto Malatesta (1912-2007), a mem- ber of the CNIC. The first edition of the Red Book had been sent to the publisher and it was too late to make any changes. It was decided to consider the question for the second edition, work on which was just beginning.68 At their next meeting in Munich in 1959, the CNIC dis- cussed the topics of the form of the periodic table, the confusion in group numbering, the need for a definition of transition elements, and the group names used for the rare earth elements. It was decided that “no firm rules should be laid down” but nonetheless the CNIC should issue a statement. A small sub-committee was appointed to examine these matters and make a recommendation regarding the use of A/B sub-group labels and group names for the elements.69 K. A. Jensen, a member of the sub-committee, pre- pared a report on these issues. The majority of this report – six of the eight pages – concerned solely the form of the periodic table. He stated: “There are so many types that a standardization seems highly desirable. Even if the commission can not [sic] agree on one stand- ard table we could perhaps agree on a small number of different tables which could be recommended for differ- ent purposes.”70 The report then examined three main Figure 7. A Russian short-form periodic table that uses colors to denote the elements belonging to different blocks (Khimia, Moscow, 1987) (Photo taken by the author; table in author’s personal collection). 92 Ann E. Robinson types of tables: short tables with eight groups and no sub-groups, short tables with sub-groups, and medium and long tables. Jensen concluded that “the most satis- factory – I should even say the only satisfactory – peri- odic system is a slightly modified form of the old von Richter table.”71 The table used in Victor von Richter’s (1841-1891) popular nineteenth century textbook was a short-form table with no sub-groups (Fig. 8).72 The sub-committee discussed this report at a meet- ing in Elsinore in 1962. It was agreed to begin with “the least controversial matters” and move towards the most controversial. Given that the majority of the report was about the form of the periodic table, the minutes do not reflect any discussion of which, if any, forms should be recommended as a standard. There was a decision that the inert gases should be on the left-hand side of the table as Group 0, although placing them on both sides would be permissible. The committee also agreed to accept the neutron as the first element, with atomic number 0, and placed in Group 0 with the inert gases. A definition of transition elements was agreed upon, as well as names for the rare earths series.73 It was decided to use sub-group labels A/B. These sub-groups would apply only to periods 4 through 7. In order to prevent confusion, the first of the sub-groups in each group was to be given the label A while the second would be B. Sub-groups labeled A were those headed by the elements K, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, and Mn. Sub-groups labeled B were those headed by the elements Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, As, Se, and Br.74 These A and B groups would become the ones officially recommended in the IUPAC Red Book.75 A sample table was drawn and the sub-committee chair asked the members to privately inquire if the table would be acceptable. This was a standard practice for the IUPAC nomenclature commissions who preferred to “test the water” before issuing official recommenda- tions.76 In this case, it was a particularly prudent pre- caution. Some reactions to the proposals were moderate. Marguerite Perey (1909-1975) agreed with the placement of the inert gases on the left-hand side but questioned the inclusion of the neutron in the periodic table.77 Kazuo Yamazaki (1911-2010) presented the thoughts of Japanese chemists who likewise were against the inclu- sion of the neutron but were divided over the location of the inert gases, they also believed that the placement of the A and B sub-group labels within the sample table needed further consideration.78 The Chemical Society relayed the comments of British chemists to the CNIC. Their comments focused more on the form of the sample periodic table that was enclosed with the sub-committee’s recommendations. Their reactions ranged from astonishment to dread. The Chemical Society argued that all chemical education was based on the long-form table, not the short-form which was considered to be obsolete.79 As one Brit- ish chemist put it, “if we must have a party line about the Periodic Table, let us at least base it on the ideas of 1963, and not those of 1863.”80 Another was less san- guine, stating he had read the proposals “with a feel- ing little short of complete horror” and was distressed to find the IUPAC recommending a return to the short- form table.81 There was nothing in the nomenclature sub-com- Figure 8. Von Richter’s Periodic Table (1885) which used no A/B sub-group labels. 93Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 mittee’s proposals about the form of the periodic table. However, they sent only one sample table and it was a short-form. Many asked to comment on the proposals justifiably assumed the committee was recommending that specific form of the periodic table. Chatt, member of the sub-committee, stated that he strongly recom- mended a long-form table be used to illustrate their proposals as it was “so much more useful in teaching chemistry that we should take care that we do not cre- ate the impression that the short form has I.U.P.A.C. preference.”82 Despite t his warning, he was voted down.83 At their 1963 meeting in Brighton, the CNIC dis- cussed the sub-committee’s proposals as well as the responses that had been received. After deliberations, they decided that whether or not the neutron was an ele- ment was a matter of definition rather than nomencla- ture, so it was dropped. It does not seem they discussed the position of the inert gases in the periodic table. Fol- lowing some discussion, they recommended that if sub- group labels A/B were used, they should be capitalized. Otherwise, the CNIC decided they did “not wish to encourage the use of these letters or of any particular form of the Periodic Table.”84 The second edition of the Red Book was issued in 1970. It included a recommendation for sub-groups for those who wished to use them, but no recommendation that they must be used. There is no mention of the form of periodic table nor is there a periodic table printed any- where in the text.85 The reactions of chemists, particu- larly those who were educators, were likely a shocking and unwelcome surprise to the CNIC. In response, the minutes of their 1975 meeting in Santiago de Compos- tella contain a statement that it is “desirable” that a peri- odic table “portray groups, periods of differing lengths, A and B subgroups, transition elements, and the accepted chemical families.” A “policy decision” reflected their new belief that, “Approval of an[y] particular form of the periodic table is not a problem of nomenclature.”86 7. RENUMBERING THE GROUPS The CNIC’s recommendation for the use of A/B sub-group labeling had consequences they likely did not expect. Scientific supply companies in the United States took note of their recommendations and began selling periodic tables with the new recommended labe- ling. However, they placed these labels in a different place than usual, sparking even more confusion.87 The Committee on Nomenclature of the American Chemi- cal Society (ACS) attempted to solve the confusion and in 1984 approved a recommended format for the peri- odic table (Fig. 9). It was a long-form table with group numbers 1-18, groups 3-12 had a sub-label of d to denote the d-block elements, and the lanthanides and actinides below the table were given the label 3f. This new table was published in the Journal of Chemical Education and in Chemistry in Britain,88 where it sparked a series of letters about the use (or lack there- of ) of A/B labels and the advisability of moving to the 1-18 group numbering. The chair of the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Educational Publications Committee, wrote that they had “recommended that the RSC should not adopt the 18-group formulation.”89 Another letter writer expressed the hope that “all enlightened non-teaching members of the RSC will add their weight of protest along with the teachers.”90 A different writer had at first wondered whether “this was one of the more elegant spoofs perpetrated by the quality press on All Fools’ Day,” but he was disabused of that notion by checking the date and concluded, “There is no valid reason for falling into line with the ACS model and the IUPAC recommendation unless it really does aid learning and understanding and avoid confusion.”91 A year later, a member of the CNIC, G. Jeffery Leigh (1934- ), published a short article in Chemistry International that proposed the use of the long-form table with the group numbers 1-18.92 Meanwhile, Chem- ical & Engineering News published a brief story titled, Figure 9. Periodic Table recommended by the ACS in 1984 (Courtesy of the American Chemical Society). 94 Ann E. Robinson “Group notation revised in periodic table,” that erro- neously stated an IUPAC recommendation for the use of group numbers 1-18 was “working its way through IUPAC approval procedures.”93 This article also sparked a storm of letters.94 One chemistry professor wrote, “Unfortunately, the recommended numbering system … represents a giant step backward from a pedagogi- cal standpoint” as it destroyed the relationship between group number and atomic structure.95 Another argued that, “This revision ‘to remove ambiguities’ between the U.S. and European practices seems to be one of those compromises in which chemical education in the U.S. loses – again.”96 Reactions in other countries varied. The Portuguese Chemical Society requested more information “on the appropriateness of enforcing the new numbering scheme for the periodic table … in secondary school educa- tion,” particularly “given the strong controversy that this IUPAC ruling has provoked.”97 In response, the chair of the CNIC, Daryle H. Busch (1928- ), stated that the Ducth Ministry for Education “has advised the use of numbering scheme and has accepted it for state exami- nations” and the State of New York had done similarly. “The system appears to be well used in France … and in Sweden.” Busch also noted that “special versions” of the periodic table using the 1-18 numbering had been pub- lished for display in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States.98 One of the “special versions” was published in a German chemistry magazine which sparked aston- ishment in Klaus Brodersen (1926-1997), chair of the ADUC, a society of German chemistry professors. In a letter to Nachrichten aus Chemie, Technik und Labo- ratorium titled “Save the 8-Group Periodic Table,” he stated, “The 18-group periodic table will certainly do a disservice to chemistry.” He noted that “many rules of the behavior of the elements, which are easy to learn for every student, are now made more difficult or dull.” This included the loss of relationships between valence and group numbers as well a variety of mnemonics.99 Ekke- hard Fluck (1931- ), a member of the CNIC, and Karl Rumpf (1908-1997) laid out the case for the 18-group table and stated that it would be easy enough to create new mnemonics.100 The West German Deutscher Zentralausschuß für Chemie raised “a formal objection” to the 1-18 recom- mendation. The proposal, they wrote, “does not make sense and should be rejected since it will create great confusion in chemistry lessons.”101 This confusion would in part be due to a unique situation in West Germany. “While universities are usually free to use whatever nomenclature they want, schools in the Federal Repub- lic are bound to follow IUPAC recommendations.” This could potentially cause great confusion as students moved from elementary and secondary schools into uni- versities where they would be confronted with an unfa- Figure 10. A periodic table wallchart (Sargent-Welch) on which the A/B group numbers have been taped above the 1-18 group numbers (Photo taken by the author at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, June 2016). 95Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 miliar group number system. Most textbooks would also need to be revised “because much information about chemical behaviour is usually inferred from the site an element occupies in an 8 group periodic system.” Ursula A. Hofacker (? - ) concluded that, “a recommendation of the Inorganic Nomenclature Committee to use both forms of the periodic system would be most desirable.”102 The National Committee of Soviet Chemists strong- ly objected to the recommendation to drop the A and B sub-group labels and use group numbers 1-18 instead. Unlike the majority of countries, Russia and many members of the Soviet Bloc continued to use the short- form table. The table was considered to be an impor- tant part of Russian history, given the role played by Dmitrii Mendeleev in the discovery of the periodic law. The chairman of the National Committee wrote to the IUPAC president noting, “we feel it particularly impor- tant to keep table’s traditional form … and to reject all groundless attempts to renounce the generally accepted … 8-groups form of periodic table.” They also objected to the change on pedagogical grounds.103 As these letters were f looding into the chemical news magazines and the IUPAC, the CNIC was well underway with work on a new version of the Red Book. At their 1982 meeting in Paris, they unanimously agreed to the provisional dropping of the A/B sub-group labels. There was also an agreement for a system based on the long-form periodic table.104 After the publication of the ACS recommended periodic table and the articles in both Chemical & Engineering News and Chemistry Inter- national, the IUPAC became alarmed by “the storm of concern” that ranged “from severe criticism, to tacit approval.” The IUPAC president, Chintamani N. R. Rao (1934- ), rather unusually wrote to the CNIC expressing his concern and wondering “how the problem will be settled.” Further, Kazuo Saito (1923-1998), the president of the Inorganic Division, attended the CNIC meeting in Heidelberg in 1986 – also an unusual event – to impress upon them the importance of the issue.105 As most of the objections related to pedagogy, one way to “settle” the problem might have been for the CNIC to consult the IUPAC Committee on Teaching of Chemistry (CTC).106 However, they apparently did not do so. In a letter to the IUPAC’s Executive Secretary, David J. Waddington (1932- ), the chair of the CTC, remarked on the “considerable disquiet” regarding the proposed 18-group periodic table. He had “received several unfavourable comments” at the most recent CTC meeting. Members, he said, “were concerned on two counts. One was on the elementary point about consultation within the IUPAC family. The second was on the difficulties foreseen in teaching the new form.”107 If the CTC’s objections were made known to the CNIC, they were not enough to change their inten- tions to move ahead. After extensive debate, the CNIC acknowledged “the reluctance of some users of the periodic table, mainly teachers” to drop the use of A/B labelling. However, they wished to bring an end to the confusion that was to be found in the literature and in indexing services. While they did not wish to “legislate,” they noted that in many countries there was already a tendency to use the long- form table, thereby making the use of group numbers 1-18 easier.108 As a result of this meeting, Busch, the chair of the CNIC, published an article in Chemistry International which laid out their reasons for the recom- mendation to use the 18-group periodic table. He noted that “it is neither the purpose nor the intent of CNIC arbitrarily to set the format of the Periodic Table to be used in all parts of the world,” however, “it is a reason- able mission for CNIC to offer broadly useful solutions when direct conflicts in usage occur.”109 In response to the many protests, the CNIC contin- ued to state that they were not legislating the adoption of a particular form of the periodic table. Indeed, the new edition of the Red Book contained four periodic tables. The table on the frontispiece was a long-form table using the 1-18 group numbering. An appendix contained a short-form table that used the recommended A/B sub- group numbers, a long-form table that used both sys- tems, and a 32-column table that also used both systems of numbering. The CNIC stated that “common world- wide practice in teaching and research overwhelmingly supports the eighteen-column format,” however they “did not wish to deprecate any specific Periodic Table format.”110 Regarding A/B sub-groups, the text stated “this usage is to be avoided.”111 However, three of the four tables included in the appendix used this system. The new edition of the Red Book was published in 1990 with little fanfare. An article was published in Chemical & Engineering News announcing its release112 but unlike the article in 1985 about the periodic table, it was not followed by months of letters to the editor. That did not mean there was whole-hearted acceptance of the new numbering system. Scientific supply compa- nies began printing periodic tables with group numbers 1-18 but a long tradition of educators modifying com- mercial products to suit their purposes continued. Much as English chemists had once placed sticky labels over the “wrong” group labels, some have stuck the old group labels orver or above the new 1-18 labels as in Fig. 10. Once again, the CNIC recommended uniformity to end perceived confusion while also leaving the door open for the continuation of difference. 96 Ann E. Robinson 8. CONCLUSION One of the many letters published in the midst of the controversy over the use of A and B sub-group let- ters noted, “The progression of scientific thought toward worldwide unification of terms, as evidenced by the acceptance of SI units and IUPAC naming conventions, meets an obdurate foe when faced with the periodic table of the elements.”113 The IUPAC Commission on Nomen- clature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC) ran into this obdurate foe in their attempts to further develop a com- mon language for chemistry. As Fernelius had written in his position paper on the naming of elements, “vigilance, vision, and persuasion” was necessary for establishing order out of confusion. The episodes examined in this paper illustrate the persistence of the CNIC in walking the line between a radical unification of chemical terms and the inevitability of differences, a persistence that caused even the obdurate foe to give way. This line was a difficult one when it came to the names of the elements. As the CNIC discovered when harmonizing the names of the elements after World War II, their perception of what constituted “a good name” was not necessarily welcomed. The lingering use of alternate names for elements 4 and 41 was a case of the inevitability of differences that eventually turned into the acceptance of standardization. The “storm of protest” over the name of element 74 – tungsten or wolfram? – on the other hand was an example of the inevitability of dif- ference not gracefully giving in to the goal of unification. The CNIC’s insistence on divorcing priority of dis- covery from the naming of an element, Rule 1.12, engen- dered more than a storm of protest. In the face of dec- ades of continual protest from Berkeley and Dubna demanding that the traditional right of discoverers be upheld, the CNIC persisted in putting off making deci- sions they argued were not matters of nomenclature. In response, they developed a systematic nomenclature for elements with an atomic weight greater than 100. Although this system was met with scorn by chemists and physicists alike, the recommendation was welcomed by indexing services such as Chemical Abstracts and found its way onto periodic tables worldwide. The protests that arose of the change of group num- bering were perhaps more contentious than those over the naming of synthetic elements. The non-standard use of the A and B sub-group labels were perceived by the CNIC to be a source of confusion, one that could be read- ily solved by the use of standardized nomenclature. They did not seem to realize the pedagogical importance of the labels, even if they were not standard across the world, and when faced with protest, they did not consult within the IUPAC family. The Committee on Teaching of Chem- istry could have been a source of information, if not a partner in how best to approach a change, but even their objections went unheeded. And again, despite the protests that arose, the CNIC was successful in walking the line between radical unification and allowing difference. On the whole, as these episodes illustrate, the peri- odic table and the elements were an “obdurate foe” but one that gave way to persistence. Their belief in the pow- er of standardized nomenclature to resolve perceived confusion allowed the CNIC to persevere in the face of protests from multiple directions. In the end, they were responsible for changes to the periodic table and the nomenclature of the elements that advanced the goal of developing a common language for chemistry based on “the existence of a logical, systematic, and generally agreed-upon nomenclature practice.” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My thanks to Annette Lykknes, Brigitte Van Tiggelen, Luis Moreno-Martínez, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. REFERENCES 1. C. Wurtz, in The Question of the Atom: From the Karlsruhe Conference to the First Solvay Conference, 1860-1911, (Ed. M. J. Nye), Tomash, Los Angeles, 1984, pp. 5-28. 2. E. Hepler-Smith, Ambix 2015, 62, 1. 3. J. L. Howe, Science, n.s. 1900, 12, 246. For more on the IACW, see N. E. Holden, Chem. Int. 2004, 26(1), 4. 4. R. Fennell, History of IUPAC 1919-1987, Blackwell, London, 1994. 5. B. Van Tiggelen and D. Fauque, Chem. Int. 2012, 34(1), 9. 6. Ref. 4. Not all member societies, called National Adhering Organizations (NAO), are chemical soci- eties; for example, the NAO for the United States is the National Research Council not the American Chemical Society. 7. https://iupac.org/what-we-do/, last accessed on 06/03/2019. 8. https://iupac.org/what-we-do/periodic-table-of-ele- ments/, last accessed on 04/03/2019. 9. The IUPAC underwent an organizational restructur- ing that took effect in 2002; see J. Jortner, Chem. Int. 1999, 21, 129. 97Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 10. Seidell was a leader in the field of international docu- mentation and a proponent of the use of microfilm to deal with information overload in chemistry and other fields; see P. Hirtle, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1989, 40, 424. 11. A. Seidell, J. Chem. Educ. 1929, 6, 721. 12. It is unclear if Seidell did this under the auspices of a particular organization or if he did it solely on his own discretion. 13. Ref. 11, 724. 14. Ref. 11, 729. 15. M. Delépine, Chem. Weekbl. 1926, 23, 86. 16. W. P. Jorissen, H. Basset, A. Damiens, F. Fichter, H. Remy, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63, 889. 17. Ref. 3 (Holden). 18. H. Bassett, Adv. Chem. 1951, 8, 5. 19. K. A. Jensen, Adv. Chem. 1951, 8, 38. 20. Commission of Inorganic Nomenclature, July 1947, Records of the International Union of Pure and Applied Science, Science History Institute, Phila- delphia, Box 38 Folder 1. (Hereafter cited as IUPAC Archive.) 21. C. R. Conf. Union Int. Chim. Pure Appl., 14th, IUPAC, 1948, p. 73. 22. C. R. Conf. Union Int. Chim. Pure Appl., 15th, IUPAC, 1950, p. 58. 23. H. Kragh, Centaurus 1980, 23, 275. 24. H. Kragh in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earths, (Ed. C. H. Evans), Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996, pp. 67-89. 25. C. L. Parsons, Science, n.s. 1904, 20, 809. 26. J. L. Howe, Science, n.s. 1905, 21, 35; Ref. 20. 27. M. E Weeks, Discovery of the Elements, 7th ed., Jour- nal of Chemical Education, Easton, 1968, pp. 323- 344. 28. F. W. Clarke, Chem. News 1914, 109, 5. 29. A. M. Patterson, Chem. Eng. News 1953, 31, 1576. 30. N. E. Holden, Element 74, the Wolfram Versus Tung- sten Controversy, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL-81324-2008-CP, 2008. 31. Ref. 30. 32. T. Damhus, Chem. Int. 2005, 27(4), 27. 33. The Division on Chemical Nomenclature and Struc- ture Representation was created in 2002 to oversee IUPAC nomenclature and computer standards across chemistry-related disciplines after the dissolution of the CNIC and other commissions in 2001; see A. McNaught, Chem. Int. 2002, 24(2), 12. 34. Minutes, Division VIII Committee meeting, Glasgow, 2009, http://iupac.org/who-we-are/divisions/division- details/?body-code=800. 35. Inorganic Nomenclature Commission, 7 September 1949, IUPAC Archive, Box 38 Folder 5. 36. IUPAC, Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, Butter- worths, London, 1957, p. 6. 37. http://iupap.org/ab out-us/, last accessed on 28/05/2019 38. The IUPAP’s Red Book is one of the primary refer- ence sources for the IUPAC’s Green Book, Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry. 39. Inorganic Nomenclature Commission, July 1957, IUPAC Archive, Box 41 Folder 4. 40. Ref. 30. 41. C. R. Conf. Union Int. Chim. Pure Appl., 22nd, But- terworths, London, 1963, p. 206; Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, 30 June – 4 July 1969, IUPAC Archive, Box 48 Folder 3. 42. Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, 26-31 August 1968, IUPAC Archive, Box 48 Folder 2. 43. Ref. 42. 44. Ref. 15 (C. R. Conf.), 207. 45. Ref. 39; K. A. Jensen to G. H. Bixler, 6 July 1966, IUPAC Archive, Box 47 Folder 4. 46. Inorganic Nomenclature Commission, 12 April 1956, IUPAC Archive, Box 41 Folder 1. 47. For an overview of the scientific controversies, see H. Kragh, From Transuranic to Superheavy Elements, Springer, Cham, 2018, chapter 5. 48. G. N. Flerov, et al., Phys. Lett. 1964, 13, 75. 49. A. Ghiorso, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 1969, 22, 1317. 50. A. Ghiorso in Proc. Robert A. Welch Found. Conf. Chem. Res., Welch Foundation, Houston, 1969, pp.107-150. 51. A. Ghiorso to K. A. Jensen, 11 June 1970, IUPAC Archive, Box 49 Folder 3. 52. G. N. Flerov, et al., to K. A. Jensen, 23 July 1970, Addenda to the Records of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Science History Institute, Philadelphia, Box 202 Folder 5. (Hereafter cited as IUPAC Addenda.) 53. C. R. Conf. Union Int. Chim. Pure Appl., 25th, IUPAC, 1970, pp. 111-112. 54. Ref. 42. 55. C. R. Conf. Union Int. Chim. Pure Appl., 26th, IUPAC, 1972, p. 137. 56. [W. C. Fernelius], Naming the Chemical Elements: Historical and Prospective, 10 December 1971, IUPAC Addenda, Box 106 Folder 5. 57. Several systems were suggested, including ones based solely on Latin roots, but they were unwieldy, par- ticularly when it came to symbols. See W. C. Fern- elius to Titular and Associate Members of Commis- sion II.2, 22 June 1973, IUPAC Addenda, Box 107 Folder 3. 98 Ann E. Robinson 58. C. R. Conf. Union Int. Chim. Pure Appl., 27th, IUPAC, 1974, pp. 149-150. 59. 36th Bureau (Strasbourg, 1976), IUPAC Addenda, Box 202 Folder 1. 60. J. Chatt, Pure Appl. Chem. 1979, 51, 381. 61. IUPAP SUN-AMCO Commission, 27 May 1980, IUPAC Addenda, Box 110 Folder 4. 62. M. J. Albinak, Chem. Eng. News 1985, 63(14), 5. 63. G, zu Pulitz to M. Williams, 28 Mar 1983, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 1; R. Dagani, Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70(37), 5. 64. A. H. Wapstra, Pure Appl. Chem. 1991, 63, 879; D. H. Wilkinson, et al., Pure Appl. Chem. 1993, 65, 1757. Joint IUPAP-IUPAC working groups have continued to examine discovery claims for the elements beyond 109. 65. For more on Deming’s table and the Periodic Chart of the Atoms, see A. E. Robinson, Creating a Sym- bol of Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA, 2018, pp. 258-263, 269-273. 66. W. C. Fernelius and W. H. Powell, J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 52, 504; E. Fluck, Pure Appl. Chem. 1988, 60, 432. 67. J. Chatt to G. Glaros, 6 March 1979, IUPAC Adden- da, Box 109 Folder 4. 68. L. Malatesta to A. Silverman, 11 December 1958, IUPAC Archive, Box 43 Folder 4. 69. C. R. Conf. Union Int. Chim. Pure Appl., 20th, Butter- worths, London, 1960, p. 214. 70. K. A. Jensen, Nomenclature of Group Names etc., IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 3. 71. Ref. 70, emphasis in original. 72. V. von Richter, A Text-Book of Inorganic Chemistry, p.244, P. Blakiston, Son & Co., Philadelphia, 1885, p. 244. 73. Sub-Commission on the Nomenclature of Group Names, 1 July 1962, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 3. 74. Ref. 73. 75. The 1990 Red Book discouraged the use of A/B sub- group labels, however it included two periodic tables that used them, whereas the 2005 Red Book does not mention A/B sub-group labels at all. 76. E. W. Godly in Chemical Nomenclature, (Ed. K. J. Thurlow), Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998, p. 13. 77. M. Perey, Commentaire sur les propositions de la Commission de Nomenclature, 6 April 1963, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 4. 78. K. Yamasaki, Comments of Japanese chemists on the nomenclature of group names and others, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 4. 79. The Chemical Society, The I.U.P.A.C. Commissioner’s Periodic Table, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 4 80. H. C. Longuet-Higgins to A. G. Sharpe, 4 March 1963, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 4. 81. C. C. Addison to A. G. Sharpe, 4 March 1963, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 4. 82. J. Chatt to E. J. Crane, 27 March 1963, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 4. 83. J. Chatt to A. G. Sharpe, 30 March 1963, IUPAC Archive, Box 45 Folder 4. 84. Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, 27 June – 5 July 1963, IUPAC Archive, Box 46 Folder 1. 85. IUPAC, Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, 2nd ed., Butterworths, London, 1971. 86. Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, 27 August – 2 September 1975, IUPAC Addenda, Box 108 Folder 3. 87. Ref. 66. 88. K. L. Loening, J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 136; Anon., Chem. Br. 1984, 20, 390. 89. M. Berry, Chem. Br. 1985, 21, 447. 90. A. J. Roberts, Chem. Br. 1985, 21, 350. 91. F. M. Garforth, Chem. Br. 1985, 21, 914. 92. G. J. Leigh, Chem. Int. 1985, 7(3), 26. 93. Anon., Chem. Eng. News, 1985, 63(5), 26. 94. An overview of the multitude of letters can be found in R. Rawls, Chem. Eng. News 1986, 64(4), 22. 95. R. T. Sanderson, Chem. Eng. News 1985, 63(10), 4. 95. R. F. Drake, Chem. Eng. News 1985, 63(11), 2. 97. A. R. Dias to M. Williams, 7 December 1987, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 4. 98. D. H. Busch to A. R. Dias, 16 March 1988, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 4. For more on the State of New York’s decision, see A. Saturnelli, The Sci. Teach- er, 1985, 52(5), 46. The CNIC’s 1-18 system was based on a proposal from the Swedish National Committee; see Swedish National Committee to Interdivisional Committee on Nomenclature and Symbols and the Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemis- try, [May 1973], IUPAC Addenda, Box 107 Folder 3. 99. K. Brodersen, Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 1986, 34(1), 34. 100. E. Fluck and K. Rumpf, Chem. Unserer Zeit 1986, 20, 111. 101. W. Fritsche to C. N. R. Rao, 27 March 1986, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 4. 102. U. Hofacker to J. D. Waddington, 24 January 1986, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 4. 103. A. V. Fokin to C. N. R. Rao, June 1986, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 4. 104. Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemis- try, 28 August – 1 September 1982, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 1. 99Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 105. Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, 15-22 August 1986, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 3. 106. For more on the CTC, see B. T. Newbold and D. J. Waddington, J. Chem. Ed. 1982, 59, 107. The CTC was superseded in 2002 by the Committee on Chem- istry Education; see P. Atkins, Chem. Int. 2003, 25(1), 4. 107. D. J. Waddington to M. Williams, 27 January 1986, IUPAC Addenda, Box 111 Folder 4. 108. Ref. 103. 109. D. H. Busch, Chem. Int. 1987, 9(2), 49. 110. IUPAC, Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, Recom- mendations 1990, Blackwell, Oxford, 1990, p. 280. 111. Ref. 110, 43. 112. D. O’Sullivan, Chem. Eng. News 1990, 68(52), 22. 113. L. M. Daniels, Chem. Eng. News 1986, 64(51), 3. Substantia An International Journal of the History of Chemistry Vol. 3, n. 2 Suppl. 4 - 2019 Firenze University Press The Periodic System, a history of shaping and sharing Brigitte Van Tiggelen1, Annette Lykknes2, Luis Moreno-Martinez3 Julius Lothar (von) Meyer (1830-1895) and the Periodic System Gisela Boeck Shaping the Periodic Classification in Portugal through (text)books and charts Isabel Malaquias1,*, João A. B. P. Oliveira2 The St Andrews Periodic Table Wallchart and its Use in Teaching R. Alan Aitken1, M. Pilar Gil2,* The periodic system and the Nature of Science: The history of the periodic system in Spanish and Norwegian secondary school textbooks Luis Moreno-Martínez1, Annette Lykknes2 Are History Aspects Related to the Periodic Table Considered in Ethiopian Secondary School ChemistryTextbooks? Gebrekidan Mebrahtu Order From Confusion: International Chemical Standardization and the Elements, 1947-1990 Ann E. Robinson Periodicity trees as a secondary criterion of periodic classification: its implications for science teaching and communication Alfio Zambon Compounds bring back chemistry to the system of chemical elements Guillermo Restrepo