Lanthanoids and Actinides?

I thought it was lathanides and actinides. That's how it is in my textbook. When did they change it to lanthanoids and actinoides?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thats a good question, when did they?

Re: Lanthanoids and Actinides?

[quote="okinawa"]I thought it was lathanides and actinides. That's how it is in my textbook. When did they change it to lanthanoids and actinoides?[/quote]

IUPAC suggest but do not required lanthanoid and actinoid on the grounds that "-ide" inferrs a negative charge. Some newer books are switching to -oids, inertia rules the rest? This is taken up as one of the FAQs (see FAQs and Polls on the menu to the left

What you must learn, my young friends, is that in this world there are such things as "quangos", where "civil servants", "beaurocrats" and "friends of rich politicians" etc etc go to play. Examples include the ISO, the IEC, and, of course, IUPAC.

These quangos get to waste huge amounts of public money dreaming up daft standards, rules and nomenclatures. At worst, industry has to spend even more vast amounts of money trying to comply with all these crazy regulations,
but at the more innocuous end of the scale, we just get to puzzle why "lanthanides" and now "strictly" speaking henceforth to be known as "lanthanoids".

The decision was no doubt carefully arrived at in a lavish conference in the Bahamas. (It's important to have a proper relaxed setting to make important decisions like these :-) Without all this, civilisation as we know it would simply cease to exist.

Is IUPAC sponsored by public funds?

Chemical Forums will still use the outdated names.

what, you call them "rare earths" then? ;-)

WebElements: the periodic table on the WWW [http://www.webelements.com/]

Copyright 1993-20010 Mark Winter [The University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd, UK]. All rights reserved.