Talk:Thiotimoline
| WikiProject Novels / Short story / Sci-fi | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Whence the name
Does anyone know where he got the name thiotimoline? To me it sounds like theo-time-line, but this is, of course, speculation 68.232.110.205
Well, the "thio" prefix indicates a sulfur functional group, and the "-ine" suffix indicates that this is an organic amine, and the rest of it probably does have something to do with time, yeah. Of course, that's just speculation. DS 22:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Incomplete reference
The sentence about Spider Robinson at the very end is incomplete. I don't have the collection to put in the correct info myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlFink (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chemical properties
My copy of The Early Asimov states "the compound thiotimoline will dissolve in water … in minus 1.12 seconds. That is, it will dissolve before the water is added.". note two uses of the word "dissolve", and not "break down" as stated in the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Rosacea Karlsbadensis rufo
Is the name "correct" (in the appropriate sense of the term 8-)? Presumaby the binomial name is just "Karlsbadensis rufo", and "Rosacea" is the family name? If so the latter should not be in italics. On the other hand, if Rosacea is the genus, then "Karlsbadensis" should be the species (hence it should be uncap'ed) and "rufo" should be a variety. Duh? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've just dug out "The Early Asimov: Volume 1", and on p. 113 we have "Rosacea Karlsbadensis rugo", with that exact spelling (note third word), capitalisation and italicisation. So, I'd say genus Rosacea species Karlsbadensis subspecies rugo, with the species capitalised presumably because Karlsbad is a place name? I do see what you're getting at, because Rosaceae is a valid family. On the other hand, in the article in question, Asimov deliberately set out to reference bogus journals, so why not describe a phoney genus too? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
