Okay, I wiki'd it, and according to them seems you're right: it says they are "typically connected by covalent chemical bonds." So either we revert to the etymological use of "polymer," or move onward to "myriomer!" (assuming the cross-bred "multimer" is out of the question!)
JPK On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM, David Schuller <dj...@cornell.edu> wrote: > On 06/18/12 11:17, Jacob Keller wrote: >> >> But anyway, what is >> wrong with calling her structures "polymers?" Is there a subtle >> covalent insinuation to "polymer?" >> > subtle? No, it's not subtle. > > > -- > ======================================================================= > All Things Serve the Beam > ======================================================================= > David J. Schuller > modern man in a post-modern world > MacCHESS, Cornell University > schul...@cornell.edu -- ******************************************* Jacob Pearson Keller Northwestern University Medical Scientist Training Program email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu *******************************************
