Abstract The confusion existing in the use of symbols and names for Kraemer's “intrinsic viscosity” and other functions related to it is illustrated and deplored. The reasonable plea is made that one name be adopted for each function and that it be used with no other meaning. To stimulate discussion and ultimate action, the following names are proposed: “specific viscosity” for ηsp; “reduced viscosity” for ηsp/c, “inherent viscosity” for (ln ηr)/c; and “intrinsic viscosity” for [η], whether determined as “limiting reduced viscosity” limc→0 (ηsp/c), or as “limiting inherent viscosity” limc→0 (ηr/c), or as “limiting viscosity concentration coefficient” limc→0 (dηr/dc). Often, especially in routine practice, it is the relative kinematic viscosity νr, that is determined ; unless this is shown to be numerically equal to the relative viscosity ηr, the symbols and names of the derived functions should be modified accordingly: thus, (ln νr)/c inherent kinematic viscosity, [ν] intrinsic kinematic viscosity. Frequently, also, kinetic energy corrections are neglected; under these circumstances the suggested usage is tr, relative flow time, tsp/c reduced flow time, [t] intrinsic flow time, etc.