Dear Esther Verheyen, Frank Doring, Thomas McCormack, Hong-Sheng Li, Julian Dow, and Jules Hoffman,
FlyBase is currently reviewing the nomenclature of the 3 D. melanogaster genes encoding inwardly rectifying potassium channels.  All of you have authored research papers/reviews on these genes, and I wanted to get your opinion on this issue.
The current FlyBase symbols and names are:
Ir		<up>no full name</up>
Irk2	Inwardly rectifying potassium channel 2
Irk3	Inwardly rectifying potassium channel 3
The respective web pages are:
http://flybase.org/reports/FBgn0265042.html
http://flybase.org/reports/FBgn0039081.html
http://flybase.org/reports/FBgn0032706.html
Questions/Issues:
1. Clearly 'Ir' ought to match the naming format of the other genes (see below) and be given a '1' suffix and an appropriate full name.
2. Would it be better if all these genes had a 'Irk' prefix (as now for 2 and 3) or a 'Kir' prefix (or something else)?
3. Any opinion on whether we should use numerals (I, II, III) or numbers (1, 2, 3) to distinguish between the genes?
4. Is the full name 'Inwardly rectifying potassium channel *' OK, or should this be 'inward rectifier potassium channel'?
Please forward this mail to anyone else I should be consulting.
I look forward to hearing your views and hope we can come to a consensus that makes things more consistent and useful for FlyBase users.
Thanks,
Steven.
--
Steven Marygold, Ph.D.
FlyBase
==
I prefer the name IrK1, for “Inwardly rectifying potassium channel 1”.
Hong-Sheng
==
I don’t like messing with the original names too much – I always thought that the oldest name took preference in Drosophila – but a change of ir to irk1 would add consistency.
As to whether they should be ‘inward rectifier’ or ‘inwardly rectifying’, the jury is out: Google shows 276k uses of the first, and 331k for the second. Additionally, the IUPHAR nomenclature calls them ‘inwardly rectifying’. So I would go with ‘inwardly rectifying potassium channel’.
Next, whether to change to Kir or stick with irk. I prefer irk, because it’s more like the written-in-full name, and it prevents confusion; we’re not necessarily asserting that irk1 is homologous to Kir1 in mammals etc.
Regards, Julian
==
I don't work in this field anymore, so I am fine with whatever the others decide.
best,
Esther
==
The name "Ir" without any functional description by a full name is not appropriate.
I agree with the nomenclature irk1, irk2, irk3 for Drosophila inwardly rectifying potassium channels. 
However keep in mind that these names could be misleading if Drosophila as the origin of genes is not linked. In mammals  inwardly rectifying K+ channels Kir2.1-Kir2.3 are also named IRK1-IRK3 and the Drosophila channels are definitely no orthologs. That's why we named Drosophila Kir channels dKir  and used numerals (I,II,II) as a suffix.
Best regards,
Frank