Creosote similar caustic and antiseptic properties, but noted that it was different, in that it was an acid and formed salts. Nonetheless, Reichenbach argued that creosote was also the active element, as it was in pyroligneous acid. Despite evidence to the contrary, his view held sway with most chemists, and it became commonly accepted wisdom that creosote, carbolic acid, and phenylhydrate were identical substances, with different degrees of purity. Carbolic acid was soon commonly sold under the name "creosote", and the scarcity of wood-tar creosote in some places led chemists to believe that it was the same substance as that described
Name-letter effect work has been called "seminal" by Stieger, Voracek, and Formann in their 2012 meta-analysis of 44 publications on the effect. Their meta-analysis found no trace of publication bias. In her 2014 meta-analysis of dozens of name-letter effect studies, Hoorens called the effect robust. She noted robustness in: Various explanations for the name-letter effect have been explored. Several explanations which seemed plausible at first have since been rejected. People may simply like most what they see most. Letters that appear more frequently in everyday usage also occur more often in people's names. Forer, in 1940, and Alluisi and Adams, in 1962,