The author replies to Jensen.

I thank Prof. Jensen for his interesting and informative expansion on some of the history underlying the resonance concept. I particularly like his characterization of the use of contributing structures as “an artifact of an impoverished chemical symbolism”. Nevertheless, I continue to find the use of delocalization preferable to resonance. The former is misleading only if taken in an absolute sense, as implying that electrons in methane (for example) are totally locked in place and those in benzene are totally free. Understanding delocalization as a relative term reduces the potential for misunderstanding, in my opinion. And, empirically, generations of students have been confused by the resonance terminology. If Pauling was confused, how can we expect our students not to be confused? Perhaps we need a clean new term, or perhaps mesomerism should rise again?