I'm not familiar with Margaret Oakley Dayhoff, but I am aware that Rosalind Franklin [1] was extremely important for our understanding of DNA, comparable to Watson/Crick, with whom she co-discovered the structure of DNA. So it seems "Rosalind" is at least very appropriate as a name for a genomics tool such as this.
Not to say the other names mentioned aren't also deserving of similar honors
Rosalind Franklin was the team lead of the research team that photographed DNA.
The actual team member that took the key photo[0] was Raymond Gosling.
That team didn't interpret the double helix structure of DNA that the photograph had captured - that was Watson and Crick working it out from the photograph.
It's not quite that clear-cut. Franklin was pretty clear on the helical structure in both research notes and papers, but she didn't quite nail the overall structure (2 strands with opposing winding, complementing bases).
Fundamentally, she suffered the curse of the experimental scientist - waiting for actual data before being willing to build a model. Watson & Crick postulated ahead based on partial data.
> Franklin was pretty clear on the helical structure
the type of diffraction her lab was doing only makes sense on helical structures. it being helical was already kind of? established -- linus pauling was contemporaneously working on some sort of alpha-helix inspired single helix model.
watson and crick immediately recognized the position of the diffraction spots fit the distances suggested by their chemical modeling of a, t, c, g, which franklin was not able to do since she hadn't made a structural prediction.
> postulated ahead based on partial data
not quite. if you know that a t c and g are the raw chemicals made, you can make a (possibly even literal) model and say, "this ball and stick model predicts diffractions here".
this is arguably better science than waiting for data and fitting a model to the data, falsifiability and all that.
> So it seems "Rosalind" is at least very appropriate as a name for a genomics tool such as this.
Indeed. The only argument against it might be that Rosalind is already a pretty well-known website for doing bioinformatics exercises and have them automatically graded:
In the Kaiji manga, the “Minefield Mahjong” arc uses a variation of Japanese Mahjong. It can be read without knowing the general rules (as I did), but I guess they make some of the scenes more understandable and/or impactful. Maybe I’ll give it a reread after checking this out.
If you want to read manga for mahjong I'd say go straight for Akagi and Ten, by the same author. Akagi has a great anime adaptation that covers the first third. Both are excellent mangas in their own right, with or without understanding mahjong.
Yes, he is! (Which explains other of his mangas, Akagi):
> He has been playing mahjong since junior high school days, and admitted that though he has rarely lost a game when he was in school, his current level of ability is average. According to him, he has "tournament luck" and has even won mahjong tournaments between mahjong manga artists. He has also participated in professional mahjong matches. He played about two games against Akagi and Kaiji's voice actor Masato Hagiwara, who is known as one of the best mahjong players in the entertainment industry, and made Hagiwara say "I don't think I can beat him."
reply