Sir

I have spent some time in front of a mirror studying the conclusions of the Fink-Mao analysis of tie knots. As my profession of lexicography involves close attention to terminology, I was interested to note the authors' restraint in not proposing names for the unnamed knots.

The first knot in the table, {3, 1}, which is even simpler than the common ‘four-in-hand’ {4, 1}, is presumably a ‘three-in-hand’. The ‘inside-out’ knot {7, 2}, after its introductory move, in fact consists of the same moves as the half-Windsor {6, 2}, but inverted left to right. It might be referred to as the ‘inverse half-Windsor’. The more complex knot {9, 3} bears the same relationship to the Windsor, and so might be called the ‘inverse Windsor’.

The knot {7, 3} concludes with the same winding sequence as the half-Windsor, but begins with an ‘LC’ move reminiscent of the full Windsor, and reproducing the beginning of the Pratt knot {5, 2}. I suggest it must be either a ‘three-quarter-Windsor’ or a ‘Pratt-Windsor’.

That leaves the curious {8, 2}, a superficially elegant knot which (as an Oxford man) I suggest calling the ‘Cambridge’, and the monumental {9, 4}, for which the name ‘Cavendish’ presents itself, in honour of the originating institution.