# Primer naming inconsistencies?

**URL:** https://forum.qiime2.org/t/primer-naming-inconsistencies/20919
**Category:** General Discussion
**Tags:** 16s, primers
**Created:** [September 28, 2021, 12:18pm UTC](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/primer-naming-inconsistencies/20919 "2021-09-28T12:18:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![KQUB](https://forum.qiime2.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/5f9b8f/32.png) [@KQUB](https://forum.qiime2.org/u/KQUB)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2021, 11:19am UTC](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/primer-naming-inconsistencies/20919/2 "2021-09-29T11:19:33Z")

</div>

I don't know anything about the V1–V2 primers, but this sounds a bit like the situation with the V3–V4 primers (see [this forum post](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/questions-about-v3-v4-primers-for-16s-rrna-amplicon-sequencing-and-calculating-overlap/20250)). I think if you named each of the V3–V4 primers based on **where their 5' end nucleotide binds in the _E. coli_ genome** , they'd be **341F/805R** , but if you named them based on **the lowest value position at which any nucleotide of the primer binds in the _E. coli_ genome** , they'd be **341F/785R**. I'm not sure if there's an agreed-upon convention for primer naming, but in the case of the V3–V4 primers, I've seen both name combinations used. Certainly a tad confusing for newbies like myself!

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.qiime2.org/t/primer-naming-inconsistencies/20919)._