Deficiencies in the terminology used to describe chiral systems exist for behaviors under various processes and thus a more general, robust terminology is considered. For example, the descriptions for characterizing melting point, solubility, and recrystallization behaviors were adopted well before it was realized that perturbation of the enantiomeric composition (ec) due to self-disproportionation could be effected by processes other than recrystallization such as sublimation, chromatography over achiral substrates, and even distillation. Thus, an endeavor has been made to address the question of universally describing behaviors under processes that effect, or are dependent on, the ec. The main terms that have been defined with respect to behavior are homomate (analogous to a conglomerate), heteromate, bimate (analogous to a racemic compound), and unimate (analogous to a solid solution) and they apply to melting point, solubility, recrystallization, sublimation, distillation, and chromatographic processes. Additionally, suggestions for improving the terminology for describing the states of chiral systems are also considered and the defined terms are: holemate (hol, ec = 100%), scalemate (scl, 50% < ec < 100%), and equimate (eqm, ec = 50%).Keywords: Stereochemistry; Terminology; Chirality; State-Dependent Behavior; Conglomerate; Racemate A clear consensus for describing chiral systems, both for processes, behaviors, and for the general state of systems, does not seem to be in effect despite the enormous amount of study devoted to chiral systems and their associated behaviors ever since the seminal experiments of Pasteur into the relationships between the crystalline state and chemical composition and their relation to optical rotation (OR) [1,2]-thus consequently the very embodiment of chirality and the subsequent inferences for homochirality, not to mention of course, the very report of the spontaneous resolution of a conglomerate itself [3]. Invariably, whatever particular description is adopted encounters objection from one quarter or another and hence the obvious question, though rhetorical in nature, is, what is the origin of the confusion and ambiguity that exists? In part, confusion and ambiguity arise because authors may be, for example, be referring to a single molecule or type of molecule or, on the other hand, an aggregation of molecules or a real sample analysis without taking due care to be precise in their meaning and simply assuming that the context of the discussion is sufficient to effect a distinction. Another source of confusion is the fact that as new frontiers were explored or developed, the terminology failed to keep pace and terms were simply borrowed out of convenience. There is no better example of this than the term homochiral 1 [4][5][6]. Thus it is the intention of this report to help alleviate some of the deficiencies that have developed in the terminology in use with respect to chiral systems, especially since the systems that give rise to varying chiral behaviors have risen...