“…To be specific, the choice of Pna 2 1 or Pnma used to confuse the structure determination of AE 3 RE 2 (BO 3 ) 4 , , Ba 6–3 x Ln 8+2 x Ti 18 O 54 , and LaYbO 3 , and keeps confusing other compounds so far, such as RE 3 NbS 3 O 4 , CuAsS, E(δ)-RE 2 Si 2 O 7 , and so on. Moreover, disclosing the group–subgroup relationship and understanding the potential Pnma ↔ Pna 2 1 phase transition are essential to reveal and interpret multiple physical properties of materials, such as nonlinear optics, , ferroelectrics, − multiferroics, , and magnetism, which require multitechnique characterization to cross-validate and further achieve reliable results. On the other hand, the controversy of the triclinic F-type RE 2 Si 2 O 7 (Sm and Eu) lies in doubt whether such an intermediate and narrow-stability-range F phase exists between the orthorhombic E(δ) (Eu–Ho and Y) and the monoclinic G (La–Nd) phases. ,− The answer to this question is of importance for a better understanding of the structure–luminescence relationship of Ce 3+ -doped (Gd,La) 2 Si 2 O 7 , a high-temperature scintillator in the limelight, with a close average radius of RE 3+ to those of Sm 3+ and Eu 3+ .…”