Nowadays, the abbreviation RBC refers to red blood cells. It is such a familiar abbreviation that one instantly knows its meaning. One does not have to unpack the abbreviation spelling out each word. RBC is almost a word in itself.
However, when I first studied anatomy and physiology (in the mid-1970s), I had a lecturer who did not - or rather would not - refer to red blood cells. He chose instead to refer to them as red blood corpuscles. His reasoning was simple. Red blood corpuscles did not contain nuclei. Lacking nuclei, they did not qualify as cells in the true sense.
The word corpuscle was more prevalent then. My lecturer was not coining terms. He was being very particular about his choice of words. That was because of what the words implied.
Red blood corpuscles are the end products of cell lines that once contained nuclei and were previously able to divide. Now, they have become specialised as oxygen transport vehicles. In so doing, they have lost their nuclei and their ability to divide. Accordingly, they have a limited lifespan of only a few months.
Almost every time I hear the phrase red blood cell, I think of that lecturer over fifty years ago and wonder why that bit of reasoning is no longer in fashion. Corpuscle means little body. Being called little bodies differentiates these blood-born objects from anything else of similar size. Red blood corpuscles are the only things in the body to which the word corpuscle became associated. Using that term recognises them as not being like other ('proper') cells. This gives RBCs their own special status.
