It appears that the term 'microquasar' has evolved from being a contradiction in terms into being an oxymoron [an *apparent* contradiction in terms]. It does seem a bit strange that a radio source *star* can have a classification that describes it as a "very small apparently-but-not-actually stellar radio source" : ie you'd think it is either stellar or it ain't! So, I've had a quick look through the web abstract archives, and noted the following: "microquasar" seems to have been initially used as a term for some Seyfert galaxies which were found to have quasar like radio properties, but of far less energy... ...but for about ten years it seems that it has been adopted for Galactic binaries that have radio jets analogous to those found in quasars... So, I suppose they should really be either called microsars or micro*quasiquasars* (as in an object that looks like a very small quasar, but isn't. I suppose we could shorten it to "quaquars" ;-) ). To some extent quasar classification breaks down to line of sight alignment effects, such that the difference betwixt quasars, QSOs and BLLACs etc can sometimes just be a matter of viewing angle, although sometimes also of other differences. So if somebody finds a small class of Galactic binary sources that behave more like radio loud BLLACs than quasars, I suppose they'll call them "quasi-BLLACs" ! As in stellar objects that look like the radio galaxies that are of the class typified by the galaxy that everybody thought was a variable star... ...just remember astrophysics is primarily run by physicists and mathematicians studying specialised small areas of the subject, and most of 'em probably think of a CV as a curriculum vitae... ...and even for the astronomers, both past and present, there's often stuff being found and in need of being named, even if the true identification of said stuff lies in the future. Cheers John JG, UK