It depends on the sentence, but it sounds like it's either 'fifty-first century' or 'fifty-first-century' which... the second one looks weird. Whatever. Cite here (http://www.getintouni.com/Free/GrammarStyle/GrammarC/). :)
Either 51st-century pheromones or fifty-first-century pheromones, depending on whether you use numerals for numbers greater than nine or use words (latter is more common in fiction). Reason: entire phrase is a compound adjective modifying pheromones.
Although I don't really think it looks strange without the hyphen - I think that's one of those errors that's so common now things almost look wrong when they're done right.
Particular centuries are spelled out and lowercased.
the twenty-first century the eighth and ninth centuries the eighteen hundreds (the nineteenth century)
Dunno if that's right by Aussie rules, though. *g*
ETA: And of course, the above commenters have the right of it in that there needs to be a hyphen between first and century, as well, since the whole phrase modifies pheromones.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
It depends on the sentence, but it sounds like it's either 'fifty-first century' or 'fifty-first-century' which... the second one looks weird. Whatever. Cite here (http://www.getintouni.com/Free/GrammarStyle/GrammarC/). :)
no subject
no subject
I find numerals >9 easier to read than writing it out in words, but am sure the words (with hyphens) are also or perhaps more correct.
no subject
no subject
ETA: And of course, the above commenters have the right of it in that there needs to be a hyphen between first and century, as well, since the whole phrase modifies pheromones.
no subject
Just sos you know, us Aussies don't think we're too good to use proper English when writing. (speaking, yes) Unlike some countries. *g*