1. It will be readily recognized as a technical term with a specific
meaning, namely the presence of two (di) points (stigmata).
2. It has no other meaning that might distract from its use to
identify the locations of textual variants.
3. It is related to other expressions that described textual variants
in antiquity and is the most in keeping with the standard lexicon of
Greek paleography.
4. It is the expression most likely to gain universal acceptance.
Thanks to this modification, we will also know what to call the marks discovered by James Snapp in Codex Sangallensis 50 (a beautiful 9th century gospels codex, see the covers and pastedowns in the "binding" menu). It is generally accepted that they indicate textual variants in Vaticanus, but this is not indicative of their purpose in other contexts. This clarification is helpful, in that umlaut has always been a silly makeshift designation - I just tended to call them double stigmai when not in mixed company. See Evangelical Textual Criticism for the whole story behind this shift in terminology. I don't expect to hear about this on Paul Harvey anytime soon. Willker has an excellent page on these distigmai (which is just today outdated!), from which this image is shamefully stolen:
*Apparently this will be codified in the forthcoming: Philip B. Payne and Paul Canart. "Distigmai Matching the Original Ink of Codex Vaticanus: Do they Mark the Location of Textual Variants?" pages 191-213 in Patrick Andrist, ed., Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus gr. 1209): Introduction au fac-similé, Actes du Colloque de Genève (11 juin 2001), contributions supplémentaires. Prahins, Switzerland: Éditions du Zèbre, 2009
